PDA

View Full Version : U.S. Issues A Four-Step Health-Care Solution


Taco John
02-12-2010, 12:26 AM
A Four-Step Health-Care Solution
by Hans-Hermann Hoppe
April 1993

It's true that the U.S. health care system is a mess, but this demonstrates not market but government failure. To cure the problem requires not different or more government regulations and bureaucracies, as self-serving politicians want us to believe, but the elimination of all existing government controls.

It's time to get serious about health care reform. Tax credits, vouchers, and privatization will go a long way toward decentralizing the system and removmg unnecessary burdens from business. But four additional steps must also be taken:

1. Eliminate all licensing requirements for medical schools, hospitals, pharmacies, and medical doctors and other health care personnel. Their supply would almost instantly increase, prices would fall, and a greater variety of health care services would appear on the market.

Competing voluntary accreditation agencies would take the place of compulsory government licensing--if health care providers believe that such accreditation would enhance their own reputation, and that their consumers care about reputation, and are willing to pay for it.

Because consumers would no longer be duped into believing that there is such a thing as a "national standard" of health care, they will increase their search costs and make more discriminating health care choices.

2. Eliminate all government restrictions on the production and sale of pharmaceutical products and medical devices. This means no more Food and Drug Administration, which presently hinders innovation and increases costs.

Costs and prices would fall, and a wider variety of better products would reach the market sooner. The market would force consumers to act in accordance with their own--rather than the government's--risk assessment. And competing drug and device manufacturers and sellers, to safeguard against product liability suits as much as to attract customers, would provide increasingly better product descriptions and guarantees.

3. Deregulate the health insurance industry. Private enterprise can offer insurance against events over whose outcome the insured possesses no control. One cannot insure oneself against suicide or bankruptcy, for example, because it is in one's own hands to bring these events about.

Because a person's health, or lack of it, lies increasingly within his own control, many, if not most health risks, are actually uninsurable. "Insurance" against risks whose likelihood an individual can systematically influence falls within that person's own responsibility.

All insurance, moreover, involves the pooling of individual risks. It implies that insurers pay more to some and less to others. But no one knows in advance, and with certainty, who the "winners" and "losers" will be. "Winners" and "losers" are distributed randomly, and the resulting income redistribution is unsystematic. If "winners" or "losers" could be systematically predicted, "losers" would not want to pool their risk with "winners," but with other "losers," because this would lower their insurance costs. I would not want to pool my personal accident risks with those of professional football players, for instance, but exclusively with those of people in circumstances similar to my own, at lower costs.

Because of legal restrictions on the health insurers' right of refusal--to exclude any individual risk as uninsurable--the present health-insurance system is only partly concerned with insurance. The industry cannot discriminate freely among different groups' risks.

As a result, health insurers cover a multitude of uninnsurable risks, alongside, and pooled with, genuine insurance risks. They do not discriminate among various groups of people which pose significantly different insurance risks. The industry thus runs a system of income redistribution--benefiting irresponsible actors and high-risk groups at the expense of responsible individuals and low risk groups. Accordingly the industry's prices are high and ballooning.

To deregulate the industry means to restore it to unrestricted freedom of contract: to allow a health insurer to offer any contract whatsoever, to include or exclude any risk, and to discriminate among any groups of individuals. Uninsurable risks would lose coverage, the variety of insurance policies for the remaining coverage would increase, and price differentials would reflect genuine insurance risks. On average, prices would drastically fall. And the reform would restore individual responsibility in health care.

4. Eliminate all subsidies to the sick or unhealthy. Subsidies create more of whatever is being subsidized. Subsidies for the ill and diseased breed illness and disease, and promote carelessness, indigence, and dependency. If we eliminate them, we would strengthen the will to live healthy lives and to work for a living. In the first instance, that means abolishing Medicare and Medicaid.

Only these four steps, although drastic, will restore a fully free market in medical provision. Until they are adopted, the industry will have serious problems, and so will we, its consumers.

----------

Hans-Hermann Hoppe teaches economics at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas.


http://mises.org/freemarket_detail.aspx?control=279

Jenson71
02-12-2010, 12:36 AM
Ok

Taco John
02-12-2010, 12:45 AM
People are going to choke on #4. I think something like this would be a very last step in a campaign of incrimentalism. At the very least, the government should fill its obligations to those who have become dependent on it.

I believe if you take government out of the picture, societies will blossom around the needs of the people. Rather than one size fits all governmental solutions, I believe people would innovate to address the needs. We would adapt to meet the challenges. The answers wouldn't come overnight. They'd develop in due time, but once they were set, they would be entrenched because they worked, not because that's what the legislators have worked out for us through back room negotiations.

Abandoning the needy isn't the idea. There are options to taking care of our society without doing it through the mechanism of a Federal government.

Decentralize the power. In some places, States will pick up the slack. In others, private solutions will, including both family solutions, or other cooperative solutions. And with far less waste.

BigRedChief
02-12-2010, 07:04 AM
Great.....Domestic isolationism.

Let companies do whatever they want when they want without any oversight.

Let them put whatever they want in a pill and say it works great.

Who needs oversight of hospitals? We can reuse sheets, nebulizer tubing etc..no biggie

If you get sick or get cancer...just go somewhere and die. You are worthless to society now.

great plan TJ!:thumb:

Taco John
02-12-2010, 08:47 AM
Great.....Domestic isolationism.

Let companies do whatever they want when they want without any oversight.

Let them put whatever they want in a pill and say it works great.

Who needs oversight of hospitals? We can reuse sheets, nebulizer tubing etc..no biggie

If you get sick or get cancer...just go somewhere and die. You are worthless to society now.

great plan TJ!:thumb:



Domestic isolationism!

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! :LOL:LMAOROFL:LOL:LMAOROFL

BucEyedPea
02-12-2010, 08:50 AM
Great.....Domestic isolationism.


O. M. G. ROFL

I've said before the greatest reform would be a separation of govt and medicine.

BigRedChief
02-12-2010, 08:50 AM
Domestic isolationism!

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! :LOL:LMAOROFL:LOL:LMAOROFLI thought you'd like that. Now.....don't you have some nuns to go punch in the face?

Taco John
02-12-2010, 09:22 AM
I thought you'd like that. Now.....don't you have some nuns to go punch in the face?

If I had as low a view of humanity as you do, I wouldn't leave my house EVER!

BigRedChief
02-12-2010, 09:37 AM
If I had as low a view of humanity as you do, I wouldn't leave my house EVER!:LOL:
you a regular mother teresa.

Eliminate all subsidies to the sick or unhealthy. Subsidies create more of whatever is being subsidized. Subsidies for the ill and diseased breed illness and disease, and promote carelessness, indigence, and dependency.

Taco John
02-12-2010, 10:03 AM
:LOL:
you a regular mother teresa.

Yes. I want to get these people the help they deserve, not rob them of solutions by letting the government monopoly sit on them.

Direckshun
02-13-2010, 12:33 PM
Although I disagreed with your entire post:

4. Eliminate all subsidies to the sick or unhealthy. Subsidies create more of whatever is being subsidized. Subsidies for the ill and diseased breed illness and disease, and promote carelessness, indigence, and dependency. If we eliminate them, we would strengthen the will to live healthy lives and to work for a living.

This part is complete madness, on a Bush-created-9/11 scale.

Reaper16
02-13-2010, 12:43 PM
It'd be really hard to come up with a plan that is more in conflict with my views. My gut reaction was to vomit but then I really thought about it and I vomited twice.

BIG_DADDY
02-13-2010, 12:54 PM
Great Post Taco.

Taco John
02-13-2010, 02:13 PM
Although I disagreed with your entire post:



This part is complete madness, on a Bush-created-9/11 scale.

Not if done in an incremental way. Do it overnight, yeah. Madness. Do it incrementally, not so much.

banyon
02-13-2010, 02:21 PM
Doctors without licenses, uncertified hospitals, no oversight of pharmaceuticals. I mean what could go wrong there? Right?

The stuff you guys will latch onto to follow the cult is amazing.

I think they already have this no oversight uncertified health system in some third world countries. Maybe we could return to using witch doctors while we are at it!

banyon
02-13-2010, 02:23 PM
People are going to choke on #4. I think something like this would be a very last step in a campaign of incrimentalism. At the very least, the government should fill its obligations to those who have become dependent on it.

I believe if you take government out of the picture, societies will blossom around the needs of the people. Rather than one size fits all governmental solutions, I believe people would innovate to address the needs. We would adapt to meet the challenges. The answers wouldn't come overnight. They'd develop in due time, but once they were set, they would be entrenched because they worked, not because that's what the legislators have worked out for us through back room negotiations.

Abandoning the needy isn't the idea. There are options to taking care of our society without doing it through the mechanism of a Federal government.

Decentralize the power. In some places, States will pick up the slack. In others, private solutions will, including both family solutions, or other cooperative solutions. And with far less waste.

Sure, they could go to a leper or sick colony like they do in India and just hope they get better. It's cheap and so what if they die because there asn't enough charity to care for them? I mean the important think was they didn't get their grubby, diseased hands on your precious tax dollars, right?

cdcox
02-13-2010, 02:25 PM
People are going to choke on #4.

I quit reading after #1.

Taco John
02-13-2010, 02:32 PM
Sure, they could go to a leper or sick colony like they do in India and just hope they get better. It's cheap and so what if they die because there asn't enough charity to care for them? I mean the important think was they didn't get their grubby, diseased hands on your precious tax dollars, right?


You are wrong and have it backwards. I don't want to eliminate society. I want to create conditions for it to advance rather than decay. What we have now is a decaying society. You feel the pain, but you don't want to attack the source of the pain. You want to treat the symptoms. So your idea is to ignore the economics of the overall disease by treating it with brute socialized force. What you end up doing is robbing the mechanisms for change from the people, and putting them into the hands of a mechanical federal government that is too swollen and bloated to be able to react efficiently to the problem.

We have a republic that isn't acting like a republic. We have to trust states to do their jobs and protect their people without the one-sized fits all legislative solutions of the likes of Pelosi or Tom Delay. These people will not come up with solutions that work for everyone across a nation, and they'll hamper innovation in the process.

I want to see society "progress" as much as anyone. But when I speak of progress, I'm not speaking about progressing into further socialism or worse, communism - which is exactly the course we are on when we start turning the economy over into the hands of the government to manage.

There's nothing inherently more "utopian" about believing in libertarianism than there is about believing that continuing to consolidate ever more power in the Federal infrastructure is going to create solutions. At some point in time, you have to trust that the entire basis of the market is people's individual discomfort, and forces reacting to that discomfort to come up with sustainable solutions - and that a distributed Republic is the best way to maximize the solution finding process.

Taco John
02-13-2010, 02:34 PM
Sure, they could go to a leper or sick colony like they do in India and just hope they get better. It's cheap and so what if they die because there asn't enough charity to care for them? I mean the important think was they didn't get their grubby, diseased hands on your precious tax dollars, right?

By the way, you would have a great argument if the federal government didn't take so much and waste so much. Your talking about - what? Lepers in this post? Meanwhile we've got a budget going to bridges to nowhere, and bailing out big banks - and further legislation to force everybody to become customer slaves to mega-money insurance companies.

It's time to drain the swamp.

banyon
02-13-2010, 02:48 PM
You are wrong and have it backwards. I don't want to eliminate society. I want to create conditions for it to advance rather than decay. What we have now is a decaying society. You feel the pain, but you don't want to attack the source of the pain. You want to treat the symptoms. So your idea is to ignore the economics of the overall disease by treating it with brute socialized force. What you end up doing is robbing the mechanisms for change from the people, and putting them into the hands of a mechanical federal government that is too swollen and bloated to be able to react efficiently to the problem.

We have a republic that isn't acting like a republic. We have to trust states to do their jobs and protect their people without the one-sized fits all legislative solutions of the likes of Pelosi or Tom Delay. These people will not come up with solutions that work for everyone across a nation, and they'll hamper innovation in the process.

I want to see society "progress" as much as anyone. But when I speak of progress, I'm not speaking about progressing into further socialism or worse, communism - which is exactly the course we are on when we start turning the economy over into the hands of the government to manage.

There's nothing inherently more "utopian" about believing in libertarianism than there is about believing that continuing to consolidate ever more power in the Federal infrastructure is going to create solutions. At some point in time, you have to trust that the entire basis of the market is people's individual discomfort, and forces reacting to that discomfort to come up with sustainable solutions - and that a distributed Republic is the best way to maximize the solution finding process.

What you guys need to do is buy yourselves a little island and try these dopey ideas out and see that they are a miserable failure.

I mean everyone else already knows it, because it is obvious through a cursory review of history and other countries that ideas like "why do doctors need licenses" and "what could go wrong with pharmaceuticals?" and "let sick people fix themselves if they can't afford it" don't work, but you guys really believe that although this stuff has never worked anywhere, it'll work this time if only we have faith!

BIG_DADDY
02-13-2010, 02:50 PM
What you guys need to do is buy yourselves a little island and try these dopey ideas out and see that they are a miserable failure.

I mean everyone else already knows it, because it is obvious through a cursory review of history and other countries that ideas like "why do doctors need licenses" and "what could go wrong with pharmaceuticals?" and "let sick people fix themselves if they can't afford it" don't work, but you guys really believe that although this stuff has never worked anywhere, it'll work this time if only we have faith!

Check yourself in at the BIG government socialist thread.

BIG_DADDY
02-13-2010, 02:59 PM
It'd be really hard to come up with a plan that is more in conflict with my views. My gut reaction was to vomit but then I really thought about it and I vomited twice.

This attitude towards the health care system is why I try and stay out of it as much as possible. I only carry insurance for the very biggest of disasters. I pay for everything else out of pocket. I can choose the very best physicians out there and they are not handcuffed by the insurance agencies or FDA protocal. Most of them do not even work with insurance companies at all. This way I give very little to a system deeply rooted in socialism, big government regulation and corruption.

Taco John
02-13-2010, 03:18 PM
What you guys need to do is buy yourselves a little island and try these dopey ideas out and see that they are a miserable failure.

I mean everyone else already knows it, because it is obvious through a cursory review of history and other countries that ideas like "why do doctors need licenses" and "what could go wrong with pharmaceuticals?" and "let sick people fix themselves if they can't afford it" don't work, but you guys really believe that although this stuff has never worked anywhere, it'll work this time if only we have faith!


In the mean time, I'll be focusing my efforts on trying to stop the catastrophic damage that progressive government has brought to our doorsteps over the last 100 years.

irishjayhawk
02-13-2010, 03:24 PM
Taco: re subsidies, are you then in favor of abolishing agriculture subsidies?

Taco John
02-13-2010, 03:36 PM
Taco: re subsidies, are you then in favor of abolishing agriculture subsidies?


Have been for years. Farming is one of the biggest businesses in the world and only getting bigger. This industry doesn't need taxpayer assistance to exist.

irishjayhawk
02-13-2010, 03:37 PM
Have been for years. Farming is one of the biggest businesses in the world and only getting bigger. This industry doesn't need taxpayer assistance to exist.

Isn't his a chicken egg deal?

If they didn't get the assistance would we have what we have now? Would it be getting bigger and bigger?

Taco John
02-13-2010, 03:40 PM
Isn't his a chicken egg deal?

If they didn't get the assistance would we have what we have now? Would it be getting bigger and bigger?


My God. Really?

Do you understand supply and demand? Because your question shows a horrible lapse in understanding of this concept.

Let me tell you - it pays to be in a business where the demand does nothing but grow and grow and grow.

bowener
02-13-2010, 03:45 PM
Doctors without licenses, uncertified hospitals, no oversight of pharmaceuticals. I mean what could go wrong there? Right?

The stuff you guys will latch onto to follow the cult is amazing.

I think they already have this no oversight uncertified health system in some third world countries. Maybe we could return to using witch doctors while we are at it!

I keep getting the image of the foreign Doctor from the Simpsons passing through my head. "<strike>HI</strike> Die Everybody!"

JohnnyV13
02-13-2010, 04:02 PM
I'm only going to address point #1, which is the economist's worst point.


This article is a classic example of an ideologue. Sure, some of these things sound great in theory, but practical experience will show how bad it is outside the ivory tower.

A number of years ago, this south american medical graduate who couldn't get certified in the US, set himself up as a plastic surgeon, (and he didn't even have south american training in plastic surgery), used his charisma and bedside manner to attract patients. The guy ended up getting a male bodybuilder as a patient who wanted pec implants to fix a muscle deformity. This quack puts in female breast implants, and when the patient questions the appearance, assures him its just swelling.

OK fine, the guy was stupid, but do you really want to punish people for not being knowledgeable about a highly technical field? And, the consequences get worse. There was a Bolivian "doctor" who faked a number of certifications to perform organ transplants. Multiple patients died, which the "doctor" buried under his personal residence, and then he fled the country. I don't think they've caught him yet.

Remove licensing requirements, and you're going to get a lot more of these people who will wreck havoc before they are identified.

The victims are likely to disproportionatley be the poor and ignorant. Many of you simply don't know people like this, so you don't understand how much of a cultural and informational gap they have to overcome. My grandparents were raised in rural missouri, got married during the depression, were way too catholic and had 13 children (11 survived to adulthood), and had 8th grade educations.

For whatever reason, my grandmother really valued education and pushed that upon her chidlren. Despite poverty, they had a tremendous work ethic and didn't take a dime of public money. SOmehow, they ended up raising 7 college graduates, (3 of whom earned graduate degrees), my mother, who married a doctor, and one child with severe schizophrenia who still managed to work as a rural auto mechanic. My grandparents simply didn't understand the upper middle class lifestyles of their own children.

My grandparents weren't stupid. No genetically stupid couple could have produced so many academically successful children. Yet, explaining many things was incredibly difficult, b/c of their ignorance and the cultural gap was pretty vast. (Here is something else most people don't know, each social level has its own collection of survival skills and cultural know how. Take a "rich person" and throw them into poor circumstances and they will have to overcome a lot of cultural ignorance about how to survive as a poor person).

THOSE are the people that your unlicensed pieces of crap are going to exploit with a disproportionate frequency. Caveat emptor sounds wonderful when an economics Ph.D. stands in front of a classroom full of graduate students, but looks really stupid when you're the one that has to pick up the broken bodies. When you contemplate instituting such a plan, you're like Mao and his great leap forward: an ideological idiot.

banyon
02-13-2010, 05:37 PM
Check yourself in at the BIG government socialist thread.

Yeah, we ought to license doctors = You socialist!

banyon
02-13-2010, 05:42 PM
Have been for years. Farming is one of the biggest businesses in the world and only getting bigger. This industry doesn't need taxpayer assistance to exist.

Countries without agricultural policies are wonderful places. We can bring back blights, famines, it will be awesome! Let the market decide if we need a grain reserve, or a mad cow monitoring program!

banyon
02-13-2010, 05:44 PM
Have been for years. Farming is one of the biggest businesses in the world and only getting bigger. This industry doesn't need taxpayer assistance to exist.

Also, farming as you are thinking of it is being eliminated by giant agribusiness. Small farmers are pushed out in increasing numbers. This problem is even worse in developing countries. I guess that's what you meant by bigger, right?

Let Conagra and ADM decide if we need to preserve seeds or if whatever GMO they can concoct will affect our long-term health.

HonestChieffan
02-13-2010, 05:53 PM
Countries without agricultural policies are wonderful places. We can bring back blights, famines, it will be awesome! Let the market decide if we need a grain reserve, or a mad cow monitoring program!

Didnt the Obama administration just announce they are not going to track and recod cattle movement and such? That was a Bush proposal post mad cow Canada. Guess we dont need that now.

HonestChieffan
02-13-2010, 05:54 PM
Also, farming as you are thinking of it is being eliminated by giant agribusiness. Small farmers are pushed out in increasing numbers. This problem is even worse in developing countries. I guess that's what you meant by bigger, right?

Let Conagra and ADM decide if we need to preserve seeds or if whatever GMO they can concoct will affect our long-term health.

Urban Myth number 215.

RINGLEADER
02-13-2010, 06:23 PM
People are going to choke on #4. I think something like this would be a very last step in a campaign of incrimentalism. At the very least, the government should fill its obligations to those who have become dependent on it.


Yep.

This is why politicians shouldn't be in charge of making hard decisions. Eventually, when the money runs out, and there's no more social safety net left, this conclusion will be forced upon the sick whether they want to accept it or not.

I think a different way of saying the same thing is that the sooner the politicians realize that you can't cover everyone and you can't magically pretend that people with sicknesses that cost millions to treat are the same as those without illness, the sooner we'll have a solution that works for the vast, vast, vast majority of the American people. To try and cover everyone/pre-existing conditions is a recipe for the disaster detailed above. It's heartless to be sure but you can't manufacture something from nothing.

Not my conclusions, wants, or desires. Just a fact of life.

Direckshun
02-13-2010, 06:32 PM
Back to #4:

Not if done in an incremental way. Do it overnight, yeah. Madness. Do it incrementally, not so much.

What science do you have to cling to that eliminating subsidies to sick people eliminates sick people?

Not bullshit libertarian talking points. Actual scientific research.

It's madness, on a Bush-created-9/11 scale.

Taco John
02-13-2010, 07:42 PM
Countries without agricultural policies are wonderful places. We can bring back blights, famines, it will be awesome! Let the market decide if we need a grain reserve, or a mad cow monitoring program!


...or, you know... The States.

Taco John
02-13-2010, 07:51 PM
The victims are likely to disproportionatley be the poor and ignorant.

So how does this compare with our system today?

BigRedChief
02-13-2010, 08:10 PM
Countries without agricultural policies are wonderful places. We can bring back blights, famines, it will be awesome! Let the market decide if we need a grain reserve, or a mad cow monitoring program!Yeah baby! Freedom and Liberty!

banyon
02-13-2010, 08:49 PM
...or, you know... The States.

Yeah, it's not like that stuff is shipped all over the country or anything.

I mean hell, let's leave it up to the county, the city, or two guys in a pickup truck. What's the worst that could happen?

banyon
02-13-2010, 08:49 PM
Urban Myth number 215.

Which statement were you referring to?

banyon
02-13-2010, 08:51 PM
Didnt the Obama administration just announce they are not going to track and recod cattle movement and such? That was a Bush proposal post mad cow Canada. Guess we dont need that now.

There's kind of a difference between adjusting a specific regulation and advocating no regulation whatsoever.

That being said, I don't know the specific regulatory adjustment you are talking about. It may indeed be an undesirable shift, I don't know without more info.

Direckshun
02-13-2010, 08:59 PM
I'll reiterate my point.

What science do you have to cling to that eliminating subsidies to sick people eliminates sick people?

Not bullshit libertarian talking points. Actual scientific research.

It's madness, on a Bush-created-9/11 scale.

I'd just hate to see TJ run and hide, considering all the neg rep he's left me for what he believes was doing that exact thing.

BigRedChief
02-13-2010, 11:24 PM
I'll reiterate my point.



I'd just hate to see TJ run and hide, considering all the neg rep he's left me for what he believes was doing that exact thing.Yes, I'd like to see some independent data too. But, it doesn't exsist so not holding my breath.

Taco John
02-14-2010, 03:33 AM
I'll reiterate my point.



I'd just hate to see TJ run and hide, considering all the neg rep he's left me for what he believes was doing that exact thing.

I don't recall leaving neg rep about it. I don't neg rep people. I've probably given out 10 neg reps since the invention of rep. Maybe you got one. I do remember posting that picture of you running away from the argument about ear marks. You've wisely never mentioned earmarks ever since then.

As far as the science that you're looking for, I don't have any "science" on that. But I did post and article (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=223407) on the dangers of subsidies that easily applies to welfare cases. I see no reason that a stronger social safety net in the form of a distributed Republic that promotes individual liberty and self-sufficiency wouldn't be the best solution. We shouldn't be looking to a federal government to solve our social problems. We should be looking a lot more locally.

irishjayhawk
02-14-2010, 04:47 AM
My God. Really?

Do you understand supply and demand? Because your question shows a horrible lapse in understanding of this concept.

Let me tell you - it pays to be in a business where the demand does nothing but grow and grow and grow.

You misunderstand. I very much understand supply and demand but s&d isn't what's gotten us to where we are now. Corn is the number one grown product because the US subsidizes the hell out of it. Then we have an infiltration of corn into all areas of the agribusiness because it's cheap (because of subsidies). Corn production doesn't have anything to do with supply and demand at this stage of the game.

HonestChieffan
02-14-2010, 06:25 AM
You misunderstand. I very much understand supply and demand but s&d isn't what's gotten us to where we are now. Corn is the number one grown product because the US subsidizes the hell out of it. Then we have an infiltration of corn into all areas of the agribusiness because it's cheap (because of subsidies). Corn production doesn't have anything to do with supply and demand at this stage of the game.

If that were true we would have huge overwhelming stocks of corn rotting in storage. We dont.

donkhater
02-14-2010, 09:27 AM
The fact that Reaper, BigRedchief, Direckshun, Jenson and banyon have all come out against this approach all but certifies its validity.

WilliamTheIrish
02-14-2010, 11:05 AM
Because consumers would no longer be duped into believing that there is such a thing as a "national standard" of health care, they will increase their search costs and make more discriminating health care choices.

I know that there is a "standard of care",(that's often not met) but have never heard of "National Standard of Health Care".

Is there a difference?

WilliamTheIrish
02-14-2010, 11:08 AM
If that were true we would have huge overwhelming stocks of corn rotting in storage. We dont.

It's given away to 3rd world countries.

Reaper16
02-14-2010, 11:16 AM
The fact that Reaper, BigRedchief, Direckshun, Jenson and banyon have all come out against this approach all but certifies its validity.
:facepalm:

Direckshun
02-14-2010, 11:28 AM
As far as the science that you're looking for, I don't have any "science" on that.

End of thread. Or at least end of #4.

And you can drop the quotations. Because there's simply no scientific evidence that dropping subidies for sick people eliminates sick people.

And considering how massively dangerous that would be, I'd have to see ample evidence.

This is the danger of accepting ideological talking points as gospel.

HonestChieffan
02-14-2010, 11:31 AM
It's given away to 3rd world countries.

What is given to third world countries? Corn?

irishjayhawk
02-14-2010, 01:44 PM
If that were true we would have huge overwhelming stocks of corn rotting in storage. We dont.

What does this have to do with anything?

The only reason corn got to where it has gotten today is because the government made it dirt cheap by subsidizing it. So while the s&d today is high (because HFCS etc etc), it doesn't address what Taco was saying. The subsidies fed the S&D not the other way around.

Taco John
02-14-2010, 02:01 PM
End of thread. Or at least end of #4.

Not at all. I don't need science to tell me that stealing from people is wrong.

Direckshun
02-14-2010, 02:13 PM
Not at all. I don't need science to tell me that stealing from people is wrong.

That's not the argument #4 is making.

It's saying that subsidies make people sick.

irishjayhawk
02-14-2010, 02:16 PM
That's not the argument #4 is making.

It's saying that subsidies make people sick.

That's exactly, almost word for word, a summation of point #4.

WilliamTheIrish
02-14-2010, 02:16 PM
What is given to third world countries? Corn?

Did I stutter? Yes.

Taco John
02-14-2010, 02:41 PM
That's not the argument #4 is making.

It's saying that subsidies make people sick.


In the same way that it's saying that subsidies make people unemployed, yes. I know several people myself, personally who could be working but are doing everything they can to stay on unemployment. I don't begrudge them for using the system. That's what a system is for.

Getting healthy requires a mental component. Placebo studies show this in spades. But if you are being incentivized to stay sick, then you'll do what you have to do to stay sick.

There's plenty of science behind the placebo effect, but I don't suppose that you will accept that there is a mental/spiritual aspect to health. So instead, I choose the fall back position that it's not ok for the federal government to steal from people.

Direckshun
02-14-2010, 02:46 PM
I definitely think there's a mental aspect to getting better. But it ain't the only aspect.

Getting people well by replacing subsidies with wishful, optimistic thinking is about the dumbest thing I've heard, on a Bush-created-9/11 scale.

Taco John
02-14-2010, 02:52 PM
I definitely think there's a mental aspect to getting better. But it ain't the only aspect.

I personally think it's the most important aspect. Someone who doesn't want to get better simply wont.

KC native
02-14-2010, 03:24 PM
I personally think it's the most important aspect. Someone who doesn't want to get better simply wont.

Yea except for medical conditions that doesn't apply to. My medical conditions won't disappear regardless of my attitude towards them.

Taco John
02-14-2010, 03:26 PM
Yea except for medical conditions that doesn't apply to. My medical conditions won't disappear regardless of my attitude towards them.

Not with that attitude they wont.

KC native
02-14-2010, 03:36 PM
Not with that attitude they wont.

TAco,
I have severe asthma. No amount of wanting to get better is going to make it disappear. Do you think I like having asthma? I have wanted this disease to disappear since I was a small child and guess what. I still have asthma. Your nonsense about wanting to get better ignores reality for a good portion of medical conditions. I could go on but hopefully you get the point (although I won't hold my breath,pun intended, because you are completely disconnected from reality).

Norman Einstein
02-14-2010, 03:41 PM
If I had as low a view of humanity as you do, I wouldn't leave my house EVER!

Promise?

Reaper16
02-14-2010, 03:58 PM
Not with that attitude they wont.
BOOTSTRAPS

Taco John
02-14-2010, 04:16 PM
TAco,
I have severe asthma. No amount of wanting to get better is going to make it disappear. Do you think I like having asthma? I have wanted this disease to disappear since I was a small child and guess what. I still have asthma. Your nonsense about wanting to get better ignores reality for a good portion of medical conditions. I could go on but hopefully you get the point (although I won't hold my breath,pun intended, because you are completely disconnected from reality).


If there was a government subsidy for chronic asthma, and you didn't have chronic asthma, you would be incentivized to develop chronic asthma. Your body would play along and follow where the mind tells it to go. The placebo effect doesn't only work in one direction.

KC native
02-14-2010, 04:20 PM
If there was a government subsidy for chronic asthma, and you didn't have chronic asthma, you would be incentivized to develop chronic asthma. Your body would play along and follow where the mind tells it to go. The placebo effect doesn't only work in one direction.

wow

Taco John
02-14-2010, 04:21 PM
wow

Wow I'm 100% right about everything I just said, and nothing say can refute it, so the only thing you can do is pretend like what I'm saying is "out there."

I'm not confused by your shallow tactics.

KC native
02-14-2010, 04:26 PM
Wow I'm 100% right about everything I just said, and nothing say can refute it, so the only thing you can do is pretend like what I'm saying is "out there."

I'm not confused by your shallow tactics.

Your assertion that someone would develop an illness intentionally for the sole purpose of collecting a government subsidy doesn't need refutation for the simple fact that it is patently absurd.

Reaper16
02-14-2010, 04:30 PM
Its actually pretty fucking out there. Its like the market is a spiritual force within us in your 100%-irrefutable claim, compelling us twist with it towards the subsidy. I wonder why I am not compelled by the newly-spiritual, Holy Hand of the Market to follow the incentives?

Taco John
02-14-2010, 04:30 PM
Your assertion that someone would develop an illness intentionally for the sole purpose of collecting a government subsidy doesn't need refutation for the simple fact that it is patently absurd.

:LOL:

Uh huh... You've definitely earned the KC Naive moniker that you've garnered around this place.

My father has worked in the field of workman's comp for the last 20 years. You should sit with him and hear some of the incredible stories he has to tell about what people will do for that government subsidy. You will have to get your jaw surgically removed from your lap.

Taco John
02-14-2010, 04:31 PM
But KC Naive, I have a question for you now.

You say you have asthma. How much do I owe you for it?

Reaper16
02-14-2010, 04:36 PM
But KC Naive, I have a question for you now.

You say you have asthma. How much do I owe you for it?
We all must tithe.

Chiefspants
02-14-2010, 04:45 PM
This is a fantastic idea, let us have no oversight on companies all strive to earn the highest quarterly profit.

Verified capitalism works for a nation when it allows individuals to ascend towards success, but that does not mean that it should be trusted to care for the health of the people of that nation.

KC native
02-14-2010, 04:48 PM
:LOL:

Uh huh... You've definitely earned the KC Naive moniker that you've garnered around this place.

My father has worked in the field of workman's comp for the last 20 years. You should sit with him and hear some of the incredible stories he has to tell about what people will do for that government subsidy. You will have to get your jaw surgically removed from your lap.

Trying to change the subject? We were discussing health insurance not workman's comp.

KC native
02-14-2010, 04:49 PM
But KC Naive, I have a question for you now.

You say you have asthma. How much do I owe you for it?

I guess you're abandoning the line that I can "will" this illness away huh?

donkhater
02-14-2010, 05:04 PM
This is a fantastic idea, let us have no oversight on companies all strive to earn the highest quarterly profit.

Verified capitalism works for a nation when it allows individuals to ascend towards success, but that does not mean that it should be trusted to care for the health of the people of that nation.

I would argue that in the area of health it works even better.

Health care is a service provided by people trained in that service. As such they are motivatied by profit and professional success. That isn't evil, that's human nature. It's no different thatn any other job.

Do those in the health care field derive some extra bit of satisfaction because their profession is helping others overcome illness. I'm sure they do, but that doesn't mean a government entitiy should limit their livelyhood to just those rewards

Now it's your turn to counter with the greed of the current system as if that is any measure of how a capitalistic system would actully work if it wasn't tied to government regulations and bureaucrats.

Chiefspants
02-14-2010, 05:07 PM
I would argue that in the area of health it works even better.

Health care is a service provided by people trained in that service. As such they are motivatied by profit and professional success. That isn't evil, that's human nature. It's no different thatn any other job.

Do those in the health care field derive some extra bit of satisfaction because their profession is helping others overcome illness. I'm sure they do, but that doesn't mean a government entitiy should limit their livelyhood to just those rewards

Now it's your turn to counter with the greed of the current system as if that is any measure of how a capitalistic system would actully work if it wasn't tied to government regulations and bureaucrats.

The problem is that if there if pharmaceutical companies have no one to answer to, then they have nothing stopping them from producing the lowest quality product for the highest profit. I know that one may argue that they would have the "consumer" to answer to, but surprisingly that has not stopped pharmaceutical companies from releases downright dangerous products to the American consumer throughout the last several years.

Someone has to hold these companies accountable.

Taco John
02-14-2010, 05:13 PM
I guess you're abandoning the line that I can "will" this illness away huh?


I didn't say that you could "will" it away. Neither did the article. What has been said is that subsidies create more of whatever is being subsidized. And that people who are incentivized to get sick, and/or stay sick will do exactly that.

Taco John
02-14-2010, 05:15 PM
The problem is that if there if pharmaceutical companies have no one to answer to, then they have nothing stopping them from producing the lowest quality product for the highest profit. I know that one may argue that they would have the "consumer" to answer to, but surprisingly that has not stopped pharmaceutical companies from releases downright dangerous products to the American consumer throughout the last several years.

Someone has to hold these companies accountable.


Whatever happened to the court system in the world you folks are living in? Nothing to stop them from releasing dangerous products indeed. Limiting federal government's legislative involvement to areas of constitutionality doesn't eliminate the justice system.

donkhater
02-14-2010, 05:24 PM
The problem is that if there if pharmaceutical companies have no one to answer to, then they have nothing stopping them from producing the lowest quality product for the highest profit. I know that one may argue that they would have the "consumer" to answer to, but surprisingly that has not stopped pharmaceutical companies from releases downright dangerous products to the American consumer throughout the last several years.

Someone has to hold these companies accountable.

They don't release drugs without the approval of the FDA. The stamp of approval that that agency gives to OK it's sale puts the public at ease that those drugs are safe. Thus the public has no need to be skeptics, they are trusting a government agency has done that work for them. You blame the drug companies, but where is the accountability for the bloated ineffectual agency called the FDA?

Do you trust the contents of vitamins and supplements that are not within the jurisdiction of the FDA? I would hope not. But if you were interested in finding out which supplements were best for you, there are consumer groups that have information on the validity of the products. With some research, you could determine this for yourself.

This is no different than the SEC 'regulating' Wall Street. Investors think that the SEC is there as the police to Wall Street to prevent fraud and the like from happening, so people blindly give their money to people like Madoff all the while thinking that "if the SEC says he is alright he must be". But the fact is that the SEC is to damn large for the left hand to know what the right is doing. When the Ponzi scheme comes crashing down, people clamoring for "MORE REGULATION" when regulation was responsible for the lackadasical scrutiny of these schemes in the first place!!!!!

You think health care is any different?

donkhater
02-14-2010, 05:24 PM
Whatever happened to the court system in the world you folks are living in? Nothing to stop them from releasing dangerous products indeed. Limiting federal government's legislative involvement to areas of constitutionality doesn't eliminate the justice system.

Indeed.

irishjayhawk
02-14-2010, 05:30 PM
If there was a government subsidy for chronic asthma, and you didn't have chronic asthma, you would be incentivized to develop chronic asthma. Your body would play along and follow where the mind tells it to go. The placebo effect doesn't only work in one direction.

My Kotter-esque response. Also a summation of the feelings in my head in the order they hit me.

:LOL:

:hmmm:

:bong:

:spock:

:eek:

:rolleyes:

:stupid:

:BS:

Taco John
02-14-2010, 05:35 PM
My Kotter-esque response. Also a summation of the feelings in my head in the order they hit me.

:LOL:

:hmmm:

:bong:

:spock:

:eek:

:rolleyes:

:stupid:

:BS:



You're being confused for Kotter a lot these days with your political wishy-washiness, that's for sure.

Nothing that I said was even remotely challenged by your string of emoticons.

irishjayhawk
02-14-2010, 05:36 PM
You're being confused for Kotter a lot these days with your political wishy-washiness, that's for sure.

I'd much rather be wishy-washy than batshit insane with free market bullshit.

irishjayhawk
02-14-2010, 05:37 PM
Nothing that I said was even remotely challenged by your string of emoticons.

That's because it's so absurd as to not even warrant a response. Sure, welfare might create bottom feeders using the system. Is that the majority? No.

But subsidies actually making people develop these conditions? Patently absurd.

JohnnyV13
02-14-2010, 05:38 PM
Wow I'm 100% right about everything I just said, and nothing say can refute it, so the only thing you can do is pretend like what I'm saying is "out there."

I'm not confused by your shallow tactics.

God, Mao tse TJ.

Please, admit this plan is incredibly impractical. For example, with number 1, removing licensing restrictions is about the dumbest way possible to increase the supply of doctors.

Do you want a more reasonable way to achieve this goal?

My father said the foreign medical graduate exam is a very difficult test to pass. For example, only about 5% of Philippine medical graduates are able to do it. My dad thinks that its probably harder than the licensing exam they give to US medical graduates.

Lower this barrier, PLUS grant far more education visas to foreign medical graduates to study for that test. THere are an ocean of foreign doctors that want to practice here, and if we help them make the grade we could seriously increase the flow of new professionals in the field.

Second, we could increase the number of PA's we graduate (physician's assistants). To be more efficient, we should probably produce twice as many PA's as we do primary care doctors, but in fact PA class sizes are still relatively small.

Usually, the first person we should see should be a PA and not a doc. If the PA's are well trained, they should reliably know when a medical problem goes beyond their training and refer you to a primary care doc, without any significant impact on the quality of care.

You are very quickly showing why ideologues are very dangerous people.

BucEyedPea
02-14-2010, 05:59 PM
God, Mao tse TJ.

Please, admit this plan is incredibly impractical. For example, with number 1, removing licensing restrictions is about the dumbest way possible to increase the supply of doctors.

Do you want a more reasonable way to achieve this goal?

My father said the foreign medical graduate exam is a very difficult test to pass. For example, only about 5% of Philippine medical graduates are able to do it. My dad thinks that its probably harder than the licensing exam they give to US medical graduates.

Lower this barrier, PLUS grant far more education visas to foreign medical graduates to study for that test. THere are an ocean of foreign doctors that want to practice here, and if we help them make the grade we could seriously increase the flow of new professionals in the field.

Second, we could increase the number of PA's we graduate (physician's assistants). To be more efficient, we should probably produce twice as many PA's as we do primary care doctors, but in fact PA class sizes are still relatively small.

Usually, the first person we should see should be a PA and not a doc. If the PA's are well trained, they should reliably know when a medical problem goes beyond their training and refer you to a primary care doc, without any significant impact on the quality of care.

You are very quickly showing why ideologues are very dangerous people.
Pot calling kettle here by the ideologue who espouses the ideology of Keyenesianism. That has an "ism" at the end of it too.

JohnnyV13
02-14-2010, 06:14 PM
Pot calling kettle here by the ideologue who espouses the ideology of Keyenesianism. That has an "ism" at the end of it too.

Sigh, there is a huge difference between a person with ideas and an ideologue. I can list many shortcomings of most any philosophical precept I hold. You and TJ think that your ideas can't possibly create any problems.

BucEyedPea
02-14-2010, 06:16 PM
Uh...hmmmmmm. In your opinion.

What's a problem to one is not for another. That's subjective.

Reaper16
02-14-2010, 06:17 PM
Sigh, there is a huge difference between a person with ideas and an ideologue. I can list many shortcomings of most any philosophical precept I hold. You and TJ think that your ideas can't possibly create any problems.
Refreshing honesty.

Reaper16
02-14-2010, 06:18 PM
Uh...hmmmmmm.
Uh... hmmmmmm Bop! Bee-doo-be-dop, bah doo bop, bee-doo-be-dop, bah do bop, bidubedop, bah doooooooooh. Yeaee yeah!

BucEyedPea
02-14-2010, 06:19 PM
Uh... hmmmmmm Bop! Bee-doo-be-dop, bah doo bop, bee-doo-be-dop, bah do bop, bidubedop, bah doooooooooh. Yeaee yeah!

Uh...hmmmmmmmmmmmm.

Reaper16
02-14-2010, 06:22 PM
Uh...hmmmmmmmmmmmm.
I was just making a random reference to Hanson's 1997 mega-hit, "MMMbop."

BucEyedPea
02-14-2010, 06:26 PM
I was just making a random reference to Hanson's 1997 mega-hit, "MMMbop."

Uh huh!:D

JohnnyV13
02-14-2010, 06:31 PM
Uh...hmmmmmm. In your opinion.

What's a problem to one is not for another. That's subjective.

Sometimes problems are subjective. At others, it's very objectively obvious that certain problems can result from proposed action. It's what good legislators are supposed to do, or judges and lawyers who debate possible legal interpretations.

Are you seriously suggesting that making it easier for medical con men to set up shop and purport to be qualified professionals isn't a shortcoming?

You might argue that people will learn to question their medical professionals more closely and that such self help behavior will provide benefits that outweigh the harm. But, how can you realistically evaluate that issue without looking at the potential harm?

Debate is when two sides take a hard look at those issues and the relevant facts and perhaps reach different (but well informed) conclusions. Ideological stupidity is when you never evaluate those issues and pretend there can be nothing but benefit.

BucEyedPea
02-14-2010, 06:38 PM
Uh uhm.

irishjayhawk
02-14-2010, 08:49 PM
I was just making a random reference to Hanson's 1997 mega-hit, "MMMbop."

Damn it. I was going to make a Hanson reference but I see you already had that in mind.

Foiled, dammit. :cuss:

JohnnyV13
02-15-2010, 03:21 AM
Lets engage in an exercise, BEP, TJ, tell me about the potential problems caused by 1) converting to the gold standard and 2) abolishing the fed?

If you can't identify the potential problems caused by your philosophy, you don't even understand your own core beliefs.

Taco John
02-15-2010, 03:51 AM
Lets engage in an exercise, BEP, TJ, tell me about the potential problems caused by 1) converting to the gold standard and 2) abolishing the fed?

If you can't identify the potential problems caused by your philosophy, you don't even understand your own core beliefs.

Nothing would be done overnight. Everything has to be done incrementally. Start by cutting spending and balancing budgets. You have to cut spending in order to reduce the impact. Reduce overseas expenditures (if not eliminate), and put an end to the worldwide welfare party being thrown on the American taxpayer dime. Then do monetary reform, starting with repealing legal tender laws and making the constitution legal again by allowing gold and silver to be used as legal tender alongside the dollar.

You're right though. There would be pain because gold is currently blowing up while the dollar is reeling. People would find out quick just how much trouble the dollar is really in once it got weighed down with gold, and credit became harder to get. One of the chief problems that our society would have is that they could no longer spend our future generation's inheritance and leave them stuck with the bill. We would have a hangover, to be sure. But much less of one than if we actually sit back and watch the dollar collapse like we're apparently doing.

KC native
02-15-2010, 11:57 AM
Nothing would be done overnight. Everything has to be done incrementally. Start by cutting spending and balancing budgets. You have to cut spending in order to reduce the impact. Reduce overseas expenditures (if not eliminate), and put an end to the worldwide welfare party being thrown on the American taxpayer dime. Then do monetary reform, starting with repealing legal tender laws and making the constitution legal again by allowing gold and silver to be used as legal tender alongside the dollar.

You're right though. There would be pain because gold is currently blowing up while the dollar is reeling. People would find out quick just how much trouble the dollar is really in once it got weighed down with gold, and credit became harder to get. One of the chief problems that our society would have is that they could no longer spend our future generation's inheritance and leave them stuck with the bill. We would have a hangover, to be sure. But much less of one than if we actually sit back and watch the dollar collapse like we're apparently doing.

I hate to break it to you but this doesn't answer what JohnnyV asked you to answer.

Inspector
02-15-2010, 01:49 PM
To cure all your ills?

Granny's elixer.

Made with fresh stump water.

JohnnyV13
02-15-2010, 07:56 PM
I hate to break it to you but this doesn't answer what JohnnyV asked you to answer.

Exactly. Taco is proving my point. To give you a hint, you can look for a couple of problem types: 1) implementation problems (which u tried, but really ended up just with veiled assertions of your theory's superiority) and 2) maintenance problems, that are continuing problems that must be addressed to make your theory function.

For example, with a central bank, one of the ongoing problems is the tendency of government officials to abuse that power by inflating currency as a taxation method.

We can debate whether the current system addresses that problem adequately (i'll probably agree it doesnt) and the magnitude of the problem. But any objective analyst will agree it exists.

patteeu
02-17-2010, 12:34 PM
That's not the argument #4 is making.

It's saying that subsidies make people sick.

It's not saying that either. It's saying that bailing out people who take unnecessary risks with their health will lead to more people who take unnecessary risks with their health and therefore more unhealthiness.

Taco John
02-17-2010, 12:43 PM
Exactly. Taco is proving my point.

The problem is, the point that you're making is invalid, because it ignores the fact that I recognize there are fundamental changes that would have to go along with converting to a gold standard and abolishing the fed. I recognize that just flipping a switch would create havoc. I believe in incrementalism. The problem is, we've incrementally been going in the direction towards a more managed economy, and more centralized power. I would rather see us go incrementally in the other, more American direction towards more liberty.

Dave Lane
02-17-2010, 12:47 PM
I'd be a HUGE fan of number 1. The rest was either meh or as in #4 yeah that will pass :rolleyes:

Talk about Death Panels yikes!

irishjayhawk
02-17-2010, 02:16 PM
It's not saying that either. It's saying that bailing out people who take unnecessary risks with their health will lead to more people who take unnecessary risks with their health and therefore more unhealthiness.

That's what you want it to say. As written, it doesn't say that but rather says what he pointed out.

Your rendition makes sense but the way the OP is written, it does not say that.

Taco John
02-17-2010, 02:23 PM
No actually, patteeu has it exactly right. That's the spirit of what the author is writing on.