Riggerjack wrote: ↑Wed May 10, 2017 9:05 pm
When I say a working system, I was speaking of a working pricing system, but apparently wasn't very clear about that. I have no desire to go back to pre WWII medicine.
No, I understood. I knew you didn’t want WWII medicine. My point in showing those examples was to demonstrate how much simpler and more common medicine was back then. This simplicity lends itself to a free market more than the current complicated and specialized treatments.
This is not the same now, as the number of drugs and services has increased massively and many of these drugs/services are rather specific. This means you probably don't use these services multiple times (chemo, open heart surgery, etc.) and might not even know anyone who does, so you can't focus your buying on the vendor giving you the best quality/cost because you have no way of knowing (Yes, I agree certain aspects of the current system obfuscate actual costs.).
Riggerjack wrote: ↑Wed May 10, 2017 9:05 pm
By this logic, you couldn't get a car fixed. How many times will you have an electrical problem fixed? It could be a component, or wiring, or just water penetration of a connector. And yet, I can know the shop rate, the mechanical schooling, that the shop is in business, and has been for 20 years, that they specialize in hybrids, etc. Most importantly, their competition knows that I can know all this, so neither shop can decide to raise the rate they charge me to 10x what they charge you.
It’s a valid point. We can’t always treat people like they are morons, even if they are. However, I still see the complexity of current medical services far outstripping the complexity of auto repair and people still don’t do a good job judging auto repair shops. It’s not like auto repair industry has a good track record of not scamming its customers. The local news loves showing some little old lady being ripped off by an auto repair shop.
Then when you factor in that the same guy at a local shop is probably doing your radiator, brakes, electrical system, etc., while the medical professionals that do the heart, spine, lungs, etc. are all different and specialized. We start see how hard it is to be an informed consumer, which is critical for a free market.
Riggerjack wrote: ↑Wed May 10, 2017 9:05 pm
I really think you should read campitor's link above. None of your objections are to a capitalistic system, but rather the chrony capitalism that we are stuck with, as a result of trying to fix this politically.
I went back and read it. Really good article, thanks Campitor.
You are correct none of my objections are to a capitalistic system and it’s actually the system I would normally support for economic problems.
I also agree that a lot of the issues with the current system could be classified as crony capitalism. What I don’t see is a way for market forces to remove these problems. There seems to be natural obstacles to free market forces in to medical services.
For instance, most towns only have one hospital. Even major cities don’t have a lot of choice. Pittsburgh basically has either UPMC or Allegheny General. How do you even know who is better to make an informed decision? And, even if you could determine that you don't really get much choice.
Also, no one is going to ask the ambulance to take them 30-90 minutes out of the way for a different hospital during an emergency, as time matters.
There are other natural barriers to market forces in medicine too. Just trying to keep this short.
These types of obstacles that are not the fault of regulation prevent a free market from working properly.
Riggerjack wrote: ↑Wed May 10, 2017 9:05 pm
The difference between your previously posted examples and our current system is 50 years if cronyism. It would require dismantling of everything we currently have (not a
bad idea), then fixibg it by applying more of the the process that messed it up. That might work, but capiatism WILL work, and it's easier. Still, there's nothing wrong with having BOTH, so long as they are kept separate. It is the intermingled pricing system that is so prone to abuse.
We would basically agree on what the problems are. We differ on whether capitalism can solve this problem or not. You think it can and I don’t see it being able to hurdle the natural obstacles in the industry. There is too much natural complexity and we use the major medical services, which are the main culprit for expense, too infrequently for free market forces to work properly.
Some industries just don't fit well in a free market, like defense. Most medicine is another.
Riggerjack wrote: ↑Wed May 10, 2017 9:05 pm
If we did fix healthcare with capitalism, it creates a different problem. Unemployment. Making medicine efficient, will require far fewer people. Letting those cuts come from the experts within means trimming out all the noncore personnel, who could be at any stage of their careers. (As an example, my job used to be done by 58 people before deregulation. It is now done by 4. This isn't a function of software improvement.) This is one more reason the cuts should be made from within, by people with skin in the game, rather than by legislative fiat.
However, we would do this there will be worker displacements, but if anyone in any industry isn’t expecting some type of upheaval concerning their job/career they are fools. I have no problem helping them, but no one has a right to their chosen profession for life. They will just have to adapt.
Not quite as good as the response I lost, but it covers our differences.