Poll. How much government regulation in health care should be eliminated?

[idirtify]

a) all of it
b) most of it
c) about half
d) only some
e) none

(not sure how to do a poll, so bear with me.)

[ClayTrainor]

All of it.

[idirtify]

I nominate my poll for the award of having the most important question with the least amount of responses.

So what’s the problem here?

[Koz]

All of it.

[BuddyRey]

All of it, but preferably in a series of gradual steps taking no more than a few years altogether. I think removing 100% of all government strictures on healthcare at once would lead to a certain level of chaos for an indeterminate period before the newly freed market weeded out the influx of hucksters and charlatans that would flood the industry at first.

[TheBlackPeterSchiff]

All but I'll settle for most.

[idirtify]

All of it, but preferably in a series of gradual steps taking no more than a few years altogether. I think removing 100% of all government strictures on healthcare at once would lead to a certain level of chaos for an indeterminate period before the newly freed market weeded out the influx of hucksters and charlatans that would flood the industry at first.

I understand your thinking but I’m not sure it’s not just a palatable-worded version of something that is fairly ugly. It seems you are suggesting that the best route to a freer market and smaller government is to go intentionally slow. Why would you suggest that? Is it moving too fast in that direction? I mean how do you reckon any brakes would need to be applied when the speed of progress in that direction is now at ZERO mph (correction: it’s going in reverse)?

[idirtify]

All but I'll settle for most.

So did you vote “all” or “most”?

Note: The question is “How much government regulation in health care SHOULD be eliminated?” Not “How much reduction in government regulation of health care would you settle for?”

[Carehn]

By voting 'all' many people my seem to thing your being drastic or acting in a way as to impress the people around you. Nothing can be further from the truth. All regulation must be eliminated to maximize consumer health, price, efficiency, scientific advancements. It all must be scraped and the market of thought must be free to grow as it may.

[BuddyRey]

I understand your thinking but I’m not sure it’s not just a palatable-worded version of something that is fairly ugly. It seems you are suggesting that the best route to a freer market and smaller government is to go intentionally slow. Why would you suggest that? Is it moving too fast in that direction? I mean how do you reckon any brakes would need to be applied when the speed of progress in that direction is now at ZERO mph (correction: it’s going in reverse)?

Oh, I'm completely on-board with total separation of medicine and state (and of human existence and state, for that matter). I'm just worried about the untested care providers who would emerge in the beginning months and years of free market medicine until the burgeoning private consumer information, doctor-rating/reputation infrastructure became viable.

I know it sounds like a copout, but we're so deeply embedded in the government paradigm for the provision of so many essential services that, as efficient as the free market is, it's going to take a while for most of us to "adjust" to freedom in many spheres of everyday life. I want a Voluntaryist society about as badly as I've ever wanted anything, yet I think the most surefire way to ensure that it never emerges is to foist it on people before they're ready for it.

[idirtify]

Oh, I'm completely on-board with total separation of medicine and state (and of human existence and state, for that matter). I'm just worried about the untested care providers who would emerge in the beginning months and years of free market medicine until the burgeoning private consumer information, doctor-rating/reputation infrastructure became viable.

I know it sounds like a copout, but we're so deeply embedded in the government paradigm for the provision of so many essential services that, as efficient as the free market is, it's going to take a while for most of us to "adjust" to freedom in many spheres of everyday life. I want a Voluntaryist society about as badly as I've ever wanted anything, yet I think the most surefire way to ensure that it never emerges is to foist it on people before they're ready for it.

But your “fear of their fears” is defeated in your own post’s wording. I mean your sentence is right on the money until the end, where you make the wrong conclusion; let me correct the ending: “we're so deeply embedded in the government paradigm for the provision of so many essential services that, as efficient as the free market is, it's going to take a while to eliminate even a small amount of the regulation.” IOW, your own sentence shows that you will not have to worry about anything happening too fast. In case you hadn’t noticed, total deregulation of health care is a far shot from getting “foisted upon people”.

Try this analogy. The drug war is technically like 70 years old and is still going full force. When asked if all drug prohibition should be eliminated, is it rational to answer with the caveat that eliminating it all too soon might be “foisting it upon people”? I repeat: “the drug war is over 70 years old!” Firstly, I doubt it’s all going to be eliminated too soon or too quickly. Secondly, that has nothing to do with the question of “SHOULD it all be eliminated?” The question is only a test of your belief/principle.

Frankly, I find that in most cases, this kind of fudging (“copout”?) usually hides a lack of belief in individual liberty.

[idirtify]

By voting 'all' many people my seem to thing your being drastic or acting in a way as to impress the people around you. Nothing can be further from the truth. All regulation must be eliminated to maximize consumer health, price, efficiency, scientific advancements. It all must be scraped and the market of thought must be free to grow as it may.

this^

[VBRonPaulFan]

But your “fear of their fears” is defeated in your own post’s wording. I mean your sentence is right on the money until the end, where you make the wrong conclusion; let me correct the ending: “we're so deeply embedded in the government paradigm for the provision of so many essential services that, as efficient as the free market is, it's going to take a while to eliminate even a small amount of the regulation.” IOW, your own sentence shows that you will not have to worry about anything happening too fast. In case you hadn’t noticed, total deregulation of health care is a far shot from getting “foisted upon people”.

Try this analogy. The drug war is technically like 70 years old and is still going full force. When asked if all drug prohibition should be eliminated, is it rational to answer with the caveat that eliminating it all too soon might be “foisting it upon people”? I repeat: “the drug war is over 70 years old!” Firstly, I doubt it’s all going to be eliminated too soon or too quickly. Secondly, that has nothing to do with the question of “SHOULD it all be eliminated?” The question is only a test of your belief/principle.

Frankly, I find that in most cases, this kind of fudging (“copout”?) usually hides a lack of belief in individual liberty.

you have a complete misunderstanding of how the health industry currently works. the entire current medical structure is embedded around government intervention, regulation, and funding.

if you just 'cut everything lose', large hospital and care providers are going to be shocked by a complete shift in costs and revenue streams. it takes some time for large entities to deal with such a fundamental change. it takes time for companies supplying medical products to adjust demand, adjust prices based on cost changes, for hospitals to adjust accordingly, adjust staffing, etc. it isn't so cut as dry as you would hope it to be.

i guess you find Ron Paul lacks a belief in individual liberty because he wants to phase out social security, not completely cut it loose all at once, right? be a little realistic, seriously.

edit: i voted 'all', but i realize there'd have to be a transitional period. all of the government intervention didn't spring up all at once... wouldn't go away all at once either.

[outspoken]

Break up as much of the medical industrial complex as possible and watch prices fall; there will be an increase in people unable/ unwilling to pay for care. Maybe the care that they do receive will be acknowledged for what it is, charity and not an entitlement. A nice side effect would be people taking a more vested interest in the own well being.

[Cutlerzzz]

All.

[BuddyRey]

Frankly, I find that in most cases, this kind of fudging (“copout”?) usually hides a lack of belief in individual liberty.

Is this some kind of passive-aggressive way of insinuating that I'm "soft" on statism? Since I have no possible way to prove my "freedom street cred" to you besides outwardly professing that I am, in fact, a Rothbardian Anarchist (albeit perhaps of a more gradualist stripe than you're comfortable with), this whole exchange seems pretty fruitless as of now. You seem to think it a foregone conclusion that my intention is to preserve institutionalized coercion, when it is in fact to steadily advance away from it.

[heavenlyboy34]

Oh, I'm completely on-board with total separation of medicine and state (and of human existence and state, for that matter). I'm just worried about the untested care providers who would emerge in the beginning months and years of free market medicine until the burgeoning private consumer information, doctor-rating/reputation infrastructure became viable.

I know it sounds like a copout, but we're so deeply embedded in the government paradigm for the provision of so many essential services that, as efficient as the free market is, it's going to take a while for most of us to "adjust" to freedom in many spheres of everyday life. I want a Voluntaryist society about as badly as I've ever wanted anything, yet I think the most surefire way to ensure that it never emerges is to foist it on people before they're ready for it.
qft. I would add that since some people are already ready to get off the State regulated system (perhaps they already pay cash all the time for health care or something), they should be allowed to jump off any time. :)

[pcosmar]

Had to go with Most.
I can see very limited place for government regarding Fraud and in Protecting individual rights, and perhaps resolving conflicts between the states. In other words, the proper role of government.
A very limited role.

[tangent4ronpaul]

Medicine costs ~10 times what it cost 50-70 years ago. Actual medical inflation is responsible for ~3.6 of that. I'll come back to the additional 6.3 in a moment, but lets look at the FDA for a second. It used to take 2 years between drug discovery and market an cost tens of thousands of dollars. Now it takes 10-12 years to get a drug approved and costs 760 Million and 1.2 Billion. These are high stakes so it encourages corruption while limiting the number of drugs that are developed. Dr. Scott Reuben, for example, faked dozens of research studies over a period of 13 years before being caught. There are others like him that have been caught and who knows how many that haven't. OK, so assuming you have a study you submit it to the FDA for them to review and if they give you a thumbs up you go to the next phase. They got involved and created this process to "keep us safe". (sound familiar?) The FDA doesn't do any studies themselves for drug approval. Here is the other slick part, the drug company doesn't have to provide their studies to the FDA. When one companies patent ran out on a drug (you've seen the ads) they created another that was close to the now generic product and OTC. This new drug was inferior, and they buried 5 studies until they finally got one that showed a slight benefit in healing after 2 months that went away in a matter of days. That is the sole basis of their claiming it's a superior product.

So anyway, the FDA makes them do all this testing "to keep us safe". Is it dong that? Back before the FDA stuck their nose into things, drug companies did enough testing so they were satisfied they wouldn't be sued. Fortunately, the FDA has saved us from bad products getting on the market, drug companies getting sued and drug recalls! Oh, wait... anyone seen ads for 1-800-BAD-DRUG or seen ling lists of drugs that have been recalled, like those 9 anti-depressants that were causing birth defects? It looks like the FDA has failed in it's basic mission and instead has bust driven up costs. It's worth noting that the cost of brand name drugs (under patent) has gone up 10% this year alone.

So what about the other 6.3 times increase? Well, insurance premium inflation vastly outpaces actual medical inflation. Most of it is here. 50-60 years ago, people just didn't have insurance for routine medical costs, only for catastrophic care and that wasn't that common. The reason is that in inflation adjusted dollars, a medical visit, including medicine cost $25. One provider I know explained that for a initial visit they were contractually required to bill out $480 for an initial visit for which they would pay him $80. For a follow up visit, he had to bill out $180 for which he would be re-reimbursed $60. If a patient didn't have insurance (subscribe to the protection racket) they had to contractually charge that person the bill out price. Quite the scam, eh? On top of this he estimates it costs him $3,000 a month doing charting. This is long and drawn out telling the patients whole life. Part of this is because of legal liability but the main reason is that the insurance company won't reimburse him if he doesn't.

Then there is malpractice insurance which is very expensive.

And we come back to Congress who banned doing most lab tests in doctors offices because a handful of mistakes had been made, and instead send them out to a private lab. A $12 in office test with instant results immediately turned into a $78 dollar test that took three days to get back. Remember the doctor needs those results to make his diagnosis... The private medical lab lobby was very happy, however.

Then there is the AMA that closed medical schools thus creating an artificial shortage of doctors that is getting worse every year.

There was a doc in NJ that was on Freedom Watch last week who was saying they were able to treat people for $13 a person. They were looking for funding to cover the malpractice insurance as that was very expensive.

If we abolish the FDA and made Insurance companies get out of selling medical insurance or at least made them stop their BS, medical costs would become very affordable very fast! Cheap enough that it could be paid for out of pocket.

-t

[idirtify]

you have a complete misunderstanding of how the health industry currently works. the entire current medical structure is embedded around government intervention, regulation, and funding.

if you just 'cut everything lose', large hospital and care providers are going to be shocked by a complete shift in costs and revenue streams. it takes some time for large entities to deal with such a fundamental change. it takes time for companies supplying medical products to adjust demand, adjust prices based on cost changes, for hospitals to adjust accordingly, adjust staffing, etc. it isn't so cut as dry as you would hope it to be.

i guess you find Ron Paul lacks a belief in individual liberty because he wants to phase out social security, not completely cut it loose all at once, right? be a little realistic, seriously.

edit: i voted 'all', but i realize there'd have to be a transitional period. all of the government intervention didn't spring up all at once... wouldn't go away all at once either.

VBRonPaulFan,
Since the question doesn’t deal with any time element or relate to “how the health industry currently works”, it appears YOU may have the less understanding. It deals with principle only. And since the industry is, as you correctly pointed out, “embedded around government intervention, regulation, and funding”, any fundamental change toward deregulation is very unlikely to happen soon or quickly (as you admit in your last comment). And Ron Paul’s position on phasing out SS slowly would not be his response to the same kind of question. I’m sure he would answer “all” to the question of “how many government welfare programs should be eliminated?

[idirtify]

Is this some kind of passive-aggressive way of insinuating that I'm "soft" on statism? Since I have no possible way to prove my "freedom street cred" to you besides outwardly professing that I am, in fact, a Rothbardian Anarchist (albeit perhaps of a more gradualist stripe than you're comfortable with), this whole exchange seems pretty fruitless as of now. You seem to think it a foregone conclusion that my intention is to preserve institutionalized coercion, when it is in fact to steadily advance away from it.

BuddyRey,

I said what I meant, not being passive or insinuative. I am only replying to your post. And the words in your post imply (via a: statistics, and b: the process of elimination) some hesitancy against eliminating all HC regulations. I mean why else would you even introduce the separate subject of time? Not only is the time element not part of the question, but there is virtually NO chance of deregulation happening too soon or fast.

a: statistically speaking, this kind of excuse is very commonly used to disguise lack of total belief in individual liberty.
b: the process of elimination leaves no other reason for bringing up such an unrelated topic.

[idirtify]

Had to go with Most.
I can see very limited place for government regarding Fraud and in Protecting individual rights, and perhaps resolving conflicts between the states. In other words, the proper role of government.
A very limited role.

pcosmar,
Of course that’s not what I meant by “regulation”. In the context of an industry, “government regulation” doesn’t include laws against real crime and protecting civil rights. It’s only about the government intruding into business. Or are you talking about the government’s role in civil courts?

[idirtify]

Medicine costs ~10 times what it cost 50-70 years ago. Actual medical inflation is responsible for ~3.6 of that. I'll come back to the additional 6.3 in a moment, but lets look at the FDA for a second. It used to take 2 years between drug discovery and market an cost tens of thousands of dollars. Now it takes 10-12 years to get a drug approved and costs 760 Million and 1.2 Billion. These are high stakes so it encourages corruption while limiting the number of drugs that are developed. Dr. Scott Reuben, for example, faked dozens of research studies over a period of 13 years before being caught. There are others like him that have been caught and who knows how many that haven't. OK, so assuming you have a study you submit it to the FDA for them to review and if they give you a thumbs up you go to the next phase. They got involved and created this process to "keep us safe". (sound familiar?) The FDA doesn't do any studies themselves for drug approval. Here is the other slick part, the drug company doesn't have to provide their studies to the FDA. When one companies patent ran out on a drug (you've seen the ads) they created another that was close to the now generic product and OTC. This new drug was inferior, and they buried 5 studies until they finally got one that showed a slight benefit in healing after 2 months that went away in a matter of days. That is the sole basis of their claiming it's a superior product.

So anyway, the FDA makes them do all this testing "to keep us safe". Is it dong that? Back before the FDA stuck their nose into things, drug companies did enough testing so they were satisfied they wouldn't be sued. Fortunately, the FDA has saved us from bad products getting on the market, drug companies getting sued and drug recalls! Oh, wait... anyone seen ads for 1-800-BAD-DRUG or seen ling lists of drugs that have been recalled, like those 9 anti-depressants that were causing birth defects? It looks like the FDA has failed in it's basic mission and instead has bust driven up costs. It's worth noting that the cost of brand name drugs (under patent) has gone up 10% this year alone.

So what about the other 6.3 times increase? Well, insurance premium inflation vastly outpaces actual medical inflation. Most of it is here. 50-60 years ago, people just didn't have insurance for routine medical costs, only for catastrophic care and that wasn't that common. The reason is that in inflation adjusted dollars, a medical visit, including medicine cost $25. One provider I know explained that for a initial visit they were contractually required to bill out $480 for an initial visit for which they would pay him $80. For a follow up visit, he had to bill out $180 for which he would be re-reimbursed $60. If a patient didn't have insurance (subscribe to the protection racket) they had to contractually charge that person the bill out price. Quite the scam, eh? On top of this he estimates it costs him $3,000 a month doing charting. This is long and drawn out telling the patients whole life. Part of this is because of legal liability but the main reason is that the insurance company won't reimburse him if he doesn't.

Then there is malpractice insurance which is very expensive.

And we come back to Congress who banned doing most lab tests in doctors offices because a handful of mistakes had been made, and instead send them out to a private lab. A $12 in office test with instant results immediately turned into a $78 dollar test that took three days to get back. Remember the doctor needs those results to make his diagnosis... The private medical lab lobby was very happy, however.

Then there is the AMA that closed medical schools thus creating an artificial shortage of doctors that is getting worse every year.

There was a doc in NJ that was on Freedom Watch last week who was saying they were able to treat people for $13 a person. They were looking for funding to cover the malpractice insurance as that was very expensive.

If we abolish the FDA and made Insurance companies get out of selling medical insurance or at least made them stop their BS, medical costs would become very affordable very fast! Cheap enough that it could be paid for out of pocket.

-t

Excellent post. Let me add that a lot of the reason behind hefty malpractice insurance premiums is regulation itself. It reduces healthy competition in the industry and allows the fat cats to become lazy and incompetent. That’s right; regulation raises prices AND lowers quality.

[idirtify]

It looks like the results so far reveal the problem. While it shows 46 – 8 – 1 (“all”, “most”, “half”, respectively), the comments reveal that at least three who voted “all” should have voted “most”. So the real results, 42 – 12, are less encouraging. That’s 29% against the elimination of all government regulation into health care. That’s lousy! Even considering the terrible state of the health care industry today, nearly a third of people ON THIS FORUM still fear the free market more. Nearly a third still place more belief in the fallacy of government regulation than in individual liberty. Now while a poll about how many oppose Obamacare would have certainly yielded better results, it wouldn’t tell the real story. It’s easy to claim opposition to a gov policy, but things can change quickly when faced with the principle.

[pcosmar]

pcosmar,
Of course that’s not what I meant by “regulation”. In the context of an industry, “government regulation” doesn’t include laws against real crime and protecting civil rights. It’s only about the government intruding into business. Or are you talking about the government’s role in civil courts?

And hence why I chose MOST,
I would like to see government regulation and interference out of all areas of life. But can see a few and limited places where government might step up "for the general welfare".
One place would be to end the collusion of Insurance and Medical monopolies.
perhaps to place some restriction of Insurance practices that are dishonest at the core.

There are possibly other aspects that I have not really contemplated, hence "most".

[jonhowe]

Regulation of the delivery or of the payment/structure?

[oyarde]

a) all of it
b) most of it
c) about half
d) only some
e) none

(not sure how to do a poll, so bear with me.)

All federal .

[oyarde]

All of it, but preferably in a series of gradual steps taking no more than a few years altogether. I think removing 100% of all government strictures on healthcare at once would lead to a certain level of chaos for an indeterminate period before the newly freed market weeded out the influx of hucksters and charlatans that would flood the industry at first.

yes

[oyarde]

It looks like the results so far reveal the problem. While it shows 46 – 8 – 1 (“all”, “most”, “half”, respectively), the comments reveal that at least three who voted “all” should have voted “most”. So the real results, 42 – 12, are less encouraging. That’s 29% against the elimination of all government regulation into health care. That’s lousy! Even considering the terrible state of the health care industry today, nearly a third of people ON THIS FORUM still fear the free market more. Nearly a third still place more belief in the fallacy of government regulation than in individual liberty. Now while a poll about how many oppose Obamacare would have certainly yielded better results, it wouldn’t tell the real story. It’s easy to claim opposition to a gov policy, but things can change quickly when faced with the principle.

Not terrible , better results than I expected...

[johnrocks]

Besides enforcing contracts and punishing those that commit crimes such as fraud on the part of the policy holder or not paying claims for no legitimate reason....All of it.

[VBRonPaulFan]

VBRonPaulFan,
Since the question doesn’t deal with any time element or relate to “how the health industry currently works”, it appears YOU may have the less understanding. It deals with principle only. And since the industry is, as you correctly pointed out, “embedded around government intervention, regulation, and funding”, any fundamental change toward deregulation is very unlikely to happen soon or quickly (as you admit in your last comment). And Ron Paul’s position on phasing out SS slowly would not be his response to the same kind of question. I’m sure he would answer “all” to the question of “how many government welfare programs should be eliminated?

If you were dealing with principle only, you shouldn't have chastised a member for pointing out that he'd like all the regulations gone, but over time so the market could compensate. Which I pointed out as a valid concern.