so once again, this has somehow turned into a government vs. personal choice debate. I did not say that the Public option was perfect. I dont think it does a lick to contain costs. As I said, it will require further reforms in the future. All i said was that
your idea was worse because it would actually DRIVE up costs for the majority of the population. Do you not understand the issues with fee for service? You didn't understand the link that I gave, yet it was clearly an example of what happens when you give physicians incentive to go about fee for service. Its great your read all of the bill. you clearly, however, did not understand it when you read the bill.
besides, this reflexive anti-government drives me crazy. Government does many things that private sectors simply CANNOT do. Would you ever, for example, privatize currency? As in individual companies sell their own
money standard? no! There are simply things that cannot be sold as a commodity, and healthcare falls into one of them. Its econ 101. For example. your utility bill. You can never fully privatize electricity, or otherwise, you would have electric lines running everywhere.
The same goes with healthcare. You cannot try to bargain health care, because the entire reason you go to a doctor is so they can tell you what to buy. If you can please tell me the last time you told your doc:
"sorry, i'm not gonna buy that xray until you give me 2 free nights in the ER at my choice. If you don't, i'm going to go to St. Mary's. I hear they have a great bundle package on heart bypasses this week too"
Since you clearly have lots of time to read and are never influenced by fox news, please read Ken arrow.
http://stevereads.com/papers_to_read/uncertainty_and_the_welfare_economics_of_medical_care.pdf
This was written in 1963. Pretty much every prediction of his has become true. I know you will claim to have read this or will read every word. But since i highly doubt this, I will note some key parts here for you:
When there is uncertainty, information or
knowledge becomes a commodity. Like other commodities, it has a cost
of production and a cost of transmission, and so it is naturally not
spread out over the entire population but concentrated among those
who can profit most from it. (These costs may be measured in time or
disutility as well as money.) But the demand for information is difficult
to discuss in the rational terms usually employed. The value of
information is frequently not known in any meaningful sense to the
buyer; if, indeed, he knew enough to measure the value of information,
he would know the information itself. But information, in the
form of skilled care, is precisely what is being bought from most physicians, and, indeed, from most professionals. The elusive character of information as a commodity suggests that it departs considerably from the usual marketability assumptions about commodities.'
i.e. as long as doctors exist, you will never be able to use free markets. Its like going onto ebay and having buyers tell you what to buy. If you don't you die. Great bargaining position my friend.
thus, this means that it is a non-optimal condition to the healthcare commodity. non-optimal condition means non-optimal markets. Heres what happens in non-optimal markets:
I propose here the view that, when the market fails
to achieve an optimal state, society will, to some extent at least, recognize the gap, and nonmarket social institutions will arise attempting to bridge it.
government. so, by admitting the existence of the physician, you admit the informational disparity, and thus you admit that free markets cannot be 100% efficient.
But that doesnt mean you need government, you say!
hold up. There are unique properties of healthcare that require government:
A. The Nature of Demand (irregular and unpredictable)
B. Expected Behavior of the Physician: (someone else tells you what to buy)
C. product uncertainty: (treatment doesnt always work)
D. Supply Conditions: med schools create an artificially low number of physicians.
E: Pricing Practices: some people get free care, like in the scenario you propose.
he then talks about how to solve these issues.
Look, im not saying that government is the solution to all things. I just think government is the solution to healthcare. Sorry, but the economics of healthcare dictate this. I'm not saying that the public option is great. I think it only does 10% of what it needs to do. But its a start. Then we can have further reform in the future. All i am saying is that i dont think throwing a bad idea out there and then complaining when everyone disagrees by saying "but its worth arguing!" works.
i dont think anyone agrees that this should work with intelligent design. right......?
I will listen to the nobel prize winning economist, thank you.
