You lost me there. What makes it immoral? Money is an asset allocation tool, so why is it morally wrong to use it for medicine the same way we do for food and housing?
Genuine question. I have a hard time understanding what sets medicine apart from everything else when people think healthcare should be universally free, but not food, water, clothing, housing, etc. especially considering those other things are more directly necessary for survival.
If you have cancer though than basicall the market cannot find a price, and it would tend towards to: 'give me all you have'.
Yes it can... there is more than one oncologist in the world. Competition exists.
As for if youre talking about the chemo drugs, you don't have to use the latest-and-greatest on-patent treatment. There are now decades of drugs that are off patent. They may not be as good, but then again, it is your life so many choose to pay for the new better ones. If it was illegal to pay more for better drugs than they would never exist (and don't talk to me about government funding; not a single socialized medicine country has innovated any drug of value in the past 50 years, and yes, they do steal from us in the USA by taking our IP and not paying for it).
Proof? Services not typically covered, like plastic surgery or cosmetic dermatology. Clearly listed and even advertised prices for their services, openly discussed up front.
But if the govt reimbursement rate for an annual checkup is $x, why would anyone need to list that price up front, or have reason to ever charge any less?
The US has a rule about “usual & customary price”. That’s a legal definition and providers can’t charge any customer more than that.
If you’re looking to price discriminate, you set your U&C price as high as possible, maybe 2-5x what you’d accept. That way if you find a customer willing to pay 4X, you’re not running afoul of the law.
For everyone else, you negotiate a much more reasonable net price, typically through insurance.
The people who get screwed in the end are ones without insurance. They get billed the imaginary number nobody ever intended anyone to pay.
Changing housing situations is exactly as easy as changing hospitals and emergency rooms no? Since the latter are mostly decided by where you live. In fact, most mid to large cities feature many hospitals near any given residence, so it is actually easier. I would also point out that the demand curve for housing, energy and food are far more inelastic than for medicine.
> If you have cancer though than basicall the market cannot find a price, and it would tend towards to: 'give me all you have'.
Why couldn't the market find a price? Cancer actually seems like the worse example possible. The people I've known who've been diagnosed with cancer have shopped around for care from many different hospitals. It would seem that cancer would be the perfect candidate for market forces to lower prices since a diagnosis generally affords a bit of time to find and decide on treatment options. Even in the extreme case of 'you have months to live' people tend to spend a few weeks collecting different opinions.
that's before even getting into pharma. which can charge millions of dollars for life saving/changing drugs for single course treatments. hell take a look at what happened with epipens. there is no protection against profiteering via nebulous 'markets' when your choices are 'purchase or die'.
This account, or at least should account, for a very small minority of interactions with healthcare facilities. Saying that's why the whole market is defunct is recklessly reductionist.
> markets don't deal with this situation well.
They don't deal with it at all. Imagine if some people needed bread or they'd die, would that change the price on the shelf? No, because the bread didn't get there because of that niche market, it got there because most people eat it. It is the same with healthcare. If a hospital exists because people routinely visit the doctor, some people needing their life saved isn't going to suddenly change prices.
> that's before even getting into pharma. which can charge millions of dollars for life saving/changing drugs for single course treatments. hell take a look at what happened with epipens. there is no protection against profiteering via nebulous 'markets' when your choices are 'purchase or die'.
Totally agree. The issue there is regulation and how we allow companies to be a position of no competition. If the government stepped in and payed those prices for you, it wouldn't solve the problem.
And indeed the US has many such services, though they are often overwhelmed, or performed through a complex set of nonprofits combining govt funds with donor money as best they can to provide good support. Sometimes they are overwhelmed specifically because of externalities related to the for-profit insurance healthcare system. The high and often unpredictable cost of any medical situation, means people with tight budgets become sicker before getting care, if they ever get it, leading to a higher percentage of bad outcomes, up to and including job loss and homelessness for the individual, and knock-on effects for the rest of their family. This puts extra pressure on the parts of the support system that do exist - those already mentioned, and, of course, the police, who end up getting called to many situations that could have been prevented by the people involved having better services to begin with, to meet their health, food, and housing needs.
Isn't it though? "This thing should be free for everyone all the time" is a lot different than "we should help people out a little if they're down on their luck". Temporary housing, food banks, etc are the latter, and I'm all for the same with medicine. The fact that food and housing are subject to markets makes it easier for organizations to carry out such missions, which is one of the barriers you mention in your second paragraph when you talk about the complexities of dealing with insurance companies.
And creating a public market necessarily diminishes the private, driving up costs, as purchasers are now competing with government for the same supply.
Medicine is a scarce resource at this point, and, generally speaking, giving care to X often means Y won't get it. The fundamental problem with medical care is supply, lowering barriers for demand isn't a solution to that.
That last bit is exactly what we're in disagreement about, and I haven't seen a good case for it yet.
> In the U.S. system denials of care by insurance companies are not done so another person can get said care
True.
> They are done to increase profit margins
Indirectly, sure. Its a business where money out must be less than money in.
> and profiting from denying someone care is immoral.
Again, this is the disagreement, and I'm not really seeing a good argument for that being the case. Some people should be denied care. I don't see why performing a necessary function shouldn't be profitable, especially when it's beneficial to everyone in times of scarcity, like now.
