I don't think there is anything wrong with the quality of American healthcare. I think the thing that concerns me and most Americans, and the thing that is likely to kill us, is the BILL!
Two out of every three heart patients die after they receive their bill! Especially if they are uninsured. So then why is healthcare so expensive?
Probably for the same reasons housing and cars are expensive. It has to do with the law of supply and demand. The demand for these items is much higher than say...the demand for computers.
Why?
Try to imagine a world with no credit, no insurance, and no government programs. How much could your doctor charge you if you and others could only pay with cash? Well...not nearly as much, especially if there is another doctor down the road he has to compete with.
Too little government interference and lots of free-market competition.
That is why your computer is so cheap and yet the quality and performance of computers have improved astronomically over the years. Of course, you can buy a computer with your credit card, so that jacks up the price a tad.
A credit card means you have more money to spend. You therefore add more demand to the price equation.
If the price of computers go up because more and more folks have credit cards along with their cash, poor people are going to have a harder time affording computers.
What is the answer? Computer insurance! Here is how it works: a whole bunch of poor people get together and pool their resources. That money is used to pay for a computer.
But there is an unseen consequence: now there is even more demand for computers than ever before. The price of computers become so expensive, even the middle class can no longer afford one.
So they buy computer insurance also. The price of computers skyrockets! What is the answer to this problem?
Computercare! This program is limited to those over age 65, since this is the group that has the most trouble affording a computer.
The consequence? More demand for computers, which cause even higher prices! What is the answer to this computer crisis?
Universal Computercare! Computercare for every man, woman and child! Of course this will only jack up costs further. As a result, more and more people will depend on some sort of insurance or government program.
Gone are the good old days when you could easily afford a computer and did not have to pay a 15% national sales tax to fund Universal Computercare.
If the government should monopolize the computer biz, the quality of the computers will no doubt go down a cyber black hole! The same is true if the government decided to bail out computer companies that suck like GM and your favorite financial institution. Lack of competition and rewarding failure reduces quality every time!
Perhaps by now you are starting to see a pattern: credit, insurance, and government programs don't really make things more affordable.
Computers are fast, efficient, powerful and affordable precisely because there is no computer insurance, nor computercare. Free market competition prevents the "computer crisis" from becoming a reality.
So why not do with healthcare what we have done with computers? Let's fire everybody and press the restart button--allow the free market to make prices drop while quality soars!
Nah! That would be too easy!
Sources:
rate
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 43
Love the picture!!
That is a "kewl" looking perplexed older guy ::)
Computers are made in China and Taiwan.
Cheap you say,
But, but, we have to constantly protect ourselves from viruses, thieves, tracking cookies.
Bad analogy.
Can we fly off to Taiwan or China when we need a Dr. ?
Computers are not really cheap.
Add the price of the quality internet connection
Add the price of the anti virual/spy software
Add the price of loss of privacy.
Conservatives selling health care as a commodity like corn and furniture is really lame.
As are all the little morality tales pumped out by the conservative think tanks.
You didn't write this, but you list a source, as if for reference.
Plagiarist!
Computers are made in China and Taiwan.
Cheap you say,
But, but, we have to constantly protect ourselves from viruses, thieves, tracking cookies.
OK, so is your position that the cost of computers have not fallen over the years? LOL!
Bad analogy.
Bad argument.
Can we fly off to Taiwan or China when we need a Dr. ?
Not if you can't afford a ticket. You need airfarecare.
Computers are not really cheap.
Add the price of the quality internet connection
Add the price of the anti virual/spy software
Add the price of loss of privacy.
All much cheaper than they were. My old 8-bit computer cost me 5000 plus. My new 32-bit computer cost me $500, and I get Internet, DVD, 60 gig storage, etc.
Conservatives selling health care as a commodity like corn and furniture is really lame.
Yeah, man...let's all smoke a joint and move to Cuba.
As are all the little morality tales pumped out by the conservative think tanks.
Yeah, dude...like...those people who think are really lame, man.
You didn't write this, but you list a source, as if for reference.
Plagiarist!
Here is absolute proof you are high as a kite! Care to make a wager that I did not write this article?
That's also the reason why it's a special case where the government must intervene to insure that we all have some access to obtaining health care for ourselves. That doesn't have to mean government health care insurance, but it does mean letting the government create some 'artificial market forces', just like when they create an 'artificial market force' by passing a law that says the guy who cuts your chest open with a scalpel and a set of rib spreaders has to have a certain amount of working know-how.
Gawd, I have no idea how the word 'government' became so evil. It's a complete perversion of what government really means and what it really is to it's citizens. Government is there to help and if it doesn't work it's probably our fault for not kicking every non-functional congressman out after each and every term.
We're letting this happen on our own and so we're the problem.
like it or not the Government is in the perfect position to correct the problems that an absurdly profit-driven health care industry has caused in an environment where we've got to purchase the product or die trying. (That always makes for special and weird market effects. like altoids, death is a curiously strong motivator.)
Trust me, a few little laws designed to kick the insurance industry in the nuts for even thinking of treating people like they have over the past twenty years and we'll be well on the way to a fit trim lifestyle.
But the true cure is a trim, fit public insurance option, up and running and treating every health care provider, insurer and pharmaceutical company like dead meat. If you can't beat 'em, beat the crap out of 'em. Competition is the cure and their loss is our gain.
I think you know what I'm saying.
Well actually we do have a choice. For example, I can choose not to see a doctor and I can cancel my insurance.
It's different than buying fruit or paper towels.
Doesn't have to be.
That's the reason why it's so expensive--because we absolutely have to have it (infinite demand) or eventually we die.
We absolutely have to have food too. So why don't we have foodcare or food insurance? More free-market competition keeps food prices affordable.
That's also the reason why it's a special case where the government must intervene to insure that we all have some access to obtaining health care for ourselves.
Because healthcare is more essential than food or water or air? The air is still free of charge, but cap and trade might change that. Then we will need aircare and air insurance, etc.
That doesn't have to mean government health care insurance, but it does mean letting the government create some 'artificial market forces', just like when they create an 'artificial market force' by passing a law that says the guy who cuts your chest open with a scalpel and a set of rib spreaders has to have a certain amount of working know-how.
I agree. The government can encourage more market competition. For example: it could mandate a cap on medical tort claims, which would bring costs down substantially.
Gawd, I have no idea how the word 'government' became so evil.
I have no idea who said the government was evil. I happen to like the patent office--it encourages more inventions by providing inventors with an exclusive right to sell their inventions for profit.
It's a complete perversion of what government really means and what it really is to it's citizens.
It is not a perversion to point out where the government screws up.
Government is there to help and if it doesn't work it's probably our fault for not kicking every non-functional congressman out after each and every term.
Well kicking out congressmen is only a feel-good solution. It fails to get at the root of the problem. In my article I demonstrate that root and offer a solution.
We're letting this happen on our own and so we're the problem.
like it or not the Government is in the perfect position to correct the problems that an absurdly profit-driven health care industry has caused in an environment where we've got to purchase the product or die trying.
Now here is the rest of the story: insurance companies lobbied the government and so have trial lawyers. They are all pretty much in bed together. The goal is not so much to help you, but to screw you every which way. If you are trying to figure out which fox should watch the hen house, try choosing the one who can't force you to pay it taxes.
Trust me, a few little laws designed to kick the insurance industry in the nuts for even thinking of treating people like they have over the past twenty years and we'll be well on the way to a fit trim lifestyle.
I think they tried something similar in Canada. They are now thinking of switching back to private insurance again. Go figure. (See link under Sources.)
But the true cure is a trim, fit public insurance option, up and running and treating every health care provider, insurer and pharmaceutical company like dead meat. If you can't beat 'em, beat the crap out of 'em. Competition is the cure and their loss is our gain.
I am all for competition. And what you describe sounds great! But....once the gov puts the privates out of business (assuming it can compete LOL!), it will have a monopoly and will no longer have to provide you with any care. Just pay your taxes and shut up and wait in line at window B...
I think you know what I'm saying.
Yes. You want to unintentionally make healthcare costs rise while quality falls. If I am wrong, then please show me where in the world your plan has been tested and has not failed miserably.
You are right: the supply/demand thing isn't simple thanks to credit, insurance and government interference. It could be simple though and very cost effective.
Competition is what improves quality and lowers prices, so encourage the gov to make healthcare more competitive.
Insurance premiums would be less if Insurers could cross state lines and if they were not required by law to offer a minimum package. I only want emergency care. I don't want or need drug/alchohol rehab, nor do I want to subsidize it. People who abuse their health dig their own graves.
If the gov actually forced people to quit smoking, drinking, etc., I might be for universal care, but it won't happen. The gov likes to reward irresponsible people and to tax heavily those who behave responsibly.
Here is a little something in the Canadian article that I found enlightening. So what enlightened you?
I get your point, but maybe computers were not the best example. The reason is that there are programs out there where the poor are able to get computers for little to nothing, and in many instances -- FREE. I know, because someone who is on a limited income has several, because of this program, and he was kind enough to tell me how he obtained his computers.
Sooo . . .
Even with the easy availability of computers to the poor, the system is still working. No one is screaming, "bloody murder" about it, and in fact, I doubt that a lot of us even knows/knew about these government-assisted, government-sponsored programs to put computers in the hands of the poor.
I nearly freak out when I see those bills, even though the statement always says something like,
THIS IS NOT A BILL. We have billed your insurance.
Makes no difference. Seeing those dollar amounts always seem to make me very nervous.
Hmm
One big difference between health care and the technology industry is that when you are ill you NEED health care, while you only WANT a computer. Although it is a tool to make you more efficient, you would be willing to walk down the street to another store if a computer's price is too high. Can the same be said for health care? If you buy one of those "extended warranties" for a PC you are purchasing an insurance policy These programs are huge money makers for department stores. Can the same be said for health insurance?
When you purchase an inexpensive policy, what is covered? Yes, you have insurance but is it adequate or will you be denied coverage when you make a claim? Unlike a tangible object like a computer where you can touch and see the options, consumers have a tougher time comparing insurance policies in order to make intelligent buying decisions. Are two policies offering the same things? Will the insurance company honor the policy? There needs to be some oversight so that consumers are protected and can make good choices. There needs to be some oversight to protect consumers. Health insurers only have three ways to increase profits: they can cut services, deny care or raise rates.
Huh? Have you been to an airport lately?
Deregulation with no oversight got us the housing bubble, the subprime crisis and the the collapse of the financial system -- plus the bailout of the worlds largest insurance company.
Right. It is not like the democrats insisted that banks loan money to people who don't qualify--which caused the housing bubble. And it's not like Obama outspent Bush 4 to 1 bailing out financial institutions. It is not like Obama reappointed Bernake to the Fed...oh wait..it is like that.
Oh, and two wars.
Well the wars are expensive and unnecessary. So why doesn't Obama bring all the troops home right away? Is he working for Big Oil too?
One big difference between health care and the technology industry is that when you are ill you NEED health care, while you only WANT a computer.
So a more competitive healthcare industry would not bring prices down? If you have more doctors, insurance options, and hospitals to choose from, why wouldn't that work to your advantage?
Although it is a tool to make you more efficient, you would be willing to walk down the street to another store if a computer's price is too high. Can the same be said for health care?
Sure. Why do business with doctor A when doctor B charges less for superior emergency care?
If you buy one of those "extended warranties" for a PC you are purchasing an insurance policy These programs are huge money makers for department stores. Can the same be said for health insurance?
Well yes. Since one alleged problem is insurance companies are making too much money.
When you purchase an inexpensive policy, what is covered? Yes, you have insurance but is it adequate or will you be denied coverage when you make a claim?
That depends on how much market competition there is. If there is only one insurer, expect lame insurance at a very high price. If there are two or more insurers, expect better service and lower premiums.
Unlike a tangible object like a computer where you can touch and see the options, consumers have a tougher time comparing insurance policies in order to make intelligent buying decisions.
Speak for yourself. I compared several policies and decided the one I now have is the best deal.
Are two policies offering the same things? Will the insurance company honor the policy?
It would be better if they offered different things. You may prefer policy A while I might prefer policy B. A one-size-fits-all policy is stupid. If the insurance company does not have a monopoly, it has to perform better to keep your business.
There needs to be some oversight so that consumers are protected and can make good choices. There needs to be some oversight to protect consumers.
Like there is no oversight in place already. LOL! Insurance companies are regulated to death! Yet you are still unhappy. More competition is what is needed.
Health insurers only have three ways to increase profits: they can cut services, deny care or raise rates.
That is true with all businesses. You might ask yourself why some businesses cut their prices and increase/improve their services. Answer: competition! Premiums would be lower if insurers could cross state lines and had to compete with insurers all over the country.
Gary, you are confusing "national security" with regulation.
---
"Right. It is not like the democrats insisted that banks loan money to people who don't qualify-- which caused the housing bubble. And it's not like Obama outspent Bush 4 to 1 bailing out financial institutions. It is not like Obama reappointed Bernake to the Fed...oh wait..it is like that."
Gary, as I mentioned, The sub prime crisis was based on fraud throughout the financial system. There was fraud in the form of liars loans to borrowers and liar loans by lenders. There was fraud by the wall street entities that bundled these mortgages and gave the derivative a AAA rating. Regulation and oversight was and nonexistence.
Blaming the meltdown on home loan policy is a red herring.
---
"So why doesn't Obama bring all the troops home right away?"
No argument from me on that one.
---
"So a more competitive health care industry would not bring prices down? If you have more doctors, insurance options, and hospitals to choose from, why wouldn't that work to your advantage?"
Competition is good. No argument from me as long as there is a public option that will give Americans an affordable choice. However, don't believe that the large increases in health care is equally distributed throughout the system The insurance industry is responsible for the lion's share of the increases.
---
"Sure. Why do business with doctor A when doctor B charges less for superior emergency care? "
I do not believe that in an emergency, people will or should shop around for the cheapest treatment. Health care demand is inelastic -- when they need it, consumers will pay any price.
---
"Well yes. Since one alleged problem is insurance companies are making too much money."
Nothing wrong with profits, but what is enough? As recently as the early 1990s,
95 cents out of every dollar paid to insurance companies in premiums was used to pay claims. When you consider that health insurance profits have risen 438% since 2000, while wages have been flat, how can this trend continue?
---
"That depends on how much market competition there is. If there is only one insurer, expect lame insurance at a very high price. If there are two or more insurers, expect better service and lower premiums."
Even with their huge profits, there is a reason there we do not see many insurance company startups . There are large barriers for entry into this industry -- large amounts of capital, developing a network and satisfying regulatory requirements. In fact, even with the large profits, competition has decreased as insurance companies have consolidated.
---
"Speak for yourself. I compared several policies and decided the one I now have is the best deal."
Good for you -- but most people are covered through their employer.
--
"It would be better if they offered different things. You may prefer policy A while I might prefer policy B. A one-size-fits-all policy is stupid. If the insurance company does not have a monopoly, it has to perform better to keep your business."
Again, there's nothing wrong with choice but health plan pricing data is proprietary; insurance companies are not going to freely share this information.
Insurance companies operate to make profits for their shareholders, not the interest of patients. With a health insurance mandate and only a few insurance companies, if you are unhappy, where are you going to go?
---
"Like there is no oversight in place already. LOL! Insurance companies are regulated to death! Yet you are still unhappy. More competition is what is needed."
We differ on this one.
.."Blue Cross of California encouraged employees through performance evaluations to cancel the health insurance policies of individuals with expensive illnesses, Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.) charged at the start of a congressional hearing today on the controversial practice known as rescission." ...
When you pay for insurance but does it cover you when you need it and it is the company's policy to deny claims, there is a need for oversight.
---
"That is true with all businesses. You might ask yourself why some businesses cut their prices and increase/improve their services. Answer: competition! Premiums would be lower if insurers could cross state lines and had to compete with insurers all over the country."
I agree, let's keep the insurance companies honest and pass the public option. If the goal is to get more people health care, allowing insurers to compete across state lines will have them competing for young health people. Yes, these people may pay a lower price, but they health insurance companies won't tough people with preexisting
conditions or older people. A public option will put a floor on the market where there are few players and rising premiums.