Not sure what my background has to do with the points above, but there you go.
It is of interest to me because in your response you were unnecessarily abrasive and alpha-acting. That usually indicates someone of low self-esteem who feels that he or she has something to prove. You also took one of my points not only out of context of what I said, but also out of context of the entire thread, which usually indicates low reading comprehension, and finally, you completely made up a statement that you attributed to me at the end as a straw man, which usually indicates that a person doesn't really have a good argument.
Now, your stated resume doesn't jive with any of that, but then again, it also doesn't jive with failing to understand how the economic principles such as scarcity, lack of substitute goods and/or services, and greatly inflated demand value due to the nature of the situation make shopping for Lasik surgery different than shopping for surgery to remove a neuroblastoma.
If you don't understand how shopping for one service when time is not a factor and the worst thing that happens if the treatment is ineffective or the potential customer decides not to buy at all is that a person continues to wear corrective lenses whereas in the other case the person may have very little time to make up his or her mind about treatment options and if they choose an ineffective course of treatment, debate too long, etc., the worst case scenario is death, I don't know what to tell you. If that's not self-evident to any thinking person, then I got nothing.
Immanent death is a huge inflator of demand, and when supply is static (as it is in this case) demand drives price and limited time reduces the likelihood of much comparison shopping, doesn't it?
The comment that you made that is borderline nonsensical to me to the point that I began to question reading comprehension is the one about not waiting until you have a heart attack to find a surgeon; that you should get insurance beforehand. We're talking about a cash system. As opposed to an insurance model. That's the whole debate.
and specifically, when it makes sense to remove competition from the equation.
That's another straw man. I never said that. I also never said cash wouldn't bring price down. It would...somewhat. But that lower price would come with a price of its own.
What I object to is the idea that gets floated by free market religionists that if we went to a completely cash system everything in health care would be just like it is now, but only cheaper. That isn't so. I can promise you. I've done it.
Testing that catches potentially fatal diseases early wouldn't be done, a lot of psychiatric care, orthopedic surgeries, supportive care for individuals with disabilities, expensive technology-driven care, simply wouldn't be available to most people, and a lot of technology that we all take for granted would become scarce too. All of a sudden getting an MRI as a patient is a big deal because 3 out of the 5 clinics in town can't pay for their machine and it goes away. (Speaking of which, MRIs have plummeted in price too despite still being covered by insurance. Surely they taught you guys in your advanced degree classes the difference between simple correlation and causation, didn't they?)
No big deal for an MRI, right? The water would seek its own level and the price would reflect routine community demand. That works great until you have to have some specialized piece of equipment that you only ever need once in a while to save some kid's life and you couldn't afford one.
More to type, but no more time to type...
p.s. Thanks for calling me Junior...been some time.
Don't mention it. Us old timers never get carded anymore, so at least we can pretend on the internet, huh?
