(http://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn1/28782_385730648175442_1683514469_n.jpg)
God damn those socialist countries and their excellent healthcare!!! :-[
Are healthcare prices immune to the law of supply and demand? Aren't prices high because demand is out-stripping supply? Does the Affordable Care Act do anything to increase the supply of healthcare?
Supply and demand may be a factor, though it may just be that the for-profit nature of the system is what is making it so expensive in the first place:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/high-health-care-costs-its-all-in-the-pricing/2012/02/28/gIQAtbhimR_story.html (http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/high-health-care-costs-its-all-in-the-pricing/2012/02/28/gIQAtbhimR_story.html)
I've also heard things like malpractice insurance rates blamed for the costs as well (though I'd assume that was a very small crop in the bucket).
Quote from: urbanlibertarian on December 01, 2012, 03:59:18 PM
Are healthcare prices immune to the law of supply and demand? Aren't prices high because demand is out-stripping supply? Does the Affordable Care Act do anything to increase the supply of healthcare?
Supply and demand is not natural law. There is such thing as artificial demand. Put a McDonalds in the middle of the Amazon, people will go there. Doesn't mean there was some preexisting demand.
As Adam W pointed out, the profit-driven nature of most services obliterate the supply-and-demand system.
Subsidies are another example of why the supply/demand model doesn't necessarily work in a profit-mad system.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=fresh-fruit-hold-the-insulin (http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=fresh-fruit-hold-the-insulin)
^Is there a demand for this kind of crap, or do they just flood the market place because they make a shitload of money? I think it's the latter...
^They create a demand! One could argue that people "want" fast food or some sort of "comfort food" or whatever. But no one realized they "needed" a Double Down until some evil genius cooked that up in a secret lab somewhere and foisted it on the unsuspecting public...
Exactly
Nobody wants to die. Death is final. It is a serious business. Nothing is spared, including large sums of money and careless spending, to avoid it. The self-serving investors and profiteers in America know this, and they take full advantage of it. Thus we have the most expensive health care system in the world. For most investors and board members, it is okay to profit to the max on this powerful emotion and desire to avoid death.
Nothing is spared, except common sense, as we demand and accept obscene prices for health care. The lack of government regulation, the American culture of greed, the race for riches at any cost to fairness to those in need, by whoever happens to be in the best or right position in any mechanism for making profits, insures continued obscene health care costs. It’s the same old predicament wherein a few, by their advantaged positions and avoidance of fairness, rape the assets of the masses, always greasing the mechanism which shifts wealth relentlessly from the masses to themselves.
And if you die because of the insane wait times for these procedures what would you have paid to have had it done? There is always a trade off.
Just who is paying these insane prices? I doubt anyone on this site has reached into his/her bank account to shell out this kind of money. I recently had labs done that were billed to me for $1700...roughly $75 per vial of my blood. Thankfully, it was an insurance glitch....adjusted bill for the insurance company $150. No, I didn't miss type my zero's, that's what the insurance said it was worth. My share was $50. Thus, the insurance company paid $100. Bottom line, we're only getting screwed if we don't have insurance. Please note, the insurance company did not even come close to paying what I would have had to pay if I didn't have coverage. That's what's wrong with our health care system: 1) only uninsured suckers would pay the billed price 2) since I only coughed up $50, what do I care what they charge. It is NOT listed for you or I to see the price before that or any other treatment. If I had to pay the price charged, you bet, the next time I needed lab work, I'd ask how much it was and shop it a bit. You'd see a giant reduction in the price they charge everyone if it weren't for the middlemen insurance company's footing (or at least appearing to foot) the 80% or 90% of the bill. Walmart would soon be setting up shop I bet.
Quote from: St. Auggie on December 01, 2012, 11:32:56 PM
And if you die because of the insane wait times for these procedures what would you have paid to have had it done? There is always a trade off.
I've never had to wait an "insane" time to have any procedure done on the NHS. Now I realize this is anecdotal evidence, but it is real. And in the six years I've lived in the UK, I've had to spend two nights in hospital (once for surgery), I've had to visit a specialist, I've had to go get an MRI and I'm actually in the process of being referred to a neurologist at the moment (TMI, I know - I've got chronic migraine issues that started flaring up in the past year and I've been receiving regular treatment).
I find you hear people making all sorts claims about these things - but they usually aren't based in reality or they are based on a single, abnormal case. I don't suppose anyone remembers the case of the guy who had the wrong leg amputated (in error, of course) at Tampa General Hospital a number of years back? Surely we wouldn't offer that one incident up as an indictment of the entire US healthcare system - that would be foolish. But people seem perfectly willing to pick and choose a couple of "horror stories" (usually not even true or "friend of a friend" types of stories) and accept those as proof that national healthcare services "don't work."
The critics never seem to bother looking at the success stories.
Quote from: twojacks on December 02, 2012, 12:34:48 AM
Just who is paying these insane prices? I doubt anyone on this site has reached into his/her bank account to shell out this kind of money. I recently had labs done that were billed to me for $1700...roughly $75 per vial of my blood. Thankfully, it was an insurance glitch....adjusted bill for the insurance company $150. No, I didn't miss type my zero's, that's what the insurance said it was worth. My share was $50. Thus, the insurance company paid $100. Bottom line, we're only getting screwed if we don't have insurance. Please note, the insurance company did not even come close to paying what I would have had to pay if I didn't have coverage. That's what's wrong with our health care system: 1) only uninsured suckers would pay the billed price 2) since I only coughed up $50, what do I care what they charge. It is NOT listed for you or I to see the price before that or any other treatment. If I had to pay the price charged, you bet, the next time I needed lab work, I'd ask how much it was and shop it a bit. You'd see a giant reduction in the price they charge everyone if it weren't for the middlemen insurance company's footing (or at least appearing to foot) the 80% or 90% of the bill. Walmart would soon be setting up shop I bet.
True.
Similarly, there are costs associated with the NHS - but the cost to the end user is marginal. We pay £7.65 to have a prescription filled (assuming you don't qualify to get it for free). The actual cost of that prescription is probably
more than £7.65, but the patient doesn't bear the entire cost.
So costs in the British (or English, in this case) system may be lower overall, but even then, as in the USA, the patient still only foots a portion of the bill - insurance picks up the majority of it.
And that's assuming one is using the public option, of course.
Quote from: Adam W on December 02, 2012, 03:53:01 AM
Quote from: St. Auggie on December 01, 2012, 11:32:56 PM
And if you die because of the insane wait times for these procedures what would you have paid to have had it done? There is always a trade off.
I've never had to wait an "insane" time to have any procedure done on the NHS. Now I realize this is anecdotal evidence, but it is real. And in the six years I've lived in the UK, I've had to spend two nights in hospital (once for surgery), I've had to visit a specialist, I've had to go get an MRI and I'm actually in the process of being referred to a neurologist at the moment (TMI, I know - I've got chronic migraine issues that started flaring up in the past year and I've been receiving regular treatment).
I find you hear people making all sorts claims about these things - but they usually aren't based in reality or they are based on a single, abnormal case. I don't suppose anyone remembers the case of the guy who had the wrong leg amputated (in error, of course) at Tampa General Hospital a number of years back? Surely we wouldn't offer that one incident up as an indictment of the entire US healthcare system - that would be foolish. But people seem perfectly willing to pick and choose a couple of "horror stories" (usually not even true or "friend of a friend" types of stories) and accept those as proof that national healthcare services "don't work."
The critics never seem to bother looking at the success stories.
Agree. Last time we were in Amsterdam, my dad was having an emergency ashtma situation. Between finding a doctor, getting a doctor, getting checked out and fixed, an prescriptions, total price was $0.00, and total wait time was about 20 minutes.
Quote from: ronchamblin on December 01, 2012, 10:07:48 PM
Nobody wants to die. Death is final. It is a serious business. Nothing is spared, including large sums of money and careless spending, to avoid it. The self-serving investors and profiteers in America know this, and they take full advantage of it. Thus we have the most expensive health care system in the world. For most investors and board members, it is okay to profit to the max on this powerful emotion and desire to avoid death.
Nothing is spared, except common sense, as we demand and accept obscene prices for health care. The lack of government regulation, the American culture of greed, the race for riches at any cost to fairness to those in need, by whoever happens to be in the best or right position in any mechanism for making profits, insures continued obscene health care costs. It’s the same old predicament wherein a few, by their advantaged positions and avoidance of fairness, rape the assets of the masses, always greasing the mechanism which shifts wealth relentlessly from the masses to themselves.
+1000
Quote from: ben says on December 01, 2012, 04:52:24 PM
Quote from: urbanlibertarian on December 01, 2012, 03:59:18 PM
Are healthcare prices immune to the law of supply and demand? Aren't prices high because demand is out-stripping supply? Does the Affordable Care Act do anything to increase the supply of healthcare?
Supply and demand is not natural law. There is such thing as artificial demand. Put a McDonalds in the middle of the Amazon, people will go there. Doesn't mean there was some preexisting demand.
As Adam W pointed out, the profit-driven nature of most services obliterate the supply-and-demand system.
Subsidies are another example of why the supply/demand model doesn't necessarily work in a profit-mad system.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=fresh-fruit-hold-the-insulin (http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=fresh-fruit-hold-the-insulin)
^Is there a demand for this kind of crap, or do they just flood the market place because they make a shitload of money? I think it's the latter...
Supply/Demand is the most natural of laws. The demand for food always existed prior to the choice of a Mc Donalds. Opening a Mickey D's merely expanded choice (supply) in the demand market.
There are of course, artificial pressures on supply and demand. Let's focus on that for a nanosecond..... we might get to the heart of the issue. Let's see..... what could be examples of artificial pressures on supply and demand relating to health care.... hmmmmmm....
thinking...........
I got nuttin... Anyone?
The law of supply and demand is so natural that it has never been legislated.... (not that it hasn't been meddled with legislatively) just like the law that states you must die.... not decided artificially, but by reality (nature). Perhaps technology will someday render some or all natural laws moot, but so far.... not so much.
Quote from: buckethead on December 02, 2012, 09:06:51 AM
The law of supply and demand is so natural that it has never been legislated.... (not that it hasn't been meddled with legislatively) just like the law that states you must die.... not decided artificially, but by reality (nature). Perhaps technology will someday render some or all natural laws moot, but so far.... not so much.
That makes no sense whatsoever. Are you honestly contending that if supply and demand weren't a "natural law" it would be legislated?
And death doesn't result from the "law" of supply and demand.
I would argue that supply and demand describes a functional relationship, not a natural law. But then again, I'm not a mathematician or an economist.
The profit motive in a competitive market is what makes goods and services better and cheaper. A business is only successful if it pleases its customers more than the competition. McDonalds is profitable because it offers its customers tasty food at a low price. Most heathcare should work like plastic surgery and laser eye surgery does. They tell you the price up front because you're paying, not filing a claim. They advertise and compete against other doctors/clinics on quality and price. I think you'll find that the quality of those services is constantly improving while the price is stable or falling. This doesn't happen without the profit motive. You can't take advantage of people when they have alternatives.
Quote from: ronchamblin on December 01, 2012, 10:07:48 PM
Nobody wants to die. Death is final. It is a serious business. Nothing is spared, including large sums of money and careless spending, to avoid it. The self-serving investors and profiteers in America know this, and they take full advantage of it. Thus we have the most expensive health care system in the world. For most investors and board members, it is okay to profit to the max on this powerful emotion and desire to avoid death.
Nothing is spared, except common sense, as we demand and accept obscene prices for health care. The lack of government regulation, the American culture of greed, the race for riches at any cost to fairness to those in need, by whoever happens to be in the best or right position in any mechanism for making profits, insures continued obscene health care costs. It’s the same old predicament wherein a few, by their advantaged positions and avoidance of fairness, rape the assets of the masses, always greasing the mechanism which shifts wealth relentlessly from the masses to themselves.
I would suggest that government being used by sectors of the economy is what causes monopoly conditions which allow for price fixing. Insurance expands demand. expanded demand puts upward pressure on price without expanded supply.
We are so far from a 'free market' in health care that blaming the free market for soaring costs is just silly.
This is not a rant suggesting we drop all regulations/subsides/risk pooling. Just trying to sort out fact from fiction.
There is no reason we cannot do a universal coverage/single payer system here in the US. We can collectively invade sovereign nations to "make the world safe for democracy" so one would think we can collectively agree to keep US citizens as healthy as we can. (The USPS is CONSTITUTIONALLY mandated... Medical care can be too. Vital national interests and things and stuff.)
FWIW.... Obamacare does not do this. It keeps private insurers in the game of false demand, manipulated supply, and a monopolistic system.
Quote from: Adam W on December 02, 2012, 09:13:35 AM
Quote from: buckethead on December 02, 2012, 09:06:51 AM
The law of supply and demand is so natural that it has never been legislated.... (not that it hasn't been meddled with legislatively) just like the law that states you must die.... not decided artificially, but by reality (nature). Perhaps technology will someday render some or all natural laws moot, but so far.... not so much.
1)That makes no sense whatsoever. Are you honestly contending that if supply and demand weren't a "natural law" it would be legislated?
2)And death doesn't result from the "law" of supply and demand.
3)I would argue that supply and demand describes a functional relationship, not a natural law. But then again, I'm not a mathematician or an economist.
1) no... I don't see how you came to that conclusion.
2) Of course not. Death was just another example of natural law. (unlegislated)
3) Functional relationship is certainly a valid statement. What is natural law, if not functional relationships?
Quote from: buckethead on December 02, 2012, 09:20:47 AM
Quote from: Adam W on December 02, 2012, 09:13:35 AM
Quote from: buckethead on December 02, 2012, 09:06:51 AM
The law of supply and demand is so natural that it has never been legislated.... (not that it hasn't been meddled with legislatively) just like the law that states you must die.... not decided artificially, but by reality (nature). Perhaps technology will someday render some or all natural laws moot, but so far.... not so much.
1)That makes no sense whatsoever. Are you honestly contending that if supply and demand weren't a "natural law" it would be legislated?
2)And death doesn't result from the "law" of supply and demand.
3)I would argue that supply and demand describes a functional relationship, not a natural law. But then again, I'm not a mathematician or an economist.
1) no... I don't see how you came to that conclusion.
2) Of course not. Death was just another example of natural law. (unlegislated)
3) Functional relationship is certainly a valid statement. What is natural law, if not functional relationships?
1) you mentioned that it was so natural it hadn't been legislated. I couldn't understand what the first part of the sentence (it is so natural) had to do with the second part (it hadn't been legislated) unless the implication was that it would've been legislated had it not been so natural. Sorry if I misunderstood.
2) I get you now.
3) Okay. I guess in some cases they can be.
U S Health care, heck, may be all heath care, is everything but a free market. I pay, with insurance, the same to see my doctor as my friend who doesn't have insurance. This means that the health care provider makes more off me than the friend without insurance, and yet, my insurance company insists that I save money with insurance and that they negotiate better rates. Myself and other family members have received large bills for procedures that the insurance company has insisted are fully covered. When quizzed about it, we get told that either the provider used the wrong codes when submitting the bill or that they are simply trying to get you, the patient. to pay the difference between what the provider wants paid and what the insurance company has negotiated the procedure to be worth. As it turns out, even when the codes are corrected, the provider seems bent on collecting the difference anyway and in the end, they have nothing to lose by turning it over to some collection agency. What are we, as patients, going to do about it? In the end, after long hours on hold and long conversations with the insurance company and the provider, it often gets paid as it isn't worth fighting it anymore. And besides, the actual doctor we see is fine, he even tries to get some visits at no charge, but of course, some accountant changes the codes to insure that doesn't happen.
If you really want decent and free health care, become indigent and prove it. Have nothing worth anything and the hospitals still have to treat you, perform those life saving operations and send to bills the the last known address, make calls to you on your cell phone while you are living in some field asking you for that 50K. Before anyone says, that's why we pay so much, look at the average hospital and look at the marble, the many expansions and realize they still have more money to spend on things not needed to perform that operation. Did they need a multi-million dollar look for the proton machine or would having the machine in some metal warehouse looking building save just as many lives? Of course, those rich patients the hospitals really cater too would like it as much, now would they?
We could also talk about what health care providers make, but frankly, that is a two edged sword. Pro athletes make more normally and so who deserve it more, someone who can fix your heart or just entertain you for a couple of hours every other Sunday? Some, I'm sure, get more than their fair share, but that is the way of the world, is it not?
Hmm, in the end, it seems like greed and corruption is the most likely issue here. As long as the system is set up for them to get away with it, they will.
I have been inside the health care systems in most developed countries around the world and WITHOUT EXCEPTION they have lower costs and better overall outcomes than we do in this country. Some of them are single payer, some of them are dual system and some of them use highly regulated private insurance companies. They all work better than ours, but nobody becomes a multi-millionaire; unlike here. (Gov. Scott for example)
Quote from: stephendare on December 02, 2012, 09:49:15 AM
Quote from: St. Auggie on December 01, 2012, 11:32:56 PM
And if you die because of the insane wait times for these procedures what would you have paid to have had it done? There is always a trade off.
People die every day in the US because they cannot even get onto a wait for the procedures, St. Auggie.
Exactly!
Quote from: Dog Walker on December 02, 2012, 10:37:15 AM
I have been inside the health care systems in most developed countries around the world and WITHOUT EXCEPTION they have lower costs and better overall outcomes than we do in this country. Some of them are single payer, some of them are dual system and some of them use highly regulated private insurance companies. They all work better than ours, but nobody becomes a multi-millionaire; unlike here. (Gov. Scott for example)
Same experience.