What A Sustainable Health Care System In The U.S. Might Look Like

You may have misunderstood what I said... I was talking about what socialists envision as a 'fair', equitable solution for pharmaceutical medicine, and the fact that inventors of that medicine want to recoup their expenses, AND (dare I say it), make as much money in the process as they can! "Socialists VILIFY any such idea, preaching instead that the person who invents something can make some money, on a limited basis, and then -- his invention belongs to the government, which, in turn, funnels money out to a mass of 'bottom-feeders' through welfare and subsidy programs."

But I do agree that we Americans are the victimized 'cash-cow' that gets screwed into paying for all this wonderful R&D, and the first years of immense profits. We pay FAR more than citizens of Germany, for example, and when my German friends and I compare notes on what pharmaceuticals cost, the difference is astounding!

Remember this, though -- socialists always leverage their ambitions using the heavy-handed, incontestable mandates of GOVERNMENT! Look at the genesis of every giveaway welfare program and 'subsidy' and you'll find a clot of socialists who found a way to get their sycophants in GOVERNMENT to set these programs up and make them permanent for all time....

 

That's just false. The people who actually do the inventing -- and I have been one of them, and have worked with and know many others -- mostly just want to solve problems. They enjoy it. It is the rich, greedy, privileged, parasitic, rent-seeking corporate scum who want to make as much money as they can from other people's inventions. I have seen this play out too often to give any credibility to your kindergarten-level "analysis."

I'll give you an example that is very, very typical. In the 1990s, Nortel Networks was the world-leading developer of the optical switching technology the Internet is based on. The engineers who actually invented the technology were on salary. The company was making a lot of profits, and the C-suite scumbags who had done nothing to invent anything gave themselves stock options worth billions. Oh, and they gave some options to the top engineers, too -- but those options only vested well after the C-suite guys' options. When the C-suite guys' options vested, they drained all the company's cash through stock manipulations, crashing the stock price. Then and only then did the engineers' options vest -- when they had become worthless. The firm then collapsed. It was the greedy corporate parasites who got all the money, not the engineers who actually did the inventing. The same sort of story plays out every time.

I am not a socialist (I think socialism is even worse than capitalism, and I can explain why), but anyone who knows the facts would vilify your nonsense.

He should make what he can make in the free market, without owning others' rights to liberty.

Nonsense.

 

You are trying to change the subject from nutrients to homeopathy because you know you have been refuted.

False and ridiculous.

It is fact. The monopoly privilege model even prevents development of cures in favor of long-term treatment of symptoms, because the latter is more profitable.

Which is why they devote no research whatever to any treatment, however safe and effective, that is not patentable. Furthermore, they actively suppress treatments that offer one-dose cures in favor of repeated long-term treatment to "control" disease symptoms because it is more profitable to sell treatments for chronic conditions than to cure them once and for all.

There is no chance of creating a working financial model because their financial models all revolve around milking monopoly privileges, not productive efficiency.

So do all other advanced countries. Your US-centric notions are laughably blinkered and parochial.

That is just another bald falsehood from you, as already proved.

No, that research is precisely the central topic here, because it proves your claim that only monopoly privilege can pay for pharmaceutical research is just false.

And thanks to patent monopolies, be astronomically profitable even though they are unsafe and ineffective...

Government-issued and -enforced monopoly privilege is not part of the definition of capitalism, and if there is one solution that is known to be ineffective, it is artificial monopoly privilege.

You are trying to change the subject again. The subject is monopoly, not capitalism.

Private enterprise would create solutions far better without government-issued and -enforced monopolies.

 

Well, America is SOLIDLY capitalist. There aren't any socialists. We have to remember that capitalism has NO interest in solving the needs of a society. Healthcare is a clear example of a need of society that capitalism has no interest in solving. It IS interested in maximizing profit, but that is entirely different from ensuring that citizens get healthcare. This isn't theory - it is how capitalism works.

Next, when a patent expires, other corporations may use what was patented. The government has NOTHING to do with what happens after a patent expires. Unfortunately, laws are written such that pharma can alter composition of drugs by small amounts and then get patent extensions. I'm all in favor of stopping that, and I think you should be, too. Pharma is a huge industry and makes large political donations, so in our system it is hard to get congress to make rational laws on pharma.

Other countries get pharmaceuticals for less, because their governments are allowed to negotiate drug prices. This is an advantage of single payer systems. Republicans have demanded that America's government NOT be allowed to negotiate drug prices. Plus, our capitalist system doesn't involve our government buying drugs except for Medicaid and VA. Other than that, our government subsidizes medical costs and thus isn't involved in drug pricing.

Then, you round up with your concerns about socialism. But, the fact that we help those below the poverty line is not socialism. You CAN note that they are social programs. But, simply helping those who can't help themselves is NOT SOCIALISM. It has nothing to do with who owns the means of production, for example. We are capitalist, NOT socialist. But, we can't be so dogmatic as to ignore the various serious needs that capitalists will not address.

 

Show me the law or standard that says what "generally recognized" means. Anybody can claim "generally recognized", right there on the bottle.

There is no monopoly privilege in pharma. There are patents, but that is there to allow those who innovate to cover the cost of innovation and encourage that activity. It is WHY we have the pharmaceuticals that we have today.

Yes, capitalism doesn't automatically eliminate bad behavior, and it absolutely does include searching for more efficient ways to get paid.

They design solutions that will be profitable. And, that doesn't include rare diseases, either.

You need to explain yourself here.

Our universities and publicly funded research institutes are not productizing solutions. They are doing the fundamental research that creates the possibility of solutions.

Yes, we allow patents, because pharma companies CAN NOT invest gigantic sums in new drugs only to have competitors immediately sell the same solution for the cost of manufacturing alone.

NO, this is flat out false. The costs of developing a new drug and bringing it to market (including the costs of the science and multiple rounds of testing, etc.) are prohibitive if a competitor can simply start selling the drug for the cost of manufacturing.

Without patents, we would not have the medical solutions we have today. Corporations couldn't make the investment, as they would never recoup the costs of development.

The reasons for patents are seen throughout capitalism. It's a common issue. We're better off by stimulating innovation - by allowing innovators to cover their costs and earn a profit from their inventions.

 

Pure nonsense. Capitalism favors innovation and progress. It doesn't favor throwing money at every wet-dream socialist brain fart.

wrong again. For the same reason.

Not sure what you're getting at here.
[quote-WRM]
Other countries get pharmaceuticals for less, because their governments are allowed to negotiate drug prices. This is an advantage of single payer systems. Republicans have demanded that America's government NOT be allowed to negotiate drug prices. Plus, our capitalist system doesn't involve our government buying drugs except for Medicaid and VA. Other than that, our government subsidizes medical costs and thus isn't involved in drug pricing.[/quoote]And when the price is negotiated, companies adjust their production to ensure the product is still profitable; which likely reduces availability and the development of new medicines.

Socialized medicine has its own problems, primarily delayed treatment and availability. Both Canada and Great Britain, for example have humongous problems with availability - both have looooonngggg waiting lists for anything beyond simple visits.

 

You're misunderstanding the relationship of capitalism and the work we do to take care of problems that capitalism is not interested in solving.

There is no profit in helping those who don't have a sufficient income to stay alive. So, capitalism isn't interested. That's the reason for needing a solution outside of direct capitalism.

Production cost is not the big deal in bringing a new drug to market. The cost of the very first tablet sold is STUPENDOUS, due to the requirements of science, engineering, testing, etc.

Let's remember that wait lists aren't for emergent care and making a general health checkup appointment could be made months in advance without impact. It's a matter of what an individual needs or wants, not one line for everything. Canadians may like the fact that they serve their full population - something we don't do.

Plus, that is controllable by voters. If voters want faster service, then they can demand that.

 

No:
https://www.fda.gov/food/food-ingredients-packaging/generally-recognized-safe-gras

There indisputably is: drug and device patents.

The purpose does not alter the fact that it is a monopoly privilege. Furthermore, there is ample historical evidence that the actual effect of patent monopolies is to stifle innovation.

And why they are typically over-priced, ineffective, and unsafe.

You are conflating capitalism with monopoly privilege. Not the same thing. Indeed, free markets by definition do not permit monopoly privileges.

More to the point, it eliminates research into safe and effective public domain treatments like naturally occurring hormones, vitamins, minerals, amino acids, etc.

What's to explain?

They most certainly are. They are even pursuing patents because it is so lucrative.

And in many cases, they are also developing the practical solutions, especially in countries you have never heard of because you don't accept the existence of anything outside the USA.

That is another reason drug testing should be carried out by scientists pursuing the truth, not corporate sleazebags pursuing unearned wealth.

No, it is a fact.

Which is why the research should be done on a non-profit basis, by scientists paid salaries to pursue the truth, rather than by sleazy corporate rent seekers to pursue monopoly profits.

If all the profits drug monopolists have pocketed by dint of their monopolies had instead been invested in research, we would have far better and cheaper ones.

<sigh> The American conservative: someone who would rather overpay corporate greed robots by $1T to exercise their private medical monopolies than pay $1 in taxes to fund medical research in the public interest...

Nope. Capitalism is private ownership of the means of production. There's nothing about IP monopolies there.

Only because when the US Constitution was written, royal patent monopolies were the default method of rewarding extraordinary contributions and public service. Economists now know that monopolies are one of the least efficient ways to encourage an activity.

They can do that better without patent monopolies, as the fashion industry proves. History shows that simply offering prizes for innovation -- both targeted ones like the X Prize and ex post facto ones like the Nobels -- is far more effective than patent monopolies, and does not reduce production and innovation, as patents do.

 

Not as a core part of culture and they are the exact opposite of what I hear daily from the right on this forum

 

Patents, trademarks, and copyrights are all intellectual property.

Patents even have lifetimes.

Without patents, the pharmacopeia that we have today would have gigantic holes in it. Our ability to treat numerous problems would be seriously limited.

This is just nonsense. You don't know what pharmaceuticals cost to develop, productize and deliver. Making sweeping statements like this is irresponsible.

These products have to be PROVEN effective to be licensed. So, that's a nonsense claim.

Yes, some products are incredibly dangerous. Chemotherapy is basically oriented to killing all cells in the body that are fast multiplying. That's why hair is lost. These are prescribed by doctors for fully informed patients who may choose or reject any or all medical directions offered. In fact, in many states the patient could choose doctor assisted suicide. It isn't unusual for doctors to recommend AGAINST chemotherapy, as in a particular case it may not offer chances of enough extra life to warrant the misery. Some may go for it anyway.

Yes. You can choose homeopathy. It is fully your right. Today, people in the US spend $3 billion per year on homeopathy. I'd warn that homeopathy has no testing for efficacy, no standards of dosing, no standard of care (which doctors have for understanding best practices), and essentially nothing in terms of testing and imaging for diagnosing.

The problem that arises is that when it fails, there may be too little time for actual doctors to help you.

Having a patent doesn't mean the product works.

I don't accept homeopathy as practiced in the USA. And for solid reason.

That is what is done. Corporate results are certainly not trusted at face value.

This is totally anti-capitalist.

Capitalism has well established its value in EXACTLY this kind of endeavor - developing products that address market need.

Governments are NOT good at that.

I'm frustrated that we fund congress by handing it to big pharma, bit oil and other such monied interests. Republicans even work on ways to hide who is doing the donating. The only limits are on what I donate - how's THAT for irony?

But, that is what Republicans demand. And, in today's environment, no congressman can ignore that, or they will not be able to mount a campaign.

Capitalism must ALWAYS consider law on what constitutes property. Even in our courts, there are major laws on work product and who may even see it.

Intellectual property rights can not be ignored. We've seen what happens in our trade relations with China, where patents are agreed, but all too often ignored.

NO. That is not why we recognize intellectual property rights.

And, with patents and copyrights we even place a time limit of ownership.

Nobel prizes fund NOTHING. Plus, they don't go to productizations - they go to fundamental research.

 

I am not sure what you are referring to. What is this "right" you refer to, anyway?

 

I.e., monopoly privileges issued and enforced by government in violation of free market principles. The difference between trademarks and patents and copyrights is that trademarks help consumers by certifying the source, whereas patents and copyrights just aggravate scarcity for the unearned profit of their holders.

Unfortunately longer than 0...

No, those are just Big Pharma rent-seeker talking points lacking any credible evidence.

It is fact.

I know it as well as you. But unlike you, I am willing to know the facts that:

1. Most of that money is wasted on new, patentable formulations that offer little or no advantage over, and are often inferior in safety and efficacy to, existing public domain treatments;
2. Pharmacos spend far more on marketing and promotion of patented drugs than they do developing new drugs, because patent monopolies make it so profitable to get doctors to over-prescribe patented drugs; and
3. The cost of drug development (especially in the USA) is an order of magnitude greater than it would be without patents, because there have to be so many safeguards to try -- usually unsuccessfully -- to stop pharmacos from getting approval for bad drugs because patent monopolies make it so profitable for them to do so.

Read and learn:
https://old.reddit.com/r/comics/comments/16ocrdw/perscription/

Oh, really? And what would you call denying the facts to justify a system that kills millions of people for profit??

No they don't, which is why so many of them are not effective. Read and learn:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1125813/

It is fact, as proved above, and I will thank you to remember it.

Now apologize for your false and disingenuous claim.

And incredibly profitable -- and thus incredibly over-prescribed -- because of their patent monopoly privilege. Somehow, once those incredibly dangerous products go off patent, their use plummets.

HELLO??

"Fully informed"?? That is grossly disingenuous.

Try to at least minimally inform yourself of the facts: in the USA, especially, hundreds of billions of dollars are wasted every year on patented treatments for dying patients who have no reasonable prospect of benefitting from the treatment because the patent monopolies make it so profitable for pharmacos to get doctors to do so.

HELLO??

I haven't mentioned homeopathy. Why are you falsely and disingenuously pretending that any recognized medical use of unpatentable formulations like vitamins is "homeopathy"? Are you deliberately trying to disgrace yourself?

That is nothing but a disingenuous and despicable attempt to pretend that all medical use of unpatentable formulations like vitamins, minerals, amino acids, natural hormones, herbal extracts (which are the basis of most patented drugs), etc. is "homeopathy."

Disgraceful.

Many unpatentable treatments have been demonstrated as safer and more effective than patented ones.

But it does mean having a strong financial motive to get people to use it anyway.

Neither do I. You are just trying to change the subject because you realize that you have been conclusively refuted.

Which is a major reason the process has to be so expensive.

GARBAGE. You could with equal "logic" claim that emancipation of slaves was anti-capitalist. Indeed, people did so:

“When the emancipation of the African was spoken of, and when the nation of Britain appeared to be taking into serious consideration the rightfulness of abolishing slavery, what tremendous evils were to follow! Trade was to be ruined, commerce was almost to cease, and manufacturers were to be bankrupt. Worse than all, private property was to be invaded (property in human flesh), the rights of planters sacrificed to the speculative notions of fanatics, and the British government was to commit an act that would forever deprive it of the confidence of British subjects.”

– Patrick Edward Dove, The Theory of Human Progression, 1850

As long as there is no monopoly. Once there is a monopoly, the focus is exclusively on extracting rents, and the hell with market need.

They can actually be quite good at it, as the Longitude Prize showed.

What are you complaining about? You are a servant of that system, whether you know it or not.

See Dove, above, on "property."

Sure they can. They were ignored -- did not even exist -- for millions of years, and can and should be abolished.

Yes: China has flouted IP laws and prospered mightily, and now produces far more patents than the USA.

It most certainly is. Until they were created by law a few hundred years ago, no one ever conceived of intellectual "property rights," and with good reason: the freedom to use and benefit from others' ideas is what has lifted humanity out of the caves.

Which is no more defensible for being temporary than temporary slavery.

Garbage. They encourage and reward creative intellectual work, which is what patents and copyrights are supposed to do, but at several orders of magnitude lower cost.

They were just an example of ex post facto prizes for innovative work. The targeted prizes like the X Prize and Longitude Prize are for usable products.

 

In 2 you identify a problem with patent law that could be fixed. It's NOT a justification for eliminating patents.

If you know of marketing behavior that is corrupting doctors, that should be addressed. Again, that is NOT a justification for eliminating patents.

Your 3 is just nonsense. Safeguards, testing requirements, are going to be present regardless of patent law.

Overall, let's make sure there is an understanding of the reason for intellectual property protection.

NO. It is ILLEGAL for doctors to get compensated by drug companies for prescribing their drugs.

Learn the law before making wild accusations.

You can't blame drug companies for a doctor's misdiagnosis.

You need to better understand what is being stated.

Again, you're totally mucking up your argument here.

There certainly was misbehavior related to oxy. That's why the court action.

Oxy was incredibly lucrative, because it's a totally amazing pain relief drug for those in SERIOUS pain. The catch is that medical practice didn't have an adequate grasp of pain management. This isn't easy, because PATIENTS do not like being in serious pain.

And, yes. There are those who illegally manufactured and sold the drug. Ending patent law doesn't solve that.

This is just full blown CRAP. Patients and their families WANT life extended, even when the end is arriving.

It doesn't take drug companies to convince people to extend their LIVES. And, again this has nothing to do with patents.

Vitamins are neither homeopathic nor allopathic.

There are no homeopathic medicines that are FDA approved. The FDA is the gold standard for testing safety and efficacy.

There isn't some other nationally recognized testing standard.

The expense comes in the design of new drugs and the extensive testing that is required.

Alzheimer's drugs are an example. There have been many years of work in attempting to find solutions that even just slow progress or treat symptoms. Results then have had to meet requirements for even just entering testing. From there, come multiple rounds of testing on wider numbers of individuals who agree to be part of studies.

There is NO CHANCE that this kind of huge investment would be justified without patents to allow the expense to be recouped.

Comparing patents to slavery is profoundly disgusting and totally deranged, as humans are NOT property.

Ex post facto prizes does NOT solve the cost of developing new drugs.

And, it NEVER will.

 

I thought about it for a day, and now I agree with you about the variety of 'rot' setting into our country NOT being one of Socialism! No, and you're right -- the direction we're heading is not one of the government taking over the means of production... rather, what we have festering in our society is actually a form of COMMUNISM.

It is easy to veer away from the classic definition of Socialism and use the term inaccurately, as I did. After Obamacare was rolled out, a lot of people referred to it as "Socialism-lite". But the issue is really no more complicated than the government forcing Person "A" to support and provide for the needs of Person "B". And unless I've misunderstood the way that Communism works, that kind of virtually unrestricted free-for-all 'giveaway', working through the methodology of "From each according to his ability -- to each according to his need" isn't really Socialism at all... no, it's Communism!

Nevertheless, I think that a single-payer can work well and avoid the contamination of Communism, but only if those who enroll in the largest customer-base in the world contribute regular payments (premiums) to support this enormous single-payer system.

Those who don't/won't/can't pay to be part of the customer-base can simply get on the Medicaid system. And, yes, that Medicaid system operates using the 'engine' of Communism (as it always has for decades), but at least we can sequester it, isolate it, and make damn sure that does not impinge on the savings, efficiency, and quality of the single-payer system! Medicaid would remain a government handout... a simple welfare system, and that's really all Medicaid has ever been, and that's certainly all that those who won't pay anything deserve!

 

Yes it is, because it shows that patents inherently create perverse incentives.

Yes it is, because it shows that patents inherently create perverse incentives.

It is fact.

But the requirements need not be so strict, convoluted, and elaborate if the incentive to circumvent them is not so extravagant.

It is identified in the US Constitution: "for the encouragement of literature and the useful arts." However, the problem is:

1. Monopolies discourage creative pursuits, including of literature and the useful arts.
2. Since the Constitution was written, economists have determined that the creation of monopolies is one of the least efficient ways to encourage an activity.
3. "Intellectual property protection" is a false description of the matter, as intellectual property never existed until it was created by law. IP is therefore just monopoly privilege, not protection of any sort of valid property.

Oh, well, I guess it never happens then, just like use of illegal drugs....
Do you ever think before posting?

Learn something about reality before falsely, foolishly, and disingenuously claiming that legal prohibition can stop the greedy from seeking unearned wealth by breaking the law.

I can when drug companies encourage such "misdiagnosis" because it is astronomically profitable for them thanks to their monopoly privileges.

I understand it better than you.

Nope. Yours.

And all other patented drugs. Oxy was just one of the more glaring examples.

Yes, well, it's hard to ignore thousands of murders per month...

No, it was incredibly lucrative precisely and ONLY because it was a monopoly.

No, the catch was that the supplier's monopoly made it incredibly profitable for them to get doctors to over-prescribe it no matter how many thousands of people they murdered as a result.

And because monopolists do not like getting less than all the money they want.

Sure it does. How many people illegally manufacture and sell cigarettes?

It is FACT.

But those treatments do not extend life. They just make death much, much more expensive.

It takes drug patents to make it astronomically profitable for drug companies to persuade people to spend all their money (and more) on patented treatments that do NOT extend their lives. That is very much the point.

GARBAGE.

Then why are you trying to claim they are homeopathy?

I didn't mention homeopathy. Why are you trying to change the subject, and pretend that is what I was talking about?

That is not an argument that there shouldn't be.

The required testing is only so extensive because it is so astronomically profitable for monopoly drug patent holders to sell unsafe and ineffective drugs.

That's just false. If it is worth it for patients to pay for drugs at monopoly prices, it is worth it for public health providers to develop them and pay the free market price.

Knowledge and ideas are not property, either -- unless, like humans, they are MADE INTO property by LAW.

Yes it does, if the monopolies are abolished and a small fraction of the savings given to drug developers.

Wrong.

 

Communism is all about public ownership of the means of production.

Healthcare in America is certainly not publicly owned.

In fact, even Medicare isn't publicly owned, as all the healthcare is provided by private corporations FOR PROFIT.

The closest we have to communism in healthcare is the VA, where the government hires and manages healthcare. And, that has struggled forever for the reasons that communism struggles.


Yes, people can not afford our capitalist healthcare system, yet healthcare is required by every citizen. The problem here is that capitalism doesn't care about serving all the people.

So, we cover for capitalism by providing dollars so those who couldn't afford healthcare can actually get treatment for disease.

That is absolutely NOT communism. Just read the definition.

What we have is capitalism. And, then we have programs to cover for the fact that capitalism is focused on maximizing profit, not treating the full population.


No other significant capitalist country runs healthcare in this way, and thus the US spends more per person on healthcare than the rest.

 

No, that's socialism. Communism is abolition of private property.

No other advanced country has a healthcare system in any way similar to that of the USA, and all of them achieve far better health outcomes at far lower cost. This is because the US government is 100% owned by soulless, amoral greed robots. Simple.

 

Yes - you're right about communism. I really don't know why I typed that, which is embarrassing.

But, of course it still doesn't apply to anything about our healthcare system.

No, the reason our system is fabulously expensive is that our system is based on capitalism.

That means that corporations (all providers of healthcare, medicine, insurance, and everything else related) exist to maximize profit.

That's because our system of healthcare is capitalism - and all our government did was to decide for healthcare to be run in that manner.

As a side effect of that decision, our government is in a position of needing to help PEOPLE who have low income and therefore are of ZERO interest to our capitalist system.

 

No, because other advanced countries that have health care systems based on capitalism spend much less. The reason the US system is fabulously expensive is that being 100% owned by soulless, amoral greed robots, the US government favors MONOPOLY RENT SEEKING over its citizens' health and even their lives.

You need to find a willingness to know the difference between profit that is maximized by relieving scarcity -- as Adam Smith's "Invisible Hand" does -- and profit that is maximized by inflicting and aggravating scarcity, as monopolies do.

No. I don't defend capitalism (other than to note that socialism is even worse), but monopoly privilege is not an inherent characteristic of capitalism.

 

All other first world countries have single payer systems. That isn't capitalism. In effect, their national health system is the insurance company. And, in their case, the "insurance company" doesn't need to make a profit like all ours do.

Capitalism is BASED on "soulless, amoral greed robots." You can't really complain about that. Other first world nations are also fundamentally capitalist. They just don't see capitalism as being interested in what is needed in terms of healthcare for all citizens.

Yes, intellectual property rights are not inherent under capitalism.

But, in the modern world, intellectual property is incredibly important and can't just be ignored as having no value and thus without ownership protection.

 

Sure it is, as long as the means of production are mostly privately owned.

Irrelevant. Lots of companies in capitalist economies don't make profits. For one thing, it's an excellent way of avoiding profits taxes.

No it isn't. It's based on liberty, property, and contract.

Sure I can, when capitalism is used as a justification for legally empowering soulless, amoral greed robots to steal from others.

Which it isn't. The point is that there is nothing about single payer that is incompatible with capitalism.

Just as slaves were for thousands of years.

Sure it can. See China. The only thing that gives IP value is a government-issued and -enforced license to steal.

 

CPI for motor vehicle maintenance is at 159.4% of its 2010 value today.
CPI for medical care is at 142.9% of its 2010 value.
CPI for all items (i.e., overall inflation over that period) is at 140.8% of its 2010 value.

 

The point being is that individuals pay for their own car insurance. That this market is corrupt is in line with the fact that EVERY market has been corrupted. This is what happens when your system rots from within.

 

My point wasn't that either market is "corrupted," merely that the implication that auto insurance is better at holding down the price of auto repair than health insurance is for health care has no empirical basis. In general, the hand-wringing about insurance is misplaced, since the concentration of health care spending on relatively small slices of the population in any given year makes some sort of collective financing of health care necessary.

 

Medical care was already absurdly overpriced by 2010. It just hasn't got any more absurd since then.