Posted: May 09, 2012 4:10 am
FACT-MAN-2 wrote: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?
Possibly. I haven't considered every possible arrangement.
Loren Michael wrote: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
This is also uselessly simplistic. You're ignoring incentives to say that some people are just qualitatively evil. That's a reflexively easy thing to believe with essentially no explanatory power.
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?
I haven't said that "privately operated healthcare" is good for efficiency. I've used specific terms to describe my thoughts on efficiency. You can try again.