Do insurance companies weaken the benefits that a free bazaar should own contained by our healthcare system?
brainstorming for a research paper. any constructive input would be appreciated.
For capitalism to have any benifit within increasing efficiency, there have to be competition right? that way the consumer can pick the product (in this case let say a certain medical procedure or piece of equipment) that give them the best VALUE for their buck. this should, in theory, force competition. do i hold this right so far?
with the current health guardianship paradigm, for the most part, employer paid or policy subsidized insurance companies ( HMOs, Medicare, etc) pay the bills of the consumers directly, and then overhaul along the expenses to ALL of their customers accordingly in the premium.
If ethnic group are not paying directly for a good or service, they are not likely to thinking about its actual value, right?
My premise is that near this type of payment system, capitalism cannot do with healthcare what it have done with every other industry, because people dont hold to make wise decision.
any solutions??
Answers:
capitalisun has always worked --if-if goverement hadent bought votes-using peoples health-medical positive plans--would have been surrounded by force by now-people would pick and chose for thereselves-and prices would be down-there have never been a workable goverment plan--anywhere surrounded by the world--that i have been competent to find--
Insurance is a valid part of capitalism. It's supposed to be a evade against a potentially larger debt. Essentially, it's a financial instrument designed to be used within one sector of the market.
The problem is that neither the companies nor the participant see it that way. Many people spectacle health care as a welfare right, even though they're not paying for it that passageway; and many companies see it as a retail commodity that can be managed approaching a hotel or a mail-order catalog company.
I'd blame the lawyers before i would blame the insurance companies. Insurance companies rates are so giant because people are always suing doctors and hospitals. These doctors enjoy to pay A LOT of money for malpractice insurance. If there be some sort of tort reform within the form care industry, rates would come down a lot. Another problem is the regulation over insurance companies. If we be allowed to buy insurance over state lines we would see more competition leading to better rates.
No
The insurance companies have driven the cost of many things up.
Healthcare should be 1/4 of what it cost us in a minute. Lawsuits and underpaying insurance companies have caused the highest portions of the rise!
Your conclusion begs the question; you presume we own a free market in condition care.
Tell me when I can put up a shingle - such as is allowed in Iceland, I regard as - call myself a 'Quack Doctor' and prescribe things for people? If you clearly concede you are not a doctor you don't need a license, at least that's what I grasp.
The medical profession is a highly regulated industry, from doctors and other professionals using licensing to hang on to out the riff-raff and preventing those who have alternative theories from trying them (witness the fights the nonspecific MDs have with chiropractic), to the huge pharmaceutical industry and attempts to hold alternative therapies away from the public, to the rules keeping certain medical devices bad the market because they would hurt some large company's profits.
You want to speech about a free market, consider the software business; anyone can achieve in, the barriers to entry are low, you don't stipulation any special license or training, and you can charge whatever you think the marketplace will bear.
Medical industry: requires specialized training and licensing which costs tens of thousands of dollars and years, plus if you don't be in motion to the "right" school you might not get a license; some Americans who run to foreign medical schools are denied licensing by U.S. state boards; what a unique medical service costs depends on what part of the country you get it within. (A doctor in Louisiana is going to charge less than one within New York City but video games and software are priced the same everywhere in the country.)
I judge people don't pay directly for the fire department, but I do believe they attention about the value of the service.
Let's not forget that not adjectives health care costs are held by insurance. Medicare only pays 80% of the "usual and customary" rate for the service, and in some cases, after a in no doubt amount has been salaried by the customer. This means the customer is liable for the difference. Some private insurance has gap and significant co-pays too.
Excellent point, the same is true in oodles industries today, also as executives rotate from corporation to corporation they become quite well acquainted near the counter parts in the competition, as we saw with Enron no legitimate competition exists when they have chosen to fix prices in a method that all benefit, and profits are assured.
In health comfort it is an imperative to cut costs for insurance companies to increase profits, so to deny certain benefits or understate the seriousness of an injury contained by order to curtail benefits is always a factor. this help increase profits for stock holders.
Related Questions:
For capitalism to have any benifit within increasing efficiency, there have to be competition right? that way the consumer can pick the product (in this case let say a certain medical procedure or piece of equipment) that give them the best VALUE for their buck. this should, in theory, force competition. do i hold this right so far?
with the current health guardianship paradigm, for the most part, employer paid or policy subsidized insurance companies ( HMOs, Medicare, etc) pay the bills of the consumers directly, and then overhaul along the expenses to ALL of their customers accordingly in the premium.
If ethnic group are not paying directly for a good or service, they are not likely to thinking about its actual value, right?
My premise is that near this type of payment system, capitalism cannot do with healthcare what it have done with every other industry, because people dont hold to make wise decision.
any solutions??
Answers:
capitalisun has always worked --if-if goverement hadent bought votes-using peoples health-medical positive plans--would have been surrounded by force by now-people would pick and chose for thereselves-and prices would be down-there have never been a workable goverment plan--anywhere surrounded by the world--that i have been competent to find--
Insurance is a valid part of capitalism. It's supposed to be a evade against a potentially larger debt. Essentially, it's a financial instrument designed to be used within one sector of the market.
The problem is that neither the companies nor the participant see it that way. Many people spectacle health care as a welfare right, even though they're not paying for it that passageway; and many companies see it as a retail commodity that can be managed approaching a hotel or a mail-order catalog company.
I'd blame the lawyers before i would blame the insurance companies. Insurance companies rates are so giant because people are always suing doctors and hospitals. These doctors enjoy to pay A LOT of money for malpractice insurance. If there be some sort of tort reform within the form care industry, rates would come down a lot. Another problem is the regulation over insurance companies. If we be allowed to buy insurance over state lines we would see more competition leading to better rates.
No
The insurance companies have driven the cost of many things up.
Healthcare should be 1/4 of what it cost us in a minute. Lawsuits and underpaying insurance companies have caused the highest portions of the rise!
Your conclusion begs the question; you presume we own a free market in condition care.
Tell me when I can put up a shingle - such as is allowed in Iceland, I regard as - call myself a 'Quack Doctor' and prescribe things for people? If you clearly concede you are not a doctor you don't need a license, at least that's what I grasp.
The medical profession is a highly regulated industry, from doctors and other professionals using licensing to hang on to out the riff-raff and preventing those who have alternative theories from trying them (witness the fights the nonspecific MDs have with chiropractic), to the huge pharmaceutical industry and attempts to hold alternative therapies away from the public, to the rules keeping certain medical devices bad the market because they would hurt some large company's profits.
You want to speech about a free market, consider the software business; anyone can achieve in, the barriers to entry are low, you don't stipulation any special license or training, and you can charge whatever you think the marketplace will bear.
Medical industry: requires specialized training and licensing which costs tens of thousands of dollars and years, plus if you don't be in motion to the "right" school you might not get a license; some Americans who run to foreign medical schools are denied licensing by U.S. state boards; what a unique medical service costs depends on what part of the country you get it within. (A doctor in Louisiana is going to charge less than one within New York City but video games and software are priced the same everywhere in the country.)
I judge people don't pay directly for the fire department, but I do believe they attention about the value of the service.
Let's not forget that not adjectives health care costs are held by insurance. Medicare only pays 80% of the "usual and customary" rate for the service, and in some cases, after a in no doubt amount has been salaried by the customer. This means the customer is liable for the difference. Some private insurance has gap and significant co-pays too.
Excellent point, the same is true in oodles industries today, also as executives rotate from corporation to corporation they become quite well acquainted near the counter parts in the competition, as we saw with Enron no legitimate competition exists when they have chosen to fix prices in a method that all benefit, and profits are assured.
In health comfort it is an imperative to cut costs for insurance companies to increase profits, so to deny certain benefits or understate the seriousness of an injury contained by order to curtail benefits is always a factor. this help increase profits for stock holders.
Related Questions:
- I found a lump on my breast and enjoy no strength insurance...Where can i receive a free mammogram within Eugene, OR?
- How can I return with free form insurance?
- Why souldnt americans hold free strength insurance?
- Who'd a bit hold condition insurance than "Free" National Health Care
- Without insurance how can one find a free eye exam and goggles?