Vanguard News Network
VNN Media
VNN Digital Library
VNN Reader Mail
VNN Broadcasts

Old June 4th, 2009 #1
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,342
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default #1 Health Care Thread: Get the Government Out of Medicine Entirely

[Great article. The kind of thing that is utterly unprintable in health care trade magazines because it is correct. White men can only be men when they aren't enslaved by the government, even if the government is White and well meaning. Part of being men means leaving people to create the arrangements they need to live the way they want to. The only job of the government is defending the race against enemies.]

A Four-Step Health-Care Solution
by Hans-Hermann Hoppe

It's true that the U.S. health care system is a mess, but this demonstrates not market but government failure. To cure the problem requires not different or more government regulations and bureaucracies, as self-serving politicians want us to believe, but the elimination of all existing government controls.

It's time to get serious about health care reform. Tax credits, vouchers, and privatization will go a long way toward decentralizing the system and removmg unnecessary burdens from business. But four additional steps must also be taken:

1. Eliminate all licensing requirements for medical schools, hospitals, pharmacies, and medical doctors and other health care personnel. Their supply would almost instantly increase, prices would fall, and a greater variety of health care services would appear on the market.

Competing voluntary accreditation agencies would take the place of compulsory government licensing--if health care providers believe that such accreditation would enhance their own reputation, and that their consumers care about reputation, and are willing to pay for it.

Because consumers would no longer be duped into believing that there is such a thing as a "national standard" of health care, they will increase their search costs and make more discriminating health care choices.

2. Eliminate all government restrictions on the production and sale of pharmaceutical products and medical devices. This means no more Food and Drug Administration, which presently hinders innovation and increases costs.

Costs and prices would fall, and a wider variety of better products would reach the market sooner. The market would force consumers to act in accordance with their own--rather than the government's--risk assessment. And competing drug and device manufacturers and sellers, to safeguard against product liability suits as much as to attract customers, would provide increasingly better product descriptions and guarantees.

3. Deregulate the health insurance industry. Private enterprise can offer insurance against events over whose outcome the insured possesses no control. One cannot insure oneself against suicide or bankruptcy, for example, because it is in one's own hands to bring these events about.

Because a person's health, or lack of it, lies increasingly within his own control, many, if not most health risks, are actually uninsurable. "Insurance" against risks whose likelihood an individual can systematically influence falls within that person's own responsibility.

All insurance, moreover, involves the pooling of individual risks. It implies that insurers pay more to some and less to others. But no one knows in advance, and with certainty, who the "winners" and "losers" will be. "Winners" and "losers" are distributed randomly, and the resulting income redistribution is unsystematic. If "winners" or "losers" could be systematically predicted, "losers" would not want to pool their risk with "winners," but with other "losers," because this would lower their insurance costs. I would not want to pool my personal accident risks with those of professional football players, for instance, but exclusively with those of people in circumstances similar to my own, at lower costs.

Because of legal restrictions on the health insurers' right of refusal--to exclude any individual risk as uninsurable--the present health-insurance system is only partly concerned with insurance. The industry cannot discriminate freely among different groups' risks.

As a result, health insurers cover a multitude of uninnsurable risks, alongside, and pooled with, genuine insurance risks. They do not discriminate among various groups of people which pose significantly different insurance risks. The industry thus runs a system of income redistribution--benefiting irresponsible actors and high-risk groups at the expense of responsible individuals and low risk groups. Accordingly the industry's prices are high and ballooning.

To deregulate the industry means to restore it to unrestricted freedom of contract: to allow a health insurer to offer any contract whatsoever, to include or exclude any risk, and to discriminate among any groups of individuals. Uninsurable risks would lose coverage, the variety of insurance policies for the remaining coverage would increase, and price differentials would reflect genuine insurance risks. On average, prices would drastically fall. And the reform would restore individual responsibility in health care.

4. Eliminate all subsidies to the sick or unhealthy. Subsidies create more of whatever is being subsidized. Subsidies for the ill and diseased breed illness and disease, and promote carelessness, indigence, and dependency. If we eliminate them, we would strengthen the will to live healthy lives and to work for a living. In the first instance, that means abolishing Medicare and Medicaid.

Only these four steps, although drastic, will restore a fully free market in medical provision. Until they are adopted, the industry will have serious problems, and so will we, its consumers.

----------

Hans-Hermann Hoppe teaches economics at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas.

http://mises.org/freemarket_detail.aspx?control=279

Last edited by Alex Linder; June 4th, 2009 at 09:47 PM.
 
Old June 4th, 2009 #2
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,342
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default

Just as Hitler said the masses are feminine, you can deduce:

most men are women.

Just as most men are women, most white men are niggers: they are wholly taken in by labels. Labels is another way of saying, the outward form or expression or appearance of things. It is the minority of whites who can see beneath the surface which gives our race its fame, but that doesn't change the fact that the majority CANNOT see beneath the surface, and so in a very real way, is intellectually akin to the West African negro toting a briefcase because he believes that makes him a businessman.

This tendency to fall for externals is what is implied in this Hoppe statement:

Because consumers would no longer be duped into believing that there is such a thing as a "national standard" of health care, they will increase their search costs and make more discriminating health care choices.

Whites are nearly as susceptible to being tricked by the labels called words as blacks.

When you combine this shallowness with earnestness and gullibility of the Germanic stock of our country, you see why political debate is nothing but shuffled stupidities. People who actually know what they're talking about don't go into politics. People who do go into politics have a millions ideas to improve your life, but all they ever amount to is taking your money. "Some of them may seem cool and different," as a woman tells her daughter about boys, "but really they're pretty much the same." So it is with politicians. They ain't gonna give you health care, they're going to tax you. They aren't going to give you education, they're going to tax you. They aren't going to give you freedom, they're going to kill you and tax you.
 
Old June 5th, 2009 #3
Nick Apleece
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 643
Nick Apleece
Default

Typical libertarian drivel. The bit about "competing drug and device manufacturers and sellers, to safeguard against product liability suits as much as to attract customers, would provide increasingly better product descriptions and guarantees" is especially laughable. No, they'd market more poison in the hope of a fast buck, then lawyer up and use their wealth to avoid the consequences of their deeds, if discovered.

The only way I can see libertarianism working is in a racially homogeneous society. Until we achieve that, implementing solutions like these will just be to our detriment as a people.
 
Old June 8th, 2009 #4
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,342
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nick Apleece View Post
Typical libertarian drivel. The bit about "competing drug and device manufacturers and sellers, to safeguard against product liability suits as much as to attract customers, would provide increasingly better product descriptions and guarantees" is especially laughable. No, they'd market more poison in the hope of a fast buck, then lawyer up and use their wealth to avoid the consequences of their deeds, if discovered.
Your reply is a perfect example of the fact that belief in the efficacy of government/regulation is every bit as religious and unfounded as the belief in Jesus. There needs to be a word for people who don't believe in government, the same was there was invented a word for those who don't believe in thing called 'god.' Anarchists is not that word.

You think business is out to poison people to make a profit, but government is out to protect people and not make a profit. You have it reversed. Your assumption has been planted in your brain since birth, through all authority and media, in precisely the same way the big lie about racial equality has. Government hurts the individual infinitely more than private corporations do. You think, without, perhaps, realizing your assumption, that regulation is a better guarantee of safe/effective products than competition. This is demonstrably false.

Quote:
The only way I can see libertarianism working is in a racially homogeneous society. Until we achieve that, implementing solutions like these will just be to our detriment as a people.
Incorrect. Hoppe's solution would be better for any society. You're not counting how much it costs to establish the regulatory apparatus, how many good drugs/products it keeps off the market, how quickly it combines with the largest companies to deny new entrants. Even with huge, tax-sucking government, private watchdog groups already do a better job than the government in getting you the real truth about products - hell, about anything. And you don't have to pay a penny in taxes for their information.

This really is the future. You can see it happening right now, WN socialist idiots (if the shoe fits wear it, otherwise I'm not talking about you): government isn't good at anything...(other shoe about to drop) it should stick to what it is good at: nothing. Nothing is government's core competency.

There are two major questions facing Whites:

1) how do we defeat the genocidal jews?

2) how do we live with ourselves politically after we eradicate the jews?

As Washington said, government is force. That should be its only function. The rest truly can be arranged privately. The revamped forum will lay out and refine the model I see as the best way for Whites to live together.

You two-digit-IQ socialists need to lift your heads up and look around. Government, across the world, is failing massively. The specific form the failure takes is jewy, of course, but that doesn't change the fact that even if jews didn't exist, the functions government undertakes today, literally all of them besides armed defense under certain circumstances (most certainly and obviously not including aggressive foreign war) are better carried out under other political arrangements. The jews have bombed out our land with big lies and bureaus. The radical and correct solution is not to replace the kike heading the FDA with a WN but to dissolve the FDA. WN socialists see white men as ants. To be a real white man, to truly save and serve our race, the white man needs his head back. And getting your head back is appealing to a lot more Americans and Europeans than WN alone. The chance to be an adult again, in a civilized land. That is what our cause offers, that is its full appeal. Not being bossed around by some two-digit socialist cronies of Leaning Tower of Pizza boy.

This approach combines the best of economic and biological law. The libertarian unearth certain facts about specific markets, but for ideological reasons, or simply out of fear, they will not touch equivalent biological discoveries. If they are content to remain mice, we needn't be. If they run from the words in their own newsletters (Ron Paul), we can meet a higher standard of courage.

Ever notice it's precisely the kind of idiot who can't spell two words in a row without making a mistake who wants the government to run everything? In his case, WN stands for White Nigger. That's not just a smear - polls have shown niggers believe the government can solve/do anything it wants. The poor dark dolts don't know anything about economics or biology, so they assume, as they are taught, that "racism" is the reason government doesn't solve the black health/education/AIDS/poverty crisis. Too many WN have precisely the same mentality. Not the slightest idea about government's limits or the source of actual weath and prosperity.
 
Old June 8th, 2009 #5
Nick Apleece
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 643
Nick Apleece
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alex Linder
Your reply is a perfect example of the fact that belief in the efficacy of government/regulation is every bit as religious and unfounded as the belief in Jesus. There needs to be a word for people who don't believe in government, the same was there was invented a word for those who don't believe in thing called 'god.' Anarchists is not that word.
I believe that both big government and mega-businesses are enemies of our people. Part of the solution lies in much smaller government, as local as possible, for reasons of accountability. Oligarchs living thousands of miles from the common folk they screw (under color of law) feel untouchable. A local politician, whose kids go to school with yours, who buys his groceries at the same store as his constituents? He has to make sure he doesn't piss people off too badly.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alex Linder
You think business is out to poison people to make a profit, but government is out to protect people and not make a profit. You have it reversed. Your assumption has been planted in your brain since birth, through all authority and media, in precisely the same way the big lie about racial equality has. Government hurts the individual infinitely more than private corporations do. You think, without, perhaps, realizing your assumption, that regulation is a better guarantee of safe/effective products than competition. This is demonstrably false.
Government hurts us more than private corporations? They are two sides of the same Jewish coin, working hand in hand to destroy the White race. Usurious bankers, pharmaceutical companies pumping out poisons (always coming out with "maintenance" drugs instead of looking for cures), and of course the vast majority of media with their multitude of anti-White perfidies. A list including every large corporation culpable of significant anti-White behavior would be a long one.

Hoppe's solution would not be better for all societies. In an all-White society, sure. Why no other? Because Big Jew is the mouthpiece. Would an expose equivalent to Upton Sinclair's "The Jungle" be published today? Only if it didn't conflict with the interests of Big Jew. In a libertarian system, the average White man is absolutely going to get screwed by the fatcats, unless that system is totally free of kikes and other non-Whites. Even then, if unrestricted capitalism is practiced, we end up with entities like Wal-Mart. How is that good for our people?

I don't have all the answers, but two things I endorse are the complete removal of Jews and non-Whites from our lands, and implementing an economy based neither on pure capitalism nor pure socialism. A Third Way. Think Small. I favor Distributism, or something akin to it. With a Distributist system, ensuring product quality would be in the self-interest of respective guilds. The regional Doctor/Health Practitioner Guild would have an interest in not using bad medicines and techniques, for example, because it would negatively affect their customer base, who also happen to be their neighbors. Watchdog groups and media would have a place here, too.
 
Old June 8th, 2009 #6
Kievsky
Senior Member
 
Kievsky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 4,229
Kievsky
Default

This particular quote is so true:

Quote:
4. Eliminate all subsidies to the sick or unhealthy. Subsidies create more of whatever is being subsidized. Subsidies for the ill and diseased breed illness and disease, and promote carelessness, indigence, and dependency. If we eliminate them, we would strengthen the will to live healthy lives and to work for a living. In the first instance, that means abolishing Medicare and Medicaid.
The minute you can show yourself to be "sick" in some way, you can get a raft of subsidies and all this pressure to work your ass off to support yourself is suddenly taken off. I don't blame the people who accept the subsidies -- it makes perfect sense for them.

It's just like "special ed" versus "gifted programs." Special ed gets lavishly funded, while "gifted" kids are on their own. Maybe that's not a bad thing. I don't know. But the USA certainly rewards dysfunction and punishes excellence.
__________________
Godzilla mit uns!
http://mindweaponsinragnarok.wordpress.com
 
Old June 28th, 2009 #7
T.I.
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 316
T.I.
Default

Good grief, Alex, you are sounding an awful lot like this guy: http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/today.guest.html



Quote:
Originally Posted by Alex Linder View Post
Nothing is government's core competency.

There are two major questions facing Whites:

1) how do we defeat the genocidal jews?
How do you intend that we defeat the jews as individuals?

Quote:
2) how do we live with ourselves politically after we eradicate the jews?
Without a healthy government’s intervention, how do you intend that we improve and elevate our lives with competing corporations whose bottom line will continue to be profit? How do we do so with competing politicians whose bottom line will continue to be special-interest and self-interest?

Socialism has become just another label to deaden thought and discussion - and that’s exactly how you use it, Alex. The same way the corporate-shill jewsmedia whores like Rush ridicule Global Warming to make it impossible for listeners/readers to “see beneath the surface” for viable Green Tech, pro-Aryan alternatives.

Now why are you doing that?


Quote:
Hard-line conservatives with little grasp of economics refer to anything they don’t like – Hillary, national health care, regulation of anything if it might cost them money – as “socialist.” It’s a utility pejorative, devoid of meaning, as “racist” and “elitist” are for political south-paws.
And he means you, Alex, with the little grasp of economics.


The future of White People is in collectivism. Hitler realized this too late. Yockey wrote the definitive spiritual tome on Pan-Aryanism 60 years ago. The raison d’être of WN IS the health care of its people, along with protecting the race from its enemies – including those White predatory judeo-capitalists who have been bleeding us dry in business and medicine for the last 50 years, and would continue to do so even were the jews to be disappeared tomorrow.


Quote:
In light of the above realities, it is understandable that many citizens are furious over the state of the U.S. health care system. But how can any adult possibly think that the federal government will help with any of these shortcomings?

Quote:
government isn't good at anything
Really now? When it comes to health care, how can our government do any worse?

http://www8.nationalacademies.org/on...RecordID=11623

http://www.globalhealth.org/news/article/204
 
Old June 28th, 2009 #8
LUX
Genetically Wealthy
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 623
LUX
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Irishman View Post
The future of White People is in collectivism. Hitler realized this too late.
Working as a collective to defend our genes and living space will allow free White Men to be innovative and productive individuals.

Very little of our present system, excluding perhaps our military, is worth preserving.

Once a few military leaders (perhaps merely one submarine commander) start seeing things the VNN way . . . then it will get interesting.
__________________
". . . the Jews are irreligious, atheistic, immoral bunch of bastards." "...generally speaking, you can't trust the bastards. They turn on us."- Richard Nixon
black African Americans Asian Hispanic Black Katrina Blacks African-American Jew Negro Bush Negroes
 
Old July 15th, 2009 #9
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,342
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Irishman View Post
Good grief, Alex, you are sounding an awful lot like this guy: http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/today.guest.html

This thread is about health care. Not about the rest of government. There won't be any non-whites or jews in the coming white nation. So stop bringing that point up. I've written this out 100x, and I'm not repeating it, and the next one who raises non-points is in the tard hopper.
 
Old July 15th, 2009 #10
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,342
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default

Quote:
The future of White People is in collectivism. Hitler realized this too late.
I would shoot you and everyone related to you before I'd ever be coerced into a collective with your kind.
 
Old July 15th, 2009 #11
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,342
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default

Quote:
Without a healthy government’s intervention, how do you intend that we improve and elevate our lives with competing corporations whose bottom line will continue to be profit? How do we do so with competing politicians whose bottom line will continue to be special-interest and self-interest?
Waah, waah, corporations, mommy! And they're making profits! By supplying people with things they choose to buy! (Hides behind mommy's skirts.)

Quote:
Socialism has become just another label to deaden thought and discussion - and that’s exactly how you use it, Alex. The same way the corporate-shill jewsmedia whores like Rush ridicule Global Warming to make it impossible for listeners/readers to “see beneath the surface” for viable Green Tech, pro-Aryan alternatives.
Green tech IS socialism, and it comes straight from the corporations you deride in typical brain-dead commie way.


Quote:
And he means you, Alex, with the little grasp of economics.
Nah, dog, that's you with zero grasp. You've really got the top wisdom out of 1850. Evil Corporations, oooh.

Quote:
The future of White People is in collectivism. Hitler realized this too late. Yockey wrote the definitive spiritual tome on Pan-Aryanism 60 years ago. The raison d’être of WN IS the health care of its people, along with protecting the race from its enemies – including those White predatory judeo-capitalists who have been bleeding us dry in business and medicine for the last 50 years, and would continue to do so even were the jews to be disappeared tomorrow.
The White government will not be involved in body repair. That's a private matter. White men are able to make White arrangements.
 
Old June 13th, 2009 #12
Mike Parker
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 3,311
Mike Parker
Default

This is drivel of an especially dogmatic and utopian variety. The Aryan doesn't worship markets any more than we should worship the working class or Jesus Christ. For instance:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alex Linder View Post
Competing voluntary accreditation agencies would take the place of compulsory government licensing--if health care providers believe that such accreditation would enhance their own reputation, and that their consumers care about reputation, and are willing to pay for it.
I wonder whether they would be any more effective than the competing bond rating agencies of recent years.

I do like some of Ron Paul's ideas, taken in moderation. IMO, apart from truly catastrophic events, the norm should be that when you go to the doctor you pay entirely out of pocket. The doctor would then have to set his fees so as to be reasonably affordable out of pocket to most people in his area. Now the doctor will rightly object that those fees won't permit him to repay 8 years' worth of student loans or afford a million dollar house. But those are other things that need to be rationalized as well.
 
Old June 13th, 2009 #13
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,342
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike Parker View Post
This is drivel of an especially dogmatic and utopian variety. The Aryan doesn't worship markets any more than we should worship the working class or Jesus Christ. For instance:
I said the market should be constrained racially. That's not worship. I also said it has been demonstrated in very many specific instances that the market works better than government. Again, demonstration is the opposite of worship. Jesus and prayer never solve anything. Government makes everything worse. The market actually works. No faith involved.

Quote:
I do like some of Ron Paul's ideas, taken in moderation. IMO, apart from truly catastrophic events, the norm should be that when you go to the doctor you pay entirely out of pocket. The doctor would then have to set his fees so as to be reasonably affordable out of pocket to most people in his area. Now the doctor will rightly object that those fees won't permit him to repay 8 years' worth of student loans or afford a million dollar house. But those are other things that need to be rationalized as well.
The government is remarkably like the jew in that the farther you dig into why something is so #@$^#$^#$^ expensive, you find the cause is some stupid rule or regulation. Every single aspect of 'health care' is regulated out the ass, all of these regulations heap cost where there needn't be any. If you let the man (patient) be a man, and choose who can heal him, and get rid of the various accrediting/safety agencies, boom, the high cost disappears too. And in fact the risk is no greater. It is an illusion that governmen agencies make things safer or guarantee performance. From cars to medicine to defense, the government does the opposite of what is good, honorable and cost-effective. What Whites should realize is...we don't need government. It is as obsolete as a nigger in a cotton field.
 
Old June 13th, 2009 #14
Wakena
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 281
Wakena
Default

This has become very muddled. The regulating agencies and so on are private agencies funded by a Government who creates debt. What we have today ins an oligarchy of money, not a government of the majority, not representation for what is best for people, not even a government, and even the money is becoming worthless. Until the economic system changes, nothing changes. We already lack “government.” As lack of border regulation confirms. A good place to start would be to actually define Government and Socialism.

Socialism applies to every society everywhere at all times, it simply is the method in which people allocate their resources. That the methods are different here and there is irrelevant it is socialism, it is still a form of Socialism. The duty of the “government” of the people first is protection, and this protection includes the protection of the citizenry against financial exploitation for which the American government has failed miserably. This form of so called “democratic” government can go away, but that people would not naturally organize into another form of socialism, allocating resources, with persons expected to protect and defend them – a form of “government” just goes against natural way people organize themselves..
 
Old June 14th, 2009 #15
Mike Parker
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 3,311
Mike Parker
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alex Linder View Post
I also said it has been demonstrated in very many specific instances that the market works better than government.
Yes, just not those instances discussed in the article, which is entirely speculative. (Libertarianism is strongly anti-empirical like other Jewish intellectual movements.) How do we know people will choose those who can actually heal them, and not witch doctors and snake oil salesman? We do know white folk can be pretty gullible. And when the author raises the mantra of privatization, there is general experience, and I'll be generous and call it mixed.

Quote:
The government is remarkably like the jew in that the farther you dig into why something is so #@$^#$^#$^ expensive, you find the cause is some stupid rule or regulation.
The main reason why health care is so expensive is the very fact of widespread insurance (partly caused by the tax code). But rather than restrict that directly, the author seeks to deregulate it entirely and drugs as well. That naturally raises the matter of the libertarian's motives. Is he really interested in what's good for consumers, or in ways the insurance and drug companies can make even more profits for the benefit of financial speculators?
 
Old June 27th, 2009 #16
johanp203
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 18
johanp203
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alex Linder View Post
I said the market should be constrained racially. That's not worship. I also said it has been demonstrated in very many specific instances that the market works better than government. Again, demonstration is the opposite of worship. Jesus and prayer never solve anything. Government makes everything worse. The market actually works. No faith involved.



The government is remarkably like the jew in that the farther you dig into why something is so #@$^#$^#$^ expensive, you find the cause is some stupid rule or regulation. Every single aspect of 'health care' is regulated out the ass, all of these regulations heap cost where there needn't be any. If you let the man (patient) be a man, and choose who can heal him, and get rid of the various accrediting/safety agencies, boom, the high cost disappears too. And in fact the risk is no greater. It is an illusion that governmen agencies make things safer or guarantee performance. From cars to medicine to defense, the government does the opposite of what is good, honorable and cost-effective. What Whites should realize is...we don't need government. It is as obsolete as a nigger in a cotton field.
Alex,

The problem isn't "government". Governement is not intrinsically good or bad. It is what government rewards and what purposes it serves that make it so.

The libertarian solution that you are championing disregards the complexity of medicine which can not (should not) be sold to the people like competing brands of soft drinks. Even professionals in complementary fields like surgery and medical oncology can not agree on treatment decisions in many cases, let alone the general public.

What we need to remember is what medicine was like before the Flexner report and the regulation of medical practice. It was essentially quackery on a large scale. The fast talking, hand-holding, advertisement savvy, warm fuzzy family physician holding a diploma from some online diploma-mill medical school sure to arise in such a deregulated environment will be sure to garner more patients than honest practitioners.

No American would be well-served by the massive deregulation you seem to favor.
 
Old July 15th, 2009 #17
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,342
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by johanp203 View Post
Alex,

The problem isn't "government". Governement is not intrinsically good or bad. It is what government rewards and what purposes it serves that make it so.
No, goverment is bad. It is inevitably corrupt. That doesn't mean it can be avoided, yet. Or even limited. But if it can be, we should do it. We do that in the coming white state by limiting it to one function.

Quote:
The libertarian solution that you are championing disregards the complexity of medicine which can not (should not) be sold to the people like competing brands of soft drinks. Even professionals in complementary fields like surgery and medical oncology can not agree on treatment decisions in many cases, let alone the general public.
Yes. That is an argument against your position. Let the guy whose body is being repaired make the choice. Just as he does in every other area. There is no argument to which you couldn't reply it's "too complex" for the man, again, MAN, to decide on his own. He needs a burocrat appointed by Teddy Kennedy to MAKE THE CHOICE FOR HIM.

You'd make a good slave, the best of all, in fact, because the concept of what it means to be a free man never even enters your head. If surgeons themselves can't even agree, then how useful are they? Your view is that the god-on-earth from the government will step in any make the right decision. Yes, the people who bring us the trillion dollar deficit - they are the most competent to make those "complex" decisions, certainly not the poor sap being operated on. Belief in expertise is the mark of the little man, and belief in government is the mark of the slave.

Quote:
What we need to remember is what medicine was like before the Flexner report and the regulation of medical practice. It was essentially quackery on a large scale.
Yeah, there was so much more heart disease and diabetes and premature death than there is now. Oh wait. There was almost none of that. You're blaming an industry for being in a primitive stage of development. That's not it's fault, that's the natural path anything new takes. And the facts, not opinions, the fact is that government retarded medical development rather than spurred it.

Quote:
The fast talking, hand-holding, advertisement savvy, warm fuzzy family physician holding a diploma from some online diploma-mill medical school sure to arise in such a deregulated environment will be sure to garner more patients than honest practitioners.

No American would be well-served by the massive deregulation you seem to favor.
Yeah, they'd be better served by the massive overregulation of every single aspect of health care that we have now.

The belief in regulation is even stupider and more unfounded than the belief in Jesus.
 
Old July 16th, 2009 #18
johanp203
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 18
johanp203
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alex Linder View Post
No, goverment is bad. It is inevitably corrupt. That doesn't mean it can be avoided, yet. Or even limited. But if it can be, we should do it. We do that in the coming white state by limiting it to one function.



Yes. That is an argument against your position. Let the guy whose body is being repaired make the choice. Just as he does in every other area. There is no argument to which you couldn't reply it's "too complex" for the man, again, MAN, to decide on his own. He needs a burocrat appointed by Teddy Kennedy to MAKE THE CHOICE FOR HIM.

You'd make a good slave, the best of all, in fact, because the concept of what it means to be a free man never even enters your head. If surgeons themselves can't even agree, then how useful are they? Your view is that the god-on-earth from the government will step in any make the right decision. Yes, the people who bring us the trillion dollar deficit - they are the most competent to make those "complex" decisions, certainly not the poor sap being operated on. Belief in expertise is the mark of the little man, and belief in government is the mark of the slave.



Yeah, there was so much more heart disease and diabetes and premature death than there is now. Oh wait. There was almost none of that. You're blaming an industry for being in a primitive stage of development. That's not it's fault, that's the natural path anything new takes. And the facts, not opinions, the fact is that government retarded medical development rather than spurred it.



Yeah, they'd be better served by the massive overregulation of every single aspect of health care that we have now.

The belief in regulation is even stupider and more unfounded than the belief in Jesus.


Alex,

Your rhetoric is excellent but your reasoning is faulty.

Regulating medicine to remove lethal and harmful "therapies" does not limit the freedom of men.

You can still choose what therapy or if you want any therapy at all. The false choices--the ones that are known to be fraudulent--are the only ones that a physician can not in good conscience offer you.

But if you insist, you can go to Haiti where a witch doctor can cast a spell or offer you some emolument with magical properties.
 
Old July 16th, 2009 #19
Mike Parker
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 3,311
Mike Parker
Default

Unlike Szasz (and Alex), I don't see this as an issue of freedom. Whether ZOG pays or the HMO pays or I pay doesn't offend my sense of personal autonomy. I'm interested in the all in cost, particularly as the tax code pushes it onto employers. Buchanan talked about GM being the largest health care company in the US. They then use health costs as a reason to ship good jobs overseas. At the root of the obscene costs are Szasz's points: not all people are equal, and not all diseases are equal.

BTW, does anyone know how health care became the dominant domestic political issue? While differing on details, the Republicans (in their typical way) don't really contest that point. My guess is it all had to do with DLC "centrism" wherein the Democrats split from the unions and became the second party of Wall Street (and Silicon Valley). They still needed some white votes to supplement their minority and fag constituencies. They needed a populist issue and this be it.
 
Old June 14th, 2009 #20
odin
Nuthin' But Luv, Baby
 
odin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 4,978
odin
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hans-Hermann Hoppe
1. Eliminate all licensing requirements for medical schools, hospitals, pharmacies, and medical doctors and other health care personnel. Their supply would almost instantly increase, prices would fall, and a greater variety of health care services would appear on the market.
This is just stupid. As if there aren't enough witch doctors already pushing their useless pablum on the moronic masses.

Quote:
2. Eliminate all government restrictions on the production and sale of pharmaceutical products and medical devices. This means no more Food and Drug Administration, which presently hinders innovation and increases costs.
The FDA kept Thalidomide out of the US.

Quote:
3. Deregulate the health insurance industry. Private enterprise can offer insurance against events over whose outcome the insured possesses no control. One cannot insure oneself against suicide or bankruptcy, for example, because it is in one's own hands to bring these events about.

Because a person's health, or lack of it, lies increasingly within his own control, many, if not most health risks, are actually uninsurable. "Insurance" against risks whose likelihood an individual can systematically influence falls within that person's own responsibility.
Ridiculous. Anything could thus be said to be within a person's "own responsibility" and all claims thereby denied. Hans clearly doesn't understand even the fundamentals of insurance.
 
Reply

Tags
#1, health, health care, medicine

Share


Thread
Display Modes


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:19 AM.
Page generated in 0.22143 seconds.