Three topics I’d like you to address, if you would.
1# What incentive do the drug companies have to actually make us well? Are not Novo Nordisk, Sanofi, and Mannkind, et al not becoming filthy rich due to the explosion of diabetes and their production of Insulin? The pharma industry’s profit motive is at direct odds with its directive. Imagine a drug that cures all ills. That drug would destroy that huge mega-billion profit engine. Yet that is exactly what we would hope that some young pharm-corp actually does. The fact is, Corp-Pharma wants us to be ill; they would’t want it any other way.
2# Healthcare information inefficiencies seem a problem that a “top down” single payer system could optimize and all would benefit from. Competition for my health needs would tend to make the information about my health a resource to be coveted. It’s rather like Intellectual Property, protected and sequestered for specific providers’ eyes only.
3# No doubt much of the cost of our healthcare goes to fund litigation. What do you have to say regarding tort reform and how to both support honest legal action while reining in gold-digger type lawsuits?
Bonus: In my mind, if there is a negative aspect in the business model, then free or open markets fail to provide adequate or cost effective solutions. At is stands, the sicker we are, the more injury we receive, the greater misery we live under — the better it is for the corporation driven health care system. The best way to envision this scenario is to picture the following options:
- A magic pill is discovered that cures us all and leaves us all healthy until the day we drop from very old age. Who benefits? Who suffers?
- A systemic illness invades us all forcing us all to dole out 1/3 of our income to healthcare and pharma to keep us barely able to work. Who benefits? Who suffers?
Lastly, in these scenarios, are not the benefits of the people aligned with government? If we’re all healthy doesn’t government (composed of we the citizens) win too?