With the outbreak of the Swine-Flu, many in congress are looking at the issue, and many people are looking to the government for a solution.
While I personally don’t think this particular disease will turn out to be as serious as the media is implying it might be, there will come a time when a dangerous disease can actually hurt vast amounts of people.
So, what is the governments role in monitoring a pandemic? Let’s assume that any government in question had a constitutional authority to do so to keep that out of the debate. So even if they had the authority to get involved, should it and if so to what extent?
Let me know when the swine flu pandemic hits 40,000 fatalities a year, because by then, it will have reached the same number as government road fatalities per year.
And you can be sure that when it does hit, if we’re in a free market drugs companies will be putting all their resources into making some sort of cure or vaccine in order to make a killing. Contrast this with the bureaucratic mess that the pharmaceutical industries is today and you’d understand why it’d be better to have a free market.
The government’s role is the same as your role or my role in the matter: if we want to monitor it, go ahead but monitor it on your own dime. The trouble is that the government does nothing on its own dime. So, my answer is the same as saying the government should do nothing.
Why assume such a thing? That is how we are in the mess we’re in today - by ceding the ground to government because “the Constitution says so.”
How about these questions? Can you think of a reason people would voluntarily pay government to monitor a medical issue? Would that be in addition to or instead of paying doctors, nurses, paramedics, drug companies and other people involved in health care?
You’re missing the point in my sarcastic remark. The government fails to prevent 40,000 deaths a year on it’s own roads. So what makes you think that government is or will be competent enough to save us when a “real” pandemic sweeps the world?
great example of another unintended consequence of Gov. regulation, in this case desegregation. With the best of intentions, government seems to always create the worst of consequences.
I had a feeling someone would start a thread on this sooner or later…
If you catch a disease because of someone else’s reckless or negligent behavior, then you would certainly have a legitimate legal claim against them.
Beyond that, non-profit groups might assemble data from various hospitals and make general statements telling people what the disease’s symptoms are, how best to minimize risk of exposure, etc. It’s not as though doing such things costs a whole lot of money.
As I said, to keep that out of the debate. Not because I think the government should have such authority. I don’t.
I don’t, merely trying to get talking going to see if someone can give a good answer as to how the free market alone would handle such a thing.
Let’s assume that the disease in question, like many diseases, is most contagious when it’s not showing symptoms and the people don’t know they’re sick. Let’s also assume that it’s spread so much by this point, that you don’t know who you caught it from.Then there is little way to make a legal claim against someone for you getting sick. Especially in the case that you die.
How would the free market itself handle something like Black Death, where at it’s peak it killed 10,000 people a day? We want the free market to alleviate the problem well ahead of major deaths, and it’s a virus derived disease. How does the free market quarantine those with he ailment to prevent spread?
Again, I’m not for a state role in such a scenario, just want to know what the free market ideology towards such a thing would be.
People get sick. They go to the doctors. Doctors currently communicate with each other about trends, so that again, is not anything new either. Insurance companies also keep track of trends. The free market structure is here people merely need to ‘rediscover’ it and get the hurdles of the State out of the way.
It’s hard, if not impossible, for the free market to do so if the government intervenes. Case in point, three days before Katrina “touch downed”, Wal-Mart sent dozens of truck loads of supplies to the areas to be affected by the hurricane, however, FEMA blocked those trucks from entering those areas. In essence, FEMA caused a shortage of supplies. Those affected by the hurricane could have been better off had FEMA allowed Wal-Mart’s trucks to enter the soon-to-be-affected areas.
If you insist on government, I suppose anyone knowingly walking around with a deadly contagious disease would be wrecklessly endagering someone (kind of like walking around and doing a drive by shooting). If they infect someone while outside of their property or a place that legaly accepts the consequences of being endagerd (like a hospital) they would get punished.
If you really want to hear good answers as to how the free market alone would handle a pandemic, don’t put government intervention on the table as a “given” not up for debate. The given should be that government is prohibited from intervening of its own volition.
Frighten populace by exaggerating the situation (warning of impending death is preferable).
Blame the emergency on an enemy of government (preferably a free market principle or entity).
Assure populace that government is working on the solution (important note: imply that once the problem has been solved, there will be need for additional spending and new bureaucracies to reduce susceptibility to such emergencies in the future).
Issue handy checklist of expert advice to demonstrate #3 (important note: construct this checklist using logic and language fit for a retard).
Regardless of eventual outcome, carefully explain how government mitigated damages and averted catastrophe; and blame any damages on target in #2. (important note: President should communicate this in a national press conference).
Immediately propose legislation to expand government, decrease limitations on government power, and/or curtail the rights of enemy blamed in #2.
Appoint sister-in-law to high-paying position in newly created bureaucracy.