Has Western capitalism become too efficient and ruthless?

Rodger

Ad Honorem
Jun 2014
6,171
US
That only addresses the cost paid for by the government. But since most healthcare is provided privately, it won't drive down the majority of prices - drug companies can continue to charge insurance companies inflated prices, the insurance companies pay it and premiums remain high.
Speaking of capitalism, I believe competition will drive down the cost for all. And if private insurance pays for most of it (my cost is usually $20 for a prescription), does it matter?
 

Rodger

Ad Honorem
Jun 2014
6,171
US
I love poetry, but let's leave it for a dedicated thread ;)

I don't think long waits for procedure is a characteristic solely to universal health care system. I don't think they're present in all situations, in all places either. AFAIK, it isn't "rationing", it's mostly logistical problems, and /or dissfunctions, and/or simply not enough money.

Generally speaking, I am wondering if You (and others) do not a bit misread the "universal" in the "universal health care system" idea.

It means that it's covering everyone in the society, not everything.

It also doesn't mean that everything will go perfectly well. We both know that no system is perfect.
I have had a number of procedures recently and my wait times, once diagnosed is a week or two for the procedure, like a cataract surgery. And, again, I can only speak what is being pushed in the U.S. currently, which is single payer system. So, if anybody is misreading it, it is the politicians in the U.S. Surprise! Maybe they smart enough to comprehend?
 

Theodoric

Ad Honorem
Mar 2012
3,028
Yötebory Sveriya
It is a lot less efficient and ruthless than it once was.
Yeah, people often ignore pre-1930s when capitalist economies in most countries did not have regulations, and the economies were wild and crazy; mental health issues and suicide were probably very common; but there were several great depression scale economic collapses during the 19th century resulting in millions of deaths in Western countries. Additionally, the wealthy corporate leaders were wealthier then than they are now, relatively speaking. Today, even the US still has extensive social programs and a tax infrastructure - the 2007 economic crisis was a gnome compared to those of the 19th century.

But neoliberalism (which is the economy of lowering taxes/regulation on corporations and the wealthy, globalism, and debt allowances by governments in non-emergency times) has really been failing society. In non-economically progressive nations: wealthy lending companies see the benefits of loaning, and they get paid in interest; corporations can move your job to places where they don’t have to pay as much money, and everything is run by absentee share holders who don’t give a damn about people working in the companies: only about their dividends and increased share values, and how efficient boards of directors can get those dividends and increased share values.

The whole idea that society creates jobs by making billionaires and stock holding firms wealthier by removing taxes and regulation is a neoliberal myth. Jobs are created when there is a market that can be exploited, regardless of the tax levels and regulations. If people will buy something, companies will sell it, regardless of taxes they have to pay on their profits. Making the general people wealthier and healthier is better for creating jobs in the economy; the more the general population can buy, the more that can be sold, and the more jobs that can be created.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Zip

Larrey

Ad Honorem
Sep 2011
6,102
Speaking of capitalism, I believe competition will drive down the cost for all. And if private insurance pays for most of it (my cost is usually $20 for a prescription), does it matter?
Only when markets have regulation and actual oversight to ensure actual competition. If they can't kill off the competition (meaning they don't have to compete eventually), competitors tend to be very astute in working out how not to have to compete on price after all.
 

Naomasa298

Forum Staff
Apr 2010
35,869
T'Republic of Yorkshire
Speaking of capitalism, I believe competition will drive down the cost for all. And if private insurance pays for most of it (my cost is usually $20 for a prescription), does it matter?
Shkrelli kind of refutes that theory.

As for private insurance, ultimately, this is part of the reason why premiums are as high as they are.
 

Iraq Bruin

Ad Honorem
Oct 2010
5,197
DC
Yeah, people often ignore pre-1930s when capitalist economies in most countries did not have regulations, and the economies were wild and crazy; mental health issues and suicide were probably very common; but there were several great depression scale economic collapses during the 19th century resulting in millions of deaths in Western countries. Additionally, the wealthy corporate leaders were wealthier then than they are now, relatively speaking. Today, even the US still has extensive social programs and a tax infrastructure - the 2007 economic crisis was a gnome compared to those of the 19th century.
I am happy to learn about those several collapses if anyone is willing to show us.
But neoliberalism (which is the economy of lowering taxes/regulation on corporations and the wealthy, globalism, and debt allowances by governments in non-emergency times) has really been failing society. In non-economically progressive nations: wealthy lending companies see the benefits of loaning, and they get paid in interest; corporations can move your job to places where they don’t have to pay as much money, and everything is run by absentee share holders who don’t give a damn about people working in the companies: only about their dividends and increased share values, and how efficient boards of directors can get those dividends and increased share values.

The whole idea that society creates jobs by making billionaires and stock holding firms wealthier by removing taxes and regulation is a neoliberal myth. Jobs are created when there is a market that can be exploited, regardless of the tax levels and regulations. If people will buy something, companies will sell it, regardless of taxes they have to pay on their profits. Making the general people wealthier and healthier is better for creating jobs in the economy; the more the general population can buy, the more that can be sold, and the more jobs that can be created.
Healthier, maybe.
Wealthier, it is a relative term since there will be people at both ends of a spectrum of finite wealth.
 

Iraq Bruin

Ad Honorem
Oct 2010
5,197
DC
Shkrelli kind of refutes that theory.

As for private insurance, ultimately, this is part of the reason why premiums are as high as they are.
I do not know how to think about a better system than insurance to be honest (and I am not talking health exclusively) , I think a business like insurance seeks to make profits while promising some benefit/contingency can use as many predictive measures as they can to stay in business (as opposed to becoming a charity, unless they choose to but even then that is not exactly cost-free).

I do not how to lower cost for both consumer and provider, sometimes I think insurance plans need to incentivize screening and regular checkup even more, and I do not know if and how they do that.
 
Jun 2017
3,027
Connecticut
Wow. Crimes against humanity. Aren't you full of hyperbole. Talk about an extreme statement. Well, you keep working at changing things there bud. I bet I will still have my private insurance until the day I retire. Then I will get what I want. Will that make you angry? Personal choice? But don't worry we all will end up on MediCare, if we live long enough. And then the inequity will continue based upon the supplement you can afford. In the end, it's all about the money, one way or another, but it sure feels good to play the outraged egalitarian on the internet.
Medicare Supplement Plans Comparison Chart | Compare Medicare Plans
7 Things Medicare Doesn't Cover
No the fact the people who are giving the insurance aren't in prison like their poor blue collar counterparts makes me angry. I guess it's personal choice to give in to the mob if they offer you stuff. For many people things end up fine but that rationing has to come from somewhere and just cause you're lucky enough to not be a victim of a killer/killers even help you doesn't make them swell human beings.

And this ain't even really about equality, health care costs are whipping inflation by so much it's becoming an issue for higher and higher classes. Maybe a multi millionaire won't be killed by failure to pay medical bills yet but there ain't a lot of people in any social strata that can just tank some of these massive 6 or 7 figure bills. It'll never reach billionaires without being addressed obviously but this ain't just a poor issue if anything the poor are better off here cause of Medicaid(if only slightly so).
 
Jun 2017
3,027
Connecticut
I do not know how to think about a better system than insurance to be honest (and I am not talking health exclusively) , I think a business like insurance seeks to make profits while promising some benefit/contingency can use as many predictive measures as they can to stay in business (as opposed to becoming a charity, unless they choose to but even then that is not exactly cost-free).

I do not how to lower cost for both consumer and provider, sometimes I think insurance plans need to incentivize screening and regular checkup even more, and I do not know if and how they do that.
Profit and staying in business are two fundamentally different things. People have been brainwashed to think non profit means charity and while many charities are non profit, it's just a more efficient model(for everyone involved except shareholders). Having enough money to pay your employees and fund the business is not the same as wanting money LEFT OVER. Wanting money left over as a goal means you're going to cut every corner, wage wise, expense wise etc. With health care this inherent need amounts to murder(both hypothetically and in reality). But don't believe how much more efficent non profits, just look at your typical corporate infrastrcture and compare it to non profit colleges. While corporations are getting every third rate non profit schools are basically rebuilding the Roman Empire, Versailles etc. It gives lens into what we could be if we ditched the corporate model as a society, while the shareholders might not be quite as affluent the rest of society(including much of the infrastructure said wealthy people use)would come out of the dark ages. You call it inefficency, and I guess from a shareholder's perspective that's true but on a business the effect of spending as little as humanely possible is not a good thing. Not good for a business's long term health(shareholders can ditch a company almost any time they like, why should they care about it's long term health once they've milked it?), not good for employees and not good for society as we really are just an aggregate of our services.

Anyhow health insurance ain't even a real for profit enterprise because they provide no service, they are just providing extortion with the least negotiatble thing ever(your life). Insurance is meant to pool risky behavior but health care applies insurance logic to inherent issues(and yeah some people's lifestyle attribute to health problems, the main one's people complain about such as terminal illnesses are more random's)that can't be controlled. So the way companies make profit is to cut every corner that is legally allowed.
 

deaf tuner

Ad Honoris
Oct 2013
14,824
Europix
... (my cost is usually $20 for a prescription) ...
sorry (me again!): what do You mean by "my cost for a prescription"?

When You get a presciption, do You visit Your doc, and he, after examination/diagnosis he gives You the presciption andYou pay the visit prescription included or do You pay the visit/examination/diagnosis and pay 20 bucks in plus for the presciption itself?
 
Last edited: