Companies used to self-insure their employees before healthcare costs exploded. There are several groups to blame for the ridiculous increase in costs, in no particular order, greedy doctors, greedy insurance companies, greedy doctor's medical groups, Wall Street, and greedy prescription companies. Blaming ACA (@SpamSandwich) doesn't get to the root cause. Starting to cover your own employees hopefully would get rid of the money-sucking middle companies, especially the insurance companies. All you have to do is look at the insane profits companies like Anthem (market cap of $62B, stock price 400% increase in last 5 years) makes for pushing paper to understand where the problem lies. You can complain all you want about socialized medicine and government waste but your medical insurance costs are driven by Wall Street greed and not by our government. Why are so many people involved in paying our medical bills? Every extra person who touches that money takes their cut and they don't deserve it. Get rid of these companies and costs would go down--as long as one of the other middle companies doesn't do a money grab to keep it where it is.
The larger problem is insurance companies are treated like banks, too big to fail. More and more companies are being added to that list making it very difficult to streamline any business to save consumers money. (Take consumers either way you want, plural or possessive.) I hope these companies can actually find a way to reduce medical costs but is they simply take a short cut and continue to outsource their medical accounts handling to an insurance company they haven't improved anything.
“Greed” isn’t a root cause of the massive spike in costs, regulation and real market competition interference is the root cause. Everyone, and I mean EVERYONE, is individually self-interested, whether they are willing to admit this fundamental truth or not.
When COMPETITION instead of top-down control is involved, it is competition that squeezes out that self-interest which serves immediate needs in favor of long-term mutual self-benefit.
If there was no competition and unlimited demand for cell phones, a single cell phone company could charge anything it wanted for a phone and there would be nothing anyone could do about it.
Well that’s the standard free market theory anyway.
Healthcare isn’t a good purchased directly. It’s purchased by your insurance company and when you or they are often in a position not to be able to argue the costs. There’s not much shopping around to be done in a life or death situation. You are brought to whatever emergency capable hospital is closest and the health care provider is in fact a monopoly. It’s not like taking a few weeks to buy a phone.
Thats not the only problem with a free market health policy which inevitably depends on insurance - which it must. Health Insurance is a form of distribution akin to socialism. It’s privatised socialism. It’s not quite that everybody pays according to their ability - although the rich do pay more, but it is to each according to their needs. Provided they have the correct plan.
The sick are subsidised by the healthy. The old by the young. If you wanted a full free market system the old would end up not getting insurance, nor the chronically ill, nor the at risk, nor lots of people. At least not without huge premiums which most could not afford.
Any full free market system would work for the healthy and rich.
One thing that is happening now (the laws are still being rewritten or refined) is insurance will finally be subject to cross-state competition. That limitation gone will expand what is possible for insurance to cover, the range of prices and options and the possibility for people to forgo insurance except for catastrophic coverage only if they so choose.
Companies used to self-insure their employees before healthcare costs exploded. There are several groups to blame for the ridiculous increase in costs, in no particular order, greedy doctors, greedy insurance companies, greedy doctor's medical groups, Wall Street, and greedy prescription companies. Blaming ACA (@SpamSandwich) doesn't get to the root cause. Starting to cover your own employees hopefully would get rid of the money-sucking middle companies, especially the insurance companies. All you have to do is look at the insane profits companies like Anthem (market cap of $62B, stock price 400% increase in last 5 years) makes for pushing paper to understand where the problem lies. You can complain all you want about socialized medicine and government waste but your medical insurance costs are driven by Wall Street greed and not by our government. Why are so many people involved in paying our medical bills? Every extra person who touches that money takes their cut and they don't deserve it. Get rid of these companies and costs would go down--as long as one of the other middle companies doesn't do a money grab to keep it where it is.
The larger problem is insurance companies are treated like banks, too big to fail. More and more companies are being added to that list making it very difficult to streamline any business to save consumers money. (Take consumers either way you want, plural or possessive.) I hope these companies can actually find a way to reduce medical costs but is they simply take a short cut and continue to outsource their medical accounts handling to an insurance company they haven't improved anything.
It's admirable that some of the biggest financial and online shopping service providers want to investigate what the private sector can do to bring healthcare costs under control. I hate to say that they are being incredibly naive and myopic, but they are not addressing the bigger picture of runaway healthcare costs and are only further dividing the availability of healthcare between those who can afford to pay and those who cannot. Each company mentioned, and even collectively as a group, only represents a tiny, homogeneous, and non-representative population of healthcare consumers compared to the US population at large. Their employee population is limited to people who are in the active workforce means that they are predominantly younger and healthier, productively employed, have more money, and have access to company provided health care subsidies and support services. On average those in the Amazon employee demographic are not the people who are the heaviest and costliest consumers of healthcare services and prescriptions.
Nothing Amazon or Berkshire Hathaway is doing is going to help manage healthcare costs for people who don't work for them, cannot work (for a myriad of reasons), are too old to work, too young to work, or simply cannot afford to pay for healthcare. If the answer is "throw all of them on the public dole" then we're basically back at square one with a tiered system of haves and have-nots. This is just the human side of the problem and just another aspect of the capitalist dilemma. The issues on the money side to the problem is equally out of control and outside of the purvue of an Amazon, Berkshire Hathaway, or JPMorganChase. There is just so much money flowing through the system and a crapload of companies, organizations, and powerful individuals profiting very heavily from the system. They are not about to roll over and let their unending supply of cash stop. There is a political-healthcare-industrial complex in place that is virtually impossible to break. And it has nothing to do with ACA or any of the other smokescreens that are shown up as political chaff. Those who profit from the system will continue to profit from the system despite any public efforts to bring it under control. They'll simply find another place to tap into the money stream in the new system.
I hate to say it but the "freaking mess" system that we have is the way it is because that's the way we want it to be. We bought it, we feed it, and we continue to support it by virtue of voting for those who continue to profit from it - at our expense. In our collective defense I would say that we've been fooled and bamboozled by political tactics, human engineering, and ruses that keep us fighting amongst ourselves rather than deciding what we really want as a modern, compassionate society with nearly infinite resources and innovation potential. We pick sides, ones that they've conveinently created for us, we yell back and forth at each other using politically regurgitated attack methods they've fed us with, and all the while those who are supposed to be minding the store filled with our money are robbing us blind and we are letting them get away with it.
I knew it, I knew it, I knew it! I’ve been saying for years, ‘get rid of this horrendous ACA, deregulate healthcare and businesses will provide answers’. I assumed Walmart, Amazon, Google/Alphabet and Apple would be among those jumping in and Bezos just made the first move. Expect Amazon stock to be richly rewarded and Apple stock to be kicked in the teeth for their timidity.
Personally, I’d be more comfortable trusting Apple with my healthcare, but Amazon gets the first mover advantage... again.
Hmm yah I don’t think you’ll be so hoorah when your employer decides the treatments you want cut too close to the bottom line.
I see less reason to trust my employer with making the best decisions for my health when it can be against their interests to do so.
You’re making the classic mistake of thinking this particular announcement is the end of it. This is just the beginning. Expect a lot of assumptions about what is or isn’t “healthcare” to be challenged.
Ok but what addressing what I said? To me there is a financial conflict of interest between what employers want and what patients want.
There's a conflict of interest between what I want and my what my insurer wants. What's the difference?
I can argue, challenge, and conduct legal proceedings with my insurance company without fear of losing my job. There is no logical reason my healthcare should be part of my employer's domain. The idea is alien.
But I don't think what Bezos has in mind is as simple as that anyway since it's nothing new.
None of these companies are ones you want to work for. Google AT&T and Sedgwick and see how AT&T uses patient hostile CMS (claims management services) to keep from paying out on disabilities cases.
It's admirable that some of the biggest financial and online shopping service providers want to investigate what the private sector can do to bring healthcare costs under control. I hate to say that they are being incredibly naive and myopic, but they are not addressing the bigger picture of runaway healthcare costs and are only further dividing the availability of healthcare between those who can afford to pay and those who cannot.
...
Nothing Amazon or Berkshire Hathaway is doing is going to help manage healthcare costs for people who don't work for them, cannot work (for a myriad of reasons), are too old to work, too young to work, or simply cannot afford to pay for healthcare.
So? My employer offers benefits to its employees because it wants to retain good workers (and because the people making those decisions also get those benefits). They aren't worried about the benefits received by workers at other companies, or by unemployed people (and rightly so). These firms are big enough that they can attempt to create their own healthcare systems, employing their own docs, and so forth (and no doubt partnering with established firms for auxillary services). More power to 'em.
Yep...more successful at constraining costs than private insurance. CBO has confirmed that. It's a fact. That, of course, doesn't mean that Medicare is ideal in terms of the cost vs. a truly nationalized health care system, but the leverage of a nationwide pool has definite advantages vs. private insurance.
May or may not relate to this Amazon, Buffet, JP initiative, but one thing I would love to see coming is some kind of way to cost compare hospital health services. I recall an article a while back that shone a spotlight on the difference in joint replacement surgery from one hospital to the next and it was off the hook crazy. From $35K at one place to $80K at another, with the same outcome, and since patients are often locked into one network or other, there is no way to shop and save. (And this is independent of the ACA, although it would have been nice if they had been able to address it).
One recalls the most famous Bezos quote - 'Your margin is my opportunity'.
It's admirable that some of the biggest financial and online shopping service providers want to investigate what the private sector can do to bring healthcare costs under control. I hate to say that they are being incredibly naive and myopic, but they are not addressing the bigger picture of runaway healthcare costs and are only further dividing the availability of healthcare between those who can afford to pay and those who cannot. Each company mentioned, and even collectively as a group, only represents a tiny, homogeneous, and non-representative population of healthcare consumers compared to the US population at large. Their employee population is limited to people who are in the active workforce means that they are predominantly younger and healthier, productively employed, have more money, and have access to company provided health care subsidies and support services. On average those in the Amazon employee demographic are not the people who are the heaviest and costliest consumers of healthcare services and prescriptions.
Nothing Amazon or Berkshire Hathaway is doing is going to help manage healthcare costs for people who don't work for them, cannot work (for a myriad of reasons), are too old to work, too young to work, or simply cannot afford to pay for healthcare. If the answer is "throw all of them on the public dole" then we're basically back at square one with a tiered system of haves and have-nots. This is just the human side of the problem and just another aspect of the capitalist dilemma. The issues on the money side to the problem is equally out of control and outside of the purvue of an Amazon, Berkshire Hathaway, or JPMorganChase. There is just so much money flowing through the system and a crapload of companies, organizations, and powerful individuals profiting very heavily from the system. They are not about to roll over and let their unending supply of cash stop. There is a political-healthcare-industrial complex in place that is virtually impossible to break. And it has nothing to do with ACA or any of the other smokescreens that are shown up as political chaff. Those who profit from the system will continue to profit from the system despite any public efforts to bring it under control. They'll simply find another place to tap into the money stream in the new system.
I hate to say it but the "freaking mess" system that we have is the way it is because that's the way we want it to be. We bought it, we feed it, and we continue to support it by virtue of voting for those who continue to profit from it - at our expense. In our collective defense I would say that we've been fooled and bamboozled by political tactics, human engineering, and ruses that keep us fighting amongst ourselves rather than deciding what we really want as a modern, compassionate society with nearly infinite resources and innovation potential. We pick sides, ones that they've conveinently created for us, we yell back and forth at each other using politically regurgitated attack methods they've fed us with, and all the while those who are supposed to be minding the store filled with our money are robbing us blind and we are letting them get away with it.
Outside of age or severe mental handicap, I have yet to meet a single person who "cannot work (for a myriad of reasons)". I have met several people that did not WANT to work but not unable to work. Likewise, this underscores a typical flaw in many people's reasoning: "In our collective defense I would say that we've been fooled and bamboozled by political tactics, human engineering, and ruses that keep us fighting amongst ourselves rather than deciding what we really want as a modern, compassionate society with nearly infinite resources and innovation potential." Resources are actually very limited and it is the belief that resources are "nearly infinite" that allows people to get trapped into much of your line of reasoning.
Only AFTER you conclude resources are a finite thing can you start allocating those resources to the most important areas and, as a result, there will always be "haves" and "haves-not".
I do agree, however, there is a massive industry and momentum of profit driven decisions and that will be almost impossible to change.
Since Amazon (not the other two companies) is in the data collection AND efficiency improvement business, I fully expect they will use what they learn here to eventually spin their business interests into streamlining the entire system and offering small, efficient clinics, automated diagnostics and patient services (using AI and robotics or more efficient processes) and even eventually get into a “doctor-on-demand” home service where a tele-doctor or “van” would make a drive up visit and the patient would enter to be examined or conceivably be operated on.
One thing that is happening now (the laws are still being rewritten or refined) is insurance will finally be subject to cross-state competition. That limitation gone will expand what is possible for insurance to cover, the range of prices and options and the possibility for people to forgo insurance except for catastrophic coverage only if they so choose.
Nope. Look at the credit card industry: "cross-state competition" just means that individual states can't require companies to follow a regulatory structure set up in their state. Thus, the vast majority of credit cards are issued from the states that offer the least regulation, which tips the scales completely in favor of the issuer and not the user. In other words, it largely erases any checks/balances for business vs. consumer. States that have decent economies and would like to get better deals for their residents are screwed by the states with bad economies who are desperate to attract the credit card issuers with a near total lack of legal liability.
“doctor-on-demand” home service where a tele-doctor or “van” would make a drive up visit and the patient would enter to be examined or conceivably be operated on.
That’s definitely something consumers are demanding. Being operated on in the back of a van.
It's admirable that some of the biggest financial and online shopping service providers want to investigate what the private sector can do to bring healthcare costs under control. I hate to say that they are being incredibly naive and myopic, but they are not addressing the bigger picture of runaway healthcare costs and are only further dividing the availability of healthcare between those who can afford to pay and those who cannot. Each company mentioned, and even collectively as a group, only represents a tiny, homogeneous, and non-representative population of healthcare consumers compared to the US population at large. Their employee population is limited to people who are in the active workforce means that they are predominantly younger and healthier, productively employed, have more money, and have access to company provided health care subsidies and support services. On average those in the Amazon employee demographic are not the people who are the heaviest and costliest consumers of healthcare services and prescriptions.
Nothing Amazon or Berkshire Hathaway is doing is going to help manage healthcare costs for people who don't work for them, cannot work (for a myriad of reasons), are too old to work, too young to work, or simply cannot afford to pay for healthcare. If the answer is "throw all of them on the public dole" then we're basically back at square one with a tiered system of haves and have-nots. This is just the human side of the problem and just another aspect of the capitalist dilemma. The issues on the money side to the problem is equally out of control and outside of the purvue of an Amazon, Berkshire Hathaway, or JPMorganChase. There is just so much money flowing through the system and a crapload of companies, organizations, and powerful individuals profiting very heavily from the system. They are not about to roll over and let their unending supply of cash stop. There is a political-healthcare-industrial complex in place that is virtually impossible to break. And it has nothing to do with ACA or any of the other smokescreens that are shown up as political chaff. Those who profit from the system will continue to profit from the system despite any public efforts to bring it under control. They'll simply find another place to tap into the money stream in the new system.
I hate to say it but the "freaking mess" system that we have is the way it is because that's the way we want it to be. We bought it, we feed it, and we continue to support it by virtue of voting for those who continue to profit from it - at our expense. In our collective defense I would say that we've been fooled and bamboozled by political tactics, human engineering, and ruses that keep us fighting amongst ourselves rather than deciding what we really want as a modern, compassionate society with nearly infinite resources and innovation potential. We pick sides, ones that they've conveinently created for us, we yell back and forth at each other using politically regurgitated attack methods they've fed us with, and all the while those who are supposed to be minding the store filled with our money are robbing us blind and we are letting them get away with it.
Outside of age or severe mental handicap, I have yet to meet a single person who "cannot work (for a myriad of reasons)". I have met several people that did not WANT to work but not unable to work. Likewise, this underscores a typical flaw in many people's reasoning: "In our collective defense I would say that we've been fooled and bamboozled by political tactics, human engineering, and ruses that keep us fighting amongst ourselves rather than deciding what we really want as a modern, compassionate society with nearly infinite resources and innovation potential." Resources are actually very limited and it is the belief that resources are "nearly infinite" that allows people to get trapped into much of your line of reasoning.
Only AFTER you conclude resources are a finite thing can you start allocating those resources to the most important areas and, as a result, there will always be "haves" and "haves-not".
I do agree, however, there is a massive industry and momentum of profit driven decisions and that will be almost impossible to change.
There are almost no instances of insurmountable problems when free people competing are unleashed to solve them.
Capitalism and human ingenuity are a few of the most powerful beneficial forces in human history and have helped nations out of poverty and knocked down ridiculous notions of artificially imposed scarcity in practically all instances.
“doctor-on-demand” home service where a tele-doctor or “van” would make a drive up visit and the patient would enter to be examined or conceivably be operated on.
That’s definitely something consumers are demanding. Being operated on in the back of a van.
You seem to have a very limited idea about what’s possible based on what you think you know.
Personally, I find your trolling uninteresting. Adios.
One thing that is happening now (the laws are still being rewritten or refined) is insurance will finally be subject to cross-state competition. That limitation gone will expand what is possible for insurance to cover, the range of prices and options and the possibility for people to forgo insurance except for catastrophic coverage only if they so choose.
Nope. Look at the credit card industry: "cross-state competition" just means that individual states can't require companies to follow a regulatory structure set up in their state. Thus, the vast majority of credit cards are issued from the states that offer the least regulation, which tips the scales completely in favor of the issuer and not the user. In other words, it largely erases any checks/balances for business vs. consumer. States that have decent economies and would like to get better deals for their residents are screwed by the states with bad economies who are desperate to attract the credit card issuers with a near total lack of legal liability.
You’ll have to back such a claim with something more than an assertion. The laws which are being modified now won’t be implemented for another 5-6 months.
I don't think I'd want my employer to be my healthcare provider. Especially one known for its mastery of mining data. I'd certainly want the strongest of firewalls between the healthcare side and the HR side.
I don't think I'd want my employer to be my healthcare provider. Especially one known for its mastery of mining data. I'd certainly want the strongest of firewalls between the healthcare side and the HR side.
Regarding your last paragraph, the US isn’t the USSR. We don’t need or want Government Healthcare. There is nothing that can be done by the private sector that cannot be made worse when the Federal government gets involved. The entire insurance and healthcare industries are ripe for massive deregulation and innovation shakeups. People will (against current beliefs) come to see that less interference is better and more competition is much better.
Companies used to self-insure their employees before healthcare costs exploded. There are several groups to blame for the ridiculous increase in costs, in no particular order, greedy doctors, greedy insurance companies, greedy doctor's medical groups, Wall Street, and greedy prescription companies. Blaming ACA (@SpamSandwich) doesn't get to the root cause. Starting to cover your own employees hopefully would get rid of the money-sucking middle companies, especially the insurance companies. All you have to do is look at the insane profits companies like Anthem (market cap of $62B, stock price 400% increase in last 5 years) makes for pushing paper to understand where the problem lies. You can complain all you want about socialized medicine and government waste but your medical insurance costs are driven by Wall Street greed and not by our government. Why are so many people involved in paying our medical bills? Every extra person who touches that money takes their cut and they don't deserve it. Get rid of these companies and costs would go down--as long as one of the other middle companies doesn't do a money grab to keep it where it is.
The larger problem is insurance companies are treated like banks, too big to fail. More and more companies are being added to that list making it very difficult to streamline any business to save consumers money. (Take consumers either way you want, plural or possessive.) I hope these companies can actually find a way to reduce medical costs but is they simply take a short cut and continue to outsource their medical accounts handling to an insurance company they haven't improved anything.
“Greed” isn’t a root cause of the massive spike in costs, regulation and real market competition interference is the root cause. Everyone, and I mean EVERYONE, is individually self-interested, whether they are willing to admit this fundamental truth or not.
When COMPETITION instead of top-down control is involved, it is competition that squeezes out that self-interest which serves immediate needs in favor of long-term mutual self-benefit.
If there was no competition and unlimited demand for cell phones, a single cell phone company could charge anything it wanted for a phone and there would be nothing anyone could do about it.
Competition in the medical arena disappeared years ago, if there ever was any. Regulation hasn't worked and is regularly removed when politicians pockets are lined. (I forgot to mention politicians.) Self-interest is how healthcare operates. I suggest it's a typical cartel just like too many other things. My daughter is a PT and she's there to help patients but hospital administration only cares about the bottom line and filling beds so patients don't always get the level of help they are paying for.
Don't compare a commodity like cell phones to healthcare, they're totally different.
Companies used to self-insure their employees before healthcare costs exploded. There are several groups to blame for the ridiculous increase in costs, in no particular order, greedy doctors, greedy insurance companies, greedy doctor's medical groups, Wall Street, and greedy prescription companies. Blaming ACA (@SpamSandwich) doesn't get to the root cause. Starting to cover your own employees hopefully would get rid of the money-sucking middle companies, especially the insurance companies. All you have to do is look at the insane profits companies like Anthem (market cap of $62B, stock price 400% increase in last 5 years) makes for pushing paper to understand where the problem lies. You can complain all you want about socialized medicine and government waste but your medical insurance costs are driven by Wall Street greed and not by our government. Why are so many people involved in paying our medical bills? Every extra person who touches that money takes their cut and they don't deserve it. Get rid of these companies and costs would go down--as long as one of the other middle companies doesn't do a money grab to keep it where it is.
The larger problem is insurance companies are treated like banks, too big to fail. More and more companies are being added to that list making it very difficult to streamline any business to save consumers money. (Take consumers either way you want, plural or possessive.) I hope these companies can actually find a way to reduce medical costs but is they simply take a short cut and continue to outsource their medical accounts handling to an insurance company they haven't improved anything.
“Greed” isn’t a root cause of the massive spike in costs, regulation and real market competition interference is the root cause. Everyone, and I mean EVERYONE, is individually self-interested, whether they are willing to admit this fundamental truth or not.
When COMPETITION instead of top-down control is involved, it is competition that squeezes out that self-interest which serves immediate needs in favor of long-term mutual self-benefit.
If there was no competition and unlimited demand for cell phones, a single cell phone company could charge anything it wanted for a phone and there would be nothing anyone could do about it.
Competition in the medical arena disappeared years ago, if there ever was any. Regulation hasn't worked and is regularly removed when politicians pockets are lined. (I forgot to mention politicians.) Self-interest is how healthcare operates. I suggest it's a typical cartel just like too many other things. My daughter is a PT and she's there to help patients but hospital administration only cares about the bottom line and filling beds so patients don't always get the level of help they are paying for.
Don't compare a commodity like cell phones to healthcare, they're totally different.
Looks more like the mob, with each clan / insurer / hospital having their territory and making people pay protection money for the privilege of shaking them down ... keeping them "alive" (sic).
I wouldn't say regulation hasn't worked since there effectively is next to none. They lobby all level of government day and night so it stays that way of course.
Comments
Nothing Amazon or Berkshire Hathaway is doing is going to help manage healthcare costs for people who don't work for them, cannot work (for a myriad of reasons), are too old to work, too young to work, or simply cannot afford to pay for healthcare. If the answer is "throw all of them on the public dole" then we're basically back at square one with a tiered system of haves and have-nots. This is just the human side of the problem and just another aspect of the capitalist dilemma. The issues on the money side to the problem is equally out of control and outside of the purvue of an Amazon, Berkshire Hathaway, or JPMorganChase. There is just so much money flowing through the system and a crapload of companies, organizations, and powerful individuals profiting very heavily from the system. They are not about to roll over and let their unending supply of cash stop. There is a political-healthcare-industrial complex in place that is virtually impossible to break. And it has nothing to do with ACA or any of the other smokescreens that are shown up as political chaff. Those who profit from the system will continue to profit from the system despite any public efforts to bring it under control. They'll simply find another place to tap into the money stream in the new system.
I hate to say it but the "freaking mess" system that we have is the way it is because that's the way we want it to be. We bought it, we feed it, and we continue to support it by virtue of voting for those who continue to profit from it - at our expense. In our collective defense I would say that we've been fooled and bamboozled by political tactics, human engineering, and ruses that keep us fighting amongst ourselves rather than deciding what we really want as a modern, compassionate society with nearly infinite resources and innovation potential. We pick sides, ones that they've conveinently created for us, we yell back and forth at each other using politically regurgitated attack methods they've fed us with, and all the while those who are supposed to be minding the store filled with our money are robbing us blind and we are letting them get away with it.
https://www.healthaffairs.org/do/10.1377/hblog20110920.013390/full/
One recalls the most famous Bezos quote - 'Your margin is my opportunity'.
Only AFTER you conclude resources are a finite thing can you start allocating those resources to the most important areas and, as a result, there will always be "haves" and "haves-not".
I do agree, however, there is a massive industry and momentum of profit driven decisions and that will be almost impossible to change.
Capitalism and human ingenuity are a few of the most powerful beneficial forces in human history and have helped nations out of poverty and knocked down ridiculous notions of artificially imposed scarcity in practically all instances.
Personally, I find your trolling uninteresting. Adios.
Cite please? Really? ROFLMAO.
Don't compare a commodity like cell phones to healthcare, they're totally different.