The Politics Thread - please direct all related posts here..

[Pharmcat]

look at cleveland clinic, they dont even have a level 1 trama center, metrohealth in CLE does, and CLe Clinic closed their level 2 center which was in a poor area and "consolidated" (which basically means getting out of the poor area and being in a area where they can serve the insured patients, and let Metrohealth deal with all the others)

like I said, the gold stand institutions are nice, but only if you can afford them

[ewingxmanstarks]

Seren Again that statistic doesn't speak to the truth of the over value of the program...maybe we have the most health conscious citizens who utilize health care the most...maybe demand is perverted by poor HC in other countries, placing more of a burden on our resources....Explain to me how HC would be cheaper?? Explain to me how health care would be of more quality? Explain to me how it would be more plentiful? Don't just say HC is too expensive, sucks, not is not in supply .

[seren]

Seren Again that statistic doesn't speak to the truth of the over value of the program...maybe we have the most health conscious citizens who utilize health care the most...maybe demand is perverted by poor HC in other countries, placing more of a burden on our resources....Explain to me how HC would be cheaper?? Explain to me how health care would be of more quality? Explain to me how it would be more plentiful? Don't just say HC is too expensive, sucks, not is not in supply .

Not really. It reflects the fact that prices are high in the U.S. than anywhere else in the world. It reflects the fact that we are spending too little on prevention hence too much on treatment. Most of the money goes to the chronic diseases which is a direct result of not having enough prevention.

How is it cheaper? In many ways: First, when people have access, they utilize doctors more at early stages and money is spent on prevention. It is much cheaper to prevent a sickness rather to treat it.

It starts with the fetus. When the mother have better access to health care, the likelihood for the baby to be born with a chronic disease reduces dramatically. Which one is cheaper to provide? A healthy motherhood so that you have a healthy baby or no access to the mother which results chronic health issues for the baby that will follow him/her throughout the life?

Then it continues through the early life. There is huge differences when it comes to child obesity, chronic asthma, diabetes etc. when the child have access to health care or not. Once these occur, it becomes extremely expensive to treat them.

Even at the later life, it matters. Many people delay treatments due to lack of funds which in turn increases the severity. People wait until it gets bad. Once it is bad, it becomes too costly to deal with it. People end up in emergency rooms once again increasing costs.

[ewingxmanstarks]

Won't preventative care beIng in higher demand dilute the quality of preventative care? The more patients a doctor has to care for makes the doctor less effective in treating the patients that doctor currently cares for? Also don't most healthy ppl also eventually need emergency care?? There are many reasons why cost is what it is, but cost is always centered on supply and demand...more so talent in foreign countries that have socialized medicine have fled their countries in droves...Fact socialized medicine decreases supply with doctors leaving...Fact socialized medicine increases demand for HC

[cgf]

It sounds to me like you're talking about PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY Cgf. That's a very conservative principle, be careful there youre going down a very slippery slope.

Thats the biggest problem I have with socialized medicine here in the U.S.

As usual the gov't is trying to get the productive class to subsidize those who are less so, and in this case this law tries to force people like me, who have never been to a hospital, rarely gets sick, pays taxes like only half of this country does to pay for some jabroni in Nebraska with 4 kids whose 150 lbs overweight and has diabetes because of his obesity and poor health choices.

It's crap, and I'll never do it. They can try to fine me or whatever but the 1st thing the president should do with this monstrosity of a law is give himself an enema with it.

What are you talking about? I'm more conservative than you, wingo knows that to, ergo his tongue in cheek "you're saying we should be more like europe?" comment. I've very small government on the federal and state level. What more can I do?

[seren]

Won't preventative care beIng in higher demand dilute the quality of preventative care? The more patients a doctor has to care for makes the doctor less effective in treating the patients that doctor currently cares for? Also don't most healthy ppl also eventually need emergency care?? There are many reasons why cost is what it is, but cost is always centered on supply and demand...more so talent in foreign countries that have socialized medicine have fled their countries in droves...Fact socialized medicine decreases supply with doctors leaving...Fact socialized medicine increases demand for HC

My answer is no. Your assumption is that everything else stays the same. Everything else would not and should not stay the same. We need more doctors that will provide preventive care. Those would be generalists that we need to produce. There is a serious shortage here in the U.S., especially when it comes to generalists who are needed to provide the preventive care. In Europe generalist/specialist ratio is 2/1 as in for every 2 generalist, there is one specialist. In the U.S., it is the opposite ie specialists outnumber the generalists by two. This is actually also a big factor that contribute to the overall costs. Specialists get paid very high even when the task in hand does not require the specialty. We will need more doctors, but those doctors would cost less to produce as they would be generalists.

In terms of talented doctors, sure. Doctors are very well-paid in the U.S. and there is some movement in terms of the top doctors coming to the U.S. However, numbers are not game changing. There are plenty of capable doctors in Europe. I am not aware of any shortage there. In fact, we have less doctors per population compared to many countries.

Cost is really not centered in supply and demand. This is not perfect competition we are talking here. This is the first thing I used to teach in my Health Economics class. Health Care, due to its very nature, is far from being a market where the rules of supply and demand apply. We have huge efficiency issues in the U.S. which is the main reason why costs are high.

A must read paper on the trends in costs of health care and actual utilization:

http://content.healthaffairs.org/conten ... 9.full.pdf

[ewingxmanstarks]

Nutty Nats..I don't represent the GOP why bring GOP or Democrats in the discussion..I was discussing my views...no need to bring partisanship into the debate...In my view our HC system is flawed, but certainly better than any other model in the world...Its not ignorant to hold this view, u may disagree but that doesn't prove me ignorant.

[Pharmcat]

Nutty Nats..I don't represent the GOP why bring GOP or Democrats in the discussion..I was discussing my views...no need to bring partisanship into the debate...In my view our HC system is flawed, but certainly better than any other model in the world...Its not ignorant to hold this view, u may disagree but that doesn't prove me ignorant.

how can you say that when the stats say otherwise?

[ewingxmanstarks]

Pharmcat HC is not an issue that u can easily summed up any data point..

[mugzi]

It sounds to me like you're talking about PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY Cgf. That's a very conservative principle, be careful there youre going down a very slippery slope.

Thats the biggest problem I have with socialized medicine here in the U.S.

As usual the gov't is trying to get the productive class to subsidize those who are less so, and in this case this law tries to force people like me, who have never been to a hospital, rarely gets sick, pays taxes like only half of this country does to pay for some jabroni in Nebraska with 4 kids whose 150 lbs overweight and has diabetes because of his obesity and poor health choices.

It's crap, and I'll never do it. They can try to fine me or whatever but the 1st thing the president should do with this monstrosity of a law is give himself an enema with it.

What are you talking about? I'm more conservative than you, wingo knows that to, ergo his tongue in cheek "you're saying we should be more like europe?" comment. I've very small government on the federal and state level. What more can I do?

You're more conservative then me?

Then whose the European style soft core socialist thats been using your account for the last two years? You've consistently been to the left of me on everything,- abortion, foreign policy, the economy, now because you have a dog in the fight vis a vis big pharma youre conservative?

The only one to the right of me isnt found on this board, he's in the sky.

I dont see whats not conservative about saying that Obamacare is a joke, deregulating interstate restrictions on insurance competition and not being an advocate of saddling responsible, tax paying Americans with a shared burden for their irresponsible countrymen.

All I said was that drug companies getting away with charging hundreds of dollars a prescription is egregious, and I stand by that. Im well aware that the cost to bring a drug to market can easily run over a billion dollars when all is said and done, but when you make that money back fifty fold and some people still cant afford that medication that they need to live, then I think that becomes a human issue that transcends politics.

Ultimately, more than half of our medical issues in this country are not inherited theyre manifested through poor lifestyle choices and that I have issue with. Im not for telling people what they can and cant eat, but Im definitely for people being responsible for the choices that lead them to their fate as opposed to Mugzi Q taxpayer.

[ewingxmanstarks]

Seren my background is in Finance also...what u said I refuted and explained why...u dismissed what I said, as well as went against hard facts...in some case both of us are theorizing, but laws of economics apply not only when convenient...Ill be back later

[Pharmcat]

Pharmcat HC is not an issue that u can easily summed up any data point..

i think i have showed multiple data points

just look at different outcomes and the money spent, it doesnt work out well

[cgf]

Glad to know that correlation = causation. I guess I'm just an **** for blaming fat people for being excessively fat. *shrug* I've lost 40 pounds from my biggest, my dad dropped 70 pounds after he had a heart attack, I understand that it's easy to put on a lot of weight, but it's your own damn fault when it happens and it's your own decisions that will determine what will happen. If people don't care about their health it doesn't make sense to hold that against the healthcare system...lemme re-phrase that, if people care more about short term gratification than their health...etc. I'm willing to chalk it up to a culture that's a little more skewered towards short term gratification, but it's certainly not because germans have **** access to **** free doctors, kinda.

Right. Right. I understand your german highnosedness calling Americans idiots. What you simply fail to understand is we are a product of our surroundings.

What personal responsibility are you talking about when 10 percent of children have no health insurance, when asthma, child obesity and type 2 diabetes are all through the roof while it is simply impossible to afford any kind of health care for 15 percent of the population? Yesterday my 15 month old son had his monthly doctor visit where we got the tips for what to feed him, how to interact with him etc. I guess it was his personal choice to go see the doctor instead of stuffing himself with candy. Or because some other parents simply do not do what I did because they hate their children. Of course not. I can do it because I can afford insurance for my son. I can do it because I can ask my employer for a day off to take him there. I know what to feed him right because a) I can get the information, b) I have the time and the means to get healthy food for him.

Nope, not calling americans idiots...actually, reading your post you seem to be the one suggesting americans are idiots by implicating that they need a doctor to tell them that stuffing candy into their kids mouths isn't healthy. I was talking specifically about the issue of obesity since it's one of the biggest issues affecting life expectancy stats in the US. Obesity is a personal responsibility issue even when talking about kids because as a parent that child is your responsibility, if you are ignorant of what constitutes unhealthy food in the age of the internet that is a level of incompetence that is beyond help. It's the sign of people who've made a decision, consciously or not, that thye just don't care about living longer and their health and there's nothing you or I can do for them until they make a conscious decision to the contrary.

Since you seem so intent to paint as a snooty euro lets talk about my own **** decision making ability. I'm a smoker, I smoke a pack a day and have done so for the past 4 years, likely will do so for at least the next 4 years, that's an unhealthy decision that no amount of healthcare would talk me out of, I'm more than well aware of what a **** decision for my health this could be, and yet for me it's worth it. Would it be anything other than immoral to force anyone to pay for me if end up with lung cancer in 30 years?

[seren]

Seren my background is in Finance also...what u said I refuted and explained why...u dismissed what I said, as well as went against hard facts...in some case both of us are theorizing, but laws of economics apply not only when convenient...Ill be back later

Which hard facts are you referring to? All your arguments were about things you can not quantify. You provided not one statistic showing that our health care system is more efficient or provides better health to American population compared to other countries.

Laws of economics are very well defined. It is just that you do not understand them well. It is not about convenience. Let me simplify things for you:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfect_competition

Here are the conditions to have perfect competition (ie the only situation where law of demand and supply works perfectly):

* Infinite buyers and sellers – Infinite consumers with the willingness and ability to buy the product at a certain price, and infinite producers with the willingness and ability to supply the product at a certain price.
* Zero entry and exit barriers – It is relatively easy for a business to enter or exit in a perfectly competitive market.
* Perfect factor mobility - In the long run factors of production are perfectly mobile allowing free long term adjustments to changing market conditions.
* Perfect information - Prices and quality of products are assumed to be known to all consumers and producers.[1]
* Zero transaction costs - Buyers and sellers incur no costs in making an exchange (perfect mobility).[1]
* Profit maximization - Firms aim to sell where marginal costs meet marginal revenue, where they generate the most profit.
* Homogeneous products – The characteristics of any given market good or service do not vary across suppliers.
* Non-increasing returns to scale - Non-increasing returns to scale ensure that there are sufficient firms in the industry.[2]


Here are the differences in the health care market that result the price not being a product of demand/supply:

1) Infinite buyers and sellers. You do not have infinite suppliers. In fact, you do not have even enough suppliers to make it a monopolistic competition. In any given market, what you have is either few suppliers or one.

2) Zero entry and exit barriers. This guarantees prices to go down when there is profits to be made via new suppliers entering the market. We can't have this unless you are willing to get rid of the requirement to have a diploma to be a doctor, pharmacist etc. There are barriers to entry and for good reasons.

3) Perfect factor mobility. Each individual state have its own set of rules when it comes to insurance market, doctors etc which prevents this to happen.

4) Perfect information. This is one of the key aspects of why insurance markets fail, why doctors can price discriminate etc. The simple fact is the good that is to be bought/sold in the health care market is not well-defined. Parties do not know what is being sold, the quality etc.

5) Non-increasing returns to scale. Another key element of why health care markets can not simply follow the rules of demand/supply. You have increasing returns to scale in almost all segments, rather it be the pharma industry, insurance industry, or hospitals.

Again, it is not about picking and choosing. It is simply understanding economics.

[Pharmcat]

Nope, not calling americans idiots...actually, reading your post you seem to be the one suggesting americans are idiots by implicating that they need a doctor to tell them that stuffing candy into their kids mouths isn't healthy. I was talking specifically about the issue of obesity since it's one of the biggest issues affecting life expectancy stats in the US. Obesity is a personal responsibility issue even when talking about kids because as a parent that child is your responsibility, if you are ignorant of what constitutes unhealthy food in the age of the internet that is a level of incompetence that is beyond help. It's the sign of people who've made a decision, consciously or not, that thye just don't care about living longer and their health and there's nothing you or I can do for them until they make a conscious decision to the contrary.

Since you seem so intent to paint as a snooty euro lets talk about my own **** decision making ability. I'm a smoker, I smoke a pack a day and have done so for the past 4 years, likely will do so for at least the next 4 years, that's an unhealthy decision that no amount of healthcare would talk me out of, I'm more than well aware of what a **** decision for my health this could be, and yet for me it's worth it. Would it be anything other than immoral to force anyone to pay for me if end up with lung cancer in 30 years?

do you have health insurance? if you do, and say you get sick (cancer god forbid), they will spend all that money paying those bills, and guess how they will recoup that money? by jacking up their premiums, denying you or others coverage, etc..so it does have an effect on other people

[cgf]

It sounds to me like you're talking about PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY Cgf. That's a very conservative principle, be careful there youre going down a very slippery slope.

Thats the biggest problem I have with socialized medicine here in the U.S.

As usual the gov't is trying to get the productive class to subsidize those who are less so, and in this case this law tries to force people like me, who have never been to a hospital, rarely gets sick, pays taxes like only half of this country does to pay for some jabroni in Nebraska with 4 kids whose 150 lbs overweight and has diabetes because of his obesity and poor health choices.

It's crap, and I'll never do it. They can try to fine me or whatever but the 1st thing the president should do with this monstrosity of a law is give himself an enema with it.

What are you talking about? I'm more conservative than you, wingo knows that to, ergo his tongue in cheek "you're saying we should be more like europe?" comment. I've very small government on the federal and state level. What more can I do?

You're more conservative then me?

Then whose the European style soft core socialist thats been using your account for the last two years? You've consistently been to the left of me on everything,- abortion, foreign policy, the economy, now because you have a dog in the fight vis a vis big pharma youre conservative?

The only one to the right of me isnt found on this board, he's in the sky.

I dont see whats not conservative about saying that Obamacare is a joke, deregulating interstate restrictions on insurance competition and not being an advocate of saddling responsible, tax paying Americans with a shared burden for their irresponsible countrymen.

All I said was that drug companies getting away with charging hundreds of dollars a prescription is egregious, and I stand by that. Im well aware that the cost to bring a drug to market can easily run over a billion dollars when all is said and done, but when you make that money back fifty fold and some people still cant afford that medication that they need to live, then I think that becomes a human issue that transcends politics.

Ultimately, more than half of our medical issues in this country are not inherited theyre manifested through poor lifestyle choices and that I have issue with. Im not for telling people what they can and cant eat, but Im definitely for people being responsible for the choices that lead them to their fate as opposed to Mugzi Q taxpayer.

Different definitions of Conservatism I guess, you just support a socially conservative use of a large federal government while I use conservatism to mean a position supporting small government. It's cool a lot of you neo-cons make that mistake, hope you know that your whole political movement was started by a liberal...

And seriously socialist? Are you confusing my with Rich or Wingo or something? Yeah, I'm pro-abortion but my refusal to accept the federal governments "right" to control a life decision so mind-blowingly massive as having a child makes me somehow not a small government guy? On foreign policy I don't support blowing ludicrous amounts of taxpayer dollars on local grievances half a world away and that somehow makes me not a supporter of small government? And the economy? Didn't you support Bush on the TARP? I might be mistaken on that but if so STFU about this you're a conservative crap. All you're conservative on is your morality, not your politics, conservatism revolves around a belief in small government and personal responsibility which entails the freedom to **** up and be held responsible for it, I ask you to find a single instance where I haven't represented that philosophy without my tongue being pressed firmly to the inside of my cheek? Seriously dude, you're a big government guy who just wants the government to serve a different function than Wingo, other than that you are also a supporter of big government.

Even on the drug issue, I completely agree that it is sick that there are drugs out there that can help people that those people don't have access to. But the solution isn't more government, it's to work down the fda process which currently serves primarily as a barrier for a new drug developers to compete with the established drug manufacturers who are able to not only get their drugs through the FDA quicker, but also have the capital to afford the long term investment that drug development is. That lack of competition and crazy cost of development is what keeps those drugs out of peoples hands and in a country where most people can do a google search to see the trial results of a drug on their phones that's sick. The problem is that to do that without sacrificing cost you need the cost of fraud to be insanely high.

I've gotta go but if there's stuff that I've missed I'll get back to it when i get the chance.

[seren]

Nope, not calling americans idiots...actually, reading your post you seem to be the one suggesting americans are idiots by implicating that they need a doctor to tell them that stuffing candy into their kids mouths isn't healthy. I was talking specifically about the issue of obesity since it's one of the biggest issues affecting life expectancy stats in the US. Obesity is a personal responsibility issue even when talking about kids because as a parent that child is your responsibility, if you are ignorant of what constitutes unhealthy food in the age of the internet that is a level of incompetence that is beyond help. It's the sign of people who've made a decision, consciously or not, that thye just don't care about living longer and their health and there's nothing you or I can do for them until they make a conscious decision to the contrary.

Since you seem so intent to paint as a snooty euro lets talk about my own **** decision making ability. I'm a smoker, I smoke a pack a day and have done so for the past 4 years, likely will do so for at least the next 4 years, that's an unhealthy decision that no amount of healthcare would talk me out of, I'm more than well aware of what a **** decision for my health this could be, and yet for me it's worth it. Would it be anything other than immoral to force anyone to pay for me if end up with lung cancer in 30 years?

Your health issues would surely start after aged 65 where you will have Medicare. Meaning all your untreated health problems, including the inevitable respiratory issues you will face by that time will skyrocket your contributions to the health care costs. I would rather have you on the system earlier so that you contribute to the system much early and we at least recoup some of the money. So unless you voluntarily reject to go to doctor and use your medicare, you will be a burden.

That is another fun fact about our super-duper health care system. Insurance companies get all the goodies, ie healthy individuals who are able, and dump all the costly ones on taxpayers ie elderly and disabled.

[mugzi]

Different definitions of Conservatism I guess, you just support a socially conservative use of a large federal government while I use conservatism to mean a position supporting small government. It's cool a lot of you neo-cons make that mistake, hope you know that your whole political movement was started by a liberal...

And seriously socialist? Are you confusing my with Rich or Wingo or something? Yeah, I'm pro-abortion but my refusal to accept the federal governments "right" to control a life decision so mind-blowingly massive as having a child makes me somehow not a small government guy? On foreign policy I don't support blowing ludicrous amounts of taxpayer dollars on local grievances half a world away and that somehow makes me not a supporter of small government? And the economy? Didn't you support Bush on the TARP? I might be mistaken on that but if so STFU about this you're a conservative crap. All you're conservative on is your morality, not your politics, conservatism revolves around a belief in small government and personal responsibility which entails the freedom to **** up and be held responsible for it, I ask you to find a single instance where I haven't represented that philosophy without my tongue being pressed firmly to the inside of my cheek? Seriously dude, you're a big government guy who just wants the government to serve a different function than Wingo, other than that you are also a supporter of big government.

Even on the drug issue, I completely agree that it is sick that there are drugs out there that can help people that those people don't have access to. But the solution isn't more government, it's to work down the fda process which currently serves primarily as a barrier for a new drug developers to compete with the established drug manufacturers who are able to not only get their drugs through the FDA quicker, but also have the capital to afford the long term investment that drug development is. That lack of competition and crazy cost of development is what keeps those drugs out of peoples hands and in a country where most people can do a google search to see the trial results of a drug on their phones that's sick. The problem is that to do that without sacrificing cost you need the cost of fraud to be insanely high.

I've gotta go but if there's stuff that I've missed I'll get back to it when i get the chance.

I dont think your memory is working regarding where I stand on the issues.

Im far from a neo-con. Neo-cons are the light beer of conservatives. I dont believe in bipartisanship at all. I never supported TARP, working in finance for a number of years I knew that the banks had themselves to blame for their rapacious behavior and I wanted them to fail. I dont care if the financial system temporarily collapsed because it would have come back by now, better and stronger than prior imo.

I dont vote, I dont do jury duty, Ive never taken social security, disability, unemployment or any other big govt handout. As far as Im concrened if I had my way Id shrink the government as much as possible without hurting the military, but Id downright eliminate dozens of departments if I had my druthers. So other than keeping our country safe from enemies foreign and domestic and securing our borders there's really nothing else I want or need from this government. I want them to stay out of my life-period. If thats not an argument for smaller govt, idk what is.

You may have some semblance of conservative ideals but you arent one. And I dont care if you want to make it out to be socially, fiscally, etc. I havent talked to you in a while on this thread so my memory may not be perfect but I do recall you espousing some liberal talking points.

Maybe your more of the libertarian type, but to me thats just another way of saying, Im a moderate with some liberal and conservative viewpoints.

Regardless, I dont think we disagree regarding the pharma issue, I do think the FDA is a huge impediment to cost and development of life saving medicines.

But I do believe that we are locked in an ideological struggle with Islam. And not radical Islam, because there really isnt a difference to me. Even the so called moderates cant be trusted. I dont trust them, nor do I want their way of life to poison this great constitutional republic. Ultimtaely, they need to stop their practice of TAQUIYA ie lying to non-believers to further their quest for jihad or their caliphate or whatever they want to impose on the rest of the world and join the 21st century and leave the 7th century behind.

I wouldnt have went to war, I would have told the whole lot of them {Iraq, Iran, Afghanastan, Yemen, Somalia, Syria, etc.} that they have 1 year to get the people that commit acts of terrorism in custody or under control otherwise they would be carpet bombed with nukes. But hey thats me. We havent had a president drop a nuke in 66 years, I guess ww2 was a greater existential threat to our safety than radical Islam, but in time we'll learn the hard way that this threat is just as grave.

[ewingxmanstarks]

Seren: I don't need to reference any source to state my case....I base my arguments on well known fact....on top of that I also can formulate theories that don't go against the facts, but can not be mistaken for fact...supply and demand basic arguments definitely apply to HC...only way supply and demand don't dictate pricing is with artificial pricing, unless gov controls every aspect of HC including setting price....the markets is going to cause prices higher as demand and service goes higher...that is fact that cannot be refuted...All of the data u guys show while can be used to build a case against the status quo is data that not only can be refuted, but ur coming up with assumptions as to why the data reflects what it does, which is fine as long as u understand that...I believe life expectancy rates are complicated in it by itself...Not only is the data easy to manipulate, but there is an incredible amount of different explanations as to why the data indicates what it does...HC is a complex issue where there are no easy facts that prove one side right or wrong....all the consequences for radically changing the system are next to impossible to identify....Fact again stimulating demand and lowering supply will lead to higher demand in a free market system....fact as of now our HC institutions have the largest Market Caps out any of the worlds institutions...Fact this country imports more supply under the current system than any nation in the world...our systems is not perfect but has produced the best most expedient treatment in the world imo...lack of HC is not an systematic epidemic emergency in this country, there are ppl that slip through the cracks and the system could be improved, but everyone has access to necessary care, and most ppl that receive insurance are happy with the service....Universal HC lowering quantitative cost, improving quality, and abundance is grounded in utopian philosophy

[ewingxmanstarks]

Seren my background is in Finance also...what u said I refuted and explained why...u dismissed what I said, as well as went against hard facts...in some case both of us are theorizing, but laws of economics apply not only when convenient...Ill be back later

Which hard facts are you referring to? All your arguments were about things you can not quantify. You provided not one statistic showing that our health care system is more efficient or provides better health to American population compared to other countries.

Laws of economics are very well defined. It is just that you do not understand them well. It is not about convenience. Let me simplify things for you:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfect_competition

Here are the conditions to have perfect competition (ie the only situation where law of demand and supply works perfectly):

* Infinite buyers and sellers – Infinite consumers with the willingness and ability to buy the product at a certain price, and infinite producers with the willingness and ability to supply the product at a certain price.
* Zero entry and exit barriers – It is relatively easy for a business to enter or exit in a perfectly competitive market.
* Perfect factor mobility - In the long run factors of production are perfectly mobile allowing free long term adjustments to changing market conditions.
* Perfect information - Prices and quality of products are assumed to be known to all consumers and producers.[1]
* Zero transaction costs - Buyers and sellers incur no costs in making an exchange (perfect mobility).[1]
* Profit maximization - Firms aim to sell where marginal costs meet marginal revenue, where they generate the most profit.
* Homogeneous products – The characteristics of any given market good or service do not vary across suppliers.
* Non-increasing returns to scale - Non-increasing returns to scale ensure that there are sufficient firms in the industry.[2]


Here are the differences in the health care market that result the price not being a product of demand/supply:

1) Infinite buyers and sellers. You do not have infinite suppliers. In fact, you do not have even enough suppliers to make it a monopolistic competition. In any given market, what you have is either few suppliers or one.

Theoretically an infinite number of doctors can get certification and compete as doctors actually the more diverse the supply chain, the more competition, the less likely monopolies take form.

same thing with insurance companies< the more competision the less of a chance for collusion

2) Zero entry and exit barriers. This guarantees prices to go down when there is profits to be made via new suppliers entering the market. We can't have this unless you are willing to get rid of the requirement to have a diploma to be a doctor, pharmacist etc. There are barriers to entry and for good reasons.
As soon as docors are faced with more competion that can provide the service they provide<, their skills become less unique causing the premeum on their service to decrease, medical diplomas are irrelevent...more ppl can get medical lisences

3) Perfect factor mobility. Each individual state have its own set of rules when it comes to insurance market, doctors etc which prevents this to happen.
i agree this is an impitus to the free markets but doesn't change the laws of suppy and demand , nut it effects suppy in particular
4) Perfect information. This is one of the key aspects of why insurance markets fail, why doctors can price discriminate etc. The simple fact is the good that is to be bought/sold in the health care market is not well-defined. Parties do not know what is being sold, the quality etc.
doctors are selling a service, medicine is a tangable asset sold, insurance companies provide the service of dealling as an intermediate btween patcient and docor or patient and drug company..all can be collectively assesed as well as individually...
5) Non-increasing returns to scale. Another key element of why health care markets can not simply follow the rules of demand/supply. You have increasing returns to scale in almost all segments, rather it be the pharma industry, insurance industry, or hospitals.
returns are more complicated than setting price because of the fluidity of demand, ever changing policys, industrial attachment. litigationation, and so on...the law of supply and demand remains grounded throughout, supply and demend is affected in different ways because this a uniuqe industry, but as long as there are strands of a free market system the supply and demand effect won't cease to exsist

Again, it is not about picking and choosing. It is simply understanding economics.

Just saw this...I don't think ur quailified to acess my knowledge of economics based on our debate...t