DiscussMormonism.com

http://www.latimes.com/health/la-me-doctors-20130210,0,1509396.story

Of course as any economist knows, mandated anything reduces supply. In this case what might happen could be similar to the unemployment situation. People will give up trying to get an appointment or be disgusted with the quality of treatment and stay home. The Left then declares "victory".

bcspace wrote:http://www.latimes.com/health/la-me-doctors-20130210,0,1509396.story

Of course as any economist knows, mandated anything reduces supply. In this case what might happen could be similar to the unemployment situation. People will give up trying to get an appointment or be disgusted with the quality of treatment and stay home. The Left then declares "victory".

In 2008 the Harvard School of Public Health conducted a poll asking Americans to rate our healthcare system. 68% of Republicans , 40% of Independents, and 32% of Democrats thought our healthcare was the best in the world.

At the time, 20% of Americans did not have health insurance.

In 2013, many of those 20% will become eligible for insurance. There is no question it will place an additional burden on the system, and that we are going to have a doctor shortage long term.

I guess it depends on how you define 'The greatest Healthcare system in the World?"

For example, if we have the greatest healthcare system in the world while 20% of our citizens are not insured, wouldn't it be even better if 50% of the people were uninsured? Think of it: no waiting for appointments, doctors eager for your business....provided, of course that you can pay.

The answer is: for the 50% who could pay, it would unquestionably be a better system. For the 50% who could not: well....that's another story. How many people can a healthcare system not provide for and still be considered 'the greatest in the world'?

On a slightly different subject, here is a good example of what happens when the cost of somethings is made "free" to a consumer by shifting that cost to the insurance system:

http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2013/01/ ... east-pumps

The Affordable Care Act — a.k.a. Obamacare — requires health insurers to pay for breast pumps. For many insurance plans, the new rule kicked in at the start of this year.

On today's show, we visit a breast pump boutique that has suddenly become a medical supply superstore. And we look at happens when a device goes from being something people have to pay for out of their own pocket to being free for anyone with insurance.

That problem can be solved by making more breast pumps. But it's easier to make more breast pumps than to make more doctors.

cinepro wrote:
That problem can be solved by making more breast pumps. But it's easier to make more breast pumps than to make more doctors.

Actually, it is easy to make more doctors. Medical schools have limited the admittance of new students for the last century. That's an easy one to solve.

Also, If you have been to the doctor's office in recent years, you might have noticed that you are examined first by a physician's assistant instead of your doctor.

The medical world is changing.

cinepro wrote:On a slightly different subject, here is a good example of what happens when the cost of somethings is made "free" to a consumer by shifting that cost to the insurance system:

http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2013/01/ ... east-pumps

The Affordable Care Act — a.k.a. Obamacare — requires health insurers to pay for breast pumps. For many insurance plans, the new rule kicked in at the start of this year.

On today's show, we visit a breast pump boutique that has suddenly become a medical supply superstore. And we look at happens when a device goes from being something people have to pay for out of their own pocket to being free for anyone with insurance.

That problem can be solved by making more breast pumps. But it's easier to make more breast pumps than to make more doctors.

What you don't get, cinepro, is that it isn't "free." People paying for insurance are paying for them through their premiums. The same argument goes for the contraceptives that had the Right Wingers throwing conniption fits. It isn't "free." People are paying insurance companies for these things. Insurance companies obviously want to get out of having to pay for as many things as they can because their ultimate goal has nothing to do with providing quality care, and everything to do with maximizing profits. The question is, are they paying enough? Well, obviously not. The people paying premiums get less care while these insurance companies enjoy record profits. It is the American way.

How do people who can't afford insurance premiums get insurance under the ACA Kevin?

Poorer folks would fall under Medicaid. And yes, I know, it comes from tax revenues. Most of these people pay into that, so they are effectively paying for their own care.

I think Cinepro has a valid point. Reducing the price of any good, all other things being equal, will result in an increase of the quantity demanded of that good. Paying a monthly charge not connected with the good's consumption is irrelevant. If the cost charged to see a doctor is reduced, more medical services will be demanded.

Brad Hudson wrote:I think Cinepro has a valid point. Reducing the price of any good, all other things being equal, will result in an increase of the quantity demanded of that good. Paying a monthly charge not connected with the good's consumption is irrelevant. If the cost charged to see a doctor is reduced, more medical services will be demanded.

That might be true if we were talking about sacks of wheat or jelly beans. However, in this case, a consumer paying a monthly fee is very relevant.

The question is whether a private, profit based insurance is better for the consumer (if he can afford it) than a non-profit based system (available to all) would be. The basic systems work the same except that the profit based system exists to create wealth for it's share holders. The other does not.

Quasimodo, Cinepro's point is just as valid as if we were talking about sacks of wheat or jelly beans. If we are talking about the quantity of services demanded, we have to look at the marginal cost of the services, i.e., how much will I be charged out of pocket if I decide to consume a particular medical service. Paying a mandatory monthly fee (premium) does not affect the marginal cost of the service -- I have to pay the monthly fee whether or not I avail myself of the service.

That isn't to say that a private insurance system, or a public insurance system, or no system at all is the best system. It just means that, if we reduce the out of pocket costs for medical services by allowing more people to be insured, we should expect the quantity of medical services demanded to increase.