A couple of things on healthcare

Posted on December 2nd, 2009 by ecthompson

Is there anybody who believes that America is about competition? If you believe that America and business love competition, please email me because I have some swamp land ocean-front property to sell you out in Idaho. Think about that period in American history after World War II. The big companies got bigger because of competition? No. Of course, there are a few exceptions but as a rule big companies split up the marketplace. Whether it was General Motors, Ford and Chrysler or, in steel, United States Steel, Republic and Bethlehem, these big companies split up the marketplace and made profits. There was no competition. None.

Now, it looks like we have more information on the pharmaceutical companies. They paid generic drug companies to keep their generics off the market. Is anyone really surprised? There is so much money in pharmaceuticals that drug companies are able to pay off these generic companies so that everybody makes money but, and this is important, the pharmaceutical companies make a ton more money and the consumers pay a ton more money. Everybody wins except the consumers.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

I talked about mammograms and the controversy surrounding them a couple of weeks ago. It seems that several of the folks who made the recommendations were brought in front of a congressional committee in which they yelled that it was all just some sort of misunderstanding. It was a problem in communication. Horse hockey. I hate when people kind of weasel out of things. Say what you mean and mean what you say. In the formal paper which was published in the Annals of Internal Medicine, this committee stated that it recommended “against routine screening mammography in women aged 40 to 49 years. The decision to start regular, biennial screening mammography before the age of 50 should be an individual one and take into account the patient’s context, including the patient’s values regarding specific benefits and harms.”

The recommendations weren’t a mistake. They were not something that they just dreamed up out of the air. The panel should’ve stood firm and said that, in their interpretation of the literature, these were their recommendations. Then, they should’ve added a caveat, the same warning in the paper, that treatment should be individualized in these patients.

Again, as I said before, this is a minor task force which has no bearing on the American Cancer Society, really the main medical body to which physicians look for recommendations on cancer, including breast cancer. I believe in screening more women and not fewer. I believe that women need to be informed about their choices. They need to be told that the earlier you start screening the more likely it is that you’re going to have something found on mammography, which will lead to a biopsy, which most likely will be negative. Once women understand this and want to accept this risk then there should be no argument.

Tags: Healthcare // View Comments

  • Joe White
    Dr Thompson wrote:

    "As a consumer, I'm not sure that I want competition, per se, I want variety"

    Then why do you want single payer?

    A 'one size fits all' approach to health care is not only contrary to the American tradition of having variety and choices, but it's downright dangerous as well since there will be no other option, no escape.

    You'll have a health care system with all the compassion of the IRS.
  • Joe White
    Dr Thompson wrote:

    "As a consumer, I'm not sure that I want competition, per se, I want variety"

    Then why do you want single payer?

    A 'one size fits all' approach to health care is not only contrary to the American tradition of having variety and choices, but it's downright dangerous as well since there will be no other option, no escape.

    You'll have a health care system with all the compassion of the IRS.
  • ecthompson
    The Big three worked together to crush mass transit rail in LA and choke much better car, the Tucker. Did they make a mediocre product for over 20 years? Yep. I think when you look across the American landscape you'll see multiple examples of large industries working together in order to crush competition. Yet, we are told by politicians that Americans love free enterprise, free markets, etc. when that is not true. As a consumer, I'm not sure that I want competition, per se, I want variety. I'm not sure that the things are the same.

    As usual, I appreciate your thoughtful insight.
  • ecthompson
    The Big three worked together to crush mass transit rail in LA and choke much better car, the Tucker. Did they make a mediocre product for over 20 years? Yep. I think when you look across the American landscape you'll see multiple examples of large industries working together in order to crush competition. Yet, we are told by politicians that Americans love free enterprise, free markets, etc. when that is not true. As a consumer, I'm not sure that I want competition, per se, I want variety. I'm not sure that the things are the same.

    As usual, I appreciate your thoughtful insight.
  • TCB

    I don't think that it's a secret that businesses hate completion. However, I do believe that American consumers love competition. Who wants only one brand of cereal or only one kind of store? I don't see anyone demanding that we close all grocery stores except Walmart. Of course, consumers may love low prices even more. Bottom line, competition benefits the customer, not the company.

    I don't get your point about the Big Three auto makers. I don't see any evidence that they colluded (formally or informally) to split up the market. Why did they all make their own luxury cars, trucks and SUV's? If they had split the market, then it would have been more logical for one company to only sell trucks, another luxury cars and another SUV's. Instead, they all seem to go after each other. Moreover, they were also competing against foreign auto makers.

    As far as Big Steel. Well, we don't have as much of a steel industry due to foreign competition.

    I agree that business want to stifle competition. Of course, the best way to do that is by out-performing your competitors. The easiest way to beat the competition is through the government. That's why K street thrives.

  • TCB
    I don’t think that it’s a secret that businesses hate completion. However, I do believe that American consumers love competition. Who wants only one brand of cereal or only one kind of store? I don’t see anyone demanding that we close all grocery stores except Walmart. Of course, consumers may love low prices even more.  Bottom line, competition benefits the customer, not the company.
    I don’t get your point about the Big Three auto makers.  I don’t see any evidence that they colluded (formally or informally) to split up the market. Why did they all make their own luxury cars, trucks and SUV’s? If they had split the market, then it would have been more logical for one company to only sell trucks, another luxury cars and another SUV’s.  Instead, they all seem to go after each other. Moreover, they were also competing against foreign auto makers.
    As far as Big Steel. Well, we don’t have as much of a steel industry due to foreign competition.
    I agree that business want to stifle competition. Of course, the best way to do that is by out-performing your competitors. The easiest way to beat the competition is through the government. That’s why K street thrives.
blog comments powered by Disqus
« »