rickyp wrote:

Now, most people opt to have a telephone because it can be, quite literally, a matter of life and death. So, why has the price gone down, since there was little elasticity (as you define it) in the market, after competition was encouraged and monopoly was abolished?

You're kidding right?
There's tons of elasticity in the communications market.

You do read, correct? Here's what I said:

Doctor Fate wrote:When I grew up, there were two telephone companies. They didn't compete and each had its own area.

In the 60's, 70's, and earlier, there was next to zero competition in communications. It bore no resemblance to what it is today. That's the point, but perhaps you're too entrenched in your socialist thinking to understand.

With no competition, which is what you allege in the healthcare insurance market, the prices were fixed. When the monopolies were broken and regulations relaxed, competition burst forth and we have lower prices and more innovation.

Wireless competition took phones out of the "protected utlility category".

Competition began with deregulation, which was long before the ubiquitous wireless phone.

What do i mean by elasticity. Where everyone "needs a phone" at one time some had a home phone and a mobile. Many eliminated the home phone.

Right, but for decades, mobile phones did not exist. What brought the innovation?

The end of the monopoly.

You claim there is no competition. I claim there is too much regulation. I can demonstrate the regulation part. You cannot demonstrate the "no competition" claim because the "competition" is so regulated (has many superfluous requirements) that innovation is stifled. The government has created, in effect, a "one-size fits all" mandate for insurance. You then come along and complain there are no savings to be had, so the game is rigged. Oh, it's rigged all right--but not by the insurance companies. It's rigged by the well-intentioned government over-regulation.

ray

It would be helpful to understand how much health care innovation is coming from the US vs. how much is coming from these other countries. If the French system has lower costs but no internal innovation, it would not be a model I would endorse. How much innovation is squashed to control costs? I'd like to understand the trade-offs before opining that one system is better or worse than the other.

These are seperate issues.
But even so, supporting and encouraging innovvation through the maintenance of an inefficient and expensive health care delivery sytem is remarkably unproductive.

Theoretically, If the US spent 12% of its GDP of health care delviery the 4% saved from the current investment could be directed in other pursuits including scientitifc advancement.
To suggest that a system where a medical procdure that costs $20,000 in trhe US versus $8,000 in France is all about providing the capital for innovation and research is rich. We already know where most of the differences in cost come from. Administrration, marketing costs, profit ... There isn't some huge actor for "research funding".

Most enhancements in health care have come friom remarkably inexpensive developments. Hygiene and clean water have contributed to more disease reduction and enhancement of life span then anything. More importantly, most original research into new problems are funded by non-profits, philanthropy and government. When corporations take over its in monetizing the original idea thats been proven to have validity. If they are doing original research (as oppossed to trials for safety and efficacy) its usually about protecting patents with new twists. (adding acidic buffering to claim a pill is new, although it doesn't change its efficacy or function.)

France was the first country to carry out a facial transplant, about two or three years before the US did one (earlier this year). Is that an example of innovation for you? If not, an article from about 4 years ago gives a flavour of the innovations coming out of French medicine.

http://www.brassandivory.org/2007/11/wo ... tifle.html

An interesting comment in there about the source of US innovation too - not-for-profit universities helped by the [shudder] Federal government, according to some.

A lot of 'innovation' in health is simply companies trying to find new uses for existing treatments so that they can extend patents and/or rebadge drugs to maintain profits. Or coming up with new conditions so that the handy drug they've developed can have a market. Not the kind of innovation that actually helps very much.

Or this

http://www.ferret.com.au/n/French-medic ... on-n696517

Or

http://www.webinfrance.com/hernia-repai ... y-772.html

Somehow the financial crash didn't affect French medical developers as much as other sectors:

http://www.clinica.co.uk/home/features/ ... c03e31.xml

steve

In the 60's, 70's, and earlier, there was next to zero competition in communications. It bore no resemblance to what it is today. That's the point, but perhaps you're too entrenched in your socialist thinking to understand.

Steve, perhaps you should read a little bit about the development of the communications. The reason that there were originally regulated areas where phone companies operated was entirely driven by technology. Until seperate LD switching systems, and then mobile was developed people didn't have a choice. Once technology gave people a choice, the market became elastic.
It wasn't regulation that stopped the technology from developing. Regulation only ocurred to keep people from being taken advantage of by telephone companies that had to be granted a monopoly in order that technology could function.
Despite the fact that serviced telephone markets were regulated, innovation in radio communications was constant from the 1930's. Much of it outside of the US. The first fully automated mobile phone system for vehicles was launched in Sweden in 1960.
How did all that innovation occur in that bloody socialist Sweden? In 1966, Bulgaria presented the pocket mobile automatic phone RAT-0,5 combined with a base station RATZ-10 (RATC-10) on Interorgtechnika-66 international exhibition. One base station, connected to one telephone wire line, could serve up to six customers.
One of the first successful public commercial mobile phone networks was the ARP network in Finland, launched in 1971.
Pick another industry. Maybe one you know something about.

Oh, ricky, if it didn't happen in the USA it doesn't count.

rickyp wrote:Pick another industry. Maybe one you know something about.

Richard, you are completely missing the point. Of course, that is a specialty of yours.

When was AT&T broken up? Did that change things? When long-distance became a competitive industry, did it raise or lower costs, or did they remain the same?

Ray Jay wrote:It would be helpful to understand how much health care innovation is coming from the US vs. how much is coming from these other countries. If the French system has lower costs but no internal innovation, it would not be a model I would endorse. How much innovation is squashed to control costs? I'd like to understand the trade-offs before opining that one system is better or worse than the other.

Sorry to repost this graphic again, but it does address this matter. Where's the benefit to our spending?

Good post, that graph, and worth repeating. Interestingly, some of the countries performing well have private systems, or ones where insurance is mandatory but there's competition for provision. You can't claim that Switzerland (home of some of the world's largest drug companies) is not a fount of innovation.

It's not an ideological debate, frankly, it's about what works. The US system didn't work before Obamacare, and Obamacare isn't really going to solve the problems. But i can't see that an ideological fixation on removing regulation and opposing public systems is really the way to go. Really, the US needs to grow up on this debate and look at what works, not what satisfies their 'principles'.

danivon wrote:But i can't see that an ideological fixation on removing regulation and opposing public systems is really the way to go. Really, the US needs to grow up on this debate and look at what works, not what satisfies their 'principles'.

Why can't we actually try a market-based approach? Contra Richard, we haven't.

While I might, maybe, be willing to look at a socialist system, most voters won't. And, I think the only way to sell it is to actually try the market-based system first.

Gah!!!

Why not instead of debating the ideology (market vs socialism), you instead look at places where it works more efficiently?

Point. Missed. 50 miles.

danivon wrote:Gah!!!

Why not instead of debating the ideology (market vs socialism), you instead look at places where it works more efficiently?

Point. Missed. 50 miles.

Point not missed. Political reality accepted.

We can't adopt the Swiss system. Why not? Because voters won't accept it until/unless they know a market-based system will work. The "s" word (not 'Switzerland,' 'socialism') will put off 60% of Americans. Those are the facts.

[quote="danivon"]Gah!!!

Why not instead of debating the ideology (market vs socialism), you instead look at places where it works more efficiently? [\quote]

Because the ideology difference is the point. There are just some thing Government should not be doing. The question is where to draw the line. After all, the government could buy all food a mandated prices that are currently lower then market prices and then give it to people at centralized location. That would be cheaper and the government could insure everybody ate nutritiously thereby controlling healthcare spending.

However, nobody in their right mind would agree to that plan because it is a clear beyond the scope of what services a government should provide.

Just because government may be able to do it cheaper doesn't mean it should be doing it.

If you read my article on food stamps you'll seriously question whether the government can control health care spending by running it.

My computer skills are worse than Neal's, but here's an article on cancer survival rates from The Telegraph.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/ ... urope.html. The US tops the list.

These cross country comparisons are challenging. There are so many obese people in this country it is unnerving.

ray

If you read my article on food stamps you'll seriously question whether the government can control health care spending by running it

You've got an article on food stamps. We;ve got dozens of countries delivering health care systems more effectively and efficiently. Which should carry more weight in an examination of how efficient and effective health care can be delivered.

archduke

Because the ideology difference is the point. There are just some thing Government should not be doing. The question is where to draw the line

.

Well fine, archduke. I'll draw the line where the abundant evidence suggests that socialized health care makes more sense. You're usually susceptible to evidence. How do you feel today? Can you abide the word socialism if it means you get better, cheaper health care? Or will your head explode at the very thought?