The scenario of a hospital going out of business in a free market, completely absent of government regulation, will not happen as you or your friend may think. It is highly probable that that hospital will not be the only entity of health care in that area. Furthermore, If there is only one hospital in that area, then that is a clear sign for a profit seeking individual to move in start his own hospital. Therefore, those two hospitals will compete and if they both do “equally” as well, then they will both stay in the market. Now, lets say that one of those hospitals does very poor work – i.e., the comprising doctors there are all like the mainstream over-prescribing, lack-of-skill and lack-of- knowledge fools that they are in the so-called market today ; then that hospital will eventually fail. That is the beauty of the free market – for it weeds out the trash. By word of mouth others will know that this hospital is doing poorly and once again some profit motivated individual is going to come and and hopefully make things better – e.g., buy the place and kick the poor quality workers out. Therefore, It is a seemingly endless cycle – the same situation can be applied to one hospital in the area (your scenario) – others will know that the hospital does poor work and before it ultimately fails, someone will in and innovate.
Okay, suppose, some how the single hospital failed and there was no other one to replace it right away: There are other forms of care in the area – e.g., small private practices that will take in patients (more work for them, thus, profit). Even if private practitioners refused to treat these individuals, then it is not like there isn’t some other hospital or private doctor some number of miles away that won’t treat them.
In other words, the beauty of the market is that there will always be a supply if there is a demand. It is safe to say that health care will always be demanded, therefore, there will be an abundance of highly skilled doctors with reasonable (what the consumer is willing to pay) prices.
In the free market people will not lack charity. If someone comes in bleeding death because some menace violated his individual property, and he also lacks an immediate form of payment, then a doctor will treat him first and talk payment later. If the patient can’t come up with payment, then a contract can be made that will reach a reasonable conclusion. If governments run health care then, doctors can’t make their own private contracts with patients and doctors get screwed. The cycle is endless in that if that same person comes in a again, he can do the same stunt because the government has his back. If the government were absent, then that doctor could just easily shun that free loader away.
In a private free market there will most likely be no third party intervention in health care – e.g., insurance companies. Therefore, it will be a mutual exchange between doctor and patient, nothing more and nothing less. One reason the health care system is as bad is it is now is because insurance companies got involved and eventually governments.
With government intervention in the health care field, like with all fields, quality of work goes down and prices go up. This is a result of absurd regulations, documents, taxes; and insurance regulations and documents. All these barriers place a burden on the doctor as he spends less time: with the patient, education, learning, practicing his skills, and balancing other parts of his life. As a result, all this, leads to a failure of innovation and a market full of crappy doctors.
The blame lies with government and whatever companies receive special favors through lobbying. Another problem is doctors and their associations both barring entry to the profession by way of regulations and demanding certain treatments be mandatory for insurance companies to cover.
You are wrong to demonize insurance companies, at least the ones that would prosper in a free society. Insurance companies simply provide the service of transferring an unknown possible future risk (medical payments) for a known outlay (insurance premiums).
“You are wrong to demonize insurance companies, at least the ones that would prosper in a free society. Insurance companies simply provide the service of transferring an unknown possible future risk (medical payments) for a known outlay (insurance premiums).”
Non sequitur E.R,
I was obviously talkin’ about current insurance companies – don’t play dumb.
Also go educate with some real history, rather not what you “learned” at some public college. Once insurance companies started getting involved in health care, the government used its regulation on insurance companies as also a means to ultimately regulating health care.
C Le Master wrote the following post at Mon, Feb 1 2010 5:19 PM:
The problem we have today is one of scarcity - there are more people living longer and they have more options. How one health care system manages the allocation of resources to address this scarcity vs another is reactionary not causal. If history is any teacher, then it would be more supportable to say that government intervention in the market has caused many of today’s problems. For example, government regulation of the price physicians can charge for office visits has contributed to the redirection of physicians in training from primary care practice to specialty practice, resulting in today’s “shortage of primary care doctors”. This is because private insurers can then take advantage of the government price to fix prices (a monopolistic cartel encouraged by the government). But specialists can charge as a referral, not an office visit, and get more money. The mechanism at play here is one of value judgement - specialty is preferred due to the higher wage value.
But government goes a step further to make this problem even worse. Recently, CMS (the government agency responsible for setting these prices) has changed its regulations to “address” this problem - it lowered the reimbursement rate for referrals, and private insurers, as willing participants in this government sponsored cartel, are expected to follow suit. The idea of the regulators is that physicians in training will no longer see specialty as preferred and thus increase the number of primary care physicians. This is, of course, the opposite of what will happen if you know anything about economics. The individuals who become physicians are not stupid and their world is not made up of only two possible choices in careers. We are going to now have a shortage in specialists as well as primary care physicians.
C Le Master wrote the following post at Mon, Feb 1 2010 5:19 PM:
In order for everyone to get all the healthcare they feel is correct would require a perfect solution - the removal of the scarcity of resource. That is impossible but it reveals the key to the problem - the increase of resources since the demand for healthcare, at least for healthcare that is essential to living, is inelastic. To put it another way, the only question that matters is this: what system provides the best healthcare to the most people?
We have to look to history for parallels to answer these types of questions since the past is the best (and only) indicator of the future. I believe food provides a good example - it is essential, affects everyone, cosumed, variable in quality, and is in constant demand. A very simplistic analysis if you’re constrained for time would be to just point to historic examples of government controlled food supply vs market controlled food supply and say, “See!”. Perhaps a picture of a Soviet market from the 1970’s would be helpful.
A more detailed analysis would consider the Malthusian popluation / food problem of the last century. It was suggested, and widely accepted, that our human capacity to produce food would not keep pace with worldwide population growth and we would eventually have hundreds of millions starving all over the globe. In addition, there were many already starving and it was only going to get worse. Probably the best modern statement of this point of view is Paul Ehrlich’s The Population Bomb.
The predictions did not come true. The reason why is because as population grew, free market allocations of resources adjusted and also enabled the creative faculties of human beings to develop practical solutions. Farming methods improved, land productivity increased and people like Norman Borlaug developed new food technologies.
As with healthcare, the question wasn’t how can we feed everyone all the time. No system is perfect and it is not realistic to aim for that goal. The meaningful question was, what system will provide the best food to the most people? History’s judgement is clear - the market approach is superior. it is academic to point out that it is not pefect - some people still go hungry, small time farmers must find something more economically productive to do with their land, etc. But perfection is not our goal.
This example really demonstrates the tragedy of socilized medicine - the solutions which we would have developed will either be delayed or never appear due to our constraint of humanity’s greatest resource - the market’s ability to unleash our creative genius to solve our most pressing problems when people are allowed to pursue their self interest. There may be a far better solution completely different from private insurance, some new organization of human capacity, that we will never discover.
C Le Master wrote the following post at Mon, Feb 1 2010 5:19 PM:
This question is best considered in light of the essential question identified above: what system is better? In a government run program, some people will be denied healthcare, the same as in a private system. But which system will deny fewer people? The only way to make any reliably predictive answer is to look to history and history is very clear - a free market system will outperform a socialized one.
C Le Master wrote the following post at Mon, Feb 1 2010 5:19 PM:
The money the government would pay for someone’s expensive medical problem was taken from someone else in the form of a tax. It didn’t fall from the sky. This is a question, again, about allocations. A better way to ask it would be, “How will a government solution better allocate the scarce resource of expensive medical procedures than a market solution?” This restatement of the question makes clear the bias in the original question. That is, it is always possible to point to this person or that person and say they didn’t get all they wanted or needed, but it is not possible to point at everyone and state how they will all get what they need or want. It is the perogative of the person with a political axe to grind to point out instances of failure in any solution, but unless they are also able to provide an explanation of how their solution will be better for everyone, they add nothing of value.
Yes! A fellow libertarian that has heard of Weston A. Price; I have chills right now. Have you read his masterpiece, Nutrition and Physical Degeneration? Do you like 100% grass-fed raw dairy products from A2 cows? I recommend Thomas S. Cowan on, The Fourfold Path to Healing. The man is immensely bright.
Where is the non sequitur? Do you even know what that is? You can’t point out the type of non sequitur, because there is none. I guess they didn’t teach you reading comprehension or manners at your fantastic private school too. (How would you know I went to college, or even that it was public? Don’t you think assuming these types of things make you look seem an ass?)
Let’s go over exactly what you wrote which I was responding to:
"In a private free market
Obviously you was talkin’ ‘bout a hypothetical future free society here. Government as well as any individuals or businesses receiving special favors would be viewed as criminal in this scenario. How this comes out meaning that you are talkin’ about current companies’ practices is beyond me.
there will most likely be no third party intervention in health care – e.g., insurance companies. Therefore, it will be a mutual exchange between doctor and patient, nothing more and nothing less.
“Intervention”, as used here, means to me unwanted interference in a voluntary exchange. So, I would agree that, in a hypothetical future, free-market scenario, there could be no government (or arguendo one who somehow kept its paws out of insurance and health services).
Once again, your error here is mistaking the entirely legitimate practice of providing insurance with the ills of government and corrupt companies. I see no reason to believe that consumers would stop demanding the peace of mind provided by having insurance. There is no reason that everyone would be required to have health insurance.
Some people will choose to pay a modest fee (the company’s profit) along with their premiums in order to avoid unexpected, prolonged health care costs. A voluntary transaction between 3 or more parties is not “third party intervention” in any sort of negative sense.
One reason the health care system is as bad is it is now is because insurance companies got involved and eventually governments."
No mechanism of health insurance raises rates or lowers quality of care. The blame lies with government, its supporters, and any companies who lobby for regulation or special favors.
edit: It is clear from your response that you still don’t know what a non sequitur is. “Pathetically funny” doesn’t cut it. I saw that you are otherwise anti-government, but your own words lead to this confusion. There is no way to take what you wrote other than as demonizing insurance companies. I guess I have nothing else to say to you on this, as it is clear that you are stubborn and unable to admit your error.
I’ve read pieces, haven’t managed to sit down and read the whole thing. I’m not sure what A2 means, but I drink raw milk from grass-fed cows and sprout my grains. By the way, there are a lot of libertarians with similar interests - there’s even a googlegroups mailing list on paleo-libertarians. Contact me if you want to join.
First off I would like to mention that you read my comment out of context. In other words you seem to think I used for instance, “talkin’” as a slang because pepered through out your reply, you tried to take shots at me in light of it. You actually looked pretty stupid doin’ that because you are comepetely out of context. My usage of “'in” at the endin’ of words with “ing” is a humorist way of writing, not, as you deem, slang. If I were using it as a slang then I wouldn’t include the apostrophe at the end of it (which indicated the user has education).
Anyways:
I found your reply so absurd it was pathetically funny – that qualifies for non sequitur.
Why are you even arguing me? You started a fight because you misinterpreted my original reply. Furthermore, I told you I ain’t blamin’ non-government regulated insurance companies, yet you still continue to talk. Why are you talkin’ anymore? We have yet to even see the potential of a completely private insurance company in the market.
“Once again, your error here is mistaking the entirely legitimate practice of providing insurance with the ills of government and corrupt companies. I see no reason to believe that consumers would stop demanding the peace of mind provided by having insurance. There is no reason that everyone would be required to have health insurance.”
Some people will choose to pay a modest fee (the company’s profit) along with their premiums in order to avoid unexpected, prolonged health care costs. A voluntary transaction between 3 or more parties is not “third party intervention” in any sort of negative sense."
Where in either of my posts did I make the statement that if a private (no government intervention, whatsoever) third party was to join the exchange that it would drive up costs? I made it a point not to even discuss that because who am I to know which would be cheaper; an exchange directly form patient to doctor or from patient to insurance company to doctor? It all depends on the market – the doctor’s private practice.
Again, I told you that I was talkin’ about current health care insurance companies.
“No mechanism of health insurance raises rates or lowers quality of care. The blame lies with government, its supporters, and any companies who lobby for regulation or special favors.”
Did I at all say it wasn’t the government to blame. I stated that governments used insurance companies as a (one of many) means to disrupt and regulate the market; i.e., the governments fault. Therefore, I said nothing about private (absence of government) insurance companies interfering in a negative way in an exchange. Of course, it could interfere in a negative way if it the cost of going through an insurance company exceeds the cost of just paying doctor one on one.
“Obviously you was talkin’ ‘bout a hypothetical future free society here. Government as well as any individuals or businesses receiving special favors would be viewed as criminal in this scenario. How this comes out meaning that you are talkin’ about current companies’ practices is beyond me.”
Obviously you misinterpreted my comment. Don’t assume.
Why do you continue to repeat yourself? There should be no disagreement here because we both coincide that it is the governments fault health care system is so destroyed.
p.s.
I too went to public school and unfortunately attend one now; I was merely makin’ the point that “education” from statist public school should be takin’ lightly.
However, who the fuck am I to predict that there will be no insurance companies? I am merely basing my theory on evidence from history when doctors and patients exchanged directly. Was there a significant time period when insurance companies were introduced to even see their true potential before government forcefully pushed its filthy hands in?
Why do we need insursance companies? We do not have insurance for more necessary and important goods than health care. For instance, food and water are by far way more important than health care, do we have insurance for them? We need clothes to stay warm in the winter or we could not survive, do we have insursance for clothes?
Note: food is your health care. I recommend starting with Weston A. Price’s in, Nutrition and Physical Degeneration and then heading over to the "Weston A. Price Foundation* (WAPF) in the meantime and reading articles.
Therefore, what makes you think that we need insurance for health care? We don’t because seeing a physician for treatment in a free market (which includes educating to become a doctor and then actually practicing) would not cost as much. Most of you study Austrian conomics (I hope), so I do not have to discuss why the cost would go down.
In a market economy, the more advanced health care services will always have a higher price reflective of the costs of producing them. The reason you need insurance for health care but not for food is that you generally don’t get food bills that require foresight in savings to pay for them. Back in the days when there was no treatment for cancer and you died at home, medical bills weren’t as big a problem. Insurance is a great market tool for accomodating these types of costs for individuals.
The essential problem with the healthcare debate, in my opinion ofcourse, is that there are real people with real problems and they don’t care who solves them or how they are solved. They’ll accept any rationalization, any half baked justification for doing what it is they want to do. They have the political power right now to get these things done. The only solution I see is not just to make a better argument against them but simply promise them that we’ll take their power away. Because without their political power, their arguments are meaningless.
Treatment for cancer? puwahaaaa. The mainstream conventional treatment for cancer is not effective at all and very toxic to the body; It is better to just sit at home, save 'cha money and die from cancer there, rather than go get mainstream cancer treatment.
Since the early 1970s when a full fledged onset to research the treatment and causes of cancer was fully financed (of course by using our hard earned money that was stolen from us), the percentage of the population that will cancer has doubled. It was supposed to be no longer than 10-15 years to eradicate the disease. Now, more than approx. triple that time period and hundreds of billions dollars later, the survival for all major types of cancer has not moved. Oncologists claim to know risk factors that cause cancer which on closer examination are really not risk factors at all. Nonetheless, these so-called risk factors don’t even explain why these cells act alone and kill their host and then form cancer. Furthermore, oncologists still do not even know whether cancer begins within the actual cell itself or whether it is caused by discrepancies in the host. In light of this, removal of the tumor that contains all cancer cells does not usually solve the problem. This also includes burning them with radiation – it plainly does not work, especially when the cancer has already metastasized.
Now, there is a holistic treatment using iscador (among a lot of other lifestyle changes that I will disregard here for several reasons, but that doesn’t mean they aren’t equally as important), a medicine made from the lacto-fermented extract of fresh sap of the plant known as mistletoe (viscum album). It has been proved immensely effective at “curing” cancer, among the few medical doctors (MDs and DOs) in the US that use a treatment using it as the basis component, and the lot of doctors who widely use it in Europe. I won’t get into it in case 'cha don’t give a shit. But, if you do check out, Thomas S. Cowan in The Fourfold Path to Healing: Working with the Law of Nutrition, Therapeutics, Movement and Meditation in the Art of Medicine.
------
“In a market economy, the more advanced health care services will always have a higher price reflective of the costs of producing them. The reason you need insurance for health care but not for food is that you generally don’t get food bills that require foresight in savings to pay for them. Back in the days when there was no treatment for cancer and you died at home, medical bills weren’t as big a problem. Insurance is a great market tool for accomodating these types of costs for individuals.”
In response to that I highly recommend you read Block’s Defending the Undefeanble and listen to his lecture on “Socialized Healthcare”*.
You make the nonsensical approach that those same proponents of socialized health care or miniarchists think – that health care needs to be socialized or heavily regulated by government because some how it is different than any other service. What do you mean by “foresight”? All services require “foresight”. Your answer is analogous to saying that privatization of roads would or would not have worked in the 1800s because there was no asphalt or rubber tires then; which is absurd.