Posted: May 09, 2012 3:52 am
Loren Michael wrote:FACT-MAN-2 wrote:
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.
And, if by some miracle, this influence the "industry" has over the laws were to be eliminated or even moderated you think that would change the expenditure/outcome relationship? If you do I have a bridge over in Brooklyn I'd like to show you.
What do you think motivates this influence?
Loren Michael wrote: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.
Who says they don't? Doctors and other medical practitioners are no different than anyone else in this regard, except that some are greedy and theyl head for the USA where they can become multi-$millionaires selling their medical skills. But those who do not suffer this affliction and are content living a good lifestyle whilst practicing their chosen profession ... they stay at home and enjoy the good life.
Loren Michael wrote:
The US has a dearth of GPs, and that situation is only going to get worse. The reason pretty clearly involves financial incentives.
Of course, there's no money in being a GP, at least not the mega-wealth that specialists achieve, so every GP goes for a specialty because they too are infected with the wealth bug in a society that values money over care. It's just another flaw in the system of selling healthcare.
You failed to address the fundamental question, though, and that is the USA spends $6K per capita on healthcare whereas Canada sends $3K per capita and gets better outcomes pretty much right across the board.
Now, if privately operated healthcare was all so vaunted for its efficiency, how could this be?
One does not need to be a rocket scientist to figure out the answer. So please, give it a go, see how much rope you need to hang yourself. I dare you to answer this question, without resorting to several miles of theoretical market claptrap.