You missed his whole point. Because the US has such high costs we can't afford to give it to everyone. These exorbitant costs also create incentives for innovation. No other countries produce the medical breakthroughs that the US does.
This quote sums-up his thinking:
"Every drug that's made is a gift from one generation to the next because, while it may be expensive now, it goes off patent and your kids will have it essentially for free."
You could say the same thing about the US vis-a-vis the rest of the world. Every drug/treatment/device that is developed in the US is a gift to the rest of the world
I'd just like to point out that the internet was government-funded innovation. As well as the massive amounts of R&D we do in the military space. Another area in which we lead the world. To assume that government-funded equates to lack of innovation is false.
The initial invention was gov't funded, but it wasn't until (decades) later when business began investing in it that it really took off. And became much more than an academic toy.
Companies weren't interested in the internet until they could make a profit. The same way they aren't interested in treatments/medicines/cures unless they can make a profit. What if these decisions were made altruistically based on how many people you can help, regardless of the profits...
It's also why health care should be a government problem rather than a free market problem. They can focus on the right things rather than the profitable things, no business can survive doing that.
I agree. I wouldn't mind trading the private bureaucrat who determines if I get care (and gets rewarded for containing the medical loss ratio * ) for a government bureaucrat who determines if I get care.
The point I agree with is that the very high medical expenses in the US aren't just going up in smoke. Because of those high costs people are directing private investment dollars towards creating new treatments.
* medical loss ratio - the amount of my premium that actually gets handed over for medical care - typically 75%-80% vs. 95% with Medicare.
Yes, but these companies determine what to invest in based on how much profit they presume to make. Should profit be the only motive to creating new treatments?
This quote sums-up his thinking: "Every drug that's made is a gift from one generation to the next because, while it may be expensive now, it goes off patent and your kids will have it essentially for free."
You could say the same thing about the US vis-a-vis the rest of the world. Every drug/treatment/device that is developed in the US is a gift to the rest of the world