Quote:
Originally Posted by insidemanpoker
paging suzzer. your reply good sir:
People like suzzer just don't understand economics..at all.
Medical care is a market just like any other market in a capitalist system (except that the gov prevents it from operating as such).
Let's compare it to two markets the government has not touched at all. TVs and laptops. For decades those two markets have seen the same effects. The real prices of TVs and laptops has continuously decreased from their inception. Obviously when a big and brand new technology comes out, there is a price spike (like with the invention of flat panel TVs) but that provides yet another example because once invented, the prices then continuously declined.
But that is far from the only part of the story. There is one other hugely important factor. The QUALITY continuously improves at the same time as the prices are falling. Look at a TV or a computer from 20 years ago and compare it to a TV or computer of a similar price today. It is laughable.
This is what a free market does. It leads to constant competition which leads to efficient behavior and lower prices while at the same time leading to improving quality.
Unfortunately the health care market in the US (and most of the western world) has not been subject to these market forces for a long time. But that doesn't mean there is anything at all 'special' about healthcare as a market. It would have the same forces working for it as TVs and laptops if the government was completely uninvolved, but people who don't understand economics, like suzzer, have stopped this from happening.
These days, I would venture to say the large majority of the uninsured actually own a TV that is far superior to the TVs available 20 years ago. My point being that if you let capitalism REALLY work in medicine, the price to service ratio would be so turned up on its head that it would be affordable to a very high % of people that cannot currently afford it. And not only that, the health care they would get for the much cheaper price would be far superior to what a middle class person has now. And yes, in this system there will be a Bill Gates who can afford the absolute newest and best TV, laptop, and healthcare, but the quest to make average Joe's health care = to Bill Gates leads to a race to the lowest common denominator at the highest cost rather than what we should strive for. If the wealthy are constantly pushing for innovation and a better product, then just like with flat panel TVs, as they are invented and implemented, they will become more and more affordable and suddenly the masses are getting what was exclusive to the wealthy just years prior. It snowballs and suddenly way more people can afford healthcare, and private charities could then be much better equipped to provide services for the small % that have 0 because it would cost so much less just as was the case when Paul first starting practicing medicine.
This is several gigantic paragraphs of handwaving that has been answered 100s of times on this forum if you care to look. Your post not only fails to address adverse selection, inelastic pricing or the free-rider problem - it's obvious you have never even considered crucial aspects in which any free market health care system fails, badly.
If you really care to learn about why the market for TVs and laptops is not a good model for health care - start
here (don't worry most of the arguments are all made and answered in the first 5-10 pages). Pay close attention to Double Eagle's posts. He is very very knowledgeable about the economics of health care.
Consider why every other advanced country on earth has decided that the free market does not work for health care. Consider what it would be like to be a senior citizen in this country trying to purchase health insurance on the open market.