Yes, but . . .

Reader comment on: Productivity and Profits

Submitted by HNaylor (United States), Jul 17, 2012 17:26

I like this, generally. I want to agree with Mr. Kessler about his natural "divining rod."

But "always" is problematic. Elephantine example: health care. Doing more with less doesn't apply. That's because consumers are divorced from the costs--there's no incentive to shop for a competitive, efficiently priced product. And providers are then outside the "real" market--there's no incentive to PROVIDE a competitive, efficiently priced product.

I think this is because of things like insurance and Big Pharma, with their powerful lobbies and influence among doctors and hospitals. It's also because doctors are financially rewarded for doing more procedures and using physician-owned facilities. Doing more with more is very often not effective or desirable for the patient, though it sure is more profitable for the providers. See Atul Gawande's "The Cost Conundrum" and "Letting Go." See Harriet Washington's "Flacking for Big Pharma."

We wouldn't want to regulate the health care industry! say purists like Mr. Kessler . . . and I don't like regulation, either. But because of the problems stated above, health care costs have exploded (not even to mention that we aren't really healthier). And thus . . . ObamaCare. I don't like that either! but I blame a market allowed to run outside the productivity/profit model Mr. Kessler defends.

Note: Comments are moderated by the editor and are subject to editing.

Other reader comments on this item

Title By Date
⇒ Yes, but . . . [211 words]HNaylorJul 17, 2012 17:26
Railroads are still tremendously productive. [160 words]LyleJul 17, 2012 16:55

Comment on this item

Mark my comment as a response to Yes, but . . . by HNaylor

Email me if someone replies to my comment

Note: Comments are moderated by the editor and are subject to editing.