Let customers choose
The Highmark-Geisinger Health System disagreement in the middle of the state (“Geisinger bashes Highmark plan,” Aug. 22 and TribLIVE.com) at last makes clear what the issue is in these battles. Hospital systems, protected forever from price competition by the insurance system, will resist bitterly any new exposure to it.
We, the consumers, have to cheer for the insurer. Geisinger is not willing to reduce its charges for Highmark customers, so Highmark will pass on the decision-making to those customers. If customers consider Geisinger's services to be worth more, they can use them. If they don't, they can go elsewhere. What could be fairer?
And what could be better for the economy? Hospital charges have been going up and up in the absence of consumer choice based on price. Government price controls are clumsy, wrongheaded and ineffective overall. A somewhat freer market is a much better choice.
It is the obvious answer to the Highmark-UPMC feud. If UPMC insists on charging more to Highmark customers than other providers do, so be it; let Highmark pass on the choice to its customers and let them decide. UPMC may decide that it likes the customers' decisions, or it may not. Like the rest of the economic world, UPMC should find a way to live with it.
Jerry B. Fulmer
Upper St. Clair
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- Reverse red-kettle ban I
- Reverse red-kettle ban II
- Good riddance
- Punishment pushback II
- Punishment pushback I
- Not taxpayers’ responsibility
- Incomprehensible? That’s Obama
- Beware this Wolf I
- Unite on this