This Forum is Closed
December 12, 2019, 03:01:31 pm
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: GGF now has a permanent home: http://forum.globalgulag.com
 
  Home Help Search Links Staff List Login Register  

Health care reform!

Pages: [1]   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Health care reform!  (Read 309 times)
Geolibertarian
Global Moderator
Sr. Member
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 455


9/11 WAS AN INSIDE JOB! www.ae911truth.org


View Profile
« on: August 26, 2010, 09:01:41 am »

Since nearly 50 million Americans are without health insurance, since health care costs continue to skyrocket despite decades-old promises by establishment politicians to bring these costs under control, and since there are literally tens of trillions in unfunded liabilities associated with Medicare alone, I thought I'd share my thoughts on how best to fix this mess.

In my view, our health care system should be based primarily on free enterprise and only secondarily on tax-funded medical research, with the latter being reserved for state and local governments.

The reason I'm mostly against any sort of government involvement in health care (especially at the federal level) is that I'm convinced that government involvement is the very thing that utterly screwed up and corrupted our health care system in the first place.

This involvement manifests in at least three basic ways:

First, the supply of medicine is artificially restricted by

(a) the criminalization of alternative medicine in general and medical marijuana in particular; and

(b) a corrupt patenting system that allows Big Pharma to charge monopoly prices for non-innovative "me-too" drugs and for drugs developed primarily at taxpayer expense.

Second, the supply of both health care providers and insurance providers is artificially restricted by occupational licensing barriers, which generally have far less to do with protecting the public from fraud than they do with protecting politically-connected interest groups from competition.

Third, the demand for health care services is artificially inflated by excessive taxpayer subsidization.


It is for those reasons that I advocate the following three-pronged approach to health care reform:


First, increase the availability of low-cost medicine by (1) revoking all patents awarded to the pharmaceutical cartel for either "me-too" drugs or drugs developed chiefly at government expense, and (2) relegalizing alternative medicine (including medical marijuana). The resultant increase in supply will exert a tremendous downward pressure on prices.

Second, reform medical licensing laws so that only those health care practitioners who accept taxpayer money are required to be state certified, and significantly lower the prohibitively high licensing barriers for private insurers as well. The resultant increase in the supply of both health care providers and insurance providers will, again, exert a downward pressure on prices.

Third, freeze the tax dollar-per-patient ratio of government health care expenditures at its current level. Thus, as more and more patients (particularly those who are able-bodied and able-minded enough to make their own choices) begin opting for the low-cost, non-subsidized alternatives made possible by the first two reforms, the amount of tax dollars needed for subsidized health care will come down gracefully on its own.

This gradual decrease in the demand for subsidized health care, combined with the aforementioned increase in the supply of low-cost alternatives, will serve to dramatically reduce the overall cost of health care. In this way, the forces of free market competition can be brought to bear on the health care system so as to maximize the speed by which health care costs can be decreased without reducing quality, and without denying health care services to those who are most in need yet least able to provide for those needs.


I call this my "progressive libertarian" approach to health care reform.  Cool
« Last Edit: September 02, 2010, 12:51:38 pm by Geolibertarian » Report Spam   Logged

"For the first years of [Ludwig von] Mises’s life in the United States...he was almost totally dependent on annual research grants from the Rockefeller Foundation.” -- Richard M. Ebeling

http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=162212.0

Geolibertarian
Global Moderator
Sr. Member
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 455


9/11 WAS AN INSIDE JOB! www.ae911truth.org


View Profile
« Reply #1 on: August 26, 2010, 09:04:47 am »

I call this my "progressive libertarian" approach to health care reform.  Cool

Since most opinion polls appear to show that a majority of Americans lean more towards single-payer health insurance -- whereby the delivery of health care is private and patients are free to choose their own hospital and doctor -- than they do towards the privilege-destroying/competition-enhancing system which I advocate, I feel compelled to add that I would at least be open to single-payer if it were (a) accompanied by the relegalization of alternative medicine, and (b) funded with a single tax on land values:

       http://globalgulag.freesmfhosting.com/index.php/topic,333.0.html

I am unconditionally opposed, however, to "socialized medicine."

Some may now be asking, "But isn't single-payer health insurance the same thing as socialized medicine?"

Short answer: no, it isn't.

---------------------------------

http://www.pnhp.org/facts/singlepayer_faq.php#socialized

Is national health insurance ‘socialized medicine’?

No. Socialized medicine is a system in which doctors and hospitals work for and draw salaries from the government. Doctors in the Veterans Administration and the Armed Services are paid this way. The health systems in Great Britain and Spain are other examples. But in most European countries, Canada, Australia and Japan they have socialized health insurance, not socialized medicine. The government pays for care that is delivered in the private (mostly not-for-profit) sector. This is similar to how Medicare works in this country. Doctors are in private practice and are paid on a fee-for-service basis from government funds. The government does not own or manage medical practices or hospitals.

[Continued...]

---------------------------------

http://globalgulag.freesmfhosting.com/index.php/topic,332.0.html (Attention both libertarians and progressives: Obamacare is NOT single-payer!)
Report Spam   Logged

"For the first years of [Ludwig von] Mises’s life in the United States...he was almost totally dependent on annual research grants from the Rockefeller Foundation.” -- Richard M. Ebeling

http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=162212.0
Geolibertarian
Global Moderator
Sr. Member
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 455


9/11 WAS AN INSIDE JOB! www.ae911truth.org


View Profile
« Reply #2 on: August 27, 2010, 09:09:14 am »

Although written a decade ago, the following is as relevant and insightful now as it was then:

-----------------------------------

http://www.progress.org/archive/fold129.htm

The Paradox of Government-Monopoly Medicine

by Fred E. Foldvary
The Progress Report
2000

Why in the USA is health care a federal case? The nature of health care is that it is something you need at random, and when you need it, you've got to have it even at a high price. We also need food, but that we get on a regular basis, with no big surprises.

But while a health emergency can strike you at any time, like a tiger pouncing out of the dark, what appears random to the sufferers is a regularity for the population. We know that some regular percentage of folks will have injuries and illnesses during a year. That's why we can insure for it, just like we have life, home, and car insurance. So why don't folks just buy insurance privately?

In the USA, many do, only it's often done through the employer, since the boss gets a tax deduction and the worker does not. But many people are considered too poor to get insurance, so the federal government insures the poor with Medicaid and the old folks with Medicare. Now they want to expand the benefits to drugs. It is the nature of medicine that we can never have enough if it's user-free, so the push is to ever expand government coverage.

In Great Britain they decided that since everyone needs insurance, the national government may as well provide it to all. According to a poll by the Times of London, 46 percent of Britons regard their National Health Service as the greatest achievement of the British government in the 20th century (NCPA Policy Digest 2-10-00).

Is it not wonderful to get free health care? But it is not free - the British pay for it from taxes. As for the poor, government could instead give them health vouchers for private medical care. So the great benefit of government-provided medicine must be its monopolization, since if it is just a problem of money, then transfers or the redistribution of income would solve it.

The facts indicate that British health care is a wee bit short of utopian. The British NHS has 1.1 million patients on its hospital waiting lists, and half as many doctors per capita as the U.S.(1).

In cancer treatment, problems in the NHS include a chronic lack of funds, specialists, and treatment centers; unequal treatment throughout the country; and in some cases the postponement of aggressive treatment until it is too late. According to the World Health Organization, 25,000 Britons die of cancer unnecessarily each year. Britons are not provided with drugs that are routinely administered in the U.S. for colon cancer, leaving British subjects with a survival rate of 41% versus 64% for Americans. For women with breast cancer, the five-year survival rate is 67% in Britain compared to 84% in the U.S.A.

As for the totality of health care, the United Kingdom spends about 6.8% of its gross domestic product on health care, versus 14% in the USA. In the UK, some 500 people a year die while on the national waiting list for heart operations (2).

Evidently just making medicine a government monopoly does not improve service. Why then do so many Britons regard nationalized medicine as their country's crowning achievement? Partly it may be ignorance of how their system compares with that of the US, where the government provides subsidies rather than direct service. But mainly it may be that subsidies, vouchers, and income transfers are politically more volatile and subject to cuts than the outright entrenched provision of the service by government.

So it seems the British want security in medical provision, even at poorer service, and at the root of their insecurity is poverty. It is not the abject poverty of being hungry and homeless, but the middle-class privation of insufficient purchasing power and the fear of losing employment.

Nationalized medicine treats the symptoms of middle-class privation, but at a cost of substandard care. The cause of middle-class privation is the poison of taxation and economic restriction. The effective remedy is true free trade and the removal of the poison by totally untaxing wages and shifting public revenue to the rent of land. Wages would gush up by eliminating the hemorrhage of taxation, removing blocks from circulation, and making the economy ever so much more productive by the better use of space.

With high wages and the security that comes from a high demand for labor, Britons would be able to scrap their nationalized health monopoly and would well afford a full choice of insurance, mutual aid, and fee-paid plans. Ultimately nationalized medicine is kept in power by the greed of those who profit from land and the ignorance of the public that does not see the economic reality behind the superficial money transactions of daily life.



References

1. Paul R. McGinn, "Brits Rate NHS as Top Achievement," American Medical News, January 31, 2000.

2. Sarah Lyall, "In Britain's Health Service, Sick Itself, Cancer Care is Dismal," New York Times, February 10, 2000.

-----------------------------------

I think the key point made by economist Fred Foldvary in the above article is that the health care issue is, at bottom, really about the unjust concentration of wealth and income in the hands of a relative few, since the varying degrees of poverty and privation that this concentration imposes on everyone else is what makes government assistance programs in general seem necessary in the first place.

To paraphrase Harry Browne, what ruling-class oligarchs and the corporate **** politicians who lovingly serve them essentially do is cripple people economically, hand them a crutch, and then say: "See? You couldn't walk if it weren't for us!"

That's why health care reform must go hand-in-hand with the economic reforms called for here.
Report Spam   Logged

"For the first years of [Ludwig von] Mises’s life in the United States...he was almost totally dependent on annual research grants from the Rockefeller Foundation.” -- Richard M. Ebeling

http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=162212.0
Geolibertarian
Global Moderator
Sr. Member
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 455


9/11 WAS AN INSIDE JOB! www.ae911truth.org


View Profile
« Reply #3 on: August 27, 2010, 11:19:07 am »

I am unconditionally opposed, however, to "socialized medicine."

For anyone curious as to why I'm so opposed to socialized medicine -- or, as I like to put it, "DMV-style health care" -- please see the following:







« Last Edit: September 02, 2010, 02:01:32 pm by Geolibertarian » Report Spam   Logged

"For the first years of [Ludwig von] Mises’s life in the United States...he was almost totally dependent on annual research grants from the Rockefeller Foundation.” -- Richard M. Ebeling

http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=162212.0
Pages: [1]   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by EzPortal
Bookmark this site! | Upgrade This Forum
Free SMF Hosting - Create your own Forum

Powered by SMF | SMF © 2016, Simple Machines
Privacy Policy
Page created in 0.111 seconds with 17 queries.