• musclemecca bodybuilding forums does not sell or endorse any bodybuilding gear, products or supplements.
    Musclemecca has no affiliation with advertisers; they simply purchase advertising space here. If you have questions go to their site and ask them directly.
    Advertisers are responsible for the content in their forums.
    DO NOT SELL ILLEGAL PRODUCTS ON OUR FORUM

Walmart emerging into healthcare

Ironslave

Ironslave

Mecca V.I.P.
VIP
Joined
Jul 12, 2006
Messages
4,107
Points
38
Capitalism ftw coolsanta

It is easy to criticize the US healthcare system, but we should be clear on one thing: it is not "free market" or "private" healthcare. A free market in healthcare would be more efficient and innovative, and offer better quality products and services, with lower prices than is currently the case.

In addition to the US government's obvious socialist interventions with programs such as Medicare and Medicaid, there are a multitude of other measures that hinder innovation in healthcare — and we can expect only increased involvement under ObamaCare.

While socialists point to the "failures" of the US healthcare system and, by some magical feat of legerdemain that merely exposes their (economic) ignorance, attribute it to the "free market," it is crucial for Austrolibertarians to point out the absurdity of this false reasoning.

For example, the US government accounted for over 45% of all US healthcare expenditures in 2006; it spends almost 20% of GDP on healthcare; indeed, it spends more per capita than any other OECD country (see Figure 1), including those with socialist, government-funded healthcare. In short, this is not a free market.


We can quickly list a few of the myriad government and other regulatory programs that keep prices high and stifle innovation: the Center for Disease Control and Prevention, the Food and Drug Administration, the American Medical Association, the United States Department of Health and Human Services, etc. One reason healthcare costs are so high is because the industry is subsidized; and one reason government intervention only grows is because you can expect more of anything that is subsidized. Doctors and physicians raise their prices on those paying privately to cover those who do not pay, i.e., those the government pays for through theft, a.k.a. taxes. Government is a poor individual's (and everyone's) worst enemy, or at least should be when recognized for what it is and does. Fortunately, there are entrepreneurs who compete in the healthcare industry, despite government's attempts to hinder competition.
Wal-Mart and Healthcare

Private companies that are allowed to do business without government intervention (and without being granted a government-sanctioned monopoly) must offer better-quality services or lower prices to continue to attract customers. One example of a company that consistently offers both better-quality products and services and lower prices is Wal-Mart. Even Wal-Mart's critics typically agree that it is always about low prices.

Indeed, many governments have issued antitrust cases against Wal-Mart for charging too low a price (so-called "predatory pricing"). Because of the threat of antitrust prosecution — and especially given that antitrust laws are so vaguely defined — businesses are more fearful of taking on risk, and less efficient in serving the consumer.

Fortunately, however, Wal-Mart has continued to grow and has recently ventured into the healthcare market.[1] While the US government adds more bureaucracy and money to the healthcare situation, private companies such as Wal-Mart are innovating and bringing the blessings of healthcare to many. Wal-Mart has given access to lower-priced, affordable products to "poor" and millions of uninsured individuals. They are the world's largest (private) employer, with over two million employees serving over 200 million customers a year. Sam Walton should receive a Nobel Peace Prize for his efforts, which have lifted millions out of poverty, and continue to do so.

Wal-Mart now offers walk-in, inexpensive healthcare services by leasing store space to private health clinics. This service, combined with an in-store pharmacy that offers $4 prescriptions, will offer these services to millions of people, and there is no requirement to have health insurance. Consider this: Wal-Mart's $4 prescription program has saved customers over $1 billion dollars since its inception. Prices are a flat fee of around $45 per visit, and are well advertised, i.e., there is no guess work, and price transparency exists. Contrast this with a typical doctor's visit where you might not know what you are paying until three months later.

From Wal-Mart's website, we read the following:

Our retail clinics are an especially valuable resource for individuals without health insurance. Nearly half of all clinic patients report that they are uninsured. Many visitors have said that if it were not for our clinics, they wouldn't have gotten care — or they would've had to go to an emergency room. By visiting one of our clinics, patients receive the care they need and at the same time reduce overcrowding in emergency rooms and eliminate the costs of unnecessary hospital visits. (Emphasis added.)

There are significant effects and benefits that can be attributed to Wal-Mart's innovation in healthcare services. For example, Wal-Mart offers faster service and treats common illnesses, fostering a greater specialization and division of labor. This will allow doctors to specialize in more complex problems; and yet some physicians are (correctly) worried since they will have to struggle to compete with Wal-Mart's healthcare. Most physicians earn their revenue from "quick" visits — the "simpler" the illness, the quicker the visit — which means more customers, and more revenue. Wal-Mart will now be treating those patients and receiving revenue from customers, which formerly would have gone to physicians.

Similarly, the AMA cartel could receive a "prescription" from Wal-Mart on learning how to foster innovation, as opposed to stagnation, to maintain relevance. Other organizations, such as the American Academy of Pediatrics, instead of attempting to compete, intransigently and stubbornly cling to their antediluvian practices by merely writing position papers opposing retail clinics such as Wal-Mart.

Indeed, almost any healthcare service will have to lower its prices to compete with Wal-Mart. Competition will likely increase and there will be more healthcare and retail clinics that offer similar services at competitive prices. The more profits that Wal-Mart obtains through this service, the more competition there will likely be to strive for a portion of consumer's money — thus we see the important function of profits in the economy. Typical public opinion has the causal link exactly backwards: the more profits a company earns (in a free market), the better it is serving its consumers, i.e., the more they are demanding its services. They should be exalted for their efforts (and profits), not condemned.

In the spirit of competition, self-interested entrepreneurs will strive to serve the consumer better than their rivals. This will result in more affordable healthcare for more people — something the government could never achieve, regardless of any mixture of force, money, and bureaucracy; in fact, any government intervention will only stifle this "healthy" process.

The market, to the extent it is able to work freely, would lower healthcare prices while increasing quality; to the extent that government is involved, expect higher-priced and lower-quality services — and more bureaucracy. Wal-Mart and other retail clinics have raised the bar for competitors by lowering costs and innovating. In a world where government power is growing and seizing — and ceasing — liberty, and suppressing innovation that takes place in a free market, private companies such as Wal-Mart that continue to take risks and innovate provide hope for the future.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Duality

Duality

Mecca V.I.P.
VIP
Joined
Feb 14, 2008
Messages
3,429
Points
38
it's stuff like this that has always made me wonder, why the hell do people think walmart is bad? i made that thread a little while back and no one could give me an answer. this seems like a good thing for those too poor to afford the alternative.
 
R

Ryeland

Mecca V.I.P.
VIP
Joined
Oct 1, 2006
Messages
490
Points
16
This is an interesting move on walmart's part. It's good to see that they are adopting a transparent and affordable health care option. Competition can do good in a free market.

However the writer of the article ruins a possibly fantastic opportunity to explain health care economics with his tired political rhetoric. The author loses some credibility when his argument reduces to "free market good, socialism bad". A "free market" does not guarantee that there is not price fixing or artificially inflated prices. Sharp, Samsung, LG and a few other manufacturers were just busted for fixing the price of LCD panels and this is a "free" and competitive market. Gas prices are also another suspicious example of how they are always within the same range of price.

A deregulated market is not always to the customers advantage. The industry is not always doing what's best for the customer. A free market does not guarantee that the best service will come about for the best price. Usually a free market works, and beautifully. Monopolies are bad, but left to its own devices the market can create monopolistic corporation.

Granted I think that competition could be great for the health care industry. Reducing costs, increasing efficiency and quality are great things. However I would just like to make sure that everyone has access to affordable health-care.
 
Ironslave

Ironslave

Mecca V.I.P.
VIP
Joined
Jul 12, 2006
Messages
4,107
Points
38
it's stuff like this that has always made me wonder, why the hell do people think walmart is bad? i made that thread a little while back and no one could give me an answer. this seems like a good thing for those too poor to afford the alternative.

I think it has to do with resentment of what it does for local small businesses. They cannot compete with Walmart and cannot provide products at nearly as low a price. Furthermore the fact that it has so many products across seemly every conceivable field in one place also makes it less likely that consumers will shop at 'specialty' stores. Perhaps even bigger is that much of the profits are shipped "out of the community", as many of the products are made in China and other places where they can be made much cheaper. So, which little doubt exists that it hurts small businesses, it helps everyone else. I see the merit in opposition to it, but really, I agree with you, I find it difficult to dislike Walmart for running such an efficient business.



However the writer of the article ruins a possibly fantastic opportunity to explain health care economics with his tired political rhetoric. The author loses some credibility when his argument reduces to "free market good, socialism bad". A "free market" does not guarantee that there is not price fixing or artificially inflated prices. Sharp, Samsung, LG and a few other manufacturers were just busted for fixing the price of LCD panels and this is a "free" and competitive market. Gas prices are also another suspicious example of how they are always within the same range of price.

A deregulated market is not always to the customers advantage. The industry is not always doing what's best for the customer. A free market does not guarantee that the best service will come about for the best price. Usually a free market works, and beautifully. Monopolies are bad, but left to its own devices the market can create monopolistic corporation.

Granted I think that competition could be great for the health care industry. Reducing costs, increasing efficiency and quality are great things. However I would just like to make sure that everyone has access to affordable health-care.

Good points, I always like the way you present things. Basically with these arguments, a person's underlying sense of morals is always going to be the main argument.

I think the argument between those who favor any form of socialized healthcare and libertarian capitalists is something like this:

Those in the socialized care group think healthcare isn't quite like other industries, as they feel healthcare is a basic right, and everybody should be able to get it. Granted, it might not be the absolute most efficient, and the rich will pay a lot more through taxes to fund it.

The capitalist views think that a pure free market system in healthcare is like any other industry. They dislike the fact that people are paying for services they might use, and think that it would actually be much cheaper for the vast majority of people from high, middle and low socioeconomic classes. A lot of it has to do with supply and demand (less people abusing the system in a free market, thus less demand means less price). They also think that it will allow more competition, lower prices and such. Although, they acknowledge that some people would be left out in the cold. This is an unfortunate issue that would mostly affect 1) the extremely poor, not just those who contribute nothing to society, but also those with mental illness, and so on..... and 2) Those with chronic diseases who would have to frequently use the system for expensive treatment (ie, I have a cousin who was born with a birth defect, he has literally had 19 brain surgeries).

It boils down to what view you adhere to, regardless of what may be "better" or "fair".

I didn't hear about the price fixing between computer companies, though it's possible. (Gas prices are largely different, do a search for a thread started by Braaq, he posted a great article on this once). I suppose it's possible that companies would do this, but that just opens a window for another company to gain prominence and surpass them. That is the thing about the free market model, it always assumes another company comes and provides a better product at a lower price, and they are always competing. This isn't always the case, but what is always the case is the opportunity for this to happen.
 
bambam55

bambam55

Mecca V.I.P.
VIP
Joined
Nov 29, 2006
Messages
1,275
Points
38
I'm with you all the way on this one IronSlave
 
Samoan-Z

Samoan-Z

Mecca V.I.P.
VIP
Joined
Oct 5, 2008
Messages
3,132
Points
48
That is absolutely true you can buy ANYTHING at walmart from female vibrators to guns to steaks cut and packaged THAT day.
 
Hypocrisy86

Hypocrisy86

Mecca V.I.P.
VIP
Joined
Jul 13, 2006
Messages
15,138
Points
48
You can't buy love at wal-mart :tear:
 
Duality

Duality

Mecca V.I.P.
VIP
Joined
Feb 14, 2008
Messages
3,429
Points
38
where's tech and his hippie opinion as to why walmart is bad :wutyousay:??? lol



i know he mentioned before he doesn't like them, braaq too.
 

MuscleMecca Crew

Mecca Staff
Ironslave

Ironslave

Mecca V.I.P.
VIP
Joined
Jul 12, 2006
Messages
4,107
Points
38
where's tech and his hippie opinion as to why walmart is bad :wutyousay:??? lol

i know he mentioned before he doesn't like them, braaq too.

Again, there's merit to resentment against Walmart. I just think it's too bad though that American industries can't come close to mass producing quality goods like the Chinese at anywhere near the price. This would definitely cut down on the Walmart hate which is there.

I'm not sure why they dislike it, or if they even do, so I can't comment.
 
Samoan-Z

Samoan-Z

Mecca V.I.P.
VIP
Joined
Oct 5, 2008
Messages
3,132
Points
48
I love walmart, I can drive down to the walmart in my home town bu clothes, grocheries, shoes, new electronics all in the same place.
 
Duality

Duality

Mecca V.I.P.
VIP
Joined
Feb 14, 2008
Messages
3,429
Points
38
That is absolutely true you can buy ANYTHING at walmart from female vibrators to guns to steaks cut and packaged THAT day.

Orginally posted by Samoan-Z
I love walmart, I can drive down to the walmart in my home town bu clothes, grocheries, shoes, new electronics all in the same place.


department of redundancy department
 
R

Ryeland

Mecca V.I.P.
VIP
Joined
Oct 1, 2006
Messages
490
Points
16
Good points, I always like the way you present things. Basically with these arguments, a person's underlying sense of morals is always going to be the main argument.

I think the argument between those who favor any form of socialized healthcare and libertarian capitalists is something like this:

Those in the socialized care group think healthcare isn't quite like other industries, as they feel healthcare is a basic right, and everybody should be able to get it. Granted, it might not be the absolute most efficient, and the rich will pay a lot more through taxes to fund it.

The capitalist views think that a pure free market system in healthcare is like any other industry. They dislike the fact that people are paying for services they might use, and think that it would actually be much cheaper for the vast majority of people from high, middle and low socioeconomic classes. A lot of it has to do with supply and demand (less people abusing the system in a free market, thus less demand means less price). They also think that it will allow more competition, lower prices and such. Although, they acknowledge that some people would be left out in the cold. This is an unfortunate issue that would mostly affect 1) the extremely poor, not just those who contribute nothing to society, but also those with mental illness, and so on..... and 2) Those with chronic diseases who would have to frequently use the system for expensive treatment (ie, I have a cousin who was born with a birth defect, he has literally had 19 brain surgeries).

It boils down to what view you adhere to, regardless of what may be "better" or "fair".

I didn't hear about the price fixing between computer companies, though it's possible. (Gas prices are largely different, do a search for a thread started by Braaq, he posted a great article on this once). I suppose it's possible that companies would do this, but that just opens a window for another company to gain prominence and surpass them. That is the thing about the free market model, it always assumes another company comes and provides a better product at a lower price, and they are always competing. This isn't always the case, but what is always the case is the opportunity for this to happen.

Excellent post sir!

I agree it does depend a lot on a person's view point. It is my viewpoint that all people should have access to health that is going to keep them alive. People who are born with chronic diseases or birth defects really do get the short end of the stick. I would like to help those people. That's just me. But I don't really see the difference to be honest with you. When you pay into and insurance policy you are getting the same basic premise. Everyone puts in and only a few really benefit. Health care is a tough nut to crack, no doubt about it. When it comes to health care, my view is that if i have the money to help, I will. Thats just me.

As far as the TV manufacturers go, that's a different story. The weird part is that sharp, LG and samsung already made the cheaper TV's than your Sony, Panasonic and Toshiba's. There will always need to be some regulation to make sure that shit doesn't happen. But minimal regulation is the key.

The gas industry was a bad choice of an example on my part. That system is so complex that its hard to judge.
 
Bulkboy

Bulkboy

Mecca V.I.P.
VIP
Joined
Oct 22, 2006
Messages
4,196
Points
0
This is an interesting move on walmart's part. It's good to see that they are adopting a transparent and affordable health care option. Competition can do good in a free market.

However the writer of the article ruins a possibly fantastic opportunity to explain health care economics with his tired political rhetoric. The author loses some credibility when his argument reduces to "free market good, socialism bad". A "free market" does not guarantee that there is not price fixing or artificially inflated prices. Sharp, Samsung, LG and a few other manufacturers were just busted for fixing the price of LCD panels and this is a "free" and competitive market. Gas prices are also another suspicious example of how they are always within the same range of price.

A deregulated market is not always to the customers advantage. The industry is not always doing what's best for the customer. A free market does not guarantee that the best service will come about for the best price. Usually a free market works, and beautifully. Monopolies are bad, but left to its own devices the market can create monopolistic corporation.

Granted I think that competition could be great for the health care industry. Reducing costs, increasing efficiency and quality are great things. However I would just like to make sure that everyone has access to affordable health-care.

great post:2: why arent u debating him IS? this clashes with ur ideology of letting the market take care of everything, and having no regulation whatsoever? ure always up for debating me about this when i say anything of the sort.
 
Ironslave

Ironslave

Mecca V.I.P.
VIP
Joined
Jul 12, 2006
Messages
4,107
Points
38
great post:2: why arent u debating him IS? this clashes with ur ideology of letting the market take care of everything, and having no regulation whatsoever? ure always up for debating me about this when i say anything of the sort.

I kind of did? I acknowledged that it ultimately comes down to ones underlying values, that can't be debated.
 
R

Ryeland

Mecca V.I.P.
VIP
Joined
Oct 1, 2006
Messages
490
Points
16
I kind of did? I acknowledged that it ultimately comes down to ones underlying values, that can't be debated.

We have both presented our arguments already. IS is right, debating personal values often doesn't go anywhere and neither of us is right in that arena anyways.
 
Ironslave

Ironslave

Mecca V.I.P.
VIP
Joined
Jul 12, 2006
Messages
4,107
Points
38
Ryeland also isn't too stubborn to ignore piles and piles of evidence that may contradict his claims, unlike some. He hasn't been clearly wrong on anything, but if he was, I'm sure he wouldn't stick to his guns and persist with fairy tale claims (deregulation caused the subprime mortgage crisis in America, the free market destroyed Iceland, Japan didn't want to surrender, and so on.) I know you will probably turn around and say the same for me, but you just use rhetoric, and rarely, if ever, present evidence.

Gonna go respond to the other thread now, brb.
 
Tech

Tech

Ron Paul FTW
VIP
Joined
Jul 12, 2006
Messages
4,808
Points
38
where's tech and his hippie opinion as to why walmart is bad :wutyousay:??? lol

i know he mentioned before he doesn't like them, braaq too.
link to post/thread?


yeah. I didn't think so.
 
Duality

Duality

Mecca V.I.P.
VIP
Joined
Feb 14, 2008
Messages
3,429
Points
38
Originally posted by Tech
link to post/thread?


yeah. I didn't think so.




:yarly:


Braaq's response to your post

Originally posted by Braaq
I completely agree Tech, Wal-Mart is destroying america

lol wut?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Top