Eric Rumple's "Pyle's 'economics'" (Opinion, June 3) contains several erroneous assumptions about health care.
The health care system is inefficient at best and a travesty at worst, but not due to a lack of consumer incentives or free market principles.
No other country allows insurance companies to profit from covering health care.
From 17 percent to 35 percent of payments for coverage go toward overhead and profit. That means that for every dollar spent on health care coverage, only about 75 cents are available to actually pay for medical services.
In contrast, Medicare and Medicaid are administered with around a 5 percent overhead no advertising, million-dollar executives or dividends to pay.
The other major erroneous assumption is that consumers would be better able to decide what they wished to purchase. Where does Rumple presume they would get the knowledge to know what they are likely to need or which options are best?
Also, how do they plan for catastrophic costs of conditions they might get through no fault of their own?
The free market solution is a Pollyannaish fantasy. By the way, how is that Wall Street free market fiasco of 2007 working out for you?
Norman G. Hoffmann