FACT-MAN-2 wrote:Loren Michael wrote:Wiðercora wrote:Loren Michael wrote:
I assume it's just a phrase people just use without mind to the meaning, but it could be that the people who do think about it are referring to the scarce aspects of healthcare. It's a limited resource. Rights like the ability to vote, freedom to assemble, these sort of things can be reasonably thought of as qualitatively different.
If it's limited, surely it should be managed by a central authority with the logistical ability to look after such an enterprise, instead of a disaparate group of competing companies.
Food is also limited, and its absence similarly means death. Would you have food production managed by a central authority?
Competition gives incentive to increasing efficiency. Lack of competition provides one less incentive to increase efficiency. If something is scarce, surely we want to be as efficient with it as possible?
This is the theoretical argument that's always posed to justify privately operated healthcare. The problem with it is doesn't reflect the facts of actual outcomes. It's just a theory, and the actual practice of it does not measure up to the theoretical notion.
I think a reasonable alternative view is that the problem is the industry has too much influence over the laws, making for stilted markets that serve the interests of the businesses rather than the consumers.
Incentive you say? My doctor's incentive is to keep me healthy, that's his job, he does it with pride and dedication, because he's a fucking doctor for Christ's sake!
I think your framing of incentives here is simplistic to the point of being useless. Doctors also want to enjoy their lives, make money, take holidays, have nice things, enjoy their families, etc.
The US has a dearth of GPs, and that situation is only going to get worse. The reason pretty clearly involves financial incentives.