Originally posted by no1marauderMy solution is to make the providers respect the consumers. Health care providers, like providers of any other commodity do not enrich themselves by excluding a large portion of the population, i.e. the poor, the elderly, the sick.
The only "solution" you offer is to freeze out large amounts of the populace i.e. the poor, the elderly, the sick from health care. Of course this would be fine with insurance companies, but why should a society accept such a system? Believe it or not, most people don't identify "liberty" with being free to die of easily treated conditions if they don't ...[text shortened]... chase a product has a real likelihood of causing your death it tends to shift the demand curve).
"In the modern economy, large entities like the government and insurance companies are the only brake on health care costs since they have some bargaining leverage."
That argument is shown to be faulty by the very conditions you cite. Consumers are the only brake in any economy, and they are eliminated by big business and government, who enable providers to continue to raise prices ignoring affordability.
The areas of the economy which have the least government interference, also show the most price restraint, and lower inflation, inspite of government interference with the monetary factors by central banks.
The in-elasticity of high end medical treatment is not the problem. Insurance had no problem dealing with hospitalization and major medical policies. Only when insurance was expected to deal with routine costs like annual physicals, baby checkups, cough and colds, bruised knees and the like, as well as dental and optical, all of which are predictable expenses that nearly everyone used to expect to pay for, did health care cost escalate out of control. These things are quite elastic, much as buying food is.
Once government got into Medicare, Medicaid, and unions bargained for gold plated cover everything "insurance" there was no brake on costs, the remaining free market became too small and too weak.
Originally posted by normbenignRegardless of what your laissez faire religion states, your premise is historically incorrect. Health care providers and other industries can exclude large segments of the population if their income is low or nonexistent. That is what has typically occurred in the health care industry absent government intervention.
My solution is to make the providers respect the consumers. Health care providers, like providers of any other commodity do not enrich themselves by excluding a large portion of the population, i.e. the poor, the elderly, the sick.
"In the modern economy, large entities like the government and insurance companies are the only brake on health care cost ...[text shortened]... insurance" there was no brake on costs, the remaining free market became too small and too weak.
More heavily regulated health care systems have far lower costs than the US. This has been repeatedly pointed out to you and just as consistently ignored by you. But your refusing to acknowledge this fact doesn't make it any less a fact.
Your ideological rigidity makes you incapable of actually looking at the world as it is. Inventing some type of prior "Golden Age" where health care was easily affordable and everybody got all that wanted is a bizarre mental exercise. Many, perhaps most, people went without health care before widespread insurance of the private and public variety was introduced and life expectancy, infant mortality and other measures of health were far worse. Essentially that's what you are advocating we return to but I don't think you'll find many takers; most people don't live in your fantasy world.
Originally posted by no1marauderWhy do people travel to the Philippines and Thailand (quite unregulated) for medical procedures No.1?
More heavily regulated health care systems have far lower costs than the US. This has been repeatedly pointed out to you and just as consistently ignored by you. But your refusing to acknowledge this fact doesn't make it any less a fact.
, infant mortality and other measures of health were far worse.
And don't even try to make out a heavily regulated healthcare industry was responsible for bringing down 'infant mortality' and 'other measure'... these things occur because of advances in medicine and food production not how many hundred pages of regs have been added the last year 🙄
Originally posted by WajomaAdvances in medicine (usually funded by government agencies) wouldn't have decreased infant mortality or increased longevity unless they were able to go into the hands of people. People without health insurance wouldn't benefit at all. Fortunately, most advanced countries rejected your and norm's backward looking views and made such advances available to the public.
Why do people travel to the Philippines and Thailand (quite unregulated) for medical procedures No.1?
And don't even try to make out a heavily regulated healthcare industry was responsible for bringing down 'infant mortality' and 'other measure'... these things occur because of advances in medicine and food production not how many hundred pages of regs have been added the last year 🙄
Originally posted by WajomaSome inconvenient (to laissez faire "libertarians"😉 facts:
Why do people travel to the Philippines and Thailand (quite unregulated) for medical procedures No.1?
And don't even try to make out a heavily regulated healthcare industry was responsible for bringing down 'infant mortality' and 'other measure'... these things occur because of advances in medicine and food production not how many hundred pages of regs have been added the last year 🙄
As of 1963, 20% of Americans living below the poverty line had never been examined by a physician; by 1970 this was true of only 8%. Between 1965 and 1980, infant mortality was halved, thanks to Medicaid and other government-subsidized health programs. The nutritional level of poor Americans improved substantially between the mid-1960s and the late 1970s, thanks to food stamp and school lunch programs. Children who received food stamps in the 1970s were less likely than children from similarly low-income families to develop diabetes, obesity and high blood pressure -- or to rely on welfare programs -- as adults.
http://www.cnn.com/2014/01/06/opinion/coontz-war-on-poverty/index.html?hpt=hp_bn7
Originally posted by no1marauderInfant mortality has gone down all over the place, even places without ACA
Some inconvenient (to laissez faire "libertarians"😉 facts:
As of 1963, 20% of Americans living below the poverty line had never been examined by a physician; by 1970 this was true of only 8%. [b]Between 1965 and 1980, infant mortality was halved, thanks to Medicaid and other government-subsidized health programs. The nutritional level ...[text shortened]... as adults.
http://www.cnn.com/2014/01/06/opinion/coontz-war-on-poverty/index.html?hpt=hp_bn7[/b]
"How to Lie with Statistics" Darrell Huff
Originally posted by no1marauder"As of 1963, 20% of Americans living below the poverty line had never been examined by a physician;"
Some inconvenient (to laissez faire "libertarians"😉 facts:
As of 1963, 20% of Americans living below the poverty line had never been examined by a physician; by 1970 this was true of only 8%. [b]Between 1965 and 1980, infant mortality was halved, thanks to Medicaid and other government-subsidized health programs. The nutritional level ...[text shortened]... as adults.
http://www.cnn.com/2014/01/06/opinion/coontz-war-on-poverty/index.html?hpt=hp_bn7[/b]
How many people was that?
"Between 1965 and 1980, infant mortality was halved,[/b] thanks to Medicaid and other government-subsidized health programs."
Ok, an assertion and the proof all in one sentence.
"Children who received food stamps in the 1970s were less likely than children from similarly low-income families to develop diabetes, obesity and high blood pressure -- or to rely on welfare programs -- as adults."
How about comparing them with low income, self sufficient workers?
A key word in the URL "opinion". Opinions aren't facts.
Originally posted by no1marauderIf anything government agencies have retarded science in medicine.
Advances in medicine (usually funded by government agencies) wouldn't have decreased infant mortality or increased longevity unless they were able to go into the hands of people. People without health insurance wouldn't benefit at all. Fortunately, most advanced countries rejected your and norm's backward looking views and made such advances available to the public.
Originally posted by normbenignIt's an opinion piece which cites various official statistics. As usual, you cite no facts in response.
"As of 1963, 20% of Americans living below the poverty line had never been examined by a physician;"
How many people was that?
"Between 1965 and 1980, infant mortality was halved, thanks to Medicaid and other government-subsidized health programs."
Ok, an assertion and the proof all in one sentence.
"Children who received food stamps in th ...[text shortened]... low income, self sufficient workers?
A key word in the URL "opinion". Opinions aren't facts.[/b]
Originally posted by no1marauderThe guvamint breaks the private research companies with the FDA, the the state worshipors want the guvamint to fix what the guvamint broke with moreeeeeee goobermint. You're getting some good internet connection up there on Mars or where ever you are No1
I know that's what the last speech in the Fountainhead says but are you ever going to actually return to the real Planet Earth?
1 edit
Originally posted by WajomaIs it your claim that there has been less developments of useful medicines since the FDA was formed?
The guvamint breaks the private research companies with the FDA, the the state worshipors want the guvamint to fix what the guvamint broke with moreeeeeee goobermint. You're getting some good internet connection up there on Mars or where ever you are No1
And is it your claim that the private section should be able to just put any drug on the market that they chose at any time without any third party testing if they desire?