Now we all have free healthcare. That's news to me and my paycheck deductions.
US health care is far more costly per capita than other developed nations, we get middling results, and we still don't cover everyone. As long as we keep relying on "for-profit" providers, this won't change.
50 hospitals charge uninsured more than 10 times cost of care, study finds - The Washington Post
Ah yes, the "magic of the marketplace."
I did not say health care did not cost anything, but for the consumer the act of consumption is free. This is made so by the insurance, that asks a flat fee or premium. This defines a decision structure in which the patient is consuming health care without paying the market price or, if she participates in the costs, below market prices. This is the essence of a free good, though, maybe I should have been more explicit.
Why would you not expect an industry to expand that produces a good that suddenly is free for all?
Yeah, we should base national policy on what we see in fictional TV shows. :roll:
You're right, that would be silly.
How about instead we base national policy on what works for every other developed nation on the planet? That would be guaranteed health coverage for every person as a right of citizenship. Based on their examples, it would cost far less per capita and provide as good or better health care than our disastrous system.
Once again, U.S. has most expensive, least effective health care system in survey - The Washington Post
Naaaaah! Steve Martin's brief moment of clarity (SNL) : atheism
Nice link. Amazing that the US ranks ahead of France in both quality of care and access to care and France ranks #1 in both this poll as well as WHO's last survey of heath care. I would think those are extremely important criteria. Perhaps there is some bias in weighting the various criteria. Health care seems more important than costs.
Does the US gain any points for having US affiliated medical researchers winning 27 out of 47 Nobel Prizes for medicine in a recent 20 year period, from 1993 to 2012? It seems as though US innovation probably adds to lower costs in other countries as they benefit from US research.
Glad that we are not like the UK, with their single payer system that ranks just above the US in 2nd to last place despite ranking first in so many categories.
People are not paying nothing. They are paying indirectly. This is a huge difference from what you claim. You seem to be totally unaware of how insurance or the health care profession work.
From Bloomberg.com:
The U.S. Economy Can't Hire Health-Care Workers*Fast Enough - Bloomberg Business
The complete report can be found at: http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/jolts.pdf
This data, which runs counter to some of the political narratives related to the health sector, highlights anew the importance of looking at all the variables when trying to assess an industry's future performance. The political/regulatory/tax variable is one aspect that can shape an industry's performance. There are many other variables. When it comes to the health sector, the aging of the population (which is directly related to medical care consumption) is a mega factor.
Ok...
I've yet to see a new plan where there are no premiums and deductibles and copays don't exist.
I don't know your insurance policy, but I pay practically the same if my medical costs are 0 or 100.000 dollars.
Yeah, that's not really how it works in the U.S. Most people share in some portion of the cost at the point of service.
Like 10% capped at $ 3.000?
Depends on the plan.
The point is that people generally have some skin in the game, and their use of resources (and the relative prices of those they choose) has a direct financial impact on them. More so every year.
From Bloomberg.com:
The U.S. Economy Can't Hire Health-Care Workers*Fast Enough - Bloomberg Business
The complete report can be found at: http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/jolts.pdf
This data, which runs counter to some of the political narratives related to the health sector, highlights anew the importance of looking at all the variables when trying to assess an industry's future performance. The political/regulatory/tax variable is one aspect that can shape an industry's performance. There are many other variables. When it comes to the health sector, the aging of the population (which is directly related to medical care consumption) is a mega factor.
Goodness, healthcare is now free for everybody? I admit I didn't know that.
Why would you not expect an industry to expand that produces a good that suddenly is free for all? I don't know, how it will develop, but I would expect an increase in healthcare consumption and higher costs.
I'd make three comments on this issue:
3. It has been noted elsewhere that the vast majority of new registrants for healthcare coverage on the state and federal exchanges have been those now eligible for Medicare coverage under the new guidelines established under the ACA. As a result, it's not surprising that there would be increased demand for healthcare professionals who will serve the increase in Medicare demand. Considering that some doctors are reportedly not accepting new Medicare patients because of reduced rates of reimbursement, it's possible that many of the posted openings are to fill positions serving those Medicare patients with professionals not wanting to accept the cut in reimbursement.
I suspect that payment rates, which also preceded the ACA, played role in accelerating some retirements. The ACA likely had some impact, too. However, the rate of retirements has slowed in recent years, so it's still too soon to really glean what impact ACA had and what impact other factors e.g., aging of physicians had. I'm sure this will be a topic of future research, especially if physician shortages grow worse than expected.
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?