The usual notion regarding market competition is that in the long run it will result in the efficient production of goods and services as "better" companies win out over "not so good" companies in the marketplace. While some scholars argue that competition is the solution to rising costs and the need for higher quality in medical care, others say, "no," medical care is different.
A medicine that I take daily became available in a generic form recently. I use the pharmacy at Walmart on Ledo Road. They informed me that they were out of the generic form and that I had the choice of waiting a few days for the generic, going across town to the Walmart on the East side for the generic, or getting the version that is not generic for an out-of-pocket cost of $30, compared to out-of-pocket for $10 for the generic version. I asked what the non-generic form would cost my insurance company for 30 days. The answer was $186. I drove across town to get the generic in order to save both myself and my insurance company some money.
Here are my questions of you. Was my behavior rational? How many people (as patients) would have cared in the least what a prescription costs their insurance company? Why do we have the complicated system at all? Why not just charge patients the cost of things and not bother with government agencies and insurance companies at all? What would you have done in my situation? How "should" people make economic decisions about medical care? Based on your reading of chapter 2 of our textbook by Marcinko and Hetico do you think competition alone is the solution to the quality crisis and rising costs of medical care?
I am looking for at least one solid paragraph as a reply to this post. You don't have to answer every part of the question. Please remember to include a link to a relevant Web page or YouTube video.