The Mises Community
An online community for fans of Austrian economics and libertarianism, featuring forums, user blogs, and more.

Why is healthcare so expensive?

rated by 0 users
Answered (Not Verified) This post has 0 verified answers | 18 Replies | 3 Followers

Not Ranked
18 Posts
Points 570
jct181 posted on Sun, Oct 25 2009 9:44 PM

I understand why a universal healthcare plan will drive healthcare costs up.  But why is American healthcare currently so expensive?  What is going on in the current market that is keeping costs up?

  • | Post Points: 155

All Replies

Top 200 Contributor
153 Posts
Points 3,510

FDA regulations have cartelized the pharmaceutical industry, and the AMA has cartelized the medical profession. That'll do it.

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 500 Contributor
Male
75 Posts
Points 1,040

Here are two articles which were just posted a couple of days ago which covers some of the problems with health care in the US:

http://mises.org/story/3793

http://mises.org/story/3799

And here is a great one on the idea of Health Insurance:

http://blog.mises.org/archives/010883.asp

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 75 Contributor
Male
516 Posts
Points 7,015
Answered (Not Verified) Bogart replied on Sun, Oct 25 2009 10:11 PM
Suggested by Jon Irenicus

Here are my top 5 reasons in order of most significant to least significant.  These are all caused by government intervention in the marketplace for health care:

1.  Price/Payment Fixing by Medicare, CHIP, Medicaid, etc make it difficult for people without insurance to afford health care.  Moreover the government has laws about who care providers can serve and what they can charge if participating in these programs.  So health care providers have no reason to to compete on price as all the folks using these services have no incentive to economize.  The result of this fascism is predictable: Higher prices and Fewer Choices.

2. Regulation of the development, manufacturing, marketing, distribution, advertising, etc of medical devices, pharmaceuticals, alternative medicine etc only helps those large organizations who have expertise in managing the process over those other providers.  For example: Kellogs is removing a claim on cholesterol reduction under pressure from the FDA.  Why, who does this help, it certainly does not help consumers of food.  It does help cholesterol reducing pharmaceuticals.

3. Licensing of doctors, nurses, etc.  These licenses are extremely difficult to get.  They are given out by "accredited" agencies to people they favor only.  The medical industry would save billions by letting the licensing be done by private organizations.  Then people would have the ability to request the certifications of their providers.  You can have the following done by non-certified people: parenting, educating, communicating, manufacturing, producing food, etc.  Why does the government need to license doctors when it does not license who makes your food?

4.  Regulation of insurers, people are not allowed to buy insurance across state lines and insurers have lots of mandates on them that increase costs.  If the mandates were removed and people could buy insurance across state OR BETTER YET INTERNATIONAL boundaries then the price would be dramatically reduced.

5. Insane liability system for negligence.  This part is completely nuts.  There is a weird lottery where the whole system is at the whims of a jury.  How about a system where the two parties the plaintiff and defendant each select an arbitrator or agree on one to hear the case.  Then the arbitrators would pick a third who has binding authority.  This would not only save billions but would be much fairer to those who have been damaged.

  • | Post Points: 45
Top 25 Contributor
Male
1,929 Posts
Points 36,460
Spideynw replied on Sun, Oct 25 2009 10:18 PM

A couple of others are the state limiting insurance choices (you can only buy insurance in your state, you cannot buy insurance from other states).  Medical malpractice is another issue.  Apparently "insurance" is also defined by the state.  A doctor recently had to raise his rates because his business model was considered "insurance".

It all comes down to government legislation.

At most, 5% of the population would need to stop complying to bring down the government.

  • | Post Points: 20
Not Ranked
18 Posts
Points 570
jct181 replied on Sun, Oct 25 2009 11:20 PM

Thank you everyone.

 

What was the thinking behind preventing people from purchasing insurance in another state?  What is the intended outcome of that law?

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 150 Contributor
Male
195 Posts
Points 2,640
Wanderer replied on Sun, Oct 25 2009 11:32 PM

Oh god, where to begin...

First off, 90% or more of all hospitals in the US are owned by local governments, not individuals, thus they are inefficient.  Secondly, health insurance companies have near-monopolies in the states that they operate in, because they can't legally sell insurance in other states.  Thirdly, insurance companies are forced to provide people with many insurance policies, even if the consumer doesn't want to pay for them.  Next, the AMA has a stranglehold on licensing doctors and saying who can and can't legally practice healthcare.  Lastly, the FDA is highly corrupt in deciding which drugs are legal/illegal and stalls the legalization of drugs.  These are the only things I can think of off the top of my head.

Periodically the tree of liberty must be watered with the blood of tyrants and patriots.

Thomas Jefferson

  • Filed under:
  • | Post Points: 5
Not Ranked
18 Posts
Points 570
jct181 replied on Sun, Oct 25 2009 11:39 PM

I have another question.  I was debating nationalized healthcare with someone, who brought up the point that no countries with nationalized healthcare have had a shortage of the H1N1 vaccine, while the U.S. has.  Does anyone have an answer to that?

  • | Post Points: 50
Top 25 Contributor
Male
1,929 Posts
Points 36,460
Spideynw replied on Mon, Oct 26 2009 12:03 AM

jct181:
What was the thinking behind preventing people from purchasing insurance in another state?  What is the intended outcome of that law?

To keep people from circumventing the law.  Each state mandates what the insurance companies for that state must insure.  If people were allowed to purchase insurance from other states, everyone would purchase insurance from the states with the fewest mandates.

At most, 5% of the population would need to stop complying to bring down the government.

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 25 Contributor
Male
972 Posts
Points 15,530
Suggested by Conza88

jct181:

I understand why a universal healthcare plan will drive healthcare costs up.  But why is American healthcare currently so expensive?  What is going on in the current market that is keeping costs up?

 

Cool

  • | Post Points: 20
Not Ranked
18 Posts
Points 570
jct181 replied on Mon, Oct 26 2009 2:19 AM

It's very frustrating to argue these things with people, and get called an idiot for your troubles.  I don't know how you guys do it. 

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 200 Contributor
118 Posts
Points 1,795

jct181:

I understand why a universal healthcare plan will drive healthcare costs up.  But why is American healthcare currently so expensive?  What is going on in the current market that is keeping costs up?

Because it's not a free market.

Healthcare is a medieval style guild. They hate competition.

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 50 Contributor
Male
772 Posts
Points 15,040
AJ replied on Mon, Oct 26 2009 5:39 AM

jct181:
But why is American healthcare currently so expensive?  What is going on in the current market that is keeping costs up?

Short answer: The healthcare companies and institutes are firmly attached to the monopoly on force known as the US government, so people's monetary interactions with these companies and institutes aren't very "free market."

Think outside the monopoly paradigm. Net-based microsecession | Why anarchy hasn't worked

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 200 Contributor
180 Posts
Points 3,155
jct181:

I have another question.  I was debating nationalized healthcare with someone, who brought up the point that no countries with nationalized healthcare have had a shortage of the H1N1 vaccine, while the U.S. has.  Does anyone have an answer to that?

I'm not sure but it's a stupid argument considering U.S. vacines are being handled BY THE STATE

All the statists and Keynesians will look up and shout "Save Us!" and I'll wisper "No." 

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 50 Contributor
Male
698 Posts
Points 12,285

jct181:
I have another question.  I was debating nationalized healthcare with someone, who brought up the point that no countries with nationalized healthcare have had a shortage of the H1N1 vaccine, while the U.S. has.  Does anyone have an answer to that?
For the love of god do not let them use europe as an example of how socialism works. Europe produces practically nothing but then sells their technology to the third world for natural resources. Of course, the exchange is very very favorable to Europeans, since the EU conspires with the US to destroy these countries with IMF aid and UN policy.

You lend money to a dictator, he fails to repay, you sell off their national resources to corporations. You restrict weapons trade in Africa because there are warlords running around killing people, then the common man has no weapon and is more vulnerable than ever before. There has been AMPLE time for this country to industrialize on its own. Neo-imperialism keeps these countries in the hole, and the EU/USA reaps the benefits.

Europe isn't an example of how socialism works, its an example of how slavery works for slavemasters.

So think of it like this: Europe doesn't have universal health care because the majority of its workers are in other countries. They only provide health care to a select few, so if its good, we should not be surprised.

"It has always been the prerogative of children and half-wits to point out that the emperor has no clothes. But the half-wit remains a half-wit and the emperor remains an emperor." ~Dream

  • | Post Points: 5
Page 1 of 2 (19 items) 1 2 Next > | RSS

Ludwig von Mises Institute | 518 West Magnolia Avenue | Auburn, Alabama 36832-4528

Phone: 334.321.2100 · Fax: 334.321.2119

contact@Mises.org | webmaster | AOL-IM MainMises

Mises.org sitemap