But Obama has done it. Hey the RCP average finally caught up with Rasmussen, whose likely-voters polls have been showing this disapproval for months.
60 thoughts on “I Told You, Don’t Cross The Streams”
Comments are closed.
But Obama has done it. Hey the RCP average finally caught up with Rasmussen, whose likely-voters polls have been showing this disapproval for months.
Comments are closed.
“Demand expands to meet supply”
So expanding demand (aka access) changes this dynamic how exactly?
. If this was Economics 101 you’d expect areas with greater supply to have lower costs and better quality, the result of competition as that greater supply chased fixed demand.
Rebuttal: Why will a doctor move to an area where they’ll earn less and the customer will have higher expectations? Think about it, Jim.
Demand expands to meet supply — something that doesn’t happen with most economic goods.
Finally! This is exactly the result to be expected under socialized rather than free enterprise medicine. Finally you’re on board. I knew you’d get there eventually.
So expanding demand (aka access) changes this dynamic how exactly?
First of all, the purpose of expanding access is to ensure that people who need care get it, and that people who might need it later aren’t afraid to switch jobs, start businesses, etc. for fear of losing access to care. Covering the uninsured isn’t meant to change the economic laws of health care.
That said, there are other aspects of the ObamaCare bill that do try to address that dynamic: comparative effectiveness research, the Medicare advisory commission, the Cadillac tax, etc. For more specifics, see this.
Rebuttal: Why will a doctor move to an area where they’ll earn less and the customer will have higher expectations?
Are you asking why a doctor would move to an area where there’s more doctors-per-capita, or fewer? Right now they can often make more money by moving to an area with more doctors. That leads to some areas being underserved.
This is exactly the result to be expected under socialized rather than free enterprise medicine.
No, it’s to be expected when medical bills are typically paid by insurance rather than out-of-pocket.
Jim: Demand expands to meet supply — something that doesn’t happen with most economic goods.
Ken: This is exactly the result to be expected under socialized rather than free enterprise medicine.
Jim: No, it’s to be expected when medical bills are typically paid by insurance rather than out-of-pocket.
You’re close Jim. Now go read those first two quotes again using thought instead of knee jerk. Actually, keep reading it over and over until you get it.
What is it about out-of-pocket that is good? Consumer control.
If medical insurance were paid directly to the insured you’d have that same consumer control as well.
If medical insurance were paid directly to the insured you’d have that same consumer control as well.
You want your insurance company to pay you, and let you negotiate with the hospital? I don’t believe I’ve ever heard of a serious proposal along those lines. One problem is that individuals can’t negotiate the payment rates that insurers get, so your insurance wouldn’t actually cover your bills. That would be great motivation to reduce your costs, but if you can end up with bills that you can’t pay you’ve missed the point of having insurance in the first place.
Another problem is cultural — most health care recipients have little or no experience “shopping” for health care, and most providers have little or no experience selling it. Most doctors have no idea what their services cost, and don’t want to have to think about their work in those terms. Nobody wants buying life-critical health care to be like buying detergent or cars.
I saw a movie trailer last week for Jude Law’s new science fiction movie, “Repo Man” (not to be confused with the 80s Emilio Estevez “Repo Man”), wherein people who borrow money to pay for organ transplants can have the organs repossessed if they fall behind in their payments. That makes sense if you treat medical services like any other commodity, and creates lots of drama and action for a movie plot, but it isn’t the way anyone actually wants the health care system to work. We want people to get transplants (and keep them!) regardless of how much money they have, and regardless of how good a health care shopper they are.
It only makes sense on Planet Jim, but not to any educated person who understands financing.
But it makes a great straw man for Jim to beat up!
That would be great motivation to reduce your costs…
Which is the primary issue, isn’t it?
…but if you can end up with bills that you can’t pay you’ve missed the point of having insurance in the first place.
Yet another way to drive down costs. This is even a stronger motivation for the health care industry to lower it’s costs. If you can’t pay, what do you do with the money the insurance company gave you? You keep it for more vital needs.
The point of having insurance is to help you with things you can’t self insure. While you may argue the morality, you must agree this would drive down costs better than any other action. Speaking of morality, it’s no different than any other daily decision we have to make regarding the use of our assets.