Warren's big healthcare plan relies on big assumptions

[samran]

50 minutes ago, mogandave said:

If you know it should be pretty easy to tell me. I read it, and it included nothing that would lead me to believe that Medicare is more efficient than private sector insurance. 
 

Paying the hospital less does not necessarily mean they are more efficient. Keep in mind, you can’t use Medicare at any hospital, you can only use it at hospitals that take the lower fees. 
 

 

Well you can't use your insurance 'out of network' either.

 

But really, spending less for the same service doesn't equate to efficiency for you? Its a basic economic concept.

 

" Put another way, if, between 2015 and 2017, hospitals would have charged these health plans the same rates as Medicare, it would have reduced health spending by $7.7 billion. "

 

The market strength of medicare, or in the case of Michigan which had a strong union prescience means a better negotiating power to get a better deal.

 

This really isn't rocket science, but many people are playing dumb (or deliberately obtuse) about understanding this issue.

[RideJocky]

2 hours ago, samran said:

Well you can't use your insurance 'out of network' either.

 

But really, spending less for the same service doesn't equate to efficiency for you? Its a basic economic concept.

 

" Put another way, if, between 2015 and 2017, hospitals would have charged these health plans the same rates as Medicare, it would have reduced health spending by $7.7 billion. "

 

The market strength of medicare, or in the case of Michigan which had a strong union prescience means a better negotiating power to get a better deal.

 

This really isn't rocket science, but many people are playing dumb (or deliberately obtuse) about understanding this issue. 

I could use virtually any hospital with Cigna and BCBS, they did not have to be in network, it just took a little longer to get reimbursed. Bumrungrad was in-network and I had a fair amount of work done there.

 

Incidentally, Medicare is useless outside the US, yes?
 

No, paying less for the same service does not necessarily equate to better efficiency. The overall cost is what’s important, not how much a particular vender gets paid. You also have to compare the quality of the service. 
 

Didn’t the article make it clear there may not be any savings? But assuming there would be, their best estimate of 7.7 billion savings is out of 3.3 trillion, what’s that, about two-tenths of a percent?

Would you compel all the hospitals  that do not accept Medicare and the lower fees? 
 

My idea of a basic economic concept is that if a hospital collets $100 from half  their patients for a particular service, and $200 from the other half of their patients for the same service, when the hospital is compelled to charge the same amount for everyone, the price is going up to $150. 

Yes, some people play dumb, some people aren’t playing...

 

[Crazy Alex]

4 minutes ago, RideJocky said:

I could use virtually any hospital with Cigna and BCBS, they did not have to be in network, it just took a little longer to get reimbursed. Bumrungrad was in-network and I had a fair amount of work done there.

 

Incidentally, Medicare is useless outside the US, yes?
 

No, paying less for the same service does not necessarily equate to better efficiency. The overall cost is what’s important, not how much a particular vender gets paid. You also have to compare the quality of the service. 
 

Didn’t the article make it clear there may not be any savings? But assuming there would be, their best estimate of 7.7 billion savings is out of 3.3 trillion, what’s that, about two-tenths of a percent?

Would you compel all the hospitals  that do not accept Medicare and the lower fees? 
 

My idea of a basic economic concept is that if a hospital collets $100 from half  their patients for a particular service, and $200 from the other half of their patients for the same service, when the hospital is compelled to charge the same amount for everyone, the price is going up to $150. 

Yes, some people play dumb, some people aren’t playing...

 

Thanks for touching on one of the dirty little secrets: Medicare reimbursement rates. Many practices limit the number of government health care patients such as Medicare and Medicaid because of the low reimbursement rates. Some don't accept them at all. I was at a Medicare information seminar recently. One of the attendees told me she had to call six different PCPs before she even found one that accepted Medicare.

 

Obviously, some practices have decided their overhead is such that they simply can't accept unlimited numbers of patients whose insurance pays sub-market rates for services.

 

This is one of many areas many people don't understand when making simplistic rants about Medicare-for-all being the solution.

[EVENKEEL]

On 11/6/2019 at 3:14 AM, sirineou said:

You would not be paying for your family, or for anyone else, you would simply be paying higher taxes to cover the cost of health care that would be lower than the insurance premium   you pay now. And get better coverage because you will not be dropped after you got sick and could not work. 

  An average premium (Blue cross Blue shield) for a family in their 30s with three young kids is (if I remember correctly from another post)  about $14,000 a year now . Your taxes will not go up by $14,000 a year so your costs will decrease and your coverage conditions will improve.

The employer pays the majority of the insurance. I have BC/BS thru my DOD job and I pay $3000/yr for good coverage for myself only, gov pays the rest.

[sirineou]

8 minutes ago, EVENKEEL said:

The employer pays the majority of the insurance. I have BC/BS thru my DOD job and I pay $3000/yr for good coverage for myself only, gov pays the rest.

I am sure you know that "There is no such thing as a free lunch" . someone pays somewhere. I don't pay anything for my coverage but I am sure my employer pays . and if my employer did not have to pay for my medical , they would be able to pay me more, or charge less for their products.

  The bottom line is that countries that have a single provider health care system , spend less and achieve better outcomes.  

[RideJocky]

14 minutes ago, sirineou said:

I am sure you know that "There is no such thing as a free lunch" . someone pays somewhere. I don't pay anything for my coverage but I am sure my employer pays . and if my employer did not have to pay for my medical , they would be able to pay me more, or charge less for their products.

  The bottom line is that countries that have a single provider health care system , spend less and achieve better outcomes.  

we seem to spend quite a bit for public education for pretty dismal results, why would we expect healthcare to be different. 
 

still have yet to see any evidence of the “better outcomes” beyond the silly longevity charts.

[EVENKEEL]

I like my ins, I want to keep my Ins. which is international. The gov could never handle this medicare for all successfully, never. Gov employees are bullet proof, and I speak from personal experience dealing with my Fed employer, they are mostly lazy and incompetent. I can't even begin to imagine the nightmare of having them regulate my healthcare. 

 

No one addresses the issue of wages for the doctors and nurses. The emergency rooms will become a circus filled with people with sniffles being treated. And then the gov will have a say in what med care is viable. The word "viable" will become common when you're turned down for care because of age.

 

I'm ready for retirement and will keep my BC/BS at current cost for me. 

[samran]

7 minutes ago, EVENKEEL said:

I like my ins, I want to keep my Ins. which is international. The gov could never handle this medicare for all successfully, never. Gov employees are bullet proof, and I speak from personal experience dealing with my Fed employer, they are mostly lazy and incompetent. I can't even begin to imagine the nightmare of having them regulate my healthcare. 

 

No one addresses the issue of wages for the doctors and nurses. The emergency rooms will become a circus filled with people with sniffles being treated. And then the gov will have a say in what med care is viable. The word "viable" will become common when you're turned down for care because of age.

 

I'm ready for retirement and will keep my BC/BS at current cost for me. 

You can’t imagine government regulating your health care? Well it seems they did well enough to negotiate a good deal with your insurance from the sounds of it. 
 

As for doctors salaries etc. Most of the doctors i know who work in the public system in Australia have a pretty good living, live in the best suburbs and kids go to good schools. They are still bloody well paid. 
 

And so what if people taking advantage of the access universal health care gives them. Much better you have people seeking health care at an early stage as opposed to leaving it till it’s too late. 

[Crazy Alex]

12 minutes ago, EVENKEEL said:

I like my ins, I want to keep my Ins. which is international. The gov could never handle this medicare for all successfully, never. Gov employees are bullet proof, and I speak from personal experience dealing with my Fed employer, they are mostly lazy and incompetent. I can't even begin to imagine the nightmare of having them regulate my healthcare. 

 

No one addresses the issue of wages for the doctors and nurses. The emergency rooms will become a circus filled with people with sniffles being treated. And then the gov will have a say in what med care is viable. The word "viable" will become common when you're turned down for care because of age.

 

I'm ready for retirement and will keep my BC/BS at current cost for me. 

As you alluded to, one of the biggest problems with "Medicare-for-all" and other such silliness is the power it will give the federal government. Leftists love the idea of government wielding such power. For example, in England, health care can now be denied to people deemed as "racists".

 

https://www.thenewamerican.com/world-news/europe/item/33955-uk-health-service-to-deny-treatment-to-patients-deemed-racist-or-sexist

 

Rest assured there are plenty of power-hungry Americans who would LOVE to deny health care to whomever they deem as "undesirables". Ironically, many of these are the same people who incessantly rant about how health care is a human right.

[Cryingdick]

Her plan is becoming the center of ridicule on both sides now. Even the NYT is running pieces calling it a disaster. The circular firing squad is setting it's sights on her now.

 

f she makes it through the primary she will be dead in the water in a general election. Will be interesting to see if Buttigieg can gain some traction out of this. After only a week or so of releasing her plan it is going up in smoke bigly.

[sirineou]

1 hour ago, EVENKEEL said:

I like my ins, I want to keep my Ins. which is international. The gov could never handle this medicare for all successfully, never. Gov employees are bullet proof, and I speak from personal experience dealing with my Fed employer, they are mostly lazy and incompetent. I can't even begin to imagine the nightmare of having them regulate my healthcare. 

 

No one addresses the issue of wages for the doctors and nurses. The emergency rooms will become a circus filled with people with sniffles being treated. And then the gov will have a say in what med care is viable. The word "viable" will become common when you're turned down for care because of age.

 

I'm ready for retirement and will keep my BC/BS at current cost for me. 

I don't know why other countries can and we can't and no one has being able to explain it to me so far, perhaps you can.

I Like my insurance also but my daughter will be thrown off of it when she turns 26 in three years,  and I do care for other people who don't have the opportunity to work  for the government, a good union, or a good company, and for those who after they get sick can't work and pay their premiums..

You of course know that  no one stops you from getting supplemental insurance once you are covered by medicare, right?   

[sirineou]

2 minutes ago, Cryingdick said:

Her plan is becoming the center of ridicule on both sides now. Even the NYT is running pieces calling it a disaster. The circular firing squad is setting it's sights on her now.

 

f she makes it through the primary she will be dead in the water in a general election. Will be interesting to see if Buttigieg can gain some traction out of this. After only a week or so of releasing her plan it is going up in smoke bigly.

Links please

[Cryingdick]

1 minute ago, sirineou said:

Links please

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/04/opinion/medicare-warren-plan.html

 

It is becoming increasingly obvious there will need to be a tax on the middle class or a VAT tax with similar rates to Europe to do this. 25% VAT... 

Edited November 7, 2019 by Cryingdick

[sirineou]

1 minute ago, Cryingdick said:

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/04/opinion/medicare-warren-plan.html

that's an opinion and like the proverbial bodily orifice , everybody has one including NYT 

[Cryingdick]

1 minute ago, sirineou said:

that's an opinion and like the proverbial bodily orifice , everybody has one including NYT 

 

Okay well NYT is normally the gold standard around here. Most other sources aren't accepted. Any way my point is she is beginning to get a lot of flack from the left. She keeps picking fights with people she doesn't need to as well. 

 

 

Edited November 7, 2019 by Cryingdick

[sirineou]

4 minutes ago, Cryingdick said:

 

Okay well NYT is normally the gold standard around here. Most other sources aren't accepted. Any way my point is she is beginning to get a lot of flack from the left. She keeps picking fights with people she doesn't need to as well. 

 

 

Unfortunately for me , I cant read it , it says I need to log in or subscribe,

 

 

[Cryingdick]

1 minute ago, sirineou said:

Unfortunately for me , I cant read it , it says I need to log in or subscribe,

 

 

 

Yet you had no hesitation in dismissing it. LOl Maybe try Google it. I could read some of it but it went to pay wall. I don't subscribe.

[sirineou]

17 minutes ago, Cryingdick said:

Okay well NYT is normally the gold standard around here.

NYT is the gold standard only when they support my position, any other time they suck big........

[Cryingdick]

5 minutes ago, sirineou said:

NYT is the gold standard only when they support my position, any other time they suck big........

 

Well thanks for being humorous. Not really trying for a protracted debate this morning anyway. My only real point is both sides are going through her plan with fine tooth combs now and the criticism from the left is getting louder.

Edited November 7, 2019 by Cryingdick

[samran]

3 hours ago, RideJocky said:

I could use virtually any hospital with Cigna and BCBS, they did not have to be in network, it just took a little longer to get reimbursed. Bumrungrad was in-network and I had a fair amount of work done there.

 

Incidentally, Medicare is useless outside the US, yes?
 

No, paying less for the same service does not necessarily equate to better efficiency. The overall cost is what’s important, not how much a particular vender gets paid. You also have to compare the quality of the service. 
 

Didn’t the article make it clear there may not be any savings? But assuming there would be, their best estimate of 7.7 billion savings is out of 3.3 trillion, what’s that, about two-tenths of a percent?

Would you compel all the hospitals  that do not accept Medicare and the lower fees? 
 

My idea of a basic economic concept is that if a hospital collets $100 from half  their patients for a particular service, and $200 from the other half of their patients for the same service, when the hospital is compelled to charge the same amount for everyone, the price is going up to $150. 

Yes, some people play dumb, some people aren’t playing...

 

 

No, you’ve got it the wrong way around. 

 

You need to remember one word: Monopoly. 

 

Cause there isn’t a hospital on every street corner and doctors don’t grow on trees, the provision of medical services enjoys a very high degree of market power.

 

And cause we don’t have any choice but to use them (where else do you go when you are sick?), they can charge what they want. And the do. Which is why you guys in the US pay double what the rest of us do.

 

To use your example. It might cost $40 to produce that medical service. In a highly competitive situation (think basically any other consumer service), you might be able to get away with a 20% mark up and sell if for $50. But medical services aren’t highly competitive. 

 

Cause they enjoy a high degree of market power however, the charge what they can get away with. 

 

Medicare, representing just about every baby boomer cuts best deal. How many tens of million of Americans is that? A lot. And with that comes leverage. They get that service for $100. The hospitals still want their business. 

 

The insurance company which represents a fraction of that, well their negotiating power against those medical monopolies is a lot less. So they are going to be charged $200.

 

Imagine if you had a single payer insurer representing all 400 odd million of you? Yeah, you’d get something closer to that $50 mark.

 

Drug companies, doctors unions and hospitals have always opposed the creation of national health services. Now you know why.

 

Why these systems make things cheaper comes down to one thing - A stronger negotiating position on behalf of the consumers of health care. Something you’ve never had before in the US.

[Cryingdick]

12 minutes ago, samran said:

 

No, you’ve got it the wrong way around. 

 

You need to remember one word: Monopoly. 

 

Cause there isn’t a hospital on every street corner and doctors don’t grow on trees, the provision of medical services enjoys a very high degree of market power.

 

And cause we don’t have any choice but to use them (where else do you go when you are sick?), they can charge what they want. And the do. Which is why you guys in the US pay double what the rest of us do.

 

To use your example. It might cost $40 to produce that medical service. In a highly competitive situation (think basically any other consumer service), you might be able to get away with a 20% mark up and sell if for $50. But medical services aren’t highly competitive. 

 

Cause they enjoy a high degree of market power however, the charge what they can get away with. 

 

Medicare, representing just about every baby boomer cuts best deal. How many tens of million of Americans is that? A lot. And with that comes leverage. They get that service for $100. The hospitals still want their business. 

 

The insurance company which represents a fraction of that, well their negotiating power against those medical monopolies is a lot less. So they are going to be charged $200.

 

Imagine if you had a single payer insurer representing all 400 odd million of you? Yeah, you’d get something closer to that $50 mark.

 

Drug companies, doctors unions and hospitals have always opposed the creation of national health services. Now you know why.

 

Why these systems make things cheaper comes down to one thing - A stronger negotiating position on behalf of the consumers of health care. Something you’ve never had before in the US.

 

Also a very high VAT. You say you pay less for healthcare but you pay more for virtually everything else in life. Cars, houses, computers etc. You could argue it's worth the trade but you can't ignore that VAT of up to 27% is how this is able to work. Also much lower populations, more concentrated population, amongst other things.

 

Don't forget that healthcare is just one area Warren intends to spend. Add the GreenNew Deal, school days increased by two hours, etc. This is just the start of a $100 trillion over all plan. Not too mention opening the border and giving benefits to illegals. Her plan is laughable at best. 

 

People with in the party are taking notice and there is going to be huge pull back soon. Warren is now the primary target.

[samran]

7 hours ago, Cryingdick said:

 

Also a very high VAT. You say you pay less for healthcare but you pay more for virtually everything else in life. Cars, houses, computers etc. You could argue it's worth the trade but you can't ignore that VAT of up to 27% is how this is able to work. Also much lower populations, more concentrated population, amongst other things.

 

Don't forget that healthcare is just one area Warren intends to spend. Add the GreenNew Deal, school days increased by two hours, etc. This is just the start of a $100 trillion over all plan. Not too mention opening the border and giving benefits to illegals. Her plan is laughable at best. 

 

People with in the party are taking notice and there is going to be huge pull back soon. Warren is now the primary target.

A higher VAT, cost of living etc has nothing to do with it.  Health systems are cheaper cause of the way they are designed to negate the inherent market power of medical services services.

 
This done in jurisdictions where the net tax take is low like the US (around 25% of GDP)  - Singapore or Australia where you have decent medical care but other social services are more limited.

 

At the other end of the scale are the Europeans, with their high levels of social welfare and social services and the resulting higher next taxes. 
 

So just because you can have a system with cheaper health care, doesn’t mean all these other taxes have to go up unless you are wanting to run more social services. 

Edited November 8, 2019 by samran

[RideJocky]

9 hours ago, samran said:

 

No, you’ve got it the wrong way around. 

 

You need to remember one word: Monopoly. 

 

Cause there isn’t a hospital on every street corner and doctors don’t grow on trees, the provision of medical services enjoys a very high degree of market power.

 

Not sure how I have it backwards, but yes, if you assume the hospitals and clinics are all making huge margins it might make sense, but if that’t true, why do so many not accept it? 
 

Again, many hospitals, clinics and doctors do not accept Medicare.

 

Again, how do I use Medicare outside the US? Oh, thats’s right, I can’t.

 

With over 6,000 hospitals (many are non-profit) and countless clinics in the US they are pretty much on every corner, and but for the AMA there would be many more.

 

 

9 hours ago, samran said:

 

And cause we don’t have any choice but to use them (where else do you go when you are sick?), they can charge what they want. And the do. Which is why you guys in the US pay double what the rest of us do.

 

To use your example. It might cost $40 to produce that medical service. In a highly competitive situation (think basically any other consumer service), you might be able to get away with a 20% mark up and sell if for $50. But medical services aren’t highly competitive. 

 

Cause they enjoy a high degree of market power however, the charge what they can get away with. 

 

Medicare, representing just about every baby boomer cuts best deal. How many tens of million of Americans is that? A lot. And with that comes leverage. They get that service for $100. The hospitals still want their business. 

 

The insurance company which represents a fraction of that, well their negotiating power against those medical monopolies is a lot less. So they are going to be charged $200.

 

Imagine if you had a single payer insurer representing all 400 odd million of you? Yeah, you’d get something closer to that $50 mark.

 

Drug companies, doctors unions and hospitals have always opposed the creation of national health services. Now you know why.

 

Why these systems make things cheaper comes down to one thing - A stronger negotiating position on behalf of the consumers of health care. Something you’ve never had before in the US.

Actually, in the US we can pretty much go wherever we want for healthcare, unless you’re trying to use Medicare, in which case you can’t. Using Medicare, you can only go to those that accept the negotiated rate. 

 

You seem to be trying to make an argument that a government takeover of the medical industry is going to increase competition, is that really your belief? 
 

You seem to know nothing about the US system, where are you from?

 

Your argument that insurance companies costs are too high is refreshing, most people pushing for single payer make the argument it’s their margin that’s too high. 
 

I’m sure there are any number of things that could be done to drive the cost down, I just don’t see a government takeover as being one of them. The cost has certainly continued (or even accelerated) going up since the “Affordable Care Act”.

[samran]

1 hour ago, RideJocky said:

 

Not sure how I have it backwards, but yes, if you assume the hospitals and clinics are all making huge margins it might make sense, but if that’t true, why do so many not accept it? 
 

Again, many hospitals, clinics and doctors do not accept Medicare.

 

Again, how do I use Medicare outside the US? Oh, thats’s right, I can’t.

 

With over 6,000 hospitals (many are non-profit) and countless clinics in the US they are pretty much on every corner, and but for the AMA there would be many more.

 

 

Actually, in the US we can pretty much go wherever we want for healthcare, unless you’re trying to use Medicare, in which case you can’t. Using Medicare, you can only go to those that accept the negotiated rate. 

 

You seem to be trying to make an argument that a government takeover of the medical industry is going to increase competition, is that really your belief? 
 

You seem to know nothing about the US system, where are you from?

 

Your argument that insurance companies costs are too high is refreshing, most people pushing for single payer make the argument it’s their margin that’s too high. 
 

I’m sure there are any number of things that could be done to drive the cost down, I just don’t see a government takeover as being one of them. The cost has certainly continued (or even accelerated) going up since the “Affordable Care Act”.

All I’m telling you is Health economics 101. High market power exists in the provision of health services. The US does nothing to contain it. Blind Freddy can see it. 

 

The ACA doesn’t help with this. It would have been part of the solution with expanding the insurance pool by bringing in more subscribers but it does nothing on cost control which is what the US lacks. The ACA was just free money for the insurance companies in the end. 

 

That Medicare isn’t accepted overseas is important to this argument how? Most national health systems aren’t useable internationally, though a bunch of EU countries, Australia and NZ provide reciprocal access if you happen to be travelling there. 

 

That US Medicare isn’t even accepted by all hospitals just goes to show the market power of the hospitals. 
 

That your insurance is portable, well bully for you - but doesn’t change the fact that you are paying double. 

Edited November 8, 2019 by samran

[GarryP]

22 minutes ago, samran said:

All I’m telling you is Health economics 101. High market power exists in the provision of health services. The US does nothing to contain it. Blind Freddy can see it. 

 

The ACA doesn’t help with this. It would have been part of the solution with expanding the insurance pool by bringing in more subscribers but it does nothing on cost control which is what the US lacks. The ACA was just free money for the insurance companies in the end. 

 

That Medicare isn’t accepted overseas is important to this argument how? Most national health systems aren’t useable internationally, though a bunch of EU countries, Australia and NZ provide reciprocal access if you happen to be travelling there. 

 

That US Medicare isn’t even accepted by all hospitals just goes to show the market power of the hospitals. 
 

That your insurance is portable, well bully for you - but doesn’t change the fact that you are paying double. 

When I travel overseas I buy travel insurance. Isn't that normal? I don't understand why he bangs on about coverage when traveling overseas. We are talking about a centralized healthcare in a particular country. Also, if people want to pay for private coverage, they can still do so under such a system. You do not lose that option. Even in the UK there are plenty of private hospitals, despite there being NHS.     

[RideJocky]

4 hours ago, samran said:

All I’m telling you is Health economics 101. High market power exists in the provision of health services. The US does nothing to contain it. Blind Freddy can see it. 
 

 

Yes, you keep saying that, but “health economics” are really no different from the economics of any other commodity. 
 

Actually the US does a lot under the guise of containing the cost, but what  they (we) do, ultimately just drives the cost up. 
 

4 hours ago, samran said:

 

The ACA doesn’t help with this. It would have been part of the solution with expanding the insurance pool by bringing in more subscribers but it does nothing on cost control which is what the US lacks. The ACA was just free money for the insurance companies in the end. 
 

 

Yes, the left wing of our governments best effort at health care reform resulted in most all of us getting less and paying more for it. Of course they’ll claim it was all the fault of Trump and the evil republicans, but they lie like you and I breath.

 

4 hours ago, samran said:

 

That Medicare isn’t accepted overseas is important to this argument how? Most national health systems aren’t useable internationally, though a bunch of EU countries, Australia and NZ provide reciprocal access if you happen to be travelling there. 
 

 

Well, it’s important to me and (I assume) everyone else that works overseas. I have to give up my policy that is good at virtually any hospital, clinic or doctor’s office in the world for Medicare, which I can only use when I visit the US, and then only at the facilities that accept the “negotiated” rate. 

 

This benefits me how? I pay less for a policy that’s useless to me.
 

 

4 hours ago, samran said:

 

That US Medicare isn’t even accepted by all hospitals just goes to show the market power of the hospitals.

 

Please explain this, as it makes no sense to me. Your position (as I understand it) hospital margins are huge, and but for the Medicare’s negotiating power, they’d be making even more.

 

4 hours ago, samran said:

 

That your insurance is portable, well bully for you - but doesn’t change the fact that you are paying double. 

Again, I do not see how I benefit paying half-price for a policy I can’t use.

 

We spend much more than most other countries for education as well, and the quality is (for the most part) pathetic. The quality of our healthcare is great.

 

[samran]

1 hour ago, RideJocky said:

 

Yes, you keep saying that, but “health economics” are really no different from the economics of any other commodity.

 

No, this is where you a fundamentally wrong. I'll just address just one of your points.

 

Markets work very well when a number of things happen:

 

- Many sellers, and a market easy enough for them to enter into: So there is competition amongst this group to sell for the best price

- Well informed buyers: People more or less know what they are purchasing, and because of the price signals set out from sellers, know what the prices are.

- Choice and ability to substitute: Don't like what this person is offering? Go elsewhere.

- A defined budget: You know roughly what money you have to spend.

 

To give an easy example. You need transport.

 

- You can't afford a Merc? Buy a Toyota. Not enough cash for a new Toyota? Buy second hand.

- Don't like what this dealer is offering? Go up the road and see what the next dealer is selling

- Not sure or this model? Read up on it a bit.

- Still can't afford a car, or decide you don't 'really' need one. Then walking, the bus, a bike or the train are still options.

 

So in a well functioning market you have all the ingredients: Many sellers, Well informed buyers, Choice, a decent substitute and a budget you can stick to.

 

In the end You get to where you want to go.

 

Next question: Do these preconditions exist in medical care? Lets see:

 

Choice?

 

- Do you choose to get sick? No, do you choose what you are going to get sick with? You don't get a choice most of the time. Cancer? Which type? Heart issues maybe? When?

- What medical care/treatment are you going to take? This is defined by what you get.

- Timing of your purchase? Forget about it.

 

So no choice at all.

 

The ability to substitute?
 

- You have cancer, you need chemo. You have a heart blockage, you'll need bypass.

 

So no ability to change the product/treament you buy.

 

Many sellers?

 

- No, doctors take years to train, then even more to specialise. You may get the appearance of choice - but it is extremely limited. So no competition

 

Well informed consumers?

 

- The average 'consumer' of medical care isn't in the position to question the decade or more of training and experience when they tell you what product you essentially you are going to buy off them. They tell you to take your medicine, you take it.

 

- Rushed to surgery in an ambulance unconcious? They aren't going to wait till you wake up if its urgent.

 

Also here, no choice. In what other market does the provider of the product essentially make the decision for you? Fundamentally, very few.

 

A budget you can stick to/transparent pricing?

 

- If you've gotten this far with me, then you'll see, you have no choice in any of the above. Saying, 'well I'll take the 'budget' option (if you are concious) is not an option.

 

- How do you know what your chemo drug treatment 'really' costs as a humble consumer.

 

So your quote again:

 

"but “health economics” are really no different from the economics of any other commodity. "

 

...is fundamentally wrong. It is entirely different to a 'normal' good, and the world of economics (and the rest of the world) knows this and treats it as such. 

 

Crying 'socialism' like you have been preconditioned to for the past 60 years isn't going to change this. Using the 'left wing' tags when you come to debate this topic just proves you've been led down the garden path on these simple facts. Not fake news. Common sense and fact.

 

Edited November 8, 2019 by samran

[RideJocky]

26 minutes ago, samran said:

Crying 'socialism' like you have been preconditioned to for the past 60 years isn't going to change this. Using the 'left wing' tags when you come to debate this topic just proves you've been led down the garden path on these simple facts. Not fake news. Common sense and fact.

 

I was tagging nothing, my only reference to left-wing was in regard to who was responsible for the ACA, which has resulted in most people paying  more and getting less. 

 

Is it your position that the ACA was not forced on us by left-wing of our government? 

 

Edited November 8, 2019 by RideJocky

[samran]

4 minutes ago, RideJocky said:

I was tagging nothing, my only reference to left-wing was in regard to who was responsible for the ACA, which has resulted in most people paying  more and getting less. 

 

Is it your position that the ACA was not forced on us by left-wing of our government? 

 

Fair enough.

 

Forced? well, as much as any law of the land which was passed by a democratically elected congress is 'forced' on you....

 

But, that's beside the point here. You said health economics was the same. It isn't.

Edited November 8, 2019 by samran

[sirineou]

14 minutes ago, RideJocky said:

I was tagging nothing, my only reference to left-wing was in regard to who was responsible for the ACA, which has resulted in most people paying  more and getting less. 

 

Is it your position that the ACA was not forced on us by left-wing of our government? 

 

I read Samran's reply carefully and it seems to me that his position was plainly clear . "Health insurance is not the same as other markets" as you claimed. 

I think he made a compelling argument.  What is your rebuttal , or do you concede the point and change the subject??

Edited November 8, 2019 by sirineou