4 ms·

That's not how markets work. If there was a surplus of doctors, you would have a lot of private practices at low out of pocket prices and no need for insurance

That's not how markets work. If there was a surplus of doctors, you would have a lot of private practices at low out of pocket prices and no need for insurance whatsoever.

llamaimperative 2y ago
Which would in turn reduce the number of doctors that go into training, which would in turn raise prices back to where insurance is necessary. AFAICT, no health system on the planet, with or without controls on doctor supply, has achieved what you describe. If you have evidence that equilibrium can be found at "no need for insurance whatsoever," I'm interested to see it. It looks to me like equilibrium is nowhere near that.
- golergka 2y ago
  > Which would in turn reduce the number of doctors that go into training, which would in turn raise prices back to where insurance is necessary. Well, yes, one way or another, the market would reach in equilibrium. Like in physics or chemistry, you can't always exactly predict how exactly the equilibrium would be reached, but you can calculate where it is nevertheless. However, right now in US it is not in an equilibrium, because the supply of doctors is artificially limited. Therefore, the natural equilibrium between supply and demand lies to the side of more doctors and more affordable healthcare.
  - llamaimperative 2y ago
    Sure, I'm not denying the artificial supply constraints is a huge problem (I've complained about this on many instances on HN). I'm saying that it is orthogonal to the problem described in the article.
    - golergka 2y ago
      You don't think that the problem described in this article has anything to do with supply and demand for doctors and their services?
      - llamaimperative 2y ago
        No I have no reason to believe that having more doctors would induce insurers to keep their network directories up to date and to represent their network to consumers honestly. A more direct solution is to just fine them $10,000 every time a patient is told a doctor is in network and they are not.

That's not how markets work. If there was a surplus of doctors, you would have a lot of private practices at low out of pocket prices and no need for insurance whatsoever.

llamaimperative 2y ago

Which would in turn reduce the number of doctors that go into training, which would in turn raise prices back to where insurance is necessary. AFAICT, no health system on the planet, with or without controls on doctor supply, has achieved what you describe. If you have evidence that equilibrium can be found at "no need for insurance whatsoever," I'm interested to see it. It looks to me like equilibrium is nowhere near that.

golergka 2y ago
> Which would in turn reduce the number of doctors that go into training, which would in turn raise prices back to where insurance is necessary. Well, yes, one way or another, the market would reach in equilibrium. Like in physics or chemistry, you can't always exactly predict how exactly the equilibrium would be reached, but you can calculate where it is nevertheless. However, right now in US it is not in an equilibrium, because the supply of doctors is artificially limited. Therefore, the natural equilibrium between supply and demand lies to the side of more doctors and more affordable healthcare.
- llamaimperative 2y ago
  Sure, I'm not denying the artificial supply constraints is a huge problem (I've complained about this on many instances on HN). I'm saying that it is orthogonal to the problem described in the article.
  - golergka 2y ago
    You don't think that the problem described in this article has anything to do with supply and demand for doctors and their services?
    - llamaimperative 2y ago
      No I have no reason to believe that having more doctors would induce insurers to keep their network directories up to date and to represent their network to consumers honestly. A more direct solution is to just fine them $10,000 every time a patient is told a doctor is in network and they are not.