3 ms·

You seem to think prices and wages are set in stone by the gods or ideal free markets. They're not. Healthcare is an inelastic good, people have to pay whatever

You seem to think prices and wages are set in stone by the gods or ideal free markets. They're not. Healthcare is an inelastic good, people have to pay whatever it costs. Lots of research into the cost vs. outcomes of healthcare in the US vs. other countries shows that its very wasteful. Heck there was an interview with an ex health insurance exec who admitted they created the narrative of healthcare being shitty in Canada to sway public support for privatized healthcare. I personally buy drugs that cost $1-2 in other countries, but $100+ without insurance in US. In most cases, state owned healthcare ends up being much cheaper - so perhaps a surgery that costs $200K to one person, would cost only $100K when funded by the state because they have MUCH more negotiating power. So in a sense, public healthcare makes the entire system more efficient. If we took on your Darwinian model, then its a very simple negotiation - life-saving medicines or surgeries are worth infinity, because otherwise you die. So if you ever need either of those, the doctors will simply ask for every single dollar and asset you have in perpetuity, easy.

thegrimmest 6y ago
> You seem to think prices and wages are set in stone by the gods or ideal free markets. I don't. I think prices and wages ought to be privately negotiated between consumers and producers, and employees and employers respectively. I also think that people are no more entitled to goods, employment or services from other people than they are to romantic relationships, which clearly need to be consensual. Healthcare in the US is extremely heavily regulated, that's why it's so expensive. The minimum quality of care is absurdly high. There's no budget option. If you want any medical care, you have to see a physician with an ridiculously expensive education, the supply of which has been artificially limited by regulatory capture. This is all highly unethical. If you need a simple procedure, why can't someone with the equivalent of technician training do it for much cheaper? Again, this would be a consensual interaction between two parties, which is nobody's buiness but their own. > If we took on your Darwinian model, then its a very simple negotiation - life-saving medicines or surgeries are worth infinity, because otherwise you die. So if you ever need either of those, the doctors will simply ask for every single dollar and asset you have in perpetuity, easy. This just totally ignores the idea of competition. If some doctors are charging infinity, then others would realize they could capture market share by charging less than that. The veterenary comparison is very apt, why should human healthcare work any differently?
- zaptheimpaler 6y ago
  Guess we found something we agree on :D I totally agree with healthcare being over-regulated to death. Its ridiculous we have a constant (and ever-growing) shortage of doctors, but you still can't pick up basic medicines without a prescription, order your own tests etc. Its incredibly frustrating because you can't take control of your own destiny even if you want to because of all these stupid paternal laws. "There's no budget option" about sums it up. I do see some signs of it changing with wearables, continuous glucose monitors, DNA testing kits etc. people are taking control of their own health. But the medical institution will take a long, long time to kill.
  - thegrimmest 6y ago
    Indeed =) Then you should also agree with me that adding more regulation to the system is counterproductive. We should be looking to deregulate as much as possible, allowing people to take control of their own destiny, as you aptly put it. This is exactly what a consent-focused interaction model looks like: enforce nonviolent interaction and contract law, but otherwise just leave people alone as much as possible. Healthcare for humans is just another service, it doesn't need to be a special category. There doesn't need to be an association whose membership is granted a monopoly on this service. In absence of regulation, private industry would self-organize into tiers based on demand. From the very lowest tier of service, to the highest. This what we see in countries without so much regulatory burden, and more market freedom, such as India or China. More fundementally, there is no moral justification for any of it. Just because one person or group of people belive in empathy, or a particular modal of social order, doesn't give them the right to impose that on others who disagree.
    - zaptheimpaler 6y ago
      Yes, I'm in favor of doing away with a lot of the existing regulation and privatized health insurance altogether. But that's not the question we started with. To get back to the original question - I still believe using better modeling to make health insurance or loans available only to those who barely need it is highly unethical. If we are staying stuck in the current model of insanely high sticker prices that are only affordable with insurance then i don't believe it's ethical to deprive people who need insurance - because in this current model, there is no easy free market alternative, only illness and death.

thegrimmest 6y ago

> You seem to think prices and wages are set in stone by the gods or ideal free markets. I don't. I think prices and wages ought to be privately negotiated between consumers and producers, and employees and employers respectively. I also think that people are no more entitled to goods, employment or services from other people than they are to romantic relationships, which clearly need to be consensual. Healthcare in the US is extremely heavily regulated, that's why it's so expensive. The minimum quality of care is absurdly high. There's no budget option. If you want any medical care, you have to see a physician with an ridiculously expensive education, the supply of which has been artificially limited by regulatory capture. This is all highly unethical. If you need a simple procedure, why can't someone with the equivalent of technician training do it for much cheaper? Again, this would be a consensual interaction between two parties, which is nobody's buiness but their own. > If we took on your Darwinian model, then its a very simple negotiation - life-saving medicines or surgeries are worth infinity, because otherwise you die. So if you ever need either of those, the doctors will simply ask for every single dollar and asset you have in perpetuity, easy. This just totally ignores the idea of competition. If some doctors are charging infinity, then others would realize they could capture market share by charging less than that. The veterenary comparison is very apt, why should human healthcare work any differently?

zaptheimpaler 6y ago
Guess we found something we agree on :D I totally agree with healthcare being over-regulated to death. Its ridiculous we have a constant (and ever-growing) shortage of doctors, but you still can't pick up basic medicines without a prescription, order your own tests etc. Its incredibly frustrating because you can't take control of your own destiny even if you want to because of all these stupid paternal laws. "There's no budget option" about sums it up. I do see some signs of it changing with wearables, continuous glucose monitors, DNA testing kits etc. people are taking control of their own health. But the medical institution will take a long, long time to kill.
- thegrimmest 6y ago
  Indeed =) Then you should also agree with me that adding more regulation to the system is counterproductive. We should be looking to deregulate as much as possible, allowing people to take control of their own destiny, as you aptly put it. This is exactly what a consent-focused interaction model looks like: enforce nonviolent interaction and contract law, but otherwise just leave people alone as much as possible. Healthcare for humans is just another service, it doesn't need to be a special category. There doesn't need to be an association whose membership is granted a monopoly on this service. In absence of regulation, private industry would self-organize into tiers based on demand. From the very lowest tier of service, to the highest. This what we see in countries without so much regulatory burden, and more market freedom, such as India or China. More fundementally, there is no moral justification for any of it. Just because one person or group of people belive in empathy, or a particular modal of social order, doesn't give them the right to impose that on others who disagree.
  - zaptheimpaler 6y ago
    Yes, I'm in favor of doing away with a lot of the existing regulation and privatized health insurance altogether. But that's not the question we started with. To get back to the original question - I still believe using better modeling to make health insurance or loans available only to those who barely need it is highly unethical. If we are staying stuck in the current model of insanely high sticker prices that are only affordable with insurance then i don't believe it's ethical to deprive people who need insurance - because in this current model, there is no easy free market alternative, only illness and death.