One of the Federal Trade Commissions so-called accomplishments in a report to Congress trying to justify its FY 2007 Budget was that it has worked to foster competition in the Health Care Industry and thus lower costs, increase choices and help American Consumers. Some disagree stating that government can do little if anything to help free-enterprise citing thousands of examples of rules and regulations, which actually impede free markets thru proof and theory of the laws of unintended consequences. Yet the FTC wrote this in their report to Congress: American consumers paid nearly $1.8 trillion for health care in 2004 - about 15 percent of gross domestic product (GDP) - through tax dollars, insurance premiums, or out-of-pocket payments. Thus, health care is an industry in which it is critical for the FTC to maintain competition. Indeed it is critical, yet they have done little if anything to foster healthy competition. In fact as they attack diet supplements, pharmacies and alternative medicines they are hurting competition and costing consumers billions of dollars each year in unneeded medical expenses in my opinion. Yet the FTC goes on to state to the US Congress in a very embellishing way: In 2005, the Commission conditionally approved a $1 billion acquisition involving two biotechnological companies, subject to a requirement that the firms agree to divest overlapping assets. In another case, an Administrative Law Judge (AW) upheld an FTC complaint that charged a physicians' group practicing in Fort Worth, TX with restraining trade by conspiring to fix prices in certain contracts to provide medical services to the patients of health plans. Yes indeed a real bummer yet if we are taking a trillion dollar industry, so what? That is basically no enforcement at all? That simply is not worthy of an example of a reason for Congress to fund anymore activity at the FTC if anything it is a reason to pull them off the Health Care Sector enforcement and allow another agency who can do their job right to handle the duties, so consider this in 2006. |
