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.
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".
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
You have yet to link me to a single one. Please, educate me since you believe that conventional government regulated cancer treatment works. Find me one peer-reviewed paper or even a doctor or researcher who will tell you that he or she can or knows someone who can explain why a cancer cell decides to grow by itself and kill off its host. And if you yourself can find out why, then go get your Noble Price, and congratulations because now your a millionaire (if you are not already one now).
Oh please do note: I do not want a peer-reviewed paper from a government source, now that doesn't count. However, with something as important as a cure to cancer via conventional treatment and understanding exactly why cancers cells act out they way they do; even an independent and private researcher would definitely want to publish his or her paper. Therefore, it would only be on a government site (due to forced regulation of publishing papers). In other words, find me an independent source (not some so-called independent source such as Monsanto which is really a government bureaucracy) that found the cure to cancer via conventional treatment and also the process of why cancer cells act anti-social (which would automatically be include in the cure).
It is ironic that you are on mises.org, yet failure to see the connection between mainstream doctors and government. Actually most libertarians I speak too failure to connect the evilness of government to all fields of the market, for instance, the food industry and mainstream medical field.
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.
Do you stick by this comment, yes or no?
Myla:It is ironic that you are on mises.org, yet failure to see the connection between mainstream doctors and government. Actually most libertarians I speak too failure to connect the evilness of government to all fields of the market, for instance, the food industry and mainstream medical field.
How is it ironic? Also, government intervention in the health care market doesn't mean that all health care is rendered absolutely useless and ineffective. The same way that government intervention in the farming industry, for example, doesn't render all soil infertile.
"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."
Esuric: 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.
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.
I think this needs to be clarified. In the pharma community, "me too" drugs usually refer to patented drugs that work using the same mechanism of action, are generally approved with the same indications as existing drugs and aren't very differentiated from existing products (ie similar dosing, efficacy, etc). For example, there are a plethora of ACE Inhibitors approved for the treatment of hypertension. They are different molecules and so each is patentable. These are not banned and are a great example of the market at work to introduce competition even within the short window of exclusive license. They are criticized by the socliast crowd of thinkers (many of whom don't realize their thinking is socialist) as not adding any medical value and wasting research dollars on non-novel treatments. I once attended a meeting of the AMA's ethics board and got into an ad hoc argument from the floor with the board president over this issue. In a single speech he lambasted pharma for its prices and followed it up with another tirade on "me too" drugs. Even after our back and forth I don't think he realized the contradiction of his speech. Doctors are not economists and they really don't know a lot about it.
If I recall correctly, the drugs addressed in the Kafauver Harris amendment were generics being marketed as if they were new, patented drugs. This practice was banned by the act. Note that this clarification does not take away from what Esuric said about the results of the legislation - as usual, it occurred after the fact (as all legislation does) and is not the deterrent factor to industry with regards to certain practices. Litigation is the deterrent.
E. R. Olovetto: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.
I agree that people don't need health insurance (assuming we're both using the term "need" in the same way, ie necessary). I think my original statement was misinterpreted, moreso due to my quick treatment of the subject than any error on the reader's part. The idea I was conveying was that the price one must pay for the necessary service of health care is generally large (as compared to normal expenses) and unexpected. Most 20 year olds don't start socking away cash for the $200,000 bill for cancer treatment they will receive in their 50s. I agree with Myla's earlier statement that a less regulated market would lower the price of existing treatments, but I don't believe it would lower them to the level of something that can be absorbed by a person the same way an unlooked for speeding ticket is. I also believe that new and innovative treatments would emerge from this less regulated market and their price would be reflective of the cost of creating them - leading edge / bleeding edge is always pricey and the high value rational people place on their health would continue to result in prices out of the ordinary expense range.
Insurance is one market approach for dealing with these types of expenses. By this I mean the self organizing and undirected order of the market presents a solution to the human creature who lacks the foresight (either through innate ability or lack of information) to plan for this future expense. It is a pay forward scheme, in the sense that the 20 year old's insurance premium isn't a savings account - it is paying for his father's cancer bill via their insurance company, just as his future son's premiums will go to pay for his own when the time comes. It is not a ponzi scheme since prices will adjust to the amount being paid in vs the amount being paid out as well as what the insurance must contractually cover. The nice thing about insurance is, if the regulators stay out of it, it can be calculated (ie determnistic) and thus adjust to market conditions in a predictable way, an important feature for the consumer.
Insurance is a good thing, IMHO.
I like this all topics.........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.
Clean WhitesClean Whites
JAIanKatz,
"I'm not sure what A2 means"
As you may or may not be aware of, even those so-called lactose intolerant individuals who can't drink commercial and confinement dairy milk where cows are fed entirely or near solely on grain, can however tolerate clean, raw milk from pastured cows. Note: these are the same "dairies" that would be weeded out of the market if it weren't for the government. There is a large difference in raw milk as well, based on the type of grass they eat and also their breed and geographic location. Furthermore, a large distinction is made when I speak of raw-milk -- I am only talkin' about 100% grass-fed raw milk. A lot of farmers whom sell raw milk feed their cows some grain. The quantity of this grain varies from each geographic location, the laziness or ignorance of the farmer and or if the farmer "thinks" he can maximize profit because some people are ignorant of the grain or just don't care. There is a farm in SC where the cows get fed up to 65 pounds of grain and with soy included a day! Now, 65lbs is usually only at milking, but still, cows are not naturally suppose to eat grain. Then, the best farm I found in my state feeds his cows a max. of 13lbs of grain at milking, which is better but I still won't touch the stuff.
I don't by how farmers use grain to try to make profit because it doesn't work out economically; this is because grass is free. And if you use biodynamic farming practices then profit will maximize. For instance, if you have some cows on a plot of private land eating free grass, then they fertilize the fields as they pasture. As a result they produce their own food. Now, if the farmer has chickens and hens then they will pasture by following the cows natural foraging cycles and pick insects from beneath the cow dung. The farmer is now making money off of pastured chicken eggs, selling chicken, raw clean full fat milk, and meat from the slaughtered bovine. Okay, he can even make more money if he starts a cheese operation on-farm. Whats more, the left over skim milk and whey from the cheese makin process can be used to feed pastured pork, which in turn gives the farmer more profit. Now, you can see how the cycle of nature and rational thinking of man are in balance to make money and survive. Of course the farm can make more money by also growing fruits and vegetables, herbs, etc., on its beautiful rich soil from biodynamic farming. Additionally, the farmer can add goats (milk meat), sheep (sell wool) and other animals. He can also breed all those aforementioned animals to make money.
The above process should help the farmer live very comfortably. I wont derive the numbers here but a farmer has the potential to make well into the millions. He can make near the six figures on raw milk alone! However, as you may suspect, the state prevent this from happening dwith its regulations and constant harassment on these independent highly competitive small farms. Independent farmers are not even aloud to slaughter on farm because of statism. Transportation food all of the state yields more contaminated food!
I won't get into the propaganda and bullshit nutrition advice they feed the mainstream public by demonizing raw milk and fat. (I recommend, The Untold Story of Milk, by Ron Schmid, by the way).
Anyways now onto the differences between A1 and A2 cows. In order to better understand the following details we must know that A1 cows produce the type of milk which even those who can tolerate high quality raw milk have some congestion or other side effects to. First, let us start with the three main components of milk: we have the most important and nourishing "stuff" (Rothbard), the fat or cream. Next, we have the whey and then, the third part, is the solids. For determination of A1 versus A2, we must look at the solids part of the milk because biochemistry tells us that fat and whey don't have A1 or A2 in it (because there are no proteins in 'em). The solids part of the milk contains a number of different proteins, such as lactose, and other sugars. Specifically, we are concerned with the protein part of the solids. One of these proteins is called casein, which there is a variety of, but for our situation we are lookin' at beta-Casein. How 'bout a little more biochemistry now: All proteins are long chains of amino acids which have components coming off different parts of the main chain. Beta-casein is a 229 amino acid and in old-fashioned A2 cows it has a proline at amino acid number 16. The breeds associate with this particular genetic make-up are the older ones, the nice healthy high-fat-content-in-milk ones; e.g., Jerseys(see attached photo), Guernsey(see attached photo). Okay, lets go back some thousands years ago. During this time period a mutation occurred and converted proline amino acid into a histidine. Therefore, this mutated beta-casein with a histidine at amino acid 16 instead of a proline are of the A1 type cows and include such breeds as the Holstein (the ones most are familiar with, black and white spots). The side chain that comes off histidine and proline is called BCM 7. BCM 7 is a small protein, known as a peptide, which functions as a powerful opiate. It results some unpleasant effects in humans and animals. Furthermore, proline has a strong affinity for BCM 7, therefore it binds it tightly and prevents it from getting into the milk. As a result, BCM 7 is not present in the GI tract, urine and blood of A2 cows, thus it won't be ingested by humans who drink their milk. Conversely, histidine only has a weak attraction to BCM 7 and does not bind it tightly; therefore the GI tract, blood and urine in these A1 cows contain the leaked BCM 7 and as a result will also be present in humans who drink the milk. If would like me to discuss the effects of A1 milk on humans, then I would be more than happy to. Bibliography; recommend reading: Keith Woodford on "Devil In the Milk" best, MLG
Esuric,
"Also, government intervention in the health care market doesn't mean that all health care is rendered absolutely useless and ineffective. The same way that government intervention in the farming industry, for example, doesn't render all soil infertile."
I agree with your comment except for your use of "industry" for farming (because no big farming industry provides good services which is subjective until I add that they are subsidized by government). Nonetheless I really like how you worded it.
For instance, I know one doctor in particular (independent private practice) that is amazing. Also, I know quite a few independent farmers that produce some high quality products ( I do not label them in the industry though, rather the market). Well, at least I like how their products taste.
Did you really not find it apparent that I wasn't referring to the small independent free markets services that are unfortunately destroyed by government regulation?
In the case of farming and health care markets, the number of actual bad asses or GREAT quality suppliers is very limited. That goes for all services.
I immensely recommend a book called, The Fourfold Path to Healing by Thomas S. Cowan, MD. I peppered its title through out this board. He is the aforementioned amazing private practice doctor I was speaking of. He also wrote a great article on cancer in the "Wise Traditions" winter 2009 journal, Volume 10 Number 4. He has publications everywhere though.
Hope ya have a nice weekend.
best,
MLG
Myla: As you may or may not be aware of, .....(lots of stuff about cows)
As you may or may not be aware of, .....(lots of stuff about cows)
I don't know much about the biology of cow milk and have no comment on that, but I do know about raising dairy cows and there are a few problems in your reasoning, at least as far as raising cows in the Northeast (US). First off, grass is not free for anyone but wandering nomads. It takes land and agricultural husbandry (ie effort on the part of humans to maintain the land to be suitable as forage). Second, cows cannot forage year round and require shelter during the winter. This means that the farmer must come up with a means to feed his cows while there is snow on the ground and the earth is frozen. In terms of diet, cows require water, roughage (such as grass) and nutrients (from grass, grains or whatever).
During the summer, if the farmer has enough land and natural water to support it, cows may be left in the field. If there is not enough land to support it, the farmer must rotate the cows to keep from exhausting the earth, replenish the soil and seed, and also supplement the cows diet to keep them healthy. They can typically get enough roughage from foraging but must be fed grain for nurtition. One thing to keep in mind is that the farmer must not only manage the land to provide for the stock in summer, but also plan for winter. This means the land must be able to produce enough during the summer months for the entire year.
In winter, the cows can usually get enough roughage from hay that has been taken from the land. But grass in the bale (hay) loses its nutrition and is supplemented with grains, especially for horses (there's a thing called "hay belly" that a horse can get and its best avoided). Over time, hay becomes "dusty" and will lose almost all of its nutritional value and become straw. The farmer may also find himself in the unenviable position of having poor hay from the start. It is the leaves and seeds of hay that are most important and if not harvested at the proper time, or if there is drought or poor soil, the hay will suffer. We used to purchase alfalfa to supplement our hay because of the soil in our hay fields (which we kept separate from the forage fields in order to fallow them properly). Cows are pretty hard on a field especially one that does not drain water very well and you have to really work at it to keep them in good shape. I'd like to add more, but have to scoot to a gun show!
"I don't know much about the biology of cow milk and have no comment on that, but I do know about raising dairy cows and there are a few problems in your reasoning, at least as far as raising cows in the Northeast (US). First off, grass is not free for anyone but wandering nomads. It takes land and agricultural husbandry (ie effort on the part of humans to maintain the land to be suitable as forage). Second, cows cannot forage year round and require shelter during the winter. This means that the farmer must come up with a means to feed his cows while there is snow on the ground and the earth is frozen. In terms of diet, cows require water, roughage (such as grass) and nutrients (from grass, grains or whatever)."
No Sequitur.
Why did you jump into this? It was directed at someone else who asked me what A2 meant. My goal in the first part was not to describe specific methods, in detail (e.g.., types of grass, what grass does when saved for use of hay) of farming and the biology of grass. I was merely givin' a general idea of how to maximize profit with holistic farming practices.
I was not referring to buying land when I said grass was free -- don't play dumb.
Depending on the geographic location, cows can and will forage year round. In those climates where cattle might be better off with shelter: not all cattle require shelter during the year, only the educated farming determines if the cows need shelter. The good farmer, using his acquired knlowedge and experience, works hard during the summer and preserves grass. The grass is then fed in the form of hay during the winter months when grass does not grow rapidly (from great farming practices).
"During the summer, if the farmer has enough land and natural water to support it, cows may be left in the field. If there is not enough land to support it, the farmer must rotate the cows to keep from exhausting the earth, replenish the soil and seed, and also supplement the cows diet to keep them healthy. They can typically get enough roughage from foraging but must be fed grain for nurtition. One thing to keep in mind is that the farmer must not only manage the land to provide for the stock in summer, but also plan for winter. This means the land must be able to produce enough during the summer months for the entire year.'
Why are you telling me all this? I know about keeping a farm, especially keeping a cow, and using bio dynamic farming methods, which you apparently do not.
"They can typically get enough roughage from foraging but must be fed grain for nurtition."
Non sequitur.
That is absolutely false; such a ridiculous comment. Cows don't need grain, therefore, should not be fed it . Some geographic locations are not suited for cows; e.g., those areas with less fertile land as a result of say, poor farming practices and where grass doesn't grow as dense..
"In winter, the cows can usually get enough roughage from hay that has been taken from the land. But grass in the bale (hay) loses its nutrition and is supplemented with grains, especially for horses (there's a thing called "hay belly" that a horse can get and its best avoided). Over time, hay becomes "dusty" and will lose almost all of its nutritional value and become straw. The farmer may also find himself in the unenviable position of having poor hay from the start. It is the leaves and seeds of hay that are most important and if not harvested at the proper time, or if there is drought or poor soil, the hay will suffer. We used to purchase alfalfa to supplement our hay because of the soil in our hay fields (which we kept separate from the forage fields in order to fallow them properly). Cows are pretty hard on a field especially one that does not drain water very well and you have to really work at it to keep them in good shape. I'd like to add more, but have to scoot to a gun show!"
Again, why are you tellin' me this stuff? Nonetheless, cows don't need grain. Get that through your head. I know many farms that produce 100% grass fed cow products even in cold climates. Just because you do not know how to, doesn't mean that other farmers, good ones, don't know how either. If your cows can't survive on grass alone, then your land is not fertile enough, therefore it is not suited for keeping cattle.
Instead of worrying about how grain fed cows are bad for your health, you should focus a bit more on the bad effects of stress. Have a drink and watch some trashy TV show, it will do you a world of good.