Normally, a market with no monopolists in it is assumed to make anything that can be made affordable, and for which there is a wide demand, to become affordable rather sooner than later, since anyone offering it at an unsustainable margin would be quickly underbid and outcompeted.
The health ins...
The market model doesn't work for everything. Health care for example, is not optional. You can't really choose not to seek health care. You can't have a free market. You also can't make rational, informed choices during a medical emergency. And it is nearly impossible to price-shop even when you are considering optional treatments, because prices are hidden from consumers - not even doctors know. These aren't specific reasons why the pre-Obamacare US healthcare system was a failure, just a few reasons why the market model did not and cannot work.
It should also be noted that the best health outcomes are correlated with what we would consider non-market models, like single-payer. So this is descriptive not just of the US system but of health care in general.
"best health outcomes" is vague. if by "best" you mean everyone has access, even though it sucks, by that standard the US doesnt have the best. but if you're talking about best medicine, surgeons, and technology, the US is on top
@user2914191 You could start by looking at average life expectancy, statistics for perinatal death etc. How do you know who has "the best medicine, surgeons, and technology"? What statistics measure that?
it wasnt failure of market it was over regulation. and still is. obamacare didnt fix a thing, it will fail again, and those in government will call for single payer. and that will not fail, but diminish the qualify of healthcare consistently over time
@WS2 measuring life expectancy is a blunt instrument that tells you very little. it's not scientific to use life expectancy, a factor that has thousands of variables, to then correlate it with "healthcare quality". you can ban all sugar and increase life expectancy. doesnt mean better healthcare.
GDP per capita, not healthcare system, correlates most with higher life expectancy: forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2011/11/23/… the US has the highest 5 year survival after cancer treatment
life expectancy is also lowered in the US by higher homicide rates. having more murders lowers life expectancy doesnt mean healthcare system is worse.
@user2914191 well the USA certainly ought to have the best, given what they spend on it. The attached WHO table shows health expenditure as a % of GDP. Most developed countries such as the EU, Canada, Australia, Japan, spend about 10 - 11%. The USA uniquely spends 17%.
I'm surprised no answer mentioned defensive medicine and tort risk. Effectively, the risk of underbidding by providing minimalist service is too high, because the same people who'd happily purchase minimalist service would gladly hire a tort lawyer to sue you for everything you own when that service results in unfavorable rare outcome that can be claimed to a jury "could have been prevented with a battery of super expensive tests". you don't even need to be scientifically right, just be able to sell a story to a jury.
@user2914191 it absolutely wasn't over-regulation. That is an absurdist statement. It's like saying your meal at a steakhouse is expensive because the health inspector requires that there aren't rats in the kitchen.
@user4012 that's true of any service industry. People don't like getting sued for providing sub-standard service.
@blip - that's the problem. It's not "sub-standard" service. And no, people can't sue you out of your business for doing exactly the level of service you agreed to, outside of a small range of professions.
@user4012 you can sue for any reason. You usually don't lose if you provided the level of service you agreed to. Malpractice isn't "level of service agreed to". It's not providing that level of service agreed to.
@blip - The problem with medicine is the following: Before the treatment: "You have 3 in a million chance of bad outcome; we can rule it out with $10,000 set of tests. Want that? Patient: No". After the treatment: Bad outcome happens. Patient's lawyer: "Why didn't you do that set of tests? Would it have prevented bad outcome?". Jury: "Guilty". And that's without insurance skewing everything complication.
@user4012 our local mechanic was sued a few years ago for billing for work not performed. I don't believe you are so naive and/or stubborn as to not be aware of the historical track record of shady car mechanics.
@blip - do you understand the difference between suing in general and malpractice medical suing, as far as scope and more impotantly, impact on how actual medicine is practiced?
Discussion on question by rackandbone…
Discussion on question by rackandbone…