Just a rambling thought, but wish for responses from you learned folks.
Venture capitalism is under attack from zealous Congressional and SEC pinheads who believe they can best manage individual lives and money. See the WSJ today. Why should we care?
The Bio-Pump, the world’s largest selling hear assist blood pump, was developed with high risk investment money. This little device has saved millions of lives. Its inventors, Dr. Harold Kletshcka and Edson Rafferty, created this device to save lives. Never once did they consult with insurance companies to make sure it would be a covered benefit, nor did they seek permission from the federal government to build it. On the contrary, FDC laws regarding medical devices that went into effect in 1976 impacted its progress, and a false SEC lawsuit in the early 1970s nearly drove them out of business. (See To Change the Heart of Man – www.tochangetheheartofman.com).
Now here is my question. Should venture capitalists invest only in new medical devices that they predetermine will be covered by health insurance, or that they predetermine the federal government will approve? And should new laws regulating venture capitalists require that they prove beforehand that their chances of earning a ROI are without risk, or at least low risk? And if all this happened, would it serve to advance the efficacy and value of health care or defeat it?
As you evaluate health care reform, you must, must look at the threads running through all new policies that are under consideration. The impact of further centralization of all aspects of commerce, whether directly related to health care or not, will prove deadly in the long run.
1 comment:
Dave Racer,
I agree with you completely. It seems that to push this sort of reform through, there needs to be a feeling of injustice. The public has to feel that it has been wronged. There has to be a bad guy so the legislation can be ram-rodded under the guise of punishment or leveling the playing field. Choosing the insurance industry as the scape goat was easy enough since they are already so unpopular.
But what are they being punished for? As you discuss in your post, insurance premiums are a result of the cost of health care plus administrative costs. Expensive premiums are not a crime- they are a reflection on the cost of health care and the effect of government regulation. If those premiums truly are excessive, it is the role of the consumer to find a plan that better suits their needs.
If consumers determine that there is no plan that meets their needs, they can pay for their care independently. They often can so and spend much less than they would for a health insurance policy. Remember, the cost of insurance is equal to the cost of care plus administrative costs. Too often in this national debate, health insurance is being equated to access to health care. If this fallacy continues to be accepted nationally, it will have a profound impact on the cost of health care in the future.
If you're interested, I write more extensively about these topics on my blog at freemarketphysician.blogspot.com
Rusty Scalpel
Post a Comment