Ron Paul and Healthcare?

[Manible]

As it stands now coverage based on profit. HMOs are essentially trying to keep as much money as the people will give them, while paying back out as little as possible, it's essentially a gamble on who will live the longest. They actually research this very thoroughly so they might give you a rate that will get acceptable profit ratios from any person before they become ill, at which point they try to avoid as many costs as possible. It's a company, and obviously companies must do this to survive, it's not that they're immoral, as a company it HMOs have no vices. Some people cannot afford the extra bill to get an insurance card, and many more are denied crucial care by carefully crafted bureaucracy designed with money in mind.

Ron Paul's system would eliminate the middle man of HMOs and instead use a certain tax to create a personal account with which anyone may choose to spend as they will. I presume if the person is particularly daring they might just empty that account one day and head south. Though, because the accounts are personal this would only effect one person and their family. The virtues of such a system: it gifts more power to those who live comfortably. It would free up the emergency room as people would be less keen to waste their personal health credit on any visit. However, the reason Canada has such long waiting room waits, is not because there is some failed system at work, it's because the people can make it to a doctor for every symptom that they honestly should have looked at (and anyone with money would do anyway). They are not petty saps on society for behaving this way.

So in this system, there are obviously the wealthy and the poor. The poor, who earn less and are taxed less have smaller personal coffers to spend on, quite the opposite for the wealthy. It's very easy to argue that there will be less burden on the system, more people are poor than wealthy, and these people can't afford to simply get care for every conceivable injury/illness they may run into (surprisingly more common for lower-income persons). What would this achieve? It seems to me nothing more than a lot of saved paperwork and maybe an extra office building converted to appartments. This is an improvement, yes, but in my eyes totally unacceptable.

[TheEvilDetector]

As it stands now coverage based on profit. HMOs are essentially trying to keep as much money as the people will give them, while paying back out as little as possible, it's essentially a gamble on who will live the longest. They actually research this very thoroughly so they might give you a rate that will get acceptable profit ratios from any person before they become ill, at which point they try to avoid as many costs as possible. It's a company, and obviously companies must do this to survive, it's not that they're immoral, as a company it HMOs have no vices. Some people cannot afford the extra bill to get an insurance card, and many more are denied crucial care by carefully crafted bureaucracy designed with money in mind.

Ron Paul's system would eliminate the middle man of HMOs and instead use a certain tax to create a personal account with which anyone may choose to spend as they will. I presume if the person is particularly daring they might just empty that account one day and head south. Though, because the accounts are personal this would only effect one person and their family. The virtues of such a system: it gifts more power to those who live comfortably. It would free up the emergency room as people would be less keen to waste their personal health credit on any visit. However, the reason Canada has such long waiting room waits, is not because there is some failed system at work, it's because the people can make it to a doctor for every symptom that they honestly should have looked at (and anyone with money would do anyway). They are not petty saps on society for behaving this way.

So in this system, there are obviously the wealthy and the poor. The poor, who earn less and are taxed less have smaller personal coffers to spend on, quite the opposite for the wealthy. It's very easy to argue that there will be less burden on the system, more people are poor than wealthy, and these people can't afford to simply get care for every conceivable injury/illness they may run into (surprisingly more common for lower-income persons). What would this achieve? It seems to me nothing more than a lot of saved paperwork and maybe an extra office building converted to appartments. This is an improvement, yes, but in my eyes totally unacceptable.

Your logic does not cover both sides of the market, thus it is flawed. Why did you not talk about free market competition and mention supply side?

You think Doctors do not want to maximise their revenue? You think Doctors once their hands are untied will not modify prices to maximise revenue?

If a doctor has 100 poor patients willing to pay $50 for a service knocking on his door, would the doctor not lower his $55 fee to $50 to make more money?

If doctor A and doctor B have different income needs (one has a family of 10 children and one is a modest bachelor), do you not think they may charge differently?

Remove yourself from the collectivist group think, and start thinking like a free individual. You would do well if you begin with allowing state differences in price structures and then moving on to local community differences and then allowing for individual differences. Do realise that if a group of poor people find that a certain doctor is too expensive, another doctor in a free market will gladly take these patients.

In fact, in a free market, entire clinics will be built up to cater for these people. You may have low throughput more expensive services or higher throughput less expensive services and yet there does not need to be a correlation to quality necessarily.

It may in fact be nothing more than a geographical and demographic peculiarity of the community.

That is the beauty of free markets and individual freedoms.

The only responsibility of government here is to protect life, liberty and property ie. individual rights if you will.

In this particular case government should punish fraud and negligence.

It is their side of the contract with the citizens, for if they do not honour their side of the contract, they cannot expect the citizens to honour theirs ie. pay for government.

Monopolies sucking in all doctors cannot occur without government involvement, for the government holds the monopoly of force, thus the best solution is to get the government out and the market will take care of all.

[Manible]

You think Doctors do not want to maximise their revenue? You think Doctors once their hands are untied will not modify prices to maximise revenue?

Moral doctors shouldn't chose their job for the financial benefits.


If a doctor has 100 poor patients willing to pay $50 for a service knocking on his door, would the doctor not lower his $55 fee to $50 to make more money?

No, right now there are thousands of medical proffessionals who are forced to operate clinics in poor and out of the way towns all throughout the country. They charge the same because if they don't their clinics will go bankrupt and there will be no doctor charging any fee.


If doctor A and doctor B have different income needs (one has a family of 10 children and one is a modest bachelor), do you not think they may charge differently?

You mean the modest bachelor with $250k debt in credit cards and student loans from school?


In fact, in a free market, entire clinics will be built up to cater for these people. You may have low throughput more expensive services or higher throughput less expensive services and yet there does not need to be a correlation to quality necessarily.

There already are clinics for low income patients. They don't work, they're terrible messes. Ron Paul's plan wouldn't fix anything, it would be exactly the same. Hospitals wouldn't have valid criteria for releasing patients (Safe place to stay, reasonable level of health), but rather whether your account has enough money to cover your costs.


Monopolies sucking in all doctors cannot occur without government involvement, for the government holds the monopoly of force, thus the best solution is to get the government out and the market will take care of all.

There are no monopolies 'sucking in all doctors' every hospital/clinic is it's own business. HMOs are also private companies with little to no government regulation, this is what the market has done. DSHS and Medicare on the other hand are very effective.

[ctb619]

DSHS and Medicare on the other hand are very effective.

Sweet! Medicare is "very effective."

[Corydoras]

TROLL ALERT!

Manible has made only two posts, both of them attacks, neither professing support of the Ron Paul campaign.

[Manible]

Actually, I'm totally gonna vote for Ron Paul. But you libertarians worry me sometimes (all the time). Probably not in the primary though, I think I'll be voting for the Green Party in the Primaries. I'm totally a socialist, but Ron Paul is the best major candidate we have. By the way, can you stop calling Neo-Cons marxists, I swear, socialists hate them too. They're more like Hitler, nationalistically applying protectionism. They're Fascists!


Sweet! Medicare is "very effective."

Compared to HMOs yes. In reality it's quite hopelessly underfunded. Still better than insurance though, if you qualify.

[Corydoras]

For what reasons are you voting for RP?

[ctb619]

For what reasons are you voting for RP?

Let me venture a guess - foreign policy

[Manible]

Let me venture a guess - foreign policy

Yes, and Privacy. That and I think the Federal Government should fuck off. There is one Democrat I like, and he's fucked, the internet has not taken to him as well. Libertarians are way more powerful than progressives, so it's not really a choice.

[ctb619]

Yes, and Privacy. That and I think the Federal Government should fuck off.

hahaha.....nice

[BuddyRey]

Guys, it's neither productive or friendly to accuse someone of being a troll for having a difference of opinion. Remember, this is a big movement with so many folks of all political persuasions. We don't want to chase anyone off, even those whose views we disagree with. Besides, healthcare is a tough issue. I myself wish we had free healthcare, though not on a Federal level. Still, there are a lot of intelligent, reasoned individuals who would disagree with me, and I'm ok with that.

[Corydoras]

Privacy... like HIPAA, that allows your health information to be passed around without your knowledge? Like the Patriot Act that allows the Feds to go to a hospital and examine your records while forbidding anyone at the hospital to tell you? And let's get this correct, you want government medicine?

And DSHS are state departments of health, and hence not a Federal project, right?

[Corydoras]

Guys, it's neither productive or friendly to accuse someone of being a troll for having a difference of opinion.

Someone's first two posts are attacking a clear portion of RP's positions and these first two posts express no support whatsoever for any of RP's positions, and this isn't conspicuous to you? 'k.

[Manible]

hahaha.....nice

It's pathetic that a Libertarian is the best candidate I can find even as a left-winger... the Democrats and Republicans are THAT. FUCKING. BAD.

I was fucking blown away at some of the things he said. I thought the TV was broken, there's no way they just let someone like him on. O'Reilly would seriously attempt to KILL Ron Paul.

[ctb619]

It's pathetic that a Libertarian is the best candidate I can find even as a left-winger... the Democrats and Republicans are THAT. FUCKING. BAD.

I was fucking blown away at some of the things he said. I thought the TV was broken, there's no way they just let someone like him on. O'Reilly would seriously attempt to KILL Ron Paul.

I don't think Bill O' would hesitate if he thought he could get away with it.

[Manible]

Privacy... like HIPAA, that allows your health information to be passed around without your knowledge? Like the Patriot Act that allows the Feds to go to a hospital and examine your records while forbidding anyone at the hospital to tell you? And let's get this correct, you want government medicine?

And DSHS are state departments of health, and hence not a Federal project, right?

I don't understand why Federal Dollar couldn't go to fund state departments.

Honestly this is a mood point in the arsenal. As much as I disagree with some of Ron's finer policies, his overall picture is just amazing for a presidential candidate.

[Corydoras]

It's pathetic that a Libertarian is the best candidate I can find even as a left-winger... the Democrats and Republicans are THAT. FUCKING. BAD.

Even Kucinich and Gravel, who oppose the war and want socialized healthcare? What's wrong with them from your perspective?

[Manible]

Even Kucinich and Gravel, who oppose the war and want socialized healthcare? What's wrong with them from your perspective?

If it was Kucinich vs Paul, I'd vote Kucinich. I don't think he will win, things I don't like about him? I hate the single-payer health-care system. I'm also anti-abortion. Gravel is great, but the fair tax is a terrible idea, a seriously seriously fucked up idea that would in my opinion be a horrible mistake. National Initiatives? I think we need to make the Federal Government fuck off. His voucher plan is not really a socialized healthcare. It's just the Federal Government paying for the corporations to still make money to keep them from having a major upset

Ron Paul, in my opinion, is perfect for where America is at now.

[TheEvilDetector]

Moral doctors shouldn't chose their job for the financial benefits.


You live in a capitalistic country Manible.

You want to get into a debate about morality of capitalism?

That debate has filled entire books. I am not in the mood.

Furthermore, actual morality of doctors is a strawman. I am not going to touch that.



No, right now there are thousands of medical proffessionals who are forced to operate clinics in poor and out of the way towns all throughout the country. They charge the same because if they don't their clinics will go bankrupt and there will be no doctor charging any fee.


How are they forced?
Why will they charge the same? Compared with who?
Your comment creates more questions than answers



You mean the modest bachelor with $250k debt in credit cards and student loans from school?


I mean the modest bachelor without $250k in credit cards and student loans from school. He is a modest bachelor remember?



There already are clinics for low income patients. They don't work, they're terrible messes. Ron Paul's plan wouldn't fix anything, it would be exactly the same. Hospitals wouldn't have valid criteria for releasing patients (Safe place to stay, reasonable level of health), but rather whether your account has enough money to cover your costs.


Why don't those clinics work? Why are they terrible messes?
Your argument in relation to the pricing involved in the release of patients is subsumed under overall argument about free market pricing.



There are no monopolies 'sucking in all doctors' every hospital/clinic is it's own business. HMOs are also private companies with little to no government regulation, this is what the market has done. DSHS and Medicare on the other hand are very effective.

I disagree with your statement that there are no monopolies sucking in doctors.

From: http://www.chiro.org/alt_med_abstracts/ABSTRACTS/The_Medical_Monopoly.shtml

"Licensure laws appear to be designed to limit the supply of health care providers and restrict competition to physicians from nonphysician practitioners. The primary result is an increase in physician fees and income that drives up health care costs."

I disagree with your statement that HMOs have little to no government intervention.

From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMO

"The earliest form of HMOs can be seen in a number of prepaid health plans. In 1910, the Western Clinic in Tacoma, Washington offered lumber mill owners and their employees certain medical services from its providers for a premium of $0.50 per member per month. This is considered by some to be the first example of an HMO. However, Ross-Loos Medical Group, established in 1929, is considered to be the first HMO in the United States; it was headquartered in Los Angeles and initially provided services for Los Angeles Department of Water and Power (DWP) and Los Angeles County employees. Approximately 500 DWP employees enrolled at a cost of $1.50 each per month. Within a year, the Los Angeles Fire Department signed up, then the Los Angeles Police Department, then the Southern California Telephone Company, (now AT&T) and more. By 1951, enrollment stood at 35,000 and included teachers, county and city employees. In 1982 through the merger of the Insurance Company of North America (INA) founded in 1792 and Connecticut General (CG) founded in 1865 came together to become CIGNA. Ross-Loos Medical Group, became now known as CIGNA HealthCare. Also in 1929 Dr. Michael Shadid created a health plan in Elk City, Oklahoma in which farmers bought shares for $50 to raise the money to build a hospital. The medical community did not like this arrangement and threatened to suspend Shadid's licence. The Farmer's Union took control of the hospital and the health plan in 1934. Also in 1929, Baylor Hospital provided approximately 1,500 teachers with prepaid care. This was the origin of Blue Cross. Around 1939, state medical societies created Blue Shield plans to cover physician services, as Blue Cross covered only hospital services. These prepaid plans burgeoned during the Great Depression as a method for providers to ensure constant and steady revenue.

In 1970, the number of HMOs declined to less than 40. Paul Ellwood, often called the "father" of the HMO, began having discussions with what is today the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services that led to the enactment of the Health Maintenance Organization Act of 1973. This act had three main provisions:

* Grants and loans were provided to plan, start, or expand an HMO
* Certain state-imposed restrictions on HMOs were removed if the HMOs were federally certified
* Employers with 25 or more employees were required to offer federally certified HMO options alongside indemnity upon request

This last provision, called the dual choice provision, was the most important, as it gave HMOs access to the critical employer-based market that had often been blocked in the past. The federal government was slow to issue regulations and certify plans until 1977, when HMOs began to grow rapidly. The dual choice provision expired in 1995."

I disagree with your statement that DSHS is effective.

From: http://src.wa.gov/media2007/2007Releases/Stevens/StevensChildFamiliesSplit121806.htm

"OLYMPIA…State Sen. Val Stevens, R-Arlington, announced that the Children’s Administration portion of the Department of Social and Health and Services (DSHS) is not adequately serving Washington’s families and must be split off from the bureaucratic giant in order to protect Washington’s children.

The recommendation comes from the Joint Legislative Task Force on Administration and Delivery of Services to Children and Families, which Stevens has co-chaired for two years. The task force has been studying the problems and ineffectiveness of Children’s Administration as it presently exists.

“After countless hours of meetings, hearings, study and investigation, we could see that the social services offered to Washington’s children and families are suffering,” Stevens said. “That’s because of an ingrained culture within the current Children's Administration. It’s what I call the "kick the cat" syndrome: Dad gets in trouble at work, goes home and yells at Mom. Mom yells at the kids, and the kids kick the cat.”

The task force found that the same thing is happening within DSHS, Stevens said. At Children’s Administration, employees try to protect kids, but fail because of an ingrained, chronic disrespect for their professional abilities. The chronically frustrated manager takes it out on the supervisor. The supervisor takes it out on the overburdened Child Protection Services social worker, and the frustrated and discouraged social worker social worker has a tough time interacting with families.

As a result, the task force found, the system grinds to a halt and kids get lost in the shuffle. Ultimately, social workers end up discouraged and disappointed at their inability to do what they have been hired to do ─ protect children.

“This lack-of-respect ‘culture’ must end,” Stevens said. “Why? Because it results in highly ineffective care for our kids. It became clear to the task force that the solution does not lie with a Band-Aid approach. We need to rip the Band-Aid off, expose the wounds and start fresh. Therefore, we are recommending removing Children and Family Services from DSHS.”

The task force will now look at the best approach for creating a new cabinet-level position for Children and Family Services. They’ll investigate the best way to actually separate the function from DSHS."

However, since it is a state bureaucracy it is constitutional and I don't think RP would touch it as he has no jurisdiction. Moreover, there would be 50 competing systems in place, one could find something more to their liking.

I disagree with your statement that Medicare is effective.

From: http://www.heritage.org/research/healthcare/mm56.cfm

"Medicare sets prices for each one of the more than 7,000 procedures that are allowed by doctors in the program, Moffit said in a Sept. 25 interview with Denver’s Rocky Mountain News. It determines the price for medical technology, medical devices, in-patient hospital prescription drugs and skilled nursing facilities. And, as people who lived in socialist or communist countries can tell you, price controls don’t reduce the price of these services.

“With mathematical certainty they will reduce the quality and the quantity of services,” Moffit told the News. “More and more physicians are not taking new Medicare patients. Why? First, because the Medicare reimbursement in many cases does not even cover their costs. Second, they have to deal with the Medicare paperwork. Doctors spend an awful lot of time complying with Medicare rules and paperwork.”"

[Corydoras]

You're part of the diverse support for RP that is one of the greatest things about this campaign. Thanks for replying steadily in the face of my suspicion.

Still don't agree with you on socialized medicine. Would like to hear more of your views. I don't agree that Medicare is efficient... but I am curious what you think are the reasons why Medicare is so much more efficient than, say, the VA?

[Manible]

How are they forced?
Why will they charge the same? Compared with who?
Your comment creates more questions than answers

Actually, by the government, if their hands were untied they would leave immediately.


I mean the modest bachelor without $250k in credit cards and student loans from school. He is a modest bachelor remember?

A Modest bachelor doctor would probably go work for a clinic or hospital that paid the best so he might save money and be secure. He would probably not own his own business, and therefore able to choose the premiums he charges.


Why don't those clinics work? Why are they terrible messes?
Your argument in relation to the pricing involved in the release of patients is subsumed under overall argument about free market pricing.

Those clinics don't have any money because their patients are both poor and plentiful. If you run out of money and are still in a hospital, you would be released whether it was medically safe or not.


"Licensure laws appear to be designed to limit the supply of health care providers and restrict competition to physicians from nonphysician practitioners. The primary result is an increase in physician fees and income that drives up health care costs."

Are you calling the government a monopoly? They realeased a set of guidelines physicians must meet to be, essentially, protected from lawsuits if someone dies from means that may or may not have been out of their hands. They don't employ people and force you to visit them by limiting the supply. Alternative medicine is alive and well, and in fact, I'm very involved with it as I am a Vegetarian.

HMOs were subsidized in the beginning like all good corporations where, however there is little regulation and thusly they do what's best for business not what's best for the people.

Your article on DSHS was about child protective services, not medical coverage. Medicare, when compared to the insurance system we have now is effective. It provides much broader support. In many instances your health insurance will deny payment for care, Medicare will cover it. It is, of course, not perfect.

[TheEvilDetector]

Actually, by the government, if their hands were untied they would leave immediately.


Well, here you admit the government is using force against doctors.

This is important to keep in mind, because it supports my view that there is government coercion in the medical industry.

As to your claim the doctors will leave immediately.

What do you base that claim on?

Where will the doctor go?



A Modest bachelor doctor would probably go work for a clinic or hospital that paid the best so he might save money and be secure. He would probably not own his own business, and therefore able to choose the premiums he charges.


Here we are starting to move away from the original point, which was people with different domestic circumstances have different income needs to maintain a certain standard of living.

I guess I should have been clear in that what I meant was that a modest bachelor compared to a man with 10 kids, in general needs less money to maintain a reasonable middle class lifestyle for himself/family as the case may be.

Yes it is true, that those who pay the most fill their positions first, that is a free market principle.

Yes it is true, the doctor can charge what he wishes, that is also a free market principle.



Those clinics don't have any money because their patients are both poor and plentiful. If you run out of money and are still in a hospital, you would be released whether it was medically safe or not.


Low income - high turnover business would function differently to one with high-income low turnover.

I very much doubt that people would be kicked out of hospital while unwell.

I would imagine loans would be taken out and paid back over time to the hospital.

Furthermore, there would be facilities that would be community group based that could provide free services or pitch in to help their members. I remember reading something about this in another thread.

These would be boosted in number if you grant me the courtesy of adding a non-income tax environment to the equation.



Are you calling the government a monopoly?


Of coercive force yes.



They realeased a set of guidelines physicians must meet to be, essentially, protected from lawsuits if someone dies from means that may or may not have been out of their hands.


Nothing wrong with GUIDELINES. It has to be done at the appropriate level though, which in case of health care is state level or local level or the individual.



They don't employ people and force you to visit them by limiting the supply.


They do that through licensing and regulations.

From: http://www.chiro.org/alt_med_abstracts/ABSTRACTS/The_Medical_Monopoly.shtml
(you should read the entire thing, this is just the bottom part)

"Protecting Consumers or Limiting Competition?

There is little actual evidence that medical licensing improves quality or protects the public.(106) Medical econo- mist Gary Gaumer, reviewing all the available literature on medical licensing, concluded,

Research evidence does not inspire confidence that wide-ranging systems for regulating health professionals have served the public interest. Though researchers have not been able to observe the consequences of a totally unregulated environment, observation of incremental variations in regulatory practice generally supports the view that tighter controls do not lead to improvements in the quality of service.(107)

Even the Federal Trade Commission has concluded that "occupational licensing frequently increases prices and imposes substantial costs on consumers. At the same time, many occupational licensing restrictions do not appear to realize the goal of increasing the quality of professionals' services."(108)

Licensing laws may actually put the public more at risk by lulling consumers into a false sense of security. Terree Wasley points out in What Has Government Done to Our Health Care? that most state licensing laws permit all licensed physicians to perform all types of medical services, even those for which they are not specifically trained.(109) For example, in Massachusetts physicians are licensed to perform acupuncture even though they may not have received special training.(110) That situation disturbs nonphysician acupuncturists who receive more hours of acupuncture training than do most licensed physicians.(111)

Feldstein points out that licensure laws focus at the point of entry into the medical profession, not on continu- ous monitoring. Once medical professionals are licensed, there are no requirements for proving that they are fully trained to perform the most up-to-date procedures.(112) Some states do not require continuing education, so there is no guarantee that a physician is current with the most recent techniques and information.(113) Feldstein points out that

state licensing boards are responsible for monitoring physicians' behavior and for penalizing physicians whose performance is inadequate or whose conduct is unethical. Unfortunately, this approach for assuring physician quality and competence is completely inadequate. . . . Monitoring the care provided by physicians through the use of claims and medical records data would more directly determine the quality and competence of a physician.(114)

In his 1987 Cato Institute book, The Rule of Experts: Occupational Licensing in America, S. David Young, a professor of accounting and finance at Tulane University, reviewed the literature on a wide variety of occupational licensing restrictions, including medical licensing, and found that "licensing has, at best, a neutral effect on quality and may even cause harm to consumers."(115)

While the public safety benefits of medical licensure are clearly questionable, nearly all economists recognize that professional licensure laws act as a barrier to entry that decreases competition and increases price. As Victor Fuchs wrote in 1974, "Most economists believe that part [of physician's high incomes] represents a monopoly return to physicians from restrictions on entry to the profession and other barriers to competition."(116)

One of the earliest studies of the impact of licensure on physician income was done in 1945 by Nobel Prize-winning economist Milton Friedman and Simon Kuznets. Friedman and Kuznets found that the difference in income between professional and nonprofessional health care workers was larger than could be explained by the extra skill and training of the professionals. A large portion of the variation, they concluded, was due to licensing restrictions. In addition, they concluded that the difference in mean income of physicians and dentists was caused by greater difficulty of entry into medicine than into dentistry.(117)

Friedman and Kuznets's conclusions have been confirmed by numerous other studies. For example, William White examined the effect of licensure on the income of clinical laboratory personnel and found that in cities with stringent licensing restrictions income was 16 percent higher than in cities with less stringent restrictions, with no variation in the quality of testing.(118)

Lawrence Shepard examined the fees of dentists in states that recognized out-of-state licenses and those that did not. He found that in states that did not recognize out-of-state licenses, dental fees were 12 to 15 percent higher.(119) A study of Canadian health care indicated that occupational licensing, combined with mobility restrictions and advertising restrictions, increased health care costs by as much as 27 percent.(120) Gaumer found that both fees and provider incomes were higher in states with more restrictive licensure requirements.(121)

Interesting confirmation that physician licensure is related more to a desire to increase physician incomes than to concern over public health and safety can be found in a 1984 study by medical economist Chris Paul, who found that the year that a state enacted physician licensing was related to the number of AMA members in the state.(122) Paul concluded that decisions by states to require licensing of physicians were more likely a result of special interests than of the public interest.

As the Friedmans note, "The justification [for licensure] is always the same: to protect the consumer. However, the reason is demonstrated by observing who lobbies at the state legislatures for imposition or strengthening of licensure. The lobbyists are invariably representatives of the occupation in question rather than its customers."(123)

Subsidies and the Medical Monopoly

In addition to using government to restrict competition, the medical monopoly also turns to government for subsidies. For example, most physician training is subsidized by the federal government.

In 1927 student fees accounted for 34 percent of medical school revenues.(124) Today less than 5 percent of medical school revenues comes from tuition and fees. Instead, medical schools rely heavily on federal and state support.(125) In 1992 total medical school revenues amounted to $23 billion.(126) State and local governments provided $2.7 billion.(127) The federal government paid at least $10.3 billion to medical schools and hospitals for medical education and training (Table 3). Additional revenues were obtained from charges for services, endowments, and private grants.

Table 3
Taxpayer Support for Physician Education and Training, 1991-92
Medicare 5.2
Federal research, training, and teaching 5.1
Federal research, training, and teaching 2.7
State and local governments 13.0

Sources: Fitzhugh Mullan et al., "Doctors, Dollars, and Determination: Making Physician Work-Force Policy," Health Affairs Supplement (1993), p. 142; and Janice Ganem et al., "Review of U.S. Medical School Finances 1992-93," Journal of the American Medical Association 274 (1995): 724.


Medicare payments to hospitals represent the largest source of federal funding for medical education and training.(128) Medicare pays for physician education and training in two ways: First, hospitals receive direct payments from Medicare based on the number of full-time-equivalent residents employed at each hospital. Second, Medicare increases a hospital's diagnostic-related group payments according to an "indirect" medical education factor, based on the ratio of residents to hospital beds.(129)

The average Medicare payment to hospitals was more than $70,000 per resident for both direct and indirect education subsidies in 1992. An estimated 69,900 full-time-equivalent interns, residents, and fellows were eligible for Medicare reimbursement in 1991.(130)

Medicare paid hospitals $1.6 billion for direct medical education expenses and dispensed $3.6 billion for indirect medical education adjustments in 1992.(131) Of the total $5.2 billion that Medicare paid to hospitals for training, approximately $0.3 billion was appropriated for training nurses and allied health professionals.(132)

Medical schools and teaching hospitals receive additional federal funding from the National Institutes of Health, the Department of Veterans Affairs, the Department of Defense, and the Health Resources and Services Administration (Title VII) program. Federal funding for research, training, and teaching amounted to at least $5.1 billion in 1992.(133) That money was awarded to medical schools and affiliated hospitals in the form of grants and contracts. Supporting biomedical research in medical schools is one way the federal government supports medical education without appearing to do so directly.(134)

As Feldstein has pointed out, "There is no reason why medical students should be subsidized to a greater extent than students in other graduate or professional schools."(135) That point has also been suggested by Uwe Reinhardt, a professor of political economy at Princeton University, who recently noted,

In the context of academic medicine, this inquiry should begin with the question of why the education of physicians is now so heavily supported with public funds, when similar support has never been extended to other important professions, for example, students in law schools or graduate programs in business. . . . In truth, the case for the traditional heavy public subsidies to medical education and training has simply been taken for granted . . . it never has been adequately justified.(136)

A less direct form of subsidy is the ability of the health care establishment to direct government payments from the Medicare and Medicaid programs to "approved" providers and hospitals. As already discussed, chiropractors and other nontraditional providers have generally been excluded from Medicare reimbursement. Furthermore, in order to be eligible to participate in Medicare, a hospital must be accredited by the Joint Commission on Accreditation of Health Care Organizations (or the American Osteopathic Association in the case of osteopathic hospitals). The JCAHO, which the Wall Street Journal describes as "one of the most powerful and secretive groups in all of health care,"(137) is a private organization with a board dominated by members representing the AMA and the American Hospital Association.

As several medical economists studying the issue have warned, in as much as Medicare is a major source of hospital revenues, "the influence of the JCAHO can be used to limit hospital competition and to protect physicians [against competition] from other groups of providers by denying them access to hospitals or influence within hospitals."(138) Thus the medical monopoly is able to use federal funds to reward its members and restrain its competitors.

Conclusion

What should government do if it is serious about cutting health spending and improving access to affordable health care? The first step should be to eliminate the anti-competitive barriers that restrict access to low-cost providers, namely licensure laws and federal reimbursement regulations. Americans should not be forced to substitute providers against their will; rather, they should be free to choose among all types of health care providers.

Instead of imposing strict licensure laws that focus on entry into the market but do not guarantee quality control, states should hold professionals equally accountable for the quality of their outcomes. That will reduce the need for strict licensure laws and other regulations that are purported to protect the public at large.

The time is right for eliminating barriers to nonphysician health care providers. Many Americans are seeking low- cost nontraditional providers and even choose to pay out-of- pocket for their services. Breaking the anti-competitive barriers of licensure laws and federal reimbursement regulations will provide meaningful health reform, increase consumer choice, and reduce health care costs."



Alternative medicine is alive and well, and in fact, I'm very involved with it as I am a Vegetarian.


Alive yes. Well no.



HMOs were subsidized in the beginning like all good corporations where, however there is little regulation and thusly they do what's best for business not what's best for the people.


HMOs were forced upon the people. Read my earlier link again.



Your article on DSHS was about child protective services, not medical coverage.


The point was inefficiency, which exists in all government bureaucracies.



Medicare, when compared to the insurance system we have now is effective. It provides much broader support. In many instances your health insurance will deny payment for care, Medicare will cover it. It is, of course, not perfect.

Not perfect? It is criminal and at the very least deeply immoral.

Why?

Because you are stealing from people that are alive today and that are yet to be born to pay for your personal health care and are also forcing a certain price on consumers and doctors and you are doing so unconstitutionally.

The constitution does not give the federal government the power to regulate the healthcare of the nation's citizens.

You see the government is created with the consent of the government (at least it's supposed to be in the US)
and that consent is formulated as a contract between the two parties.

That contract is known as the american constitution.

From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enumerated_powers#Enumerated_Powers_Act

"The enumerated powers are a list of specific responsibilities found in Article 1 Section 8 of the United States Constitution, which enumerate the authority granted to the United States Congress. Congress may exercise only those powers that are stated in the Constitution, limited by the Bill of Rights and the other protections found in the Constitutional text.

The classical statement of a government of enumerated powers is that by Chief Justice Marshall in McCulloch v. Maryland:

This government is acknowledged by all, to be one of enumerated powers. The principle, that it can exercise only the powers granted to it, would seem too apparent, to have required to be enforced by all those arguments, which its enlightened friends, while it was depending before the people, found it necessary to urge; that principle is now universally admitted"

So what are those powers:

From: http://www.house.gov/house/Constitution/Constitution.html
Article I Section 8:

"Clause 1: The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

Clause 2: To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;

Clause 3: To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

Clause 4: To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

Clause 5: To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

Clause 6: To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

Clause 7: To establish Post Offices and post Roads;

Clause 8: To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

Clause 9: To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

Clause 10: To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;

Clause 11: To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

Clause 12: To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

Clause 13: To provide and maintain a Navy;

Clause 14: To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

Clause 15: To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

Clause 16: To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

Clause 17: To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, byCession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;--And

Clause 18: To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof. "

In those times, there was also healthcare because there were medical practitioners of various types and
if the founders felt that healthcare needed to be regulated federally by congress, they would have written this into
the constitution and if the government since that time wanted to legitimately regulate healthcare, they would have
proposed an amendment to the constitution. No doubt, if ever there was a need to regulate health care it would
be in those times, due to lack of any standards at all.

From: http://www.history1700s.com/articles/article1016.shtml

"Unlike today, 18th century medical sciences were not as advanced in scientific knowledge because the body and its functions were still a mystery. In Europe, the doctors still adhered to the dogmas of vitalists, iatrochemists, and iatrophysicists. Each follower of these "brands" of medical practice argued over which of their single causes explained all human health.

This was especially true in the great University centers in Europe. Each had their own simplistic versions of the ills of the human body. They thought that the ills of the human body were due to maladjustment of the bodies system.

Doctors based their diagnosis of illness on the ancient beliefs of "humors", bodily "tension", or other cruder doctrinaire dogmas. The practice of "bleeding" with leeches to cure illness was common during the 18th century. In fact, the practice of medicine caused more harm than good. Doctors did not sterilize their hands, or instruments.

The medicines prescribed for ailments were just as bad. In Europe anything and everything was used in the mixing and making of drugs. In America, the more, common sense approach to medicine prevailed. In fact, lay healers were better doctors than learned physicians were.

During the 18th century America, the most commonly used medicines were botanical. In fact, the most widely read material were the "herbals" catalogues, which explained where and how healing herbs grew. In addition, these materials explained their uses.

Mark Catesby, persuaded by two eminent English physicians to undertake his travels, in 1710-1719, found many therapeutic plants, including the May apple, snakeroot, ginseng, and witch-hazel, and wrote about them in his Natural History of Carolina, Florida, and the Bahamas Islands.

There were improvements in the 18th century. For instance, public health and hygiene received more attention. Population statistics were beginning to be kept and suggestions arose concerning health legislation.

The use of vaccination began in the 18th century. The smallpox was the main target for this type of therapy. Smallpox was a disfiguring and often, fatal disease. In fact, at times it was an epidemic, which ravaged the cities and countries in Europe.

Conditions for sailors also improved during this century. Scurvy was the major disease that the 18th century sailor faced. The use of fruits and vegetables improved their health. To learn more about scurvy check out the previous article on James Cook.

This is just some of the conditions and medical practices of the 18th century. "

Yes it is true that the founders could not anticipate all the technological developments and as an example you can see that there is a lack of a clause
to provide for an airforce, but it is very apparent that if they had such a technology this would be included due to their reference to defence, armies and navy.

[TheEvilDetector]

From: http://www.fff.org/freedom/0692c.asp

"A Free Market for Health Care
by Sheldon Richman, June 1992

Concerned about rising costs the number of Americans without medical insurance, nearly everyone is these days about a day goes by without a presidential or a magazine calling for something drastic to be done. Each advocate maintains that his plan will bring skyrocketing costs under control, make health care accessible to low-income people, and bring health insurance within the reach of the 34 million Americans who currently do without it.

But the American people are being handed a Hobson's choice between a government takeover of the medical insurance industry and mandatory provision of insurance by the nation's employers, with the government as insurer of last resort.

There is a real alternative solution that relies on competition in the open marketplace. That solution recognizes that the undesirable aspects of the current system are not the result of the free market, but rather are the outcome of decades of governmental intervention in the health-care industry. Elimination of that intervention would shift power and responsibility from impersonal bureaucracies to consumers. The resulting free market, characterized by prudent consumers spending their own money, would control costs and let the American people have the kind of medical care they want.

Those who call for greater governmental involvement are fond of comparing how much Americans spend on health care with how much is spent in other countries. For example, in 1989 the average American spent about 40 percent more on health care than his Canadian counterpart: $2,354 versus $1,683. The West Germans, French, Japanese, and Britons spent even less. The 12 percent of gross domestic product that the United States devoted to health care in 1991 ($650 billion) is double the portion so devoted in Great Britain. By the year 2000, total spending is expected to reach $1 trillion or 15 percent of gross domestic product. Costs are increasing at 15 percent a year, much more than the general rate of price increases. The cost of employer-provided medical insurance increased 21.6 percent from 1989 to 1990.

But these comparisons are misleading for many reasons. For example, the demographics of the countries are different. A younger population, such as Canada's, would be expected to spend less on medical care than an older population, such as that in the United States. Moreover, the United States is the richest country in the world, and more affluent societies tend to spend more on health care than less affluent ones. There are many other reasons why those cost comparisons are deceptive.

Nevertheless, we can say that Americans spend too much on health care in this sense: identifiable government interventions raise costs higher than they would otherwise be. They do that by artificially stimulating demand and artificially constricting supply.

On the demand side, the problem is simply this: The government pays for about half the health care purchased in this country, through the national health insurance for the poor and elderly known as Medicaid and Medicare. In 1990 ft state and federal governments spent $280 billion on health care. The costs of these programs have exploded over the years. Since Medicaid and Medicare patients pay little or nothing for health care, they demand more of it than they would otherwise. They have no need to shop for the best value or to be prudent about elective procedures.

All of this puts tremendous upward pressure on prices, harming everyone who pays for his own care. Until 1983, Medicaid and Medicare reimbursed health-care providers on a cost-plus basis, meaning that neither patients nor providers had incentives to keep costs down. This escalated prices, which, in turn, pushed up premiums for health insurance. The government-paperwork costs alone help raise the price of medical care for everyone. As a result, many people and small businesses are priced out of the insurance market. Mandated coverage by the states for such uninsurable things as hairpieces and in vitro fertilization aggravates that process.

On the supply side, various governmental regulations enacted at the behest of the medical profession have constricted the supply of doctors and other health-care professionals. Medical licensing and the power to accredit medical schools were explicitly motivated by the medical profession's wish to reduce competition and to increase the remaining practitioners' incomes. Between 1910 and 1920, when accreditation power was granted, the number of medical schools in the United States dropped from 131 to 85. The cut particularly harmed women and minorities; by 1944 the number of medical schools which predominantly admitted blacks fell from seven to two. Thanks to government, the medical industry is far less competitive than it would be if left free of interference.

Most of the proposed solutions, however, ignore the causes of the problem and would even aggravate the situation. The most popular approach, the one taken by many Democrats, as well as a coalition of Big Business and Big Labor, is known as "play or pay." Under this plan, the federal government would require all employers to provide health insurance to their workers or to pay a new payroll tax (over 7 percent), the revenue from which would provide insurance. The supporters of "play or pay" also favor regulations on insurance premiums and various methods of cost containment. Notice that this proposal would only make things worse. Government would insure even more people than now, and its control of costs — price controls — would bring all the distortions and bureaucratic rationing we experienced in the 1970s. Moreover, as the price of insurance continued to rise, the system would create incentives for small businesses to pay into the government fund, moving us closer to national health insurance. And when "play or pay" failed to improve the health-care system, the statists would inevitably say, "Private enterprise was given a chance and has failed; now it's time for the government to take over."

Some "reforms" go even further in the wrong direction and call for a Canadian-type system, which would make the government the sole health insurer in the land. But the results of the Canadian system are exactly what we would expect of government control. Bureaucratic planning has created shortages, rationing, and long lines for service. For example, Canada has 11 heart surgery facilities, one for every 2.3 million people. In the United States there are 793 facilities, one for every 300,000. The wait for a coronary-bypass operation can last from four months to a year in Canada. Bureaucratic strangulation has also prompted a significant number of doctors to emigrate or take early retirement. The system has failed to even control health-care costs; the growth in spending for Canada and the United States is almost the same. The Republicans offer no fundamental change in the current system, merely some crumbs to low-income people to buy insurance as well as a cap on malpractice awards. Medicaid and Medicare will continue to grow under President Bush's administration.

It should be obvious that if governments at all levels were not confiscating close to half of the people's wealth, medical care would be a manageable necessity of life. Without the onerous tax burden under which people now labor, they would be able to save for the medical expenses required during their working and retirement years. True, some people would not be able to provide for their own care — and they would have to rely on private charity. But the medical profession itself has always been generous in helping the indigent.

If the government did not dominate the health-care industry through its humongous "insurance" programs, costs would fall to the reasonable levels we would expect of a free market. That would enable even the lowest-income people to buy medical care and health insurance. (To the extent governmental tax policy distorts the private insurance industry, costs would fall even further.)

On the supply side, the repeal of medical licensing, governmental accreditation of medical schools, and restrictions on hospital construction would increase the amount of care available, lowering prices even more. This would expand individual liberty and introduce real competition into the medical marketplace. Quality assurance would be much better handled in the free market through private certification organizations, such as Underwriters Laboratory and Consumer Reports.

Governmental intervention is always dangerous. But nowhere is it more so than in the health-care industry. The sooner we get the government out, the sooner we can all breathe easier — and perhaps even live longer. "

[Manible]

Well, here you admit the government is using force against doctors.

This is important to keep in mind, because it supports my view that there is government coercion in the medical industry.

As to your claim the doctors will leave immediately.

What do you base that claim on?

Where will the doctor go?

The coercion is in keeping a supply of doctors for out of the way towns. Otherwise people would have to drive hundreds and hundreds of miles to a big city in order to be treated for a disease. This is of course not a bad thing. Because as it stands these doctors would leave in a heartbeat leaving smaller communities with no health care system at all.


Here we are starting to move away from the original point, which was people with different domestic circumstances have different income needs to maintain a certain standard of living.

I guess I should have been clear in that what I meant was that a modest bachelor compared to a man with 10 kids, in general needs less money to maintain a reasonable middle class lifestyle for himself/family as the case may be.

Yes it is true, that those who pay the most fill their positions first, that is a free market principle.

Yes it is true, the doctor can charge what he wishes, that is also a free market principle.

It is not true that a doctor can charge what he wants. It is true that his employer can. Modest bachelor I'm assuming is not a business owner.



Low income - high turnover business would function differently to one with high-income low turnover.

I very much doubt that people would be kicked out of hospital while unwell.

I would imagine loans would be taken out and paid back over time to the hospital.

Furthermore, there would be facilities that would be community group based that could provide free services or pitch in to help their members. I remember reading something about this in another thread.

These would be boosted in number if you grant me the courtesy of adding a non-income tax environment to the equation.

Are you kidding me? This happens all the time, only socialized clinics will take those people, one's who operate on tax dollar. Regular hospitals pay the bare minimum to ship these patients the fuck out of their hospital. You have to have money, or some sort of monetary backing, in order to receive care in a free market system.

A democratic government has all of it's power gifted to it by the people. The coercive force, as you put it, of the people is entirely viable in certain situations. Society would fall apart otherwise.


Nothing wrong with GUIDELINES. It has to be done at the appropriate level though, which in case of health care is state level or local level or the individual.

Says you, what evidence do you have that local application of medical standards is more effective? This is a personal bias that you hold, and I may disagree with.


They do that through licensing and regulations.

Wow, this article you posted is ridiculous. You're suggesting we scrap medical licensing laws in addition to government subsidies for training doctors and medical research? Doctors in America are quality practitioners, they are among the best in their ability. There is absolutely nothing wrong with the way we are training them. If we stop paying for their training, what do you think will happen? Less people becoming doctors maybe? Maybe? Yes? No? Ok, so we scrap licensing laws, then it becomes far easier to be a Doctor the training you receive to be any sort of practitioner is entirely subjective to where you go to school. We'll have plenty of doctors. Of course many of them will be absolute shit. Someone with a degree he purchased on the internet? That sounds awesome, there will of course be good doctors one's who've gone to Ivy League school. But of course only the very rich will have a chance in hell of affording any sort of reasonable care. I suppose free-market principles would probably kick in after a few hundred thousand people die.

Secondly, I've been heavily involved with alternative medicine. The reason why so much of it has been hammered down is because of the established corporate control over the medical industry. The alternative medical arguments are constantly curbed for poorly conducted studies that are funded by some interest group with money and a result they would like. The government is the only voice of reason taking up the truth and allowing it into practice. Why, because they are the voice of the people (except when bought off by some corporate interest).

[RP4ME]

I don't understand why Federal Dollar couldn't go to fund state departments.

Honestly this is a mood point in the arsenal. As much as I disagree with some of Ron's finer policies, his overall picture is just amazing for a presidential candidate.

AWWWW! Im kinda digging your Commie self!;) Look we can all JUST get along!

[Manible]

AWWWW! Im kinda digging your Commie self!;) Look we can all JUST get along!

Yeah, you fascist aren't so bad either :)

[RP4ME]

The coercion is in keeping a supply of doctors for out of the way towns. Otherwise people would have to drive hundreds and hundreds of miles to a big city in order to be treated for a disease. This is of course not a bad thing. Because as it stands these doctors would leave in a heartbeat leaving smaller communities with no health care system at all.



It is not true that a doctor can charge what he wants. It is true that his employer can. Modest bachelor I'm assuming is not a business owner.




Are you kidding me? This happens all the time, only socialized clinics will take those people, one's who operate on tax dollar. Regular hospitals pay the bare minimum to ship these patients the fuck out of their hospital. You have to have money, or some sort of monetary backing, in order to receive care in a free market system.

A democratic government has all of it's power gifted to it by the people. The coercive force, as you put it, of the people is entirely viable in certain situations. Society would fall apart otherwise.



Says you, what evidence do you have that local application of medical standards is more effective? This is a personal bias that you hold, and I may disagree with.



Wow, this article you posted is ridiculous. You're suggesting we scrap medical licensing laws in addition to government subsidies for training doctors and medical research? Doctors in America are quality practitioners, they are among the best in their ability. There is absolutely nothing wrong with the way we are training them. If we stop paying for their training, what do you think will happen? Less people becoming doctors maybe? Maybe? Yes? No? Ok, so we scrap licensing laws, then it becomes far easier to be a Doctor the training you receive to be any sort of practitioner is entirely subjective to where you go to school. We'll have plenty of doctors. Of course many of them will be absolute shit. Someone with a degree he purchased on the internet? That sounds awesome, there will of course be good doctors one's who've gone to Ivy League school. But of course only the very rich will have a chance in hell of affording any sort of reasonable care. I suppose free-market principles would probably kick in after a few hundred thousand people die.

Secondly, I've been heavily involved with alternative medicine. The reason why so much of it has been hammered down is because of the established corporate control over the medical industry. The alternative medical arguments are constantly curbed for poorly conducted studies that are funded by some interest group with money and a result they would like. The government is the only voice of reason taking up the truth and allowing it into practice. Why, because they are the voice of the people (except when bought off by some corporate interest).

I disgagree with you here on alt. medicine. Yes the Pharmafia is controlling the med. industry along with insurance but teh GOVT is already in on this - think multi-million dollar jobs after congress in exchange for favorable legisaltion. FDA has sold it soudl to teh devil and you will soon not be allowed therapeutic dosages of Vit C or any medicinal herbs.....Teh FDA is spearheading this! Paul would see no FDA or a castrated one that played nice and was for protecting us not the phramfia.....Govt has sold its soul already!!!! Govt scres this up! Want the govt mamaging you healthcare - go visit the VA hospitals - Yummmm!

[Manible]

Yes, but the Government was bought up by Free-market principles. So if you just remove the current powerhouse and don't reform, we'll just have another one.

[RP4ME]

Not excatly b/c in a true free mkt you wouldnt have the kind of legilsation and regulation that has been put in place by our govt on behalf of teh Pharmafia/Insuance cabal.

Yes - i see your point but it doesnt take into consideration that it is the regulation that does this. Without the FDA and its regulation (which proetcts companies) we wouldnt be on teh precipe of banning suppllemnts or raw almonds :mad: now.....the Phramafia woudnt have a way to do this were it not for the FDA - they would be forced to compete and have a showdown with the court of public opinion and purchasing power. Ya know the best soultion wins out kinda deal! Cesioum Chloride for cancer versus. chemo. Consumers decide. The FDA was created to "protect us" well that has been bastardized by capitalism but that isnt then true capitlism it is a MUTATION if you will, that needs an exorcism, before it leads to fascism if it hasnt really already. Less govt regulators the better we will all be healthcare included. Regulation done by consumer groups arent impervious to their own flaws but woudl not hav eteh power to tell me...... vitamins dangerous chemo good!

Alright bring it!

[RP4ME]

Did I school you commie? your silence suggests so.;)

[Manible]

Not excatly b/c in a true free mkt you wouldnt have the kind of legilsation and regulation that has been put in place by our govt on behalf of teh Pharmafia/Insuance cabal.

Yes - i see your point but it doesnt take into consideration that it is the regulation that does this. Without the FDA and its regulation (which proetcts companies) we wouldnt be on teh precipe of banning suppllemnts or raw almonds :mad: now.....the Phramafia woudnt have a way to do this were it not for the FDA - they would be forced to compete and have a showdown with the court of public opinion and purchasing power. Ya know the best soultion wins out kinda deal! Cesioum Chloride for cancer versus. chemo. Consumers decide. The FDA was created to "protect us" well that has been bastardized by capitalism but that isnt then true capitlism it is a MUTATION if you will, that needs an exorcism, before it leads to fascism if it hasnt really already. Less govt regulators the better we will all be healthcare included. Regulation done by consumer groups arent impervious to their own flaws but woudl not hav eteh power to tell me...... vitamins dangerous chemo good!

Alright bring it!

We need a reformed FDA, because before that certain companies were pedaling drugs to people that were complete placebos and many people died, or were poisonous. When they were sued, their superior resources allowed them to easily sway public opinion.


And honestly, if we had a free-market before, who then decided to buy up the government, what is going to stop the next great entrepreneur from buying up the next government? They're only human you know.

AND ANOTHER THING

If you guys honestly think government bureaucracy is bad, you missed the point of the Federalist system. It purposefully created this bureaucracy to make sure that no particular area had too much power, but it specifically gifted the Feds with enough power to get shit done. If the US was still a confederate state, I'd imagine that several of the larger more liberal states would have straight refused to send soldiers to iraq, and there would be nothing to do about it. We had a confederacy in which the states gifted power to the Federal Government, and (ironically enough) it failed because we were at war at the time of conception and gained a nice little debt for ourselves. The forefathers made our government huge so that it's power was spread out over many interests. This is one of the key reasons it's so confusing and disenchanting.

Of course you have not schooled me, in fact, I resent that, fascist.