4 ms·

The big difference between the two camps that I see is that one side recognizes the cost benefit of their position and the other side doesn't. Price controls o

The big difference between the two camps that I see is that one side recognizes the cost benefit of their position and the other side doesn't. Price controls on healthcare (socialization) has positive and negative impacts. The positive impact is universality. Everyone gets approximately the same basic level of care. In some countries you might be able to pay for a nicer room, or quicker service, but generally speaking it's all the same. The downside is that price controls stifle innovation. That's just basic mainstream economics and is the case in every industry, not just healthcare. The trick about stifling innovation is you don't feel it immediately. On day 1 of the price controls, the rich are about the same but the poor are better off. On year 50 of the price controls, everyone is worse off because of all of the innovation that never came to fruition. I never hear advocates of universal healthcare have an adult conversation that they are trading long term benefits for short term gains. I think that's a reasonable position to hold, but if we just pretend that it's all benefits and no cost we're not having an adult discussion. It's not as if one side is right and one side is wrong. Once we accurately discuss the economics, it's easier to understand that this is a very difficult moral decision and not the trivial one that is sometimes portrayed in the political sphere. My speculation is that the rich people you refer to are more likely to be trained in economics (formally or otherwise) and are more likely to have a long term mindset regarding cost benefit tradeoffs.

watwut 7y ago
1.) Your theory assumes that the cost difference at the hospital goes toward innovation. It ignores role of public money that goes into research. It is also not analyzing where the money are actually going. 2.) With this theory, if it is true, you are basically volunteering American patients to pay for innovation worldwide. That is quite a bad deal for quite a lot of American people. 3.) > My speculation is that the rich people you refer to are more likely to be trained in economics (formally or otherwise) and are more likely to have a long term mindset regarding cost benefit tradeoffs. They have also different interests. Good cost benefit tradeoffs for one group is often very bad deal for another group.
- Consultant32452 7y ago
  1) No it doesn't 2) America doesn't have to let this happen. We could charge other countries for our innovations or otherwise demand reciprocation. 3) For people rich enough to have serious political power, the short term price difference is negligible or perhaps even cheaper under price controls.
empira 7y ago
On the other hand, right now, only the rich, or those with good enough medical insurance (if your co-pay is more than you make in 6 months, are you really insured ?), have access to the expensive treatments. On a universal heathcase system, whatever the form it may take, more people would have access those expensive options. Is it better to sell your treatment to more people but at a smaller price tag, or to fewer people at a bigger one ? I guess the economics depend on each treatment. Fostering innovation is of course important. Which is why you can deduct a lot of your R&D expenses from your taxes. Again, each country has its own tax code, so generalization might not be possible, but in a lot of cases, the hard work of finding new drugs is funded by the citizens, through tax breaks or research grants. The public sector, via universities and public labs, is a major player (although not the only one, of course) in the medical field. Let's not forget that forcing people to stay with their employer to maintain insurance coverage is also a way to stifle innovation. How many of those workers could have and would have started a business, if not for the fear to loose everything in case of medical issues ? Surely the republicains would love to remove those kind of barriers to worker movement and innovation, wouldn't they ? The universal healthcare system obviously isn't free. Altough some studies, and real life examples elsewhere in the world, showed it wouldn't be the money pit some imagine, it certainly doesn't run on love and compassion and fresh water only. The taxes in my country can show you that. But the social benefits and the peace of mind I enjoy are, in my very own and somewhat biased opinion, worth the cost.
- Moru 7y ago
  The peace of mind and knowledge that everyone gets taken care of no matter what is worth the world to me.
  - Consultant32452 7y ago
    The "no matter what" in this case is that more people suffer and die for all time into the future so that fewer people can suffer and die today. That's a steep price to pay because the future and the amount of suffering people in it is functionally infinite. I think as long as you're willing to say that out loud and really mean it we've had a principled and honest discussion.
otikik 7y ago
> stifle innovation The most innovation I am seeing coming up from the US health system these days is in finding ways to extract more wealth. Innovative things like "let's make a cartel, increase the price of insulin by 1000%, and use some of that money to buy politicians so they don't stand in our way".

watwut 7y ago

1.) Your theory assumes that the cost difference at the hospital goes toward innovation. It ignores role of public money that goes into research. It is also not analyzing where the money are actually going. 2.) With this theory, if it is true, you are basically volunteering American patients to pay for innovation worldwide. That is quite a bad deal for quite a lot of American people. 3.) > My speculation is that the rich people you refer to are more likely to be trained in economics (formally or otherwise) and are more likely to have a long term mindset regarding cost benefit tradeoffs. They have also different interests. Good cost benefit tradeoffs for one group is often very bad deal for another group.

Consultant32452 7y ago
1) No it doesn't 2) America doesn't have to let this happen. We could charge other countries for our innovations or otherwise demand reciprocation. 3) For people rich enough to have serious political power, the short term price difference is negligible or perhaps even cheaper under price controls.

empira 7y ago

On the other hand, right now, only the rich, or those with good enough medical insurance (if your co-pay is more than you make in 6 months, are you really insured ?), have access to the expensive treatments. On a universal heathcase system, whatever the form it may take, more people would have access those expensive options. Is it better to sell your treatment to more people but at a smaller price tag, or to fewer people at a bigger one ? I guess the economics depend on each treatment. Fostering innovation is of course important. Which is why you can deduct a lot of your R&D expenses from your taxes. Again, each country has its own tax code, so generalization might not be possible, but in a lot of cases, the hard work of finding new drugs is funded by the citizens, through tax breaks or research grants. The public sector, via universities and public labs, is a major player (although not the only one, of course) in the medical field. Let's not forget that forcing people to stay with their employer to maintain insurance coverage is also a way to stifle innovation. How many of those workers could have and would have started a business, if not for the fear to loose everything in case of medical issues ? Surely the republicains would love to remove those kind of barriers to worker movement and innovation, wouldn't they ? The universal healthcare system obviously isn't free. Altough some studies, and real life examples elsewhere in the world, showed it wouldn't be the money pit some imagine, it certainly doesn't run on love and compassion and fresh water only. The taxes in my country can show you that. But the social benefits and the peace of mind I enjoy are, in my very own and somewhat biased opinion, worth the cost.

Moru 7y ago
The peace of mind and knowledge that everyone gets taken care of no matter what is worth the world to me.
- Consultant32452 7y ago
  The "no matter what" in this case is that more people suffer and die for all time into the future so that fewer people can suffer and die today. That's a steep price to pay because the future and the amount of suffering people in it is functionally infinite. I think as long as you're willing to say that out loud and really mean it we've had a principled and honest discussion.

otikik 7y ago

> stifle innovation The most innovation I am seeing coming up from the US health system these days is in finding ways to extract more wealth. Innovative things like "let's make a cartel, increase the price of insulin by 1000%, and use some of that money to buy politicians so they don't stand in our way".