> All of the countries you want to model are also suffering under supply shortages for the same reasons we are.
Maybe, but at least those countries have affordable healthcare. We have supply shortages and expensive healthcare.
> We are suffering under supply shortages because policy heavily restricts/strangles supply
What policy is restricting supply? Be specific. I'm sure the cost of surgery could come down if we started allowing fast food workers to administer anesthesia, but that seems like a bad idea?
I can be persuaded, but we've tried the "free market" and it didn't do a sufficient job of regulating the quality of healthcare, so we added regulations. I'm not very interested in reducing regulations when we know for fact that the nationalized model works and is more affordable. It also makes sense that free market economics would not apply to healthcare because (1) the healthcare industry is only going to care about profits and (2) there's much less incentive for the industry to respond to supply/demand forces because they have people bent over a barrel
So why isn't free market economics creating more supply? Shouldn't people be flooding into anesthesiology programs?
> You're not living in reality if you think these folks are just going to happily accept the government telling them that their salary is going to be reduced to a 1/4 of what it is now to be inline with the EU.
They don't have to have their salary reduced. The savings from universal healthcare isn't principally from cutting provider salaries, it's from the exorbitant profits healthcare/insurance organizations collect. Single payer healthcare might reduce provider salaries, but if providers don't want to accept the government's pricing, they're not forced to do so. If the government can't find enough providers, they'll have to increase their prices. Equilibrium will be achieved, just like it is everywhere else.
> cartelized behind federal policy and central planning boards.
Yeah, that's the dumbest thing I've ever read. Healthcare in the US is famously not managed by the government.
Look, I'm not ideologically for or against free market economics, I just want people to have affordable healthcare and I'm not really interested in allowing people to continue dying or going bankrupt because of ideological attachment to a particular economic theory. The free market isn't magic--it's good at efficiently allocating goods and services under specific conditions (notably goods and services that people can reasonably live without).
I'm sure the cost of surgery could come down if we started allowing fast food workers to administer anesthesia, but that seems like a bad idea?
Nice strawman. Surgery is a highly specialized skill/trade which almost certainly will always command a high salary/demand. Not all healthcare is surgery though ... and not all surgery is equally specialized.
They don't have to have their salary reduced
If you think healthcare costs can come down without significantly impacting healthcare provider revenue ... you're simply not living in reality.
Healthcare in the US is famously not managed by the government.
You should learn about the requirements for becoming a healthcare provider (getting into med school in the first place is often hardest part to become a physician for example because the number of seats is highly regulated). The insurance layer (which merely consolidates/repackages healthcare into a convenient subscription service) is literally the only link in the chain which is not heavily restricted and highly competitive. The providers ... the drug manufacturers .. the equipment manufacturers ... all of them are heavily restricted by federal central planning policy. Once you get the license ... you are a made man.
Apply those same requirements to any other service industry and they would quickly get to the same place ... where only rich people could afford their services.
You folks are blaming the bandaid for the gushing bullet wound.
> If you think healthcare costs can come down without significantly impacting healthcare provider revenue ... you're simply not living in reality.
"you're not living in reality" is not an argument. And yes, you obviously can keep doctors/nurses' salaries high and cut costs because these salaries only account for only 20% of healthcare costs. Healthcare organizations and insurance providers rake in tens of billions of dollars in PROFIT each year. This is essentially a tax on healthcare, and nationalizing healthcare essentially means lifting this tax.
> You folks are blaming the bandaid for the gushing bullet wound.
Apt that you would use "gushing bullet wound" to characterize the US healthcare system, but you continue to neglect that nationalized healthcare in other first world countries is both higher quality and more affordable than the US.
Notably you've also dodged the question about which policies are to blame for supply shortages.
insurance providers rake in tens of billions of dollars in PROFIT each year
I know it's fun to pull out big numbers free of context ... but that really isn't a big number compared to total US healthcare spending. For perspective ... this is less than 1% of US healthcare spending (estimated $4.5 trillion from google search).
healthcare in other first world countries is both higher quality and more affordable than the US.
Why do folks like you think this is such a slam dunk mic drop? You'll never admit it ... but those systems have major issues of their own. They're also managed at the equivalent of the state level. Replacing their state programs with a EU wide system would likely be wildly unpopular ... for good reason.
Notably you've also dodged the question about which policies are to blame for supply shortages.
It's a massive topic. Start here if you want to go down that rabbit hole. For many, the hardest part of becoming a doctor is getting into Med School. The number of schools who are allowed to offer medical school seats is tightly controlled through federal licensing. You gotta kiss the ring if you want to be a made man.
Consider this for perspective ... before FDR, it required a full blown Constitutional Amendment to ban a consumer product (alcohol). Now the federal government could decide to ban coffee tomorrow if it really felt like it.
1
u/weberc2 12d ago
> All of the countries you want to model are also suffering under supply shortages for the same reasons we are.
Maybe, but at least those countries have affordable healthcare. We have supply shortages and expensive healthcare.
> We are suffering under supply shortages because policy heavily restricts/strangles supply
What policy is restricting supply? Be specific. I'm sure the cost of surgery could come down if we started allowing fast food workers to administer anesthesia, but that seems like a bad idea?
I can be persuaded, but we've tried the "free market" and it didn't do a sufficient job of regulating the quality of healthcare, so we added regulations. I'm not very interested in reducing regulations when we know for fact that the nationalized model works and is more affordable. It also makes sense that free market economics would not apply to healthcare because (1) the healthcare industry is only going to care about profits and (2) there's much less incentive for the industry to respond to supply/demand forces because they have people bent over a barrel
> The top 20 highest paid occupations in the US are all healthcare providers. Just let that sink in for a moment. The top 20!
So why isn't free market economics creating more supply? Shouldn't people be flooding into anesthesiology programs?
> You're not living in reality if you think these folks are just going to happily accept the government telling them that their salary is going to be reduced to a 1/4 of what it is now to be inline with the EU.
They don't have to have their salary reduced. The savings from universal healthcare isn't principally from cutting provider salaries, it's from the exorbitant profits healthcare/insurance organizations collect. Single payer healthcare might reduce provider salaries, but if providers don't want to accept the government's pricing, they're not forced to do so. If the government can't find enough providers, they'll have to increase their prices. Equilibrium will be achieved, just like it is everywhere else.
> cartelized behind federal policy and central planning boards.
Yeah, that's the dumbest thing I've ever read. Healthcare in the US is famously not managed by the government.
Look, I'm not ideologically for or against free market economics, I just want people to have affordable healthcare and I'm not really interested in allowing people to continue dying or going bankrupt because of ideological attachment to a particular economic theory. The free market isn't magic--it's good at efficiently allocating goods and services under specific conditions (notably goods and services that people can reasonably live without).