An explanation, some kind of logic. For instance:
A1: There is a relatively stable amount of demand for healthcare.
A2: Doctors provide healthcare.
C1: There is a relatively stable demand for doctors. (based on A1 and A2)
A3: More supply leads to a lower price if demand remains relatively stable.
A4: Increasing the number of doctors would lead to more supply.
C2: Increasing the number of doctors would lead to a lower price. (based on C1, A3, and A4)
Medicine isn't something we comparison shop, especially emergency medicine.
We have a hard time saying we'll let little suzzie suffer because it costs too much.
No matter how many doctors we get, they will have plenty of patients to be busy, and thus, no need to lower prices.
Prices are not up because of a doctor shortage, but because it requires a lot of expertise (not like 1910 when less was needed), and there is an expectation that the doctor actually know what he or she is doing. There is more technology, more procedures, greater call for specialization, and no real way to make things as simple as they were in 1910.
I realize this is counter intuative, and I have looked at it for a good many years. Normal market forces simply don't apply with medicine.
I have to leave now, but I can link you to surces that say exactly this. Or you can do your own search (you'll find both argued).
Something different. Not prue capitalsim and not prue socialism. Calling it socialism is lying. And calling it prue capitalism is lying. But it isn't new. We haven't had prue capitalism since the great depression. Even beforethat actually.
so let me get this straight; market forces don't provide us an optimum result for the distribution of health care resources because at some level we need health care resources in order to survive.
hm.
alright.
well then the same set of logic would have to apply to food, right? how has it worked out in nations where they nationalized food production? lots of fat people there and lots of starvation in the countries that leave such a necessary function up to the market forces?
It's actually capitalism at its finest. Isn't competition good? I guess the private businesses don't like the idea of a government-run company competing with them. Can't take the heat or something.
so, socialism = communism.
hm.
well, fortunately, there is, in fact, an ideology that matches what you are describing.
it's called Corporatism.
You don't right now because government ensures competence. If you didn't have that assurance, you would comparison shop, even ahead of time for emergency situations.
It happens all the time right now because the cost is too high.
Want to know why this is wrong? Imagine if everyone was a doctor. Then not everyone would have plenty of patients to be busy. My point? The market decides how many doctors there should be, and so we should follow the advice of the market. The huge salaries they command right now is indicative of the fact that there is a shortage of doctors. The fact that medical students need to do 80 hour a week internships shows that there is a huge shortage of doctors.
Yes, the specialization would command a higher salary because not everyone can acquire those skills. However, who are you to say that the number we have now is good? The number is capped, so we don't know how many would try to become doctors if that cap was relaxed. Wages would go down without that cap.
Guess I should just take your word for it. :roll:
I'm not doing your work. You show me the links.
Medicine today is not what it used to be...
Back in the late 40s I paid $27 a day for a hospital room, and the surgeon charged me $75 for a hernia operation. Compare that with today's costs.
ricksfolly
Being silly again? And I'm doing nothing of the kind. Try again.
you certainly are. corporatism is alive, well, and the official policy of one and a half of our national parties.
but just for kicks, boo, you tell us, where is that shining line that once you cross you are in 'socialism'?
Yes, the moon is made of green cheese. :lamo
As for socialism, it has a definition. You cross the line when government takes over all or nearly all means of production. There is nothing today that has been here since the great depression. There is no prue capitalism today among major countries. And nothing today is any different than it has been. The argument of communism, socialism or even corporatism is a weak argument by those who can't legitimate oppose something, so they resort to silly labeling as a last resort.
If you want to see the human side of socialism, Rent a movie called Reds. It's about Jack Reed, one of the early ones from the US...
ricksfolly
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?