Healthcare Reform Thread II

[KrazyHorse]

I am confused as to why the two statistics are so far apart.

Some hypotheses, Jon:

First off, the BLS numbers don't even have numbers for a bunch of categories. Secondly, the BLS might be putting a bunch of "active physicians" into other categories (researcher, hospital administrator etc)

But a quick google search would have told you how far off you are when you just add up BLS numbers.

[Jon Miller]

I did do a quick google search, which is how I got the BLS numbers.

JM

[KrazyHorse]

What about the large percentage of the population that gets degrees in english, philosophy, etc?

What of them? Most go to a subsidized state school, pay only a relatively small amount for their education and get to party for four years, quite often at their parents' expense

What about the large percentage of the population that spends more than they make on CC, and are left with huge CC bills/etc?

What about the large percentage of the population that doesn't invest?

What about the large percentage of the population that follow astrology/etc?

These are not aggregate behaviours. If you'd think about it you would realize that.

What about the large percentage of investors who think that they know better than those whose job it is to find good investments?

And that's relatively harmless to them. They incur some additional fees and take on some additional risk.

Look, I don't understand what the **** you're on about here. Do people sometimes, as a crowd, act stupidly? Yes. But most of the time they figure **** out eventually.

Or would you rather that big brother make everybody's decisions for them?

KH, your own positions have been counter to the positions of the combined population over and over again, and you are (often) right because you are rational and the aggregate is not.

What the **** are you talking about "positions" for? This has nothing to do with beliefs or even voting patterns.

[KrazyHorse]

I did do a quick google search, which is how I got the BLS numbers.

JM

I suggest you do another one and look for "active physicians US" or active physicians per capita etc.

[Arrian]

get to party for four years, quite often at their parents' expense

That really was a great deal.

-Arrian

[Dinner]

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=106899074

Big Pharma spent about $40 million lobbying Congress during the second quarter of this year. That's an annual rate of $160 million from just the top 30 drug companies. That makes them the single largest lobbying group in the US, larger then even the trail lawyers. Is there any wonder why Big Pharma can kill serious reform?

[KrazyHorse]

I pointed out that universality has large up front costs

"universality" i.e. the cost of paying for the insurance of poor people is not an UP FRONT COST. It is an ONGOING COST

I am talking about a specific mechanism to get disbursment reform

Which mechanism would that be?

Yes, I made a typo. Clever.

???

I still don't know what you mean by what you wrote.

I'm not sure what you're saying. The government compensates procedure x with, say, an order of magnitude less than the norm because of the effectiveness studies. Private insurers are not going to change their compensation scheme?

I have no idea why it is that you think that a change in an inframarginal buyer's behaviour has any effect on the marginal price.

[Drake Tungsten]

I assume you're arguing with Ramo. This thread is way better if you just ignore him...

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

It seems very few people (not just the GOP, before anyone assumes I mean that) are serious about cost control. Tort reform! The magic bullet!

-Arrian

Explain to me why this is laughable.

Defensive medicine costs alone are estimated at 8-15% of the overall costs of medicine.

http://www.massmed.org/AM/Template.cfm?Section=Home6&TEMPLATE=/CM/ContentDisplay.cfm&CONTENTID=30633

Forget about malpractice insurance costs.

[Jon Miller]

Well, I beleive that your source is valid (just like I think mine is). I am not really sure which is more relevant yet, yours doesn't mesh with the other information I found (medical malpractice insurance numbers). I did find my source twice on two different google searches (and it was at the top/near the top of what was found).

And KH, how does how you plan to live your life compare to how to people in the aggregate plan to live their life/live their life?

And I am general against technocracies because I feel that those who are rational scientists/etc, generally think themselves far more rational than they really are and so, if given power, would act fairly unrational in many points.

I am fine with, and accept, that people aren't rational. But that doesn't mean that I agree with models of personal interaction that are based on the assumption that people (in aggregate) are rational. I think that that is still an end result of rational scientists/etc with blind spots.

JM

[KrazyHorse]

I am not really sure which is more relevant yet

The one which takes into account the number of doctors who are actually around.

Your 300k figure is ridiculous, Jon. No developed country has only 1 doc per 1000 people.

[KrazyHorse]

I assume you're arguing with Ramo. This thread is way better if you just ignore him...

I'm about to. I was giving him the benefit of the doubt because it seemed like he'd spent a bunch of time reading about the issue, but it's becoming apparent to me that even if this is true, he simply hasn't spent much time thinking about it.

[KrazyHorse]

And KH, how does how you plan to live your life compare to how to people in the aggregate plan to live their life/live their life?

I have no idea what you're getting at here.

I really don't.



The rationality I'm talking about has a very specific meaning, Jon.

[Drake Tungsten]

he simply hasn't spent much time thinking about it.

He's bought into the Orszag/Klein claims that unicorn dust and pixie wings will magically reduce healthcare cost sometime in the future. There's no reasoning with him.

[Ramo]

"universality" i.e. the cost of paying for the insurance of poor people is not an UP FRONT COST. It is an ONGOING COST

The lack of universality is ALSO associated with a set of costs. The net cost associated with universality is the difference. The (admittedly speculative) argument I was making is that the net costs would decrease past the interval that the CBO scored.

WTF is up with this semantic horse****?

Which mechanism would that be?

The MedPac reform.

I could try to quantify that, but I don't have time right now.

???

I still don't know what you mean by what you wrote.

Uniformly increasing rates sounds crazier than increasing the rates nonuniformly (which might be justified due to a scarcity of certain specialists, depending on the circumstances).

I have no idea why it is that you think that a change in an inframarginal buyer's behaviour has any effect on the marginal price.

I suppose that's true. The marginal price may stay constant, but what about net expenditures? One of the hypotheses posited by the Dartmouth guys is that the variation in expenditures is largely set by the social norm. If the doctor is accustomed to treating a large number of patients who wouldn't be able to afford a certain set of procedures due to insurance constraints, the doctor would tend to use more affordable alternatives for all patients.