tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13974296645733775.post7488968388905928441..comments2023-08-19T12:02:43.740-04:00Comments on An Immigrant's Evolving Perspective: The Health Care RebateXujunhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05534267282303815433noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13974296645733775.post-25221251609582226022009-08-26T09:44:20.058-04:002009-08-26T09:44:20.058-04:00Hi Twood,
Thanks for the note. Better doctors wo...Hi Twood,<br /><br />Thanks for the note. Better doctors would, of course, be a good thing. However, what you call accessory expenditure is carried out by a variety of people a great number of whom have MDs or PhD (doctors of a different kind). I am not sure what you mean by defensive medicine, but if you are advocating a focus on well being rather than remedial health care I tend to agree with you.<br /><br />Your comment on pharmacueticals is also curious. The vast majority of cost on most modern drugs is fixed and comes out of research and development. Marginal production costs are not really very germaine, though it is true that many people seem to want to focus on them.Larry Mongossnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13974296645733775.post-442245465797740712009-08-24T12:35:16.589-04:002009-08-24T12:35:16.589-04:00more doctors drive up accessory expenditure(6X doc...more doctors drive up accessory expenditure(6X doctor's renumeration). It is better doctors and reforming the medical-legal system (defensive medicine) that would bring about significant benefit.<br /><br />the world bearing the cost of drugs, Haha, no, the marginal cost for more production is quite small. The rest of the world is subsidizing US corporate profit when bonuses reach millions of dollars. <br />it would carry more meaningful strength if the economist would concentrate on what his/her expertise is.twoodnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13974296645733775.post-55908863992969287552009-08-19T22:02:58.748-04:002009-08-19T22:02:58.748-04:00Hi Anon,
It appears to me that you may also be ca...Hi Anon,<br /><br />It appears to me that you may also be caught in the trap of viewing public policy from a personal perspective. Your argument on insurance does not really hold together if you think through the steps involved. Insuring people involves some overhead, and the uninsured are currently not consuming any of that overhead. So, while it does seem theoretically possible that the average cost may go down, the total amount of money paid to insurers will certainly go up. Of course, if you are advocating a single payer system that conclusion is not so obvious.<br /><br />There is a more coherent argument, the old ounce of prevention and pound of cure adage. In short, the total cost of care could decrease as more people seek routine care and therefore fewer require the more expensive actute care. The optimist in me firmly wants to believe that, but the skeptic in me is pretty doubtful. <br /><br />Still, you are right about one thing, the ongoing debate is not genuinely based on economics or common sense.Larry Mongossnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13974296645733775.post-90976118326831475032009-08-19T17:42:00.528-04:002009-08-19T17:42:00.528-04:00Sorry to offend anyone. I do not ask anyone to sh...Sorry to offend anyone. I do not ask anyone to shut up…I merely give a suggestion that you might not know what you are talking about and appear to be ignorant. I do not know the author is an economist. But it makes no difference to my argument.<br /><br />On topic. I believe that increasing coverage could lower costs. This is the basic idea of insurance. A large population shares the risk of a few. Then the cost becomes acceptable to individuals. That is why the group insurance policy has a lower price than the price of the policy for an individual. Currently the insured population bears the cost of the uninsured population. Thus, the insured population pays a higher premium and the uninsured needs to save/borrow a lot to prepare. By the way, this is what is happening in China to some extent now. So if there were universal coverage, the average premium would be lower than now, even if nothing happens to the medical cost. Cheap here means the lower premium. And this is a static comparison.<br /><br />But it might not solve the problem of the high growth rate of medical cost over time. This is where the issue of number of doctors comes in. It not only needs to look at the cost structure of the healthcare providers (doctors, drug companies, medical device producers, hospitals…), but also look at the cost structure down the supply chain (medial schools, medical researchers, regulators, investors, materials…). I do not know all of them. But for starter, medical schools obviously set too high a barrier for entry admission and effectively ration the number of doctors supplied and increase the cost to produce doctors. Basically, it should be make it more competitive at every level of supply chain to reduce the consumer price. This is how most other markets work. Healthcare market has its unique factors, but it can be move toward this direction closer.<br /><br />And the debate of the policy is another matter, which depends more on politics than on economics.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13974296645733775.post-71155627821116079332009-08-18T20:33:27.735-04:002009-08-18T20:33:27.735-04:00Anon, I wonder if you always tell others to shut u...Anon, I wonder if you always tell others to shut up when there's a different opinion. That's not the best way to participate in a discussion. Larry does have a legitimate point if you read his post carefully. He's an economist, by the way.Xujunhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05534267282303815433noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13974296645733775.post-18902778364470292872009-08-18T18:06:05.551-04:002009-08-18T18:06:05.551-04:00Thanks for the comment Charlie. Pick any two and j...Thanks for the comment Charlie. Pick any two and just hope the third somehow works itself out. Actually there is nothing wrong with that approach, if people simply acknowledge the overall arch of what they are up to.<br /><br />Anonymous, thanks for the note. Like I say, I would love everyone to be a doctor. Right now health care spending as a fraction of GDP is pushing toward $1 in $5. If you think that needs to be a bigger number we are simply back to what Good Ole Charlie said - pick something else that you don't want so much of. That is a legitimate area for disagreement.Larry Mongossnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13974296645733775.post-56227032863652681312009-08-18T17:40:29.354-04:002009-08-18T17:40:29.354-04:00I sincerely suggest that you really should avoid a...I sincerely suggest that you really should avoid any subject related to economics/public economic policy. With all due respect, I am not even sure that this post makes any sense. <br /><br />I do not have time to make a detail argument here now. But just one short comment: There are not too many doctors, but too few. Consider the current medical education system a rationing system.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13974296645733775.post-3148728986112121402009-08-18T14:35:10.118-04:002009-08-18T14:35:10.118-04:00There's a saying..."Cheap, Up to date, Un...There's a saying..."Cheap, Up to date, Universal: Choose any two..."<br /><br />Economically, this is what it comes down to...Good Ole Charlienoreply@blogger.com