usmbguest5318
Gold Member
Overall, it is "D," although the reason why is much simpler than what you explained. The term simply means that the seller has a monopoly in the good it sells. For example, Brooks Brothers has a monopoly in Brooks Brothers shirts. Whenever the "product" sold is branded and there is many sellers of it, the market structure is that of monopolistic competition. That's it; it's truly just that straightforward.
In the healthcare industry, there's a debate argument that one might be able to soundly make in limited situations. The easiest one to illustrate is geographically driven. For example:
- Physician's treatment/care -- In a small town, it's conceivable that there is only one OB/Gyn. In that town, the doctor has a monopoly in OB/Gyn services.. He has no competitors in his town.
- Treatment procedures/devices -- In D.C., as far as I know, the only hospital that has doctors and equipment to deliver the "cyberknife" cancer treatment is Georgetown Univ. Hospital. They thus have a monopoly on that type of care/treatment. There is nobody who competes with them. There are other modes of cancer treatment, however, so they don't have a monopoly in cancer treatment.
Remember, O-care requires everyone have health insurance; it does not stipulate how one obtains it or from whom. Economically speaking, the O-care exchanges are little more than stores for insurance. Just as there are department stores and single brand boutiques in various localities, so too is it that some states have multiple brands of insurance offered in their O-care health insurance "store"/exchange.
You mentioned Medicare. Medicare is not a monopoly. Medicare doesn't provide anything that no other supplier provides. Medicare is different in that it's not a discretionary purchase; everyone who works pays for it via payroll taxes. What's discretionary (for most people) is whether they avail themselves of it by signing up to receive their Medicare benefit when they become eligible to do so. One'd be stupid not to sign up and one is strongly encouraged to do so, but one isn't required to do so. The encouragement is the penalty for not doing so in a timely manner. (AFAIK, one can avoid the penalty by never signing up. If one's insurance doesn't have a Medicare enrollment requirement attached to it, one need not ever sign up to receive Medicare benefits.)
One thing to always keep in mind is that "freedom to act" and "acting without adverse consequence" (one might call that "acting for free") are not the same things, not in law and not in economics.
