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.
No, the problem is the healthcare system is not at all free market. I don't think, no offense, you even know what a free market system would look like.
It is not free market. It's not even close. If it was a free market system the costs would be listed and you could shop where you wanted to get a procedure done and you would know the costs going in.
It is not free market. It's not even close. If it was a free market system the costs would be listed and you could shop where you wanted to get a procedure done and you would know the costs going in.
Right, also you'd pay for a service up front. Like, when your house is flooding and the plumber shows up and you scream "do something!!' they just sit there until cash hits the hand. Which is as it should be.
No, the problem is the healthcare system is not at all free market. I don't think, no offense, you even know what a free market system would look like.
Ours is a weird system but it is the most freemarket of any healthsystem in the world.
None of these attacks on Medicare and Social Security can take place, if just two Republicans in the Senate are worried enough about their own careers, to refuse to go along. The last time they tried to re-write these programs, in 2005, a lot more of them than that, backed away from it. It's likely that any measure connected to them, would need to have provisions that would benefit recipients, not take away anything, to get through the Senate. In other words, a measure that would be acceptable to the Democrats.
Last edited by Steve McDonald; 11-30-2016 at 09:26 PM..
It is not free market. It's not even close. If it was a free market system the costs would be listed and you could shop where you wanted to get a procedure done and you would know the costs going in.
There's nothing in free market theory that requires pricing transparency. It likely increases efficiency in a free market but plenty of freemarket systems have opaque pricing.
It's in the law. It has nothing to do with "counting on it". In rare cases you can lose your house. They can take very little of what is in it unless it's not paid for.
Nope. It happens quite a bit. The only loophole is homestead exemptions and in many states that isn't very much. Oddly enough, Florida is one state where the market value of your house is the exemption and so can not be touched in bankruptcy. Other states are not so generous in that aspect. And you absolutely can lose your house for failure to pay medical bills.
It doesn't seem fair but that's the law and it happens. Frequently.
Right, also you'd pay for a service up front. Like, when your house is flooding and the plumber shows up and you scream "do something!!' they just sit there until cash hits the hand. Which is as it should be.
Again prepayment is not a function of free market nor is it always common. Time and material contracts with payment due at the end are still very common.
There's nothing in free market theory that requires pricing transparency. It likely increases efficiency in a free market but plenty of freemarket systems have opaque pricing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by East of the River
Again prepayment is not a function of free market nor is it always common. Time and material contracts with payment due at the end are still very common.
It's interesting how incorrect you are about free market theory. That's probably why you incorrectly say that healthcare is free market currently. Note: you may then say "that's just you saying I'm wrong." You're right, I'm not even bothering in explaining what I mean because you're essentially so incorrect that it would be a complete waste of my time. Just take my word for it.
It's interesting how incorrect you are about free market theory. That's probably why you incorrectly say that healthcare is free market currently. Note: you may then say "that's just you saying I'm wrong." You're right, I'm not even bothering in explaining what I mean because you're essentially so incorrect that it would be a complete waste of my time. Just take my word for it.
I'll admit I'm not an expert but I have read a few books. While transparent pricing is seen as ideal it's not usually used in identifying a free market at least in any definition or study on free markets I have read.
Here would be my semi free market solution.
Require all pricing be published by every healthcare provider for every service.
Require that you can choose your own doctor (no networks) many states do this with car insurance why not medical?
Health insurers and doctors would resolve claims thru negotiation. (again how other types of insurance works)
Simplify insurance plans. One deductible for primary care and another for everything else. Other then that you covered for anything medically necessary.
Keep the exchanges but remove minimum requirements see what happens. Keep subsidies at current levels.
Add more business insurance exchanges (maybe with some subsidies) to get more small employers to add health coverage.
I'd be willing to try this.
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.
