How to Fix Health Care: Lasik Surgery For The Medical Debate
Make no mistake about it. Health care reform is coming. But what's the best way to fix our health care system, which is an inefficient, complicated mess of private actors, third-party payers, public subsidies, and innumerable state and federal regulations? Should we place our faith in the government or in the free market? ObamaCare supporters argue that the answer lies in more government—more subsidies, more regulations, a law mandating individuals buy health-insurance coverage and, of course, more taxes to pay for it all. The alternative is to base reforms on what works in the other five-sixths of the US economy, where choice and competition increase quality and drive down prices over time. Can a market-based health care system work? We can begin to answer this question by looking at Lasik, a medical procedure that's not covered by health insurance. And has gotten better—and cheaper—over time. "How to Fix Health Care" proposes three simple reforms that will put us on a path to a health-care system that's better, more affordable, and more accessible. And get this—these market-based reforms can be implemented without creating new government programs or raising taxes. Approximately 8.30 minutes. Produced by Paul Feine and Meredith Bragg. Hosted by Nick Gillespie. For downloadable versions of this and other videos, go to reason.tv
Recent Posts
- term life insurance exclusions
- home insurance per month
- halifax home insurance legal cover
- car insurance europe cover
- auto insurance credit report
- life insurance quotes metlife
- bajaj allianz life insurance tlc
- car insurance cambridge ma
- car insurance low down payment
- life insurance corporation of india
- health insurance quotes utah
- anthem life insurance columbus ohio
- auto insurance reviews texas
- tata aig life insurance nagpur
- bajaj allianz life insurance ernakulam
Important Information
- What reputable health insurance companies are out there?
- Updated Home Insurance: Are you satisfied with your policy?
- auto insurance won't pay
- Progressive Automotive X PRIZE Press Event - Part 1 of 3
- over 50 life insurance ireland
- Caught on tape: Judge wigs out, threatens Free Keene guy
- what exactly is a car insurance quote?
- Allstate Insurance Agent Bill Cotton - Auto Insurance in North Huntingdon, PA
- Do You Know Which Pet Insurance You Should Get?
- Compare House Insurance Online
April 18th, 2010 - 20:03
Therefore, you made all déductibles coÔ ts of santé d' impôt. How much that to withdraw case d' impôt. How you make jusqu' à this money? What want you to make if you êtes chA mor and cancer. No use thus not of tax déduction. With its Lasik option. I can obtain glasses if I want. If j' have cancer and cannot allow it. What do I have to make? Care of santé n' is not " Best Buy". I can choose if I want a télé or not. I n' the choice if I do not have falls ill or not.
April 18th, 2010 - 20:21
@inademv
Then is impossible to get insurance for sudden mayor illness or accidents.
So what you can get for your car or home, you cant for your healthcare.
watch?v=3WnS96NVlMI at 3:20
Well, then why the people in that video, have just that?
Why they have insurance for mayor health problems, and health savings accounts for routine care?
Btw, all that is explained in the late part of this very same video you are commenting on, but I suppose some people hear just what they want to hear.
April 18th, 2010 - 20:59
then must I obtain my lasik now. or to wait until the care of santé news between into force?
April 18th, 2010 - 21:23
@lobosolo0333 And that is worthless anecdotal evidence that isn’t supported by statistics on the subject or history.
April 18th, 2010 - 22:02
inademv @. . . It is an absolute nonsense. In a free market, I can choose my doctor. If one attempts to Jack up the price because I’m in pain, I can go to another. In case you have not bothered to read the announcement I had to correct a problem because I went to another doctor who lectured me, much less than surgery would cost, but it fixed.
April 18th, 2010 - 22:14
inademv @. . . I think I mentioned that if you’ve read this far.
April 18th, 2010 - 22:17
@ Safe Lobosolo0333 in the free marché so that the médecin cannot wait until you absolutely need the surgery, then load this qu' they want.
April 18th, 2010 - 23:04
@lobosolo0333 Do that when you are unresponsive
April 18th, 2010 - 23:43
inademv @ In fact, one of my friends was sideswiped by a car while jogging on. . . three ambulances showed up and he had to choose the hospital where he wanted aller.Bien course you can not always be in a state where you can choose, but even if an ambulance arrived when my father had pain chest, he told them that the hospital to take him when A. and I went to the emergency room of my own. . . I choose the hospital.
April 19th, 2010 - 00:17
@ Inademv course it does. Do you think that when I found myself facing possible surgery to correct a bulging disc that I just walked into the office of the first neurosurgeon and took his word. . . and costs. . . and had the surgery? Not a chance, I consulted the other and was able to correct with surgery.
April 19th, 2010 - 00:30
@ CobraCommander if you have not already. In addition, the video is not the insurance itself, but the cost of care and its costs. Emergency care is not something that you can shop for.
April 19th, 2010 - 01:05
You cannot shop insurance covers broken bones or severe infection?
April 19th, 2010 - 01:47
Excellent video! Expert Advice! You should upload your video to Ewisdomtv
April 19th, 2010 - 02:27
The élective surgery is something which you store for a fracture or an infection sévère n' is not. on the free marché s' does not apply à anything with-delà surgery élective and the care préventifs.
April 19th, 2010 - 03:16
there’s a market for it. If no one wanted insurance it wouldn’t exist. It’s only when the government got involved that it became a problem.
April 19th, 2010 - 03:36
The companies which manufacture these médicaments which causes more diseases than the disease to obtain the trousers continued except d' them. Moreover, it is difficult to say qu' they are not justifiées charges price X without knowing with them how much it them in coÔ will tera à research that médicament in particular. C' ” T vs price is the coÃ, and if the government chose réglementer the contrôle prices, Big Pharma would go bankrupt parce qu' they have to sell médicament the à less coÔ T of the développer.
April 19th, 2010 - 04:17
I know you said you had to go, but I was looking back at our discussion and while reading this I thought of another point.
The free market wouldn’t help those who couldn’t afford expensive health care, but there are plenty private non-for-profit organizations that would be able to assist. Just look at how much money is raised for breast cancer by NFP non-government organizations.
April 19th, 2010 - 04:18
Thank you, it was very exciting. I assume when you have time, maybe a private message to not monopolize the channel;)
April 19th, 2010 - 05:05
From the perspective of a monopoly, you’re right. If there was a large pharmaceutical company where your logic would make sense. I do not know how many times I have to say that free competition keeps this under control.
April 19th, 2010 - 05:20
I never claimed cheaper and more efficient. . and i’m not suggesting government controlled health care. . . I’m suggesting government funded research, rather than big business research that only cares about profits. . .
I’ve had a good conversation here, but i’ve got to get going. You have some good points, which I dont entirely disagree with. . but I think there has to be more than just a Free-market health industry. .
Thanks for the intelligent conversation
April 19th, 2010 - 06:11
I challenge you to find an industry that runs cheaper and more efficiently due to government regulation.
April 19th, 2010 - 06:38
right. . i understand how supply and demand works. .
I’m simply saying that it is bad business to eliminate the residual income generated on treating an illness rather than curing it. . . History has shown that big business doesnt care about the well-being of the american people. . big pharma companies dont create treatments because they care about peoples lives. . they create treatments because they can then make money off those treatments. . . So therefor why would they have any incentive to cure. .
April 19th, 2010 - 06:54
Again I show you in the direction of competing firms releasing the priest merely to crush their competitors. While most could not afford it first, that’s how everything starts to tech. But the purchase of this product rich financing the research necessary to find ways to make it cheaper.
April 19th, 2010 - 07:26
The government could never be as or more efficient than a private company.
April 19th, 2010 - 08:01
i’m not saying that the cure is there. . i’m saying that its cheaper for the pharma company to find a treatment for those illness’ rather than spending the large amount of money on finding a cure.
Why would they market a cure? In order for it to be profitable they would have to charge an outrageous amount of money which no one could afford anyhow, and once the cure is out there the profit game is over. . . once you cure someone there is no residual income on the treatment of that disease. .