Health Care

[GH2001]

Well, Prowler said Trump was trying to terminate it. I'm trying to figure out why he said that.

Because he's a willing foot soldier of the Alinsky left. That's why.

[wesfau2]

Where I disagree with wes completely and entirely is that the principles of the free market SHOULD and DO apply to healthcare. 

Information asymmetry:  Despite big-pharma's attempts to market directly to the patient, the doctor still holds all the information and we're left to rely upon them in making decisions...or head over to WebMD to make all your health decisions.

Lack of choice for emergent conditions:  You can't price-shop open heart surgery when you need it immediately.

Inelasticity of demand for life-saving drugs: If your doc says your kid needs chemo, you probably aren't holding up treatment while you shop to find the best price.  You're buying chemo drugs.

Lack of choice to even enter the market place: Everyone will at some point need service, and they are rarely allowed the luxury of choosing when.

[AUChizad]

Federally terminate.

[wesfau2]

I will submit that this happens all the time.  I only have 2 options on Internet Providers. Well 3 if you count that fact that I could choose to do with out.   Only have 3 options on cable companies.  It's amazing that no matter who I choose the price runs about the same for said services. IMO that is because the market dictates not necessarily because of collusion.  If Comcast drops their price on internet service the rest of the companies will follow with their own rewards otherwise they will lose out in the business.   

It's moreso the tight regulation by the FCC than market competition.  Utilities are not necessarily operating in a free market.

Price Gouging is usually done in times of extreme need (ie Hurricanes, Natural Disasters) and should be illegal, are you saying it shouldn't be? 

Not at all.  I'm just dispelling this myth that anyone is free to set their product/service pricing at any point they wish.  These are simple counterpoints to knock down that fallacy.

I will also submit that what I do on the side is 100% "free market"  I choose to price my websites whatever I want to.  I can also choose not to take a job or not.

Generally, yes.  But to ignore that you operate in a larger market that is subject to the FTC's regulations (among others), even if they don't touch you (because you aren't, presumably, engaging in any prohibited activities) is disingenuous.  It's like suggesting that, just because you're a cautious driver who pegs it at 55 (no Hagar) on the interstate, you can drive any speed you want.

I honestly don't get what you are arguing Wes because on one side you want more Government involvement for Healthcare but then you say there is no "free market" due to Government Regulation?!?

I'm merely suggesting that the "free market" isn't as free as some seem to think.

[AUChizad]

Information asymmetry:  Despite big-pharma's attempts to market directly to the patient, the doctor still holds all the information and we're left to rely upon them in making decisions...or head over to WebMD to make all your health decisions.

Lack of choice for emergent conditions:  You can't price-shop open heart surgery when you need it immediately.

Inelasticity of demand for life-saving drugs: If your doc says your kid needs chemo, you probably aren't holding up treatment while you shop to find the best price.  You're buying chemo drugs.

Lack of choice to even enter the market place: Everyone will at some point need service, and they are rarely allowed the luxury of choosing when.

I think people would argue that those restrictions on the free market are the type of things a "good" healthcare bill would try to change.

[CCTAU]

: If your doc says your kid needs chemo, you probably aren't holding up treatment while you shop to find the best price.  You're buying chemo drugs

Because there is only one chemo drug...

[wesfau2]

I think people would argue that those restrictions on the free market are the type of things a "good" healthcare bill would try to change.

I agree that the conditions can be managed and enhanced through regulation (ie - a bill).

[wesfau2]

Because there is only one chemo drug...

I know personally what those fuckers cost on a monthly basis. 

I also know their efficacy.

You buy them...you stroke the check and you don't even think to ask if you can price shop down at the Costco.

[CCTAU]

I know personally what those fuckers cost on a monthly basis. 

I also know their efficacy.

You buy them...you stroke the check and you don't even think to ask if you can price shop down at the Costco.

Well. To be honest, you didn't shop for price, but for the one that has been the most successful. And that is exactly how finding the best doctor works.

[AUChizad]

I agree that the conditions can be managed and enhanced through regulation (ie - a bill).

Or de-regulation.

[wesfau2]

Well. To be honest, you didn't shop for price, but for the one that has been the most successful. And that is exactly how finding the best doctor works.

No...I "shopped" for the one the doc told me would work.

Information asymmetry.

[wesfau2]

Or de-regulation.

Don't drag me back there. 

[CCTAU]

No...I "shopped" for the one the doc told me would work.

Information asymmetry.

And you trusted that doc because you had a choice to choose the best doc. And that doc by proxy chose the best drug for the job.

With your idea of socialism, you get NO choice.

[wesfau2]

And you trusted that doc because you had a choice to choose the best doc. And that doc by proxy chose the best drug for the job.

Did he, though?

Or did he steer me toward a drug whose manufacturer will send him to Hawaii in December?

I don't know. 

[AUChizad]

And you trusted that doc because you had a choice to choose the best doc. And that doc by proxy chose the best drug for the job.

With your idea of socialism, you get NO choice.

That and under the current capitalist system, you are allowed to "ask your doctor if _________ is right for you", let alone research for yourself, which is hardly a tall order in literal matters of life or death.

[AUChizad]

Did he, though?

Or did he steer me toward a drug whose manufacturer will send him to Hawaii in December?

I don't know.

And THAT is an issue with big pharma that I agree needs some reeling in.

[wesfau2]

That and under the current capitalist system, you are allowed to "ask your doctor if _________ is right for you", let alone research for yourself, which is hardly a tall order in literal matters of life or death.

Wrap your head around a cancer diagnosis, listen to the treatment plan, go home and do your research.  Got it. 

While I'm generally anti-anecdotal evidence, the above does NOT ring true in my experience.

[wesfau2]

And THAT is an issue with big pharma that I agree needs some reeling in.

REGULATIONS!!!

[CCTAU]

Wrap your head around a cancer diagnosis, listen to the treatment plan, go home and do your research.  Got it. 

While I'm generally anti-anecdotal evidence, the above does NOT ring true in my experience.

Went through it with my mom. You have to get as much information as you can. We did much research and talked to many people.
Unfortunately, today's treatment for cancer is barbaric at best. But its all we have. And if you ask enough people, the ones still alive, you get a concensus on which devil to use.
But it is still a choice. Which doctor, or which drug.   

[Kaos]

Information asymmetry:  Despite big-pharma's attempts to market directly to the patient, the doctor still holds all the information and we're left to rely upon them in making decisions...or head over to WebMD to make all your health decisions.
False. 

So your doctor says you need to take a statin.  Of course you have to rely on the doctor to prescribe controlled medicines.  Otherwise addicts are grabbing Oxy over the counter.  She recommends Isoflaviner. If you are informed you can ask if there are other options, other brands, etc.  My doctor is great about this. She tells me what's wrong and gives me the options that are available - including price and effectiveness.

Or you skip the doctor,  go to the googles and determine that you should be taking Burbagerx. It's over the counter.  So you go to Walgreens and pick from the various types out there, including the house brand. You've got price options, dosage options and can often even choose whether it's a pill, capsule or liquid. 

Having to rely on a doctor to diagnose your condition does not in any way negate the principles of the free market.  You should even be able to choose the doctor based on your level of comfort, online ratings, past experience or whatever.  Freedom of choice. 

Lack of choice for emergent conditions:  You can't price-shop open heart surgery when you need it immediately.
False. 

In 99.9 percent of the situations you can choose.  If you're having issues you've likely already chosen the doctor who does your procedures and followup. 

Where this fails is that in some cases you can't control the price because the fucking government and the insurance companies have already interfered. 

It's my contention that except in a case where you fall out from a heart attack on vacation and don't have access to your regular physicians you SHOULD have the option to choose which doctor and at what price.

I guess you're not aware that there are currently apps in development (my company is involved in one) that allow you to sort through and select the lowest cost provider for services -- up to and including heart surgery. 

So false.

Inelasticity of demand for life-saving drugs: If your doc says your kid needs chemo, you probably aren't holding up treatment while you shop to find the best price.  You're buying chemo drugs.
False.

If your kid needs chemo, you most definitely should have the option of finding the best price.  And it should be simple to do. 

If you want to talk about a real crisis, this is where it exists.  People who have insurance and yet because they have no options to make choices end up financially destroyed by the costs of treatment. 

When the insurance companies, medical providers and drug companies take everything a person has, it makes a difference whether they take nothing because you have nothing or take everything because you have more.  The trauma of losing a loved one is bad enough without coming to the end of that process in a state of financial devastation. 

True story.  When I had my accident and my first wife was killed, Druid City Hospital in Tuscaloosa filed a judgment against me for her end of life bills while I was STILL in their hospital and in a medically necessary coma.  I was responsible for her bills... so...they wanted to make sure they got theirs.    It was nearly a year before I could get back to work full time.  I recovered physically in about a year, mentally a little longer but it took me more than five years to recover from the financial onslaught unleashed on me by the hospital.  I had insurance, I had assets so they went after it with a vengeance.

Lack of choice to even enter the market place: Everyone will at some point need service, and they are rarely allowed the luxury of choosing when.

False.

Other than absolute emergency situations when you're away from your normal providers?  You do have choices, you do have options, you can determine who your providers are. 

Even still -- my entire point is that you should have MORE choices. 

Your argument is apparently that there should be less.  Because that's all additional government intrusion and (mis)management is going to get you. 

The availability of care, the options you have in regard to what procedures and medications to which you have access and the ability to make choices in regard to your care have all declined drastically since the Imam decided the government should be involved. At the same time, the costs associated with the care and services have risen dramatically -- to the point of being unaffordable for the people who are burdened with paying for the grifters who don't pay.   It needs to go.