How to Fix Health Care: Lasik Surgery For The Medical Debate
Make no mistake about it. Health care reform is coming. But what’s the best way to fix our health care system, which is an inefficient, complicated mess of private actors, third-party payers, public subsidies, and innumerable state and federal regulations? Should we place our faith in the government or in the free market? obamacare supporters argue that the answer lies in more government—more subsidies, more regulations, a law mandating individuals buy health-insurance coverage and, of course, more taxes to pay for it all. The alternative is to base reforms on what works in the other five-sixths of the US economy, where choice and competition increase quality and drive down prices over time. Can a market-based health care system work? We can begin to answer this question by looking at Lasik, a medical procedure that’s not covered by health insurance. And has gotten better—and cheaper—over time. “How to Fix Health Care” proposes three simple reforms that will put us on a path to a health-care system that’s better, more affordable, and more accessible. And get this—these market-based reforms can be implemented without creating new government programs or raising taxes. Approximately 8.30 minutes. Produced by Paul Feine and Meredith Bragg. Hosted by Nick Gillespie. For downloadable versions of this and other videos, go to reason.tv
there’s a market for it. If no one wanted insurance it wouldn’t exist. It’s only when the government got involved that it became a problem.
Companies that make those drugs that cause more illness than the disease get the pants sued off of them. Also, it’s hard to say that they aren’t justified in charging X price without knowing how much it cost them to research that particular medication. This is cost vs price, and if government were to regulate price control, Big Pharma would go bankrupt because they would have to sell the medication for less than it cost to develop it.
I know you said you had to go, but I was looking back at our discussion and while reading this I thought of another point.
The free market wouldn’t help those who couldn’t afford expensive health care, but there are plenty private non-for-profit organizations that would be able to assist. Just look at how much money is raised for breast cancer by NFP non-government organizations.
Thank you, it was very stimulating. I’d love to pick up when you have the time, perhaps in a private message as not to hog the channel
From the standpoint of a monopoly, you’re right. If there was one huge pharma company out there your logic would make sense. I don’t know how many times I have to say that free market competition keeps this in check.
I never claimed cheaper and more efficient.. and i’m not suggesting government controlled health care… I’m suggesting government funded research, rather than big business research that only cares about profits…
I’ve had a good conversation here, but i’ve got to get going. You have some good points, which I dont entirely disagree with.. but I think there has to be more than just a Free-market health industry..
Thanks for the intelligent conversation
I challenge you to find an industry that runs cheaper and more efficiently due to government regulation.
right.. i understand how supply and demand works..
I’m simply saying that it is bad business to eliminate the residual income generated on treating an illness rather than curing it… History has shown that big business doesnt care about the well-being of the american people.. big pharma companies dont create treatments because they care about peoples lives.. they create treatments because they can then make money off those treatments… So therefor why would they have any incentive to cure..
Once again I would point you into the direction of competing businesses releasing the cure purely to crush their competition. Sure most couldn’t afford it at first, that’s how all tech starts out. However it’s the rich purchasing that product that funds the research needed to discover ways to make it cheaper.
The government could never be as or more efficient than a private company.
i’m not saying that the cure is there.. i’m saying that its cheaper for the pharma company to find a treatment for those illness’ rather than spending the large amount of money on finding a cure.
Why would they market a cure? In order for it to be profitable they would have to charge an outrageous amount of money which no one could afford anyhow, and once the cure is out there the profit game is over… once you cure someone there is no residual income on the treatment of that disease..
1. You make it sound like they have the cure already but they’re treating the illness to bleed the patient financially. there’s no proof of that, only speculation.
2. If that were the case, a competing pharmaceutical company could market the actual cure to crush their competition.
3. Treatment isn’t keeping them sick, and if it is, then the sick are idiots for paying a doctor to keep them sick.
It sounds like your’e under the impression that private hospitals prey on the sick and injured.
care to elaborate on the statements i made about big-pharma being a for profit business? I mean c’mon.. some of the medications they make cause more illness than the actual disease they are trying to treat… and they charge an outrageous price for it too.
That is because it has gotten to the point where they have no regulation, and make more money off treating sick people than curing them.
set up a section of government that funds medical research… Similar to our government funded military research.. Which pays for medical research.. and not on simple treatments for these problems but cures..
Farmers and food stores dont deny people food.
Pharmaceutical companies create treatments not cures because there is more money in the treatment of an illness rather than curing that illness. If you could charge someone $20 a pill at a two pills a day for the rest of someones life, rather than curing the problem, that would be far more profitable.
That is the reason I dont believe in a for-profit health care. Because theres no money in making them better.. There is in keeping them sick..
Like I said before, the denial of coverage rate is low, and I think that with the information flow we have in todays world it would be really easy for someone to make a website dedicated to finding you an insurance company that would accept you, shortening the inconvenience of finding another health insurance company.
someone dropped due to medical problems at one company would have to then go through the lengthy process of applying to another insurance company and hoping that the reasons they were dropped dont play any part on them getting accepted into another insurance provider…
There can’t just be cost reform.. there has to be more. such as some government regulation that states that a person will an illness can not be denied coverage..
Why shouldn’t it be a for-profit industry? That’s what drives competition and almost all of the technology research to develop new cures. Without those incentives we wouldn’t be as advanced as we are today. Also we need food to live and be healthy, are you saying that farmers and stores that sell food shouldn’t be for profit either?
most private insurance companies have a very low denial of coverage rate, and if able to shop on a nationwide level, the pre-existee would be more likely to find an insurance company that would take them in.
I dont see the idea that peoples lives and health should be a for-profit industry. When a business needs to make a profit it will cut costs to increase the profit margin, which in the case of health care means denial of coverage and dropping those that become to expensive to cover…
Are you talking free market within insurance companies, or without insurance companies?
Because free market with insurance companies will only solve the problem of lower costs.. It will not solve the problems of denial of coverage (pre existing conditions)
Free market would work in a perfect world, but how would free market help those that need massive surgeries such as triple bi-pass surgeries? Those types of treatments would still be outrageously priced and only available to the rich.
But you do understand that through free market competition the price of medical care will decrease, correct?
I don’t think that alcoholism is related to the poor at all, it’s prevalent in all economic classes. Also just because they can’t afford health insurance doesn’t mean they aren’t healthy. I’m pretty sure a cancer patient is going to be pretty freaking sick whether they are wealthy or not. I’d also say that drug abuse is also not limited to the poor, as many drugs aren’t affordable to them.
The sickest people in america are the poorest because they cant afford health insurance, health care, medication, proper nutrition… on top of that its a fact that there is more alcoholism, and drug abuse related with the poorest 10% of the population, which causes its own health risks… so yeah… the sickest people are the poorest…
That doesn’t makes sense. Isn’t it obvious that through free market competition the price of health care would go down, making it more affordable to poorer people? Also what evidence is there that the sickest people in America are the poorest? Somehow rich people have better immune systems? That sounds pretty far fetched.