BTW - people have a right to pay more if they wish.
Right now, they have few - if any - choices at all.
AND - all the government "solutions" involved less and less choice for individuals.
It's totally the wrong way to go.
I understood it to be a state funded study, but am not entirely sure why (that was my take away but I don't specifically remember that part of the discussion).
Again, you keep switching your argument. I am categorically not arguing that people should not have the right to pay more, or to chose, or not have the government invovled, or anything along those lines.
What I am arguing is that the dogma that competition always lowers prices may well be wrong, or at least not work in the ways we think it should. To ignore that and compare health care to a computer monitor makes no sense.
I understood it to be a state funded study, but am not entirely sure why (that was my take away but I don't specifically remember that part of the discussion).
Again, you keep switching your argument. I am categorically not arguing that people should not have the right to pay more, or to chose, or not have the government invovled, or anything along those lines.
What I am arguing is that the dogma that competition always lowers prices may well be wrong, or at least not work in the ways we think it should. To ignore that and compare health care to a computer monitor makes no sense.
If I was shopping around for a vasectomy or a heart operation, the job would not likely go to the lowest bidder.
If I was shopping around for a vasectomy or a heart operation, the job would not likely go to the lowest bidder.
Even if the doc performing it has excellent reviews? Just because something is higher priced doesn't mean it is better. I think the cost should be a starting point to investigate credentials further.
From what I know as a consumer, competition has historically lowered prices on pretty much everything, has it not?
That's pretty much the logic that was so richly expounded upon us in business school, circa mid 1970's!
For Widgets - yes.
Try talking to a 12 year old girl about clothing - when being frugal with your parents money actually carries a stigma.
And why aren't we all driving Hyundai's?
I remember discussing this in my MicroEconomics class in college during the early 90s!
Also reminds me of a Carlin quote - something about the fact that his Doctor's office being in the "Professional Building" giving him an immediate sense of ease.
And then imagine a Doc's office in a low rent strip mall...
I understood it to be a state funded study, but am not entirely sure why (that was my take away but I don't specifically remember that part of the discussion).
Again, you keep switching your argument. I am categorically not arguing that people should not have the right to pay more, or to chose, or not have the government invovled, or anything along those lines.
What I am arguing is that the dogma that competition always lowers prices may well be wrong, or at least not work in the ways we think it should. To ignore that and compare health care to a computer monitor makes no sense.
My argument isn't switching. I'm just knocking down straw men.
Shopping is what brings down prices.
Let me put it this way.
We just saw Albert Pujols get 254 million dollars to hit a baseball. Over the past 11 years, no one has done it better - and its measurable.
I would expect a doctor who does boob jobs as well as Pujols hits baseballs to be able to charge more - and yes - people will find a way to pay him/her. And, guess what? Word of mouth lets people know who does the best boob jobs.
There are all sorts of ways to measure medical outcomes - and the proficiency of a group or individual doctors. And, there are plenty of smart people who can help others figure it out if they're confused.

From what I know as a consumer, competition has historically lowered prices on pretty much everything, has it not?
"That's pretty much the logic that was so richly expounded upon us in business school, circa mid 1970's! "
Clever professionals will never work in any field where the customer is able to know exactly what he needs, before he has to buy it, and can compare prices. They want their customers to have to “go up a blind alley“ to find them and, once there, to have to accept what is offered---at whatever the price turns out to be---because they are already financially committed. The costs they have already borne are predicated on the “treatment plan” of the professional they have chosen, and if this plan becomes too expensive their only recourse is to start over with a different provider and with a fresh series of costs. These professionals don’t care if their customers are individuals or the government---they all get the same treatment.
This approach doesn’t apply to the healthcare industry in Japan, because the cost of ALL tests, medications and procedures are pre- defined in a data base, as well as are the payments made to doctors for ALL POSSIBLE services. Thus, no one involved in the health care system there has any opportunity to make inordinate profits and has no motivation to order unnecessary tests or medications.
Would such a system ever work in the U.S.? IMHO not as long as the corrupt system of campaign financing (by “big medicine“ and “big pharma“), of politicians, is allowed to continue. Nor as long as companies who offer medical testing and new drugs are allowed to continue to give the doctors such things as week-long seminars, “to learn about their products“, at hunting lodges in Alaska, golfing resorts in Mexico, and so forth.
Who can say that these same companies may not follow---and monitor---the behavior of these doctors with the local “talent“ in such locations and, subsequently, drop a veiled hint to them assuring that they would make sure no word of this ever got to their wives. Can you think of a better way to make such a doctor a loyal “company“ man for life? After all, with the kind of perverted divorce laws we have in this country, if the doctor‘s wife becomes, for any reason, “unhappy“ she has the unilateral right to terminate the marriage “contract“ and receive damages (called property “division”, alimony, child custody and support), with NO NECESSITY WHATSOVER to demonstrate that the doctor was assisted in any way in his practice by his wife, nor that he was “guilty” of any inordinate behavior. And all of this in a country priding itself as an example of freedom, ethics and justice, even to the point of militarily trying to force these “standards” on other peoples in this world!
Airplane tix are cheaper now than they were in 1979.
Do you see the $4.00 generic drug list @Wal-Mart?
C'mon, you're better than that.
$900 from RDU to Charlotte Douglas. SOME tickets on heavily trafficked routes are cheaper. Most are not. Walmart $4 applies to 30 day supply of some generics only. Retail price of branded drugs is several multiples of that. For instance Lipitor is about $3 a pill.
My argument isn't switching. I'm just knocking down straw men.
Shopping is what brings down prices.
Let me put it this way.
We just saw Albert Pujols get 254 million dollars to hit a baseball. Over the past 11 years, no one has done it better - and its measurable.
I would expect a doctor who does boob jobs as well as Pujols hits baseballs to be able to charge more - and yes - people will find a way to pay him/her. And, guess what? Word of mouth lets people know who does the best boob jobs.
There are all sorts of ways to measure medical outcomes - and the proficiency of a group or individual doctors. And, there are plenty of smart people who can help others figure it out if they're confused.
It's about freedom.
Once government decides who lives and dies?
We're completely gone as a nation.
And, that is where the current path leads.
Again you are assuming that shopping always brings down prices. I have identified at least one data point where that is not correct. There are others as well.
Your arguments on allowing choice, including allowing consumers to balance cost with outcome, are spot on. I have no disagreement. But they in no way support your insistance that shopping around always results in lower prices. Frankly, your assertions are bordering on dogma at this point.. Since it is clear that ardently subscribe to it, I will stop trying to convince you otherwise. But you merely repeating it over and over ignores this fact.
$900 from RDU to Charlotte Douglas. SOME tickets on heavily trafficked routes are cheaper. Most are not. Walmart $4 applies to 30 day supply of some generics only. Retail price of branded drugs is several multiples of that. For instance Lipitor is about $3 a pill.
This paper refers to the issue of route prices increasing when Southwest starts to compete.
$900 from RDU to Charlotte Douglas. SOME tickets on heavily trafficked routes are cheaper. Most are not. Walmart $4 applies to 30 day supply of some generics only. Retail price of branded drugs is several multiples of that. For instance Lipitor is about $3 a pill.
Doesn't every drug become generic brand at some point when a patent expires? That's part of competition amongst pharma companies and we, the consumer, see the cost savings once the patents expire, don't we?
Edited to add... Yes, a branded drug is protected for x number of years with the patent. Once expired other companies can manufacture the same drug under a generic name, and they sell it much cheaper than brand. Is this an example of competition lowering consumer costs? Posted via Mobile Device
32Likes
Re: Any thoughts on the health care crisis? 
