Big shock: People are more likely to get prescriptions when they're cheaper

As you know, one of the biggest issues of the upcoming election is health care. The two democratic candidates think that health care should be made more "affordable," but their solution for making it less expensive is to get the entire country on a national health care plan.

Naturally, everyone thinks that this means "free" health care. The problem is, there's no such thing as a free lunch. Instead, socialized medicine will merely make health care in this country less competitive and create a run on drugs and medical care that people often will not need.

A recent study completed by researchers at the Center for Studying Health System Change found that, for people with employer-sponsored insurance, a sizable portion of out-of-pocket expenses were a result of co-payments for prescription drugs. It also showed that when a company eliminated co-pays for important medicines (i.e., prescriptions for high cholesterol, high blood pressure, asthma, etc.) and cut the amount of the co-pay in half for other medications, "appropriate" use of the drugs went up.

According to the study's senior researcher, Dr. Mark Fendrick of the University of Michigan Medical School, "All research to this point had shown that individuals will not buy important medical services even if there's a small financial barrier of $5 or even $2; this study showed that when you remove those barriers, people started using these high- value services significantly more."

Well … no kidding. Let me get this straight: the study found that the less expensive something is, the more apt people are to buy it? This is hardly an earth-shaking discovery. In fact, it would seem the Center for Studying Health System Change spent a lot of time and money just to prove what was already a basic economic concept.

Obviously, I have problems with this research and its methodology.

For example, the study's definition of "out-of-pocket" is inconsistent, particularly when it comes to employer-sponsored health insurance. Case in point: the study allows the "premium" that you pay for your subsidized health care through a company to be considered an "out-of-pocket" cost. How is that "out of pocket"? It's removed from your check well before it ever appears in your checking account.

Worse, while proponents of socialized medicine would use this study to claim that prescription drugs should be cheaper, I believe the study demonstrates the dangers of cheap or free drugs. What this study shows is that if people perceive the drugs to be free or, at least closer to free, they're more likely to make the effort to get their hands on them. And these are people with insurance plans - not the mythic "millions of uninsured" that Sens. Obama and Clinton are constantly harping about.

So what happens the day when national healthcare goes online, and the entire country is suddenly eligible for something "free" - be it a doctor's visit or some form of prescription drugs? I'll tell you what happens: chaos. It will result in the complete and utter overburdening of the system. It will inundate the system with an insanely high percentage of useless requests from hypochondriac masses. The people really in need of health care will find themselves waiting in unnecessarily long lines. And they'll die in those lines, too. Believe me.

But never underestimate the greed of our culture. If you need proof of what I'm telling you, just go to a Sunday brunch buffet and imagine that instead of eggs benedict, people are going back for seconds of prescription drugs - whether they need them or not. I think you know where I'm going.