4 ms·

Very simply, the medical system can extract as much money from the patient as they want. The worse the illness, the more the patient will pay. Because the alter

Very simply, the medical system can extract as much money from the patient as they want. The worse the illness, the more the patient will pay. Because the alternative is death. Health care is not a matter of supply and demand, it is a matter of life and death. Patients will give you the shirt off their back to avoid death. It's just not fair. That is why strong government regulation for health care is a good idea. These things run far more smoothly in countries with a public health care system. There, doctors typically get a fixed amount of money for each kind of illness. Hence, their incentive is to diagnose an illness as swiftly as possible and get the patients out the door. This has its own set of downsides, but at least the patient gets help rather more quickly and with less hassle.

Dove 15y ago
That is why strong government regulation for health care is a good idea. Government has the power to protect anyone from anyone else. Ideally, it should use that power to protect weak people from the powerful corporations, as you propose. Practically, it tends to use that power to protect powerful corporations from slightly less powerful competitors.
codehotter 15y ago
I have no idea whether to be for against government regulation in health care because it's a complicated issue and I am nowhere near an expert. But I would like to ask you if you think the same logic applies to food. Can the food industry extract as much money from me as they want? I will give you the shirt off my back in order to avoid starvation. If no, what is the magic happening in the food industry? Could similar magic apply in health care?
- jablan 15y ago
  There's a big difference here. Basically, anyone can grow food, while not many people can make their own antibiotics or CPAP machines in their backyards.
  - deleted 15y ago
    [deleted]
- twomills 15y ago
  The magic is a balanced equation. Either the consumers and producers are both capitalists and strive to create the best value per dollar, or the profit has to be taken out of the equation with public healthcare, with the best value per tax dollar being dependent on the good will of the bureaucracy. Right now, we have an unbalanced equation where producers strive for the most profit and the least liability, and insured consumers have absolutely no reason to even pay attention to how much money their insurance company pays in exchange for treatment, the quality of which the consumer feels is almost totally out of their control. Put the power, and the responsibility, back into the hands of patients who until now had no reason to care, and you will see a vast, rapid improvement in the state of healthcare.
- flashingleds 15y ago
  The reason your analogy breaks down is competition. Usually it's pretty easy to obtain food in some shape or form, so there are near endless alternatives if you face steep pricing. It's really quite difficult to be a competent doctor, so you've got limited alternatives. The magic you would need to apply is reducing the barrier to entry to medical competence somehow.
twomills 15y ago
I would say the problem could also be treated with less regulation, or to be more accurate, less litigation. Amounts to the same thing in the end, I suppose. You could fix a lot of the damage by switching insurance from a gambling basis to a contractual basis. Health insurance would be a contract between an individual and a corporation wherein the individual pays little to nothing if he remains healthy, but enters into a mortgage based on the cost of the healthcare should he require it. The maximum value of the mortgage could be assessed by the insurance company similarly to assessments for premiums, and related to the individual's total income, savings, and property. Paying a traditional monthly premium would boost the person's maximum mortgage. The current system operates counter to both private and public paradigms, as it does not encourage consumers to seek the best value for their money nor eliminate the pursuit of profit by service providers. It is a MASSIVE example of the prisoner's dilemma, where each agent is motivated toward actions detrimental to the structure as a whole.
mseebach 15y ago
> That is why strong government regulation for health care is a good idea. More like this? >> "I can't tell you how to configure your machine or how to get data from it," the guy told me, "the FDA strictly forbids me from telling you the details of how to operate the machine except as a user" You might well be right on a larger scale, but for this issue, the problem is the heavy regulation which is keeping a competitive market from giving patients what they want. Also, it's not like anyone ever had to jump through hoops inside of hoops in public health care systems. The hoops just doesn't say "$2000 per jump" on them.
- DanBC 15y ago
  That FDA regulation sounds reasonable. (If it is a regulation, maybe the guy on the phone just wants to get rid of the caller.) There are restrictions on who can practice medicine, and there are restrictions on what medical products people can buy and use, so it's reasonable to think that there will be restrictions on the suppliers about what they provide and who they provide it to. The heavy regulation is not preventing competition. The heavy regulation is just providing a minimum base for that competition. The problem is with the utterly broken system of US healthcare. Note that in the UK you still wouldn't get any information about hacking your CPAP machine. And you'd go to a doctor, who'd refer you to a specialist for sleep trials and fitting. And you'd have to try "lifestyle changes" (losing weight) first.
  - raverbashing 15y ago
    >> The heavy regulation is not preventing competition. The heavy regulation is just providing a minimum base for that competition. >> The problem is with the utterly broken system of US healthcare. These are not uncorrelated. They are heavily correlated. Sure you can do everything by the book, and then you end up with $4000 or more for a SIMPLE thing. And of course, people can say "lawyers ruin everything", but I'd like to add "crybaby patients ruin everything" as well. Because if the manufacturer of the machine allows configuration you can be certain someone, if the machine asks for 1+1 they will type 3 and die as a result.
  - Symmetry 15y ago

Dove 15y ago

That is why strong government regulation for health care is a good idea. Government has the power to protect anyone from anyone else. Ideally, it should use that power to protect weak people from the powerful corporations, as you propose. Practically, it tends to use that power to protect powerful corporations from slightly less powerful competitors.

codehotter 15y ago

I have no idea whether to be for against government regulation in health care because it's a complicated issue and I am nowhere near an expert. But I would like to ask you if you think the same logic applies to food. Can the food industry extract as much money from me as they want? I will give you the shirt off my back in order to avoid starvation. If no, what is the magic happening in the food industry? Could similar magic apply in health care?

jablan 15y ago
There's a big difference here. Basically, anyone can grow food, while not many people can make their own antibiotics or CPAP machines in their backyards.
- deleted 15y ago
  [deleted]
twomills 15y ago
The magic is a balanced equation. Either the consumers and producers are both capitalists and strive to create the best value per dollar, or the profit has to be taken out of the equation with public healthcare, with the best value per tax dollar being dependent on the good will of the bureaucracy. Right now, we have an unbalanced equation where producers strive for the most profit and the least liability, and insured consumers have absolutely no reason to even pay attention to how much money their insurance company pays in exchange for treatment, the quality of which the consumer feels is almost totally out of their control. Put the power, and the responsibility, back into the hands of patients who until now had no reason to care, and you will see a vast, rapid improvement in the state of healthcare.
flashingleds 15y ago
The reason your analogy breaks down is competition. Usually it's pretty easy to obtain food in some shape or form, so there are near endless alternatives if you face steep pricing. It's really quite difficult to be a competent doctor, so you've got limited alternatives. The magic you would need to apply is reducing the barrier to entry to medical competence somehow.

twomills 15y ago

I would say the problem could also be treated with less regulation, or to be more accurate, less litigation. Amounts to the same thing in the end, I suppose. You could fix a lot of the damage by switching insurance from a gambling basis to a contractual basis. Health insurance would be a contract between an individual and a corporation wherein the individual pays little to nothing if he remains healthy, but enters into a mortgage based on the cost of the healthcare should he require it. The maximum value of the mortgage could be assessed by the insurance company similarly to assessments for premiums, and related to the individual's total income, savings, and property. Paying a traditional monthly premium would boost the person's maximum mortgage. The current system operates counter to both private and public paradigms, as it does not encourage consumers to seek the best value for their money nor eliminate the pursuit of profit by service providers. It is a MASSIVE example of the prisoner's dilemma, where each agent is motivated toward actions detrimental to the structure as a whole.

mseebach 15y ago

> That is why strong government regulation for health care is a good idea. More like this? >> "I can't tell you how to configure your machine or how to get data from it," the guy told me, "the FDA strictly forbids me from telling you the details of how to operate the machine except as a user" You might well be right on a larger scale, but for this issue, the problem is the heavy regulation which is keeping a competitive market from giving patients what they want. Also, it's not like anyone ever had to jump through hoops inside of hoops in public health care systems. The hoops just doesn't say "$2000 per jump" on them.

DanBC 15y ago
That FDA regulation sounds reasonable. (If it is a regulation, maybe the guy on the phone just wants to get rid of the caller.) There are restrictions on who can practice medicine, and there are restrictions on what medical products people can buy and use, so it's reasonable to think that there will be restrictions on the suppliers about what they provide and who they provide it to. The heavy regulation is not preventing competition. The heavy regulation is just providing a minimum base for that competition. The problem is with the utterly broken system of US healthcare. Note that in the UK you still wouldn't get any information about hacking your CPAP machine. And you'd go to a doctor, who'd refer you to a specialist for sleep trials and fitting. And you'd have to try "lifestyle changes" (losing weight) first.
- raverbashing 15y ago
  >> The heavy regulation is not preventing competition. The heavy regulation is just providing a minimum base for that competition. >> The problem is with the utterly broken system of US healthcare. These are not uncorrelated. They are heavily correlated. Sure you can do everything by the book, and then you end up with $4000 or more for a SIMPLE thing. And of course, people can say "lawyers ruin everything", but I'd like to add "crybaby patients ruin everything" as well. Because if the manufacturer of the machine allows configuration you can be certain someone, if the machine asks for 1+1 they will type 3 and die as a result.
- Symmetry 15y ago