4 ms·
> how do we systematically realign delivering quality and efficiency with profits. Free entry into the market, along with competition, are the free market forc
by VancouverMan 3y ago
> how do we systematically realign delivering quality and efficiency with profits.
Free entry into the market, along with competition, are the free market forces that naturally balance those attributes over time.
Keep in mind that within a given market, there can be multiple different balances at once, depending on the varying needs and priorities of the buyers and sellers involved.
> It’s pretty obvious that there are major breakdowns in both the current practices of laissez-faire and of regulation.
Even if it may be somewhat freer than in places like Canada or the UK, for example, the US health care sector shouldn't be considered a real free market or laissez-faire in any meaningful way.
The US health care sector is highly regulated. This significantly reduces competition, and also makes it extremely costly and difficult for new entrants to participate in the markets.
Regulation-imposed distortions that decrease competition and impede market entry should be expected to result in the inefficiencies and other problems we see.
Fixing the problem is rather simple: remove the regulations, allow free market entry and competition again, and put the onus back on market participants to choose for themselves what's best for them and their own particular situations.
- hlieberman 3y agoExcept that, in basically every other developed nation, healthcare is _more_ regulated, if not nationalized, and has better performance for substantially lower cost. The invisible hand(job) can't save you from areas where there is no significant profit to be made. In many cases, it's most cost effective to simply let people die. That's the problem with focusing exclusively on profit motives in healthcare.
- VancouverMan 3y ago> Except that, in basically every other developed nation, healthcare is _more_ regulated, if not nationalized, and has better performance for substantially lower cost. The various provincial public health care systems in Canada are generally seen as having atrocious performance, despite consuming massive amounts of taxpayer resources each year. Keep in mind that many Canadians also have costly private insurance to help pay for the numerous common exams, procedures, treatments, prescriptions, etc., that aren't covered by the public systems. For Canadians with the means to do so, it's quite common for them to seek medical treatment in the US, even if doing so is financially costly. Going to the US is often the only practical way for Canadians to receive health care services in a timely and effective manner.
- kelseyfrog 3y agoWhat do we do if we think it's immoral and unethical to make people choose between money and their lives? What's the plan B?
- pylua 3y agoWhat regulations are you referring to that we can remove ?
- asadotzler 3y agoRight, because who cares about quality and outcomes, a race to the bottom FTW.
- kevin_b_er 3y ago> Fixing the problem is rather simple: remove the regulations, allow free market entry and competition again, and put the onus back on market participants to choose for themselves what's best for them and their own particular situations. This is a statement that cannot be farther from the truth. There is a great asymmetry of information and a high pressure situation that leads to difficulty in researching and deciding on the best choice. It is a system that, without regulation, leads to exploitation. The regulations exist because of the abuses, because of the immoral behavior it caused without them. The only motivation to remove them is a profit motive. Avarice at the sake of lives. It is not 'regulations' that are a problem, but the immoral avarice living at the heart of healthcare in the US.
- mint2 3y agoErrr that just causes a dystopian race to the bottom. Why would one think otherwise?