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.
Healthcare is incompatible with free markets. Free market is based on the voluntary exchange of good and service.
As such, market competition can only bring down health care costs for procedures that people can live without, such as most plastic surgeries or lasik.
Nothing voluntary about needing care for stage 4 cancer or losing out on the genetic lottery with type 1 diabetes and needing insulin on a regular basis.
Without care, these people die.
As such, without the ability for an entity to use economics of scale (aka government), hospitals and pharmaceutical companies can charge what ever they want because they know people need these things to survive.
And people are usually willing to pay what ever it costs to stay alive.
Other 1st world countries use economics of scale and a such, this is the reason why insulin costs about 25 dollars a vial in Canada vs about 400 in the US.
Economics of scale is the reason why it's much cheaper per roll to buy toilet paper from Costco than it is to buy a single roll from your local liquor store.
The US has a multi-pair and very fragmented coverage system so as such economics of scale cannot be as widely used.
Until we get over the socialist boogeyman and actually implement economics to scale, we will continue to have the highest costs for medical care in the world.
Location: Live:Downtown Phoenix, AZ/Work:Greater Los Angeles, CA
27,606 posts, read 14,655,861 times
Reputation: 9169
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stizzel
Healthcare is incompatible with free markets. Free market is based on the voluntary exchange of good and service.
As such, market competition can only bring down health care costs for procedures that people can live without, such as most plastic surgeries or lasik.
Nothing voluntary about needing care for stage 4 cancer or losing out on the genetic lottery with type 1 diabetes and needing insulin on a regular basis.
Without care, these people die.
As such, without the ability for an entity to use economics of scale (aka government), hospitals and pharmaceutical companies can charge what ever they want because they know people need these things to survive.
And people are usually willing to pay what ever it costs to stay alive.
Other 1st world countries use economics of scale and a such, this is the reason why insulin costs about 25 dollars a vial in Canada vs about 400 in the US.
Economics of scale is the reason why it's much cheaper per roll to buy toilet paper from Costco than it is to buy a single roll from your local liquor store.
The US has a multi-pair and very fragmented coverage system so as such economics of scale cannot be as widely used.
Until we get over the socialist boogeyman and actually implement economics to scale, we will continue to have the highest costs for medical care in the world.
Norway is universally considered one of the happiest places to live is why I pointed them out...Norwegians pay high taxes but they don't complain about it...they have clean cities, clean environment (even w/ the North Sea Oil), and a very strong social safety net...yet they still have a very strong economy w/ many great companies.
86.2% Norwegian makes that pretty simple. Shall we give them a few million illegals to see how that works out?
Back in 2009, Republican Senators and Congress were influenced/overtaken by the Tea Party and didnt want to deal with Obama. The Tea Party strengthened as Obama did not pressure for strong Wall St reform with payback of bonuses, after the bank bailout. (The Tea Party was rather bogus itself but that’s another topic).
In the midst of the recovery from the recession, Obama felt he needed to get healthcare reform while Dems had majority, otherwise his Presidency would be essentially gridlocked. Obama in return just chose to deal with Democrats in the Senate as he had a supermajority (filbuster proof). But When Ted Kennedy passed away, there was a special election that went Republican with a Tea Party Republican (Scott Brown). Apparently it meant Democrats didnt have supermajority so Obama couldnt have the House come up with its own version and be revisited in the Senate. The Senate version that was already voted would be the version. So Pelosi was powerless and complied and had to have the Democrats in the House just vote in favor. It later goes into law.
Fast forward to 2016, Trump just wanted to revert anything done by Obama but couldnt come up with a better plan. If Trump is a better negotiator and deal maker, it’s anyone’s guess why even with a Republican House and Senate in 2017, he couldn’t come up with a better plan.
I believe with McConnell and other R Senators, its more about power and not popularity. McConnell just wants to keep Republican majority and have conservatives in the courts.
With Trump, its about reverting anything Obama. At some points during the debates and interview, Trump says he has already defeated Obamacare, as the unpopular mandate is gone. Then he goes on saying, it needs to be defeated. Then he says but those with pre-existing conditions will keep their insurance. Doesn't make much sense.
Last edited by g555; 10-23-2020 at 10:18 PM..
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.
