Brad Daw and John Dougall's My View, "Treat health care like free-market business" (Dec. 31), makes some good points about the benefits of a free-market system.

I agree that the free-market has proven to be an economic system that often results in innovation and progress, often at the lowest, competitive price. Furthermore, the current health-care system is sick, as medical costs continue to increase at astronomic rates while insurance coverage gets worse and worse.

And though health care in the United States is not state-run (like many of the more socialist national health-care programs in Canada and much of Europe), it is highly regulated. In addition to this government intervention, large pharmaceutical conglomerates and health-care insurance providers have a great deal of political influence, via special interest lobbying dollars and political action committee sway.

It is an interesting idea to get rid of the government regulation, thus allowing for free-market competitive forces to work their magic, in addition to limiting the political influence of corporate health care. But let us not be too hasty in jumping on this bandwagon. Be sure to remember why all of that government regulation is in place — largely to protect the consumer.

The free-market idea fails to acknowledge the large low-income population that has significant access-to-health-care issues. If a 100 percent free-market approach really worked, prices would presumably come down, making health care more affordable to the poor. Reducing costs would be a start, but cost is not the only access issue for the poor. Low socioeconomic individuals face a slew of challenges in regard to getting quality health care.

Additionally, the authors state, "the Internet can bring a wealth of reliable and easy-to-understand information into the consumer's home. As a person becomes more educated and more aware of health-care issues, he or she may even be motivated to live a healthier lifestyle." A purely free-market approach would provide an opportunity for increased consumer education and empowerment, if not require it, and low socioeconomic status individuals would be at a distinct disadvantage. Generally speaking, low socioeconomic status individuals are less educated and less likely to be able to understand the complex information available. Furthermore, we should not assume that resources like the Internet will be equally available to those struggling to make ends meet.

A free-market system, with the "survival of the fittest" mentality, is great for progress, but what about those who aren't the fittest? This does not just apply to businesses but to consumers. Don't we have a responsibility to at least attempt to take care of those less fortunate and provide more equality in access and opportunity for quality health care?

Though a free-market system has its own merits, I don't believe it is the answer to the national health-care dilemma. I believe the real issue at the heart of the problem is the vast political influence of large pharmaceutical conglomerates and health-care-insurance providers. We don't need to shift focus more toward accommodating big business but rather toward protecting us, the consumer. Only when this shift in public policy is made will meaningful change in the health-care system be possible.

---

Jonathan Westover is a doctoral student in sociology at the University of Utah.