Free Market Principle to Lower healthcare in US, loosen Medicial Licensing requirements

[jbgusa]

Originally Posted by webster

In the end, the government steps in when the private sector can't. The private sector failed to provide health care at a reasonable cost.

I think you are on to something. The private sector could not provide care to retirees for next to nothing. Medicare came, and that started the vicious cycle of surging costs. When patients don't care what a third-party payer pays out, costs go through the roof. The government has to impose paperwork requirements beyond the ability of "sick people go one way, well the other." That's why most doctors' office are cavernous "centers" and not small, plain offices staffed by maybe a secretary or a spouse.

[Mircea]

Originally Posted by unseengundam

Recently, I was thinking why it cost so much see a medicial professional and why often there is such a long wait time. It should be obivious there is not doctors, nurses or medicial professions needed to meet all of America's demand.

Your premise is flawed.

Wait times exist because Soviet-style Command Economic principles artificially create Demand through unnecessary visits.

Originally Posted by unseengundam

Free Market Principle to alievate demand is to increase supply.

Free Market principles also state it is often not feasible or not possible to increase Supply.

Case in point, housing prices.

There are more than 600,000 new and existing housing markets within the US. In nearly all existing housing markets, it is either impossible or not feasible to increase the Housing Supply because the market is saturated, meaning every square inch of land is either occupied by residential space or by the commercial and retail space that provides the amenities that result in the Demand.

Originally Posted by unseengundam

If there greater supplier of medicial professional than demand you would see healthcare cost and wait time fall drastically.

Demonstrably false.

The cost of a doctor office visit is determined by:

1) the cost of space;
2) the cost of overhead;
3) the cost of office labor;
4) the cost of office/medical supplies equipment necessary; and
5) the particular specialty, if any, of the medical provider.

Originally Posted by unseengundam

Complete elmination of licensing isn't quite needed however there can be improvement can made. For example, look at Medicial Exam certificating and making easier to pass. Even allow people with on job medicial training instead of formal training to start taking some medicial certifcation for Nurses, doctors, etc. As well people who work at pharmacy without a degree can take and become licensed pharmacist easily. Another simple way is increase acceptable rate of Medicial school to say 75% or 80% instead of pathetically low rates[/url] currently.

Also demonstrably false.

Let's start simple.

All surgeons are doctors, but not all doctors are surgeons and they never will be.

Surgeons possess a skill-set that doctors do not possess, and that is the 3-D skill-set.

Artists have the 3-D skill-set. It's what allows them to draw, sketch, paint, sculpt, etc.

Fighter pilots (but not all pilots), divers, and astronauts also possess the 3-D skill-set. It's what allows them to function in 3-Dimensional space.

It is not a conspiracy. It's simple genetics. Only a small fraction of the population has the doctor skill-set and of those who do, an even smaller fraction have the surgeon skill-set.

Let's complicate things.

Surgeons and doctors cannot teach unless they also possess the teaching skill-set. Granted a greater percentage of the population possesses the teaching skill-set, but it does not logically follow that because one has an ability they must use that ability.

That is why increasing the number of medical schools or increasing the number of students fails miserably.

You already have a shortage of teaching doctors and teaching surgeons and you would exacerbate that shortage for what good reason?

None.

That would drive up the cost of medical care, not lower it.

Why don't you read the GAO (General Accounting Office) report that states 65% of medical costs are due to technology and 35% are due to artificially increased access to services that are largely unnecessary?

The difference between Americans and Europeans is Europeans go to the doctor to get well. Americans go do the doctor to feel good.

Getting well and feeling good are not the same thing.

And this obsession with feeling good is the reason you have an opioid crisis and thousands have died and ten times as many lives were ruined.

[ohio_peasant]

Originally Posted by Mircea

The difference between Americans and Europeans is Europeans go to the doctor to get well. Americans go do the doctor to feel good.

Getting well and feeling good are not the same thing.

And this obsession with feeling good is the reason you have an opioid crisis and thousands have died and ten times as many lives were ruined.

Do you assert, that the entirety of the difference between the cost of healthcare in America, and the rest of the world... and well as the entirety of the difference in outcomes, is due to the consumer? In other words, neither the institutions (medical providers, health insurers, lawyers,...) nor the government (regulators, Congress or the statehouses,..) nor the healthcare practitioners deserve any significant blame?