I hasten to add that while this lady was uninformed about the health care system, there are a number of people who ought to know better who believe the same thing.

So I responded by explaining that there are for- profit and nonprofit health insurers -- and hospitals. And that it is virtually impossible to claim that one is able to provide its services for less than the other. Indeed, in many cases the for-profit insurers have better choices at lower costs than the nonprofits.

The lady was under the false, albeit widespread, impression that nonprofit equals good; for-profit equals bad -- at least when it comes to health care. But the nonprofit Michigan Blues have spent more than a million dollars in advertising trying to ensure an uncontested monopoly.

Why aren't the ubiquitous health critics out there complaining that that's a million dollars that could be spent on providing care?

The fact is that the issue isn't between for-profit and nonprofit. The issue is whether an insurer, hospital, clinic or physician can provide good products or services for a reasonable price. And that's true not just in health care, but in any sector of the economy. And as long as a company does provide a good product or service at a fair price, why would anyone care whether it makes a profit or not?