Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Competition is good for business. I think most all will agree with that. However, health care should not be considered a business and run for profit....
...The competition in healthcare should be in the quality of results.
All competition in the free market is dictated by results, which rests on the principle that free people have the right to choose where to spend their money and what they want to pay. If, as you say, competition is good for business and competition in health care should be in the quality of results - then why advocate a non-business system eliminating competition for quality to fix health care?
When the government runs health care, it's a monopoly with no profit motive and budgeted resources overseen by politics. That guarantees an overarching necessity to subordinate potentially unlimited demand to fixed supply. There is no competition and hence none based absolutely in quality. And the government will reserve the right to determine what quality is, and also how much input the consumer has on that subject.
Quote:
Originally Posted by modhatter
Competition for profit in health care is the cause of the US spiraling health care costs.
This is not true. Artificial stifling of competition, or lack of competition is what causes prices to rise. Costs are mitigated by supply and demand. Costs rise when demand exceeds supply. Costs decline when supply esceeds demand. And Costs rise and fall relative to competitive factors.
The US healthcare system is a classic credit-induced bubble of malinvestment where notions of profit and loss have been hopelessly distorted by government decisions. The government ALREADY runs health care at every level imaginable. The spiralling costs represent liablilties the government WILL NOT reimburse or are financed largely through foreign credit. All you have to do is look at annual expenditures versus individual outlay. It's obvious what the problem is, when you just look at hard numbers.
In 2008, for example, HC expenditures were 2.5 TRILLION, or about 8000$ per person. $32K for a family of four. The average household size was 2.65 persons in 2008, or about 20K dollars per household. In other words, one fifth of all households in 2008 earned LESS than their total share of the national cost for 2008. No amount of redistribuition can cover that deficit - which is increasing exponentially every year like a credit card where the minimum balance can't be paid month after month.
Roughly one third of the 2.5 tirillion total was written off as bad debt. So, who's paying the bills? The answer is that the liabilities are being rolled over year after year after year and lumped into the price structures for the coming year. And that's why your aspirin in the hospital costs 50 bucks a tablet. It's the same reason that airlines are now charging for things they didn't used to charge for. They have to do it, to make up costs.
ACA isn't designed to reduce costs, as has become apparent with the rollout. It's designed to give everyone access to coverage, which isn't going to be the case either. The number of uninsured people in the country has been estimated over and over again not to change by a lot - roughly 30 million people will STILL be uninsured under ACA, depending on which study you look at.
You will be rid of capitalism only when you are rid of the need to acquire energy via work. When the laws of biology are no longer in operation. Which I assume is never.
In a few words you have summarize the issue quite well. Capitalism is part of the human biology to survive. Interestingly animals in the wild also have it. So I am wrong in my predictions. It may take thousands of years to change.
In 2008, for example, HC expenditures were 2.5 TRILLION, or about 8000$ per person. $32K for a family of four. The average household size was 2.65 persons in 2008, or about 20K dollars per household. In other words, one fifth of all households in 2008 earned LESS than their total share of the national cost for 2008. No amount of redistribuition can cover that deficit - which is increasing exponentially every year like a credit card where the minimum balance can't be paid month after month.
A valid point, but there is a Huge problem in the delivery of health care. And that has to do with the profits of heath plans administrators and investors. The name of the game is to collect as much premium fees from the patients and to pay the least for medical services. The hospital may bill $50.00 for an aspirin, but in the end the hospital has to accept whatever the health plan pays. However, if a patient is uninsured he or she is expected to pay the $50.00 for the aspirin.
The main problem is:
The health care plan investors and administrators make HUGE profits by collecting high premium fees from the patients and to paying the least for medical services. The difference is pure profit and the only thing they do is handle the money. They are nothing but middle men doing a very simple job that someone else could do for a fee or a salary. At the end of the year the surplus money could be used to keep premiums down.
I don't care if a good ICU nurse makes 75k a year or if a very talented doctor earns 400-500 K a year. That is nothing compared to the 20 million a year plus some CEOs get for making money for the investors.
IN other words the CEOs and investors are making millions and they do not provide any health care at all.
No. The end of YOUR story. At the very least, your definition is incorrect to assert that capitalism posits "social wealth". Capitalism posits nothing of the sort.
You are woefully under-read. Capitalism elevates and glorifies capital as the best means of advancing social wealth. This end is how capitalism justifies itself.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Led Zeppelin
The definition of capitalism is an economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the state.
You've gone way off into the weeds. There are many flavors of capitalism, from state capitalism to the dreaded and dreadful laissez-faire free-market capitalism. All they have in common is a focus on profit and conversion of that profit to capital for the purpose of generating even more profit.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Led Zeppelin
And this simple description really doesn't acknowledge the universality of capitalism as a reflection of the natural reciprocity of work and energy necessary to all living things.
Egad! What sort of inane gobbledygook is that? Natural reciprocities? Please!!!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Led Zeppelin
In other words, ALL societies practice capitalism, irregardless of whether they are free and open or autocratic and command-control.
N.B.: There is no such word as "irregardless". And you are perhaps otherwise confusing capitalism with simple markets. a completely different phenomenon that exists in all economic systems, whether formally recognized and accounted for or not.
All competition in the free market is dictated by results, which rests on the principle that free people have the right to choose where to spend their money and what they want to pay. If, as you say, competition is good for business and competition in health care should be in the quality of results - then why advocate a non-business system eliminating competition for quality to fix health care?
When the government runs health care, it's a monopoly with no profit motive and budgeted resources overseen by politics. That guarantees an overarching necessity to subordinate potentially unlimited demand to fixed supply. There is no competition and hence none based absolutely in quality. And the government will reserve the right to determine what quality is, and also how much input the consumer has on that subject.
This is not true. Artificial stifling of competition, or lack of competition is what causes prices to rise. Costs are mitigated by supply and demand. Costs rise when demand exceeds supply. Costs decline when supply esceeds demand. And Costs rise and fall relative to competitive factors.
The US healthcare system is a classic credit-induced bubble of malinvestment where notions of profit and loss have been hopelessly distorted by government decisions. The government ALREADY runs health care at every level imaginable. The spiralling costs represent liablilties the government WILL NOT reimburse or are financed largely through foreign credit. All you have to do is look at annual expenditures versus individual outlay. It's obvious what the problem is, when you just look at hard numbers.
In 2008, for example, HC expenditures were 2.5 TRILLION, or about 8000$ per person. $32K for a family of four. The average household size was 2.65 persons in 2008, or about 20K dollars per household. In other words, one fifth of all households in 2008 earned LESS than their total share of the national cost for 2008. No amount of redistribuition can cover that deficit - which is increasing exponentially every year like a credit card where the minimum balance can't be paid month after month.
Roughly one third of the 2.5 tirillion total was written off as bad debt. So, who's paying the bills? The answer is that the liabilities are being rolled over year after year after year and lumped into the price structures for the coming year. And that's why your aspirin in the hospital costs 50 bucks a tablet. It's the same reason that airlines are now charging for things they didn't used to charge for. They have to do it, to make up costs.
ACA isn't designed to reduce costs, as has become apparent with the rollout. It's designed to give everyone access to coverage, which isn't going to be the case either. The number of uninsured people in the country has been estimated over and over again not to change by a lot - roughly 30 million people will STILL be uninsured under ACA, depending on which study you look at.
I think you need to get your head out of your economic 101 book and learn more about how the health care industry actually works. With family in the business and from personal experience I can tell you how our health care system works. It's called PRODUCTIVITY. Yes, this is how you are trained and graded on how well you perform your job. You are actually chastised for doing something that might actually eliminate a further problem for a patient, because you will effect PRODUCTIVITY.A word you hear day in and day out. Your job becomes more about creating problems or maintaining problems for the sake of productivity. Patient care is secondary, and is the vehicle for increasing profit.
What goes on in a hospital is all about doing everything possible to increase productivity.
Pain pills are "pushed" on patients, records falsified to justify some other non essential treatment for the patient. Meetings are held regularly to discuss patients and how we may consider increasing PRODUCTIVITY of patients in order to run the tab up. (the dialog never put in those words of course) Doctors who perform the most procedures in their hospitals are held in the highest regard. Whether or not that procedure was warranted is of no concern to the hospital. It's all about how much can be pushed on patients in order to increase billing.
This is the reality of how health care works. When you are in it, you will see how destructive and harmful your Economics 101 book is. Like I previously said Health Care is the one area where capitalism work against good outcome.
I think you need to get your head out of your economic 101 book and learn more about how the health care industry actually works. With family in the business and from personal experience I can tell you how our health care system works. It's called PRODUCTIVITY. Yes, this is how you are trained and graded on how well you perform your job. You are actually chastised for doing something that might actually eliminate a further problem for a patient, because you will effect PRODUCTIVITY.A word you hear day in and day out. Your job becomes more about creating problems or maintaining problems for the sake of productivity. Patient care is secondary, and is the vehicle for increasing profit.
What goes on in a hospital is all about doing everything possible to increase productivity.
Pain pills are "pushed" on patients, records falsified to justify some other non essential treatment for the patient. Meetings are held regularly to discuss patients and how we may consider increasing PRODUCTIVITY of patients in order to run the tab up. (the dialog never put in those words of course) Doctors who perform the most procedures in their hospitals are held in the highest regard. Whether or not that procedure was warranted is of no concern to the hospital. It's all about how much can be pushed on patients in order to increase billing.
This is the reality of how health care works. When you are in it, you will see how destructive and harmful your Economics 101 book is. Like I previously said Health Care is the one area where capitalism work against good outcome.
In a few words you have summarize the issue quite well. Capitalism is part of the human biology to survive. Interestingly animals in the wild also have it. So I am wrong in my predictions. It may take thousands of years to change.
Indeed, capitalism is merely the human "euphemism" for the biological processes of life sustainment. All living things on earth must exchange "work" for "energy" in an endless cycle to sustain life. But only humans have the capacity to mentally abstract ideals contrary to natural law - such as the erroneous idea that "wealth" can be created or sustained without the work/energy exchange. Nail the hive door shut and expect the bees to make honey anyway, in other words.
It may take thousands of years to change, indeed. It will take as long as necessary, until we figure out how to create matter out of nothing using absolutely no energy at all.
You are woefully under-read. Capitalism elevates and glorifies capital as the best means of advancing social wealth. This end is how capitalism justifies itself. You've gone way off into the weeds. There are many flavors of capitalism, from state capitalism to the dreaded and dreadful laissez-faire free-market capitalism. All they have in common is a focus on profit and conversion of that profit to capital for the purpose of generating even more profit. Egad! What sort of inane gobbledygook is that? Natural reciprocities? Please!!!
N.B.: There is no such word as "irregardless". And you are perhaps otherwise confusing capitalism with simple markets. a completely different phenomenon that exists in all economic systems, whether formally recognized and accounted for or not.
I think you need to go back and read the extent of what I've written here. Otherwise, I can't see how you'd ever get the idea that I assert ANYTHING BUT the idea that capitalism is practiced in many "flavors" as you put it.
"Social wealth" is an abstract consideration of the political/social policy system. Whatever theory you ascribe to is fine with me. Governments do with revenues what they will, more or less. And who is "they" in this assertion of focus on profit and wealth building? Better yet, who WOULDN'T "they" be? In other words, which honeybee in the hive would be doing something other than what bees do as a natural process of sustainment?
You sound defensive about some ideological position.
Last edited by Led Zeppelin; 11-24-2013 at 06:02 PM..
Indeed, capitalism is merely the human "euphemism" for the biological processes of life sustainment. All living things on earth must exchange "work" for "energy" in an endless cycle to sustain life. But only humans have the capacity to mentally abstract ideals contrary to natural law - such as the erroneous idea that "wealth" can be created or sustained without the work/energy exchange. Nail the hive door shut and expect the bees to make honey anyway, in other words.
It may take thousands of years to change, indeed. It will take as long as necessary, until we figure out how to create matter out of nothing using absolutely no energy at all.
I have always accepted that wealth creation is key. And some humans are very good at creating wealth------------they are so good that they give the wealth away.
However, there are others that despite enormous wealth will cheat a waiter of a tip or will fight real hard for five extra dollars simply because they are capitalists.
But, lets get back at the issue of wealth creation since this is the key to have true success. The investors in a business that provides heath insurance make money by subtracting medical payments to health care providers from the premiums charged to the patient. As a general rule this business is very profitable and these folks have the largest lobby in Washington, DC.
The question is: How much wealth is created by this activity? One would think that the function of this business could be done for just a fee. Sure, there will be loss of efficiency as humans get lazy by working for a lower reward, but in the end the work is done by employees on a fixed salary. Did you know that the CEO of USAA makes less than 200k a year? I know this can be done. One does not need a 25 million dollar salary to do this. This is not true capitalism.
I have no issues with wealth creators making lot of money because in the end everybody benefits. But, who benefits from the profits made by the health care insurance industry? I rather see an athlete get 25 million dollars a year than the CEOs of these companies making the same amount of money. The work they do can be done by someone else for much less. At least the star athletes have a skill that no one else can do with the same efficiency.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
