4 ms·

It's simple economics: third party payment. Patients want as much care as possible, doctors are incentivised to provide it and insurance companies pay for it. U

by dmitri1981 9y ago

It's simple economics: third party payment. Patients want as much care as possible, doctors are incentivised to provide it and insurance companies pay for it. Until that changes healthcare costs will not decrease

bildung 9y ago
That can't be the reason, as most other industrialized nations have that too, yet pay less.
- dmitri1981 9y ago
  Single payer systems are popular and work well, but you are right that it is not the only solution. Countries like Germany use heavy regulation to manage the healthcare system. However, I don't think Americans would accept this level of "government interference".
  - vidarh 9y ago
    They already have that level of government interference, just not in the right way. That is the bizarre part of the US system - it might very well work better than today if it was actually a free market, but they've managed to get the worst of both: A highly regulated market where the regulations doesn't ensure proper service.
hackeraccount 9y ago
I used to think that. My only argument of skepticism is sort of weird. Animal health care costs. Apparently the cost of vets is going up just as fast as that of humans. And in that case it's mainly first party payment. It could be that the two have no connection but for me, it raises doubts. Honestly my current theory about health care costs is that they're high - and are inflating - because people like health care. There's a basket of potential goods and people really like that particular item. To get it they spend what they have and then pressure politicians to get them ways to spend money they don't have. They complain more and so the politicians find ways to hide the costs from them.
- peacetreefrog 9y ago
  I agree with you, as people get richer they spend more on health, for themselves and their pets. But just because vet costs are increasing at a similar rate (or more) than human costs doesn't mean the third party vs first party thing isn't the issue. Absolute overall human health care costs are still way higher then vet costs for similar services(1), despite the rates of increase the past few years. Also, anecdotally, some vets are going the other way. There's a vet near my house, for example, that just started weekend + holiday hours with rates the same as to their normal ones. We hadn't even gone their before, but when my dog woke up last Easter with some eye problem, we called around, found them, and got some ointment that helped. The other two options would have been: wait a day, or go into an emergency clinic that's k's of dollars. If we had pet insurance I'm sure we just would have gone in without thinking. 1: http://parkhillvet.com/2012/09/comparing-costs-of-human-vs-pet-health-care/ http://parkhillvet.com/2012/09/comparing-costs-of-human-vs-p...

bildung 9y ago

That can't be the reason, as most other industrialized nations have that too, yet pay less.

dmitri1981 9y ago
Single payer systems are popular and work well, but you are right that it is not the only solution. Countries like Germany use heavy regulation to manage the healthcare system. However, I don't think Americans would accept this level of "government interference".
- vidarh 9y ago
  They already have that level of government interference, just not in the right way. That is the bizarre part of the US system - it might very well work better than today if it was actually a free market, but they've managed to get the worst of both: A highly regulated market where the regulations doesn't ensure proper service.

hackeraccount 9y ago

I used to think that. My only argument of skepticism is sort of weird. Animal health care costs. Apparently the cost of vets is going up just as fast as that of humans. And in that case it's mainly first party payment. It could be that the two have no connection but for me, it raises doubts. Honestly my current theory about health care costs is that they're high - and are inflating - because people like health care. There's a basket of potential goods and people really like that particular item. To get it they spend what they have and then pressure politicians to get them ways to spend money they don't have. They complain more and so the politicians find ways to hide the costs from them.

peacetreefrog 9y ago
I agree with you, as people get richer they spend more on health, for themselves and their pets. But just because vet costs are increasing at a similar rate (or more) than human costs doesn't mean the third party vs first party thing isn't the issue. Absolute overall human health care costs are still way higher then vet costs for similar services(1), despite the rates of increase the past few years. Also, anecdotally, some vets are going the other way. There's a vet near my house, for example, that just started weekend + holiday hours with rates the same as to their normal ones. We hadn't even gone their before, but when my dog woke up last Easter with some eye problem, we called around, found them, and got some ointment that helped. The other two options would have been: wait a day, or go into an emergency clinic that's k's of dollars. If we had pet insurance I'm sure we just would have gone in without thinking. 1: http://parkhillvet.com/2012/09/comparing-costs-of-human-vs-pet-health-care/ http://parkhillvet.com/2012/09/comparing-costs-of-human-vs-p...