[arcticbull]

> Personally I've never been told to pay up before receiving treatment at a hospital.

Of course you have. The first thing you did when you walked in was hand them your ID and coverage info. You think hospitals operate on the honor system?

As a Canadian I've never been asked to pay up before or after receiving treatment [edit: at the point of care].

And before you jump into taxation, Canadians pay less per capita in taxes than Americans ($13K vs $14K), and that's before you factor in the $600 per month in private tax you directly (or indirectly via employer) have to pay your insurers.

> Especially when I arrive there unconscious.

You either have insurance or you're driven into Chapter 11. Further I suspect this is not due to good will but rather government intervention.

> And Herb Cohen would say once you've received the service, you're actually in a great negotiating position.

The debt was incurred once the service was rendered, and you are now liable. 66.5% of all bankruptcies in the US are medical -- are they just bad negotiators? I'm not sure what point you're trying to make but it's not in good faith.

> People actually negotiate hospital bills all the time. Especially in those crazy stories you hear about.

That sounds the worst.

> And you need a citation for your claim about when free markets do and don't work.

Voluntary contractual exchange is one of the undisputed key pillars to a free market economy. If you're being told you will die without the service it is a coercive exchange and therefore violates one of the key tenets. [1]

If I hold a gun to your head and tell you to buy my oranges for $1000 or I kill you, is the free market price of oranges $1000? If I tell you that you have cancer and you'll die unless you get $48,000 worth of chemotherapy, is that a free market? [2]

A free market requires both the voluntary production and voluntary consumption of services.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_market

[2] https://www.asbestos.com/featured-stories/high-cost-of-cance...

[unishark]

> The debt was incurred once the service was rendered, and you are now liable. 66.5% of all bankruptcies in the US are medical -- are they just bad negotiators?

The overwhelming vast majority of people have health insurance. However, due to taxation of privately-purchased insurance but not insurance that's a work benefit, people are driven to get insurance through their job. This was the government's fault, by the way. If people lose their job, they lose their insurance along with it. People without jobs have lots of financial problems. If they have a medical problem this situation gets far worse and results in a lot of bankruptcy. You seem to think bankruptcy is worse than negotiating. Clearly, it is often preferred.

As for your oranges question, no.

For the cancer one, possibly.

[arcticbull]

> For the cancer one, possibly.

Do go on. Why is dying due to an explicit action any more of a free choice than dying of an explicit inaction? Why is one any more coercive than the other?

The only point I'm making is that healthcare is not a free market due to lack of voluntary agreement between buyer and seller. Once you accept that it's not a big jump to say the system should be remediated.

[unishark]

> Do go on. Why is dying due to an explicit action any more of a free choice than dying of an explicit inaction?

Because one is coercion and the other is simply an economic system. Which by the way is also used for all the other necessities of life too. How about food?

The whole point of a free market is competition, so if you were at least arguing for emergency situations there's be something to talk about since it's rather hard to shop around. But we'd still need to compare it to how well the government handles economics of emergencies. So far we have the govt driving up the cost of emergency care by requiring the ER to provide primary care for everyone without insurance.

[arcticbull]

I provided two examples of a coercive economic system. Just because it's an economic system doesn't make it any less coercive. The dictate is clear. A free market requires a voluntary participation of both the buyer and the seller. Threat of death is not voluntary participation, so it is not a free market. In a car crash you are not in a position to negotiate or make providers compete for your business.

In functioning systems the government drives down the cost of emergency care by setting the price and insuring everyone, and the results are clear. Canada's health care system costs $5447 USD, and Americas costs $10224. That's basically all I'll say about that.

Other necessities like food are in fact subsidized or socialized.

- The freeways? Socialized.

- The schools? Socialized.

- The police? Socialized.

- The fire stations? Socialized.

- The army? Socialized.

- The post office? Socialized.

- Healthcare for 40% of Americans? Socialized. (Medicare, Medicaid, VA). Medicare is socialized medicine. [1]

Food is also very much provided for if needed. SNAP and food banks provide socialized food to the poor. Americans pay less for food than anyone else on earth in no small part because the Farm Bill subsidizes production of corn and soy to the point these staples are sold at below cost to end users.

Either way that's a distraction and a red herring. Americans pay less for food than anyone else and more for medicine than anyone else. Eyes on the prize here, and stop carrying water for the insurance companies taking advantage of you :) All we're talking about doing is moving the percent of Americans covered by socialized medicine up from 40% to 100%.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialized_medicine

[unishark]

> - Healthcare for 40% of Americans? Socialized. (Medicare, Medicaid, VA). Medicare is socialized medicine.

> Americans pay less for food than anyone else and more for medicine than anyone else.

Is your point then that food is cheap because it is socialized at a 100% rate as you want healthcare to be? Or that your references to socialism are all red herrings?

Poor people can get free healthcare the same ways they get free food, Govt programs and charities. Food banks are private charities, by the way.

You are not defining coercion properly. It means force or threats of force.

Freeways are not a necessity of life, though we are certainly coerced into paying for them. At least they aren't as expensive as that Army you mentioned. Apparently you define all government spending as socialism, making the only other possible form of "govt" anarchy itself?

[arcticbull]

> Is your point then that food is cheap because it is socialized at a 100% rate as you want healthcare to be? Or that your references to socialism are all red herrings?

My point is food is cheap because the government intervenes, it's not a free market as you make it out to be, and yes food is provided to those in need. However, there aren't many in need in no small part because food is already the cheapest in the world in the US. That's not an exaggeration [3].

If medicine were the cheapest in the world in the US then nobody would be calling for its socialization. The current system is an abject failure. The food market, while I disagree with it, would likely be defined as a success.

I'm saying that in other countries with socialized medicine costs are controlled far better. Medicare controls costs far better than the private sector. Canada's system costs half as much, covers everyone and is ranked better along basically ever major axis. Life expectancy is declining in the US. Healthcare in the US is among the worst in the OECD and far more expensive. [4]

I'm saying that it's not as big a leap as you make it out to be, and that there's lots of precedent, domestically and abroad.

> You are not defining coercion properly. It means force or threats of force.

Coercion (/koʊˈɜːrʒən, -ʃən/) is the practice of forcing another party to act in an involuntary manner by use of threats or force. Threats or force. Pay up or get out and die is a threat, IMO, levvied by the system.

But even if you choose not to take that definition - it remains true (the only thing I've been arguing) that health care is not a voluntary contractual agreement but one taken out of necessity on an uneven playing field. This makes healthcare not a free market under most circumstances.

> Apparently you define all government spending as socialism, making the only other possible form of "govt" anarchy itself?

"In the theoretical works of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels and subsequent Marxist writers, socialization (or the socialization of production) is the process of transforming the act of producing and distributing goods and services from a solitary to a social relationship and collective endeavor." [1]

Socialization in a primarily capitalist economy is defined as taking a for-profit institution and transforming it into an institution collectively funded and carried out for the public benefit. If the government owns and operates a service for the public benefit it is a socialized service. It is socialism - well, democratic socialism/social democracy. It is not incompatible with freedom, or democracy, or private property rights.

Yes, these are all socialized services. Explicitly yes for Medicare, Medicaid and TRICARE. [2]

The alternative to socialized services are privately owned and operated businesses. Not anarchy, necessarily, but libertarianism.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialization_(Marxism)

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialized_medicine

[3] https://www.ibtimes.com/us-spends-less-food-any-other-countr...

[4] http://www.oecd.org/health/health-systems/health-at-a-glance...

[8note]

Coercion is simply an economic system too?

I tell you to do work, and if you don't I shoot you. It's just economics; I'm trading not shooting you for your labour and everyone comes out happy

[unishark]

No, economic systems are a superset of systems with coercion, and also include systems without coercion. So when I said "simply" an economic system, I meant lacking in coercion. Your example includes both. Also it's silly to call it trade.

Were you making an analogy for the economics of socialized medicine with the forcing of labor?

[unishark]

> Of course you have. The first thing you did when you walked in was hand them your ID and coverage info. You think hospitals operate on the honor system?

They mail you these paper forms known as "bills". I have examples I can show you. Insurance only pays a portion. I suppose you can call it a kind of honor system.

And given your examples, you apparently aren't aware that when it comes to emergence care in the US, hospitals which have an emergency department are required by law to provide emergency care as needed to make sure a patient is stable. One's ability to pay is not a factor.

[arcticbull]

I've lived in the US for more than 10 years. What you're saying there is a mix of half-truths.

One is of course that "I suppose you can call it a kind of honor system," no, you can't, it's enforceable by law and actively collected upon. That's not an honor system.

> And given your examples, you apparently aren't aware that when it comes to emergence care in the US, hospitals which have an emergency department are required by law to provide emergency care as needed to make sure a patient is stable.

Yes, the bare minimum, then ejecting them out the back door as soon as they possibly can. Of course by waiting until they require emergency care you're fleecing everyone. Minor issues that could have been addressed earlier for pennies on the dollar are instead allowed to fester until they become life-threatening, then when the poor can't pay, it's socialized across those who can at the worst possible time for the highest possible price.

Not to mention, this is an argument against the free market approach which would just be to refuse service. This is actually bolstering my case that healthcare is not a free market because of a lack of ability to form a voluntary contract.

> One's ability to pay is not a factor.

Oh come on now. Who doesn't have health insurance? The poor. Who's going to get the bare minimum treatment required be law and getting booted out the back door? The poor. Who's then going to get a bill for it forcing them to declare bankruptcy? The poor.

This is strictly about one's ability to pay.

[throwaway201103]

If you're already poor, bankruptcy isn't really the biggest of your worries. You can't get blood out of a turnip, as the saying goes.

[unishark]

> Yes, the bare minimum, then ejecting them out the back door as soon as they possibly can.

New goalpost eh? No they generally just treat everyone fully and pass the cost on to people with insurance. Trying to transfer uninsured people out leads to lawsuits.

[arcticbull]

Nope, I've only got one goalpost. To express that healthcare cannot be a free market.

This was a digression and exploration of how your specific situation exists because of government intervention. The alternative is to let poor people die outside, and that's distasteful to me, and to most.

[unishark]

No the poor received charity, directly from the hospitals. In fact historically, hospitals were charities, many still are. And the rest still provide it too. In the story I linked the uninsured person's whole problem was that he earned too much to qualify for the hospital's financial aid program, so had to negotiate to get a lower bill.

[arcticbull]

lol, why on earth would we want to advocate for a system where the poor have to rely on the charity of for-profit institutions? Try that at the grocery store. We already have kickstarter campaigns for insulin. What you're advocating for is inhumane and shameful for a first-world country. It's shameful. And it's all besides the point.

A voluntary exchange between buyer and seller prior to exchange is necessary for a free market. You're describing a failure mode where a service provider is about to be screwed out of compensation and is willing to settle for less just to get something.

It's hard to believe you're advocating so hard for something so inhumane and dysfunctional.

[unishark]

> You either have insurance or you're driven into Chapter 11. Further I suspect this is not due to good will but rather government intervention.

You really are making a lot of bold assertions. If you declare bankruptcy, the hospital gets zero. Negotiation is a process by which both sides give something to meet in the middle. Yes they do it.

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/10/28/you-can-negotiate-your-medic...

[winston_smith]

As a Canadian you pay up every time you pay taxes, and you don't negotiate because you take what the government gives you. If they say your orthopedic surgery happens in six months, then that's what you get, or you start shopping south of the border.

[arcticbull]

Re taxes: I explicitly addressed that. The government negotiates with the drug companies and sets pricing for an efficiently functional health system. I don't have to and shouldn't have to negotiate. The system costs half per capita to operate and covers everyone.

Re: waiting times, take it from the horses' mouth, you've been fed a crock [1]. Of course the system could be better, but on the whole you're just wrong. The insurance lobby has spent a lot of time, money and effort to convince you of that.

The data backs that up. A small handful of Canadians go to the US to "shop for orthopedic surgery" out of millions of visits per year in Canada. After all a hip replacement in America costs one hundred thousand dollars. Just how many Canadians do you think there are with a spare $100K USD ($128,500 CAD) kicking around in the old piggy bank for a new hip that'd be free in a few months? [2]

If you see 50-60,000 ish numbers they tend to be the 'snowbirds' - Canadians living in Florida for half the year who choose to seek care close to their winter homes. These are folks wealthy enough to have winter homes, and also maintain private insurance.

[1] https://www.npr.org/2020/06/27/884307565/after-pushing-lies-...

[2] https://www.vox.com/2016/10/9/13222798/canadians-seeking-med...