6 ms·

You forgot things like consumers needing information and having a choice. Those need to be present for capitalism to work. For fun I ask how much it is going

You forgot things like consumers needing information and having a choice. Those need to be present for capitalism to work. For fun I ask how much it is going to cost when going to my doctor. They refuse to tell me. They can't even make an estimate (tens? hundreds? thousands?) Even after seeing the doctor they can't. I pull out my card and say "I would like to pay now". I get told I have to wait for the bill. It is virtually impossible to find prices. Things are more complicated because the patient is often not the one paying directly due to the "insurance" that goes on. This doesn't only apply for doctor visits/procedures, but even for labs where it is a known consistent product with little variability. http://www.rogerbinns.com/blog/gplus/the-first-rule-of-the-american-healthcare-industry.html http://www.rogerbinns.com/blog/gplus/the-first-rule-of-the-a... A few years ago I had a ride to the emergency room. There was only one ambulance company and only one relevant hospital. The morphine in the ambulance was $27. At the hospital it was $129 plus another $75 fee to add it to the drip. Capitalism is not at play there. Also did you know that if in most states you were going to open a hospital to lower costs you won't be allowed to? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Certificate_of_Need https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Certificate_of_Need

deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
dilipd 13y ago
According to the site, for the 'Certificate of need', the main arguments seems to be following: "A number of factors spurred states to require certificates of need in the health care industry. Chief among these was the concern that the construction of excess hospital capacity would cause competitors in an oversaturated field to cover the costs of a diluted patient pool by over-charging, or by convincing patients to accept hospitalization unnecessarily." I couldn't understand this argument. Something seems to be wrong.
- rogerbinns 13y ago
  The argument for CON is that if a new facility came in and charged less, then the existing facilities would have to charge more to cover the patients they lost which would adversely affect their remaining patients. So a new facility would need to show the need of non-served patients - ie that they wouldn't take away patients from existing facilities. It is of course hogwash, but is a nice way for existing facilities to have a monopoly, prevent competition, and not have pricing pressure. Standard rent seeking/corruption that exists in the US.

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

dilipd 13y ago

According to the site, for the 'Certificate of need', the main arguments seems to be following: "A number of factors spurred states to require certificates of need in the health care industry. Chief among these was the concern that the construction of excess hospital capacity would cause competitors in an oversaturated field to cover the costs of a diluted patient pool by over-charging, or by convincing patients to accept hospitalization unnecessarily." I couldn't understand this argument. Something seems to be wrong.

rogerbinns 13y ago
The argument for CON is that if a new facility came in and charged less, then the existing facilities would have to charge more to cover the patients they lost which would adversely affect their remaining patients. So a new facility would need to show the need of non-served patients - ie that they wouldn't take away patients from existing facilities. It is of course hogwash, but is a nice way for existing facilities to have a monopoly, prevent competition, and not have pricing pressure. Standard rent seeking/corruption that exists in the US.