When you read Nancy Turner’s viewpoint, you would think the name of Adam Smith’s book was, “The Wealth of the Wealthy.” Though Smith makes many points, the point of competition isn’t so that the rich can get richer but so the common consumer can have the best price via market competition. Does anyone think that’s what health insurers provide? Insurers don’t compete for your dollars; what little competition exists is to see who can provide employers with the cheapest cost by redirecting costs back to the employees through higher premiums and higher deductibles.

Additionally, the idea that “if only government would leave businesses alone competition would generate the best price” is laughable. Businesses don’t compete because they want to but because they have to. Corporations do everything in their power not to compete, including spending millions lobbying Congress to get the best deals possible. And as for government interference, the modern corporation, particularly with its limited liability, couldn’t exist without the government.

Then there’s the red herring about discouraging risk-taking as if large corporations were entrepreneurs. Large corporations are run by people who use other people’s money, labor and creativity to line their pockets with little to no risk to themselves. Do you really think we would have had the recent financial fiasco if the investment banks were still partnerships and their own money was at risk?

Our dilemma isn’t between government and big business but how to extricate ourselves from this current Frankensteinian amalgam of both.

Andy Absher

Anderson