3 ms·

> It has the same problem all socialized health care programs have: the people who are actually getting the care, patients, have no idea what it costs, so they

> It has the same problem all socialized health care programs have: the people who are actually getting the care, patients, have no idea what it costs, so they can't judge whether the care they are getting is worth the cost. Let’s imagine (unrealistically) that through some technical breakthrough, patients knew the cost before making their purchasing decision. They still do not know what it is worth, because they have no idea what the risks of not being treated are. There is a problem that your doctor also probably does not know the cost, but they are the only person in the decision making process with the information necessary to make a rational recommendation. (And, unfortunately, they usually have a conflict of interest.) Healthcare is different from buying cars or groceries - even if you know the relative costs, you are unlikely to know the relative benefits.

pdonis 3y ago
> They still do not know what it is worth, because they have no idea what the risks of not being treated are. I disagree; I think that in most cases patients do have a reasonable idea of the risks of not being treated. Where I think risk information is often not communicated very well to patients is in the risks of being treated--what the actual success rate of the treatment being proposed is. That is because in our non-free-market system, doctors have a strong incentive not to let patients know what their actual success rates are, and there is nothing that can counterbalance that. In a free market, they might still not want to, but they would have no choice, because that information is valuable enough to patients that if doctors don't provide it, someone else will. (Other parties try to do that even in our current system, but they are limited in what they can do by legal restrictions imposed by the government.) > [Doctors] are the only person in the decision making process with the information necessary to make a rational recommendation I disagree with this as well. My experience with doctors has been that I usually know more than they do about my particular condition. (My wife, who has several chronic conditions, has had this experience even more strongly than I have.) I may have less overall knowledge of all medical conditions in general, but that's because I don't treat any patients other than myself, while they have to treat lots of them. But I have a strong incentive to learn about my particular condition that my doctor does not have, and that usually beats the doctor's general knowledge.
- fastaguy88 3y ago
  All I can say is that you go to very different doctors than I do. I have quite a bit of confidence that my doctors know a lot more about the risks of different treatments than I do. If I had your doctors, I would try to find doctors I had more confidence in.
- ffgjgf1 3y ago
  > But I have a strong incentive to learn about my particular condition that my doctor does not have, and that usually beats the doctor's general knowledge. except your experience is not really generalizable across the entire population. Some people are in no position to do this due to the severity of their issues and many other would never feel as confident as you about knowing more than their doctors. > In a free market, they might still not want to, but they would have no choice, because that information is valuable enough to patients that if doctors don't provide it, someone else will. Right you’re implying that most people are capable of judging the quality and accuracy of this information which they are clearly not. That someone else might be a scammer selling some magic healing crystals or whatever. You do realize the inherent flaw in this whole concept? Often there is no way for clients to evaluate the effectiveness of the treatments they receive until it’s too late (this is why healthcare can’t function without extensive regulation).

pdonis 3y ago

> They still do not know what it is worth, because they have no idea what the risks of not being treated are. I disagree; I think that in most cases patients do have a reasonable idea of the risks of not being treated. Where I think risk information is often not communicated very well to patients is in the risks of being treated--what the actual success rate of the treatment being proposed is. That is because in our non-free-market system, doctors have a strong incentive not to let patients know what their actual success rates are, and there is nothing that can counterbalance that. In a free market, they might still not want to, but they would have no choice, because that information is valuable enough to patients that if doctors don't provide it, someone else will. (Other parties try to do that even in our current system, but they are limited in what they can do by legal restrictions imposed by the government.) > [Doctors] are the only person in the decision making process with the information necessary to make a rational recommendation I disagree with this as well. My experience with doctors has been that I usually know more than they do about my particular condition. (My wife, who has several chronic conditions, has had this experience even more strongly than I have.) I may have less overall knowledge of all medical conditions in general, but that's because I don't treat any patients other than myself, while they have to treat lots of them. But I have a strong incentive to learn about my particular condition that my doctor does not have, and that usually beats the doctor's general knowledge.

fastaguy88 3y ago
All I can say is that you go to very different doctors than I do. I have quite a bit of confidence that my doctors know a lot more about the risks of different treatments than I do. If I had your doctors, I would try to find doctors I had more confidence in.
ffgjgf1 3y ago
> But I have a strong incentive to learn about my particular condition that my doctor does not have, and that usually beats the doctor's general knowledge. except your experience is not really generalizable across the entire population. Some people are in no position to do this due to the severity of their issues and many other would never feel as confident as you about knowing more than their doctors. > In a free market, they might still not want to, but they would have no choice, because that information is valuable enough to patients that if doctors don't provide it, someone else will. Right you’re implying that most people are capable of judging the quality and accuracy of this information which they are clearly not. That someone else might be a scammer selling some magic healing crystals or whatever. You do realize the inherent flaw in this whole concept? Often there is no way for clients to evaluate the effectiveness of the treatments they receive until it’s too late (this is why healthcare can’t function without extensive regulation).