The Daily Show Nails Why Health Care Will Never Work As A Free Market

SOME of what they say is true but you've got two diehard liberals here so obviously they aren't going to be right 100%, just as two diehard conservatives aren't going to be 100% right. This guy talks about one example. You can take one example from any healthcare system in the world and make it look bad. The fact is if we had a national healthcare system in place for this one example, this drug wouldn't have been available at all, so even though this patient would have been $83,000 richer, the fact is he would be dead. They are correct though that Obamacare doesn't have any price controls. Even though the Republicans have never put forth their own concrete proposal, and may never, they wanted to put forth policies which controlled costs, making healthcare more affordable to everyone. This can actually be done to some extent if the powers that be would follow the right ball. Unfortunately, both sides were faked out and have been following the wrong ball. Even the liberals are beginning to see that Obamacare just isn't going to work and we are only at the tip of the iceberg.

"The fact is if we had a national healthcare system in place for this one example, this drug wouldn't have been available at all, so even though this patient would have been $83,000 richer, the fact is he would be dead. "

Really?

"Even though the Republicans have never put forth their own concrete proposal, and may never, they wanted to put forth policies which controlled costs, making healthcare more affordable to everyone. "

Really? I just recall whining about death panels and getting between doctors and their patients. And trying to scare us that we would die because we wouldn't get $300 cancer drugs for $83,000 if we regulated healthcare.

The US system is very, very far from perfect and needs a lot of work and the old status quo was not the answer but Obamcare is not the answer and national healthcare is not the answer either. These segments from the Daily Show are one sided, just as articles from the New York times are one sided. We're never going to get anywhere on this issue because it always seems like we get opposing viewpoints from two sides that both spew very misleading information and cherry pick their "facts" to prove their case. We need a solution from the center where the only agenda is figuring out how to have a better healthcare system. Unfortunately our only choices seem to be Democratic or Republican and they both have the deck stacked in their favors so that no other viewpoint or ideas can get through but one of theirs. Whichever party has the most control gets things their way while the country as a whole gets scr*w*d.

That's just it. Every side has facts. It's how you present them and which ones you choose not to report on. Are you saying that Fox News doesn't have facts? As far as I know nobody disagrees with the fact that the New York Times is a very left leaning liberal publication(ditto the Daily Show), although the Times has been doing a little better as of late. I don't deny that Fox News has a conservative slant on things and often does the same thing, reports the facts that bolster their viewpoint while conveniently ignoring facts that don't support their view.

I don't understand how you can say my statement is fiction. How can you prove that the drug in question would have been available at all under Obamacare or a national health system? In fact, Obamacare policies have limited drugs available on their formularies as opposed to before Obamacare. It was just fairly recently that in the UK Remicade(Infliximab) wasn't even a maintenance treatment option for UC while it was in the US (even though it is expensive). That just proves my point that the above referenced drug probably would not have been available to even use as a treatment option under Obamacare or a national health system.

I know Big Pharma gets a bad wrap (often times well deserved) but I also know about running a business and making a profit from it. Most drug companies don't make much money on generics so they have to make most of their money from new drugs still under patent. It costs them millions and millions of dollars in research and development to come up with these new drugs so they are expensive. Many times these millions and millions get spent on drug failures that never even reach the market, not taking into account millions of dollars paid out in lawsuits for drugs with bad side effects. I'm not privy to the actual figures but maybe with the above referenced med it only costs $300 to manufacture but how many millions and millions did that drug cost in R&D? The daily show guest conveniently didn't happen to mention this aspect. They also use the mega profits on these new patented drugs to do R&D to come up with other new drugs. I'm not denying that Big Pharma execs make multimillion dollar salaries but then again so does Jon Stewart and the CEO's of the New York Times and Dr. Mercola and others.

When it comes to doctors, hospitals, and other providers there are many factors which contribute to their high costs and yet they are just accused of being greedy when they charge high prices. The liberals never seem to want to address these issues which may be the main driving force that makes providers charge outrageous prices. I applaud the candidness of the guest on the Daily Show but Levi is correct, they are presenting this whole thing as an easy fix black and white issue by continuing to blame everything on Big Pharma, doctors, and other providers as if the only reason for high health care costs is their greediness.

"When it comes to doctors, hospitals, and other providers there are many factors which contribute to their high costs and yet they are just accused of being greedy when they charge high prices. The liberals never seem to want to address these issues which may be the main driving force that makes providers charge outrageous prices."

And the issues are? Before you start, malpractice including defensive medicine is about 3%. Insurance companies, while providing like value for cost, take another small piece. What they are doing is charge as much as they can get away with and the government pays half the tab. They have a monopoly on many services and no price transparency.

Why would a conservative tolerate this? Why are they so critical of government spending but so supportive of a bloated overpriced industry that relies on the taxpayer and supportive legislation to survive? Are you disputing that Americans pay way too much for healthcare?

The 50% of per capita health spending done by government is more than any other country spends in total.

"I would argue that insurers are able to charge more because the state allows it through whatever laws or regulations they are taking advantage of."

I really don't like how health insurance companies often do business and I think they utterly fail at controlling long term cost BUT the real elephant in the room is the providers especially large hospital networks. They have far more political power than insurance companies. They are often the largest employer in a congressional district and a major one in every district. The regulations are most beneficial to them. The largest failing in this country is that regulations on healthcare are mostly written to protect the industry not the consumer. Doesn't have to be that way.

For a free market to work you have to have a rational and informed consumer.People really are not rational when it comes to healthcare. Being informed is a major problem also. I really don't see any real world examples of free market working for healthcare in fact the rest of the world is doing a better job not pretending to have a free market health system. Elements of free market can work but free market in healthcare has many failures. Insurance companies are supposed to control cost..but they really don't. In fact it is against their best interest since they basically take a percentage of the pie and benefit when that pie gets bigger. The consumer is sick and really not in a position to shop. The right kind of regulation is the only solution I can see. Treat healthcare like police, fire, defense. Level playing field, lots of rules and everyone contributes.

The current situation is utterly absurd. Nobody is denied care but people have the option not to insure themselves. It really makes no sense for many(most) Americans to buy insurance because they have no or little positive assets.Many can't pay. But almost nobody is going to want hospitals refusing patients. One of the biggest lies is that providers are screwed over by the uninsured and cost shifting from publicly insured patients. Price discrimination is permitted and price discrimination actually increases profitability. Good fairly brief explanation :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price_discrimination

Basically I just look at the other systems in the first world and they all appear better if you are paying your share. Using the best features of all of them would be a great system that would mean a "raise" of thousands of $ to every person in this country. The biggest lack of transparency is what healthcare is costing most people because it is hidden as a employer benefit.

AZ: It's impossible for me to comment on your posts. I don't have the time or the patience to respond to all the wrong information and conclusions, especially when you've got it all figured out and nobody is going to be able to change your mind. All I can say is that health insurance companies can't control health care costs, they merely pay the bill and with the new Obamacare regulations they can't make more than a certain amount of profit without refunding any extra to the policyholders.

It costs a lot of money for Pharmacutical companies to make drugs, there's no denying that. Doctors, Hospitals, and other providers have their own high costs so, for the most part, their high charges for healthcare are passed on to their customers via what often seems like outrageous charges. Doctors not only go hundreds of thousands of dollars in debt to be educated but also pay high malpractice costs, not to mention all of the other high costs that doctors and healthcare providers have to pay. My allergist's office said they had to spend $300,000 to comply with Obamacare regulations. We are never going to get a grip on healthcare by blaming the health insurance companies, doctors, hospitals, Big Pharma, and other providers. What we really need to do to get healthcare costs under control is to work with all of these in reducing THEIR costs so that they can pass these savings on to us instead of just claiming they are a bunch of greedy people so we should pay them less. That's not the real problem. Until someone realizes this the healthcare problem will never be solved.

"Call me jaded but the corporatist government isn't going to start protecting the consumer over and against it's sleeping partner and the hand that feeds it."

People are jaded in this country. Other countries are doing a better job on healthcare costs, why can't we? American unexceptional-ism? To give up on government and turn everything over to the corporate master might not be such a great idea. People have to get engaged in government and start voting for the right people. Both political parties are selling negativism and hopelessness to maintain the status quo. One is a master of it. You do need to regulate some industries to maintain a free market just like you have to grant patents and create monopolies. Regulation isn't always good or bad.

" You say that the state's regulations are most beneficial to industry and not the consumer. Then you say we need more regulation-which this time, will protect the consumer. "

No I did not say that. I would write consumer regulation and skip regulations that obviously benefit a industry and harm consumers.

Post Edited (AZYooper) : 1/20/2014 5:01:40 PM (GMT-7)

I'm an outsider (Australian) here, but from my, obviously limited view, of the American Healthcare system (which I know I will never fully understand no matter how hard I try), it seems so unfair. I know people who hate their jobs but daren't leave because they depend on the healthcare plan provided by their employer. You shouldn't have to work at a job you hate and rely on your employer to give you healthcare insurance - USA is the only place in the world where people heavily rely on such, to my knowledge.

I know of people, who have needed to go to the ER but haven't simply because they've used up their quota(?) for ER benefits and can't afford to pay?

People shouldn't have to beg on the internet for ostomy supplies because they have no insurance and can't afford to pay for them out of pocket.

I may be getting these situations wrong (or not the full story from people) but from what I've been told by them, it just seems so unfair to me and plain wrong.

Shaz and hayden are both right. I don't disagree with anything Shaz said. It is completely true. The thing is Hayden is right too. Most people in and out of the US just don't realize that about 67%-75% of those in the US had average to great insurance and had access to the best healthcare in the world at a somewhat decent cost. These are not only the rich people but also those who made a decent living and also for many people who made much less but worked for companies that provided decent health insurance. This great healthcare was not just for the rich as many people mistakenly believe.

It is the other 25% - 33% which gave the US a very bad and probably well deserved rap and it sucks for them and is not "fair". The big problem though is that Obamacare changed healthcare for everyone and for this 67% - 75% our healthcare got worse. It's ironic but if they had just left everything the way it was and found programs to help those 25% - 33% it would have cost the taxpayers far less than what Obamacare has and those 67% - 75% could have retained the best healthcare in the world and the others would have been helped dramatically. A lot of average "Joes" and "Janes" who were part of that higher percentage have been screwed by Obamacare. It's also fairly hilarious that President Obama has paid for an Obamacare policy for him and his family that he does not intend on using himself.

So true NCOT. If you are rich you can also travel to other countries that you believe have better healthcare. I grew up in a middle class American family and my dad was self-employed. We could not afford health insurance so we paid out-of-pocket. When you pay out-of-pocket or the deductible is too high people tend to put off what needs to be checked out by a doctor. This is a major flaw in our system. I live in a city where medicine is a huge industry and lots of people come from all over the world to use our medical facilities. Most of these people pay out-of-pocket. It's actually cheaper for me to pay cash than to use my health insurance. That's a problem!

Here's an example of our flawed system. I have health insurance through my husband's employer. He works for a national travel magazine. At Christmastime, I took my kids ice skating and fell. Hit my head pretty hard. The ice rink offered to call an ambulance after three people pulled me off the ice. I declined calling an ambulance because I knew an ambulance ride would be at least $1,000 with insurance and then the ER visit would cost me thousands. The next day I ended up going to the ER because I got worse and ultimately had a concussion. In my opinion people should not avoid getting symptoms checked out because they are worried about paying off the debt for years to come.

Gary, my health insurance is through one of the major hospital systems in my city so they run their own game. When I get things done like a simple chest x-ray it costs me $170 out-of-pocket plus fee for radiologist to read it or $300 with my insurance plus fee to read insurance. It's a total racket. Sure, doctor visit co-pays are less ($35 as opposed to $185 for my GI). My deductible is $2,500 and then insurance pays 80%. I pay "out-of-pocket" if it's towards the end if the year and going towards deductible doesn't really matter. If it's January I would probably make it count toward the deductible.