|
|
|
|
|
|
by knightofmars
2321 days ago
|
|
|
First, thank you for responding and second don't take my idiotic self-amusement with the downvote/upvote nonsense as anything other than my own failure in that moment. > Care to elaborate? This was in response to the comment by Retric calling out my idiot behavior. Which, I agreed with. > Another example: the AMA is a horrible gov't-sanctioned monopoly that hugely increases medical costs; most procedures can be done by someone with a few months' training (see the military). Healthcare is one of the few industries that hasn't mastered "mass production" of procedures in spite of the fact that many surgeries are similar. Very good point. Reducing costs through other measures definitely are a valid approach. This is one I agree with. >The point I think you were getting at is that most people have limited choice because they are often treated in time-sensitive situations. However, about two percent of healthcare spending is on such emergency care [0]. Most procedures give people at least some time to find options, get second opinions, etc. This is true in part. However, mobility and access are often very limited to a significant portion of the population due to ability to travel, lack of time to take off work to travel, as well as the type of insurance a person has. If our society was more inclined to provide the ability for people who financially would struggle if they took a day let alone multiple days off of work to shop around to reduce medical costs this would make sense. But that is not the society we live in. |
|
|
True enough. I do think allowing a market to develop will give us the tools to shop around with less hassle, e.g. online ratings and comparison based on hard data people will have to disclose to compete in a free market. Similar with transportation, changes in the way we get around will change this and make life a lot easier, hopefully.