• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The U.S. Economy Can't Hire Health-Care Workers Fast Enough

Now we all have free healthcare. That's news to me and my paycheck deductions.

I did not say health care did not cost anything, but for the consumer the act of consumption is free. This is made so by the insurance, that asks a flat fee or premium. This defines a decision structure in which the patient is consuming health care without paying the market price or, if she participates in the costs, below market prices. This is the essence of a free good, though, maybe I should have been more explicit.
 
US health care is far more costly per capita than other developed nations, we get middling results, and we still don't cover everyone. As long as we keep relying on "for-profit" providers, this won't change.


50 hospitals charge uninsured more than 10 times cost of care, study finds - The Washington Post

Ah yes, the "magic of the marketplace."

CHEmBrwWQAAToGB.jpg

Yeah, we should base national policy on what we see in fictional TV shows. :roll:
 
I did not say health care did not cost anything, but for the consumer the act of consumption is free. This is made so by the insurance, that asks a flat fee or premium. This defines a decision structure in which the patient is consuming health care without paying the market price or, if she participates in the costs, below market prices. This is the essence of a free good, though, maybe I should have been more explicit.

Why would you not expect an industry to expand that produces a good that suddenly is free for all?

Ok...

I've yet to see a new plan where there are no premiums and deductibles and copays don't exist.
 
Yeah, we should base national policy on what we see in fictional TV shows. :roll:

You're right, that would be silly.

How about instead we base national policy on what works for every other developed nation on the planet? That would be guaranteed health coverage for every person as a right of citizenship. Based on their examples, it would cost far less per capita and provide as good or better health care than our disastrous system.
Once again, U.S. has most expensive, least effective health care system in survey - The Washington Post

Naaaaah! http://www.reddit.com/r/atheism/comments/217hhv/steve_martins_brief_moment_of_clarity_snl/
 
You're right, that would be silly.

How about instead we base national policy on what works for every other developed nation on the planet? That would be guaranteed health coverage for every person as a right of citizenship. Based on their examples, it would cost far less per capita and provide as good or better health care than our disastrous system.
Once again, U.S. has most expensive, least effective health care system in survey - The Washington Post

Naaaaah! Steve Martin's brief moment of clarity (SNL) : atheism

Nice link. Amazing that the US ranks ahead of France in both quality of care and access to care and France ranks #1 in both this poll as well as WHO's last survey of heath care. I would think those are extremely important criteria. Perhaps there is some bias in weighting the various criteria. Health care seems more important than costs.

Does the US gain any points for having US affiliated medical researchers winning 27 out of 47 Nobel Prizes for medicine in a recent 20 year period, from 1993 to 2012? It seems as though US innovation probably adds to lower costs in other countries as they benefit from US research.

Glad that we are not like the UK, with their single payer system that ranks just above the US in 2nd to last place despite ranking first in so many categories.
 
Nice link. Amazing that the US ranks ahead of France in both quality of care and access to care and France ranks #1 in both this poll as well as WHO's last survey of heath care. I would think those are extremely important criteria. Perhaps there is some bias in weighting the various criteria. Health care seems more important than costs.

Does the US gain any points for having US affiliated medical researchers winning 27 out of 47 Nobel Prizes for medicine in a recent 20 year period, from 1993 to 2012? It seems as though US innovation probably adds to lower costs in other countries as they benefit from US research.

Glad that we are not like the UK, with their single payer system that ranks just above the US in 2nd to last place despite ranking first in so many categories.

The weighting is everything in these surveys. They typically double weight conceptual stats like coverage while not doing that with hard statistics like delivery, availability and timeliness.

They also tend not to rank care received without insurance that gets written off by the Hospitals, etc. etc.

In other words, it's generally a survey designed specifically to highlight where socialized medicine excels and downplay where it doesn't.
 
People are not paying nothing. They are paying indirectly. This is a huge difference from what you claim. You seem to be totally unaware of how insurance or the health care profession work.

I know quite well, how people are paying. I also understand how different "property rights" structures as it is called in economics affect decision That is, what I was referring to. I did not realize that you did not understand that. When people do not pay for the amount they consume, the price control mechanism of the market does not prevent over consumption and production. This generally leads to increasing costs and always to an economic welfare solution below the optimum.
 
From Bloomberg.com:



The U.S. Economy Can't Hire Health-Care Workers*Fast Enough - Bloomberg Business

The complete report can be found at: http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/jolts.pdf

This data, which runs counter to some of the political narratives related to the health sector, highlights anew the importance of looking at all the variables when trying to assess an industry's future performance. The political/regulatory/tax variable is one aspect that can shape an industry's performance. There are many other variables. When it comes to the health sector, the aging of the population (which is directly related to medical care consumption) is a mega factor.

Bingo! It would seem some here were unable to read and/or comprehend that particular sentence.
 
Ok...

I've yet to see a new plan where there are no premiums and deductibles and copays don't exist.

Here in Germany, if you are poor you pay no premium and the insurance covers your consumption of health care. The way they are tending now is to ration the amount of care that doctors are allowed to give and the types of methods public policies are allowed to cover. They had to do this, because costs were going up.
 
I don't know your insurance policy, but I pay practically the same if my medical costs are 0 or 100.000 dollars.

Yeah, that's not really how it works in the U.S. Most people share in some portion of the cost at the point of service.
 
Yeah, that's not really how it works in the U.S. Most people share in some portion of the cost at the point of service.

Like 10% capped at $ 3.000?
 
Like 10% capped at $ 3.000?

Depends on the plan.

The point is that people generally have some skin in the game, and their use of resources (and the relative prices of those they choose) has a direct financial impact on them. More so every year.
 
Depends on the plan.

The point is that people generally have some skin in the game, and their use of resources (and the relative prices of those they choose) has a direct financial impact on them. More so every year.

Where there is skin in the game, it is not a totally free good type decision but one, where the goods are under priced. That is about the same, just not quite so aggressively destructive.
 
From Bloomberg.com:



The U.S. Economy Can't Hire Health-Care Workers*Fast Enough - Bloomberg Business

The complete report can be found at: http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/jolts.pdf

This data, which runs counter to some of the political narratives related to the health sector, highlights anew the importance of looking at all the variables when trying to assess an industry's future performance. The political/regulatory/tax variable is one aspect that can shape an industry's performance. There are many other variables. When it comes to the health sector, the aging of the population (which is directly related to medical care consumption) is a mega factor.

I'd make three comments on this issue:

1. Healthcare jobs have been at a premium in the US for several decades - Canadian universities have been raided annually for those graduating from nursing and other medical fields. I have a feeling that the openings will be growing as fewer Canadians are opting for careers in the US as wages no longer greatly outdistance Canadian salaries.

2. As with any field, more people are now retiring and fewer people are in the workforce. As a result, in a growing demand field like healthcare - looking only at an aging population - there will be a disconnect between available employees and available positions. It would be interesting to see if the entire healthcare workforce has increased that significantly.

3. It has been noted elsewhere that the vast majority of new registrants for healthcare coverage on the state and federal exchanges have been those now eligible for Medicare coverage under the new guidelines established under the ACA. As a result, it's not surprising that there would be increased demand for healthcare professionals who will serve the increase in Medicare demand. Considering that some doctors are reportedly not accepting new Medicare patients because of reduced rates of reimbursement, it's possible that many of the posted openings are to fill positions serving those Medicare patients with professionals not wanting to accept the cut in reimbursement.
 
Goodness, healthcare is now free for everybody? I admit I didn't know that.

Yes... apparently the Republicans have managed to repeal and replace when the rest of us weren't looking...
 
Why would you not expect an industry to expand that produces a good that suddenly is free for all? I don't know, how it will develop, but I would expect an increase in healthcare consumption and higher costs.

There are many, many things at play here, including an aging population that is creating increased demand on healthcare; an aging physician base that is retiring faster than being replaced and expansion of insurance through the PPACA.

The Aging Effect on Healthcare

Of course, Obamacare did not make anything really "free" except annual doctor visits. People on this board have repeatedly complained about higher than expected premiums and big deductibles.
 
I'd make three comments on this issue:

3. It has been noted elsewhere that the vast majority of new registrants for healthcare coverage on the state and federal exchanges have been those now eligible for Medicare coverage under the new guidelines established under the ACA. As a result, it's not surprising that there would be increased demand for healthcare professionals who will serve the increase in Medicare demand. Considering that some doctors are reportedly not accepting new Medicare patients because of reduced rates of reimbursement, it's possible that many of the posted openings are to fill positions serving those Medicare patients with professionals not wanting to accept the cut in reimbursement.


I suspect that payment rates, which also preceded the ACA, played role in accelerating some retirements. The ACA likely had some impact, too. However, the rate of retirements has slowed in recent years, so it's still too soon to really glean what impact ACA had and what impact other factors e.g., aging of physicians had. I'm sure this will be a topic of future research, especially if physician shortages grow worse than expected.
 
I suspect that payment rates, which also preceded the ACA, played role in accelerating some retirements. The ACA likely had some impact, too. However, the rate of retirements has slowed in recent years, so it's still too soon to really glean what impact ACA had and what impact other factors e.g., aging of physicians had. I'm sure this will be a topic of future research, especially if physician shortages grow worse than expected.

I agree, these are short term issues. A lot of younger people are now in colleges and universities getting education related to various healthcare fields that have led demand for a number of years. It won't matter to them if their starting salary is less that it might have been previously - a job is a job and they have to start their career somewhere. The drain from Canada to the US was related to salaries under the free market American healthcare system, particularly in the southwest States where thousands of Canadian nursing students found a home the past couple of decades. As the American system becomes more cost fixated, that is lessening and that will lead to more openings.
 
Back
Top Bottom