Does the rich man deserve a better product? I mean, when it comes to health care. If we have a pure market-driven health care system, the rich man is going to get better care.
I don't see too much of that going on. Some, yes, but not as much as there might be. If it were a severe difference, and if we had purely a market-driven system, the rich man would pay a high premium for higher quality care. The poor person? He would pay much less, and get much less.
Just as the rich buy Mercedes and the poor bought Geos (when Geo was still in business), there likely would be some insurance companies catering just to the rich, while others might cater to the poor.
Now, insurance companies do, indeed, offer one product line that is a little stepped up and another that is stepped down. So, perhaps the market-driven economy is working.
I wonder but what it shouldn't. There are times the rich man should be given the better product. When it comes to having a Mercedes instead of a Geo, let him have his Mercedes. But, in health care, I wonder but what they should be equal. I think of the words from the Declaration of Independence:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
Heath and health care fit squarely under the category of Life. If all men are to be have equal right to health care, then, should we be operating medicine under a free-market economy? If the free-market economy produces a system where the rich get a Mercedes and the poor get a Geo, and if we believe the rich and poor should have equal rights in health care . . .
Then, perhaps we should give thought to whether we want a market-driven system to be driving our health-care system. I am not ready to say, let's steer completely away from a free-market health-care system, but I am saying we should give it some thought.