The Health Care Debate is OVER

#27
#27
utgibbs said:
As I know, I have said over and over that private insurance has no incentive for efficiency in health care. A fact reflected in the real world outside the back door, as we pay more for health than any other country per capita, but get less in return. Health care is not a market.

Although my metier is not economics in the first instance, I have a better grasp of real economics than most textbook PhDs. It turns out, and I must now give credit where credit is due, I wasn't the first to say these things about health care.

In fact, it was KENNETH ARROW, the father of general equilibrium theory.

That's a Game, Set, and Match moment if ever there was one. Health care is plagued, in the vocabulary of the PhD economists, by hidden information (or information asymmetries) and moral hazard with a dash of nonexclusivity. It is not a market, and it cannot function as a market. A single payer system is the most efficient and most free mechanism. So said the father of the perfect Pareto-efficient markets. And so says all the data from the real world.

With all due respect to milo and his excellent analysis, the myriad of problems that exist come out of one simple reason: there is no incentive for efficiency from private insurers, or the government. Assuming they could be efficient at it or anything else.

Kenneth Arrow - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...
.
 
#30
#30
Chin beards are OVER!

Portlandia-1x06-a.jpg
 
#31
#31
utgibbs said:
It's not my first metier, but it has been aptly proven time and time again, as I consistently wreck the CPA and CFA professionals on here, and now find I converged independently to the same conclusions as the above Nobel Laureate regarding the falsity of a health care market. Who, by the way, proved a perfect market always yields Pareto-efficient outcomes. In other words, a guy with a stake in the other camp.

Might not have the full repetoire of vocabulary, but certainly have an abundance of math skills and natural talent. :)
Click to expand...

Except I'm still waiting for you to show me the preferred stock on GM's balance sheet.
 
#34
#34
You are telling me a government panel of 15 people reduces information asymmetry? y
You are telling me this same panel appointed by elected officials eliminates or even reduces moral hazard?

:crazy:

Let's look at a the UK system - it is chock full of info asymmetry and moral hazard. All decision making and data access is limited to one party - the consumer is completely excluded and at a huge information disadvantage. Worse, the monitoring and data gathering costs are considerably higher for consumer precisely because they are excluded.

How about moral hazard? Ceding control of all HC decisions and payment authority to elected/appointed officials creates a situation where those people have to choose between decisions that further their own careers vs ones that might be best for the system. We see everyday in our own government - our "leaders" refuse to tackle real issues for fear they will not survive the battle.

You might want to try again.
 
#35
#35
Gramps said:
The same can be said to some extent about the insurance companies.
Click to expand...

Yet there is more than one insurance company. Hell, if the government didn't prevent cross-state competition there would be more insurance companies to choose from.
 
#37
#37
volinbham said:
You are telling me a government panel of 15 people reduces information asymmetry? y
You are telling me this same panel appointed by elected officials eliminates or even reduces moral hazard?

:crazy:

Let's look at a the UK system - it is chock full of info asymmetry and moral hazard. All decision making and data access is limited to one party - the consumer is completely excluded and at a huge information disadvantage. Worse, the monitoring and data gathering costs are considerably higher for consumer precisely because they are excluded.

How about moral hazard? Ceding control of all HC decisions and payment authority to elected/appointed officials creates a situation where those people have to choose between decisions that further their own careers vs ones that might be best for the system. We see everyday in our own government - our "leaders" refuse to tackle real issues for fear they will not survive the battle.

You might want to try again.
Click to expand...

What happens if I did not vote for the elected officials that make the decisions or place the members on the panel. Am I as valuable as the guy that help vote them in. Assuming they are really concerned about my health to begin with.
 
#38
#38
BeecherVol said:
What happens if I did not vote for the elected officials that make the decisions or place the members on the panel. Am I as valuable as the guy that help vote them in. Assuming they are really concerned about my health to begin with.
Click to expand...

nope - no moral hazard there. nothing to see, move along.
 
#40
#40
volinbham said:
Yet there is more than one insurance company. Hell, if the government didn't prevent cross-state competition there would be more insurance companies to choose from.
Click to expand...

True.
I said to some extent.

The are problems with insurance companies.

A number of plans the insured must get pre-approval to be admitted to hospital and approve any surgeries.
If they say no, you pay or you don't get treated.
That is controlling your health care.

The insurance companies can and will drop insured for being diagnosed with certain illnesses. That is controlling your health care. Preventing Insurances from doing so is one of the few good things about Obamacare.
 
#41
#41
utgibbsthere is no incentive for efficiency from private insurers. [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenneth_Arrow said:
Kenneth Arrow - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/url]
Click to expand...

The incentive and responcibility is on the consumer/patient. We should be incouraging consumer education when it comes to helathcare.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#45
#45
Nashvol2 said:
The incentive and responcibility is on the consumer/patient. We should be incouraging consumer education when it comes to helathcare.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

No, the "consumer" plans on never having to use the service. The "consumer" would very much like to never need it.

Education and prevention should be BIG in any health service. Of course, there is NO incentive for private practioners to educate, nor does it actually help the bottom line of the private insurers.

In a single payer system, however, you restore those incentives.
 
#46
#46
droski said:
calling it the stupidest thing you've ever posted is conceding?
Click to expand...

You saw the quarterly, and it was there in shining technicolor, and then YOU posted the link about the sell-off proving EXACTLY what I had been saying.

As always, you proved an invaluable ally. :hi:
 
#48
#48
utgibbs said:
No, the "consumer" plans on never having to use the service. The "consumer" would very much like to never need it.

Education and prevention should be BIG in any health service. Of course, there is NO incentive for private practioners to educate, nor does it actually help the bottom line of the private insurers.

In a single payer system, however, you restore those incentives.
Click to expand...

Right. Fat-asses are getting heart disease because they don't understand being a fatty is bad for you.

Education is a priority, a great deal of patients just aren't interested in it.
 
#49
#49
utgibbs said:
You saw the quarterly, and it was there in shining technicolor, and then YOU posted the link about the sell-off proving EXACTLY what I had been saying.

As always, you proved an invaluable ally. :hi:
Click to expand...

you don't know how to read financials. i tried to explain it to you, but you just didn't get it.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top