How can you sit there and tell me a system where doctors and patients are encouraged to increase costs actually limits costs?

How does managed care increase competition, control costs, OR "provide better outcomes"?
I just got through citing how it does the opposite. Its pretty clear the health system is an expensive mess right now.
The way insurance companies control expenses is by outright denying as much care as they can get away with. That isn't making the cost of actual care go down.

It makes absolutely zero sense that freer market competition leads to higher costs. If there is more competition prices will be driven down.
Basic economics at work there. Take a look at the d2 trading forums for an obvious example. tons of people selling the same shit and lowering their prices so they can be the ones to make the sale.

btw those links came up as 404 missing for me. e/ got one to work. from your own link: "Governmental efforts to stimulate competition in the hospital market, if focused on promoting HMOs, are not likely to produce cost-containing results quickly."

This post was edited by cambovenzi on Apr 14 2012 12:13am

idk he seems to think that human behavior and basic understanding do not guide "health economics"

But every time I argue with him, it eventually boils down to his refusal to acknowledge that "not everyone will ever get perfect care". A completely planned/managed system leads to even worse outcomes than the free market by a huge margin. But he also will not recognize that. He's living a pipe dream.

yeah 404 error. No access so sorry.

hmm btw, apparently Wakeskater and other advocates of economic planning would prefer the human race to return to being "a pile of rocks"

ill explain the analogy if he cares to listen.


He prefers this model of evolution:

rocks/inorganic matter/organic components --> single-cellular organisms --> multicellular organisms --> humans --> rocks

This post was edited by RUSSiABANK on Apr 14 2012 01:20am

He's essentially right, but what does it matter?

The health care companies want America to be unhealthy (so there is a large demand for health care services) and they want every service to be paid for (because this maximizes their profit).

The health care companies are in charge of the politicians. Electing Ron Paul as president won't change the influence that they health care companies have over the government.

Well I think it matters quite a bit tbh. We all want a better plan going forward. Properly identifying the problems and Recognizing that more govt intervention and prevention of competition is not the answer is a pretty key step.

I think it would change things significantly.
He would have veto power to deter many of these horrible money pit laws they want to put in place that benefit whoever's special interest groups, as well as the power of executive order to cancel out previous mandates via EO.
He would also stop spending so much money overseas and stop 'printing' so much money which would mean much less inflation and debt, which in turn would mean lower health care costs.

This post was edited by cambovenzi on Apr 14 2012 09:44am

way to shoot off topic there.

Obama is president and the health care companies are having their way with him. His name is on their bill.

Regardless what Ron Paul thinks is right or wrong, the health care companies still have more money than the president and therefore more power.

more money =/= more power than the president.

If Obama decided to wake up instead of pushing these flawed programs he could certainly put a huge blockade in front of the companies and the problems we are having.

hahahaha

Yeah man, medical science is all bunk and shit.

He claims to be a psychology major too lol.

Why would anybody study an area that they don't believe is real?

He actually said that mental illness isn't real and is a societal construct and nothing more.

Just wait you haven't been back long enough to see the full glory of RUSSIABANK.