4 ms·

Under a true free market doctors as a group wouldn't be able to use political connections to cover themselves. Once a doctor makes a big enough mistake the free

by talmand 13y ago

Under a true free market doctors as a group wouldn't be able to use political connections to cover themselves. Once a doctor makes a big enough mistake the free market would demand he be put out on the street to never practice medicine again. Most likely the hospital would dump the doctor because they wouldn't want their customers, the patients, going to a different hospital that doesn't have doctors that cut people up for little or no reason. Make no mistake, what we have in this day and age is nowhere near what one would call a free market. Regardless of political leanings or party, once a government is involved enough within the economy it is no longer a free market. It eventually becomes crony capitalism, if it doesn't shift to a non-capitalistic system, which is what you see in the U.S. today.

masklinn 13y ago
> Under a true free market doctors as a group wouldn't be able to use political connections to cover themselves. That is not the question I asked. GP asserted: > if it was easier to people fire him when he was still a student for example, without fear of being sued I do not see how a free-er market would preclude lawsuits.
- talmand 13y ago
  Well, I admit, it's a winding path so bear with me. In a free market, a doctor would not be able to use political connections whether they be personal or part of a group to cover themselves. This not only includes the lawsuit angle but the ability to prevent laws that restrict his behavior and/or empower the patient, or vice-versa. Under a free market the doctor wouldn't last very long if he was bad at his job, as he would be pushed out for someone more competent. Therefore, he makes one mistake and gets sued once. Maybe twice. Under a system that allows a bad doctor to remain for longer than should be allowed results in multiple injuries which results in multiple lawsuits. In fact, the very article that this whole thread was started for describes that very doctor. After his first severely botched surgery, where all the doctors and hospital were sure he was incompetent, he should have been booted. Or at least placed in a position that had less responsibility, such as assisting in another surgery. But the system in place kept him working or were unable to deal with him resulting in more harm.
  - dragonwriter 13y ago
    > Under a free market the doctor wouldn't last very long if he was bad at his job, as he would be pushed out for someone more competent. In an ideal free market (which is a Platonic form, not a real thing that can exist in the material world), a vendor who fails to provide value cannot operate because there is perfect knowledge of the utilities and costs of a decision among all market participants, and buyers won't buy from that vendor. Features of real-world markets that make them approximate ideal free markets are things like frequent repeated purchases of the same class of commodity which provides its utility fairly quickly and unambiguously, such that while perfect knowledge doesn't exist in the initial condition, very good information about expected utilities can be developed by market participants which allows behavior over time to align closely with what would be expected in an ideal market. These features that allow real markets to approximate ideal free markets are not found very strongly in medical care in general, and are particularly not present in major surgery.
    - talmand 13y ago
      The reason they don't exist is because people actively prevent it. Much like the original article and various examples provided throughout the thread show. People ask each other all the time about their personal experiences about doctors to attempt to avoid the bad ones, but that's as far as it seems to go in most cases.
      - dragonwriter 13y ago
        > The reason they don't exist is because people actively prevent it. No, that's not the reason that the features I identify don't exist in the purchase of major surgery. Its inherent in the kind of commodity it is.
        talmand 13y ago
        The main subject, the original article, of this thread disagrees with you.
anigbrowl 13y ago
Under a true free market doctors as a group wouldn't be able to use political connections to cover themselves. Why not? Political donations and lobbying are protected speech, are you suggesting that doctors shouldn't enjoy the exercise of their first amendment rights? the free market would demand he be put out on the street to never practice medicine again LOL no, on several counts. First, you can't have a truly free market in medical care because the knowledge gap between consumer and provider is so great. I'm a smart, educated person but I'm really not competent to assess the quality of a doctor in most cases, which is why peer review organizations like medical boards exist to begin with. Second, in a really free market you buy at the time of your choosing, taking into account all factors such as quality and price. A great deal of medical care is not elective, but the purchase decision is forced upon the consumer by circumstances such as illness or injury. Not only are the purchasers under intense time pressure to make a decision, they must often do so with less than normal competence. Thirdly, you assume that peers and hospitals are in full possession of the facts at all times, and that deception is impossible. Deception has a price like everything else, and if you assume that people are going to ignore the economic incentives to lie or feign ignorance then I have a really great deal that I'd like to offer to someone like yourself...a deal whose value most people would not be able to appreciate, if you know what I mean. It eventually becomes crony capitalism A no true Scotsman fallacy. Markets have to exist in the real world, not one populated by angels.
- talmand 13y ago
  Sure, they can use their First Amendment rights to support whatever candidate they want. But when said candidate gets elected and pushes a law through that directly benefits the contributor to the detriment of the people, then the free market is dead. At that point you have crony capitalism. I don't see anything in your paragraph disputing my statement. You are describing things leading up to the mistakes of the doctor while I describe what happens afterwards. Are you saying that crony capitalism doesn't exist? Because that's the only way I would agree with your No True Scotsman fallacy accusation. Seems to me you are attempting to make yourself appear clever with your condescending statement instead of actually addressing my point.

by talmand 13y ago

masklinn 13y ago

> Under a true free market doctors as a group wouldn't be able to use political connections to cover themselves. That is not the question I asked. GP asserted: > if it was easier to people fire him when he was still a student for example, without fear of being sued I do not see how a free-er market would preclude lawsuits.

talmand 13y ago
Well, I admit, it's a winding path so bear with me. In a free market, a doctor would not be able to use political connections whether they be personal or part of a group to cover themselves. This not only includes the lawsuit angle but the ability to prevent laws that restrict his behavior and/or empower the patient, or vice-versa. Under a free market the doctor wouldn't last very long if he was bad at his job, as he would be pushed out for someone more competent. Therefore, he makes one mistake and gets sued once. Maybe twice. Under a system that allows a bad doctor to remain for longer than should be allowed results in multiple injuries which results in multiple lawsuits. In fact, the very article that this whole thread was started for describes that very doctor. After his first severely botched surgery, where all the doctors and hospital were sure he was incompetent, he should have been booted. Or at least placed in a position that had less responsibility, such as assisting in another surgery. But the system in place kept him working or were unable to deal with him resulting in more harm.
- dragonwriter 13y ago
  > Under a free market the doctor wouldn't last very long if he was bad at his job, as he would be pushed out for someone more competent. In an ideal free market (which is a Platonic form, not a real thing that can exist in the material world), a vendor who fails to provide value cannot operate because there is perfect knowledge of the utilities and costs of a decision among all market participants, and buyers won't buy from that vendor. Features of real-world markets that make them approximate ideal free markets are things like frequent repeated purchases of the same class of commodity which provides its utility fairly quickly and unambiguously, such that while perfect knowledge doesn't exist in the initial condition, very good information about expected utilities can be developed by market participants which allows behavior over time to align closely with what would be expected in an ideal market. These features that allow real markets to approximate ideal free markets are not found very strongly in medical care in general, and are particularly not present in major surgery.
  - talmand 13y ago
    The reason they don't exist is because people actively prevent it. Much like the original article and various examples provided throughout the thread show. People ask each other all the time about their personal experiences about doctors to attempt to avoid the bad ones, but that's as far as it seems to go in most cases.
    - dragonwriter 13y ago
      > The reason they don't exist is because people actively prevent it. No, that's not the reason that the features I identify don't exist in the purchase of major surgery. Its inherent in the kind of commodity it is.
      - talmand 13y ago
        The main subject, the original article, of this thread disagrees with you.

anigbrowl 13y ago

Under a true free market doctors as a group wouldn't be able to use political connections to cover themselves. Why not? Political donations and lobbying are protected speech, are you suggesting that doctors shouldn't enjoy the exercise of their first amendment rights? the free market would demand he be put out on the street to never practice medicine again LOL no, on several counts. First, you can't have a truly free market in medical care because the knowledge gap between consumer and provider is so great. I'm a smart, educated person but I'm really not competent to assess the quality of a doctor in most cases, which is why peer review organizations like medical boards exist to begin with. Second, in a really free market you buy at the time of your choosing, taking into account all factors such as quality and price. A great deal of medical care is not elective, but the purchase decision is forced upon the consumer by circumstances such as illness or injury. Not only are the purchasers under intense time pressure to make a decision, they must often do so with less than normal competence. Thirdly, you assume that peers and hospitals are in full possession of the facts at all times, and that deception is impossible. Deception has a price like everything else, and if you assume that people are going to ignore the economic incentives to lie or feign ignorance then I have a really great deal that I'd like to offer to someone like yourself...a deal whose value most people would not be able to appreciate, if you know what I mean. It eventually becomes crony capitalism A no true Scotsman fallacy. Markets have to exist in the real world, not one populated by angels.

talmand 13y ago
Sure, they can use their First Amendment rights to support whatever candidate they want. But when said candidate gets elected and pushes a law through that directly benefits the contributor to the detriment of the people, then the free market is dead. At that point you have crony capitalism. I don't see anything in your paragraph disputing my statement. You are describing things leading up to the mistakes of the doctor while I describe what happens afterwards. Are you saying that crony capitalism doesn't exist? Because that's the only way I would agree with your No True Scotsman fallacy accusation. Seems to me you are attempting to make yourself appear clever with your condescending statement instead of actually addressing my point.