Why can't the market deliver healthcare at a low cost?

There are several reasons;
1) Medical and pharmaceutical services are very expensive to begin with.
2) Insurance companies are also involved and take their profit as well.
3) Staying alive is far more important to people than a DVD player and they know it so can charge for it.
4) Regulation and competition are limited, allowing for things like the Epi Pen fiasco.

There are many more.....

 

If they are required by law to treat people they would otherwise not treat, they are being forced to do something. The variations of the hippocratic oath I've found thus far are too vague to be binding on any sort of behavior. The number of pre-med students, medical students or doctors is irrelevant to the question of whether any given doctor should have the freedom of association and the freedom of action to choose who they treat or refuse to treat.

 

That's not exactly true. Many people purchase or seek "healthcare" when they don't actually need it. And much of that behavior is due to government policies that artificially drive up demand for healthcare-related services and goods.

But even if we accepted your premise at face value, it still doesn't preclude the emergence of a free market for healthcare since many other necessities - like food and shelter - are provided by markets. Do you think America needs "single payer" for food? After all, the customer has no choice whether or not to buy the product.

That's why markets created insurance. Unfortunately, the government has ruined healthcare insurance in much the same way they ruined healthcare markets in general - with excessive taxes and regulations.

Forcing companies to provide a service regardless of ability to pay is a problem created by government interference, not free markets.

At any rate, the only reason healthcare is so expensive in the first place is because of government interference in the form of taxes and regulations. Under genuine free market conditions, basic healthcare goods and services would be extremely affordable due to the existence of robust competition. There is no market condition that requires the average price of appendix surgeries in the US to be $33,000. That is purely the result of government interference in the healthcare and insurance markets.

 

So medical services are expensive because they're expensive? You don't say...

Anyway, this doesn't explain how "corporate greed" is responsible for high prices in the healthcare sector. If anything, it would seem to undermine the assertion that "greed" is causing high prices.

Insurance companies are involved in many sectors of the economy besides healthcare, so why aren't those sectors experiencing similar levels of price inflation to the healthcare sector? And aren't tech companies also motivated by profit?

So the internet isn't important? Phones aren't important? Computers aren't important?

Excessive regulation is why competition is so limited. The only reason the "epi pen fiasco" was possible is because of government laws that grant effective monopolies to corporate entities. That would never happen in a free market.

 

For free markets in full operation see Britain and its unregulated cosmetic procedures. First, we see that standard supply and demand doesn't hold. Instead, supply creates demand. Second, we see how asymmetric information problems ensures quality problems will persist (guaranteeing regret). Third, we do see positive industry spillovers. There is always room for another botched body documentary...

 

Why is there "much more choice" when buying a car though? BECAUSE there is less regulation. Virtually every area of the country has numerous car dealerships competing with each other for a share of the market. And virtually every area of the country has a secondary market where private parties sell used cars and parts. There is no reason why that shouldn't be the case for healthcare-related goods and services.

 

Emergencies are why we have insurance. And if the government would simply allow insurance companies to sell genuine insurance policies instead of government-mandated "healthcare plans" that cover a wide range of non-emergency goods and services, insurance would be extremely affordable and innovative.

 

And the second hand car industry gave us the "market for lemons", focusing on how free markets deliver adverse selection and moral hazard. They're not dandy terms for healthcare!

 

What market factors do you believe restrict consumer choice in healthcare?

Is the market responsible for constraining the supply of medical professionals?

Is the market responsible for granting companies monopolies on the manufacture and distribution of certain medical goods and services?

Is the market responsible for preventing health insurance companies from selling across State lines or offering up catastrophic coverage plans?

Is the market responsible for criminalizing effective and affordable medicines like cannabis?

 

Yes, markets are imperfect and produce suboptimal results sometimes. But on net, markets are far more efficient than government-based solutions.

 

We must agree to disagree and my time is better spent elsewhere.

 

This goes beyond suboptimaility. By referring to the market for lemons, you've referred to how the market can be destructive. That can of course be death.

 

There is nothing magical about it. It's just good old fashioned empiricism. The real "holy cow" of "magical solutions" is the "universal healthcare" model being pushed in opposition to market-based solutions.

You realize those two statements are totally contradictory, right?

Your reasoning is just as applicable to other sectors of the economy. Despite what proponents of "universal healthcare" often claim, there is nothing special or unique about healthcare as an economic service/good. it behaves according to supply and demand, just like any other good or service. And when the government pursues policies that artificially constrain supply, the the price of healthcare goes up. It's basic economics.

 

Is there any institution in human history that didn't manifest "destructive" elements or outcomes? Or is that something unique to markets?

 

It becomes about minimising the destruction. Asymmetric information makes the standard supply and demand analysis a tall tale. Deregulation will ensure more deaths. There is no market solution to that. For example, in cosmetic surgery they tried rating systems (which of course were simply exploited, in the same way as a firm buys reviews)

 

There is no requirement for a motor vehicle, yet motor vehicle transportation is relatively plentiful and affordable. Doesn't that clearly demonstrate the power of markets?

 

So you're against subsidizing healthcare? Since when?

 

There’s a lot of money in the U.S. available for healthcare, so:

1) the producers will offer as many services they can,
2) with state-of-the-art facilities & technology, and
3) they’ll charge whatever Americans will pay.

We’re victims of our own wealth. It’s just like the college tuition situation: government flooded schools with student loans and schools raised prices.

 

If the man was a rapist who got shot by his victim, should the members of that community be forced to pay for his healthcare?

I mean, if we're going to base our positions on the niceties of hypothetical scenarios, then we might as well go all the way, right?

Anyway, under genuine free market conditions, there is no reason why emergency healthcare services would be so constrained or limited as to engender a lack of affordability. Indeed, the lack of affordability in healthcare occurs within the context of a heavily taxed and regulated healthcare sector. In other words, all the problems that are attributed to "free markets" are happening under a system that exists largely in contradistinction to markets.

 

How is it compassionate of you to force other people to provide services against their will? It's not like you're sacrificing anything yourself. If you were really compassionate, then you'd actually do something to help other people with your own money and time instead of just pawning the responsibility off on the government.

 

They try to stabilize him and then work out whether or not he can afford to become an inpatient. The thing about emergency wards that you need to understand is that they generally pay for themselves, else the hospital would simply stop offering that service.

Most people are insured, and they will generally stay where they are instead of shopping around. If the hospital doesn't maintain an emergency ward, those mostly insured people will be taken to another hospital that does.

It's a bit like that come-on car that Cal Worthington always advertised for 99 dollars. When you get there, that car has long been sold, but you're there and obviously want to buy a car, so you might decide to spend a few hundred more to get that beater in the back of the lot with the tree growing out of the hood.

 

Why are so many elderly people in America dying alone and broke in the first place?

 

Its ethical to force someone to labor against their will?

Free markets exist wherever two people voluntarily exchange goods. Externalities may be part of the cost of a product or not but as long as the exchange is voluntary, its a free market.

The car market is more free than the healthcare market by the nature of government intervention but not by the nature of markets. Your medical emergency example is no more compelling than a transportation emergency. If I need to get someplace right away and haven't made arrangements in advance (e.g. bought a car), my choices are limited and my costs will be higher. That doesn't change the fact that there is a thriving car market. What are the shades of gray between compelled exchange, forbidden exchange and voluntary exchange?

 

Because we live in a capitalist society where greed conquers all!!The health insurer has to get an obscene slice of the pie as do the hospitals,doctors,nurses,drug companies,medical device company's and labs.

 

Ah .. yeah it is. They sign an oath.

As for whether or not an individual doctor is in it to save lives .. you're right. VERY few are.