Unfortunately, RP is a genuine and kind grandfather and it's really hard to make him look bad personally.
They tried hard. What a waste of bandwidth.
the expensive costs associated with healthcare. What is most troubling is the over-all control of the health system.
It is well established that many doctors who have discovered break-through in treatments have routinely been shut-down in any way possible by corporately-manipulated "public" agencies.
Cancer is still being treated through chemotherapy...a one-hundred year old ineffective technology. Many people die from just chemotherapy treatments alone instead of the cancer they fear.
Most of us could hardly imagine using a 20-year old computer for running a company....how can one continue to push a 100+ technology made from mustard gas no less that has never proven to be an effective tool against fighting cancer?
Most chronic illness could be cured, but we all have the responsibility. We cannot be proud of food ignorance then expect someone else to pay for our mistakes.
When I went to the doctor, all I was looking for was an answer to what was wrong exactly, so I could figure out how to fix the issue. They could not even inform me what might be possibly happening to my body and why....it was pathetic actually.
I don't hate doctors, but I can criticize the entire system. It is a mess, but much of it has to do with our diets and the rest has to do with governments being used to ensure any viable "inexpensive" health solution is shot dead on arrival.
If we re-invigorated the health of America, and put as much emphasis on maintaining and pursuing health as attaining financial independence, this problem would disappear rather quickly.
We must take care about what we put into our bodies. It affects more people than we can possibly know! A healthy society would not have a "health-care" crisis, perhaps we need to ask why we are such a un-healthy society to begin with and start from there.
"It is well established that many doctors who have discovered break-through in treatments have routinely been shut-down"
Please provide me with some references to these "well-established" shut-downs.
If you are referring to shams that are proven to have no effectiveness (i.e., homeopathic medicine; sorry, but water does not have a "memory"), then I'm glad they were "shut-down."
I am very hopeful that the Ron Paul supporter's views on health care go beyond conspiracy theories. Hopefully, someone will be able to enlighten me by answering my questions in my previous post.
To appeal to individuals to restrain themselves from exploiting a commons for the general good is to set up a selective system that works toward the elimination of conscience from the race. -- Tragedy of the Commons.
or birther "conspiracies." It is the prosaic historic phenomenon of unintended consequences. Part of it is the feeding frenzy of all special interests at the government trough--be it for dollars or special advantage against competition.
We see the poor quality of all governmental monopolies: the Post Office, Amtrack, the military-industrial complex, the Federal Reserve monetary system, and the medical monopoly is just one more. For decades of government licensing and control, the M.D. monopoly gained great income and advantage over alternative practitioners. Many great physicians and researchers have been relentlessly persecuted (see the Byzinsky film linked previously in this thread)with a narrowing of options for medical consumers and the usual rigidity of any other "official" system codified in the failed cancer industry of slash, burn, poison.
It is also seen is something as simple as the food pyramid, year after year shown to be faulty and harmful for those who follow it; year after year revised and still terribly misleading for naive consumers and dietitians, physicians etc. The examples are far too numerous to run down. Every prudent medical consumer MUST rely on independent research or be at the mercy of so many medical fallacies that public health in the U.S. is a disgrace -- because of the medical monopoly not because of lack of insurance. I choose no insurance because I avoid standard "care" which I view as similar to the old leech therapy (except in cases of catastrophic injury; there the medical model is useful.)
Show dated 10-28-11.
Resist the temptation to feed the trolls.
Cancer: The Forbidden Cures
This is also available on DVD from Amazon.
"In the last 100 years dozens of doctors, scientists and researchers have come up with the most diverse, apparently effective solutions against cancer, but none of these was ever taken into serious consideration by official medicine. Most of them were in fact rejected out-front, even though healings were claimed in the thousands, their proposers often being labeled as charlatans, ostracized by the medical community and ultimately forced to leave the country. At the same time more than 20,000 people die of cancer every day, without official medicine being able to offer a true sense of hope to those affected by it. Why? "
I was aware of Rene Caisse, Harry Hoxsey, Max Gerson etc but there were many others I wasn't aware of. Great post!
Just figured people alread understood this Big Pharma stuff, but I do suppose common sense must be publicly endorsed and peer reviewed before anyone is allowed to employ it.
Rules of competition and increasing market share apply to every industry..."health-care" included. Is it a conspiracy to imagine pharmaceutical and health-care industry corporate board members seeking ways to increase dividends for the shareholders?
How can inexpensive treatments and healthy people pay large dividends?
You're welcome Kings.
Yeah I figured everyone already knew that big pharma was a deadly racket.
Be sure to listen to the Dr. Wallach, Ben Fuchs clip as well.
Dr. Joel Wallach is a total bada$$. He's my second favorite doctor next to Ron Paul. Dr. Peter Glidden is my 3rd favorite doctor. You can Googel him as well. All great stuff.
“Unless we put medical freedom into the Constitution, the time will come
when medicine will organize into an undercover dictatorship to restrict
the art of healing to one class of Men and deny equal privileges to
others; the Constitution of the Republic should make a Special
privilege for medical freedoms as well as religious freedom.”
― Benjamin Rush (one of the Founding Fathers)
We now have exactly what he warned about.
Watch the Burzynsky Film.
My own doctor is one...he was running cancer clinics as a licensed medical doctor and began having tremendous breakthroughs using his chelation methods. Then his license was confiscated and he was dragged into court, which of course, took all his resources to endure.
Just using basic chelation more regularly would be an incredible policy to adopt and has been undeniably effective.
Health is one area I am very well versed in. So I can very much make this claim. I could start writing a whole blog about all the books-treatments that have been suppressed and maybe I should, but this is not an appropriate place to explain everything.
Mercury amalgam fillings are absolutely devastaing-deadly for people's health and this has been known for a long time. IT IS UN-DENIABLE THAT IT IS THE REASON MY MOTHER HAS PERISHED. The initial (public-ignorant) doctors cannot deny it, but they don't even care, of course. And It is still being used today, even after we have learned how bad it is.
This is the point. Is that a conspiracy? My mother would still be alive if we had known a little earlier and we would have had access to "good medical care" sooner. But good care is almost impossible to find!
And does the medical community support the doctor who saved my health and almost saved my mother's life....nope, they push him into the outer edges of "publicly acceptable society".
But I don't need someone else's proof. I know this is true, becuase I had to search and search for years to find a doctor that actually knew what he was talking well enough to have a back and forth conversation in regards to all things health related.
Whether or not people buy into the argument that Hoxsey treatment was effective or not does not justify the reason why the FDA shut down his clinics.
This is what we are talking about in regards to a FREE MARKET SYSTEM. The Big Pharma companies felt threatened by someone who publicly postulated a belief that could soon spread if not contained. A belief in the possibility of a world free of cancer.
Is anyone paying attention to the Agenda 21 type-legislation which will effectively control all supplements and "medical" treatments?
Here is the actual docket...
HOW CAN WE THINK THEY CARE ABOUT PEOPLE'S HEALTH?
My doctor already had great difficulty obtaining the supplements necessary to do the life-saving treatments on me, and that is even without this legislation in place. So this is not just something I "made up" off the top of my head.
Is it not a conspiracy that an obviously large portion of americans are unnaturally over-weight??? That our life expectancy is now in decline?
Come on now...conspiracy?
...people get arrested for conspiracy everyday...the most over and mis-used word ever right next to "terrorist"
Again, thanks for the responses (llatpoh11, quiltingsando, Sailette44). I am very interested in understanding Dr. Paul's (and his supporter's) views of health care in America.
If you'll again allow me to generalize what I've read in the responses: health care is so expensive because of the lack of competition and because it is not allowed to operate in a true free market.
Now, please point to a sector of our economy that is "true free market" where the following is NOT true:
Those that can afford it get the product/service; those that cannot, do not.
Why would a "true free market" health care system be any different? Is Dr. Paul (and his supporters) OK with no health care being provided to those that cannot afford it?
Would you accept a health care system where you get care because: 1) you can afford it; or, 2) you happen to be chosen by a charitable organization for funding? Is this moral, ethical, right?
Would Kent's $400K bill really be only $10 if the govn't wasn't involved? Would he really have received care if the hospital wasn't required (by the govn't) to provide it to him, regardless of his ability to pay?
Can you see why I am skeptical? What am I missing?
TrueCost the anwser to your hypothetical is the FREEMARKET and HISTORY.
The government has one tool that shadows the truth unfortunately and that is the power of force, and with that it can MAYBE help a MINORITY better but only to the detriment of a MAJORITY later.
"Give me Liberty or give me death." Patrick Henry
Thank you to Bilec, healthnut, LocalBoy, phathead, and Ron for your responses. I sincerely appreciate you taking the time to respond to my post.
If I can take the liberty of simplifying what I read in your responses, it is this: the reason Kent's bill was $400K is because of the govn't involvement in health care. If it wasn't involved, he would have received the same treatment at much less cost and it would have been paid for by some charities.
So, please indulge this hypothetical. Let's imagine that the day Kent went to the hospital there was no govn't involvement in health care. What would the situation have been then?
Would they have even admitted him without insurance? (Remember, no govn't involvement means no law requiring them to treat. That's govn't.)
And let's suppose they did admit him (skeptical) and the bill was only 1/4, because somehow treatment costs were so much less. (I'd like for someone to itemize the $300K in savings on his bill.) Which charity is paying the $100K? As it is, fundraisers for this very popular person raised only $50K for his bill.
Look, I know that Americans pay more for health care than anyone else, and don't get the best. I agree that the system is broke.
But, I also know that the avg. life expectancy in the US was 73.7 yrs. in 1980 (when MRI's came into use) and was 78.7 in 2009. I also know that an MRI machine costs $1-1.5 million.
I also know that if I take my wife to a hospital where there is only 1 MRI (to save costs) and a 3 wk. wait, I'm going to another hospital.
So, is it possible that it isn't the govn't fault that health care is so expensive, but our (the patient's) fault that we demand so much?
I was born in a charity hospital. It had existed for nearly 100 years by the time I came along. It was funded by patients who paid their bills and by collections from Catholic charities. No one was ever turned away, but everyone was expected to pay if they could. Amazingly, most people paid, even if the hospital had to set up time payments. At that time, almost no one had cradle-to-grave insurance like we do today.s
No one 'knows' what Ken Snyder's bill would have been, partly because there is no market mechanism to determine what the real price of medical care should be (Hayek pointed out that was socialism's major flaw, and the reason they were always misallocating resources). Plus, no one has seen his bill. I'd like to know how many $50 asprins he was given. The bill could have been inflated by a factor of 5, 10, or 20 times. When a 25 cent asprin costs $50 at a hospital, then there is no rhyme nor reason to what they charge.
It seems, from your question, that you want a system that guarantees everyone will get all the health care they need whenever they feel they need it. No such system exists. Single payer systems routinely ration available services so that some people cannot get the service they feel they need, just as it is possible that a free market system will not provide services for all persons at a price all people can afford. That's just a fact of life. But we know that government run or government financed/regulated systems are notoriously inefficient compared to market driven systems. They must be because they are driven by politics and influence instead of the market mechanism of suppliers competing for customers with better quality and lower prices.
Your questions indicate a lack of knowledge of how markets work. Fortunately, there is a lot of great information out there. Let me suggest a small but classic primer: "Economics in One Lesson," by Henry Hazlitt. This isn't some book intended for economic idiots. It is a book intended to explain the functioning of markets to adults who may have a faulty understanding.
Thanks Ron for a great post, and one that actually attempts to address my questions. I appreciate this.
Your third paragraph is exactly the discussion I am looking to have. Specifically, this statement is key:
"Single payer systems routinely ration available services so that some people cannot get the service they feel they need, just as it is possible that a free market system will not provide services for all persons at a price all people can afford."
You and I are in agreement here, 100%. I hope you would also agree that health care is already rationed in the US, although in a very strange and inefficient manner. My point is that you don't need a single payer system to have rationing.
Back to your statement. In both situations the resulting outcome is unfair. In single payer, people's freedom to pay for whatever service they want and to get it now is curtailed. In a true free market, the quality and quantity of health care you receive is dictated by your willingness and ability to pay; those unable to pay go without (or are provided with what little is available from charities).
Both situations are unfair, but are both (or neither) UNJUST? (My personal test of unjust is WWJD? But you can apply your own.)
I'm a pragmatist, and don't believe there is a system that (as you wrote) "guarantees everyone will get all the health care they need whenever they feel they need it." I think the data shows that the US could spend more than its entire GDP on health care if that was the goal.
I also consider myself a deeply moral person, and question whether I want to live in a society where health care is "true free market," i.e., the rich get it, the poor don't.
I have no such moral qualms about the free market and the distribution of mp3 players, sneakers, and sports cars. But health care?
I want our health care system to be more efficient, effective, and less costly, but also want it to be just. I don't know what Kent Snyder's final days were like, but I'm glad he didn't have to live them in a true free market health care system. We are better than that.
I also consider myself a deeply moral person, and question whether I want to live in a society where health care is "true free market," i.e., the rich get it, the poor don't."
The history of free markets, however, is that they routinely innovate, create multiple layers of product and service options, lower prices and improve quality. Why? Because all of the daily pressure in the economy is to do exactly that if they are to win customers to expand business to make more money. That's what sparks competition. The poor benefit, not because someone decided to 'help' the poor, but because the poor are another market for goods and services. People acting freely within markets are always looking for those who are underserved and figuring out a way to provide them with goods and services...to make money.
The 'rich' won't get all the health care in a free society. There aren't enough 'rich' to consume the health services. But if you go down market you will serve the lower incomes, and there are lots of them...just ask Walmart and Payless.
Politically run systems, however, operate by a completely different set of pressures...the pressure to get, keep, and expand the power to use force over others. Politicians don't get elected (except Ron Paul!!!) by telling people they must do without. NO! They get elected by stealing from some people and giving to others. Bureaucracies operate by a similar creed: expand or die. If you have ambitions in a bureaucratic institution, you want to control a BIGGER institution. So you spend, hire, spend, hire, until you create your own little fiefdom, and then you defend your turf to keep it from being cut. The bigger your agency, the more difficult it is to trim it back or eliminate it. It becomes a power base that continues to suck in tax money and spend it on perpetuating itself.
I, too, consider myself to be a moral person. Just because I would like to 'cut to the chase' and give money for the express purpose of providing healthcare to everyone doesn't mean I should do that, especially because I know from theory and history that it doesn't work. On the other hand, if I really want to help the poor, I should work to remove the impediments to providing inexpensive healthcare. Those impediments might be:
Subsidies that prevent high-cost inefficient providers from going out of business.
Taxes that raise the cost of medical equipment or medicines.
Regulations that restrict the supply of medical goods and services.
Taxes, regulations, licensing, mandates, and other interference that prevents poor people from accumulating capital so they can create their own wealth.
I think you have a very deep bias against the idea that markets actually work. You have accepted the idea that government decrees can get the job done more efficiently. I contend there is no evidence this is so.
No, I am aware that markets actually work and am not anti-market.
To paraphrase Henry Hazlitt (yes, I read it), economics is the science of tracing consequences and recognizing inevitable implications.
So, let's trace the consequences and implications of true free market health care.
You say that in a true free market there would be demand for health care from the poor which would lead to private business providing such care, just as Walmart and Payless provide cheap goods to the poor now.
I hope I don't need to explain why you might not want to build your ideal health care system around the Wal Mart model? I mean, how would you import health care from Chinese companies who treat their employees and the environment like sh!t to keep costs artificially low?
If we were talking about the distribution of widgets, I’d come down on the side of your ideology: “Get govn’t out and the private sector will do it more efficiently.” Of course, the private sector would care less who got the widgets and who didn’t (and they shouldn’t). The private sector is about reducing costs and increasing profits, as they should be.
But treating health care like it is just another widget? Assuming that the poor will receive fairly basic care (from an industrialized western world perspective) without subsidies, or with subsidies only from private charities? Really?
Consequences and implications.
Because I’m skeptical that making health care “true free market” is the answer to all our problems, you assume I take the opposite ideology that ”government decrees can get the job done more efficiently.”
Actually, I think it is the ideologies themselves (all sides) that are keeping us from actually tackling the problems in our health care system. Health care is a very complicated issue. It is very expensive, for many reasons, not the least of which is because of our increasing technological advances which are great for our health, but not so great for our pocketbooks.
Slogans – whether they be “true free market” or “single payer system” – aren’t the answer. Ideology is the antagonist of a more efficient and effective health care system. If Ron Paul – or any other candidate – would just be honest about this, they’d have my vote.
I wish more people could embrace the cognitive dissonance that Kent Snyder's situation brings to Ron Paul's ideology.
My point about Walmart and Payless is they built their business around serving the mass population. It is immaterial to the point that they have found China to be a cheap source for many (but not all!!) of their goods. Health care is not plastic toys, so the specifics of how a low price model might work has little or nothing to do with importing anything.
I am not trying to build the 'ideal' healthcare system. There is no such thing because nobody can define 'ideal' for an entire society. You are promoting some kind of hybrid...though you don't actually define it. It seems to me that is the problem with our current system: it is neither a free market nor is it a centrally run system. Instead, it is a mish mash of conflicting directives and goals leading to politization and unintended consequences in the entire system. And let's be honest, you have an ideology...everyone does...you just have't defined what you really believe, how you define "efficient," or "ideal."
There is no 'cognitive dissonance' in the case of Kent Snyder versus Ron Paul's ideology. Kent Snyder was a victim of the current bastard system. Ron Paul is also a deep critic of the current system. The dissonance is that you say the market is great at producing widgets, but you cannot accept that healthcare is just another kind of good or service (a 'widget') that some people are looking to buy and some people are looking to sell.
My definition of efficient health care is maximizing the well being of the greatest number of people for the least amount of cost.
I define ideal as relative to other systems. And the most ideal system is the one that is the most efficient, i.e., highest avg. health/well-being of its citizens for the cost.
The US system is far, far from efficient. For instance, the US has the 3rd highest level of public spending for health care, yet public insurance only covers 26% of people. We spend 16.2% of GDP (2nd only to Malta), yet no matter how you measure the outcome we are not the best (e.g., 50th in life expectancy).
As for my ideology, I guess I do have one in the same way that an atheist does believe in something (the lack of a God).
Instead of an ideology that government is the root of all evil or that government is the answer to all problems, I guess I would describe my ideology as "ideologies are the greatest impediment to overcoming our societal problems and improving the overall well being of humanity."
To the point, ideologies argue for a way of doing things that one perceives as right, regardless of the evidence, facts and data. (Here's a great article about this: http://www.gladwell.com/2006/2006_02_13_a_murray.html)
I think we've found a point to agree to disagree on. The problem is that pesky "WWJD" in my head. Like so many things in this world, it causes me to pause and question my gut reactions. I have trouble figuring out how I would explain "health care is just another widget" to my maker. If I could get rid of that "do unto others..." thing, my life would be easier, that's for sure! But, I just can't shake it!
Thanks for all the time you've spent helping me to understand the Ron Paul supporter's view on health care. It has helped clarify things quite a bit for me. And thanks to our discussion, I now have a very simple question I can ask of my political candidates:
"Do you think health care should be treated as just another 'widget' in a free market economy?"
If Jesus learned that leaving people free to offer services or buy services proved to be the system that produced the most good for the most people, would he advocate free markets? Or would he advocate taking from some to give to others because that solved the immediate problem at the expense of creating new and bigger problems in the future?
Would Jesus let people be free? Or would he put a gun to someone's head and say, for the good of all, give me your money or you life...
I think I know my answer.
1) HMO is not insurance
2) Big difference between federal government and local government
Show me one case, any case, where the Shriners hospital has turned away a patient because they have no insurance. The law does not now, nor ever has, require the Shriners to provide special treatment for burns to children. They do this on their own.
While we are on the subject, why does a non insured person pay a very high premium for prescription drugs, remember the drug store does not provide credit to the uninsured, they pay cash.
HMO's price fix and use market allocations under cover of law. Why can the medical industry violate the Sherman Act ?
health care would be cheaper without insurance companies and the Fed government involved. Competition brings down prices and brings up the quality of health care.
I am old enough to remember the doctor coming to our house and the bill was ten dollars. I also remember when insurance companies got involved and there were two prices. If you had insurance the bill was higher if you had cash it was lower.
Why is the answer always more of something that doesn't work in the first place?
I have a friend in healthcare, she told me of some new things going on at her hospital. These new rules and regulations are not about giving the patient better health care but getting Federal government funding and status.
I was also just informed that a person in our community wanted to have a cancer summit with cancer patients and survivors to help inform the public but doctors in the area put the kabash to it. That doesn't seem helpful to the public to kabash something that would have been educational and open the discussion about cancer.
Competition fixes the economy and most everything else, think about it. We have less competition in the media, health care, business etc. There used to be laws against monopolies but that has all changed it seems. Everything is a subsidiary of something else, that seems detrimental to competition and to freedom.
Prepare & Share the Message of Freedom through Positive-Peaceful-Activism.
RP's constitutional stance is that the Federal government has no authority to be involved in healthcare. The states have the authority, perhaps mandated through their own legislative processes, to offer and or regulate the healthcare industry within its own border(s). As a matter of fact most, if not all, states currently do. My state of Maryland does and so does Massachusetts (Romneycare), as an example. It is something every community needs to address at the local level, where the impact on society occurs directly. Americans are compassionate and resourceful, we will take of our neighbors.
Keep in mind, RP's whole political career has been to reign in the Federal government and to promote States' rights.
Now to your question, which is a good one. Yes, everything the Federal government gets involved with, distorts the effect of the natural marketplace - from mandates to regulations to intense lobbying by insurance and drug companies (who write many of the bills). If the market were allowed to work properly, supply and demand would lower prices.
Syder's situation is sad, because Aids patients are used and manipulated into all kinds of horrific treatments that the pharmaceutical companies have been allowed to use by a corrupt FDA. (I know this intimately based on a family member who passed do to Aids.)
Hospitals don't charge patients based on market mechanisms of cost/competition/demand. Instead, there are perverse incentives in place for the hospitals to charge outrageous amounts. Foreget about the cost of an MRI machine...look at $50 per pill asprins!!! It's not because medical care is inherently expensive, it's because it costs the hospitals nothing to massively pad their bills. Government and insurance generally pay only a set amount, or a set percentage of the bill. Hospitals routinely write off the inflated bills because it was all funny money anyway.
But when they go after a private individual, they charge whatever they want, then sell the unsettled debt to bill collectors for a much reduced amount, and the debt collectors attempt get the rest.
It is a screwy system that can only exist if there are impediments to competition, and a guaranteed money source. The government regulates and artificially reduces the supply of medical care, and the government funds about 50% of all medical expenses, so they guarantee that the hospitals will have an income. There is no incentive for the hospitals to compete, and every reason in the world to charge outrageous sums...after all, it helps make medical care look expensive and guarantees larger payments in the future.
Kent Snyder's $400,000 bill is most likely not anywhere near the amount that the hospital actually thought they would get. But it's part of the game in this crazy system.
A free and open market would tend to bring real prices closer to real costs as medical providers competed for customers by undercutting the inflated prices in the marketplace.
What needs to be answered here is: WHO PAYS THE $400K?
There are 50.7 million uninsured Americans. Under Paul's plan, who pays for their health care?
If we don't deny the uninsured care (and I'm glad to hear Paul is not advocating this position), then we must ask: WHO PAYS?
And don't use the excuse that gov't has made health care too expensive for charities to cover these folks. Have you looked at the cost of an MRI machine lately? Charities cannot cover Kent's bill, much less the bills of the other 50 million!
So, if we aren't going to let them die on the street, and we aren't going to force everyone to have health insurance, the question remains: WHO PAYS (for Kent and the other 50.7 million)???
I hope that I will receive honest answers to this as I really am trying to understand Paul's position here. Please, no diatribes about CNN conspiracies and the like, just answer the question: WHO PAYS?
When the uninsured pays their bill they are called the cash buyer.
You assume the uninsured do not pay, then you assume the insured does pay. Is this true ?
How do you insure against the common cold, immunization shots, annual cancer screening........
Supply and demand.
I once talked to an engineer that was doing a new building for the mayo clinic. I can't remember all the specifics but those machines weigh a whole bunch like 10,000 lbs or something in that neighbor hood. He said they weren't sure how many they would need in this build so just make all the floors capable of holding a dozen of them. Oh and they didn't know where on each floor so you had to design the structure so that if they want all dozen on one side of the building they could do that. Talk about making something more expensive than it needs to be.
So when the government subsides something you get more of it. Corn subsidies mean you get more corn and the price drops. Government subsidizes education now everyone goes to college. That drives up the demand for seats at a university so universities charge more.
Hospitals do the same thing. They get checks every day from medicaid and medicare. Is every MRI absolutely necessary? What did people die in the street before the mri was invented?
I am sure just like every other large machine the price has gone up drastically for several reasons, mainly raw materials and the highly skilled labor it takes to design them.
But have you looked at the price of tires lately? Why are they so damned expensive? Yes world wide demand has gone up, but Americans are driving less and buying fewer cars and since we out drive everybody you would think that would at least slow down the price increase a little. So whats causing these high prices?
Well the printing press at the FED has to shoulder the bulk of the blame. Anywhere the government spends money the inflation happens faster because they spend the fresh stuff, before the rest of the economy can absorb it. Then when you get the money its lost much of its original value. I am pretty sure the government pays for over 40% of total medical expenditures and you don't think that has a significant influence on the medical device industry?
Why is the foreclosed house next door on the books for 475 grand and my bigger house is only valued at 300 grand? It was those evil house builders back in the day, right? They made that house expensive. OR was it a government subsidy here and some funny money there that did it?
To answer your question on who pays...the answer is always you and me.
The question you should be asking is how do YOU want to pay for it?
Your options are:
The current and future system from taxes and inflation (or do I repeat myself).
Through private donors and charities.
one way you are forced to pay with out a whole lot input or even knowledge of how the costs are spread out to you,
or you can volunteer to help those in need.
also please see this link for another concept I was shocked to see unmentioned.
If a person accumulates health care cost and cant pay the cost is diverted to all those who do pay. In a free market the cost is usually spread out evenly to all, a usury of sorts.
Case in point - shoplifting....who pays for this ?
All the consumers who use the store, the cost spread out evenly.
Allow me to ask you a question - When an insured person goes to a hospital and their insurance runs out and they cant pay their bill, is this cost spread down to the cash buyer ?
If a patient's insurance runs out, the expenses that aren't recovered by the hospital are simply spread out to everyone else. So - just like shoplifting - everyone who uses the hospital pays.