4 ms·

> The demand price curve is different. If housing gets more expensive you could (although) difficult move into a smaller apartment, or different region. (Simili

> The demand price curve is different. If housing gets more expensive you could (although) difficult move into a smaller apartment, or different region. (Similiar with food up to a certain amount). This allows the market to find the best/right price by supply and demand. (I think this is called inelastic demand) Changing housing situations is exactly as easy as changing hospitals and emergency rooms no? Since the latter are mostly decided by where you live. In fact, most mid to large cities feature many hospitals near any given residence, so it is actually easier. I would also point out that the demand curve for housing, energy and food are far more inelastic than for medicine. > If you have cancer though than basicall the market cannot find a price, and it would tend towards to: 'give me all you have'. Why couldn't the market find a price? Cancer actually seems like the worse example possible. The people I've known who've been diagnosed with cancer have shopped around for care from many different hospitals. It would seem that cancer would be the perfect candidate for market forces to lower prices since a diagnosis generally affords a bit of time to find and decide on treatment options. Even in the extreme case of 'you have months to live' people tend to spend a few weeks collecting different opinions.

jatone 5y ago
You're choices are: die, or pay whatever cost is associated. its not a choice that can be negotiated. markets don't deal with this situation well. changing hospitals don't change the baseline costs for providing health care in a significant manner for there to be competition nor are many hospitals in a competitive market (often there is only one hospital for an entire rural region). that's before even getting into pharma. which can charge millions of dollars for life saving/changing drugs for single course treatments. hell take a look at what happened with epipens. there is no protection against profiteering via nebulous 'markets' when your choices are 'purchase or die'.
- BobbyJo 5y ago
  > You're choices are: die, or pay whatever cost is associated. its not a choice that can be negotiated This account, or at least should account, for a very small minority of interactions with healthcare facilities. Saying that's why the whole market is defunct is recklessly reductionist. > markets don't deal with this situation well. They don't deal with it at all. Imagine if some people needed bread or they'd die, would that change the price on the shelf? No, because the bread didn't get there because of that niche market, it got there because most people eat it. It is the same with healthcare. If a hospital exists because people routinely visit the doctor, some people needing their life saved isn't going to suddenly change prices. > that's before even getting into pharma. which can charge millions of dollars for life saving/changing drugs for single course treatments. hell take a look at what happened with epipens. there is no protection against profiteering via nebulous 'markets' when your choices are 'purchase or die'. Totally agree. The issue there is regulation and how we allow companies to be a position of no competition. If the government stepped in and payed those prices for you, it wouldn't solve the problem.
  - jatone 5y ago
    > This account, or at least should account, for a very small minority of interactions with healthcare facilities. sadly its not. you're in pain? you need to visit a medical facility to figure out whats wrong. without knowing how serious it is it can lead to a life long issue. again you don't really have choices here. pay the healthcare tax or risk long term issues. there is a reason preventative medicine is cheaper (overall) than delaying care until a condition has progressed. the capitalists idea of a market simply doesn't apply to healthcare. > If a hospital exists because people routinely visit the doctor. this isn't true. we fund hospitals in rural areas because there literally isnt enough people to keep one operating via patient care. you're also asserting that if the populace can't sustain the healthcare system then it shouldn't be available to people. which is fairly cruel and immoral.
    - BobbyJo 5y ago
      > sadly its not. you're in pain? you need to visit a medical facility to figure out whats wrong. without knowing how serious it is it can lead to a life long issue. again you don't really have choices here. pay the healthcare tax or risk long term issues. I don't see how that is a congruent thought. The 'sadly it's not' doesn't follow from your statement after. If you are in pain without knowing how serious it is, you would likely get opinions from several doctors. You're not going to walk into the first hospital you find and say "I'll pay anything you ask just fix me." > the capitalists idea of a market simply doesn't apply to healthcare. You still haven't made a logically coherent argument as to why it doesn't. The vast majority of healthcare transactions are made between two lucid and consenting parties. > this isn't true. we fund hospitals in rural areas because there literally isnt enough people to keep one operating via patient care. That backs my point, right? Those hospitals aren't funded by emergency care either, which means the point about costs being a one sided negotiation while the other party is dying is still inaccurate. > you're also asserting that if the populace can't sustain the healthcare system then it shouldn't be available to people. which is fairly cruel and immoral. I don't think recognizing the limits of a given resource is cruel or immoral, it's reality. Us not having perfectly clean energy is killing us all, but it isn't cruel and immoral, it's a problem that needs solving. If a town can't afford a hospital, and you want to live in a town with a hospital, move, right? I don't see any reason why taxpayers should pay so a small mountain town in the middle of nowhere can have a staff of doctors and nurses to support a population of 100 people. If someone wants to live in the mountains of Oregon, I don't see how we have a responsibility to pay for a medical care facility to follow them up.

jatone 5y ago

You're choices are: die, or pay whatever cost is associated. its not a choice that can be negotiated. markets don't deal with this situation well. changing hospitals don't change the baseline costs for providing health care in a significant manner for there to be competition nor are many hospitals in a competitive market (often there is only one hospital for an entire rural region). that's before even getting into pharma. which can charge millions of dollars for life saving/changing drugs for single course treatments. hell take a look at what happened with epipens. there is no protection against profiteering via nebulous 'markets' when your choices are 'purchase or die'.

BobbyJo 5y ago
> You're choices are: die, or pay whatever cost is associated. its not a choice that can be negotiated This account, or at least should account, for a very small minority of interactions with healthcare facilities. Saying that's why the whole market is defunct is recklessly reductionist. > markets don't deal with this situation well. They don't deal with it at all. Imagine if some people needed bread or they'd die, would that change the price on the shelf? No, because the bread didn't get there because of that niche market, it got there because most people eat it. It is the same with healthcare. If a hospital exists because people routinely visit the doctor, some people needing their life saved isn't going to suddenly change prices. > that's before even getting into pharma. which can charge millions of dollars for life saving/changing drugs for single course treatments. hell take a look at what happened with epipens. there is no protection against profiteering via nebulous 'markets' when your choices are 'purchase or die'. Totally agree. The issue there is regulation and how we allow companies to be a position of no competition. If the government stepped in and payed those prices for you, it wouldn't solve the problem.
- jatone 5y ago
  > This account, or at least should account, for a very small minority of interactions with healthcare facilities. sadly its not. you're in pain? you need to visit a medical facility to figure out whats wrong. without knowing how serious it is it can lead to a life long issue. again you don't really have choices here. pay the healthcare tax or risk long term issues. there is a reason preventative medicine is cheaper (overall) than delaying care until a condition has progressed. the capitalists idea of a market simply doesn't apply to healthcare. > If a hospital exists because people routinely visit the doctor. this isn't true. we fund hospitals in rural areas because there literally isnt enough people to keep one operating via patient care. you're also asserting that if the populace can't sustain the healthcare system then it shouldn't be available to people. which is fairly cruel and immoral.
  - BobbyJo 5y ago
    > sadly its not. you're in pain? you need to visit a medical facility to figure out whats wrong. without knowing how serious it is it can lead to a life long issue. again you don't really have choices here. pay the healthcare tax or risk long term issues. I don't see how that is a congruent thought. The 'sadly it's not' doesn't follow from your statement after. If you are in pain without knowing how serious it is, you would likely get opinions from several doctors. You're not going to walk into the first hospital you find and say "I'll pay anything you ask just fix me." > the capitalists idea of a market simply doesn't apply to healthcare. You still haven't made a logically coherent argument as to why it doesn't. The vast majority of healthcare transactions are made between two lucid and consenting parties. > this isn't true. we fund hospitals in rural areas because there literally isnt enough people to keep one operating via patient care. That backs my point, right? Those hospitals aren't funded by emergency care either, which means the point about costs being a one sided negotiation while the other party is dying is still inaccurate. > you're also asserting that if the populace can't sustain the healthcare system then it shouldn't be available to people. which is fairly cruel and immoral. I don't think recognizing the limits of a given resource is cruel or immoral, it's reality. Us not having perfectly clean energy is killing us all, but it isn't cruel and immoral, it's a problem that needs solving. If a town can't afford a hospital, and you want to live in a town with a hospital, move, right? I don't see any reason why taxpayers should pay so a small mountain town in the middle of nowhere can have a staff of doctors and nurses to support a population of 100 people. If someone wants to live in the mountains of Oregon, I don't see how we have a responsibility to pay for a medical care facility to follow them up.