Superb analysis. Absolutely right.
Representative King is right, but our problem is really at a more fundamental
level. In capitalism we persist in seeing labor as a commodity. Labor is made
up of people who don't own capital for the most part, and who survive by
selling their sweat. A commodity is something which when rendered obsolete or
worn out is simply cast aside or scrapped. This is what awaits labor, i.e.
human beings. In our masses, if the Ayn Rand followers get their way, we will
be left to die when medical care could have allowed us to last longer. We are
biological beings, not machinery.
Until we take politics out of the healthcare debate and actually analyze the
problem, our solutions will fall short.Look at any hospital bill and
try to make sense out of the charges. It is not possible to connect service
with the associated costs.An astute businessman, unconnected to
politics or the industry itself could make huge improvements.We have
a problem that will bankrupt our country. And yet, we are still more concerned
with politics and profits than fixing it.And no one really wants to
Ya got to sign it to know what it said. Too bad none of the elected read it
We have the most free market oriented healthcare system in the world. We also
have the most expensive and there is no one running a close second. The
difference is no explained by quality. More of the same (free market forces)
will not solve the issue.Is the ACA the answer? Single payer?
Something else? I don't know. But doubling down on market forces does not
seem to be a wise way to go. We need to look at what has been successful
It is NOT the responsibility of the market to make goods and services
affordable. And it is NOT the responsibility of the government to subsidize the
Obama and the Demos like to make us believe they are concerned about the
uninsured in America saying our healthcare is broken. Depending on who you
believe there are about 30 million uninsured persons in America and about half
of them are healthy, younger people who have chosen NOT to have health
insurance. That's less than 5% of the population who can't afford
healthcare insurance and thus the totally manufactured crisis of the uninsured.
For 5% we trashed the entire otherwise very good healthcare system that 95% of
Americans enjoyed and traded it for Obamacare? Obamacare was never about
healthcare, it was entirely about control and it was done with lies, deceptions
and force. It will be interesting to see how American voters will respond to the
Demos in 2016 elections.
Prior to the passage of the ACA we did not a free market, we had healthcare
feudalism. Those folks toiling under a benevolent owner may be allowed the
benefit of "health care" at his or her discretion. The ACA breaks that
employment lock. Those lucky folks working for large operations never really
knew what premiums cost, because they never purchased it themselves. Now they do
as they should! Now that healthcare is an actual right and not analogous to a
"tip" one would courteously leave a good waitress, things are tilting
more to a real market. If everyone has health insurance through some avenue,
then maybe now hospitals would no longer be the only business where by law they
must offer free services ( stabilization care) for those who can't or do
not want to pay. If I were running a business and had to write off free stuff, I
would value the free stuff at maximum accounting value thus driving up on paper
costs. The new risk pool is no longer as large as your employer. It is now 313
million Americans big. Larger pool, lower premiums. Also less public health
hazards now from untreated infectious disease.
"Those proposing to repeal and replace Obamacare must either admit they are
content with current or higher numbers of individuals..."No,
prior to ObamaCare being shoved through congress, there were about a dozen
principles that could have passed both houses with almost a consensus. Rep.
Chaffetz talked about them in his town halls, others did as well. Unlike the Utah legislature, where the Republicans and Democratic members
often work on a consensus, even if one side has the votes, Congress hasn't
done that. Yes ObamaCare should be repealed and replaced. I am not
saying replaced with nothing, I am saying we should do what we should have done
to start with. Take the list that almost everyone agrees needs fixing, such as
Pre-Existing Conditions, competition across state lines, limits of liability,
Agreed.A well thought out, Well reasoned opinion piece.The Free Market, consisting of For-Profit Insurance middlemen created the cost
over runs and problems surfacing in the ACA.The only way to fix it
now is a SINGLE-PAYER non-profit (Government) run system.Just like the
rest of the Free World.
Great column.The socialization of health insurance presents a
serious problem for some defenders of Capitalism, because the free market for
insurance, free of any regulation, tends strongly toward brutal, unsympathetic
Darwinism, survival of the fittest. People with family histories of various
diseases would be monetarily punished and strongly dis-incentivized from
reproducing.The dilemma is most people in America have a moral
framework that guides them, for the majority, Christianity. Jesus would never
go for the brutal Darwinism that Capitalism naturally cultivates, and when it
comes to healthcare, the brutality is magnified.But it doesn't
have to be this way. Just as nobody flinches on the topic of using tax money to
provide education for the children of poor people, there are strong proponents
of Free Enterprise having an exception in their general philosophy, for
healthcare.A recent article on the CEOs of successful Canadian
companies reveals very strong proponents of Capitalism who are mystified that
the US is struggling so much with this issue. To them, healthcare for all is a
common sense economic issue, just like educating children.
Excellent piece. Over the years several Republicans have proposed various
"free market" based solutions to our healthcare problems. Every single
one of these solutions featured mandates for everyone to carry insurance. Go
back and look at Richard Nixon's National Health Program of 1974 to see one
of the first examples. Look at our own Senator's Bennet-Wyden plan for
another.Finally look at the Heritage Foundation plan from the early
nineties for another. That plan is the basis for the ACA, and also for
Romneycare. Republicans supported these ideas up until the day that President
Obama proposed them. It was only then that they became Socialism, Communism, and
Fascism all rolled into one.
Clear and inescapable argument. The free market works well when demand is
elastic. I can choose to buy a Honda or a Rolls Royce. But my health is
"inelastic"--I can't choose if I have a genetic condition or an
accident or if I get old. And even if I could choose, I would never choose the
"low-cost provider" to handle my glaucoma.
Nothing new here, but an excellent summary of why the market simply does not
work for health care. I'll be interested to see what specific ideas the
market defenders out there come up with to refute the basic fact given in this
editorial. The only sensible solution, if we really want to get
costs under control and cover all citizens is to follow the lead of all other
industrialized countries (and many Third World nations as well) and institute a
single-payer system. The easiest and most sensible route would simply be to
expand Medicare to cover everyone. Medicare has been successful for decades, and
senior citizens would be upset if we tried to take it away and replace it with
some sort of market-based system. All we need to do is fund it properly, which
would cost far less than the hodge-podge system we have been living with for
many years now.
After reading this letter from Rep. King and noting the various very good
descriptions of the workings of insurance theory within a free market, I was
surprised to read his final sentence, "The natural laws of markets and
insurance can’t be ignored."Forcing people to buy/provide
something they don't want/need is simply the socialist's (a slightly
less aggressive Communist) way of ignoring/denying "The natural laws of
markets and insurance..."Ultimately, those natural forces will
ALWAYS prevail. Which is precisely why they should never be ignored.In the case of Obamacare, as I predicted it's initial stumbling/fumbling
start, I predict now that it will eventually, inevitably fail,
catastrophically....and all because of the natural laws that its implementation
Health is not a commodity. And it cannot be insured. Good article.
"Look at any hospital bill and try to make sense out of the charges. It is
not possible to connect service with the associated costs."Bingo!When our son had surgery a couple of years ago, we never
even saw an itemized hospital bill. The hospital charges were $40k (for 4 hrs
in the hospital-operating and recovery rooms only). We ended up paying $200 and
our insurance paid $10k.Among the most profitable industries in the
U.S. are pharmaceutical and medical equipment makers.
Once again, Mr. King hits it out of the park!Bravo!
"It is NOT the responsibility of the market to make goods and services
affordable."Which is why it's the responsibility of the
government!Goods and services are commodities. Health care is a
right, just like free speech and the right to vote. It is the responsibility and
obligation of the government to provide health care. Sorry folks,
free market had its chance! Just like it had its chance to provide us clean
water, security, fire protection, etc. But it failed miserably. Time for the
government to step in! The free market can go back to selling cars and popcorn.
Serious issues like police and health care needs to be run by the government.
Mountainman,Tell me what happens when that 22 year old has an
accident, or gets cancer.Who pays? "It will be
interesting to see how American voters will respond to the Demos in 2016
elections."Americans have a low opinion of the Democrats in
Congress. It it gets much lower, they could catch the Republicans in Congress.
What a misleading letter to the editor. Who caused "health insurance"
to be part of our lives? It was FDR, who told us that we couldn't be paid
what we were worth, but that we would be paid what HE thought we were worth.
Health Insurance was added to the "pay package" of most businesses to
get around FDR's wage freeze. He wanted to control us, just as Obama wants
to control us with ObamaCareWhy does health care in America cost so
much? How many doctors and hospitals run a battery of tests every time we need
health care? How many doctors repeat tests that our last doctor just ran? Who
champions malpractice law suits. Hint: it isn't the Republicans. The
Republicans have tried to get tort reform laws passed for decades, but the
Democrats block every such attempt.Prices cannot be controlled by
the government. Whenever the government gets involved, costs multiply. Just
look at ObamaCare as the latest example. Obama promised us that costs would go
down $2,500 per family per year. They have risen much more than $2,500 per year
and our out-of-pocket expenses have multiplied.
This argument is only partially about healthcare costs. It is also a
constitutional issue. If government can mandate that you have health insurance,
then where do government mandates stop. SCOTUS ruled that ACA was
unconstitutional under the Commerce Clause. Our CJ then switched and said, the
penalty in ACA was really a tax and Congress has a right to levy taxes. That is
about as mixed up as one can get.When ACA was passed, then Speaker
Pelosi said let's pass it and then we will figure out what it says. Now we
know, it is a mess. ACA (aka Obamacare) should be repealed. Other options
should be more deeply investigated. I believe we are unnecessarily eroding our
rights under the Constitution. "Nor should it ever be lost sight
of, that the government of the United States is one of limited and enumerated
powers; and that a departure from the true import and sense of its powers is,
pro tanto, the establishment of a new constitution." (from Commentaries on
the Constitution) Unfortunately, the three Federal Government
Branches that are supposed to protect them, are not doing so. (The 9th Amendment
reserves my rights not specified in Article 1)
@MountanmanOver half of bankruptcies in the US are over medical expenses,
this isn't the case in the other industrialized nations with universal
healthcare. Oh, and polling shows only 80% liked their healthcare and liking
your healthcare is different than liking your health insurance.
As others have pointed out the ACA contains many solutions that were originally
promoted by Republicans so the charge that it is a socialist takeover of
healthcare is ludicrous.And anyone who believes that the problem of
the uninsured is relatively small is living in fantasyland. The problem was
growing every year for precisely the reasons this article cites (i.e., insurance
underwriting).But our mostly free market healthcare system was not
just failing the uninsured, it was failing all of us as well by taking an ever
larger share of our income (at least three times the rate of inflation), and all
the free market solutions in the world would not alter this trend more than
marginally. This is the primary reason why no developed country in the world has
a purely free market system.As for the uninsured, our uniquely
American problem (although we share it with much of the third world) exposes the
far-right’s true colors - they simply do not care if millions of our
fellow citizens cannot get healthcare (premium subsidized Emergency Room care
Mike, Mike, Mike. Facts really don't mean anything to you do they. Health
insurance was around long before FDR and is widespread in many countries that
FDR never had anything to do with. And you roll out that old malpractice line?
Study after study has demonstrated that malpractice adds no more than, at most,
2% to the cost of our health insurance. Most studies put it at less than 1%. Besides, I thought you were a conservative and believed in basic
principles of accountability. Does it preserve personal responsibility to let
negligent doctors off the hook? Does tort reform increase the likelihood that
your doctor will be meeting the standards of care in his or her practice? Does
immunizing the doctor or limiting their degree of accountability make it more or
less likely they will be conscientious and diligent? My friend you are mighty
confused about how human beings function when they are insulated from being
personally responsible and accountable for their own actions. You
need to get beyond the point where ideology or political affiliations trump all.
@Mike Richards - your version of how we ended up with employer based health
insurance is a grotesque distortion of actual history.During World
War Two, ten percent of Americans served in the military; the war effort
required every bit of economic output we could generate. The resulting
shortages of goods and labor would have unleashed runaway inflation that would
have destabilized the domestic economy and undermined the war effort. The
Roosevelt administration and the War Department instituted rationing, price
controls and wage controls to minimize inflation during the war. Employers had
to compete for employees by offering more generous benefits than other
employers. It wasn't about "controlling" people. It was about
winning the war.
re:samhill"Forcing people to buy/provide something they don't
want/need"How many people will never need or want healthcare?
Perhaps Republicans should work on a bill that requires proof of
ability to pay before medical care can be rendered. Then their policies will
match their principals. Another alternative:States may devise
their own universal healthcare plans--why aren't Republican controlled
states doing that?
re:MikeRichardsStates have the ability to enact their own tort
reform--and several have. Why are Republicans looking toward the
federal govt. instead of state govt.to address tort reform?
Unlike several posters have written, the Constitution does not give the Federal
Government any authority at any time to limit wages in the private sector. That
"right" is reserved to the States or to the people. FDR violated the
Constitution, but that fact doesn't bother those who claimed that
situational ethics were more important than the supreme law of the land.They still claim that situational ethics trumps law. Their claim that
law suits add less than 2% to health care costs are as unbelievable as
Obama's claim that our premiums would go down $2,500 per family per year.
In my case, two years ago, over 90% of insurance payments were for tests, half
of which were redundant, but the two doctors that treated me insisted that THEIR
insurance carrier required them to perform all tests to protect THEM against any
possible malpractice claim. It didn't mater that the results of the
duplicate test ALWAYS validated the initial test.Law suits cross
State boundaries, therefore the proper place to address tort reform is in
Congress. Congress can legislate Interstate Commerce, including tort reform.Get government out of the insurance business.
I would love for the opportunity to deny those who refused to get insurance the
right to die. That's fine with me! Don't want or think you need
insurance! K! Fine! Just don't come crying to me when that accident or
health problem happens! The problem is many repubs don't feel
like they need or want health insurance. However, they're the first ones
who run to receive handouts when that accident happens.
Mountanman and Joe Blow,Let me give you an example. My oldest son, a
young healthy adult who is in the group who probably thinks it doesn't need
insurance, broke his neck in a freak accident far from home. He required a
$32,000 life flight to Salt Lake City and very expensive care to stabilize his
neck. Fortunately, he healed fine. And fortunately, he was still on my health
insurance, so he was not destroyed financially.But change a couple
of facts, and you can see the results of not requiring young healthy people to
carry some sort of coverage (or not implementing a rational health-care system,
like other countries). If he had not been insured, or if the accident had left
him a quadriplegic, imagine his life now.
Very telling, not one person has refuted anything Mr. King has said! Not one!
Typical of the right, they equate everything to Socialism and
attempt to mudsling Mr. King. Not one person has refuted anything he
has said. Not one person has revealed a possible replacement for Obamacare. Not one.Very telling indeed.
@Mike Richards - Situational ethics is a system of Christian ethics which argues
that agape is the primary value and that it is permissible to set aside laws and
rules if your actions serve the cause of agape love. However, if you want a
Constitutional argument for wartime wage and price controls, the commerce clause
is sufficient (since almost by definition the wartime economy was entirely based
on interstate commerce).At a more basic level, your argument about
what is and is not allowed by the Constitution is only one view and not
necessarily the correct one. The Framers understood the need for pragmatism and
flexibility which is why the document itself is so basic. Rather than try to
predict every circumstance, they drafted a bare bones document and left it to
succeeding generations to make our best judgments based on the needs and
challenges of our era. The Constitutional innovations of the last century have
largely been in the realm of policy and practice but they have been measured
against the Constitution and generally been upheld, which suggests your much
more limited view of federal power is outside the mainstream.
Today Obama says, "A free market can't solve the problem". During
the campaign "Sep 20, 2012 - Obama: I'm not part of the problem in DC,
but I'm not the solution either ... that he can't fix Washington from
the inside because Republicans are meanies".Seems like
there's NO WAY to fix the problem (inside government or outside). Is that
the message we are to get today? Just give up?
Mr. King could have skipped a bunch of circular logic by simply stating that he
prefers equality over liberty. That's what his argument boils down to. He
admits that the free market produces great products and services at low prices,
but he rejects it, because he has a utopian dream of universal coverage. So we
all must suffer the same poor quality and unaffordable prices together. No
matter. With him, it's equality that counts.On the topic of
basic needs: food and shelter are as basic as health care. The free market
produces them in great abundance. Health care would work similarly, if we
stopped killing it with over-regulation.@Tyler D "all the free
market solutions in the world would not alter this trend more than
marginally."Tell us who made the experiment. Surely not us. Our
current health-care system hardly resembles a free market."...the ACA contains many solutions that were originally promoted by
Republicans..."A bad idea is bad, no matter who thought it up.
This one is bad."...they simply do not care..."Nonsense. The fact is, free markets are better at fulfilling human needs than
socialism ever can be.
Re: "Very telling, not one person has refuted anything Mr. King has said!
Not one!"Actually, REALITY has smacked mindless liberal
vote-buyers right in the kisser.Reality is, there are problems that,
not only can't be solved by the marketplace, they can't be solved by
government, no matter how bloated, inefficient, and ineffective liberals make
them. There just isn't enough money to redistribute and make us all
rich.Work habits, ignorance, health problems, and just pure, dumb
luck will always produce more poor than the rest of us can eliminate. And,
honestly, when you get bureaucrats and politicians involved, they don't
really try to eliminate poverty, just buy poor votes.But, the free
market has provided more people a route to work their way out of poverty than
ALL government programs put together.It's an immutable fact.If liberals really cared for the poor, they'd do what is most
likely to actually help them, not just what seems most likely to buy their
vote.That they refuse to really help illustrates what they really
The "Free Market" Healthcare system was the broken down, you are denied,
pre-existing condition too bad for you, you can't get healthcare system
we've had for 100 years that failed.Is Obamacare the answer,
no.It was the negotiated Republican plan to keep the Insurance Industry in
business.When we have a Government run, Single payer system, the
problems with Obamacare will go away.
@Nate"So we all must suffer the same poor quality and
unaffordable prices together."I live in a country with universal
healthcare and my family and I have experienced excellent care for far less than
what I paid when living in the States."we stopped killing it
with over-regulation."US healthcare is the least regulated in
the first world yet spends twice as much per person with the leading cause of
bankruptcy caused by medical bills.The free market is great when I
go shopping for food or buying a new car. It is not so good when I have arterial
blood squirting from my arm or when I am lying unconcious after being knocked
off my bike by a car. You dont call around different hospitals trying to find
the best deal in those situations. You dont have a lot of choice at that moment
and you cant really negotiate with the "if you do not agree to this bill,
you will die" at the hospital either.
@UT BritThen you're one of the lucky ones. Britain's
cancer survival rate is extremely low when compared with other nations. Tens of
thousands of malnutrition cases are reported in NHS hospitals annually. Hundreds
of thousands are on waiting lists for routine procedures such as hip
replacements. Britain is famous for hospital bed shortages, causing people to
wait for days to be admitted. Health care is rationed by government panels.
Patients in NHS hospitals are 45 percent more likely to die than in US
hospitals. Over 1200 disabled patients die in NHS hospitals per year.NHS is practically synonymous with "nightmare."Yes, you
really have it good over there.
@Nate – “Tell us who made the experiment. Surely not us. Our current
health-care system hardly resembles a free market.”How about
every developed country in the world that at some point in their development
realized their free market healthcare system wasn’t working? Doesn’t it strike you as odd that no developed country in the world has
a free market healthcare system anymore (while most maintain vibrant free market
economies in most other industries)?Do you think the reason for that
is because they are all run by evil socialists (election after election) who
somehow constrain their nefarious urges when it comes to most other markets?Something about that worldview just doesn’t add up…But it sounds like you are in favor of a Randian experiment in our country
with no evidence of success (other than in books promoting ideology) found
anywhere in the world.And while your red herring about free markets being
better than socialism (duh) is a nice talking point, it fails to recognize that
the market for healthcare is not like the market for toasters.
@NateThe NHS is not perfect but for the vast majority of the people
it serves us well. There would be riots if the government tried to scrap it. I
dont know a single person that would want a US style healthcare system. As for
the 45% thing, actually do some research rather than reading headlines, you will
find a different story.I have never seen anyone from a government panel
when seeing my doctor.Lets look at America then shall we, 45,000
people dead each year from lack of healthcare. Lowest life expectancy in the
first world, highest infant mortality, double the cost compared to the first
world, leader in bankruptcy. Insurance panels denying care (genuine death
panels), 40 million uninsured who rely on ER for care (I have never waited so
long in an ER than when I lived in the US). On top of all that you have the
majority of your country begging for some sort of change........... I will keep
the NHS thanks. Tried the US but my experience with it was disastrous.
This is where we differ... " Health care is a right,"...I
absolutely disagree with this sentiment. Health care is a service.We cannot equalize our genetic inheritance. Some will die young, others will
develop conditions, etc... I personal did not win the genetic lottery. I,
however, do not feel the need to make society pay for my misfortune.This is why we cannot have a reasonable discussion on healthcare. There are
even more fundamental needs such as food, shelter, and water. None of these are
Wow, the liberal sheeple are out in force today. Reading the original article I
could tell that it was not written by somebody who knows anything about history
or even the history of health insurance over the past 30 years.First
of all, the free market can solve the problems with healthcare. A prime example
of this is the high deductible catastrophic policies that were introduced a few
years ago. Insurers knew that younger people were typically healthy and did not
require much care, however they did know that the more intelligent people would
want catastrophic insurance to cover them when they fell from a 30 ft cliff
while rock climbing. Another great example that we had was the Grocery Store
Clinics. For $25 to $50 a person could see a medical professional for routine
care visits. This brought healthcare to the poor that couldn't afford
insurance to cover basic care.Lets compare that to what Government
healthcare has given us. We have wait lists that kill people, medication lists
that deny some people the best care, rationed care, and poor care of those that
are seriously ill.Tell us again why we should let the government fix
@Redshirt 1701 -- So what's the free market response to pre-existing
To "Wonder" no, the free market solution to pre-existing conditions has
been to have waiting periods of up to 9 months. After the 9 months, they cover
your pre-existing conditions and take care of your needs.
@Redshirt 1701: Representative Brian King ia a lawyer whose practice
is focused on health insurance claims. He represents individuals who have been
denied coverage for treatment and health care providers who have not been paid
by insurance companies. He has been in practice for more than 25 years and has
presented widely at professional conferences on topics related to health
insurance. His perspective may be different than yours, but to say
that he doesn't know anything about the history of health insurance is
@Tyler D "How about every developed country in the world that at some point
in their development realized their free market healthcare system wasn't
working?" They didn't abandon the free market because it
wasn't working -- they abandoned it because they had the mistaken idea that
socialism would produce greater equality. Now they're stuck with a rotten
system. They don't dare scrap it, because they know the socialists will
riot. (Brit admits this.) However, they'll be forced eventually to reckon
with debt.As Margaret Thatcher said, "The trouble with socialism
is that eventually you run out of other people's money."The
other trouble with it is that it produces crummy health care.
To "micawber" that is a different matter than pre-existing conditions.
That is uninsurable conditions. Pre-existing conditions is a very generic term.
It could be something as simple as a broken arm that is healing.The
high risk pools were created in 1996 to cover those that are deemed uninsurable
on the individual market. The question is how long have we needed the high risk
pools? Prior to 1996 did insurance companies accept high risk people?
To redshirt1701. Your post is unclear to me. Mr. King's
practice deals with all types of health care denials, including claims relating
to pre-existing conditions. He has been practicing since before 1996. He has
expertise in this area. Do you? And yes, health insurance
companies were denying coverage for pre-existing conditions well before 1996.
@Nate – “They didn't abandon the free market because it
wasn't working -- they abandoned it because they had the mistaken idea that
socialism would produce greater equality.”Really? Every one?
Every single developed country in the world? Every… single… one?This degree of collective & persistent stupidity would be
unprecedented in world history. To abandon a perfectly good system because so
many people place equality at the top (with everything else a distant second) of
their values list would be utterly shocking. And if it was just a
few countries like Sweden your answer might be plausible, but to posit that
answer across all the different ethnicities, cultures, etc… seems a
stretch to say the least. No Nate, I think cost had something to
do with it as well – namely, the fact that the economics of healthcare are
such that producers have intractable monopolistic pricing power which left to
their own means serving an ever decreasing number of people at higher &
higher costs.It’s for both of these reasons (yours & mine)
that no one has a free market healthcare system.
I liked Rep. King's article. He brings up a lot of great points.Reading the article and comments, I see one of the challenges to this debate
is not in agreeing on a solution, but on the problem! Rep. King defines what he
sees as the crisis of Health Care. But, not everyone agrees with that
perspective of the problem.First of all, is health care a right? My
opinion, absolutely no! But, similar to public education, it is beneficial to
society that the government provide it at a basic level to those who cannot
obtain it. The challenge with this is that like education and other benefits,
it becomes an entitlement (a perceived individual right) and quickly gets out of
control. So, my question: if government should provide some health care, what
are it's limits and how are they maintained?
This last legislative session I had the privilege of listening to Representative
King on many occasions. That experience and this article both drive home the
same thing: Representative King is a Voice of Reason. I wish the citizens of
this state would awake to their awful situation and elect more logical and
reasonable men and women, like Rep. King, to local and federal offices. We can
solve our local problems and national problems through electing sound
politicians who actually get it. Keep up the good work Representative King and
@ Nate, Socialistic healthcare does not produce crummy healthcare. On what basis
do you make this claim? I refer you to google...type in the words"
healthcare by country" and select the second article by Bloomberg. In the
USA we have horrid healthcare results. From the article cited above: "Among
advanced economies, the U.S. spends the most on health care on a relative cost
basis with the worst outcome". Nate, using a completely free market based
approach to healthcare makes for crummy healthcare.
Bad premise for this analysis. We don’t have a free market
health care system. In a free market when supply is low then demand and cost is
high. Because demand and salary is high more people enter the field causing
supply to be high and demand to be lower.We need more doctors,
nurses and hospitals to help drive the costs down. It is about supply and
demand. Hospital corporations don't want to see more doctors and nurses and
hospitals in the system, it would drive profits down.Something is
keeping the supply down so the profits can be high. That is not a free market.
@Tyler D "This degree of collective & persistent stupidity would be
unprecedented in world history."You said it.And yes,
it is shocking. This is why I oppose it.@Commodore "In the USA
we have horrid healthcare results."And in the USA health care is
regulated more than any other industry. Coincidence?