How is private run health care better?

[DXDoug]

Just need a rebuttle to some one asking this question.

How is private run heath care better and how will it save us money?

[TastyWheat]

Look at the Post Office and Amtrak. Where's the incentive to cut costs and stay under budget? If pretty much any government program has a shortfall they almost always get more funding. If a hospital or insurance company can't control costs then they simply won't exist. However, if they don't keep prices down (not the same as cost) then people will be more likely to go to other competitors. It's no different than any other business. Obama himself said that "choice an competition" are what keeps costs down. That being said the average American has very little choice and in certain states there is almost no competition. This is the result of excessive regulation, not collusion.

[Zippyjuan]

There is private run healthcare available in the country. It is just expensive so most can't afford it.

[IDefendThePlatform]

There is private run healthcare available in the country. It is just expensive so most can't afford it.

And its expensive because of government intervention.

Things government does that drive up the price of healthcare:

1) Preferred tax treatment of health insurance
When health insurance is given preferred treatment in the tax code (ie deductible) that causes more people to purchase it than otherwise would. Distorts the market, people make fewer individual decisions and instead base treatment on what insurance covers (group think vs the wisdom of crowds). They only pay their co-pay directly, so healthcare providers are incentivized to raise fees to pressure the insurance company to pay more. Also, adds a layer of bureuacracy (the insurance company) to every transaction.

2)Excessive and/or frivilous lawsuits; drives up healthcare practitioner's malpractice insurance and encourages over-treatment and testing(costly).

3)Subsidizes it directly (medicare, medicaid); People who get stuff for free will tend to overuse it.

4)Professional licensure - restricts the supply of physicians, PAs, nurses, etc... driving up their salaries and increasing cost. Unfortunately this trend is becoming more common in many, many areas of employment (taxis, hair-braiding, etc...)

5)FDA restricts drugs from entering the market until years and years of expensive testing, etc.. This makes drugs much more expensive than they would be in a free society. Also delays advances by not allowing people to medicate themselves without government approval. Also prevents effective drugs from entering the market more quickly, thus costing lives. Think about the number of lives lost everytime the FDA delays the release of life-saving blood pressure meds, for example. These numbers make the mistakes such as thalidomide pale in comparison.

Prob others too that I'm not thinking of right now.

[cjt1979]

And its expensive because of government intervention.

Things government does that drive up the price of healthcare:

1) Preferred tax treatment of health insurance
When health insurance is given preferred treatment in the tax code (ie deductible) that causes more people to purchase it than otherwise would. Distorts the market, people make fewer individual decisions and instead base treatment on what insurance covers (group think vs the wisdom of crowds). They only pay their co-pay directly, so healthcare providers are incentivized to raise fees to pressure the insurance company to pay more. Also, adds a layer of bureuacracy (the insurance company) to every transaction.

2)Excessive and/or frivilous lawsuits; drives up healthcare practitioner's malpractice insurance and encourages over-treatment and testing(costly).

3)Subsidizes it directly (medicare, medicaid); People who get stuff for free will tend to overuse it.

4)Professional licensure - restricts the supply of physicians, PAs, nurses, etc... driving up their salaries and increasing cost. Unfortunately this trend is becoming more common in many, many areas of employment (taxis, hair-braiding, etc...)

5)FDA restricts drugs from entering the market until years and years of expensive testing, etc.. This makes drugs much more expensive than they would be in a free society. Also delays advances by not allowing people to medicate themselves without government approval. Also prevents effective drugs from entering the market more quickly, thus costing lives. Think about the number of lives lost everytime the FDA delays the release of life-saving blood pressure meds, for example. These numbers make the mistakes such as thalidomide pale in comparison.

Prob others too that I'm not thinking of right now.

I agree that all of these significantly drive up the cost of health care. What I have a hard time understanding is how the seriously poor will be able to afford any health care if they can barely pay for all the bills they already have, even if prices were reduced significantly. Especially if a family is stricken with cancer or another serious ailment that would certainly be expensive regardless of how cheap health care became. I am very libertarian in my thinking, but health care is the one issue I have a hard time believing would become so cheap it would be easily accesible to everyone.

[bb_dg]

And this issue shows the beauty of freedom. Freedom is not a trade-off for those who succeed over letting the poor out on the street, it is the best of both worlds. First of all, there would be less poor people as they wouldn't be taxed to pay for all of these entitlements. And for those who are still too poor to pay for health care, that's where the goodness of America's charities come in. You may think that's hard to believe that charities will take care of everything, but just look at history. Before medicare and medicaid got involved in the system, how did poor people get health care? Were they just left out on the street? No, back then, individual communities took it upon themselves to take care of each other. There were a lot of church hospitals, many more than today, that helped the poor and pretty much everyone was treated.

However, the government decided that it needed to take the responsibility to take care of its citizens. Good intentions, no question about it, it's just that the government simply just can't do it. That's why medicare is broke and the government intervention is making the prices of health care skyrocket. Their intentions are sincere, but they just make things worse.

And of course you know about the economic benefits of free market medicine, prices would lowest and getting lower, much more innovation that would push prices down, people will actually care about price rather than be oblivious since they have a 3rd party paying for it, and those who are left will be taken care of by charities. That's really what makes America wonderful, even though it is meant for a free society and everyone takes care of themselves, the people are still willing to share (not forced to share) to help those in their community and even abroad. People worry because if there was no government program, there is no guarantee that the poor would be taken care of. Sure, but people did take care of each other. There is no guarantee that private organizations like the Red Cross will help at major disaster areas, but even though there is no guarantee, you just know they will help out anyway.

Ron Paul has talked about this very issue on many interviews. Let me see if I can get one up here.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PLHNAN6SNPY

[cjt1979]

Thank you for your thoughtful response and video. I have no doubt that people would be willing to give others a helping hand and that churches and charities would grow. My concern is that even in a true free market the cost of having chemo for 3 months or needing dialaysis every day would still be out of certain peoples price range. Poor people already do not have to pay any income tax, and the amount they are taxed for entitlements is relatively small since the amount they earn is minimal. I agree with all your points, its just hard to believe the major diseases and ailments can be taken care of by charities and and good people. I know that government is not the answer, as the bankruptcy of all there programs can attest. I think its just hard to believe that prices of certain medical procedures would drop as much the poors income would rise.

[outspoken]

Competition and people paying directly for their own care except in the instance of expensive catastrophic care is the only thing that will ever cause costs to be reduced. It is a fallacy to believe anything else, particularly making someone else pay for it will reign in costs while also forcing innovation.

[awake]

It is two opposite incentive structures: One rewards you with profit on a service well provided; the other a constant bail out no matter what job you do.

Profit is the reward for best serving your fellow men. Those who believe in socialism are impotent in denouncing this truth.

[GreenLP]

6) Restricting competition (maybe this goes along with your #4). Giving privilege through laws to one form of medicine (i.e. "Western" Medicine, MD's) while restricting others (i.e. Accupuncture, Chiropractic, Homeopathy, etc).



2)Excessive and/or frivilous lawsuits; drives up healthcare practitioner's malpractice insurance and encourages over-treatment and testing(costly).
How will this balance out in a free market system?

[GreenLP]

Maybe someone can help answer one of my few fears of a free-market health system. What will prevent Insurance companies from doing everything they can to continue drop people's coverage once they get real sick and not accept people with pre-existing conditions? I just don't see the incentive for Insurance Companies to keep sick people and take in high-risk people.

[outspoken]

I'll premise this by saying I am in health care and there is no other profession or field where there is a belief that the fruits of my labor should be given voluntarily free without compensation by an ever-growing group entitlement minded individuals. It is disheartening. health care in America NEEDS a revolution in how we think about all of it more than any other aspect... the vast majority of costs relate to the elderly and health care for those who do not take care of themselves. At best, we should offer care to people up to the age of 18 but it doesn't have to happen through govt. We can set up system to provides CHARITY to those who are less fortunate. I believe we are called to help and assist our fellow man but not at the barrel of a gun which is what govt is and is the least efficient manor in which to do so. The whole bureaucratic corrupt system we have today is built upon the emotion of fear; don't fall for it. Choose love and empathy of your own free will. The system is collapsing as a result of power mongers playing on our fears for safety. We have to let the old ways fold, hopefully peacefully, and charter a new course. What is almost satirical is that the Titanic is sinking and we productive members of society are on the boat often are worried about how to through life preservers to those in the water unable to swim. Instead of saving the children we are pouring all our resources into the elderly. It is the older generation that thinks they're entitled to it because they paid into a fraction of what their healthcare will cost, left for the next generation to carry on their backs. The truth hurts but we unconsciously as a whole nation allowed this to happen over the course of the last 100 years.

[cjt1979]

I agree that those ideas will significantly cut costs, but what about the catastrophic care? If someone gets laid off and cannot purchase insurance and gets cancer, what are they suppossed to do? In a free market health insurance companies would be stupid to take on someone who just got cancer.

[outspoken]

Catastrophic insurance costs a fraction of what insurance as we know it today. I'm not going to lie that there are going to be be who have to get less than ideal treatment. We can try to accommodate them with charity. Sounds harsh but we have to move beyond a society that believes it is acceptable to live paycheck to paycheck so they can have iPhones, flat screen TVs, and as many children as they please. Having children has become one of the most thoughtless decisions some make in our society today and it should be the most conscious decision we make. There was once a time where people did not have health insurance and we don't have food insurance,although that is the direction many want to go with food stamps. We have become so desensitized to holding people accountable for their own well-being that it is perceived as cruel when we don't hold people responsible for their own life decisions. The only people we should bend over backwards for is children as they can't pick their parents... Just make sure it is not govt providing for children as this encourages deadbeats to have kids for selfish reasons sadly.

[cjt1979]

I get that catastrophic insurance would be cheaper. If however someone is laid off and does not immediately go out and purchase insurance and develops cancer, what insurance would be dumb enough to pick him up without charging them an outrage amount. No blaming children or frivalous spending, a good family man loses both his job and insurance and than has to go through chemo for 3 months with no insurance. What is he suppossed to do? I certainly am not saying government is the answer, I just can't see any insurance picking someone up who has developed an ailment that would cost potentially 100's of thousands of dollars.

Or what if someone has good insurance through his work and gets cancer, than is laid off from work. He than loses his insurance and has to find insurance on his own while he has cancer. No business in there right mind would want to pay for all his medical care.

[Acala]

I get that catastrophic insurance would be cheaper. If however someone is laid off and does not immediately go out and purchase insurance and develops cancer, what insurance would be dumb enough to pick him up without charging them an outrage amount. No blaming children or frivalous spending, a good family man loses both his job and insurance and than has to go through chemo for 3 months with no insurance. What is he suppossed to do? I certainly am not saying government is the answer, I just can't see any insurance picking someone up who has developed an ailment that would cost potentially 100's of thousands of dollars.

Or what if someone has good insurance through his work and gets cancer, than is laid off from work. He than loses his insurance and has to find insurance on his own while he has cancer. No business in there right mind would want to pay for all his medical care.

There is no guarantee in a free market (or in life in general) that you will not be hit by a series of calamities (mixed with bad decisions perhaps) that will put you in a bad place. That's life.

To deal with your hypothetical, if you have no money, no job, no insurance, and get cancer, you are in a tough spot. You will have to rely on charity. Need does not justify violently taking what you need from others or enslaving them to work to give you what you need.

Why is medical care any different than food or housing or clothing? Do you get to force someone to build you a house for free because you don't have one and winter is coming?

Will there be people in a truly free market that cannot get what they really need? Maybe. If you don't like it, open your wallet and get them what they need. If you don't have enough money, try to convince others to open their wallets also. If the people as a whole are not willing to voluntarily pay for the needs of those who are in trouble, then THAT is the kind of society we will have chosen, one person at a time, to live in. If that is the society your neighbors prefer and you don't like it, you still don't get to rob your neighbors to make sure YOUR values prevail