One widely accepted theory is that market forces will ultimately result in the best care at the lowest cost, because health plans and providers of care will compete to attract business.

Through competition, providers are competing for the lowest price and premiums are down 30 percent since the bill went into effect.

As long as managed care and the insurance companies force providers to compete in a cutthroat business environment, the public's health care needs will be held hostage.

With the breakup of the Bell system in 1984, the US federal government imposed rules to allow the Baby Bells and other long-distance providers to compete via "equal access."

GPs were not against competition where it added value to patients, but they were against full fettered competition where any qualified provider could compete to treat the same hip.

Could councils save their library services by joining forces and making providers compete to win contracts?

We must allow for a marketplace where seniors have quality and choice and smaller, local providers are competing to deliver these supplies.

Private insurers and providers compete with one another to avoid getting stuck with high-cost patients, so they can keep more of their revenues.

The aim has been to make purchasers much more prudent and to force providers to compete for business.

Instead, providers and payers compete on proficiency at "gaming" the system by cost-shifting, self-referral, "balance billing" of patients above insurers' agreed rates and creative denial of insurance claims.