| > There are ways to combat high health care prices. One is an all-payer system, like that seen in Maryland. This regulates prices so that all insurers and public programs pay the same amount. A single-payer system could also regulate prices. If attempted nationally, or even in a state, either of these would be met with resistance from all those who directly benefit from high prices, including physicians, hospitals, pharmaceutical companies — and pretty much every other provider of health care in the United States. And then end up like Venezuela has after implementing price controls? How about you let intelligent macroeconomics majors who have spent years in college studying exactly the ideal solution to this predicament give thoughtful and effective solutions. I understand the writer was likely good intentioned, but: 1) The road to hell is paved with good intentions. 2) For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. While some liberal arts majors have their own theories and hunches to inject on how our world economy should run, a well-studied economist would give the best answer for providing a solution that establishes the perfect price-point between satisfying as much of the medical demand as possible while having a never-extinguished supply of medical care. A little history: During the great depression, the US implemented price controls on wages; capping the wages. So companies started adding in health coverage in with the job as a perk instead. The great depression was extended and the health insurance in our country has been forever screwed up by that event. Btw, I'm not pro government or anti-government, left or right. I'm pro-lets-get-the-facts-straight-before-we-jump-to-conclusions-that-affect-the-whole-country. Admitting that you don't know the answer to something goes a long ways. |