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
So you make all healthcare costs tax deductible. How much does this remove from the tax coffers. How do you make up that money? What do you do if you are unemployed and get cancer. No job so no tax deduction. With Lasik its optional. I can get glasses if I want. If I have cancer and can’t afford it. What do I do? Healthcare is not “Best Buy”. I can chose if I want a TV or not. I don’t have a choice if I get sick or not.
@inademv
Then is impossible to get insurance for sudden mayor illness or accidents.
So what you can get for your car or home, you cant for your healthcare.
watch?v=3WnS96NVlMI at 3:20
Well, then why the people in that video, have just that?
Why they have insurance for mayor health problems, and health savings accounts for routine care?
Btw, all that is explained in the late part of this very same video you are commenting on, but I suppose some people hear just what they want to hear.
so should i get my lasik now…or wait till the new health care goes into effect?
@lobosolo0333 And that is worthless anecdotal evidence that isn’t supported by statistics on the subject or history.
@inademv … That’s absolute nonsense. In a free market I can choose my doctor. If one tries to jack up the price because I’m in pain, I can go to another. In case you didn’t bother to read the posting, I had the problem fixed because I did go to another doctor who charged me way, way less than the surgery would have cost but fixed it.
@inademv … I think I mentioned that if you read that far.
@lobosolo0333 Except in the free market for that, the doctor can wait until you absolutely need the surgery and then charge what ever they want.
@lobosolo0333 Do that when you are unresponsive
@inademv Actually, a friend of mine was sideswiped by a car while out jogging … three ambulances showed up and he had to choose which hospital he wanted to go to.
Sure, you may not always be in a condition where you can choose but even when an ambulance came to when my father was having chest pains, he told them which hospital to take him to.
And when I’ve gone to the emergency room on my own … I choose the hospital.
@inademv Sure it does. Do you think that when I was face with possible surgery to correct a bulging disc that I just walked into the first neurosurgeon’s office and took his word … and costs … and had the surgery done? Not a chance, I consulted others and was able to correct it with surgery.
@CobraCommander Not if you don’t already have it. Also, the video is not about insurance itself but the cost of the care and its costs. Emergency care is not something that you can shop for.
You cant shop for INSURANCE that covers broken bones or severe infection?
Excellent video! Expert advice! You should upload your video to Ewisdomtv
Elective surgery is something that you shop for, a broken bone or severe infection is not. Free market does not apply to anything beyond elective surgery and preventative care.
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..