3 ms·

I'd add that the point of insurance is to pool risk for rare but costly incidents. Somehow we have a system where it also pays for foreseeable and very likely e

I'd add that the point of insurance is to pool risk for rare but costly incidents. Somehow we have a system where it also pays for foreseeable and very likely events. Of course supply and demand market competition breaks down in a non linear S/D case where there is no elasticity of demand. Ideally routine care would never be covered by insurance with full proce transparency like plastic surgery. Further separating health insurance from employment would drastically reduce the number of unique plans offered making it more efficient. It would also require public non profit manufacturing of drugs to reduce the cost.

nradov 2y ago
If routine and preventive care isn't covered by some form of insurance than low-income people won't be able to afford it at all. Some of those costs are inevitably going to be pooled. Generic drug manufacturers have very low profit margins. Switching manufacturing of generics to non-profit organizations would have very little impact on total healthcare system costs. If you're suggesting handing over ownership of patent protected drugs to non-profit organizations, well that would lower costs in the short term. It would also ensure the pipeline of new drug development is slowed to a trickle.
- throwaway48476 2y ago
  New drug development is largely funded by the government already. There are basically 0 new compounds on the market in the last 20 years. Most of the cost for drug development that is pricately funded is just dealing with regulation, not doing R&D. It is always economically more efficient to develop drugs instead of cures.
  - nradov 2y ago
    The vast majority of drug development costs are are in phase-3 human clinical trials. That's not just regulation, it's essential to prove safety and efficiency. The government provides very little funding for those trials. Stop making things up.
    - throwaway48476 2y ago
      A lot of the reason efficacy is so regulated is that people shouldn't go into debt for snake oil. If on the other hand there is no cost to the patient and minimal cost to the taxpayer the downside for inefficacy is much less and doctors would be freer let patients take a chance. It would also help more drugs get tested faster on more people.

nradov 2y ago

If routine and preventive care isn't covered by some form of insurance than low-income people won't be able to afford it at all. Some of those costs are inevitably going to be pooled. Generic drug manufacturers have very low profit margins. Switching manufacturing of generics to non-profit organizations would have very little impact on total healthcare system costs. If you're suggesting handing over ownership of patent protected drugs to non-profit organizations, well that would lower costs in the short term. It would also ensure the pipeline of new drug development is slowed to a trickle.

throwaway48476 2y ago
New drug development is largely funded by the government already. There are basically 0 new compounds on the market in the last 20 years. Most of the cost for drug development that is pricately funded is just dealing with regulation, not doing R&D. It is always economically more efficient to develop drugs instead of cures.
- nradov 2y ago
  The vast majority of drug development costs are are in phase-3 human clinical trials. That's not just regulation, it's essential to prove safety and efficiency. The government provides very little funding for those trials. Stop making things up.
  - throwaway48476 2y ago
    A lot of the reason efficacy is so regulated is that people shouldn't go into debt for snake oil. If on the other hand there is no cost to the patient and minimal cost to the taxpayer the downside for inefficacy is much less and doctors would be freer let patients take a chance. It would also help more drugs get tested faster on more people.