|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On November 02 2014 06:28 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On November 02 2014 06:27 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On November 02 2014 06:23 WhiteDog wrote:On November 02 2014 06:10 oneofthem wrote:
market defined by competition has a number of assumptions on the nature of the participants and their available options. many of these are not met by healthcare, so here private is not equal to more competitive. nor does this connection hold in many other situations Almost no sector perfectly match a perfect markets defined as economists. The agriculture is one of the few exemple, and it's considered a disease because a perfect market have low profit perspectives. That the healthcare system is very far from it does not makes all other market more "competitive" oneofsanto. And when people ask for "more competition", especially neoliberal, they usually talk about the legislation on the labor market, which is very far from a competitive market. Competition is a continuum. You don't need to have a market that fits the prefect competition model for it to be competitive. You need a market that fits the model for it to be optimal and efficient in ressource allocation. Considering that market are, by necessity, far from "perfect", there's no ground on which we can say that increasing competition in all markets necessarily leads to an increase in efficiency. It depends on every market structure.
Sure. It's a fine heuristic though, particularly if we're talking about markets.
|
one difference that i can think of that would prolly have implications for modelling this process would be that in the case of insurance the product is now also a function of the costumers health / age etc.
conformance to your beliebs is not an acceptable qualitative metric on a heuristic, jonny.
|
On November 02 2014 06:48 Nyxisto wrote:
Because if you have a heart attack you can't say "drive me to that hospital 20 miles away it's cheaper!" if you want to buy an apple you can say "hey I'll go to that store it sells cheaper apples". This isn't exactly rocket science
Not every market functions like retail.
|
On November 02 2014 06:54 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On November 02 2014 06:48 Nyxisto wrote:
Because if you have a heart attack you can't say "drive me to that hospital 20 miles away it's cheaper!" if you want to buy an apple you can say "hey I'll go to that store it sells cheaper apples". This isn't exactly rocket science Not every market functions like retail.
yes, that's why not every market should be treated the same, that is my point.
|
On November 02 2014 06:48 Nyxisto wrote:
Because if you have a heart attack you can't say "drive me to that hospital 20 miles away it's cheaper!" if you want to buy an apple you can say "hey I'll go to that store it sells cheaper apples". This isn't exactly rocket science
I have already asked you this question, but are these restrictions brought on by the free market or by government regulations that render the healthcare market a centrally planned one?
It is also important to note that heart attacks are completely avoidable and the government involvement in the food supply as well as the governments dietary recommendations over the past several decades have increased the rates of heart disease in the USA.
In a free market why would you be restricted from entering into an agreement with an ambulance company to drive you to a specific hospital in the event you have a heart attack? Is there a restriction in a free market that disallows this?
|
It is restricted by the fact that you may be unconscious or dying, are you really that dense? It is within the nature of healthcare that people are not able to make a lot of decisions. If you're sick or dying you're not exactly the most empowered consumer.
Also the biggest risk factor for heart attacks is age. Heart attacks are not completely avoidable, that's just false.
|
On November 02 2014 06:50 nunez wrote:
one difference that i can think of that would prolly have implications for modelling this process would be that in the case of insurance the product is now also a function of the costumers health / age etc.
conformance to your beliebs is not an acceptable qualitative metric of a heuristic, jonny.
There's plenty of difference that can hugely impact the most optimal action. Some quick important distinctions (in relation to perfect and pure competition hypothesis) :
Existence of externalities ; Number buyers and sellers; barriers of entry and exit (huge subject); factor mobility ; quality of information ; transaction costs ; type of products (perfect substitutes or not) ; existence of economy of scale or not ; definition of property rights ; cultural practice in regards to consumption / production.
|
On November 02 2014 06:50 nunez wrote:
one difference that i can think of that would prolly have implications for modelling this process would be that in the case of insurance the product is now also a function of the costumers health / age etc.
conformance to your beliebs is not an acceptable qualitative metric on a heuristic, jonny.
I don't see what 'belief' has to do with my statement.
|
On November 02 2014 07:00 Nyxisto wrote:
It is restricted by the fact that you may be unconscious or dying, are you really that dense? It is within the nature of healthcare that people are not able to make a lot of decisions. If you're sick or dying you're not exactly the most empowered consumer.
Also the biggest risk factor for heart attacks is age. Heart attacks are not completely avoidable, that's just false.
You have again avoided my questions. Many markets that deal with future risk are composed of companies that offer insurance against possibilities that can happen in the future. Car insurance, earthquake insurance, home insurance, and renters insurance are all examples of products that are currently provided in the marketplace.
Do you not understand my questions or are you intentionally avoiding them in favor of personal attacks?
Heart disease is completely avoidable with proper diet and to a lesser extent activity. Are you attempting to argue that heart attacks are random and can strike anyone at anytime?
|
On November 02 2014 06:56 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On November 02 2014 06:54 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On November 02 2014 06:48 Nyxisto wrote:
Because if you have a heart attack you can't say "drive me to that hospital 20 miles away it's cheaper!" if you want to buy an apple you can say "hey I'll go to that store it sells cheaper apples". This isn't exactly rocket science Not every market functions like retail. yes, that's why not every market should be treated the same, that is my point.
Fair enough 
|
On November 02 2014 07:07 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On November 02 2014 06:50 nunez wrote:
one difference that i can think of that would prolly have implications for modelling this process would be that in the case of insurance the product is now also a function of the costumers health / age etc.
conformance to your beliebs is not an acceptable qualitative metric on a heuristic, jonny. I don't see what 'belief' has to do with my statement.
you didn't support it with anything.
|
On November 02 2014 07:07 Vegetarian wrote:Show nested quote +On November 02 2014 07:00 Nyxisto wrote:
It is restricted by the fact that you may be unconscious or dying, are you really that dense? It is within the nature of healthcare that people are not able to make a lot of decisions. If you're sick or dying you're not exactly the most empowered consumer.
Also the biggest risk factor for heart attacks is age. Heart attacks are not completely avoidable, that's just false. You have again avoided my questions. Many markets that deal with future risk are composed of companies that offer insurance against possibilities that can happen in the future. Car insurance, earthquake insurance, home insurance, and renters insurance are all examples of products that are currently provided in the marketplace. Do you not understand my questions or are you intentionally avoiding them in favor of personal attacks? Heart disease is completely avoidable with proper diet and to a lesser extent activity. Are you attempting to argue that heart attacks are random and can strike anyone at anytime?
I'm not avoiding your stupid questions. Insurance is not the same as having a medical emergency. You have plenty of time choosing your favourite insurance policy. If you happen to be in a medical emergency you have not a lot of time to choose. If everyone in the US could afford an insurance plan the latter wouldn't be that big of a deal. Because millions of people can't, they're royally screwed.
And no, heart disease as well as cancer and many other diseases are unavoidable and will happen even if everybody lives healthy. Age is the biggest risk factor for a lot of diseases. If you are a 70 year old male you can be completely healthy and you still may get a heart attack.
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
Under Kentucky law, the state Legislature may override a gubernatorial veto with a simple majority in both houses.
Why even have a veto? lol.
|
On November 02 2014 07:19 nunez wrote:Show nested quote +On November 02 2014 07:07 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On November 02 2014 06:50 nunez wrote:
one difference that i can think of that would prolly have implications for modelling this process would be that in the case of insurance the product is now also a function of the costumers health / age etc.
conformance to your beliebs is not an acceptable qualitative metric on a heuristic, jonny. I don't see what 'belief' has to do with my statement. you didn't support it with anything.
Do I really need to? It wasn't a controversial statement and you're prone to trolling.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On November 02 2014 06:33 Vegetarian wrote:Show nested quote +On November 02 2014 06:10 oneofthem wrote:
market defined by competition has a number of assumptions on the nature of the participants and their available options. many of these are not met by healthcare, so here private is not equal to more competitive. nor does this connection hold in many other situations Why are healthcare products and services different than the product of food or the service of automobile repair? In your view why would the product and service of healthcare yield a better outcome if they are centrally planned as opposed to a system in which anyone is free to compete and provide healthcare products and services to willing consumers in voluntary transactions. Will a centrally planned healthcare system achieve the same level of innovation and prices as a competitive free market system?
the apple buyer has a want of apples, and she knows what apples are on sale, can compare different apples, and compare apples against different fruits. now imagine a place where stores sell apples but display them inside opaque boxes that cannot be opened and examined, further, the buyer is not buying the apple but an insurance plan for apple redemption, with the feature that she does not pay full for any individual apple purchase but pay a premium that is divined separately, from the cumulative "apple risk" of the entire population.
this is assuming you have free picking of all doctors/apple sellers on the market, and this not being the CME, it just aint so. you are instead assigned a selection of sellers in the area, with no clear ranking of price/results (not that price factors into your decision all that much due to insurance separating the payment from the procuring decision).
centrally planned is not the alternative btw. a market can still be had, but with features that conform to the unique powers held by experts and unique patent holders. specifically, monopoly or quasi monopoly powers. in this situation having a single payer agent to negotiate a price isn't too bad.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On November 02 2014 06:23 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On November 02 2014 06:10 oneofthem wrote:
market defined by competition has a number of assumptions on the nature of the participants and their available options. many of these are not met by healthcare, so here private is not equal to more competitive. nor does this connection hold in many other situations Almost no sector perfectly match a perfect markets defined as economists. The agriculture is one of the few exemple, and it's considered a disease because a perfect market have low profit perspectives. That the healthcare system is very far from it does not makes all other market more "competitive" oneofsanto. And when people ask for "more competition", especially neoliberal, they usually talk about the legislation on the labor market and protectionnism measure, which usually comes with huge problems in regard to the "competition" aspect of things.
i'm still waiting for you to read one post correctly.
for all the flaws of the market modeling, the core mechanism of producers competing to get people's purchase is fine. by competitive people mean a market that has more of this kind of competition, and not the political or whatever other, rent generating mechanism.
|
should be really easy to support it then.
i'm very curious to see it.
|
On November 02 2014 08:21 oneofthem wrote:Show nested quote +On November 02 2014 06:23 WhiteDog wrote:On November 02 2014 06:10 oneofthem wrote:
market defined by competition has a number of assumptions on the nature of the participants and their available options. many of these are not met by healthcare, so here private is not equal to more competitive. nor does this connection hold in many other situations Almost no sector perfectly match a perfect markets defined as economists. The agriculture is one of the few exemple, and it's considered a disease because a perfect market have low profit perspectives. That the healthcare system is very far from it does not makes all other market more "competitive" oneofsanto. And when people ask for "more competition", especially neoliberal, they usually talk about the legislation on the labor market and protectionnism measure, which usually comes with huge problems in regard to the "competition" aspect of things. i'm still waiting for you to read one post correctly. for all the flaws of the market modeling, the core mechanism of producers competing to get people's purchase is fine. by competitive people mean a market that has more of this kind of competition, and not the political or whatever other, rent generating mechanism.
If you actually understood what you wrote, things would be better I guess.
On which ground can you say that it is "fine" ? Saying we need "more competition" or saying that "health" is completly different that other sector, such as energy or education, is just as ideologically loaded as "capitalism is dead".
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
by fine i mean this is an actually existing mechanism. thus characterized in this manner, markets do exist and are productive, at least in some form and in some situations, and the olde supply and demand model does work for these situations.
|
On November 02 2014 08:35 oneofthem wrote:
by fine i mean this is an actually existing mechanism. thus characterized in this manner, markets do exist and are productive, at least in some form and in some situations, and the olde supply and demand model does work for these situations.
So because there's life on earth, that we build and produce things, supply and demand "works".
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
