The Gaming Den

Maj wrote:The free market doesn't apply to the current health care system because the insurance model doesn't allow price transparency.

Agreed. I don't think we can ever solve healthg care without price transparency.

DSMatticus wrote:

tzor wrote:that procedure for X and another selling that procedure for less than X they won't choose the later.

This is historically not what happens. Competing with big name companies is hard. As a matter of fact, it's damn near impossible.

You can argue for Broadband, I can argue for Fast Food. Once a fast food resturant appears in the place, a dozen others will because the first resturant already did the demographics to show they can be supported and the others save on the cost.

But then again, Broadband sort of is. Actually your broadband argument is a little outdated as well, but broadband is so lame it's stupid. (One key stupidity is customer unloyalty. Your customer is shit until he actually does change to the competition and then when he does you offer him the gold package. So he switches again and again.) The point is that broadband, for the most part is a base utility, variations on the theme are cosmetic at best.

In the free market of health care, there is a plethora of choices, a gadzillion of niches, and a ton of potential plurality. Specialization is common, even in the crap system we have today. (Have cancer? You better go to Hospital X. Have burns? Go to hospital Y. You can get the complete 21st century preventative care checkup from Z (I heard that on the satelite radio).)

So yes, it's not like the mega corps pwn the scene.

tzor wrote: In the free market of health care, there is a plethora of choices, a gadzillion of niches, and a ton of potential plurality. Specialization is common, even in the crap system we have today. (Have cancer? You better go to Hospital X. Have burns? Go to hospital Y. You can get the complete 21st century preventative care checkup from Z (I heard that on the satelite radio).

Hmm. There is the problem that the patient may not know what is wrong with them under a lot of circumstances.

Neeeek wrote:Hmm. There is the problem that the patient may not know what is wrong with them under a lot of circumstances.

That's been a problem with health care for a very long time; sometimes they don't know even after seeing a doctor. I'm not sure that is a problem with any specific health care system as the same is true for most people not knowing what is wrong with their automobiles. I think the problem reduces somewhat as more and more diagnosis aids pop up on the internet.

Tzor wrote:dozen others will because the first resturant already did the demographics to show they can be supported and the others save on the cost.

Differences between this and that:
1) Fast food is a saturated market. Everywhere there is enough demand for a fast food chain, there are fast food chains. The explosion is a result of finding new corners of the market that are unsaturated.
2) People do not use the same fast food service for months at a time. They will eat at different places pretty much every day. They routinely switch services. People do not and cannot easily switch broadband services (the broadband companies go to great lengths to stop you from doing just that, with their atrocious contracts).
Edit: 3) Also, the infrastructural costs for fast food chains is per establishment, not per person.

If fast-food was sold in half-year long contracts to be fed so many meals a week, it would look more like broadband.

I'm not really sure that people are rationally able to make good decisions on health care. They can make informed decisions when the Doctor takes time to explain the options in simple terms. But most people are NOT doctors, they don't understand the jargon, or the ramifications of everything, unless it's spelled out.

But really, if you don't have someone with your interests who is able to translate from medical jargon and double talk into plain english. It's impossible to tell how good for you a course of medical care is going to be.

It's also impossible for you as a consumer to tell which specialist, if any you need to contact, and if your Primary care is any good, or a quack.

Add to that the Health Insurance desire to have you pay as many premiums as possible without actually having to pay anything for your care, and you have a mess.

Health Insurance wants you to not get sick, and if you get sick, they want you to get better cheaply, or die quickly.

My point DSMatticus is that your notion of a broadband provider is not the only model. I don't wish to imply that medical facilities are bunched together like fast food resturants (although where I live we have two hospitals within blocks of each other, not to mention how doctors often accumulate in "professional building" complexes on the major strip mall routes) but that there are a number of choices that will develop over time and the best hospital will get the patients. This is happening today, and it would certainly happen under a free market. (Note that the market is not free in a number of ways, your favorite doctor might not have rights at your favorite hospital, for example.)

Transparency is the key to everything, and the more information that is available, the more informed people can become. Note the word "can" as you can always lead a horse to water. Some just won't drink. Frankly, it's not the job of government to take money from the horses that want to drink the water to force the horses not drinking the water to drink.

I can't see how the computer generation would want to remain medically ignorant of their own conditions. And people will always be there to explain it to them for a profit.

tzor wrote:Transparency is the key to everything, and the more information that is available, the more informed people can become. Note the word "can" as you can always lead a horse to water. Some just won't drink. Frankly, it's not the job of government to take money from the horses that want to drink the water to force the horses not drinking the water to drink.

Hopefully increased transparency would change this over time.

tzor wrote:I can't see how the computer generation would want to remain medically ignorant of their own conditions. And people will always be there to explain it to them for a profit.

The concern I have with this is those people might be on the take from specific hospitals, and would send people there for procedures they might not necessarily require.

Datawolf wrote:

tzor wrote:I can't see how the computer generation would want to remain medically ignorant of their own conditions. And people will always be there to explain it to them for a profit.

The concern I have with this is those people might be on the take from specific hospitals, and would send people there for procedures they might not necessarily require.

In any system you always need an active "press" to expose fraud, abuse and conflicts of interest. These problems exist with all systems.

DSMatticus, I hope you learned your lesson about trying to talk to Psychic Robot about anything.

Lago PARANOIA wrote:DSMatticus, I hope you learned your lesson about trying to talk to Psychic Robot about anything.

DSMatticus, I hope you learned your lesson about trying to talk to Psychic Robot about anything.

yeah don't do it or else you'll be proven wrong

free market wins again