5 ms·

I agree that is outrageous. The problem is that people think it is capitalism. When there is no price transparency, there is no capitalism, period. Hopefully t

by elamje 7y ago

I agree that is outrageous. The problem is that people think it is capitalism. When there is no price transparency, there is no capitalism, period. Hopefully the US is on the way to government healthcare, but for now it would be great to just achieve price transparency so people can shop around. Without price there is no competition. Without competition there is no capitalism.

metalchianti 7y ago
Our current system is completely fueled by legalized price gouging. It's insane how much the medical industry is allowed to exploit these regulations.
qwsxyh 7y ago
No true capitalism.
- orwin 7y ago
  is this a reference to : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman ?
Ididntdothis 7y ago
"When there is no price transparency, there is no capitalism, period." Capitalists are perfectly fine with lack of price transparency or other tricks as long as it makes them money. They don't like competition. What you are talking about is functioning markets.
- jerf 7y ago
  There's a lot of equivocation in the term "capitalists". Using the term to mean "people who want to take the capitalist system and turn it into a non-capitalist system that permanently writes their own benefit into it" is, well, I'll go with "not the path to clear thinking about the problem". I'm not comfortable calling it wrong, I mean, such people exist and in quantity, but it's definitely asking for muddled thinking on the topic to call someone deliberately tearing a system apart a name that implies them to be an advocate of that system.
  - Ididntdothis 7y ago
    Look at the health system. There are a lot of capitalists who make a lot of money on their capital and don't seem very interested in change because most changes will cost profits. But from a market point of view the system is inefficient and lacks transparency .
  - astazangasta 7y ago
    Capitalists can mean ideological believers in capitalism, or it can mean those who own capital. The former may be interested in efficient markets; the latter generally only want to maximize returns.
    - Ididntdothis 7y ago
      that's why I want a clear distinction between the two. A lot of the second type of capitalist disguise themselves as the first type.
      - orwin 7y ago
        Theories about efficient market/exchange is _liberalism_. Capitalism is an ideology about who own the means of production: in this case, the person who own the capital. When the state OR a "commune" owns the mean of production, this is communism. But you can definitively have a "free market communism", except WTO will probably disagree on whether product issued by a state controlled industry really respect its rules. You can also the two, like in the nordic countries (or germany) where employee actually have voting power about the strtegic orientation of the company (actually i think employees are considered "owning" 30% of the issued shares or something like that). From a (weird) point of view, this is 70% capitalism, 30% communism.
    - fzeroracer 7y ago
      Both will eventually merge into the same thing, so I struggle to see a real difference. In a free market, the assumption is that everyone is a rational actor that will work in their own self-interest. People that want to maximize returns are behaving as you'd expect; someone not wanting to maximize profit in a free market would be considered an irrational actor. Which, well, there lies the problem. For a lot of markets, maximizing profit comes at a very human cost. For healthcare the profit incentive is to have as many barriers to avoid paying individuals as possible because their profiteering is orthogonal to your well-being in most cases. This is also why many markets can be considered short-sighted because it's easier to make returns now than it is to gamble on long term growth, which results in smash-and-grab style of corporate takeovers. Ultimately even if we did have price transparency for healthcare all of the issues would still remain. It just can't work as a free market and going further in that direction is just pouring salt on a rotting wound.
makotech222 7y ago
Capitalism is what leads to the place where we are now, with no competition, monopolies, and price gouging. How can you say that this isn't capitalism, when this is the obvious goal of every capitalist? 'Shopping around' is a terrible goal for healthcare. The goal should be complete democratic ownership, and free care for all human beings.
hangonhn 7y ago
Kenneth Arrow did a great analysis on efficient markets and the US healthcare industry. Basically it doesn't work the way it works in most free markets because of information asymmetry (he got the Nobel for it). Even if you had price transparency, you aren't in a position to decide what treatment to buy because you're not the doctor and don't have the necessary knowledge to make that decision. The whole process is misaligned because the recipient is not knowledgable enough to make the decision, the decision maker (doctor) is not the payor, and the actual payor (insurance) is often neither of those. Efficient markets require certain preconditions to be met to work. It's true in many situations but there are some well known edge cases.
- conanbatt 7y ago
  I would welcome a link to the analysis you point if you wish, but this is very reductive. There are a million markets with information asymmetry and work just fine, and there are plenty of examples of cash-pay systems that work reasonably well for healthcare. I disagree with OP that the problem is price transparency, but the healthcare market in the us is intervened in ways that prevent the classic workings of a market.
- Ididntdothis 7y ago
  I think you are right but I still think two steps would make the system much saner: - Price transparency - One price for the same service. The practice of charging $500 to the insurance but $10000 to the uninsured needs to stop. Maybe it's fine to vary by a few percent but there is no other market where the same product costs 20x more depending on who pays. If the excuse is that this is to compensate for non payers then let's pay for this from a separate pot.
  - SolaceQuantum 7y ago
    None of this addresses the point- even if you have price transparency and one price for the same service, you are not educated enough to select services you need. Doubly so if an emergency happens.
    - 7y ago

by elamje 7y ago

metalchianti 7y ago

Our current system is completely fueled by legalized price gouging. It's insane how much the medical industry is allowed to exploit these regulations.

qwsxyh 7y ago

No true capitalism.

orwin 7y ago
is this a reference to : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman ?

Ididntdothis 7y ago

"When there is no price transparency, there is no capitalism, period." Capitalists are perfectly fine with lack of price transparency or other tricks as long as it makes them money. They don't like competition. What you are talking about is functioning markets.

jerf 7y ago
There's a lot of equivocation in the term "capitalists". Using the term to mean "people who want to take the capitalist system and turn it into a non-capitalist system that permanently writes their own benefit into it" is, well, I'll go with "not the path to clear thinking about the problem". I'm not comfortable calling it wrong, I mean, such people exist and in quantity, but it's definitely asking for muddled thinking on the topic to call someone deliberately tearing a system apart a name that implies them to be an advocate of that system.
- Ididntdothis 7y ago
  Look at the health system. There are a lot of capitalists who make a lot of money on their capital and don't seem very interested in change because most changes will cost profits. But from a market point of view the system is inefficient and lacks transparency .
- astazangasta 7y ago
  Capitalists can mean ideological believers in capitalism, or it can mean those who own capital. The former may be interested in efficient markets; the latter generally only want to maximize returns.
  - Ididntdothis 7y ago
    that's why I want a clear distinction between the two. A lot of the second type of capitalist disguise themselves as the first type.
    - orwin 7y ago
      Theories about efficient market/exchange is _liberalism_. Capitalism is an ideology about who own the means of production: in this case, the person who own the capital. When the state OR a "commune" owns the mean of production, this is communism. But you can definitively have a "free market communism", except WTO will probably disagree on whether product issued by a state controlled industry really respect its rules. You can also the two, like in the nordic countries (or germany) where employee actually have voting power about the strtegic orientation of the company (actually i think employees are considered "owning" 30% of the issued shares or something like that). From a (weird) point of view, this is 70% capitalism, 30% communism.
  - fzeroracer 7y ago
    Both will eventually merge into the same thing, so I struggle to see a real difference. In a free market, the assumption is that everyone is a rational actor that will work in their own self-interest. People that want to maximize returns are behaving as you'd expect; someone not wanting to maximize profit in a free market would be considered an irrational actor. Which, well, there lies the problem. For a lot of markets, maximizing profit comes at a very human cost. For healthcare the profit incentive is to have as many barriers to avoid paying individuals as possible because their profiteering is orthogonal to your well-being in most cases. This is also why many markets can be considered short-sighted because it's easier to make returns now than it is to gamble on long term growth, which results in smash-and-grab style of corporate takeovers. Ultimately even if we did have price transparency for healthcare all of the issues would still remain. It just can't work as a free market and going further in that direction is just pouring salt on a rotting wound.

makotech222 7y ago

Capitalism is what leads to the place where we are now, with no competition, monopolies, and price gouging. How can you say that this isn't capitalism, when this is the obvious goal of every capitalist? 'Shopping around' is a terrible goal for healthcare. The goal should be complete democratic ownership, and free care for all human beings.

hangonhn 7y ago

Kenneth Arrow did a great analysis on efficient markets and the US healthcare industry. Basically it doesn't work the way it works in most free markets because of information asymmetry (he got the Nobel for it). Even if you had price transparency, you aren't in a position to decide what treatment to buy because you're not the doctor and don't have the necessary knowledge to make that decision. The whole process is misaligned because the recipient is not knowledgable enough to make the decision, the decision maker (doctor) is not the payor, and the actual payor (insurance) is often neither of those. Efficient markets require certain preconditions to be met to work. It's true in many situations but there are some well known edge cases.

conanbatt 7y ago
I would welcome a link to the analysis you point if you wish, but this is very reductive. There are a million markets with information asymmetry and work just fine, and there are plenty of examples of cash-pay systems that work reasonably well for healthcare. I disagree with OP that the problem is price transparency, but the healthcare market in the us is intervened in ways that prevent the classic workings of a market.
Ididntdothis 7y ago
I think you are right but I still think two steps would make the system much saner: - Price transparency - One price for the same service. The practice of charging $500 to the insurance but $10000 to the uninsured needs to stop. Maybe it's fine to vary by a few percent but there is no other market where the same product costs 20x more depending on who pays. If the excuse is that this is to compensate for non payers then let's pay for this from a separate pot.
- SolaceQuantum 7y ago
  None of this addresses the point- even if you have price transparency and one price for the same service, you are not educated enough to select services you need. Doubly so if an emergency happens.
  - 7y ago