It is a tough call. The crux of the problem, IMO, is employee sponsored health care. No one asks, "How much for that test?" because the employer is paying for it. And that raises costs on everyone. The worst part is that employee sponsored health care is purely a product of the free market (it arose in the 1940's as a way to attract better employees). Is the answer a law that denies companies the right to offer healthcare benefits to employees? Could help, but is a tremendous infringement on the rights of employers.

 

I agree, though employer-provided insurance has become such a norm now that I don't think any employer could find a way out. And as a free trade proponent I also have to note that American firms are being asked to not only provide insurance, but compete with firms whose countries provide their employees with healthcare.

Although this article from the Cato Institute is rather dated (1994), I believe it is still relevant today.

 

http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa211.html

 

The main point is that as consumers (patients) consume more medical care the costs rise. Just like supply and demand with respect to the oil industry, car industry, or any other industry, as demand increases so does the price of the product or service.

 

I might read the article later. As for now, what you've said about supply and demand is true only in a vacuum. Prices rise as demand increases only if supply remains constant. I think healthcare is too fluid to be considered a constant. How can supply ever reach zero or move toward zero? Additionally, as demand increases more firms step into the market, raising supply until demand is flattened, then the weakest firms are squeezed out. Further following the supply and demand logic reveals that as prices rise demand lessens. In a vacuum it is cyclical. In reality costs have risen dramatically, curving only upwards. There are certainly more factors.

 

For the government to control costs they will have to control access and limit costs. Which leads to the issue of pharmaceutical companies, medical technology companies, etc… investing in new drugs, treatments, and medical technology. They invest money into research and development to make money. If their potential for profit is significantly reduced or gone will they continue?

 

Many American firms market their drugs to countries like Britain (at significantly reduced prices), despite Britain having a national health system. Pharmaceuticals from Canada are often considerably cheaper than the same medicine sold here. That is all to say that pharmaceuticals can and will produce for lower prices, they've simply used built in protections in America to raise their prices.

 

Our system is not perfect and does need some tweaking, but a complete overhaul with the government in charge? Hopefully not in my lifetime

 

What can be tweaked that will have any effect? I think we need systemic change.

I might read the article later. As for now, what you've said about supply and demand is true only in a vacuum. Prices rise as demand increases only if supply remains constant. I think healthcare is too fluid to be considered a constant. How can supply ever reach zero or move toward zero? Additionally, as demand increases more firms step into the market, raising supply until demand is flattened, then the weakest firms are squeezed out. Further following the supply and demand logic reveals that as prices rise demand lessens. In a vacuum it is cyclical. In reality costs have risen dramatically, curving only upwards. There are certainly more factors.

 

 

 

Many American firms market their drugs to countries like Britain (at significantly reduced prices), despite Britain having a national health system. Pharmaceuticals from Canada are often considerably cheaper than the same medicine sold here. That is all to say that pharmaceuticals can and will produce for lower prices, they've simply used built in protections in America to raise their prices.

 

 

 

What can be tweaked that will have any effect? I think we need systemic change.

 

The concern as it relates to supply and demand for health care is if the government takes control of the system and reduces patient costs while expanding coverage to all then it will increase demand. The increased demand will lead to overuse of the system and longer wait times for all. More health care will equal more costs to the government and therefore more costs to the taxpayers.

 

Areas that can be tweaked would be malpractice insurance costs, target the uninsured and not the entire system, and focus on the underlying reasons why costs are high. There is an abundance of evidence of the negative effects of government run healthcare. I am not convinced our system is as bad as some claim. There is never going to be a perfect system.

The concern as it relates to supply and demand for health care is if the government takes control of the system and reduces patient costs while expanding coverage to all then it will increase demand. The increased demand will lead to overuse of the system and longer wait times for all. More health care will equal more costs to the government and therefore more costs to the taxpayers.

 

Areas that can be tweaked would be malpractice insurance costs, target the uninsured and not the entire system, and focus on the underlying reasons why costs are high. There is an abundance of evidence of the negative effects of government run healthcare. I am not convinced our system is as bad as some claim. There is never going to be a perfect system.

 

:thumb:

It is a tough call. The crux of the problem, IMO, is employee sponsored health care. No one asks, "How much for that test?" because the employer is paying for it. And that raises costs on everyone. The worst part is that employee sponsored health care is purely a product of the free market (it arose in the 1940's as a way to attract better employees). Is the answer a law that denies companies the right to offer healthcare benefits to employees? Could help, but is a tremendous infringement on the rights of employers.

 

There is no doubt that government-run health care is the worst option. As for government-sponsored, I don't know. What people need to keep in mind is that government can't fund everything. And our government has no money. So, even if government-sponsored health care were better (which is debatable), I think that we need to realize that government has to pick and choose what it funds. America is not a utopia, and our government simply can't afford this. If our politicians were more committed to balancing the budget and cutting other expenditure, perhaps this would be a possibility. But government can't keep racking up the bill when it has no money, and it is more prudent that we rely on what we have now until our government is financially able to take on such huge costs.

 

In your first graf, you seem to be operating under the assumption that American companies want to continue offering health insurance, and would be mad if there was a single-payer option in place. Seems to me that as long as I've been in the workforce, companies have been going out of their way to reduce the number of people they have on their health insurance, and would welcome having that expenditure off their books.

But why does anyone have confidence that the federal government can run health care?

But why does anyone have confidence that the federal government can run health care?

 

Maybe people weighed inefficiency v. greed and chose inefficiency?

Maybe people weighed inefficiency v. greed and chose inefficiency?

While we know greed and corruption will not go away with the proposed system, I would say that is a fair statement.

 

The problem is, our current system was probably put in place for the same reason.

Maybe people weighed inefficiency v. greed and chose inefficiency?

 

 

I'll take greed every time in that scenario.

I'll take greed every time in that scenario.

 

In the words of Gordon Gekko:

 

Greed, for lack of a better word is good. Greed is right. Greed works. Greed clarifies, cuts through, and captures the essence of the evolutionary spirit. Greed in all of it's forms: greed for life, for money, for love, knowledge, has marked the upward surge of mankind. And greed, you mark my words, will not only save Teldar Paper, but that other malfunctioning corporation called the USA.

In your first graf, you seem to be operating under the assumption that American companies want to continue offering health insurance, and would be mad if there was a single-payer option in place. Seems to me that as long as I've been in the workforce, companies have been going out of their way to reduce the number of people they have on their health insurance, and would welcome having that expenditure off their books.

I'm not assuming that companies want or don't want to, just that they do. And there is no doubt that, at some point in time, companies wanted to give healthcare.

 

I am begginning to think that healthcare as we know it is a bad thing. Healthcare insurance should be just for catastrophies, not routine medical tests and appointments. What it has evolved into is a huge problem.

Maybe people weighed inefficiency v. greed and chose inefficiency?

Is there a reason why government is exempt of greed? Why is greed a trait applicable only to the private sector?

But why does anyone have confidence that the federal government can run health care?

 

Excellent question! Exactly how is the government going to improve efficiencies and reduce costs all the while expanding coverage to the under or uninsured?

I'm not assuming that companies want or don't want to, just that they do. And there is no doubt that, at some point in time, companies wanted to give healthcare.

 

I am begginning to think that healthcare as we know it is a bad thing. Healthcare insurance should be just for catastrophies, not routine medical tests and appointments. What it has evolved into is a huge problem.

 

Is there a reason why government is exempt of greed? Why is greed a trait applicable only to the private sector?

 

Because, as far as I know, the government is not a for-profit venture.

Because, as far as I know, the government is not a for-profit venture.

 

Certainly not- but you can bet your bottom dollar that our politicians are. The main difference is that when the government loses money, we the taxpayers foot the bill. On the other hand, if I start a business, I have to repay the debts myself.

The concern as it relates to supply and demand for health care is if the government takes control of the system and reduces patient costs while expanding coverage to all then it will increase demand. The increased demand will lead to overuse of the system and longer wait times for all. More health care will equal more costs to the government and therefore more costs to the taxpayers.

 

The problem with that argument is that the uninsured are still able to get healthcare through hospital emergency rooms, which substantially contributes to problems of overcrowding there. In essence we have a system concentrated into one sector. Would universal coverage not then disperse that concentration across the board? Furthermore, the logical end of your argument is that the US needs a large chunk of its citizenry to be uninsured to sufficiently serve those with insurance. I would say that is untenable on its face.

 

Areas that can be tweaked would be malpractice insurance costs, target the uninsured and not the entire system, and focus on the underlying reasons why costs are high. There is an abundance of evidence of the negative effects of government run healthcare. I am not convinced our system is as bad as some claim. There is never going to be a perfect system.

 

What are the underlying reasons as to why costs are high?