Voluntary mutual aid associations >>government "solution"

[jogger08152]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Prices wouldn't be comparable today I think.[lists reasons why health care is too exspensive now]

[/ QUOTE ]
They were saying the same thing back then...
[ QUOTE ]
Such low fees, many doctors charged, were bankrupting the medical profession.

[/ QUOTE ]
Of course, then it was just fear mongering from doctors who wanted to use force to drive their salaries up.

The article states that the dues for healthcare were about equal to one day's wages for a whole year. Even if today it would closer to three times that it's still incredibly cheaper then health care is currently.

[/ QUOTE ]
I don't see how it could still be so little. The services medecine provide now, compared to the turn of last century, have increased at a rate far, far greater than inflation. Getting an MRI isn't cheap - no surprise, because BUILDING an MRI isn't cheap. I'd expect that sort of problem to be pretty endemic, no pun intended. Ditto malpractice insurance, which I'm afraid is here to stay as well.

[jogger08152]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Prices wouldn't be comparable today I think. Figure a doctor needs to make 250-350k per year minimum (salary + malpractice insurance + facilities + paying off medical school).

If he works 2000 hours a year and spends 5 hours per year per patient (some will be less, but some, old ones and sickly ones, will require more time, thus bringing up the average), he can treat about 400 patients per year, so each would need to pay 6-700 bucks per year (minimum) just for their internist. Add in drugs, ER visits, hospitalization and specialists, and costs will be roughly in the neighborhood of where they are now, I'd think. If the author thinks the price would be significantly less, I'd like to see his numbers.

[/ QUOTE ]

5 hours per patient? You are WAY off here. My guess is the average would be closer to 30 minutes per year per patient.

[/ QUOTE ]
Are you taking into account the elderly (12% of the US population in 2004), many of whom visit their doctors multiple times a year, and women of childbearing age in making this estimate?

[almostbusto]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
PVN you are just being a troll at this point. you are suggesting that owners might actually like it if managers game their incentive structure to maximize the manager's income while doing as little work as possible?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not suggesting anything of the sort. I am suggesting that it's really none of your business if they do, unless YOU happen to be that owner. If they are as inefficient as you say they are, they will be bankrupt pretty quickly, so the "problem" solves itself.


[/ QUOTE ]

Are you trying to be obtuse? Like i said i am not worried about it, i am not saying it is my business. what I am saying is that these organization will never be effective or widespread because they suck at what they do.

you are just being intellectually lazy by just considering what needs to be done to create an ACist society, you never consider what the resulting economy would look like. I am saying the resulting economy's health care industry will NEVER be driven by the mutual aid societies because they are inefficient and quite frankly no better than governments at what they do.

[almostbusto]

[ QUOTE ]
Nobody ever claimed that "these societes are major players".


[/ QUOTE ]

ORLY?????????????


[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I am just saying they won't be a major player in solving these problems, because simply put, they can't (at least not nearly as efficiently).

[/ QUOTE ]

How come they are now?


[/ QUOTE ]

[Dane S]

[ QUOTE ]
what I am saying is that these organization will never be effective or widespread because they suck at what they do.

[/ QUOTE ]

Did you read the OP?

[almostbusto]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
what I am saying is that these organization will never be effective or widespread because they suck at what they do.

[/ QUOTE ]

Did you read the OP?

[/ QUOTE ]
yes, have you taken an introductory economics course?

[ShakeZula06]

OK guys break it up. This is going nowhere.

[ShakeZula06]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't see how it could still be so little.

[/ QUOTE ]
Amazing what the free market can do. [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

The point of government intervention in the first place was explicity to raise prices. This is documented history. Prices started raising before the advancements you speak of, and that was point of the government intervention.
[ QUOTE ]
The services medecine provide now, compared to the turn of last century, have increased at a rate far, far greater than inflation. Getting an MRI isn't cheap

[/ QUOTE ]
So have cars, computers, TVs and a thousand other products. Some how hundreds of milions of people consume them with ease. That might be different if computer companies lobbied congress.

As the article states, one days wages covered health care for a year (for lower class workers!). Even if that number was tripled, it still makes insurance cheap enough for anyone who wants it to consume.
[ QUOTE ]
Ditto malpractice insurance, which I'm afraid is here to stay as well.

[/ QUOTE ]
Malpractice is just one example of how [censored] up government law is. I know a friend of a friend who has stopped practicing medicine because of the insurance. We need heavy reform in that particular area. That alone would lower health care and health insurance in the states.

[Dane S]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
what I am saying is that these organization will never be effective or widespread because they suck at what they do.

[/ QUOTE ]

Did you read the OP?

[/ QUOTE ]
yes, have you taken an introductory economics course?

[/ QUOTE ]

Why are you so combative in this thread? I asked if you read the OP because it describes an example of the organizations in question becoming widespread and effective through free market forces. Since you are claiming that they will never be effective or widespread, perhaps you could address this? (Without being a dick)

[jogger08152]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I don't see how it could still be so little.

[/ QUOTE ]
Amazing what the free market can do. [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

The point of government intervention in the first place was explicity to raise prices. This is documented history. Prices started raising before the advancements you speak of, and that was point of the government intervention.
[ QUOTE ]
The services medecine provide now, compared to the turn of last century, have increased at a rate far, far greater than inflation. Getting an MRI isn't cheap

[/ QUOTE ]
So have cars, computers, TVs and a thousand other products. Some how hundreds of milions of people consume them with ease. That might be different if computer companies lobbied congress.

As the article states, one days wages covered health care for a year (for lower class workers!). Even if that number was tripled, it still makes insurance cheap enough for anyone who wants it to consume.
[ QUOTE ]
Ditto malpractice insurance, which I'm afraid is here to stay as well.

[/ QUOTE ]
Malpractice is just one example of how [censored] up government law is. I know a friend of a friend who has stopped practicing medicine because of the insurance. We need heavy reform in that particular area. That alone would lower health care and health insurance in the states.

[/ QUOTE ]
On this point I wholly agree with you, but (and this is important to your OP) reforms haven't come into being yet. These add expense to medecine that isn't really avoidable (now). That's part of the reason I say "I don't see how it could be so cheap." There are certain costs, like MI, that are going to keep the overall expense high until/unless they are changed. (Malpractice insurance is a good example of a very bad cost; MRI machines are the opposite.)