|
On July 14 2009 07:49 Last Romantic wrote:
Defense is necessary. The remainder of publicly funded programmes are largely contestable.
You sound like somewhat of a neo-libertarian. Good man!
|
It's not enough to raise energy bills, nope, gotta raise healthcare costs too. Doesn't matter that we're trillions into debt, let's just trust the government bureaucrats to show us the light. These bastards will surely know how to spend our money better than us. Just look at their track record...
If the federal government was a business, I would have stopped investing on it a long time ago!
Socialized healthcare could work.. but I'd rather not trust them to do it.
|
Mystlord
United States10264 Posts
On July 15 2009 10:21 Caller wrote:Show nested quote +On July 15 2009 10:19 Mystlord wrote:On July 15 2009 07:33 Caller wrote:
reasons why medical costs in america are so high
-private medical schools
-high tuition
-more rigorous certification process (8 years vs. 4-6 of higher education, residency and internship differences, also no pay)
-lower number of incoming medical students per capita. While the current number of doctors may be similar per capita, many of these doctors are aging and are retiring, while the incoming generation of medical students is decreasing compared to other countries.
-PPO/HMOs acts as monopoly. New doctors are forced to sign up for them in order to attract clientele because they have no way to get clients otherwise, and insurance companies enforce price controls. Because they control all the demand, and because supply is restricted by the government and regulations, prices naturally will be high. Impressive list. You forgot malpractice insurance and the ridiculous costs that it brings to the profession. Also consider the malpractice trial itself. The costs of lawyers, just bringing the case to court, and the money that can be gotten from punitive damages is just ridiculous. Another problem is the ability of pharmaceutical companies to patent their drug for 7 years. That's like having a 7 year monopoly on a crucial drug. This allows them to set the prices for the costly R&D process. A final problem is the overuse in a lot of costly technologies such as MRIs, CTs, and unnecessary tests. Doctors aren't thinking that they can solve the problem with a simple X-Ray, but they're thinking that "Oh, insurance will cover it, the MRI is affordable". But is it really necessary? Probably not. There are probably a lot more problems, but those are some of the largest causes, in my eyes, to the health care cost issue. yes, i agree that these reasons are also responsible for the high costs. But the reason the technology is overused is due to the fear of malpractice insurance, i.e. if they don't find something, 50 DKP minus.
Ah right, I forgot that, thanks :D. Personally, I think that the American health care system is too heavily regulated. Seriously, about half of the procedures that doctors do can be done by nurses. Malpractice lawsuits are also absolutely retarded. You can drag a doctor to court and get shot down, but the doctor still has to pay the money for the lawyer and all that crap.
|
On July 15 2009 06:27 BisuBoi wrote:
I'm sorry but gchan's post is beyond fail. It is wrong on almost every level. Gchan, maybe address the real reason you are against universal healthcare or any kind of reform in healthcare? Because the reasons you're using right now sound like an attempt to "win" the argument rather than anything you actually believe.
I don't understand how someone who supports free market policies could have such a weak grasp of economics. Are you unfamiliar with how tech firms are capitalized and generate profits? I can assure you, it has nothing to do with this postulated world market where the rest of the planet gets a free ride while Americans foot the bill.
Most all of the costs occur during the research phase and then potential costs from legal liabilities. If the drug works and has no problems, the pharmaceutical companies have virtually no costs in selling their drugs. And as if the privatized insurance companies are paying high prices to the pharma companies right now. They're in bed together to run up the price. It's completely unnecessary. And it's pretty outrageous what drugs get approved with symptoms like loss of vision, possible stroke, death, hyperventilation etc.
Way to be pretentious. Why would I present an argument I didn't belive in? Why don't you tell me why I don't want a government fronted health care system? I come here for a discussion, not to exchange trivial insults.
As for the way the tech industry works, yes, the marginal cost of each additional produced product is next to nothing, but the companies themselves price in what their expected losses are on failed research projects. If they have no profit, how can they have money to research? You need capital to develop a new product. The amount they overcharge Americans is calculated from the decreased revenues from the European market. The company itself will have a forecast on what income they need to cover their operating expenses so they can stay solvent and have new products out constantly. I'll concede the point that this may not necessarily be the fair market value because for all intents and purposes, the pharmaceutical industry is oligopolistic (which is market inefficient). And I'll also concede that the health insurance industry is also oligopolistic, so it is not market efficient. But this does not mean that it should be put in governmental hands. You can have a market efficient privatized health care system where insurance companies and pharmaceutical companies aren't colluding if you break up the large companies. I would much rather see a privatized market efficient health care system with a bunch of smaller companies than a government run one.
|
On July 15 2009 12:21 gchan wrote:Show nested quote +On July 15 2009 06:27 BisuBoi wrote:
I'm sorry but gchan's post is beyond fail. It is wrong on almost every level. Gchan, maybe address the real reason you are against universal healthcare or any kind of reform in healthcare? Because the reasons you're using right now sound like an attempt to "win" the argument rather than anything you actually believe.
I don't understand how someone who supports free market policies could have such a weak grasp of economics. Are you unfamiliar with how tech firms are capitalized and generate profits? I can assure you, it has nothing to do with this postulated world market where the rest of the planet gets a free ride while Americans foot the bill.
Most all of the costs occur during the research phase and then potential costs from legal liabilities. If the drug works and has no problems, the pharmaceutical companies have virtually no costs in selling their drugs. And as if the privatized insurance companies are paying high prices to the pharma companies right now. They're in bed together to run up the price. It's completely unnecessary. And it's pretty outrageous what drugs get approved with symptoms like loss of vision, possible stroke, death, hyperventilation etc. Way to be pretentious. Why would I present an argument I didn't belive in? Why don't you tell me why I don't want a government fronted health care system? I come here for a discussion, not to exchange trivial insults. As for the way the tech industry works, yes, the marginal cost of each additional produced product is next to nothing, but the companies themselves price in what their expected losses are on failed research projects. If they have no profit, how can they have money to research? You need capital to develop a new product. The amount they overcharge Americans is calculated from the decreased revenues from the European market. The company itself will have a forecast on what income they need to cover their operating expenses so they can stay solvent and have new products out constantly. I'll concede the point that this may not necessarily be the fair market value because for all intents and purposes, the pharmaceutical industry is oligopolistic (which is market inefficient). And I'll also concede that the health insurance industry is also oligopolistic, so it is not market efficient. But this does not mean that it should be put in governmental hands. You can have a market efficient privatized health care system where insurance companies and pharmaceutical companies aren't colluding if you break up the large companies. I would much rather see a privatized market efficient health care system with a bunch of smaller companies than a government run one.
If someone has to break them up, I'm guessing you mean the government?
Which kind of makes it government run again doesn't it? Because the government will have to come in every so often to break up the oligopolies since they are inevitable. Semi-free market? I like it, I like it.
|
On July 15 2009 13:31 ghrur wrote:Show nested quote +On July 15 2009 12:21 gchan wrote:On July 15 2009 06:27 BisuBoi wrote:
I'm sorry but gchan's post is beyond fail. It is wrong on almost every level. Gchan, maybe address the real reason you are against universal healthcare or any kind of reform in healthcare? Because the reasons you're using right now sound like an attempt to "win" the argument rather than anything you actually believe.
I don't understand how someone who supports free market policies could have such a weak grasp of economics. Are you unfamiliar with how tech firms are capitalized and generate profits? I can assure you, it has nothing to do with this postulated world market where the rest of the planet gets a free ride while Americans foot the bill.
Most all of the costs occur during the research phase and then potential costs from legal liabilities. If the drug works and has no problems, the pharmaceutical companies have virtually no costs in selling their drugs. And as if the privatized insurance companies are paying high prices to the pharma companies right now. They're in bed together to run up the price. It's completely unnecessary. And it's pretty outrageous what drugs get approved with symptoms like loss of vision, possible stroke, death, hyperventilation etc. Way to be pretentious. Why would I present an argument I didn't belive in? Why don't you tell me why I don't want a government fronted health care system? I come here for a discussion, not to exchange trivial insults. As for the way the tech industry works, yes, the marginal cost of each additional produced product is next to nothing, but the companies themselves price in what their expected losses are on failed research projects. If they have no profit, how can they have money to research? You need capital to develop a new product. The amount they overcharge Americans is calculated from the decreased revenues from the European market. The company itself will have a forecast on what income they need to cover their operating expenses so they can stay solvent and have new products out constantly. I'll concede the point that this may not necessarily be the fair market value because for all intents and purposes, the pharmaceutical industry is oligopolistic (which is market inefficient). And I'll also concede that the health insurance industry is also oligopolistic, so it is not market efficient. But this does not mean that it should be put in governmental hands. You can have a market efficient privatized health care system where insurance companies and pharmaceutical companies aren't colluding if you break up the large companies. I would much rather see a privatized market efficient health care system with a bunch of smaller companies than a government run one. If someone has to break them up, I'm guessing you mean the government? Which kind of makes it government run again doesn't it? Because the government will have to come in every so often to break up the oligopolies since they are inevitable. Semi-free market? I like it, I like it.
Well, the government doesn't usually run companies after they are broken up. The system we have now is semi-free market because there is definitely varying degrees of collaboration between politicans, lobbyists, large pharma companies, and large insurance companies. I'm just advocating a truer free market.
|
On July 15 2009 13:39 gchan wrote:Show nested quote +On July 15 2009 13:31 ghrur wrote:On July 15 2009 12:21 gchan wrote:On July 15 2009 06:27 BisuBoi wrote:
I'm sorry but gchan's post is beyond fail. It is wrong on almost every level. Gchan, maybe address the real reason you are against universal healthcare or any kind of reform in healthcare? Because the reasons you're using right now sound like an attempt to "win" the argument rather than anything you actually believe.
I don't understand how someone who supports free market policies could have such a weak grasp of economics. Are you unfamiliar with how tech firms are capitalized and generate profits? I can assure you, it has nothing to do with this postulated world market where the rest of the planet gets a free ride while Americans foot the bill.
Most all of the costs occur during the research phase and then potential costs from legal liabilities. If the drug works and has no problems, the pharmaceutical companies have virtually no costs in selling their drugs. And as if the privatized insurance companies are paying high prices to the pharma companies right now. They're in bed together to run up the price. It's completely unnecessary. And it's pretty outrageous what drugs get approved with symptoms like loss of vision, possible stroke, death, hyperventilation etc. Way to be pretentious. Why would I present an argument I didn't belive in? Why don't you tell me why I don't want a government fronted health care system? I come here for a discussion, not to exchange trivial insults. As for the way the tech industry works, yes, the marginal cost of each additional produced product is next to nothing, but the companies themselves price in what their expected losses are on failed research projects. If they have no profit, how can they have money to research? You need capital to develop a new product. The amount they overcharge Americans is calculated from the decreased revenues from the European market. The company itself will have a forecast on what income they need to cover their operating expenses so they can stay solvent and have new products out constantly. I'll concede the point that this may not necessarily be the fair market value because for all intents and purposes, the pharmaceutical industry is oligopolistic (which is market inefficient). And I'll also concede that the health insurance industry is also oligopolistic, so it is not market efficient. But this does not mean that it should be put in governmental hands. You can have a market efficient privatized health care system where insurance companies and pharmaceutical companies aren't colluding if you break up the large companies. I would much rather see a privatized market efficient health care system with a bunch of smaller companies than a government run one. If someone has to break them up, I'm guessing you mean the government? Which kind of makes it government run again doesn't it? Because the government will have to come in every so often to break up the oligopolies since they are inevitable. Semi-free market? I like it, I like it. Well, the government doesn't usually run companies after they are broken up. The system we have now is semi-free market because there is definitely varying degrees of collaboration between politicans, lobbyists, large pharma companies, and large insurance companies. I'm just advocating a truer free market.
Oh okay, so you want a government regulated semi-free market. Much like the banking industry. Yes, that sounds like an excellent idea. Look how nicely the free market has played out in THAT industry. Give me a break. There is nothing inherently better about the free market OR federal run systems. Both are subject to corruption, greed, inefficiency, and monopoly. I'm tired of people using basic black or white rationales to justify their points. A well run government organization will run just as well as a well run private business. There is nothing inherently more efficient in either system.
What the government CAN guarantee is that they will have much higher economies of scale than ANY private market could ever offer. You seem to fail in understanding how free market forces work. They don't get together, sit around and decide to stay as fragmented tiny corporations that face off in fierce competition every day, driving prices low and quality high because they're subject to the whims of consumer demand. That is a pipe dream, invented by economists, and never seen in reality.
What actually happens is you have a momentary situation where there is fierce competition, a few of the businesses inevitably WIN, and then they swallow all the competition up! They then become a giant and start to reap the benefits of their conquests, AKA hike the prices up, lower the quality, and get bloated on a monopoly. This is the eventual outcome of the free market. Every business's goal is monopoly. I don't believe that "maximize shareholder wealth" bs. What you think monopoly does? It maximizes wealth and a whole lot more!
It's stupid to think anything else will happen with a free market when historical data has shown us time and time again that every industry trends toward monopoly in the long-run. You regulate the pharma companies and they stay small. Great. But then if you're not on top of the insurance industry, they'll form a cartel and start bullying the pharma industry. Then the pharm companies get pissed and band together to counter-negotiate with the insurance companies. You're back to square one!
There's the same issue with gov't programs. They're big, they're planned well, and they execute well. But then the original overseer retires or gets promoted. You get a new person in. That person isn't as talented. Maybe they're using the position as a political stepping stone. They do a shoddy job and just try to fudge the numbers to look good for the next election cycle. The system starts to get sloppy. Then a new administration comes in. Health isn't big on their agenda. They start scooping money out, maybe to put into a new missile defense system. Suddenly the system is in the red and having trouble getting back out. Voters take notice and it becomes a ballot issue. Politicians then take notice and form a senate committee to fix the problem. Some heads get busted and things get cleaned up. Back to square one.
You see, both systems have scenarios where they can fuck up. But both can work too. It all depends on regulation and oversight and making sure these types of deteriorating processes don't occur. But which do you think is easier? Regulating and overseeing a single government agency where ONE agency can be held accountable? Or an entire market where there are many different players, and all of them can claim deniability, and pass the buck to the other guy. The voters are too dumb to understand the intricacies of it so they just listen to the talking heads for who to blame. And then the companies pay off politicians to filibuster the issue and nothing gets done. It seems to me like if it's a gov't agency, at least we got an easy target to blame and punish when shit gets bad.
|
Mystlord
United States10264 Posts
On July 15 2009 13:39 gchan wrote:Show nested quote +On July 15 2009 13:31 ghrur wrote:On July 15 2009 12:21 gchan wrote:On July 15 2009 06:27 BisuBoi wrote:
I'm sorry but gchan's post is beyond fail. It is wrong on almost every level. Gchan, maybe address the real reason you are against universal healthcare or any kind of reform in healthcare? Because the reasons you're using right now sound like an attempt to "win" the argument rather than anything you actually believe.
I don't understand how someone who supports free market policies could have such a weak grasp of economics. Are you unfamiliar with how tech firms are capitalized and generate profits? I can assure you, it has nothing to do with this postulated world market where the rest of the planet gets a free ride while Americans foot the bill.
Most all of the costs occur during the research phase and then potential costs from legal liabilities. If the drug works and has no problems, the pharmaceutical companies have virtually no costs in selling their drugs. And as if the privatized insurance companies are paying high prices to the pharma companies right now. They're in bed together to run up the price. It's completely unnecessary. And it's pretty outrageous what drugs get approved with symptoms like loss of vision, possible stroke, death, hyperventilation etc. Way to be pretentious. Why would I present an argument I didn't belive in? Why don't you tell me why I don't want a government fronted health care system? I come here for a discussion, not to exchange trivial insults. As for the way the tech industry works, yes, the marginal cost of each additional produced product is next to nothing, but the companies themselves price in what their expected losses are on failed research projects. If they have no profit, how can they have money to research? You need capital to develop a new product. The amount they overcharge Americans is calculated from the decreased revenues from the European market. The company itself will have a forecast on what income they need to cover their operating expenses so they can stay solvent and have new products out constantly. I'll concede the point that this may not necessarily be the fair market value because for all intents and purposes, the pharmaceutical industry is oligopolistic (which is market inefficient). And I'll also concede that the health insurance industry is also oligopolistic, so it is not market efficient. But this does not mean that it should be put in governmental hands. You can have a market efficient privatized health care system where insurance companies and pharmaceutical companies aren't colluding if you break up the large companies. I would much rather see a privatized market efficient health care system with a bunch of smaller companies than a government run one. If someone has to break them up, I'm guessing you mean the government? Which kind of makes it government run again doesn't it? Because the government will have to come in every so often to break up the oligopolies since they are inevitable. Semi-free market? I like it, I like it. Well, the government doesn't usually run companies after they are broken up. The system we have now is semi-free market because there is definitely varying degrees of collaboration between politicans, lobbyists, large pharma companies, and large insurance companies. I'm just advocating a truer free market.
I think the issue here doesn't lie in whether the government should take over the health care system, but rather why the health care system itself sucks.
Another issue is what you mean by a "truer free market". That term is so vague that it could mean any number of things. Please clarify. You haven't exactly proposed a plan, but you've just said that you just don't want a government controlled health care system. That's fine, but what do you propose instead?
Also, note that I haven't read too far back, so I might have missed a few things. Sorry if I missed one of your posts.
|
if i can derail the derail...
would you even consider the us automative industry a "free" market? isn't one of the conditions for a free market a low barrier to entry? Ford was founded in 1903, GM in 1908, and Chrysler in 1925; the best argument i heard for the automotive bailout was that it's just a farce to believe the car industry is a free market, and if one of the big three went under, that's it for good. if we haven't had a new automotive maker other than sister corporations since before WWII, what guarantee is there that new companies will emerge? in a free market i'm all for letting failing companies fail, but what possesses people to think the conditions of the car industry constitute a free market?
(as a sidenote, the only divisions of any of the big three i could find that are post-wwii are saturn in 1985 and hummer in 1992, but i think both of those are being scrapped. saab technically sprung up in 1947 but i think that still counts as an import car to most people)
|
The auto market is the furthest thing from a free market possible. There is no truly free market in the USA period. The gov't often runs protectionist policies for their industries. Look at the auto industry. Harley-Davidson would be dead and gone decades ago if not for gov't intervention. Look at the US sugar industry. That would be destroyed if not for protectionist tariffs and embargoes on S. American sugar growing nations. There are numerous other examples of this. The military-industrial complex (which is a major part of the US economy) is another not truly free market, due to security reasons.
And new companies have emerged, just not US ones. Foreign companies set up factories and dealerships in the US though and provide jobs and tax revenue just like a domestic corporation would.
|
so why do people propose free market solutions to non-free markets? no one's going to treat kidney failure like leukemia just because they are both diseases
|
On July 15 2009 10:31 Mystlord wrote:Show nested quote +On July 15 2009 10:21 Caller wrote:On July 15 2009 10:19 Mystlord wrote:On July 15 2009 07:33 Caller wrote:
reasons why medical costs in america are so high
-private medical schools
-high tuition
-more rigorous certification process (8 years vs. 4-6 of higher education, residency and internship differences, also no pay)
-lower number of incoming medical students per capita. While the current number of doctors may be similar per capita, many of these doctors are aging and are retiring, while the incoming generation of medical students is decreasing compared to other countries.
-PPO/HMOs acts as monopoly. New doctors are forced to sign up for them in order to attract clientele because they have no way to get clients otherwise, and insurance companies enforce price controls. Because they control all the demand, and because supply is restricted by the government and regulations, prices naturally will be high. Impressive list. You forgot malpractice insurance and the ridiculous costs that it brings to the profession. Also consider the malpractice trial itself. The costs of lawyers, just bringing the case to court, and the money that can be gotten from punitive damages is just ridiculous. Another problem is the ability of pharmaceutical companies to patent their drug for 7 years. That's like having a 7 year monopoly on a crucial drug. This allows them to set the prices for the costly R&D process. A final problem is the overuse in a lot of costly technologies such as MRIs, CTs, and unnecessary tests. Doctors aren't thinking that they can solve the problem with a simple X-Ray, but they're thinking that "Oh, insurance will cover it, the MRI is affordable". But is it really necessary? Probably not. There are probably a lot more problems, but those are some of the largest causes, in my eyes, to the health care cost issue. yes, i agree that these reasons are also responsible for the high costs. But the reason the technology is overused is due to the fear of malpractice insurance, i.e. if they don't find something, 50 DKP minus. Ah right, I forgot that, thanks :D. Personally, I think that the American health care system is too heavily regulated. Seriously, about half of the procedures that doctors do can be done by nurses. Malpractice lawsuits are also absolutely retarded. You can drag a doctor to court and get shot down, but the doctor still has to pay the money for the lawyer and all that crap.
you gotta be kidding me. i won't put words in Physician's mouth, but i bet if you asked even most doctors they would agree that malpractice lawsuits are absolutely essential for accountability and maintaining high standards of patient care. i'd bet that an overwhelming percentage of people polled would support malpractice lawsuits against negligent doctors.
|
United States20661 Posts
A question benjammin: Is your username a qwantz reference?
|
Malpractice suits might be essential, but are the kind of damages to award them and the kind of malpractice lawsuits justified? Granted, it is much more of an issue with the American judicial system in that it is forced to deal with many things that lies outside of their knowledge (healthcare, patents, etc). As it currently stands, Obama is loathe to put a cap on malpractice, that in tandem with the lack of studies on the effectiveness of defensive medicine puts a huge strain on the side of the practitioners. The kind of actions that doctors and hospitals are forced into doing by the threat of malpractice lawsuits as they are are certainly absolutely retarded far as I can see.
|
On July 15 2009 12:21 gchan wrote:Show nested quote +On July 15 2009 06:27 BisuBoi wrote:
I'm sorry but gchan's post is beyond fail. It is wrong on almost every level. Gchan, maybe address the real reason you are against universal healthcare or any kind of reform in healthcare? Because the reasons you're using right now sound like an attempt to "win" the argument rather than anything you actually believe.
I don't understand how someone who supports free market policies could have such a weak grasp of economics. Are you unfamiliar with how tech firms are capitalized and generate profits? I can assure you, it has nothing to do with this postulated world market where the rest of the planet gets a free ride while Americans foot the bill.
Most all of the costs occur during the research phase and then potential costs from legal liabilities. If the drug works and has no problems, the pharmaceutical companies have virtually no costs in selling their drugs. And as if the privatized insurance companies are paying high prices to the pharma companies right now. They're in bed together to run up the price. It's completely unnecessary. And it's pretty outrageous what drugs get approved with symptoms like loss of vision, possible stroke, death, hyperventilation etc. Way to be pretentious.
XD
|
Mystlord
United States10264 Posts
On July 15 2009 16:09 benjammin wrote:Show nested quote +On July 15 2009 10:31 Mystlord wrote:On July 15 2009 10:21 Caller wrote:On July 15 2009 10:19 Mystlord wrote:On July 15 2009 07:33 Caller wrote:
reasons why medical costs in america are so high
-private medical schools
-high tuition
-more rigorous certification process (8 years vs. 4-6 of higher education, residency and internship differences, also no pay)
-lower number of incoming medical students per capita. While the current number of doctors may be similar per capita, many of these doctors are aging and are retiring, while the incoming generation of medical students is decreasing compared to other countries.
-PPO/HMOs acts as monopoly. New doctors are forced to sign up for them in order to attract clientele because they have no way to get clients otherwise, and insurance companies enforce price controls. Because they control all the demand, and because supply is restricted by the government and regulations, prices naturally will be high. Impressive list. You forgot malpractice insurance and the ridiculous costs that it brings to the profession. Also consider the malpractice trial itself. The costs of lawyers, just bringing the case to court, and the money that can be gotten from punitive damages is just ridiculous. Another problem is the ability of pharmaceutical companies to patent their drug for 7 years. That's like having a 7 year monopoly on a crucial drug. This allows them to set the prices for the costly R&D process. A final problem is the overuse in a lot of costly technologies such as MRIs, CTs, and unnecessary tests. Doctors aren't thinking that they can solve the problem with a simple X-Ray, but they're thinking that "Oh, insurance will cover it, the MRI is affordable". But is it really necessary? Probably not. There are probably a lot more problems, but those are some of the largest causes, in my eyes, to the health care cost issue. yes, i agree that these reasons are also responsible for the high costs. But the reason the technology is overused is due to the fear of malpractice insurance, i.e. if they don't find something, 50 DKP minus. Ah right, I forgot that, thanks :D. Personally, I think that the American health care system is too heavily regulated. Seriously, about half of the procedures that doctors do can be done by nurses. Malpractice lawsuits are also absolutely retarded. You can drag a doctor to court and get shot down, but the doctor still has to pay the money for the lawyer and all that crap. you gotta be kidding me. i won't put words in Physician's mouth, but i bet if you asked even most doctors they would agree that malpractice lawsuits are absolutely essential for accountability and maintaining high standards of patient care. i'd bet that an overwhelming percentage of people polled would support malpractice lawsuits against negligent doctors.
I probably wasn't specific enough there, but the number of malpractice lawsuits that go absolutely nowhere is absurd. The threat of a malpractice lawsuit is fine, and yeah, they should be kept around, but there needs to be caps placed on the amount of money that can be won from a malpractice lawsuit. Frivolous malpractice lawsuits should also be punished.
Another problem with malpractice lawsuits is that the court in question has no medical experience whatsoever. It's kind of ridiculous to have normal courts deal with a problem that is clearly beyond their understanding.
|
On the subject of malpractice lawsuits, I remember reading that one way to bring down healthcare costs is to give patients the option of not brining malpractice lawsuits to bear against a doctor if something goes wrong. In return, they pay less because the doctor's insurance costs will go down. Those who want to have the option can continue to have it, those who are willing to take on more risk can pay less.
|
BisuBoi, anti-trust regulation is substantially different from SEC banking regulation. The banking regulation the SEC tries to do is essentially money tracing--they have to follow the money trail to see where it goes. This is extraordinarily hard compared to anti trust regulation where you can simply look at market share. Once large companies are broken up, government involvement is essentially finished--that's it. This is quite different from the banking industry where for god knows whatever reason the government decided to bail out the banks rather than let the market run its course. Stop trying to oversimplify the market mechanism by saying that the health industry is like the banking industry.
You are right in that companies tend to become monopolistic over time if they have a competitive advantage and gain economies of scale. But, if you look at history (as you claim to have done), in the last 20-30 years, most (not all) large companies have come about because of mergers and acquisitions, NOT because of a competitive advantage; this is especially true in insurance and pharmaceutical companies. There are a lot of studies out now that actually show that M&A companies actually perform more poorly than before they merged. I'm all for companies developing efficient methods of production to gain competitive advantage, but I am not for companies gaining market share by merging for reasons other than efficiency. To actually prevent M&A is relatively easy if you (1) tax the merger or (2) actually staff the antitrust division of the Department of Justice.
Anyway, I'm done arguing with you because you are obviously on tilt. Try not responding to every message so angrily. Oh, and government programs are _always_ more inefficient because there is no feedback mechanism to manage them. Do you ever see government programs go into bankruptcy? Do you ever see government programs get rewarded for doing well/being efficient? I don't think so.
|
On July 15 2009 10:29 s_side wrote:Show nested quote +On July 14 2009 07:49 Last Romantic wrote:
Defense is necessary. The remainder of publicly funded programmes are largely contestable. You sound like somewhat of a neo-libertarian. Good man!
Neo-libertarians aren't pro-defense so much as they are pro-ridiculous foreign policy.
|
On July 15 2009 15:20 Mystlord wrote:Show nested quote +On July 15 2009 13:39 gchan wrote:On July 15 2009 13:31 ghrur wrote:On July 15 2009 12:21 gchan wrote:On July 15 2009 06:27 BisuBoi wrote:
I'm sorry but gchan's post is beyond fail. It is wrong on almost every level. Gchan, maybe address the real reason you are against universal healthcare or any kind of reform in healthcare? Because the reasons you're using right now sound like an attempt to "win" the argument rather than anything you actually believe.
I don't understand how someone who supports free market policies could have such a weak grasp of economics. Are you unfamiliar with how tech firms are capitalized and generate profits? I can assure you, it has nothing to do with this postulated world market where the rest of the planet gets a free ride while Americans foot the bill.
Most all of the costs occur during the research phase and then potential costs from legal liabilities. If the drug works and has no problems, the pharmaceutical companies have virtually no costs in selling their drugs. And as if the privatized insurance companies are paying high prices to the pharma companies right now. They're in bed together to run up the price. It's completely unnecessary. And it's pretty outrageous what drugs get approved with symptoms like loss of vision, possible stroke, death, hyperventilation etc. Way to be pretentious. Why would I present an argument I didn't belive in? Why don't you tell me why I don't want a government fronted health care system? I come here for a discussion, not to exchange trivial insults. As for the way the tech industry works, yes, the marginal cost of each additional produced product is next to nothing, but the companies themselves price in what their expected losses are on failed research projects. If they have no profit, how can they have money to research? You need capital to develop a new product. The amount they overcharge Americans is calculated from the decreased revenues from the European market. The company itself will have a forecast on what income they need to cover their operating expenses so they can stay solvent and have new products out constantly. I'll concede the point that this may not necessarily be the fair market value because for all intents and purposes, the pharmaceutical industry is oligopolistic (which is market inefficient). And I'll also concede that the health insurance industry is also oligopolistic, so it is not market efficient. But this does not mean that it should be put in governmental hands. You can have a market efficient privatized health care system where insurance companies and pharmaceutical companies aren't colluding if you break up the large companies. I would much rather see a privatized market efficient health care system with a bunch of smaller companies than a government run one. If someone has to break them up, I'm guessing you mean the government? Which kind of makes it government run again doesn't it? Because the government will have to come in every so often to break up the oligopolies since they are inevitable. Semi-free market? I like it, I like it. Well, the government doesn't usually run companies after they are broken up. The system we have now is semi-free market because there is definitely varying degrees of collaboration between politicans, lobbyists, large pharma companies, and large insurance companies. I'm just advocating a truer free market. I think the issue here doesn't lie in whether the government should take over the health care system, but rather why the health care system itself sucks. Another issue is what you mean by a "truer free market". That term is so vague that it could mean any number of things. Please clarify. You haven't exactly proposed a plan, but you've just said that you just don't want a government controlled health care system. That's fine, but what do you propose instead? Also, note that I haven't read too far back, so I might have missed a few things. Sorry if I missed one of your posts.
I think both are issues as there are fundamental problems from both supply and demand end.
And what I mean by a truer free market, as evident from my post above, is I advocate a market efficient system where pricing is based on market conditions, not monopolistic/oligopolistic market share advantage. When you have the entire industry in the hands of a few companies, their lobbying power alone is enough to constitute a form of collusion (which creates market inefficiency). My proposed plan, on the pricing end, is to break up the larger companies so they actually remain competitive. That would make prices a lot more manageable.
Edit: I forgot to mention that in Obama's shotgun marriage between the government and the health care industry, who do you think is going to have the most leverage in dictating the terms of the proposal? People with money aka lobbyists. I'm not completely against certain degrees of government involvement, but please, fix the pricing first before jumping directly into picking up the tab.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
