WHERE THE RIGHT GETS IT WRONG on health care...

[eniwetok]

THIS IS WHERE THE RIGHT GETS IT WRONG... they actually believe this nonsense:

The most effective way to lower healthcare costs and achieve quality universal coverage would be to promote the same free-market forces that have improved quality and lowered costs in almost every other industry—from automobiles to computers to cell phones.

http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/viewSubCategory.asp?id=1957#PARTII

The problem with this "analysis" is that competition APPEARS to bring on efficiencies... but it's often an illusion. The illusion is based on tunnel vision... looking just at market prices in a competitive market. It NEVER asks the more basic question... is X sector AS A WHOLE delivering to consumers the most bang for the buck. For example it's obvious that if all cars were based on 6-8 standardized chassis and drive train designs... overall production and maintenance costs could be vastly LOWERED. All that competition actually INCREASES prices because so much of the auto industry is proprietary... and designed to trap consumers in vendor lock. Sometimes the best place for "competition" is in the design phase of a product... where the best ideas of the entire industry go into ONE product instead of competing products NONE of which contains the best ideas... and therefore all are inferior. And then competition has HIGH OVERHEAD.

What often happens in the medical device industry is an INTENT to game the patent system to create vendor lock... and to keep prices HIGH. From the NYT on artificial hips...

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/04/health/for-medical-tourists-simple-math.html?pagewanted=all

Though the five companies make similar models, each cultivates intense brand loyalty through financial ties to surgeons and the use of a different tool kit and operating system for the installation of its products; orthopedists typically stay with the system they learned on. The thousands of hospitals and clinics that purchase implants try to bargain for deep discounts from manufacturers, but they have limited leverage since each buys a relatively small quantity from any one company.

In addition, device makers typically require doctors’ groups and hospitals to sign nondisclosure agreements about prices, which means institutions do not know what their competitors are paying. This secrecy erodes bargaining power and has allowed a small industry of profit-taking middlemen to flourish: joint implant purchasing consultants, implant billing companies, joint brokers. There are as many as 13 layers of vendors between the physician and the patient for a hip replacement, according to Kate Willhite, a former executive director of the Manitowoc Surgery Center in Wisconsin.

[randr]

1. It is beyond belief that they had no meetings with any medical institutions affected

by changes to health care issues. They only were in support of those who would make profit from our health care.

[J_William_Ryan]

2. False Comparison Fallacy

The most effective way to lower healthcare costs and achieve quality universal coverage would be to promote the same free-market forces that have improved quality and lowered costs in almost every other industry—from automobiles to computers to cell phones.

Wrong.

Human beings aren't automobiles, computers, or cell phones.

[Mariana]

5. Medical equipment and drugs are like that, though.

If so many of those items weren't so vastly overpriced, health care would cost less for everyone.

[eniwetok]

6. we make medical devices like we do videogame consoles

There's probably no more expensive way to make videogame consoles than the way we do. They are designed to be proprietary and trap consumers in vendor lock where their choice of games will be limited (Playstation doesn't have any new Halo games)... and those games that cross platforms are more expensive because they have to be redesigned for each console's specific code and hardware.

The entire process is designed to keep prices high. It seems much of our medical device and drug research is based on a similar game. And keeping this game going is expensive. Big Pharma pisses away more money on promotion than actual R&D. And that doesn't even include the high competitive overhead... high exec pay, profits, money wasted on more me-too drugs etc.

[BCBacon]

7. And yet the myriad interactions required...

to bring those people healthcare is so mind-boggling complex, trying to allow it to be organized by bureaucrats will ensure its doomed. The principles are the same.

[eniwetok]

9. nice try right winger!!!!

Last edited Mon Mar 27, 2017, 09:55 AM - Edit history (1)

BCBacon (8 posts)
7. And yet the myriad interactions required... to bring those people healthcare is so mind-boggling complex, trying to allow it to be organized by bureaucrats will ensure its doomed. The principles are the same.


My my you betrayed yourself so early!

http://www.econlib.org/library/Essays/rdPncl1.html

The problem here you right wingers never want to admit is that both the market AND the public sectors both have strengths and weaknesses. You exaggerate the benefits of the private sector and seek to denigrate the public sector even if it is the SOURCE of corporate existence... and arguably there'd be NO uber rich without FREEBIES from that public sector... such as free intellectual property monopolies like patents, copyrights and trademarks... PLUS that FREE limited liability protection for corporate owners.

Gee... WHY AREN'T YOU RIGHT WINGERS DEMANDING THAT BE PURCHASED AS INSURANCE FROM THE PRIVATE SECTOR????

[BCBacon]

10. Sigh... Name calling isn't an argument.

Fine... since you think intellectual property monopolies and limited liability protection is a problem, I'll agree! Let do away with it. I'm all in with ya. No more corporatehood or patent protection. Problem solved.

While were at it, I'll raise you complete drug legalization, no restrictions on marriages between any consenting adults.

As for me being a right winger... I've never voted for a single republican ever. So here's your jump to conclusion mat. Enjoy!

[eniwetok]

11. Hey Spankey YOU are the one who made empty claims...

And yet the myriad interactions required... to bring those people healthcare is so mind-boggling complex, trying to allow it to be organized by bureaucrats will ensure its doomed.

YOU are the one who claimed some effort was "DOOMED" because it would be "organized by bureaucrats" as if Single Payer systems around the world are collapsing. It's OUR system that is so damn inefficient that it pisses away TWICE of what Canada does to cover everyone, while we leave tens of millions un- and underinsured. And YOU are the one who raised the red herring to eliminate intellectual property monopolies. I didn't. I want to end their abuse.

The market in the US has blown it because corporations designed to be amoral will tend to act in amoral ways. You, no doubt, want us to believe this can be tamed through competitive pressures. But as we've seen that can be gamed. And in the end... WTF good is market competition when all the best ideas of an industry are spread out over all the products... making them all inherently inferior in a technical sense? There is perhaps NO more inefficient and expensive way to develop and sell drugs that we do here in the US. Big Pharma pisses away more on promotion than actual R&D. Let me guess... you'll no doubt blame government. And to the extent that the system is being gamed... you're correct. But amoral drug companies can not be trusted... and I'm not going to buy any libertarian claptrap that consumers should have choice and settle any problems in the courts.

Have a nice day. If you're such a libertarian defender of private property... then you KNEW you were violating the TOS by trying to sneak your far right views into this forum.

[BCBacon]

14. So to be clear...

You do support corporatehood or not? It's hard to tell from your response.

"WTF good is market competition when all the best ideas of an industry are spread out over all the products..."

So your in favor of removing the inefficiencies of the auto industry, and only having a single model car. Got it.

"And to the extent that the system is being gamed... you're correct."

It's almost like you both see and dont see the problem at the same time. Interesting.

And again... never voted for a single libertarian even. Let me get you that mat back out.

[eniwetok]

17. before you're banned....

I'll respond to your last post when I get a chance...

BCBacon 14. So to be clear... You do support corporatehood or not? It's hard to tell from your response.

Corporations do not exist in nature. They are CREATIONS of the state and deserve no rights other than their stated mission requires.

"WTF good is market competition when all the best ideas of an industry are spread out over all the products..."
So your in favor of removing the inefficiencies of the auto industry, and only having a single model car. Got it.

If you can't make a point without grotesque distortions... you really haven't made a point... have you Chuckles? I NEVER said I wanted a single model car. I merely was pointing out that more standardization leads to more efficiencies. But feel free to repeal the concept of efficiencies of scale.


"And to the extent that the system is being gamed... you're correct."
It's almost like you both see and dont see the problem at the same time. Interesting.
And again... never voted for a single libertarian even. Let me get you that mat back out.

That you've sabotaged your own intellect on right wing ideology is not a defect in my argument.

[eniwetok]

13. you want discussion... yet you EVADE it...

I made the points

The problem here you right wingers never want to admit is that both the market AND the public sectors both have strengths and weaknesses. You exaggerate the benefits of the private sector and seek to denigrate the public sector even if it is the SOURCE of corporate existence... and arguably there'd be NO uber rich without FREEBIES from that public sector... such as free intellectual property monopolies like patents, copyrights and trademarks... PLUS that FREE limited liability protection for corporate owners.

Gee... WHY AREN'T YOU RIGHT WINGERS DEMANDING THAT BE PURCHASED AS INSURANCE FROM THE PRIVATE SECTOR????

You did NOT respond to any of the points in your response

Sigh... Name calling isn't an argument.
Fine... since you think intellectual property monopolies and limited liability protection is a problem, I'll agree! Let do away with it. I'm all in with ya. No more corporatehood or patent protection. Problem solved.
While were at it, I'll raise you complete drug legalization, no restrictions on marriages between any consenting adults.
As for me being a right winger... I've never voted for a single republican ever. So here's your jump to conclusion mat.

[BCBacon]

15. Not at all - so far the evasion has been on your side.

I said I agreed with your condemnation of corporatehood and intellectual property, and since we both think its a problem, the logical response is to remove them. Thats about as clear a response as one could ask for.

"Gee... WHY AREN'T YOU RIGHT WINGERS DEMANDING THAT BE PURCHASED AS INSURANCE FROM THE PRIVATE SECTOR???? "

Again, not a right winger (you could be jumping to the moon with some of these conclusions!) - but it's interesting that your first solution is to demand everyone adopt your one-size fits all approach. Again, should we expect the same with the car companies? Do you have some issue with letting people just buy what they want?

[eniwetok]

16. Grow up Chuckles... YOU JOINED THIS THREAD.

Ever the revisionist... or just grotesquely dishonest BCBacon wrote

BCBacon
15. Not at all - so far the evasion has been on your side.
I said I agreed with your condemnation of corporatehood and intellectual property, and since we both think its a problem, the logical response is to remove them. Thats about as clear a response as one could ask for.
"Gee... WHY AREN'T YOU RIGHT WINGERS DEMANDING THAT BE PURCHASED AS INSURANCE FROM THE PRIVATE SECTOR???? "
Again, not a right winger (you could be jumping to the moon with some of these conclusions!) - but it's interesting that your first solution is to demand everyone adopt your one-size fits all approach. Again, should we expect the same with the car companies? Do you have some issue with letting people just buy what they want?


YOU joined this thread. Please don't pretend I've evaded anything. Your FIRST post evaded most of the points I made. All you did were make some unsubstantiated claims about bureaucrats and tried to sneak in an irrelevant right wing video because you knew you'd be discovered as soon as you gained the right to start your own threads.

Sorry... I'm not going to play your games. Audios!

[surrealAmerican]

3. The comparison to cars is leaving out an even more basic question.

The question could be, "what is the safest, most efficient, and most cost-effective way to transport people from place to place?" - which would leave an answer that has little to do with standardized chassis or dive trains.

[eniwetok]

4. sure!

But I was merely making a comment about the auto industry. The same question could be asked about any product. To avoid another VHS vs Beta war the electronic industry actually cooperated in developing a SINGLE DVD standard back in the 90s. They pooled their best ideas. Of course the inefficiencies again creep in when everyone has proprietary models.

[BannonsLiver]

8. They get it wrong starting with their premise that accesss to healthcare isn't a basic human right

Fundamentally they are all wrong from the get-go.

[eniwetok]

12. if it's a right, it's a positive (created) right.

We can't claim health care is a natural right... because then it would be a natural right for providers not to provide services for free. But it's certainly in the purview of government to take care of its own people through taxation. I'm sure the our right wing friend above would disagree.... but they need to deny government greatly enhances private wealth aggregation... and that's the moral basis for a progressive tax code to fund universal health care.

[BannonsLiver]

18. My point was that it shouldn't be reserved only for those who can afford it

How we get there, what we call it, how it works, is the part that comes after that.

[eniwetok]

19. Sorry about that...

I keep thinking about early republican theory on rights and constitutional terms. I agree that this is the proper role of government and totally constitutional. That being said I'm not a fan of ACA... not just because it's the GOP approach but it galls me to think the government would impose a fine should we choose not to buy health care from a private company.

[MrScorpio]

20. These people are delusional

Nothing like that exists any place on this Earth.

[eniwetok]

21. The Road To Hell Is Paved With True Believers!

....what makes these self-justifying belief systems so insidious is this: once someone accepts the basic tenets of the ideology they deprive themselves of the intellectual tools to disprove the system. For that individual, the belief system becomes closed, and odds are if the system meets certain requirements... seems to have an answer for every question and convinces the believer the system is moral... it will self-perpetuate. If institutions or nations are built around these self-justifying ideologies then they then have a vested interest in perpetuating the irrationality of their clients/consumers and citizens. These institutions create incentives for irrational if not insane attitudes and behavior that are compatible with the mission of the institution. It leads to insane ideas such as Monsanto’s “death gene” and those who can’t see past the current imperatives who actually believed the “death gene” made perfect sense. Likewise these institutions create disincentives and punishments for attitudes and behavior that threaten the institution and its underlying ideology. We can expect such imperatives from religious institutions which by their nature are faith based... and largely immune from self-correction. What is more a threat is when we have such behavior in our government and corporate institutions.


https://reinventing-america.blogspot.com/2006/05/road-hell-is-paved-with-true-believers.html

[MrScorpio]

22. Excellent reply.