Boo Radley
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2009
- Messages
- 37,066
- Reaction score
- 7,028
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Liberal
You said that we removing profits from health care is the right way to go. When I asked how to determine the price you used a business designed to turn a profit to explain how prices are set. You have completely failed to answer my initial question
I did mention competition, but only to show how in the real world, prices can go down because of competition. In the real world, if you set a price too high, I can come in and steal your business with a better price. But making money is the key. I can’t set the price so low that I lose money in the transaction.
Now you reluctantly see that government has to determine the price. How? What information do they have to determine the correct price? If they set it too high, how can we show them that the price is too high? Nobody has an incentive to sell for less since they aren’t going to profit from doing so.
I’ll completely ignore the other issue of the lack of incentive to even think of new clothes and styles for the Barbie dolls since it isn’t going to make money anyway.
I think you misread what I've said, but the government would set it the same way we did. Doctors in Canda still get paid. Make a hundred thousand or more, depending on field, yearly. So do hospitals and nurses, and suppliers. they negotiate and use a formual to set prices. It's not a mystery.
And profit isn't the only incentive. A good number of the break throughs in medicine are done at state univeristies, with state money. I believe you're premise is flawed. People don't stop solving problems just because they are paid by the government.
Huh? There are no profits, remember. Not large profits, not small profits. No profits. This is what you said. Don‘t change it now.
Who said there is NO profit? That too would be a flawed premise. No one I know of suggests no profit for anyone.