Can Obamacare be Fixed?

[Dante]

OK, suppose a miracle happens and Obama, Senator Reid and Rep Boner all get together and decide to change the Obamacare law so that it works better for the general public.

What would you want to be changed?

Not much, obama has not commanded we speak for ourselves

 

[Dante]

Single payer!

Yeah, because socialized medicine has worked so well everywhere else.

lol, get real.

List of Countries with Universal Healthcare | COTO Report

http://progressivewomencolorado.com/list-of-countries-with-universal-health-care/

 

[Dante]

Wonder what the rightwing and conservative spins are on this one?

Bankruptcies resulting from unpaid medical bills will affect nearly 2 million people this year—making health care the No. 1 cause of such filings, and outpacing bankruptcies due to credit-card bills or unpaid mortgages, according to new data. And even having health insurance doesn't buffer consumers against financial hardship.

.Even outside of bankruptcy, about 56 million adults—more than 20 percent of the population between the ages of 19 and 64—will still struggle with health-care-related bills this year, according to NerdWallet Health.

And if you think only Americans without health insurance face financial troubles, think again. NerdWallet estimates nearly 10 million adults with year-round health-insurance coverage will still accumulate medical bills that they can't pay off this year.

Medical Bills Are the Biggest Cause of US Bankruptcies: Study

 

[Bern80]

One thing to keep in mind is that the ideal supply and demand curves are boundary conditions, what supplier and consumer would charge and pay in a perfectly competitive markets.

Fact is, most are not perfectly competitive and have imbalances in the market forces that lean either towards the supplier or the consumer. Usually the supplier, but not always.

The supply and demand curves really put upper and lower limits on the supplier and customer prices. Customer's will happily pay less and suppliers will happily take more, if the market will bear this out. The supplier cost is an obvious lower bound. Suppliers can't sell below cost for very long.

The only thing that restricts the demand curve is the other markets, how much we have to spread around. I'll happily pay less, but at some point I have to have enough for food, housing, gasoline, etc. And property management companies know what minimum wage and Social Security pays. So, COLA goes up, up goes rents.

Still, say for instance the local service stations, act as oligopolies. I talked to one owner who said, "We don't get into price wars. That's just tacky." They price as high as the market will bear. They don't compete for the most customer's and don't price at rock bottom cost. They don't talk to each other, but they do watch each others prices. Those price signs aren't just for you and I. The advertisements that say, "will beat any price in town" aren't for you and me. Those are for the competition. The owner of the Shell station knows that the owner of the Arco knows that the Shell station owner knows that the Arco owner is watching Shell prices.

When insurance becomes part of it, the whole thing is up for grabs. Dentists typically charge different prices for insured than non-insured. The difference is that out of pocket is the same, they just get more when insurance is picking up a portion. A 50% deductible and I pay $1000 for a root canal and my insurance picks up $1000. No insurance and I get half off, so I pay $1000. And, frankly, that's the game and no-one can to otherwise because if they do, they get buried in the market.

As far as ACA goes, it is a hugely complex bill and if anyone says they know what is going to happen, they are fooling you, me and themselves.

Put in incentives like loan repayment programs to medical students and tuition costs will rise. Typically, the difference gets split. Like the Cash For Clunkers program... A $1000 rebate and price of autos went up. Depending on the elasticity of the supply and demand curves, it got split between buyer and seller. Depending on how many students take advantage of the loan repayment, the demand for professionals in the hard to fill geographic areas, and the increase in monies gets split up between saving students money and increasing profits to medical schools.

Having insurance companies capping operating expenses and profits to 20% keeps them from being a bottomless well for the rest of the industry. Still, that isn't going to be enough.

Medical device manufactures make bank. So implementing a medical device tax isn't going to increase the price of a $350 hip joint from $35,000 to $45,000. It won't happen.

Medicare is a huge player in the health care markets. So whatever Medicare does, it holds prices down. In a free market system, someone gets less for a lower price. The price of a McDonald's cheeseburger from the $1 menu keeps the price of a Wendy's hamburger down. Union wages at Safeway increase wages at the non-union Raley's.

On the medical device tax I have to say you're just plain wrong. Now admittedly I only know that because that's what my brother does for a living. He sells replacement hips, but yes the tax does have a significant impact on their bottom line and he has to work more to stay where they were before the tax. They either have to lower the price of their product or the hospital has to pay more. If the later the price gets passed on to the consumer. You have to remember changes in prices of anything, especially when forced by government, don't happen in a vacuum. The market reacts.

As far as our supply and demand curve goes not only is demand going to go up overall, supply is going to go down (supply curve shifts left) because of things like the medical device tax. This makes the actual devices cost the hospital more, which gets passed on to the consumer. You can say medicare will cover that for the consumer, but the double whammy to the hospital is their remibursement rates are going to god down as well under Obamacare. Obama had to do this because he took $700 million and some out of medicare to pay for the 30 million uninsured. The reality of Obamacare is most doctors are going to take a pay cut, which makes being one a less attractive professional option.

 

[PMZ]

One thing to keep in mind is that the ideal supply and demand curves are boundary conditions, what supplier and consumer would charge and pay in a perfectly competitive markets.

Fact is, most are not perfectly competitive and have imbalances in the market forces that lean either towards the supplier or the consumer. Usually the supplier, but not always.

The supply and demand curves really put upper and lower limits on the supplier and customer prices. Customer's will happily pay less and suppliers will happily take more, if the market will bear this out. The supplier cost is an obvious lower bound. Suppliers can't sell below cost for very long.

The only thing that restricts the demand curve is the other markets, how much we have to spread around. I'll happily pay less, but at some point I have to have enough for food, housing, gasoline, etc. And property management companies know what minimum wage and Social Security pays. So, COLA goes up, up goes rents.

Still, say for instance the local service stations, act as oligopolies. I talked to one owner who said, "We don't get into price wars. That's just tacky." They price as high as the market will bear. They don't compete for the most customer's and don't price at rock bottom cost. They don't talk to each other, but they do watch each others prices. Those price signs aren't just for you and I. The advertisements that say, "will beat any price in town" aren't for you and me. Those are for the competition. The owner of the Shell station knows that the owner of the Arco knows that the Shell station owner knows that the Arco owner is watching Shell prices.

When insurance becomes part of it, the whole thing is up for grabs. Dentists typically charge different prices for insured than non-insured. The difference is that out of pocket is the same, they just get more when insurance is picking up a portion. A 50% deductible and I pay $1000 for a root canal and my insurance picks up $1000. No insurance and I get half off, so I pay $1000. And, frankly, that's the game and no-one can to otherwise because if they do, they get buried in the market.

As far as ACA goes, it is a hugely complex bill and if anyone says they know what is going to happen, they are fooling you, me and themselves.

Put in incentives like loan repayment programs to medical students and tuition costs will rise. Typically, the difference gets split. Like the Cash For Clunkers program... A $1000 rebate and price of autos went up. Depending on the elasticity of the supply and demand curves, it got split between buyer and seller. Depending on how many students take advantage of the loan repayment, the demand for professionals in the hard to fill geographic areas, and the increase in monies gets split up between saving students money and increasing profits to medical schools.

Having insurance companies capping operating expenses and profits to 20% keeps them from being a bottomless well for the rest of the industry. Still, that isn't going to be enough.

Medical device manufactures make bank. So implementing a medical device tax isn't going to increase the price of a $350 hip joint from $35,000 to $45,000. It won't happen.

Medicare is a huge player in the health care markets. So whatever Medicare does, it holds prices down. In a free market system, someone gets less for a lower price. The price of a McDonald's cheeseburger from the $1 menu keeps the price of a Wendy's hamburger down. Union wages at Safeway increase wages at the non-union Raley's.

On the medical device tax I have to say you're just plain wrong. Now admittedly I only know that because that's what my brother does for a living. He sells replacement hips, but yes the tax does have a significant impact on their bottom line. They either have to lower the price of their product or the hospital has to pay more. If the later the price gets passed on to the consumer. You have to remember changes in prices of anything, especially when forced by government, don't happen in a vacuum. The market reacts which is made up of buyers and sellers.

As far as our supply and demand curve goes not only is demand going to go up overall, supply is going to go down (supply curve shifts left) because of things like the medical device tax. This makes the actual devices cost the hospital more, which gets passed on to the consumer. You can say medicare will cover that for the consumer, but the double whammy to the hospital is their remibursement rates are going to god down as well under Obamacare. Obama had to do this because he took $700 million and some out of medicare to pay for the 30 million uninsured. The reality of Obamacare is most doctors are going to take a pay cut, which makes being one a less attractive professional option.

You act like health care is a free market when, in fact, it's about as far from that as one can get.

 

[Bern80]

Wonder what the rightwing and conservative spins are on this one?

Bankruptcies resulting from unpaid medical bills will affect nearly 2 million people this year—making health care the No. 1 cause of such filings, and outpacing bankruptcies due to credit-card bills or unpaid mortgages, according to new data. And even having health insurance doesn't buffer consumers against financial hardship.

.Even outside of bankruptcy, about 56 million adults—more than 20 percent of the population between the ages of 19 and 64—will still struggle with health-care-related bills this year, according to NerdWallet Health.

And if you think only Americans without health insurance face financial troubles, think again. NerdWallet estimates nearly 10 million adults with year-round health-insurance coverage will still accumulate medical bills that they can't pay off this year.

Medical Bills Are the Biggest Cause of US Bankruptcies: Study

What spin? While we can disagree about Obamacare, I don't think anyone is going to disagree that the actual cost of health care is high. That's there's problem is not what is being debated. It's the solution.

 

[Bern80]

One thing to keep in mind is that the ideal supply and demand curves are boundary conditions, what supplier and consumer would charge and pay in a perfectly competitive markets.

Fact is, most are not perfectly competitive and have imbalances in the market forces that lean either towards the supplier or the consumer. Usually the supplier, but not always.

The supply and demand curves really put upper and lower limits on the supplier and customer prices. Customer's will happily pay less and suppliers will happily take more, if the market will bear this out. The supplier cost is an obvious lower bound. Suppliers can't sell below cost for very long.

The only thing that restricts the demand curve is the other markets, how much we have to spread around. I'll happily pay less, but at some point I have to have enough for food, housing, gasoline, etc. And property management companies know what minimum wage and Social Security pays. So, COLA goes up, up goes rents.

Still, say for instance the local service stations, act as oligopolies. I talked to one owner who said, "We don't get into price wars. That's just tacky." They price as high as the market will bear. They don't compete for the most customer's and don't price at rock bottom cost. They don't talk to each other, but they do watch each others prices. Those price signs aren't just for you and I. The advertisements that say, "will beat any price in town" aren't for you and me. Those are for the competition. The owner of the Shell station knows that the owner of the Arco knows that the Shell station owner knows that the Arco owner is watching Shell prices.

When insurance becomes part of it, the whole thing is up for grabs. Dentists typically charge different prices for insured than non-insured. The difference is that out of pocket is the same, they just get more when insurance is picking up a portion. A 50% deductible and I pay $1000 for a root canal and my insurance picks up $1000. No insurance and I get half off, so I pay $1000. And, frankly, that's the game and no-one can to otherwise because if they do, they get buried in the market.

As far as ACA goes, it is a hugely complex bill and if anyone says they know what is going to happen, they are fooling you, me and themselves.

Put in incentives like loan repayment programs to medical students and tuition costs will rise. Typically, the difference gets split. Like the Cash For Clunkers program... A $1000 rebate and price of autos went up. Depending on the elasticity of the supply and demand curves, it got split between buyer and seller. Depending on how many students take advantage of the loan repayment, the demand for professionals in the hard to fill geographic areas, and the increase in monies gets split up between saving students money and increasing profits to medical schools.

Having insurance companies capping operating expenses and profits to 20% keeps them from being a bottomless well for the rest of the industry. Still, that isn't going to be enough.

Medical device manufactures make bank. So implementing a medical device tax isn't going to increase the price of a $350 hip joint from $35,000 to $45,000. It won't happen.

Medicare is a huge player in the health care markets. So whatever Medicare does, it holds prices down. In a free market system, someone gets less for a lower price. The price of a McDonald's cheeseburger from the $1 menu keeps the price of a Wendy's hamburger down. Union wages at Safeway increase wages at the non-union Raley's.

On the medical device tax I have to say you're just plain wrong. Now admittedly I only know that because that's what my brother does for a living. He sells replacement hips, but yes the tax does have a significant impact on their bottom line. They either have to lower the price of their product or the hospital has to pay more. If the later the price gets passed on to the consumer. You have to remember changes in prices of anything, especially when forced by government, don't happen in a vacuum. The market reacts which is made up of buyers and sellers.

As far as our supply and demand curve goes not only is demand going to go up overall, supply is going to go down (supply curve shifts left) because of things like the medical device tax. This makes the actual devices cost the hospital more, which gets passed on to the consumer. You can say medicare will cover that for the consumer, but the double whammy to the hospital is their remibursement rates are going to god down as well under Obamacare. Obama had to do this because he took $700 million and some out of medicare to pay for the 30 million uninsured. The reality of Obamacare is most doctors are going to take a pay cut, which makes being one a less attractive professional option.

You act like health care is a free market when, in fact, it's about as far from that as one can get.

Why is it not and why can't it be?

 

[Spoonman]

you want to know the real truth about obamacare?

 

[PMZ]

Wonder what the rightwing and conservative spins are on this one?

Bankruptcies resulting from unpaid medical bills will affect nearly 2 million people this year—making health care the No. 1 cause of such filings, and outpacing bankruptcies due to credit-card bills or unpaid mortgages, according to new data. And even having health insurance doesn't buffer consumers against financial hardship.

.Even outside of bankruptcy, about 56 million adults—more than 20 percent of the population between the ages of 19 and 64—will still struggle with health-care-related bills this year, according to NerdWallet Health.

And if you think only Americans without health insurance face financial troubles, think again. NerdWallet estimates nearly 10 million adults with year-round health-insurance coverage will still accumulate medical bills that they can't pay off this year.

Medical Bills Are the Biggest Cause of US Bankruptcies: Study

What spin? While we can disagree about Obamacare, I don't think anyone is going to disagree that the actual cost of health care is high. That's there's problem is not what is being debated. It's the solution.

Health care costs are not only high, but highly variable. The only solution to the variability is to spread the risk. Insurance.

The high average cost comes from the fact that health care is practiced in a market where effective competition is impossible. Who would go to the cheapest Dr or hospital they could find to cure a serious disease?

Most countries doing better than we in health care solve those problems by socializing it. So far, the evidence is that's an effective solution.

Will that ever happen here?

We collectively apparently aren't smart enough to do what works elsewhere.

 

[PMZ]

you want to know the real truth about obamacare?

Of course your solution is to ignore the problem. I guess we all contribute as we are able to.

 

[itfitzme]

One thing to keep in mind is that the ideal supply and demand curves are boundary conditions, what supplier and consumer would charge and pay in a perfectly competitive markets.

Fact is, most are not perfectly competitive and have imbalances in the market forces that lean either towards the supplier or the consumer. Usually the supplier, but not always.

The supply and demand curves really put upper and lower limits on the supplier and customer prices. Customer's will happily pay less and suppliers will happily take more, if the market will bear this out. The supplier cost is an obvious lower bound. Suppliers can't sell below cost for very long.

The only thing that restricts the demand curve is the other markets, how much we have to spread around. I'll happily pay less, but at some point I have to have enough for food, housing, gasoline, etc. And property management companies know what minimum wage and Social Security pays. So, COLA goes up, up goes rents.

Still, say for instance the local service stations, act as oligopolies. I talked to one owner who said, "We don't get into price wars. That's just tacky." They price as high as the market will bear. They don't compete for the most customer's and don't price at rock bottom cost. They don't talk to each other, but they do watch each others prices. Those price signs aren't just for you and I. The advertisements that say, "will beat any price in town" aren't for you and me. Those are for the competition. The owner of the Shell station knows that the owner of the Arco knows that the Shell station owner knows that the Arco owner is watching Shell prices.

When insurance becomes part of it, the whole thing is up for grabs. Dentists typically charge different prices for insured than non-insured. The difference is that out of pocket is the same, they just get more when insurance is picking up a portion. A 50% deductible and I pay $1000 for a root canal and my insurance picks up $1000. No insurance and I get half off, so I pay $1000. And, frankly, that's the game and no-one can to otherwise because if they do, they get buried in the market.

As far as ACA goes, it is a hugely complex bill and if anyone says they know what is going to happen, they are fooling you, me and themselves.

Put in incentives like loan repayment programs to medical students and tuition costs will rise. Typically, the difference gets split. Like the Cash For Clunkers program... A $1000 rebate and price of autos went up. Depending on the elasticity of the supply and demand curves, it got split between buyer and seller. Depending on how many students take advantage of the loan repayment, the demand for professionals in the hard to fill geographic areas, and the increase in monies gets split up between saving students money and increasing profits to medical schools.

Having insurance companies capping operating expenses and profits to 20% keeps them from being a bottomless well for the rest of the industry. Still, that isn't going to be enough.

Medical device manufactures make bank. So implementing a medical device tax isn't going to increase the price of a $350 hip joint from $35,000 to $45,000. It won't happen.

Medicare is a huge player in the health care markets. So whatever Medicare does, it holds prices down. In a free market system, someone gets less for a lower price. The price of a McDonald's cheeseburger from the $1 menu keeps the price of a Wendy's hamburger down. Union wages at Safeway increase wages at the non-union Raley's.

On the medical device tax I have to say you're just plain wrong. Now admittedly I only know that because that's what my brother does for a living. He sells replacement hips, but yes the tax does have a significant impact on their bottom line and he has to work more to stay where they were before the tax. They either have to lower the price of their product or the hospital has to pay more. If the later the price gets passed on to the consumer. You have to remember changes in prices of anything, especially when forced by government, don't happen in a vacuum. The market reacts.

As far as our supply and demand curve goes not only is demand going to go up overall, supply is going to go down (supply curve shifts left) because of things like the medical device tax. This makes the actual devices cost the hospital more, which gets passed on to the consumer. You can say medicare will cover that for the consumer, but the double whammy to the hospital is their remibursement rates are going to god down as well under Obamacare. Obama had to do this because he took $700 million and some out of medicare to pay for the 30 million uninsured. The reality of Obamacare is most doctors are going to take a pay cut, which makes being one a less attractive professional option.

There is a difference between price, cost and utility. Now, I am just going on the recent article

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/04/health/for-medical-tourists-simple-math.html?_r=0

"An artificial hip, however, costs only about $350 to manufacture in the United States, according to Dr. Blair Rhode, an orthopedist and entrepreneur whose company is developing generic implants. In Asia, it costs about $150, though some quality control issues could arise there, he said."

We don't even need to know this information to know that price is above cost. First off, in the ideal of micro economic supply and demand, there are no profits. Perfect competition drives profits to zero. Then there is the simple disparity between regions that is not accounted for by simple costs. Price is above cost, at the level of demand willingness to pay.

Regardless, there will be no change in supply due to the medical device tax. For one thing, supply doesn't change as a result of a tax. A tax doesn't increase cost. A tax applies only to earnings before taxes. This one is an excise tax of 2.3% that applies to the sale and is calculated on the price, like the excise tax on car tires.

 

[itfitzme]

I was considering the details of demand shifts and quantity changes.

Demand shifts are only caused by changes in the real income available for purchase of product or services in the specific market in question along with a desire for more. The desire for more is not sufficient alone. The fact that the quantity and price increase can be seen in that a demand curve shift to the left is a supply quantity increase. Given the existing production efficiency, the only way that more units may be made available to an existing desire for more product by existing buyers is that the equilibrium point moves up the supply curve to a point of higher price and quantity.

 

[itfitzme]

The biggest error I see repeatedly made in applying economics is the idea that a tax affects the "bottom line". It doesn't.

The simplest way to see it is to consider the following accounting.

Costs include fixed cost and variable costs. Fixed costs (FC) are capital equipment cost and building rents. Variable costs (VC) are material costs and labor costs.

The total cost for producing is

TC = Q * (FC/Q + VC). Fixed costs are spread out among the quantity of units while variable costs are on a per unit basis.

Revenues are total sales quantity times price

R = P * Q

Earnings before taxes, or simply earnings, are revenues minus total costs.

EBT = R - TC = P*Q - Q * (FC/Q + VC).

Taxes are on earnings, not on revenues and profit is what is left over after taxes. The taxes are a percentage of earnings (t), not a fixed amount.

Profit = EBT*(1-t)

First off, profit cannot go to zero unless t = 1. Secondly,

Profit = (R - TC)*(1-t)

and

Taxes = (R - TC)*(t)

Note that we can rearrange as Taxes = R*t - TC*t. So, if we really are going to consider taxes in terms of "costs", the quantity -TC*t reduces taxes. Taxes produce a negative cost, total taxes are reduced by the amount -TC*t which is essentially a credit. If we want to apply the tax rate directly to revenue then we have to also apply it directly to the costs. And applied to the cost, it becomes a credit.

By no stretch of understanding do taxes increase costs. They may increase price, but price isn't cost. Price is cost plus profit. Now, in many cases, it is odd that CEO salaries and bonuses are a cost, but that is how it goes. Taxes can be eliminated entirely by increasing the owners salary to the level that there are no earnings. Of course, then personal income taxes become an issue. That is the trade off. It is why company cars are so useful. The company car is a cost and reduces revenue and earnings. As a personal car, it isn't a deduction.

 

[itfitzme]

The health care market has all sorts of imperfections that make it not a competitive free market. There are efficiencies of scale in some markets, like drugs and insurance, which results in natural oligopolies. There are regulations on education level that restricts the supply of doctors and nurses, thus increasing doctor and nursing salaries. There are every manner of regulations for health and safety reasons which creates barriers to entry.

There is no "shopping around" when it comes to most medical procedures simply because when one is bleeding to death, any hospital will do. There is an utter imbalance in information. We are, after all, paying medical professionals for the very fact that they have the information and we don't.

The health care markets, are definitively not the ideal competitive free market that the introduction to micro-economics presents in the model of supply and demand.

 

[dblack]

The health care market has all sorts of imperfections that make it not a competitive free market. There are efficiencies of scale in some markets, like drugs and insurance, which results in natural oligopolies. There are regulations on education level that restricts the supply of doctors and nurses, thus increasing doctor and nursing salaries. There are every manner of regulations for health and safety reasons which creates barriers to entry.

There is no "shopping around" when it comes to most medical procedures simply because when one is bleeding to death, any hospital will do. There is an utter imbalance in information. We are, after all, paying medical professionals for the very fact that they have the information and we don't.

The health care markets, are definitively not the ideal competitive free market that the introduction to micro-economics presents in the model of supply and demand.

No markets are 'ideal competitive free market's, and the above arguments can almost always be used to justify limiting free trade. Most medical concerns aren't emergencies, and even emergencies can be planned for.

Health care evokes emotional responses, which is why it's used as a leverage point to inject the socialist ethic. But it's only that - and will be used as a wedge to eliminate freedom across the board. Statists won't be satisfied until we're under their thumb(s).

 

[Bern80]

Health care costs are not only high, but highly variable. The only solution to the variability is to spread the risk. Insurance.

Not even a little bit true. There are plenty of mechanisms that can be used to be bring the cost of health care down.

The high average cost comes from the fact that health care is practiced in a market where effective competition is impossible. Who would go to the cheapest Dr or hospital they could find to cure a serious disease?

Wrong again. You've said this before and again you presume that less expensive is the same thing as inferior quality. That simply isn't true.

Most countries doing better than we in health care solve those problems by socializing it. So far, the evidence is that's an effective solution.

Will that ever happen here?

We collectively apparently aren't smart enough to do what works elsewhere.

Wrong a third time. What is your criteria for 'works'? Simply that it costs the consumer less? That's a pretty poor measurement of the quality of an entire health care system. In sustainability terms it's not working a lot of places. Frances system is billions in debt. It's not working from a supply side as we know it takes longer to be seen in many cases.

 

[itfitzme]

There is this gross error made in applying the ideal model of supply and demand to the real markets as if it was some hard-fast rule.

The fact is that it is an ideal model, just like the binomial distribution in probability. Applying the ideal supply and demand model to real markets is like saying, "the last coin flip was heads so the next is guaranteed to be tails because the probability is 50:50" Ideal models simply don't work this way.'

The supply and demand curves in macro economics set the upper and lower bounds for prices and quantities. For the demand curve, this is called "willingness to pay" which includes simply income availability as well as "utility" of the product. Customers will happily pay less. The supply curve is based on production costs which is not the same as price. Suppliers will always happily take more.

In perfect markets with perfect information, no barriers to entry, no inefficiencies of scale... that is no imperfections, the number of buyers and sellers is sufficiently large that both buyers and sellers are price takers. Profits don't exists because any profit attracts new suppliers, supply increases, and price falls to cost.

The curves set boundary conditions for the equilibrium point where, typically, the price is taken as cost. What the actual equilibrium point is depends on market imperfections. In the case of monopolies there is not price cap due to costs. In the case of oligopolies, there is a natural movement to a price level above cost.

 

[itfitzme]

The health care market has all sorts of imperfections that make it not a competitive free market. There are efficiencies of scale in some markets, like drugs and insurance, which results in natural oligopolies. There are regulations on education level that restricts the supply of doctors and nurses, thus increasing doctor and nursing salaries. There are every manner of regulations for health and safety reasons which creates barriers to entry.

There is no "shopping around" when it comes to most medical procedures simply because when one is bleeding to death, any hospital will do. There is an utter imbalance in information. We are, after all, paying medical professionals for the very fact that they have the information and we don't.

The health care markets, are definitively not the ideal competitive free market that the introduction to micro-economics presents in the model of supply and demand.

No markets are 'ideal competitive free market's, and the above arguments can almost always be used to justify limiting free trade. Most medical concerns aren't emergencies, and even emergencies can be planned for.

Health care evokes emotional responses, which is why it's used as a leverage point to inject the socialist ethic. But it's only that - and will be used as a wedge to eliminate freedom across the board. Statists won't be satisfied until we're under their thumb(s).

That is the point, "no markets are 'ideal competitive free market's". Exactly. S-D simply provides an ideal model to compare the real world to. Some are close enough to that the difference isn't significant. Some markets are much further away from the ideal than others. Before, or while, applying the concepts of introduction to micro-economics, the nature of the imperfections has to be considered. If not, any conclusions are meaningless.

 

[itfitzme]

The health care market has all sorts of imperfections that make it not a competitive free market. There are efficiencies of scale in some markets, like drugs and insurance, which results in natural oligopolies. There are regulations on education level that restricts the supply of doctors and nurses, thus increasing doctor and nursing salaries. There are every manner of regulations for health and safety reasons which creates barriers to entry.

There is no "shopping around" when it comes to most medical procedures simply because when one is bleeding to death, any hospital will do. There is an utter imbalance in information. We are, after all, paying medical professionals for the very fact that they have the information and we don't.

The health care markets, are definitively not the ideal competitive free market that the introduction to micro-economics presents in the model of supply and demand.

No markets are 'ideal competitive free market's, and the above arguments can almost always be used to justify limiting free trade. Most medical concerns aren't emergencies, and even emergencies can be planned for.

Health care evokes emotional responses, which is why it's used as a leverage point to inject the socialist ethic. But it's only that - and will be used as a wedge to eliminate freedom across the board. Statists won't be satisfied until we're under their thumb(s).

"wedge to eliminate freedom" is an emotional assessment, not a scientific assessment. And there is no attempt to inject a "socialist ethic" unless you mean giving a shit about others. In this case, symmetry becomes significant and I am under no moral obligation to give a shit about someone that doesn't give a shit about myself or others.

So your opinion is now meaningless in any social context.

 

[itfitzme]

This is interesting;

"We examined a total of 19 368 adult patients hospitalized with appendicitis. The median hospital charge among all patients was $33 611, with a lowest observed charge of $1529 and highest of $182 955."

JAMA Network | JAMA Internal Medicine | Health Care as a ?Market Good?? Appendicitis as a Case Study


The Table provides results of the hierarchical model for percentage increase in median charge for various patient and hospital factors. When analyzing patient factors, increasing ages were associated with increased median charge. There were slightly increased charges for Medicaid patients (2.3%; 95% CI, 1.3%-3.4%) and the uninsured (1.4%; 95% CI, 0.4%-2.5%). When considering hospital-level factors, the estimated median charge for appendicitis from a county hospital was 36.6% lower (95% CI, 22.5%-48.2%) than from nonprofit hospitals, and for-profit hospitals had 16.3% higher charges (95% CI, 5.4%-28.4%).