My school has a newly formed debate club and, as you may have guessed, it is dominated by liberals and has a hardy make-up of Neoconservatives. We are to discuss Health care next meeting and I have already been asked many difficult questions. I am young and fairly new to Austrian economics, and when hammered with many of these questions, I have no valid response except " Let the free market handle it". I was wondering if anyone could please help explain the Austrian view towards free market health care, and I was looking for an answer to some frequently asked questions that I have a hard time answering thoroughly.
Here are some questions I struggle in answering ( if you think of any more, please feel free to address them and give me an Austrian answer. Also, I am writing as a Liberal that may question me, I myself follow Austrian views):
- Private health care caused the problems we have today, look at our private health care now!
- How could old people, poor people, or very sick people get coverage when they needed it, when companies would most likely have rates too high for them to pay, based on their bad conditions physically and economically? They could not be able to afford it when they need it and die!
- Even if one is not denied coverage initially, a person may become very ill and may be old or poor, and the company could drop their coverage all together. How would that be regulated ( I imagine the market would let these unfair companies go out of business, but it would have to happen to some people before it was denied by the market).
-How would people pay for expensive problems that may come up out of nowhere if the government can not help. ( should a tax free Medical Savings Account be established and how would it work).
These are only a few questions, but feel free to go in depth on this issue and offer answers to additional questions I or others may have. Thank you very much for your time and help everyone.
Quinn Rogness: 1. End the FDA (Food and Drug Administration)The FDA was founded to protect us from unsafe drugs and medicine. The FDA has failed in that aspect and has caused a significant increase in health care costs today. The FDA should be replaced by free-market alternatives that do not drive up health care costs and are beneficial to the average American. An example of FDA failure includes the 10 year wait in approving the drug Propanolol (Heart medication). 100,000 people died during this time that could’ve been saved by this drug. The FDA has been destructive to Americans, and deserves to be abolished.
1. End the FDA (Food and Drug Administration)The FDA was founded to protect us from unsafe drugs and medicine. The FDA has failed in that aspect and has caused a significant increase in health care costs today. The FDA should be replaced by free-market alternatives that do not drive up health care costs and are beneficial to the average American. An example of FDA failure includes the 10 year wait in approving the drug Propanolol (Heart medication). 100,000 people died during this time that could’ve been saved by this drug. The FDA has been destructive to Americans, and deserves to be abolished.
I think the Vioxx case also provides an example as to why the FDA is pretty useless. Vioxx and products like it (called COX-2 inihibitors) are similar to aspirin, but are more specific to certain receptors in the body. It was believed that this specificity would eliminate or vastly reduce the number of deaths associated with aspirin by substituting a COX-2 for people taking aspirin for chronic mild to moderate pain. Most people don't know this but aspirin kills about 15,000 people a year in the US by causing bleeding ulcers in the stomach. Unfortunately, Vioxx also resulted in some deaths due to affects on the heart. This affect wasn't detected in the studies the FDA requires for approval because it doesn't occur that often and the studies weren't statistically powered to detect them. It also was not an endpoint in these studies because, at the time, no one suspected it. Even today, after the effect has been detected, the mechanism for it is still not clear.
In any event, the FDA was not able to prevent this and I don't think any amount of regulation really could. The issue was settled where it should be settled - in civil court. If there had been no FDA, it would still have been settled in court. So why have an FDA? The best "check and balance" for manufacturers to market safe products is the liability they assume, not any regulations. All the FDA does is run up costs for everyone - the tax payer, the consumer and the manufacturer. I imagine the clinical studies groups in all major pharma companies are working hard to find ways to improve their ability to detect any bad effects of their drugs prior to marketing in order to avoid litigation. This is at it should be.
Water fluoridation was recommended by the AMA. Not the first nor last of dubious propaganda from the AMA.
Myla: "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.
"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.
Myla: E. R., 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.
E. R.,
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.
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.
Democracy means the opportunity to be everyone's slave.—Karl Kraus.
Myla: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.
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.
best,
MLG
puwahahaaa. I absolutely hate the AMA! Na'ice one.
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.
* www.westonaprice.org
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.
Myla: Yes! Someone on mises.org who knows about the dangers of fluoridated water. I have some great bibliographies if you want to read more into it. Fluoride in water: It is all a "lie" -- a way for government monopolies to rid of their toxic by products.
Yes! Someone on mises.org who knows about the dangers of fluoridated water. I have some great bibliographies if you want to read more into it. Fluoride in water: It is all a "lie" -- a way for government monopolies to rid of their toxic by products.
Hey Myla, do you have any recommendations for filtering out fluoride from showers?
Myla: 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"*.
* http://mises.org/media/3994
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.
Please Ignore " Normal 0 false false false EN-US X-NONE X-NONE". I did not type that and it won't go away when I edit it.
I wrote this solution along with with Christian (C Le Master) and our other friend for debate club. Here it is, I want the opinions of some "Austro-Libertarians/Anarcho-Capitalists". Remember, this is written by a Minarchist, so remember to criticize my plan and call me a heretic.
1. End the FDA (Food and Drug Administration)The FDA was founded to protect us from unsafe drugs and medicine. The FDA has failed in that aspect and has caused a significant increase in health care costs today. The FDA should be replaced by free-market alternatives that do not drive up health care costs and are beneficial to the average American. An example of FDA failure includes the 10 year wait in approving the drug Propanolol (Heart medication). 100,000 people died during this time that could’ve been saved by this drug. The FDA has been destructive to Americans, and deserves to be abolished.2. End Ineffective Healthcare Regulations Government regulation has also been a major factor in the sharp increase in healthcare costs. These inefficient barriers should be repealed and choice should be returned to Healthcare providers and patients. Regulations requiring hospitals to purchase certain types of equipment and how much the hospital can charge for certain procedures MUST be eliminated to increase competition and reduce prices. The Federal Government must also end the cap on the amount of doctors allowed to graduate medical school each year. If eliminated, this would increase the supply of doctors, reducing cost and increasing availability. People should also be able to buy insurance plans from different states, not just the state they reside in, this will increase competition and not allow certain companies to gain monopolies on certain states (Ex: Blue Cross Blue Shield provides healthcare for over 80% of Alabamans) Regulation is the problem, not the solution. 3. End Entitlement ProgramsWhile well intended, Medicare and Medicaid have cost the American people. Before Medicare was created (As an assistance program, not a reliance program), companies offered retirement healthcare to employees. With people becoming dependent on Medicare, companies eliminated retirement healthcare benefits for employees. If Medicaid did not exist, the amount of charity hospitals and clinics would drastically increase, and these private charities would make up for the absence of Medicaid, and would not cost the taxpayers hundreds of billions of dollars each year. The Health and Human Services department costs taxpayers $873,000,000,000 per year, and if eliminated, taxes could be cut and we could begin to reduce the foreign debt. While well intended, these entitlement programs cripple America and our economy. 4. Establish Medical Savings Accounts (MSA’s)End Caps on MSA's. These accounts shouldn't have caps on the amount of money that is allowed to be put in. Also, the money shouldn't go to the government if not spent by the end of the year, it should rollover. 5. TORT ReformLawyers today who sue for ridiculous amounts of medical malpractice money have driven up health costs. The amount of money that a victim can be awarded in a malpractice case should be capped. Also, Guantanamo Bay should be converted into a prison that hosts overly greedy and corrupt Lawyers and Politicians, as they present more of a threat to our country than the so called “Terrorists”. 6. Hospital PrivatizationStates today run many hospitals. They tend to not be as efficient as their privately-run counterparts. We can save taxpayer money by privatizing these hospitals. This will increase efficiency, competition, and quality of healthcare. Privatization is the way to go, not Nationalization.
Myla: 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.
Excuse me while I spit this hook out of my mouth. Go fish.
Yoshimura
The best products out claim to eliminate greater than or equal to 95% of fluoride from showers -- they are very expensive. The one I would like if I had the money is a system that uses bone char to rid of fluoride; bone char has an affinity for fluoride.
Generally, the cheaper the price of the filter, the less flouride it will remove. There are some cheaper ones that will remove approx. 40% flouride, but keep in mind that it also removes other contamnts such as antibitotics and chlorine. As long as you aren't drinking the water from your shower, then it is okay.; just be sure to have some type of filter for your shower that removes chlorine, chemicals, aluminum and other metals.
Now for drinking water (even though you didn't ask, sorry) I like reverse osmosis filtration systems because they mimic what our cells do naturally; they use a membrane or combination of membranes to keep out molecules smaller than water. Depending on the quality and sizes of the membrane, they can remove 99% of fluoride from drinking water.