You restrict demand. In healthcare there are 3 things consumers want: low cost, universal access, and high quality. You can pick 2. A government run system can still be designed to hold cost down. They determine the prices paid for services obviously. The unintended consequence is a low level of access to care or access to poor quality care. Usually in these types of systems it leads to low levels of access in the form of long waiting times. There is no incentive to increase supply because demand doesn't generate higher prices to motivate doctors. Chronically low payments leads to chronically low supply which leads to people dieing before they can receive care. Or in the case of UK's NHS, the quality goes down too. There are reports of many people dieing in hospitals due to neglect and rampant infections.
That is well stated, MH, and succinct, too. It's just that, in my experience in the US, "low cost" is usually on the losing end of that deal when it comes to government. Several years ago I was in Canada for work. I was giving a ride to a co-worker who was from Canada and staying at the same hotel. He talked about "free healthcare" and how we needed that in the US. On the way to the office, we passed a healthcare clinic. This was about 7am in the morning, yet there was a line at the door and around the corner of the building. I said, "There is your free healthcare, right there. It's free cuz you can't get any." So I guess I do have *some* experience with government lowering the cost, after all.
Suppose you want to buy a pizza from Dominos, and they charge $15 (and have a cost of goods sold of $9 per unit) but you're only willing to pay $14. They will turn you away. Suppose you want to buy 500 pizzas. Dominos will surely sell you those pizzas at $14. Now suppose you are 90 percent of the market for pizza, and you tell Dominos you're only willing to pay $10. They will sell that pizza at $10, because they're out of business if they don't. That's what the German national healthcare system does with providers. They use their leverage as a bulk payer of services to dictate prices. Of course, as Monahorns points out, the system has its limitations. It's difficult to set the rates low enough to manage costs but high enough to encourage providers to offer services and do so at the highest level of quality. I think Germany does it better than other countries who try it, but they have their limitations and challenges.
One rare positive in recent U.S. medical industry developments. Control costs by having lesser qualified personnel handle tasks that don't really need MDs or DOs. PAs are writing prescriptions and functioning as the general practicioner/family doctors. RNs should be put in this role too (in many cases they are with a rubber-stamp sign-off by the doctor). A very minor sacrifice in quality for a big cost savings. For the tough to diagnose patients--refer to a real doctor (MD or DO).
Quite frankly, I can self diagnose most of what a PA does. And I imagine most people could if they wanted to. Another opportunity for cost savings is to teach and/or remind people that they don't need an MDs advice whenever they get a runny nose or a little rash.
Basic diagnose or early diagnosis is a great opportunity for Machine Learning to reduce costs. Algorithms can do a lot to focus activities for doctors and nurses to more value added things. Machine Learning is being implemented now in limited areas but it could be a game changer if...
In some of the more efficient offices, it appears that the nurses are basically doing all the investigation and preliminary diagnoses, with the "real" doctor coming in for several minutes and confirming what the nurse has already determined (or not confirming it and investigating further). Cuts down on the very expensive doctor time required.
Someone on the pro-abortion side being honest. It's refreshing in a way, despite it's obvious depravity.
Chop That is exactly what happens. Funny this was the topic at a party Sat. Half were ok with it( including a Doc and PA) and the rest not.
That looks cool, but 3D ultrasound imaging is even clearer at least for seeing what the baby looks like.
It's always funny when someone of the cultural left figures out something they think is new and profound that the traditional right has known for thousands of years. It's like when the people in Idiocracy figure out that it's better to give plants water than Brawndo. I'll never understand why people ever thought it was a good idea to justify or reduce the judgment and condemnation of casual sex. Even if you put aside the immorality angle altogether, you're taking a risk of spreading disease and/or creating another human without a family. And did anyone ever really believe that sex has no mental or emotional consequences? And all this risk for what benefit? In other words, it was immoral for a reason.
Like Bill Maher suddenly decrying radical progressive left ideals and then becoming a hero to many on the right?
He was too scared to hang around with me. I wanted to teach him the finer art of snorting coke off of a hooker's *** but he got cold feet.
Another company I'll stop doing business with. I don't even like it when I support the position. No place for corp's to be, unless that's their business. Citigroup to Cover Staff Travel for Abortions as States Limit Access - Bloomberg
True, but guess what happened? Now there is an extreme shortage of RNs and CRNA's. Those two industries are demanding very high raises where they will eventually price themselves out of the market.
And this is part of the problem in politics. If you think the GOP is wrong about abortion, the alternative isn't sensible policy that goes the other way. It's perverse, anti-scientific lunacy. As a pro-lifer, I haven't faced this problem, but I did on border security. I see opposed the wall, but the alternative wasn't sensible border control that didn't include the wall. It was the removal of all common sense restrictions on border security. Catch and release is now more common, and now we prioritize encouraging illegal immigration over fighting COVID.
