Why is healthcare prohibitively expensive in the US?

[distraff]

if so why are you so afraid to give your best example????????????

I did. Utilities like electricity and water are bad at controlling prices. Fast food joints are very good at controlling prices.

 

[distraff]

charter schools do much better because they are not monopolies, obviously. To survive they need to be competitive. Is this really over your socialist head?

You can argue that charter schools are better. But that doesn't mean that public schools are outrageously expensive. If we used taxpayers dollars to help people pay for charter schools for their kids, that is very similar to a Medicare for All plan where the government pays for the healthcare and the healthcare providers (like schools) are private.

 

[distraff]

obviously a monopoly will not have cheaper prices than a competitive school or business!!!1+1=2

A government monopoly isn't necessarily expensive because the goal isn't profit. When a profit driven company has a monopoly, it will hike prices as much as it can. Some private markets are very good at controlling prices, and are better than public services, but not all of them are.

 

[James972]

A government monopoly isn't necessarily expensive because the goal isn't profit.

it has no incentive to be inexpensive. for a private company it is a matter of life and death!

 

[distraff]

FRance is a liberals wet dream with almost double our taxation, they have per capita income of Arkansas about our poorest state and are literally rioting in the streets every weekend because the poor still cant make ends meet!!! Do you understand?

You need to look at Western European countries together rather than cherry pick just one country. Also, France has much better public services and benefits than Arkansas and they don't have to work nearly as many hours. Another thing is that the rich in the US take a lot more of the economy which is why our GDP per capita does appear a lot more, but that doesn't mean the middle class is richer. You have to look at median hourly wages rather than GDP per capita to really see how people are doing.

 

[distraff]

there is no private insurance since Democrats made competition illegal. HOw many times do you need to learn this?

Aetna is an example of private insurance. There is private insurance.

 

[James972]

Some private markets are very good at controlling prices, and are better than public services, but not all of them are.

if so why so afraid to provide and example? what do you learn from your fear?

 

[James972]

Aetna is an example of private insurance. There is private insurance.

private and capitalist are 2 different things. LIberals made interstate competition illegal. NOw do you understand?

 

[distraff]

USA has 20 major overlapping and conflicting socialist bureaucracies that make it a far less efficient socialism than the slimed down socialist countries in Europe.

Other developed nations have a simpler public healthcare structure, but more of their healthcare is public funded, more heavily regulated, and more publicly provided. Their programs may be better set up, but there is a lot more public involvement which means their healthcare should be a lot more expensive than private healthcare in the US.

 

[James972]

You need to look at Western European countries together rather than cherry pick just one country.

dear, Fance is a rich one, include Spain Italy Portugal Poland etc you see they live at 50% of GDP and it would be at 20% if not for our capitalist inventions. Do you think Silicon valley is in Europe??

 

[distraff]

if so why so afraid to provide and example? what do you learn from your fear?

Electrical and water utilities.

 

[James972]

Other developed nations have a simpler public healthcare structure,

yes they are more efficient at socialism and much poorer so also much cheaper

 

[James972]

Electrical and water utilities.

goofy since you cant have 100 competing water companies all digging up the world

 

[distraff]

private and capitalist are 2 different things. LIberals made interstate competition illegal. NOw do you understand?

That is only with insurance not with healthcare providers. Many states how allow interstate insurance competition. And in-state competition is still very much legal. Yes, but we were discussing our private system. You denied we had a private system, we do.

 

[distraff]

dear, Fance is a rich one, include Spain Italy Portugal Poland etc you see they live at 50% of GDP and it would be at 20% if not for our capitalist inventions. Do you think Silicon valley is in Europe??

Now you are cherry picking poorer developed nations. Yet you fail to mention Germany, Switzerland, Austria, Netherlands, Belgium, Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Finland, the UK, Ireland, Australia, Canada, New Zealand, Japan (not western but still developed and more socialist), Taiwan, and South Korea. You are only cherry picking the worst examples.

 

[James972]

Many states how allow interstate insurance competition.

not really since since each state has its own laws. Imagine if each state had its own toothpaste requirements. Would that make toothpaste more or less expensive than if you had national or international competition. 1+1=2

 

[James972]

Now you are cherry picking poorer developed nations. Yet you fail to mention Germany, Switzerland, Austria, Netherlands, Belgium, Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Finland, the UK, Ireland, Australia, Canada, New Zealand, Japan (not western but still developed and more socialist), Taiwan, and South Korea. You are only cherry picking the worst examples.

As I said combine them all together and Europe is poor becuase socialism does not work. Ever heard of East/ West Germany???

The Poor in the US Are Richer than the Middle Class in Much of Europe
The Poor in the US Are Richer than the Middle Class in Much of Europe | Mises Wire
Oct 16, 2015 - In relation to the cost of living, the median income in the US is much higher than the median income in much of Europe. So, even someone who ..

 

[holbritter]

Greed

 

[SDET]

Health "insurance" isn't insurance at all. It's a service plan. Insurance is designed to protect against catastrophic events. Somehow, a return to a cash for non-catastrophic service system needs to be restored. Currently cash customers get punitive pricing.

 

[James972]

Somehow, a return to a cash for non-catastrophic service system needs to be restored. Currently cash customers get punitive pricing.

simple, just raise co pays and deductibles

 

[James972]

Now you are cherry picking poorer developed nations. Yet you fail to mention Germany, Switzerland, Austria, Netherlands, Belgium, Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Finland, the UK, Ireland, Australia, Canada, New Zealand, Japan (not western but still developed and more socialist), Taiwan, and South Korea. You are only cherry picking the worst examples.

they all live at about 65% of our GDP and would live at 35% were it not for our inventions. We have 70% of all recent health care patents and silicon valley is in USA not Europe. Do you understand. Unemployment is 10% in Europe. That would be a depression for us

 

[Hypoxinfo]

Prevention is better than cure.
Better to live in a healthy lifestyle.

 

[I'm Supposn]

... It would perhaps be fallacious to say that healthcare in the US is expensive purely because of the free market because it is one of the most heavily regulated sectors in the US economy.

If this Forbes article is to be trusted, the US government is limiting the number of physicians per year, causing a shortage and thus raising the cost of medical care due to lobbying on the part of the AMA. The government has also restricted the establishment of medical schools. Foreign doctors have to redo their residencies, regardless of how long they have been practicing, to legally practice in the US.
The Evil-Mongering Of The American Medical Association...
... Another problem is prescription drug medication. ...
... Which brings me onto my next point. The FDA puts a long and burdensome process on getting drugs approved. ...

Masterhawk, if we're going to point out the devils, lets not ignore our resonsibility as voters and taxpayers to require better from ourselves and from our government. Let's begin by considering the Forbe's article's first group of devils, the AMA and the medical profession.

Medical technology is among the most demanding fields of study, requiring great striving and sacrifices. The Forbes article points out that there's not an overabundance of seats available in our medical schools.
But lack of finances should not hinder anyone that's otherwise qualified to enter medical school, and graduates should not be in financial debt due to their medical studies. The costs of medical studies should be highly government subsidized.
Doctors should be required to repay some of their school's costs through public service beyond their required internships as students. Money should not be an acceptable substitute for public service.

Respectfully, Supposn

 

[marke]

I don't have an opinion on admission rates for medical schools, but drug approval is necessary, and arguably too easy as is. It's simply too easy for manufacturers to get drugs that are dangerous and/or unhelpful approved (e.g. SSRIs).

The best solution for high medical costs would likely be direct limits on drug prices.

Research and development is extremely expensive. If there is no reasonable expectation of a return on investments into drug research then the research will stop for financial reasons. No company executive would be wise to spend billions on research with no expectation of that research being paid for by the future sales of the drugs developed by the research.

 

[I'm Supposn]

Health "insurance" isn't insurance at all. It's a service plan. Insurance is designed to protect against catastrophic events. Somehow, a return to a cash for non-catastrophic service system needs to be restored. Currently cash customers get punitive pricing.

SDET, I agree with your supposition that 3d party payments, (i.e. medical cost insurers) are among the contributing causes of medical cost increases exceeding the losses of the the U.S. dollar's purchasing powers. But the increased costs of medical technology and due to increased life-spans, incidences, and severity of additional illnesses have also been substantially increased.

Currently, our problem is that too many of USA's residents are not medically insured.
Too many persons who are insured, cannot afford their insurance policies co-payment or co-insurance fees. Too many persons cannot afford to pay for services that are not insured due to their insurance policies' annual deductibles of coverage.
[It's ironic that some persons who are insured, cannot afford their insured benefits and they cannot seek treatment unless they go to a hospital's emergency room that may or maybe not treat them; they'd more benefit if they're able to conceal the fact that they're insured.]

Your suggestion is that we somehow hinder or discourage people from purchasing other than insurance covering catastrophic medical costs, in order to reduce less necessary use of medical services and in so doing, we'll also reduce the use of treatments for more necessary services?

Upon further reflection, don't you think your suggestion may be a bit contra-productive?
For another point of view, refer to the first post of the thread,

Can Democrats and Republicans agree upon anything to reduce medical insurance costs?

​

Respectfully, Supposn