...
Take that power away from insurance companies by forcing the publication of prices, and the entire landscape becomes MUCH more competitive and cost effective.
Based upon years of practice both in an office and hospital setting, I can tell you that the rates vary not by a few %, but hundreds of %. Sometimes this is to the benefit of the hospital (almost never to the actual doctor), sometimes it is not.
I could be persuaded to allow the government to compete with insurance companies, and that would be good (it already happens in the pediatric space with Medicaid). But to allow the government to take it all over and dictate everything would be a colossal blunder.
Absolutely true, IMHO. Many people think a monopoly is a good idea for most things. Personally I'm largely in favor of that for monetary policy and national defense. Most fail to perceive that oligarchy is more insidious. Several categories of insurance are dominated by a tiny handful of players who tacitly concur in price fixing. Health insurance is an excellent example, at least in par because large hospital groups, pharmacy and drug companies manage to effectively divide the markets.
That is true of several industries that do not have those characteristics, but the good ones have price and feature transparency. It is odd that there is such consensus that consumers should not know and end providers should not know. It is bizarre that physicians and other heath care professionals usually cannot know the economic details fo their own activities. People form groups to try to control their destinies, but still are subject to the whims of unknown forces. Oddly disclosure at every level would help. Hidden decisions from government and every level guarantee corruption. Normally that is not illegal because the laws are written to mandate that condition.
We have a saying in Brazil that the US and Brazil have the same level of corruption. In the US there are laws establishing the corruption. In Brazil we're more efficient; we skip the laws.
On our topic the US system exacerbates the problems because it combines the worst of all systems, so we end out with the highest cost but with middling outcomes. The resilience and coordination require to be prepared for unexpected events requires planning coordination and contingency planning.
As we debate this we should remember that the Obama administration had a planning session to deal with a viral outbreak. Some things happened most did not. The Trump Administration and one too, but almost everyone that heard the results has been dismissed and the few steps forward from the previous study we promptly dismantled.
Until the US accepts the necessity for contingency preparation and equipment stockpiling in 'massive quantities' these disasters will recur. It's not just the Trump, it's the system.
This is off-topic, but it is relevant here because the exact analogue exists with the US Space efforts including NASA. Why, when Billion are blown can Boeing of Lockheed do this when SpaceX can do it cheaply with not much help. Somehow that seems to be relevant. Elon does need new challenges now that he's fixed Space,Vehicles and grid services.
