4 ms·

> Why would you imagine that? Why do you imagine it wouldn't!? The portions of health care universally not covered by insurance are not subject to the same co

> Why would you imagine that? Why do you imagine it wouldn't!? The portions of health care universally not covered by insurance are not subject to the same cost disease of the industry as a whole. Lo and behold, the real cost of eg. breast augmentation is declining (total cost of about 4K)! The cost of lasik has decreased ~50% over the last 15 years, current results are better, and the surgery has the highest rating of patient satisfaction in the entire industry! A similar result anywhere else in medicine in the US is completely unimaginable. > Regardless... You must also then ask the question, whether a "truly free market health care system" would be ethical. Nonsense. The important question is: 'would a "truly free market health care system" be more ethical than the current system'.

learc83 9y ago
>Why do you imagine it wouldn't!? The portions of health care universally not covered by insurance are not subject to the same cost disease of the industry as a whole. Lo and behold, the real cost of eg. breast augmentation is declining (total cost of about 4K)! The cost of lasik has decreased ~50% over the last 15 years, current results are better, and the surgery has the highest rating of patient satisfaction in the entire industry! A similar result anywhere else in medicine in the US is completely unimaginable. In addition to not being covered by insurance those procedures are all elective. For elective procedures a free market is more likely to produce better results. There is no way to make money insuring or treating poor, sick patients. The free market just can't do it. The inherent problem here is that the math behind traditional free market economics breaks down when it comes to life saving goods and services. There is no equilibrium to be had, because of a combination of issues. First the answer to how much will you pay to access this live saving drug is "anything" for 99% of the population. Second, life saving services are time sensitive--customers often can't choose a different supplier except the closest one. Third patent law ensures that there often isn't an alternative supplier.
ravitation 9y ago
Elective procedures work well in a free market system. That is not surprising at all, nor is it incredibly meaningful when trying to look at the health care industry as a whole. > Nonsense. The important question is: 'would a "truly free market health care system" be more ethical than the current system'. If you want to be overly semantic, which you clearly do, that's actually not "the important question" since it actually tells you less than my original question. You care about "a truly free market health care system's" relative ethicality not just in relation to the current system, but also in relation to (all) other potential alternative health care system (like a single payer system)...
- com2kid 9y ago
  > Elective procedures work well in a free market system. Dental work is only semi-elective, and prices are driven down thanks to transparent pricing. Likewise, one can argue that vision services are also non-elective (e.g. people need to see), and prices go through a very large range. Many medical conditions are not "emergencies". And even so, I often get referrals from my doctor to external imaging services. If those prices were transparent, I imagine a downwards pressure on prices would happen quite quickly. To give an example, ultrasounds for pregnancies cost ~$250, ultrasounds for almost anything else are 50% to 100% higher in price. In a similar vein, x-rays at the dentist are next to nothing (despite involving a cool robot that rotates around my head, and a digital x-ray sensor that lets me look at images right away!), x-rays for anything else can end up in the hundreds. Hospitals would also benefit from transparent pricing, if there was a legal mandate that all suppliers be open and honest, prices would drop for everyone. When a hospital sees that other hospitals in the area can offer the same service at a lower cost, meeting the same quality standards, then they can start pushing their vendors to lower prices.

learc83 9y ago

>Why do you imagine it wouldn't!? The portions of health care universally not covered by insurance are not subject to the same cost disease of the industry as a whole. Lo and behold, the real cost of eg. breast augmentation is declining (total cost of about 4K)! The cost of lasik has decreased ~50% over the last 15 years, current results are better, and the surgery has the highest rating of patient satisfaction in the entire industry! A similar result anywhere else in medicine in the US is completely unimaginable. In addition to not being covered by insurance those procedures are all elective. For elective procedures a free market is more likely to produce better results. There is no way to make money insuring or treating poor, sick patients. The free market just can't do it. The inherent problem here is that the math behind traditional free market economics breaks down when it comes to life saving goods and services. There is no equilibrium to be had, because of a combination of issues. First the answer to how much will you pay to access this live saving drug is "anything" for 99% of the population. Second, life saving services are time sensitive--customers often can't choose a different supplier except the closest one. Third patent law ensures that there often isn't an alternative supplier.

ravitation 9y ago

Elective procedures work well in a free market system. That is not surprising at all, nor is it incredibly meaningful when trying to look at the health care industry as a whole. > Nonsense. The important question is: 'would a "truly free market health care system" be more ethical than the current system'. If you want to be overly semantic, which you clearly do, that's actually not "the important question" since it actually tells you less than my original question. You care about "a truly free market health care system's" relative ethicality not just in relation to the current system, but also in relation to (all) other potential alternative health care system (like a single payer system)...

com2kid 9y ago
> Elective procedures work well in a free market system. Dental work is only semi-elective, and prices are driven down thanks to transparent pricing. Likewise, one can argue that vision services are also non-elective (e.g. people need to see), and prices go through a very large range. Many medical conditions are not "emergencies". And even so, I often get referrals from my doctor to external imaging services. If those prices were transparent, I imagine a downwards pressure on prices would happen quite quickly. To give an example, ultrasounds for pregnancies cost ~$250, ultrasounds for almost anything else are 50% to 100% higher in price. In a similar vein, x-rays at the dentist are next to nothing (despite involving a cool robot that rotates around my head, and a digital x-ray sensor that lets me look at images right away!), x-rays for anything else can end up in the hundreds. Hospitals would also benefit from transparent pricing, if there was a legal mandate that all suppliers be open and honest, prices would drop for everyone. When a hospital sees that other hospitals in the area can offer the same service at a lower cost, meeting the same quality standards, then they can start pushing their vendors to lower prices.