bryanedds
09-25-2007, 03:09 PM
Libertarians often find themselves in a difficult position when faced with the proposal to nationalize healthcare. To properly address the question, libertarians face a much bigger task in explaining their position than does the opposition. The opposition takes merely a cursory glance at the problem and makes an argument that is intuitive and powerful, such as "make it free to everyone" and "health is more important than money". To counter this, libertarians need to go far deeper into an explanation of the current state of healthcare to make a fully convincing argument.
Here's my attempt. Take from it and add to it if you like :)
"How government has ruined health care in America."
First, we must review the ways in which government intervention has negatively affects the health care industry.
Through regulation, the cost of doing business is increased. This is because resources must be allocated toward compliance with those regulations. This increases start-up costs as well as the cost of daily operations. These artificially-imposed costs keep new competitors from being able to afford entry into the marketplace. I know this as "the compliance barrier". This compliance barrier is a tool by which big businesses can stamp out their competition before it even forms.
Government intervention is anti-competition.
Corporate subsidies keep the big corporations immune from the marketplace. Where the market functions, it tends to shut down inefficient and ineffective business operations. When this happens, those deallocated resources can be put them to better use elsewhere in the market. Corporate subsidies stop this incredibly vital market function in its tracks. Malfunctioning businesses are kept alive into perpetuity regardless of consumer preference.
Government intervention is anti-accountability.
Along with regulation and corporate subsidies, another mainstay of the government intervention is licensure. Licensure is where only those who have the license required by law are allowed to enter into an industry. Licensure artificially restricts the supply of entrants (IE - doctors) and thus pushes up prices (IE - the cost of doctor visits). The consumer is forced to cover the cost. The consumer is coerced to choose between paying for what may be far more care than he needs or receive no care at all. The consumers with the least amount of wealth have even less choice. They go without.
Government intervention is anti-consumer and anti-poor.
Patent and intellectual property laws keep people from freely entering competitive products onto the market. This results in big pharmacy companies monopolizing segments of the market, increasing prices exponentially. Big Pharma is infamous for lobbying to use government power in its favor. Where governments are given power, that power is historically for sale to the highest bidder.
Government intervention is pro-monopoly.
The end result of all of these policies, as well-intentioned as they may have been, are tragic and dire. Skyrocketing prices, plumetting quality, steadily-declining efficiency, corporate cartelization, and outright monopolization. It is little wonder then how the health care industry in America got as bad as it has. It is little wonder that the market ceases to function in a positive way for the industries so hampered. In health care, the government has intervened in so many ways, the free market has literally been driven out of the equation.
These problems have been created by government intervention, not a lack thereof. These problems have not been created by market failures or the profit-motive. They have been created by a failure to allow markets to work. This is a consequence of the undeniable success in instituting government intervention.
The question I put forth is this - how can people blame the free market for these problems in the health care industry? In the sphere of health care, there is amazingly little of the free market left. There is mostly just government intervention piled atop government intervention. How does one logically blame lassaiz faire? With such pervasive government intervention, lassaiz faire has an alibi - it was forcibly kept away from the scene of the crime.
The health care industry has gone from a free market system to a fascist one; owned by private parties but essentially run by the government. Some advocate taking it just a few steps further. They advocate total socialization and central planning for health care. They want to make health care "free", as in free beer. They think this will make things better. They will get the opposite of what they want. Take FEMA and put them in charge of America's health care. That's a rough approximation of what happens when you put the Federal Government in charge of anything. The job of FEMA and the job of private doctors are exactly the same; save people's lives. But the results of each is starkly opposite. If you want something to blow up, the Federal Government might be your best bet. If you want efficient and effective services, you're barking up a wrong and dangerous tree.
They argue that socialization of health care has worked in other countries. Their definition of "working" is a 50%+ tax rate for all citizens. Their definition of "working" is patients dying in large numbers awaiting treatments. Their definition of "working" is decaying infrastructures, frighteningly fast declines in quality, and skyrocketing costs. Certainly, the free market system which provides growing infrastructures, increasing quality, and decreasing costs is not a "working" system.
Consider also the economic problems with putting government in charge of health care. There is no incentive for government health care workers to be responsive to the demands of consumers. The consumers are held captive. They will take what they are given, and they will be told to love it or leave it. Government health care is a monopoly which receives its revenue through taxation. Consumers cannot go to another service provider down the street if they are unhappy. They certainly cannot "opt-out" since "free-to-everyone" ironically means that everyone must "help pay". If private health care is even permitted, those who need better care (IE - services received in time to actually save their lives) they end up paying for both. Not many people can afford to pay for government health care AND private care. Certainly not the poor, of all people. The poor die waiting. The advocates of the socialist system justify their deaths as the price of progress. This should sound familiar.
Most importantly of all these arguments, there is the classic "calculation" problem expounded by Ludwig von Mises. Without a free market, there can be no rational pricing system. Without a pricing system, there is no way to determine supply and demand. Without a way to determine supply and demand, there is no way to rationally allocate resources to where they are needed. The only remaining way to rationally allocate resources under this system is politically. This fails horribly.
Initially the prescription for the ills of the health care industry was a little government involvement. The problems created by that prescription were addressed by doubling the dosage. As the problems increased accordingly, the dosage was doubled again. And again. Many times. Now there is very little part of the free market operating in the health care industry. The dismal results have been predictable. This is what our interventionist doctors in government have prescribed. They show no sign of rethinking their approach. They show only signs of intensifying it.
This is how government tries to heal things. It increases its control over parts of people's lives more and more until it has total authority. It turns out to be a failure generally, but its control never fully recedes. Would you trust a doctor who followed this pattern of behavior? Would you trust a doctor who keeps doubling the dosage of his prescriptions until the patient keels over? Of course you wouldn't. Then why would you trust the government to be you and your family's doctor?
Here's my attempt. Take from it and add to it if you like :)
"How government has ruined health care in America."
First, we must review the ways in which government intervention has negatively affects the health care industry.
Through regulation, the cost of doing business is increased. This is because resources must be allocated toward compliance with those regulations. This increases start-up costs as well as the cost of daily operations. These artificially-imposed costs keep new competitors from being able to afford entry into the marketplace. I know this as "the compliance barrier". This compliance barrier is a tool by which big businesses can stamp out their competition before it even forms.
Government intervention is anti-competition.
Corporate subsidies keep the big corporations immune from the marketplace. Where the market functions, it tends to shut down inefficient and ineffective business operations. When this happens, those deallocated resources can be put them to better use elsewhere in the market. Corporate subsidies stop this incredibly vital market function in its tracks. Malfunctioning businesses are kept alive into perpetuity regardless of consumer preference.
Government intervention is anti-accountability.
Along with regulation and corporate subsidies, another mainstay of the government intervention is licensure. Licensure is where only those who have the license required by law are allowed to enter into an industry. Licensure artificially restricts the supply of entrants (IE - doctors) and thus pushes up prices (IE - the cost of doctor visits). The consumer is forced to cover the cost. The consumer is coerced to choose between paying for what may be far more care than he needs or receive no care at all. The consumers with the least amount of wealth have even less choice. They go without.
Government intervention is anti-consumer and anti-poor.
Patent and intellectual property laws keep people from freely entering competitive products onto the market. This results in big pharmacy companies monopolizing segments of the market, increasing prices exponentially. Big Pharma is infamous for lobbying to use government power in its favor. Where governments are given power, that power is historically for sale to the highest bidder.
Government intervention is pro-monopoly.
The end result of all of these policies, as well-intentioned as they may have been, are tragic and dire. Skyrocketing prices, plumetting quality, steadily-declining efficiency, corporate cartelization, and outright monopolization. It is little wonder then how the health care industry in America got as bad as it has. It is little wonder that the market ceases to function in a positive way for the industries so hampered. In health care, the government has intervened in so many ways, the free market has literally been driven out of the equation.
These problems have been created by government intervention, not a lack thereof. These problems have not been created by market failures or the profit-motive. They have been created by a failure to allow markets to work. This is a consequence of the undeniable success in instituting government intervention.
The question I put forth is this - how can people blame the free market for these problems in the health care industry? In the sphere of health care, there is amazingly little of the free market left. There is mostly just government intervention piled atop government intervention. How does one logically blame lassaiz faire? With such pervasive government intervention, lassaiz faire has an alibi - it was forcibly kept away from the scene of the crime.
The health care industry has gone from a free market system to a fascist one; owned by private parties but essentially run by the government. Some advocate taking it just a few steps further. They advocate total socialization and central planning for health care. They want to make health care "free", as in free beer. They think this will make things better. They will get the opposite of what they want. Take FEMA and put them in charge of America's health care. That's a rough approximation of what happens when you put the Federal Government in charge of anything. The job of FEMA and the job of private doctors are exactly the same; save people's lives. But the results of each is starkly opposite. If you want something to blow up, the Federal Government might be your best bet. If you want efficient and effective services, you're barking up a wrong and dangerous tree.
They argue that socialization of health care has worked in other countries. Their definition of "working" is a 50%+ tax rate for all citizens. Their definition of "working" is patients dying in large numbers awaiting treatments. Their definition of "working" is decaying infrastructures, frighteningly fast declines in quality, and skyrocketing costs. Certainly, the free market system which provides growing infrastructures, increasing quality, and decreasing costs is not a "working" system.
Consider also the economic problems with putting government in charge of health care. There is no incentive for government health care workers to be responsive to the demands of consumers. The consumers are held captive. They will take what they are given, and they will be told to love it or leave it. Government health care is a monopoly which receives its revenue through taxation. Consumers cannot go to another service provider down the street if they are unhappy. They certainly cannot "opt-out" since "free-to-everyone" ironically means that everyone must "help pay". If private health care is even permitted, those who need better care (IE - services received in time to actually save their lives) they end up paying for both. Not many people can afford to pay for government health care AND private care. Certainly not the poor, of all people. The poor die waiting. The advocates of the socialist system justify their deaths as the price of progress. This should sound familiar.
Most importantly of all these arguments, there is the classic "calculation" problem expounded by Ludwig von Mises. Without a free market, there can be no rational pricing system. Without a pricing system, there is no way to determine supply and demand. Without a way to determine supply and demand, there is no way to rationally allocate resources to where they are needed. The only remaining way to rationally allocate resources under this system is politically. This fails horribly.
Initially the prescription for the ills of the health care industry was a little government involvement. The problems created by that prescription were addressed by doubling the dosage. As the problems increased accordingly, the dosage was doubled again. And again. Many times. Now there is very little part of the free market operating in the health care industry. The dismal results have been predictable. This is what our interventionist doctors in government have prescribed. They show no sign of rethinking their approach. They show only signs of intensifying it.
This is how government tries to heal things. It increases its control over parts of people's lives more and more until it has total authority. It turns out to be a failure generally, but its control never fully recedes. Would you trust a doctor who followed this pattern of behavior? Would you trust a doctor who keeps doubling the dosage of his prescriptions until the patient keels over? Of course you wouldn't. Then why would you trust the government to be you and your family's doctor?