4 ms·

I think this is a perfect opportunity for businesses from other countries to step in. Say, some company in a less regulated country starts selling ones. Would i

by snitko 15y ago

I think this is a perfect opportunity for businesses from other countries to step in. Say, some company in a less regulated country starts selling ones. Would it be actually cheaper to hop on a plain and get yourself one, instead of taking a couple of $2000 sleep studies? I bet it would. To generalize, basically any kind of business could profit from less regulation. You just have to find the market big and desperate enough to travel far for that.

underwater 15y ago
The government would quickly outlaw that behaviour if it became popular. For your own safety, of course.
- snitko 15y ago
  The government is, actually, extremely slow. I don't remember exactly how it was, but I think there's only one state in US in which it is illegal to have plans to smoke weed in Netherlands. But even that has taken years to implement. My guess is that the market must not be too big, so as to stay reasonably under the radar, and not too small, so the businesses in another country can be profitable.
  - guard-of-terra 15y ago
    "illegal to have plans to smoke weed in Netherlands" Thinkcrime?
ttt_ 15y ago
>> To generalize, basically any kind of business could profit from less regulation. I think the point is made that the health-care business is doing quite well. Now how about the actual patient? Would you say he would benefit from more or less regulation? Seems to me that competition on this front would only be between the companies that can manage to better extort patients. I say more regulation works best in the health-care area. Authority is called for to oversee practices and audit business decisions to make sure that the patient is first priority and profit second. Taking an example from Brazil. A while ago the private health insurances were regulated into not enforcing grace periods of users who had already gone through them and were migrating from a different plan from the same or another insurer. Isn't that perfectly valid policy that focuses on the patient for what they really need (health-care)? Would unregulated business agree to this on their own?
- snitko 15y ago
  Good point, however it is, I think, still unclear wether a patient would benefit from less or more regulation. It, again, looks like a more general discussion of left vs right. While people tend to take sides, we still have about equal numbers of economists in favor of either free market or regulations. One might argue, that competition is in the best interest of the patient. And that what is currently regulated, should rather be advised. This looks reasonable, however I wouldn't advocate it until this is actually tested. I once saw a TED-talk by an economist who said that it is trial and error that politicians should advocate, not particular strategies that they "know" are the right ones. That is, I believe, an ultimate solution to many problems, including the medical market.

by snitko 15y ago

underwater 15y ago

The government would quickly outlaw that behaviour if it became popular. For your own safety, of course.

snitko 15y ago
The government is, actually, extremely slow. I don't remember exactly how it was, but I think there's only one state in US in which it is illegal to have plans to smoke weed in Netherlands. But even that has taken years to implement. My guess is that the market must not be too big, so as to stay reasonably under the radar, and not too small, so the businesses in another country can be profitable.
- guard-of-terra 15y ago
  "illegal to have plans to smoke weed in Netherlands" Thinkcrime?

ttt_ 15y ago

>> To generalize, basically any kind of business could profit from less regulation. I think the point is made that the health-care business is doing quite well. Now how about the actual patient? Would you say he would benefit from more or less regulation? Seems to me that competition on this front would only be between the companies that can manage to better extort patients. I say more regulation works best in the health-care area. Authority is called for to oversee practices and audit business decisions to make sure that the patient is first priority and profit second. Taking an example from Brazil. A while ago the private health insurances were regulated into not enforcing grace periods of users who had already gone through them and were migrating from a different plan from the same or another insurer. Isn't that perfectly valid policy that focuses on the patient for what they really need (health-care)? Would unregulated business agree to this on their own?

snitko 15y ago
Good point, however it is, I think, still unclear wether a patient would benefit from less or more regulation. It, again, looks like a more general discussion of left vs right. While people tend to take sides, we still have about equal numbers of economists in favor of either free market or regulations. One might argue, that competition is in the best interest of the patient. And that what is currently regulated, should rather be advised. This looks reasonable, however I wouldn't advocate it until this is actually tested. I once saw a TED-talk by an economist who said that it is trial and error that politicians should advocate, not particular strategies that they "know" are the right ones. That is, I believe, an ultimate solution to many problems, including the medical market.