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.
huh? If you are going to critique me, then include my supporting evidence as well. And eliminating the FDA comes from kicking the government out. What more to say?
"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."
ALL government regulations are Ineffective. Therefore, government needs to be kicked entirely out of health care.
"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”."
Going off topic there. I highly recommend you read works by Murrary N. Rothbard, especially, For a New Liberty: The Libertarian Manisfesto and his, Man, Economy and State. Also, any works or lectures by Walter Block is an excellent way to educate more.
"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."
Not bad except for your last statement. They are not "well intended", governments are making money off this, what Rothbard said, "Stuff".
"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."
How can you postulate that x number of people could have been saved from that drug? There is no sound scientific evidence to back most drugs on the market today. Yes, end the FDA, but because it is part of the government which forces regulations. Viable alternatives are private companies that design drugs; if they are effective and the company does good work, then the company is competitive stays, therefore stays in the market.
"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”."
In a free market health care system, there wouldn't be suing for "malpractice" because a voluntary contract would be singed between doctor and patient.
If someone brings up: "well what if I told the doctor my elbow hurt and he operated on my head?" Then, depending on the contents of contract, the doctor could be in violation of it and the patient could accordingly seek compensation (which is a whole other topic). More importantly, if a doctor is constantly fuckin' people up, then he will be shunned out into the streets and laughed. In other words, the bad doctors will be weeded out.
It is good to just say end this, stop this, but only if you make it a point to get government completely out of health care and that the free market will heal it.
In other words, It would look a lot better if you describe the beauty of the free market as it applies to health care and how it would cover all of the above and more, thus, fixing health care.
Ooops, I forgot to take out the comment about Guantanamo Bay, I originally just put that in for shock value to show my fellow debate club members, but I never seriously felt that that would be a good idea. I think my bill did a pretty good job of keeping government out of healthcare, I can't just say "We are getting government out of healthcare", so I developed a specific plan that would maximize choice.
*P.S.- I don't care for Murray Rothbard considering his constant criticism towards Minarchism.
Wow, that's a first for me, someone who dislikes Rothbard. You probably wouldn't care for me either because I can't stand miniarchists (not more than neocons and neolib though).
Anyways:
"I can't just say "We are getting government out of healthcare""
Why not? As long as you can rationally deduce why and provide supporting logic such as detailed in your proposal, then what is the problem?
I want to give specifics, that is the task. We are giving specifics on how to rid the government from healthcare and our plan, like I previously said, does a pretty good job of it. It gives specifics of different things we will do, not just a general statement. I'm guessing if you don't like Minarchists, you don't care for guys like Ron Paul, Peter Schiff, and the Libertarian party, which if I were you I would, because that's about as close to mainstream as an anarcho-capitalist can get. I do not despise Rothbard to be honest (Again, I said it because I knew I could get certain members of this board going), but I do not appreciate his criticism of Minarchists.
In Goldwater I trust,
Quinn
Thanks Myla!
Do you have a link to the expensive systems? Do those also filter out chlorine, chemicals, aluminum and other metals?
I'm also interested in what you use for drinking water.
Links please
Kind regards,
Yoshi
Quinn,
When did I say not to use specifics? It is exactly what I said to do. Read my responses clearly before you comment to me, okay?
"I'm guessing if you don't like Minarchists, you don't care for guys like Ron Paul, Peter Schiff, and the Libertarian party, which if I were you I would, because that's about as close to mainstream as an anarcho-capitalist can get."
What are you muddling over there? I am not going to defend myself against your ridiculous comment because you are obviously very uneducated. I really don't know how to respond to a comment like that except for telling you to open your mind and go read a book by Mises. I do not wish to associate with mainstream miniarchist so called "libertarians".
The 1962 drug act (Kefauver Harris) banned "me too" drugs from the market. "Me too" drugs didn't infringe on intellectual property and had similar therapeutic effects to designer drugs. Thus the act severely limited supply and solidified monopoly control in the pharmaceutical industry (new drugs had to be both unique and superior). Also, it added extreme research and discovery regulations which increased operating costs 46 fold.
Myla:I found your reply so absurd it was pathetically funny -- that qualifies for non sequitur.
No it doesn't.
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.
Stupidity.
People, for the most part, tend to be risk averse. Insurance companies limit risk and provide a legitimate service. Thus there is no reason to assume that insurance companies wouldn't exist in a truly free market environment.
"If we wish to preserve a free society, it is essential that we recognize that the desirability of a particular object is not sufficient justification for the use of coercion."
Sure, I'll send ya some links.
Fluride removal (and other contaminats) fitration systems:
http://www.filterwater.com/s-4-fluoride-filters.aspx
http://www.purewateressentials.com/special-purpose-water-filters-fluoride-filters.html
http://thewaterexchange.net/fluoride-water-filters.htm
http://www.advancedwaterfilters.com/
For the above links: Search around them and find one that best suits your environment. The three stage ones will yield a more purified product.
Shower Filters:
http://www.friendsofwater.com/Shower_Filters.html
http://www.showerfilterstore.com/Merchant2/merchant.mvc?Screen=CTGY&Store_Code=SFS&Category_Code=SF
I use this shower filter currently (http://www.betterwaterstore.com/aquasana-aq-4100-shower-filter.html)
Really Expensive whole house bone char filtration system :
http://www.promolife.com/water-purifiers/whole-house-filtration/whole-house-fluoride-removal-water-filter-package/prod_1616.html
Do some researching as well. A lot of sites (I tried to exclude them in the links above) will try to say that fluoride is beneficial and back their claims up with bullshit "evidence" from the FDA and other government bureaucracies. If the government says something, then it must mean it ain't true.
Esuric,
Yes it does.
Explain how my comment on cancer is deemed stupidity? I provided support for my claim and I can back it up with sources. All you can say is "stupidity".
and if you are going to quote me make sure you provide ALL words that were in my statement.
Myla: 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.
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 think that using the "Paste from Word" button gets rid of that sometimes. It could be a browser issue as well.
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. ... ------ John Jensen: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 motor vehicles are they are made now then; which is absurd.
...
------
John Jensen: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 motor vehicles are they are made now then; which is absurd.
Strawman & false analogy...
He didn't say that health care needs to be socialized or heavily regulated because it is different than other services. (I will agree that health care is just a service like anything else.) He said that people need health insurance because they "require foresight".
JJ's first error is saying that people need health insurance. Quite clearly this is not the case. Younger, healthy individuals might opt to pay doctors directly for the services they require. They might also choose to limit their health care coverage to catastrophic illnesses or injury. As they age, people might opt to get more comprehensive coverage as they are faced with greater risk of requiring home health care or prolonged hospitalization.
What must be kept in mind is that insurance premiums are tied to underwriting factors. Variations in age, sex, medical history, etc. are taken into account by insurance companies when assigning premiums to groups of insured. The company also needs to keep on hand cash to pay claims and invest the remainder. Health insurance does not "make health care affordable"! It is always, in a sense, a losing proposition for the consumer. Simplistically, if there is a 10% chance I will have my $100 sheep eaten by wolves, I will have to pay something like $12 for coverage.
So, what insurance companies are selling is "peace of mind". It is a perfectly legitimate transaction, just as selling "undying love" is as long as the terms are spelled out. I don't see the demand for either of these flagging. I think that the market for health insurance in a stateless society would diminish but not disappear. The lack of regulation restricting entry to practicing medicine, or producing drugs, etc. would lower overall health care costs. How this decrease will compare with the availability of new types of treatments we can't say.
Democracy means the opportunity to be everyone's slave.—Karl Kraus.
Myla: Myla:I found your reply so absurd it was pathetically funny -- that qualifies for non sequitur. No it doesn't. Yes it does.
So whatever amuses you, or is absurd to you, is automatically a non sequitur? How fortunate and convenient for you.
Myla: Explain how my comment on cancer is deemed stupidity? I provided support for my claim and I can back it up with sources. All you can say is "stupidity".
Is this really necessary? How many articles do I have to link before you move on? Save me the time.
E. R. Olovetto,
Thanks, for your reply. Public school has definitely not interfered with your education. Also, I take back and apologize for makin' such a nonsensical remark to you earlier; definitely un-called for. Take care E.R.
"As they age, people might opt to get more comprehensive coverage as they are faced with greater risk of requiring home health care or prolonged hospitalization."
However, there is a chance that a person is less likely to pay health insurance the last five years of his or her life.
But how would someone know if he or she only has five years to live? I guess, a 95 year old is less likely to pay for health insurance than a 70 year old.