So if cost is the main problem with healthcare...
Then any solution that is proposed or discussed should be evaluated based on it's ability to lower the cost of healthcare, right? What good would a solution do if it didn't really lower the costs of healthcare, no matter how many times we hear politicians promise their solution will work? For example, many people feel that the profit motive is what is making the costs skyrocket. While it makes sense that a profit adds some cost to the product or service, why isn't this the same solution to lowering costs in all other products or services?
For example, if the way to lower costs is to take the profit motive out of a service or industry, why not take the profits out of all services or industries? Why not remove the profit motive in the energy provider industry? Would that lower costs so we paid less for our energy bills? How would any innovation in energy production (like research in solar, wind, or other renewable sources) take place if they had no profits to spend on it? (Many would argue they don't spend enough on this research). But if the energy companies make no profits then they couldn't spend any money on research because they would only have enough revenue to offer their current power generation services. Where would the money come from if the companies didn't have any money from profits? Would we have to rely on the government to fund all the money for this research? Would we really be glad we agreed to this if/when the power in Washington switches to the other party? I should think not.
Why not remove the profit motive in banking, financing, and credit card companies? Would this lower the interest rates people have to pay for business and mortgage loans? We did lower the interest rates over the last couple of years, but that didn't seem to work. Now Fannie and Freddie are gone with no reserves to back up their losses on their portfolios. The banks have also screwed up, but without the profit motive how could the banks stay in business because they would have no reserves to back up their portfolios? Without banks how could we borrow money? Would the government be the only source of funds for loans?
Why not remove the profit motive in the auto industry? They haven't made profits for years anyway, right? But we have learned that their lack of profits (and thus their lack of savines or reserves) proved to make it impossible for them to survive economic downturns. If they don't make profits and save some of those profits for a rainy day, how can the business survive downturns that will enevitably come? Also, if they don't have any profits where will the research and innovation in car production come from? Must we rely on government funding for auto research as well?
Just like individuals, if we don't save our income (our personal profits) how can we survive the downturns? Many are losing their homes now and I suspect many of these people don't have savings, or didn't have enough, to help them make it through. Without profits it seems that industry would more than likely be doomed to failure, not success. The fact that companies that don't make profits often fail, or don't fail only because our government bails them out (stupid banks), it's hard to understand how healthcare can lower costs by eliminating the profit motive. Without the profit motive where would the innovation in healthcare come from. Without the innovation in healthcare machines, drugs, and technology how will our healthcare services get better and prolong life?
We are realizing more and more that healthcare funding will likely need to come from a variety of sources. If we remove the profit motive this will likely stiffle at least some (if not all) of the innovation by those companies. Would we really want to put the responsibility for healthcare research and innovation in the hands of Washington politicians? That just doesn't sound like a good, responsible decision. Politicians have failed us for years and I don't feel comfortable relying on them to make the right decisions regarding innovation.
Am I totally wrong here? Or does it seem silly to think that simply eliminating the profit motive will really solve all our healthcare problems?
What about the restrictions on healthcare plan competition? Currently if I live in California I can't price plans in Oregon or Nevada because it's against the rules. Why can't I sign up for any plan I want based on the cost and my needs without restriction? Why not allow healthcare companies to compete for our business?
For example, look what happened to the phone line industry. The service was terrible and way too expensive for years. Who doesn't have a horror story about a phone company screwing them over? I had an issue about 8 years ago with my phone line being dead. I called them on a friend's phone and asked if there is anything I can try at home to fix it. They said no, but they would send someone out to check it, warning me they would charge me if the guy came inside the house. I told them to explicitly inform the worker to NOT enter the house, but to only check their lines. The guy came by while I wasn't home, came inside, unplugged all the phones and then plugged them back in. Magic! It worked. On his way out he told my roommate "check the back of your phone book, it tells you how to do that, that way you won't get charged $80!" Needless to say we got a bill the next month for $80. There was NO OTHER option for a home phone line at that time, only Quest, and they can destroy my credit if I don't pay them.
But now with cable companies and others getting into VoIP (phone lines using internet connections) prices have dropped over the last 6-8 years. Wouldn't more competition in the healthcare industry help more than simply relying on the removal of the profit motive? Your thoughts?