3 ms·

> 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 da

> 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
  * The heavy regulation is just providing a minimum base for that competition.* In the case of the medical system this is actually explicitly not how the system was designed. There was a theory going around about when Nixon was president that the reason the Soviet system was superior[1] was that they were able to prevent "wasteful competition", so the right thing for the US to do to keep medical costs down was to prevent competition in medicine. So we got a lot of laws that, for example, required anyone proposing to build a new hospital to get the permission of all the existing hospitals they might be competing with. [1] People believed this at the time because the economic statistics published by the USSR said that the USSR was really awesome, and because the idea that central planning works is pretty intuitive.
  - DanBC 15y ago
    I am grateful for the correction. I need to do a bit of reading! Like many things cold-war and Nixon and etc it's fascinating.

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
* The heavy regulation is just providing a minimum base for that competition.* In the case of the medical system this is actually explicitly not how the system was designed. There was a theory going around about when Nixon was president that the reason the Soviet system was superior[1] was that they were able to prevent "wasteful competition", so the right thing for the US to do to keep medical costs down was to prevent competition in medicine. So we got a lot of laws that, for example, required anyone proposing to build a new hospital to get the permission of all the existing hospitals they might be competing with. [1] People believed this at the time because the economic statistics published by the USSR said that the USSR was really awesome, and because the idea that central planning works is pretty intuitive.
- DanBC 15y ago
  I am grateful for the correction. I need to do a bit of reading! Like many things cold-war and Nixon and etc it's fascinating.