LawTalkers
Forums
User Name
Remember Me?
Password
Register
FAQ
Calendar
Go to Page...
» Site Navigation
»
Homepage
»
Forums
»
Forum
>
User CP
>
FAQ
»
Online Users: 117
0 members and 117 guests
No Members online
Most users ever online was 9,654, 05-18-2025 at 05:16 AM.
»
Search Forums
»
Advanced Search
Thread
:
Politics As Usual
View Single Post
06-23-2004, 04:26 PM
#
2811
Replaced_Texan
Random Syndicate (admin)
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Romantically enfranchised
Posts: 14,281
Health care rant
Quote:
Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
Ah, so much to deal with.
You can always try the Massachusetts solution -- once the insurance companies become sufficiently concentrated so that they have effective monopoly power in the negotiating game (take my price or your beds are all empty), just concentrate your hospitals sufficiently so that the two are on par. Then we have dueling monopolies, which is really significantly better than just one monopoly (Burger take note, some anti-trust issues in here).
Here, the problem of the uninsured is pushed heavily on to the Hospitals, and since they are all basically non-profits, they don't resist much, just negotiate carefully the details of their surrender. But most of their pricing is not driven so much by the ability of the uninsured to pay, but instead by the willingness of the governmental payors to pay -- once the Medicare/Medicaid rates are set, most of the rest seems to follow, including the relative imporance of one service versus another in the negotiations with the insurers. The exception here is the foreign payors, where there actually is something that looks more like a market, but not really big enough to have a big impact on pricing.
So effectively there are three negotiating monopolies: (1) hospitals; (2) insurance companies; (3) government, and the uninsured are then an after-thought.
What do I take from all of this? That the health care system has the flaws of partial regulation; unless we can find a way to fully regulate, all we're doing is trying to referee a street fight. And if we don't regulate, we are at this point leaving it to the monopolies, the strongest of which are insurance companies and government.
That's the same exact situation in Houston, except we have three not-for-profit hosptials controlling the show instead of two. (Four if you count the sisters for chairty, but after the elevator decapitation last year, they've had issues filling their beds.) The problem is that we as a people have a problem shoving sick and/or dying people out on the street and we have requirements about taking care of people who show up on the threshold (or 50 feet from the campus, whichever is closer), but we steadfastly maintain the illusion that we're operating some sort of capitalist enterprise here.
__________________
"In the olden days before the internet, you'd take this sort of person for a ride out into the woods and shoot them, as Darwin intended, before he could spawn."--Will the Vampire People Leave the Lobby? pg 79
Replaced_Texan
View Public Profile
Visit Replaced_Texan's homepage!
Find More Posts by Replaced_Texan
Powered by
vBadvanced
CMPS v3.0.1
All times are GMT -4. The time now is
10:21 PM
.
-- LawTalk Forums vBulletin 3 Style
-- vBulletin 2 Default
-- Ravio_Blue
-- Ravio_Orange
Contact Us
-
Lawtalkers
-
Top
Powered by:
vBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Limited.
Hosted By:
URLJet.com