Free-market medicine is the answer
At a weekend rally in Denver, filmmaker Michael Moore advocated the total government takeover of medicine with heartbreaking tales of peoples’ medical disasters (“Filmmaker Moore presides at Colorado health care rally,” June 25).
He neglected to mention that “single-payer” socialized medicine makes medical disasters routine because of inevitable rationing of care.
In Canada, patients are forced to wait weeks and months for diagnostic tests, appointments with specialists, and treatment as their deadly cancer cells multiply. In Britain, most National Health Service kidney patients over the age of 55 are allowed to die rather than offered dialysis. As usual, the working poor suffer the most: They are unable to afford treatment outside the government system they’ve already bought with taxes.
The only reliable protection against medical disasters is a genuinely free market in medicine. Only when medicine is freed of burdensome government regulations, mandates and entitlements will patients be able to pay for their own routine health care and purchase affordable catastrophic insurance. That’s the reform Colorado needs.
Diana Hsieh, Sedalia
ehy wait you forgot one other option. everybody could send their bills to moore and he could become the 'single payer' that he is pushing because he is so smart on every issue facing the worlds needs.
Posted by on July 17, 2007 04:54 AMDiana, a free market system is a good thing for products and services most of the time but, explain to me how that would work in medicine.You see, there are those who cannot pay the market driven price of medicine owing to that fact that it is the phamaceutical companies who dictate the price based on the costs of research and production.
While I agree they have the right to profit, they also are the prime influencers and interferencers in marketing and care givers choices. They are market driven to the point of controlling almost the whole medical industry including the AMA. Is there really any difference between government regulation and mandates and those of pharmaceutical companies? If so, please explain it to me. Whether the stone hits the pitcher or the pitcher hits the stone, it's going to be bad for the pitcher.
Posted by Allen Campbell on July 17, 2007 06:36 AMDiana Hsieh is right about one thing, and that is that the universal health systems in Canada, England and other countries are badly underfunded.
Oop, sorry, she didn't even mention that, the most significant factor as to why there are wait lines in those countries.
My god, why would she not mention that?
What do you suppose was a motive of Diana Hsieh in completely ignoring the cost issue? Isn't that amazing?
Here, Diana, let me help you:
You see, Diana, you only get what you pay for. And in those other countries they are paying generally for half as much health care as we are in the United States. Wow, I guess you didn't know that , right?
Yeah, Diana. And guess what? Even though we pay about twice as much, all of the studies show our health care system is worse than many, many other countries. Wow, I guess you didn't know that, right?
Diana, a question:
What do you think would happen to our health care system if we cut the funding in half?
Another question:
What do you think would happen to the health care systems in those other countries if they double their health care funding?
Now, Diana, do you see how wrong you were? Not to worry, it could happen to any uninformed person.
Posted by Truth on July 17, 2007 07:03 AMtruf you could start to pay for everyone. why does the government [tax payers unlike you]have to pay for everything?
here is a really new idea for you to consider, be responsible for your self and your family and provide what they need.
If we need more money for health care then lets put a tax on fast food of $5.00 per item to help provide insureance for all the uninsured folks to love to eat the fatty fast food crap. Problem solved, tax fast food and the fat problem will go away and so will a lot of health issues.
First, we do not have a free market health care system. We have a profit oriented business model system. The system is driven by insurance companies and medical companies (whether owned by hospital corporations or doctors themselves). While everyone bashes medicare it is a cash cow for these businesses in that once a problem exists they can milk it forever. Saw that when Mom had to get an MRI every three months for a spot that was found. Once she questioned whether it was actually changing or whether it could always have been there the MRIs stopped. Hmmm. Who owned an interest in that MRI facility I wonder? Second, it is only a great system if you atually have insurance coverage and can see a doctor. If not then you wait until you are really, really sick and go to the ER because they are the only ones mandated by law to see everyone that walks in the door. If we mandated the same for walk-in clinics then ER waits would go way down. By the time the uninsured get to the ER they are much more expensive to take care. We all pay for them through insurance premiums. But wait, we do not pay those premiums do we. They are paid by our employers so we have no clue as to how much we are paying. The people I know rarely, if ever, look at the bills and benefit statements that come to them. Do it for a while and you will be appalled. We do not have a free market system except for the notion that some have no coverage which is part of the concept of the free market. We scream when people have their electricity or water turned off for failure to pay even though most localities have gone to the free market system. Yet we do not mind when people can not see a doctor for a bellyache or an ear infection or for diabetes. We would rather pay more for the traumatic effects of some of these when serious consequences occur. Recent article showed that someone is finally looking at the cost to Medicare when people who were previously uninsured and without regular medical care suddenly hit the system. Wow, costs go up as all the problems are finally getting addressed, albeit more expensively by then. Like most things in life, it is pay me now or pay me later, but pay you will, and it will be more later.
Posted by Kelsy on July 17, 2007 07:53 AMthere is a documentary produced by Canadians about their health care system; it is called "Dead Meat" maybe you all should watch it before mouthing off about our poor medical system and all of the lies coming out of congress about all those uninsured in this country. also in the US everyone is treated at hospitals no matter if they can pay or not, maybe that is why all those folks cross our borders illegally to get here. also congress wants to take another 35% of your income to pay for this socialized medicine, but that is something they do not tell you. and the reason single-payer health care plans are underfunded is because like all governments they do not spend all the money collected for medical on medical but use it to pay for other pork projects, just like our congress uses Social Security dollars to pay for all their pet pork projects.
Posted by not here on July 17, 2007 09:34 AMJust so everyone knows, Mrs. Hsieh is the wife of the doctor who asserts Colorado's citizens don't have a "right" to healthcare. He's written several letters to the papers, his first name is either Paul or Brian.
Posted by mytwosense on July 17, 2007 09:39 AMThe tax bite in England is what, 50% and up? Why are there no Spina Bifida babies in France??? Forced abortions. Why do the rich and powerful come to the US for treatment at Mayo or Johns Hopkins? There are many questions to be asked and answered before jumping into the Socialist abyss (fare thee well personal freedom). My health care is overpriced and can be a pain. However, timely treatment and quality care have not been an issue. Please do not steal what I have worked so hard to aquire.
Posted by Tom on July 17, 2007 09:54 AMThe movie "Dead Meat" that "not here" refers to was made by an American company. It does make some interesting observations about the weaknesses of the Canadian system. It runs about 25 minutes and can be found at:
http://onthefencefilms.com/video/deadmeat/deadmeat.html
Posted by darfor on July 17, 2007 09:54 AMTom: "My health care is overpriced and can be a pain. However, timely treatment and quality care have not been an issue. Please do not steal what I have worked so hard to aquire."
That's really great that "you got yours", Tom. A lot of selfish people have that attitude.
Posted by Truth on July 17, 2007 10:07 AM"That's really great that "you got yours", Tom. A lot of selfish people have that attitude. "- Truth
Truth, what is worse? Being selfish with your own money, or being generous with someone else's?
Posted by Mike on July 17, 2007 10:24 AMMike, when you pay taxes, you pay that money to the government; it is no longer your money, any more than the money WalMart uses to pay its officers is your money is partly your money, even though at one time some of it was. That is your obligation for living here. The only ways I know of to avoid that obligation are to die, move to another country, or hire a good tax lawyer. It isn't a question of how the government should use your money but rather how the government should use the money people have paid to the government in taxes. It is a political question, not an ownership question.
Posted by Truth on July 17, 2007 10:56 AMTom - speaking of forced abortions - I know acouple here whose first baby was a premie and needed 40 days in an incubator with a $1,000,000+ bill. Their 20% copay, which might have seemed reasonable when they bought it, landed them with a $200,000+ debt. When their next baby was found to have some (unknown to me ) prenatal problems, they aborted it. It wasn't forced, but it was pretty well coerced.
Why should someone trying to save their baby's life be forced into bankruptcy through no fault of their own??
God Bless the US Health Insurance Industry.
Posted by Liam on July 17, 2007 11:05 AMKelsy, what planet do you live on where employers pay everyones medical insurance premiums. Last time I heard, businesses were droping health insurance perks because of the rising costs. And what about those who retire, they don't get a continuation of that group policy anymore, they have to assume paying for it on an individual basis with a much higher premium. And there is a very large segment of the population who never have gotten a health insurance plan where they work. And, the reports citing the numbers who don't have any kind of insurance are, if anything. lower than the reality.
Posted by Allen Campbell on July 17, 2007 11:08 AMTruth,
It is also a question of how much of my money the government takes from me, and for what purpose. I would prefer the government take less, you would prefer it take more.
I would prefer the government not take money from me and give it to others who cannot (or choose not) to pay for their life needs. That is my philosophical objection. My real world objection is that, generally, the private sector does a better job providing goods and services than government does.
"Why should someone trying to save their baby's life be forced into bankruptcy through no fault of their own??"-Liam
Why should others be forced to pay to try to save that baby's life?
Mike - so forced abortion it is then??
Posted by Liam on July 17, 2007 12:03 PMMike - same reason as some are "forced" to pay for police protection they never use. Same reason some carry the burden of providing for national defense that the rest of us don't pay for (it's on credit), etc.
Posted by Liam on July 17, 2007 12:08 PM"...when you pay taxes, you pay that money to the government; it is no longer your money..."
-Truth
Really? So a government of the people, by the people, and for the people, takes money from the people, and it is no longer the people's money? Who's is it Truth? You want to make comparisons to corporations and spending money, we have the choice whether to spend money at Wal*Mart or any other retailer. We do not have a choice, as you so wonderfully pointed out, to pay or not pay taxes (at least without penalty). Additionally, should the board of directors at Wal*Mart not like how their employees are spending money, they have the ability to immediately terminate that (those) employee(s). Within our system of Government, the only thing that we can do is wait until the next election cycle (every 2 years for the House, 4 for President, and 6 for the Senate). Where is the over-sight of the employee (the government) by the employer (the taxpayer)? Your analogy just doesn't play in this instance.
While I agree in principle that we should have a basic health standard on a federal level, I think that the states should be leading the charge on a state by state level. There needs to be accountability, over-sight and responsibility if we are going to entrust our representatives with our health. The Federal government has not demonstrated the capacity, the track record of success, nor the ability to perform on any level in regards to health care (think VA Hospitals, Medicare, Medicaid). Just think, the Health and Human Services Department is responsible for the health care of over 100 million citizens in the US. That is more than the socialized systems of France, Canada, and Australia COMBINED, and a little less than a third of all people in the US., with a budget of almost $700 BILLION. So, it could be argued that we do have a single payer system in the US. It is an entitlement system, that in the best language, is broken. Yet we want to expand that system to cover everyone in the US? No thanks. We can and must do much better.
Posted by Dan2 on July 17, 2007 01:08 PMRegarding waiting lists: Why is it that under the current US system my dad has to wait over 6 weeks for a routine shoulder operation? (for the doctor covered by his insurance.)
Personal experience threw the waiting list argument out the window long ago.
Doug,
Because your Dad's doctor was probably booked, and he chose (maybe) to wait for his doctor? I had knee surgery that was scheduled within 4 days of diagnosis. I also ski race and have friends on both sides of the spectrum, but no wait longer than 8 weeks (surgery center in Portland Oregon was booked). Yet a good friend of mine, an Olympic skier from Canada, chose to have his ACL repaired in the United States and pay out of pocket, than wait the 13 months it would have taken in Canada, that absolutely would have cost him his racing career. Personal experiences aside, statistics will demonstrate that compared to single-payer systems, there is virtually no wait in the US.
Posted by Dan2 on July 17, 2007 01:20 PM"Mike - so forced abortion it is then??"
No.
"Mike - same reason as some are "forced" to pay for police protection they never use."
We all DO use it. When police do their job, we all benefit. Even if you've never had a reason to call the police, personally, you still benefit when they apprehend criminals.
Posted by Mike on July 17, 2007 01:26 PMDan2, I agree that anecdotal evidence probably isn't showing the whole spectrum here, however this was the reality for his case. I'm not fully privy to all the details, but my impression is that it was required by insurance to continue with the doctor he was evaluated by.
Anyway, I'm just saying that waiting lists aren't exactly a new thing in America either.
There are also people in the US that have opted to pay for their own treatment with other doctors when insurance would not pay to have them done within a few months time. I believe some of the nationalized systems in Europe (Such as the private insurance in the UK) allow this as well. My dad could opt to do this, but I guess the cost/benefit doesn't add up.
Posted by Doug H. on July 17, 2007 01:45 PMJust curious, but how would a project like the eradication of smallpox work under free-market healthcare?
See http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/view/id/58
Would the free market be interested in eradicating a dread disease entirely, or would it just try to balance supply and demand to get the best profitability?
Why would the industry be interested in reducing their own profit?
How about projects to perform free dental work for the poor which then leads to enormous savings in reduced heart problems later?
Would the cardiology part of the free market cough up the money so the dentists could profit and the amount of cardiology business would be reduced?
Dan2: "Really? So a government of the people, by the people, and for the people, takes money from the people, and it is no longer the people's money?"
You think the money you pay in taxes should still be your money, Dan2? If it were still your money, you would be able to spend it however you wish, right? You like to think that the Treasury Department is just a bank. You deposit money there, but are free to spend it on whatever you want. You think the government ought to provide each taxpayer with a checkbook?
Good Lord, Dan2, try to do a little thinking before you post. The money that is paid in as taxes becomes the people's money, to be spent in accordance with the Constitution. It no longer belongs to the individual taxpayer who mailed it in. It belongs to the people as a whole.
It's a simple concept, Dan2, but if you have trouble understanding it let me know and I'll try to explain it more slowly and use smaller words.
Posted by Truth on July 17, 2007 04:48 PMWhenever there is a thread about universal health care, you are assured of seeing some posts providing anecdotal stories about wait times. Of course, anecdotal stories are hardly a basis for judging a nation's health care system, but it does give a feeling of satisfaction to the poster. If all of the posts in which Dan2 has repeated his cute little anecdotal story were put together, they would make a small book; yet, it's the same old story, told over and over and over.
So, what to do?
We could look at the various surveys of healthy care systems. The trouble is they all show our heath care system to rank behind the health care systems of a number of universal health care countries.
So, naturally, the opponents of universal health care take issue with them.
Perhaps there is a survey by an outfit that has a bias in favor of business. Let's look for one.
Good news, conservatives!!! I found one. It is by that conservative stalwart, Business Week, entitled:
THE DOCTOR WILL SEE YOU --- IN THREE MONTHS
Here are some excerpts:
"In reality, both data and anecdotes show that the American people are already waiting as long or longer than patients living with universal health-care systems."
Well, we're off to a bad start. But let's move on:
"All this time spent "queuing," as other nations call it, stems from too much demand and too little supply. Only one-third of U.S. doctors are general practitioners, compared with half in most European countries."
I don't blame the U.S, doctors. They are good capitalists and there is a lot more money in specializing.
Well, it's still not looking so good. But I'm sure there is a silver lining in this cloud. Let's see if we can find it:
"On top of that, only 40% of U.S. doctors have arrangements for after-hours care, vs. 75% in the rest of the industrialized world."
Hey, look; the doctors need to rest; golf can be a tiring sport.
Don't give up:
"Consequently, some 26% of U.S. adults in one survey went to an emergency room in the past two years because they couldn't get in to see their regular doctor, a significantly higher rate than in other countries."
Eureka, I told you we'd find where the United States is in the lead:
"The Commonwealth study did find one area where the U.S. was first by a wide margin: 51% of sick Americans surveyed did not visit a doctor, get a needed test, or fill a prescription within the past two years because of cost. No other country came close."
Darn!! Now, I'm flat aggravated. Tell you what, let's just print the whole dang thing:
The Doctor Will See You—In Three Months
The health-care reform debate is in full roar with the arrival of Michael Moore's documentary Sicko, which compares the U.S. system unfavorably with single-payer systems around the world. Critics of the film are quick to trot out a common defense of the American way: For all its problems, they say, U.S. patients at least don't have to endure the endless waits for medical care endemic to government-run systems. The lobbying group America's Health Insurance Plans spells it out in a rebuttal to Sicko: "The American people do not support a government takeover of the entire health-care system because they know that means long waits for rationed care."
In reality, both data and anecdotes show that the American people are already waiting as long or longer than patients living with universal health-care systems. Take Susan M., a 54-year-old human resources executive in New York City. She faithfully makes an appointment for a mammogram every April, knowing the wait will be at least six weeks. She went in for her routine screening at the end of May, then had another because the first wasn't clear. That second X-ray showed an abnormality, and the doctor wanted to perform a needle biopsy, an outpatient procedure. His first available date: mid-August. "I completely freaked out," Susan says. "I couldn't imagine spending the summer with this hanging over my head." After many calls to five different facilities, she found a clinic that agreed to read her existing mammograms on June 25 and promised to schedule a follow-up MRI and biopsy if needed within 10 days. A full month had passed since the first suspicious X-rays. Ultimately, she was told the abnormality was nothing to worry about, but she should have another mammogram in six months. Taking no chances, she made an appointment on the spot. "The system is clearly broken," she laments.
It's not just broken for breast exams. If you find a suspicious-looking mole and want to see a dermatologist, you can expect an average wait of 38 days in the U.S., and up to 73 days if you live in Boston, according to researchers at the University of California at San Francisco who studied the matter. Got a knee injury? A 2004 survey by medical recruitment firm Merritt, Hawkins & Associates found the average time needed to see an orthopedic surgeon ranges from 8 days in Atlanta to 43 days in Los Angeles. Nationwide, the average is 17 days. "Waiting is definitely a problem in the U.S., especially for basic care," says Karen Davis, president of the nonprofit Commonwealth Fund, which studies health-care policy.
All this time spent "queuing," as other nations call it, stems from too much demand and too little supply. Only one-third of U.S. doctors are general practitioners, compared with half in most European countries. On top of that, only 40% of U.S. doctors have arrangements for after-hours care, vs. 75% in the rest of the industrialized world. Consequently, some 26% of U.S. adults in one survey went to an emergency room in the past two years because they couldn't get in to see their regular doctor, a significantly higher rate than in other countries.
There is no systemized collection of data on wait times in the U.S. That makes it difficult to draw comparisons with countries that have national health systems, where wait times are not only tracked but made public. However, a 2005 survey by the Commonwealth Fund of sick adults in six nations found that only 47% of U.S. patients could get a same- or next-day appointment for a medical problem, worse than every other country except Canada.
The Commonwealth survey did find that U.S. patients had the second-shortest wait times if they wished to see a specialist or have nonemergency surgery, such as a hip replacement or cataract operation (Germany, which has national health care, came in first on both measures). But Gerard F. Anderson, a health policy expert at Johns Hopkins University, says doctors in countries where there are lengthy queues for elective surgeries put at-risk patients on the list long before their need is critical. "Their wait might be uncomfortable, but it makes very little clinical difference," he says.
"The Commonwealth study did find one area where the U.S. was first by a wide margin: 51% of sick Americans surveyed did not visit a doctor, get a needed test, or fill a prescription within the past two years because of cost. No other country came close.
Few solutions have been proposed for lengthy waits in the U.S., in part, say policy experts, because the problem is rarely acknowledged. But the market is beginning to address the issue with the rise of walk-in medical clinics. Hundreds have sprung up in CVS, Wal-Mart (WMT ), Pathmark, (PTMK ) and other stores—so many that the American Medical Assn. just adopted a resolution urging state and federal agencies to investigate such clinics as a conflict of interest if housed in stores with pharmacies. These retail clinics promise rapid care for minor medical problems, usually getting patients in and out in 30 minutes. The slogan for CVS's Minute Clinics says it all: "You're sick. We're quick."
Posted by Truth on July 17, 2007 05:54 PMTruth,
You never answered my question. When you add areas that the government controls; when you increase the size of government; you necessitate the confiscation of more money from individuals.
So, I will ask again.
Truth, what is worse? Being selfish with your own money, or being generous with someone else's?
Posted by Mike on July 17, 2007 07:50 PMWorking people who have insurance through their job are also covered under Workmans Comp if they get hurt at work.
All the people I know who had a workplace injury went on Comp but lost their company insurance and the insuranace for their dependants.
Once on Comp, outside insurers will not take them. Also, when you are on Comp some low cost facilities will not treat you. Seen all this and more.
Need a law that lets you keep your job related insurance and have the same payment plan as when you worked. However you and the company paid for it should continue.
All you working people with insurance through your company be very careful not to get hurt at work. Or if you do tell the insurers it happened at home.
Posted by Sharon B. on July 18, 2007 03:30 AMRe: Workers' Compensation Programs
Workers' Comp is specifically designed to work that way. Workers' Comp is a state statute that says to the injured worker, "you cannot sue your employer for your injury. Instead, take this lump sum settlement from the government." (The government gets the money to fund Workers' Comp by taxing [that is, stealing from] employers and insurance companies.) The government sets the prices. They have "schedules" that list the value of a lost index finger, hand, arm.
Workers on Workers' Comp lose their insurance coverage when they leave their insurer's employ. They do not lose their coverage if they remain employed. Workers are still covered by insurance when they are on leave to recover from injury. But insurance doesn't cover medical costs associated with the injury, because those costs have already been "compensated" by the state. The state doesn't want you double-dipping.
So the answer to continuing insurance coverage to workers injured on the job is to eliminate Workers' Compensation systems. I don't (as Sharon B. does) recommend lying, because you will not only lose your insurance, but get yourself a criminal record to boot.
Posted by Qwertz on July 18, 2007 09:37 AMAllen Campbell: "Is there really any difference between government regulation and mandates and those of pharmaceutical companies?"
Yes there is. One is legally empowered to force you to do what it says. The other can only deal with you on mutually voluntary terms.
Posted by Qwertz on July 18, 2007 09:41 AMLiam: "When their next baby was found to have some (unknown to me ) prenatal problems, they aborted it. It wasn't forced, but it was pretty well coerced."
Where is the coercion? A high price for a very valuable product is not coercion. Can I complain that Rolex has forced me out of my dream of owning a world-class timepiece by not offering me a watch at a price I can afford? This couple simply decided that the cost (in dollars, time, and emotional drain) was simply too high to bear.
What would be coercive would be for the government to force the hospital to provide care without compensation. Or to force other people to pay for that care at the point of a gun.
And if you don't think taxes are collected at gunpoint, take a look at the law some time and see what will happen to you and your assets if you don't pay your taxes.
Posted by Qwertz on July 18, 2007 09:57 AMExcellent points, Qwertz.
As for collecting taxes at gunpoint, click on my name to see a very real example.
Posted by John II on July 18, 2007 12:47 PMTruth thinks that tax dollars paid no longer belong to the people?
Dan2 debunked Truth's myth fairly well but I'd like to add that we DO still have a say in what happens to those tax dollars. I can't vote against Wal-Mart's CEO if I don't like the way he spends the money. Nor can I vote on Wal-Mart referendums or get refunds thru the Wal-Mart TABOR program (when's the state version coming back anyhow?).
You see Truth, we do still have a voice as to what happens with the overcharged tax dollars we pay.
Now go find something else to whine about and quit making a grab for more of my money.
I prefer to decide for myself which charities or groups I help out with my hard earned dollars, not the nanny government.
Posted by KW on July 18, 2007 03:53 PMKW,
You will notice that Truth never answered my question either time I asked it. He obviously believes it is a greater sin to want to keep more of your money instead of allowing him and and his like-minded people to spend it for you; since he knows better. That's one of the ways he rationalizes it; it is no longer your money, it's government's money.
Posted by Mike on July 18, 2007 04:44 PMHi, Mike and KW. It's really great to know that you guys are still thinking about me. Makes me feel all gooey inside.
KW, I thought you'd like to know that I used your money to buy a new keyboard. Thanks. Its works great.
Posted by Truth on July 18, 2007 06:43 PMTruth,
Are you ready to answer the question, or are you too busy posting statistics about how much this country sucks?
Posted by Mike on July 18, 2007 08:07 PMI notice that nobody answered my questions either.
I am dying to hear how the free-market system is going to address something like eradication of smallpox.
Posted by Bango Skank on July 19, 2007 12:12 PMBango, firstly smallpox hasn't been eradicated.
But I think what you're implying is that people are too stupid to get vacinated? Perhaps you have no imagination or choose to ignore the millions of examples whereby private enterprise has overcome problems. Or perhaps you don't understand that something that is mass produced becomes cheaper.
But maybe you think people can't be trusted to know what's good for them and therefore need controlling. If that's the case, then how can we trust governments made up of these stupid people to know what's best for us? If we're all too stupid to make choices, how can the government make choices for us? This illogical assertion either indicates humanity is doomed no matter what (in which case why would you object to private health care), or perhaps it just indicates people's irresponsible child like dependance on authority, a relic from worse times in the past.
The fact is that people will do what's best for them without the use of force. And it will be done more efficiently and to the benefit of more people overall. There are many people who slip through the cracks when it comes to vaccination in the current partially socialized medicare set up. This number would drop in a de-regulated, private system. Just because something is paid for by tax doesn't mean we aren't paying for it. In fact we are paying more because of the introduction of a tax payer funded middleman and the economic calculation problem.
Tim, I think Bango meant that for profit companies might not go into something like the eradication of smallpox because a lot of people wouldn`t be able to afford the vaccination.
If an extremely dangerous, newly evolved virus comes at us, it will take government money, and speed to deal with it.
Even then we might not get it right but we would throw all our resources at it and try.
I do know that mothers took the scab off their children's arms and poked holes in their siblings arms and put the scab over the wound so all the kids in one family were vaccinated. Pretty darned clever I think.
those vaccinations were not free, just cheap, but not always cheap enough
Posted by Sharon B. on July 20, 2007 03:01 AM