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

Old July 16th, 2009 #41
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,381
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by LUX View Post
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.
Are you kidding? Our military is the worst of the lot. Niggers at least grow the economy by buying cheetos and lincolns. The military is nothing but a continual, war-initiating drain. Our military is absolutely indefensible.
 
Old July 16th, 2009 #42
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,381
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rick Ronsavelle View Post
A question for those wanting socialist medicine:

Suppose there was/is a totally non-state system. No licensing, no union monopolies, no state funding, etcetera. The system seems to be working, and offers itself to be evaluated by a panel of socialists.

The socialists issue a report. There is a range of opinions- the non-state system is evaluated as being anywhere from superb, to adequate. The lowest rank is adequate.

Even though all agree the system is, at minimum, adequate, the socialists still oppose it!

What is the basis of their opposition?
Good questions.

The problem here is twofold.

1) 50% of "white nationalists" don't realize the government brainwashing extends beyond race, and the foundational brainwashing, to which all are exposed around the clock, is the basic false axiom of governmental competence. This survives any amount of evidence, it seems.

2) the invisibility of government activity in (health care). you can't see the suffering caused by unapproved drugs, by people who never went into medicine because of low salaries/affirmative action discrimination/restrictions on who can practice medicine.

Even WN are 95% like the lemmings they deride: they literally cannot imagine what being a free man means. "Bu-bu-who will protect us from quacks?"

No imagination. No knowledge. Just fear and stupidity.
 
Old July 16th, 2009 #43
johanp203
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 18
johanp203
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alex Linder View Post
Nah, I added more. But that's all your absolutely sterotyped-socialist-stupid comments deserve.

Do some research. You're just parroting typical government brainwashing.
Verbal aggression only serves to make you look ridiculous and unstable. Relax...we are only talking about differing points of view.

You are just parroting libertarian nonsense.

I advise you research the Flexner report. Even a cursory investigation will reveal how pitifully inadequate medical training and practice was in this country compared with Europe--particularly Germany.

Libertarians have a very naive view that the somehow the best and most proficient will survive through the discernment of the market or the public. That people can still hold this view inspite of all the evidence to the contrary is astounding. Just look at the effectiveness of marketing, advertising, or fashion trends.

What do you imagine you will see on your pharmacist's shelf when medicine is deregulated?

What kind of practitioner will prosper in this new liberated medical market?
 
Old July 16th, 2009 #44
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,381
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 #45
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,381
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by johanp203 View Post
Verbal aggression only serves to make you look ridiculous and unstable. Relax...we are only talking about differing points of view.

You are just parroting libertarian nonsense.
You're just parroting nonsense disproved in hundreds of studies.

Quote:
I advise you research the Flexner report. Even a cursory investigation will reveal how pitifully inadequate medical training and practice was in this country compared with Europe--particularly Germany.
Yeah, twinky, you see how many people come to America for treatment compared to Germany.

Quote:
Libertarians have a very naive view that the somehow the best and most proficient will survive through the discernment of the market or the public. That people can still hold this view inspite of all the evidence to the contrary is astounding. Just look at the effectiveness of marketing, advertising, or fashion trends.
Who people go to for body repair is their own business. Not mine. Not the government's.


Quote:
What do you imagine you will see on your pharmacist's shelf when medicine is deregulated?
Bottles of pills at prices 1/10th of what they are now.

Quote:
What kind of practitioner will prosper in this new liberated medical market?
Whichever ones serve the market effectively. Whatever people want more of, for good or bad. Like in every industry, there will be high end solutions and low end solutions, people can pick what they want. Or they can go to faith healers or chiropractors, whatever they want. I know that's frightening to you. But that's the way White men do it.
 
Old July 16th, 2009 #46
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,381
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by johanp203 View Post
Verbal aggression only serves to make you look ridiculous and unstable. Relax...we are only talking about differing points of view.
No, it's worth killing over. I will not live with other white ants in some kind of managed farm run by a braun clown.

I don't know if you're German, but I'm American, and we absolutely do not want or need socialist management here. Only losers need the holy government making their daily decisions, not us.
 
Old July 16th, 2009 #47
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 #48
johanp203
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 18
johanp203
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alex Linder View Post
No, it's worth killing over. I will not live with other white ants in some kind of managed farm run by a braun clown.

I don't know if you're German, but I'm American, and we absolutely do not want or need socialist management here. Only losers need the holy government making their daily decisions, not us.
Relax Alex.

Have a good night.
 
Old July 16th, 2009 #49
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,381
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by johanp203 View Post
Regulating medicine to remove lethal and harmful "therapies" does not limit the freedom of men.
Yes, it does. It forces all prospective therapies to line up and be tested. This process takes forever. It's not even effective. Companies have to decide which of X number of drugs to proceed with, without knowing the results at the start. Regulation limits the number of drugs developed, let alone tested, and the fact that the drugs are tested doesn't even guarantee anything.

Quote:
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.
You're a religious nut, but like most, you don't realize. Read the side effects on any FDA approved drug. You tell where drugs with side effects of "death" are any less dangerous than an unregulated market. They're not. All government regulation does is make drugs and body repair much more unaffordable than they would be in a free market. And that government-imposed unaffordability is why poor people wait so long before getting treatment. And the socialist's solution? More government.

Body repair is like anything else - or could and should be. You buy what you want. That "system" works.

Quote:
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.
No, I'd rather pay thousands of dollars for chemotherapy, which has killed far more people than any witch doctor and is 100% FDA approved.

Here's something you don't realize: you are precisely the same, mentally, as the customer of the Haitian practitioner.
 
Old July 16th, 2009 #50
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,381
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default

[Bongo Boy's got plans for your paycheck.]

Mandatory Health Care FYOG
Posted by Manuel Lora on July 15, 2009 03:05 PM

For Your Own Good, and the good of the children (of course, it’s all about the children and various other special classes–you know which ones), King LOLbama The First, Supreme Ruler Of The State, has been pushing his “progressive” health care agenda to guarantee coverage for all.

“It’s time for us to buck up Congress, this administration, the entire federal government, to be clear that we’ve got to get this done,” he says.

And how will this noble enterprise be carried out? The usual way of course: more government:

The legislation calls for a 5.4 percent tax increase on individuals making more than $1 million a year, with a gradual tax beginning at $280,000 for individuals. Employers who don’t provide coverage would be hit with a penalty equal to 8 percent of workers’ wages, with an exemption for small businesses. Individuals who decline an offer of affordable coverage would pay 2.5 percent of their incomes as a penalty, up to the average cost of a health insurance plan.

I love the “choices” offered by the extortionist federal machinery: if you decline coverage you get taxed more. But it’s FYOG. Carry on, citizen.
 
Old July 16th, 2009 #51
Rick Ronsavelle
Senior Member
 
Rick Ronsavelle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 4,006
Rick Ronsavelle
Default

Just because regulatory agencies claim to protect the public doesn't make it so. ALL regulatory agencies are captured by special interests. ALL governments are dominated by special interests. The FDA was created by, ahem, the drug companies.

Wasn't the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 designed to "stabilize the economy"?

The American Cancer Society exists to ensure that no cure for cancer is ever developed.

Review of The Triumph of Conservatism by Gabriel Kolko (jewish marxist), showing who was really behind the progreesive regulatory movement:

By Mike Baum (Anchorage, AK USA) - See all my reviews


"In this reinterpretation of the Progressive Era, Gabriel Kolko marshalls a host of historical sources from the National Archives, the Library of Congress and other great outposts of scholarship to advance a bold thesis: that the Progressive Era was a "triumph of conservatism," the business reforms of the time having been fought for and shaped by not only the reformers but also the very business interests that were to be regulated. Kolko is a socialist, and his case is actually more radical than I have indicated. But it is his dispelling of many widely believed myths that I find the most enticing.

Take the "merger movement" at the turn of last century. It was and is popularly believed that competition was at an all-time low, monopoly an all-time high and Theodore Roosevelt's trust-busting the necessary and proper response. But Kolko proves this conventional belief false. In case studies of the big powerhouse industries of the time, he shows that, in spite of (or because of) the merger movement, they were more competitive than they had ever been. Whether the industry was steel, oil, automobiles, agricultural machinery, telephones, copper or meat-packing--Kolko's conclusion is the same: mergers, if anything, decreased companies' efficiency relative to their competitors. In the new century's first decade, the total number of competing firms in each industry grew; market shares of the dominant players, meanwhile, shrunk. As Kolko states, "There was *more* competition, and profits, if anything, declined. Most contemporary economists and many smaller businessmen failed to appreciate this fact, and historians have probably failed to recognize it altogether" (emphasis Kolko's).

The stage thus set by the failure of the merger movement, Kolko moves on to the myth that Progressive Era reforms were uniformly or even predominantly opposed by their affected industries. The key is to realize that, economic strategies like corporate consolidation having failed, companies turned to political strategies to freeze the status quo or to gain new competitive advantages. As Kolko states, "the essential purpose and goal of any measure of importance in the Progressive Era was not merely endorsed by key representatives of businesses involved; rather such bills were first proposed by them." Food companies, for example, wanted the Food and Drug Act so that they could turn its regulations against their competitors (e.g., oleo versus butter). Big meat packers desired to save their industry from tainted meat, which hurt business, but were unable to ensure the quality of small packers' meat and unwilling to pay for independent meat inspection--so they themselves initiated the meat inspection movement, lobbied for and won passage of the Meat Inspection Act, thereby forcing inspection onto the industry and its costs onto the federal government. As for the Federal Reserve Act, it was the product of a banking reform movement "initiated and sustained" by big bankers who sought to protect themselves from small bank competition. The Clayton Antitrust Act and the Federal Reserve Act? Most businessmen supported them to better protect themselves from antitrust prosecution under the Sherman Act's vague provisions or (among smaller businesses) to gain such advantages as enforced "fair trade price-fixing." Thus, Kolko shows that whether for protection from competition or from the government, businesses themselves initiated or shaped these Progressive Era reforms and others that most Americans regard as being part of an anti-business (or at least not pro-business) reform movement.

This book will fascinate students of American business and reform history. Ironically, given Kolko's philosophical disposition, even ardent pro-capitalists should relish it. That audience will likely be reminded of Burton W. Folsom's distinction, in his eye-opening *Myth of the Robber Barons*, between "market entrepreneurs" and "political entrepreneurs." Dominick Armentano's *Antitrust and Monopoly: Anatomy of a Policy Failure*, a work of heavier scholarship, may also be recalled to mind. His thesis that antitrust laws, even when not passed unequivocally to benefit special business interests, have "solved" nonexistent problems (and caused a few real ones) and should be repealed is entirely confirmed by Kolko's *Triumph of Conservatism*, which Armentano even cites in support (in addition to another of Kolko's works, on railroad regulations).

Amazon.com: Triumph of Conservatism: Gabriel Kolko: Books Amazon.com: Triumph of Conservatism: Gabriel Kolko: Books
 
Old July 16th, 2009 #52
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 July 16th, 2009 #53
Mike Parker
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 3,311
Mike Parker
Default

There's something to all this but this is not a very good argument:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rick Ronsavelle View Post
The Clayton Antitrust Act and the Federal Reserve Act? Most businessmen supported them to better protect themselves from antitrust prosecution under the Sherman Act's vague provisions or (among smaller businesses) to gain such advantages as enforced "fair trade price-fixing."
That they prefer one type of regulation to another doesn't mean they want regulation.

Quote:
Thus, Kolko shows that whether for protection from competition or from the government, businesses themselves initiated or shaped these Progressive Era reforms and others that most Americans regard as being part of an anti-business (or at least not pro-business) reform movement.
Again, two very different points. It's good business to see which way the political wind is blowing and try to make it more tolerable. IIRC that's what Wall Street did with the SEC, hence regulation of disclosure only. But that doesn't quite prove that business is the cause of the regulatory state. I'd look at the media more carefully.
 
Old July 16th, 2009 #54
Rick Ronsavelle
Senior Member
 
Rick Ronsavelle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 4,006
Rick Ronsavelle
Default

"Whether ZOG pays or the HMO pays or I pay doesn't offend my sense of personal autonomy."

May I ask why it doesn't?

Kolko's point is that regulations were/are passed by the very industries to be regulated, not by Ralph Nader types.

Regulation serves self-interest, not public interest. The answer is not better regulation, but no regulation.
 
Old July 17th, 2009 #55
T.I.
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 316
T.I.
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alex Linder View Post
It's the patient's job to determine who's the quack, relying on whatever method he prefers, just as he does with every other decision.
This INDIVIDUAL strategy worked real well protecting us against malicious, COLLECTIVE jews, didn’t it? So why shouldn’t it work just as well at protecting us from malicious, COLLECTIVE Big Pharma, right?

Quote:
In the coming White state, there will be no government involvement in health care or anything except collective defense.
What is the point of a White state if it is not concerned with the health of its people? I mean, we can all live as tiny, happy, individual atoms more or less now, so why bother.

Quote:
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.
It's not a non-point.

You deride conned-servitives for being the false opposition - yet you parrot the conned-servitive line on economics to a T. There is no difference between you and Rush on economics and “Health Care.” NONE.

Quote:
I would shoot you and everyone related to you before I'd ever be coerced into a collective with your kind.
As always, such a class act you are, Alex. The only thing you are good at shooting is yourself in the foot.

Quote:
Waah, waah, corporations, mommy! And they're making profits! By supplying people with things they choose to buy!
How many years did they “choose to buy” High Fructose Corn Syrup and Hydrogenated Oil? Or did they HAVE NO CHOICE because of malicious corporate collusion? – malicious corporate collusion which won't magically go away with the disappearance of jews.

Quote:
Green tech IS socialism, and it comes straight from the corporations you deride in typical brain-dead commie way.
Green tech is NATIONAL socialism in a WN State, which comes straight from the collective interest of Whites, which you deride in typical self-interested libertarian way.

Quote:
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.
Where does this “one function” model of govt exist in the real world? Without a legitimate, pro-active collective force imposing order in matters of real needs and functions for the people, what you are doing is creating a vacuum that will be filled by pot luck. Why should we be going to all the trouble of ousting malicious interests and then leave matters up to pot luck? Can’t we do better than that?


Quote:
Universal Health Care Isn't Worth Our Freedom

By THOMAS SZASZ
Anytime jews are pushing “our Freedom” our jewdar should be going off full blast.

Why isn’t yours, Alex?
 
Old July 20th, 2009 #56
Mike Parker
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 3,311
Mike Parker
Question

Politics

Prescription for Disaster

by Peter Schiff on July 17, 2009

The health care bill unveiled this week by the House of Representatives (with the full support of the Obama administration) is one of the worst pieces of legislation ever drafted. [Worse than the civil rights and immigration laws?] If passed, it will reduce the quality and increase the cost of health care in America. But more importantly, it will severely undermine our already weak economy. To burden a country currently in the throes of a violent recession with such a bureaucratic albatross clearly illustrates the scarcity of economic intelligence in Washington.

In the first place, specifically taxing the rich to pay for health care for the uninsured is the wrong way to think about tax policy and is an unconstitutional redistribution of wealth. While the government has the constitutional power to tax to “promote the general welfare,” it does not have the right to tax one group for the sole and specific benefit of another. If the government wishes to finance national health insurance, the burden of paying for it should fall on every American. If that were the case, perhaps Congress would think twice before passing such a monstrosity.

In the second place, the bill is just plain bad economics. For an administration that claims to want to create jobs, this bill is one of the biggest job-killers yet devised. By increasing the marginal income tax rate on high earners (an extra 5.4% on incomes above 1 million), it reduces the incentives for small business owners to expand their companies. When you combine this tax hike with the higher taxes that will kick in once the Bush tax-cuts expire, and add in the higher income taxes being imposed by several states, many business owners might simply choose not to put in the extra effort necessary to expand their businesses. Or, given the diminishing returns on their labor, they may choose to enjoy more leisure. More leisure for employers means fewer jobs for employees.

More directly, mandating insurance coverage for employees increases the cost of hiring workers. Under the terms of the bill, small businesses that do not provide insurance will be required to pay a tax as high as 8% of their payroll. Since most small businesses currently could not afford to grant 8% across-the-board pay hikes, they will have to offset these costs by reducing wages. However, for employees working at the minimum wage, the only way for employers to offset the costs would be through layoffs.

The uninsured self-employed, or those working as independent contractors, will be forced to buy insurance or pay a tax equal to 2.5% of annual income. Either choice will divert resources from more productive uses into an already out-of-control health care bureaucracy.

Sadly, the bill does nothing to restrain or alter the dynamics that have caused health care costs to spiral ever higher. In fact, the bill will intensify these pressures.

The simplest (but by no means fullest) explanation of why health care costs so much is that demand exceeds supply. Demand is a function of how much people are prepared to pay. Insuring more people will drive demand for health care services even higher. (To truly get a handle on out-of-control health care costs, we need more people paying for routine medical care out of pocket, and tort reform for medical malpractice. See my previous commentary.)

As costs continue to soar, expect additional tax hikes to fund the added expense. As these additional taxes further encumber a weak economy, the diminished tax base will yield lower total tax revenues – despite higher rates. As the politicians attempt to pass ever higher increases to make up for revenue shortfalls, a vicious cycle toward insolvency will ensue.

The worst part of the whole fiasco is trying to imagine the bureaucracy necessary to administer this plan. My guess is that the government provider will mis-price its policies on the low side, pushing employers to dump private sector insurance for the taxpayer-subsidized alternative. Such a system will further distort health care pricing and, ultimately, make a bad situation intolerable.

The enormity, complexity, and expense of this bill could well pull the rug out from what many of my cheerleading colleagues believe to be the beginning of an economic recovery. The way I see it, the economy is walking dead anyway, and this measure is the equivalent of a stake through the heart. But even if we manage to escape the grave this time, Congress is working on a few other ideas that will surely keep us buried.

http://www.takimag.com/blogs/article..._for_disaster/
 
Old July 29th, 2009 #57
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,381
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default

Socialized Healthcare vs. the Laws of Economics

by Thomas J. DiLorenzo

The government's initial step in attempting to create a government-run healthcare monopoly has been to propose a law that would eventually drive the private health insurance industry out of existence. Additional taxes and mandated costs are to be imposed on health insurance companies, while a government-run "health insurance" bureaucracy will be created, ostensibly to "compete" with the private companies. The hoped-for end result is one big government monopoly which, like all government monopolies, will operate with all the efficiency of the post office and all the charm and compassion of the IRS.

Of course, it would be difficult to compete with a rival who has all of his capital and operating costs paid out of tax dollars. Whenever government "competes" with the private sector, it makes sure that the competition is grossly unfair, piling costly regulation after regulation, and tax after tax on the private companies while exempting itself from all of them. This is why the "government-sponsored enterprises" Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were so profitable for so many years. It is also why so many abysmally performing "public" schools remain in existence for decades despite their utter failure at educating children.

America's Healthcare Future?

Some years ago, the Nobel-laureate economist Milton Friedman studied the history of healthcare supply in America. In a 1992 study published by the Hoover Institution, entitled "Input and Output in Health Care," Friedman noted that 56 percent of all hospitals in America were privately owned and for-profit in 1910. After 60 years of subsidies for government-run hospitals, the number had fallen to about 10 percent. It took decades, but by the early 1990s government had taken over almost the entire hospital industry. That small portion of the industry that remains for-profit is regulated in an extraordinarily heavy way by federal, state and local governments so that many (perhaps most) of the decisions made by hospital administrators have to do with regulatory compliance as opposed to patient/customer service in pursuit of profit. It is profit, of course, that is necessary for private-sector hospitals to have the wherewithal to pay for healthcare.

Friedman's key conclusion was that, as with all governmental bureaucratic systems, government-owned or -controlled healthcare created a situation whereby increased "inputs," such as expenditures on equipment, infrastructure, and the salaries of medical professionals, actually led to decreased "outputs" in terms of the quantity of medical care. For example, while medical expenditures rose by 224 percent from 1965–1989, the number of hospital beds per 1,000 population fell by 44 percent and the number of beds occupied declined by 15 percent. Also during this time of almost complete governmental domination of the hospital industry (1944–1989), costs per patient-day rose almost 24-fold after inflation is taken into account.

The more money that has been spent on government-run healthcare, the less healthcare we have gotten. This kind of result is generally true of all government bureaucracies because of the absence of any market feedback mechanism. Since there are no profits in an accounting sense, by definition, in government, there is no mechanism for rewarding good performance and penalizing bad performance. In fact, in all government enterprises, exactly the opposite is true: bad performance (failure to achieve ostensible goals, or satisfy "customers") is typically rewarded with larger budgets. Failure to educate children leads to more money for government schools. Failure to reduce poverty leads to larger budgets for welfare state bureaucracies. This is guaranteed to happen with healthcare socialism as well.

Costs always explode whenever the government gets involved, and governments always lie about it. In 1970 the government forecast that the hospital insurance (HI) portion of Medicare would be "only" $2.9 billion annually. Since the actual expenditures were $5.3 billion, this was a 79 percent underestimate of cost. In 1980 the government forecast $5.5 billion in HI expenditures; actual expenditures were more than four times that amount – $25.6 billion. This bureaucratic cost explosion led the government to enact 23 new taxes in the first 30 years of Medicare. (See Ron Hamoway, "The Genesis and Development of Medicare," in Roger Feldman, ed., American Health Care, Independent Institute, 2000, pp. 15–86). The Obama administration's claim that a government takeover of healthcare will somehow magically reduce costs is not to be taken seriously. Government never, ever, reduces the cost of doing anything.

All government-run healthcare monopolies, whether they are in Canada, the UK, or Cuba, experience an explosion of both cost and demand – since healthcare is "free." Socialized healthcare is not really free, of course; the true cost is merely hidden, since it is paid for by taxes.

Whenever anything has a zero explicit price associated with it, consumer demand will increase substantially, and healthcare is no exception. At the same time, bureaucratic bungling will guarantee gross inefficiencies that will get worse and worse each year. As costs get out of control and begin to embarrass those who have promised all Americans a free healthcare lunch, the politicians will do what all governments do and impose price controls, probably under some euphemism such as "global budget controls."

Price controls, or laws that force prices down below market-clearing levels (where supply and demand are coordinated), artificially stimulate the amount demanded by consumers while reducing supply by making it unprofitable to supply as much as previously. The result of increased demand and reduced supply is shortages. Non-price rationing becomes necessary. This means that government bureaucrats, not individuals and their doctors, inevitably determine who will get medical treatment and who will not, what kind of medical technology will be available, how many doctors there will be, and so forth.

All countries that have adopted socialized healthcare have suffered from the disease of price-control-induced shortages. If a Canadian, for instance, suffers third-degree burns in an automobile crash and is in need of reconstructive plastic surgery, the average waiting time for treatment is more than 19 weeks, or nearly five months. The waiting time for orthopaedic surgery is also almost five months; for neurosurgery it's three full months; and it is even more than a month for heart surgery (see The Fraser Institute publication, Waiting Your Turn: Hospital Waiting Lists in Canada). Think about that one: if your doctor discovers that your arteries are clogged, you must wait in line for more than a month, with death by heart attack an imminent possibility. That's why so many Canadians travel to the United States for healthcare.

All the major American newspapers seem to have become nothing more than cheerleaders for the Obama administration, so it is difficult to find much in the way of current stories about the debacle of nationalized healthcare in Canada. But if one goes back a few years, the information is much more plentiful. A January 16, 2000, New York Times article entitled "Full Hospitals Make Canadians Wait and Look South," by James Brooke, provided some good examples of how Canadian price controls have created serious shortage problems.

* A 58-year-old grandmother awaited open-heart surgery in a Montreal hospital hallway with 66 other patients as electric doors opened and closed all night long, bringing in drafts from sub-zero weather. She was on a five-year waiting list for her heart surgery.
* In Toronto, 23 of the city's 25 hospitals turned away ambulances in a single day because of a shortage of doctors.
* In Vancouver, ambulances have been "stacked up" for hours while heart attack victims wait in them before being properly taken care of.
* At least 1,000 Canadian doctors and many thousands of Canadian nurses have migrated to the United States to avoid price controls on their salaries.

Wrote Mr. Brooke, "Few Canadians would recommend their system as a model for export."

Canadian price-control-induced shortages also manifest themselves in scarce access to medical technology. Per capita, the United States has eight times more MRI machines, seven times more radiation therapy units for cancer treatment, six times more lithotripsy units, and three times more open-heart surgery units. There are more MRI scanners in Washington state, population five million, than in all of Canada, with a population of more than 30 million (See John Goodman and Gerald Musgrave, Patient Power).

In the UK as well – thanks to nationalization, price controls, and government rationing of healthcare – thousands of people die needlessly every year because of shortages of kidney dialysis machines, pediatric intensive care units, pacemakers, and even x-ray machines. This is America's future, if "ObamaCare" becomes a reality.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo175.html
 
Old July 29th, 2009 #58
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,381
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default

My Experiences With National Healthcare
Written by Linda Schrock Taylor
Tuesday, 28 July 2009 12:47

Obama’s castle-in-the-air, pie-in-the-sky, wish-upon-a-star health care would never, could never, and should never be appropriate for Americans. As Dr. Seuss might put it, “not in a hush, not in a rush; not even if read; not even if…Red!” ObamaCare is doomed to fail and Congressional members who support it will be the next to go. Leave. Lose elections. Be relegated to life again in the real world.
We frequently hear that Britons, Canadians, French, Swedes and others are often ill-served by their health systems. I understand their concerns and their experiences because I, myself, lived under a national health program for a year and found the experience utterly awful. Chances are that the care has grown far worse since I left it 32 years ago.

I was accepted into a masters program at the University of Manchester, England for the school year 1976-77. I sold my house, packed my bags, and “went abroad.” At that time I was a Teacher of the Deaf; Manchester was the first university to ever train teachers of the deaf; and I wanted to broaden my skill and knowledge base. Included in the out-of-country tuition costs was health coverage through the National Health system in England. I was relieved to learn that I had any kind of coverage at all, then thought no more about it. A few weeks later my nonchalance would change.

During a trip to Edinburgh, Scotland, to attend the International Festival, I walked and rewalked the Royal Mile, putting far too much stress on my vehicle-spoiled joints. Within a couple days of my return to Manchester, I was almost crippled and so went “to hospital.” Once there, I was put into a waiting room that reminded me of a picture I had seen of suffering in mental hospitals, circa 1880 or so. The “room” was about the size of a small town gymnasium, high ceiling as well, but cold and unappealing. It was full--standing room only--of people with all kinds of emergency conditions waiting endlessly to be seen by a nurse, let alone a doctor.

After hours of painful standing, I decided to ask about the holdup and walked on through the treatment doors. A nurse stopped my advance so I asked for either 1) a timely visit by a doctor or 2) the phone number for a doctor with a private practice. I received neither. The nurse shepherded me to a quiet corner where she advised me to be more patient. She explained the costs I would face if I went elsewhere. She at least found me a chair and I…waited.

The local doctors’ offices provided more shocking experiences. The service was faster but the treatments were nonexistent---unless prescriptions were all that one wanted. In fact, I do not recall ever leaving the office without a prescription, even when the decisions were highly suspect. Pills were passed out like candy. Public Pacifiers.

Appointments with a doctor were a hoot--once I learned the procedures. The first visit, however, was shocking and confusing. I had phoned to schedule an appointment then upon reporting in, I was given a 12-inch colored piece of the material used for name signs in offices. Mine happened to be red with a number cut out instead of a name. Say…34. I went to the waiting room where I joined a large group of people, all of whom were staring at a large wooden board with about 6 colored lights on it. I observed carefully so as to see what would be expected when my turn arrived. A buzzer went off, the blue light began flashing, and someone stood to ask those around him if they had blue with a number lower than his own. No one responded, so he left the room. On it went with yellow, green, orange lights flashing but then the red light flashed. Thus far, the herd had trained me well, so I stood and asked: “Does anyone have Red before number 34?” No one did, so I left the room…but that was as far as I had been trained. Someone finally noticed my confusion and told me that I must go down a long hall and report to the….RED DOOR. But of course! Dr. Red Door. Names were not important. Just procedures.

The appointments were five minutes in length and the patient sat in a chair in front of the doctor’s desk. The doctor was never the same person on a subsequent visit, except for one time when I specifically requested that I see the same doctor when I returned. I was given the appointment, but not with good humor. Later, during the winter, I could barely breathe because of bronchitis. I boldly asked the doctor if he would please listen to my lungs to check if I might have pneumonia. My request threw him quite off-guard and he abruptly said, “You ‘ave to go to ‘ospital for something like that!” I could not believe my ears and I expressed my displeasure with a “health care” system that had no graduations of care between “Speak with doctor in a bank-like setting” and “Be admitted to hospital”!

With reluctance and displeasure, he arose, dug around to find a stethoscope, and listened to my lungs. That was the only time that a national health doctor ever actually physically touched me. How very different than my wonderful internist who I had just left in Colorado.

One of my classmates tried to convince me that the financial costs outweighed the long waits and minimal care. His was an impossible “sell” for I stubbornly maintained that nothing in life is free, especially doctors and hospitals. Finally he admitted that he was taxed a minimal fee that was taken out of his paycheck each month. I happened to have my last pay stub from Colorado so I suggested that he bring one of his the next day and we compare our costs. He did, so we did. We were both single; both homeowners; both the same age; neither had dependents. My cost for Blue Cross private coverage was $18 and some odd cents per month. His tax for national health care was…$18 and odd some cents per month. The argument ended once he saw real data instead of government propaganda.

One thing that I will give to national health care is that it provides much fodder for jokers and comedians. A show similar to our Saturday Night Live held a Bed Auction for a mythical empty bed in one of Britain’s hospitals. The skit was hilarious! “I have a bid for one Measles! One Measles! Does anyone want to bid higher than that? Ah! I have a bid of One Potential Suicide! One Potential Suicide is my high bid! Going, going….wait! He jumped. Cancel the bid for the suicide. We are back to one Measles….” It was just too, too funny.

When a friend of mine gained admission to a local hospital, we were so happy for him. He did receive treatment but then his wife didn’t arrive fast enough to get him on the day he was released. Ernesto was made to move to the visitor’s chair while a new patient was put into his bed--while he sat right there! With a bit of wine, we were finally able to make jokes about that scene, as well.

But most often we felt fear for our well-being under the “care” of national health. We understood that we only had minimal control over our own bodies. During a week of study in The Netherlands, one member of our group had a bad shock; possibly even a nervous breakdown. The rest of us decided that the best way to help the person was to…hide the problem! We feared that Holland might run a similar Snake Pit for health care and that we might lose our friend into the bowels of some such system. We took turns sitting up all night with our friend; never letting the person away from our sides; laughed heartedly at the goofy “jokes” the person was telling and acting out. We worked hard to hide the affliction on the flight back to England and we had some scary moments at customs. We were worried that our friend would be nabbed by national health and be lost in some mental ward. We made it safely back to Manchester then the two nuns in our group handled the care and counseling through the Catholic Church. Whew! We made it past the health care system and into safety!

The fear was awful, even when we were young and healthy. Now we are in our 60s and 70s. When Obama says that 20 percent of the population is responsible for a huge percent of medical costs in America…it is time for our age group to realize that HE MEANS US: the older; the elder; the retired. I cringe and revisit those old fears that my friend would be snatched by the health authorities; be lost in a black hole of care. In Lois Lowry’s book, The Giver, any person unable to contribute to the society is “released”--i.e. killed, snuffed out, put to sleep…EUTHANIZED. I do not consider it farfetched to wonder if Obama, with his reassurances to save money, may not be thinking of the cost cutting solutions offered in The Giver, or in This Perfect Day by Ira Levin, or in….socialist and communist organization.

When such awfulness comes to pass, it will not be only the elderly that are “released,” but also the feeble, the retarded, the crippled, the handicapped, THE USELESS. The thought certainly gives one pause. Keep in mind that it is we who are costing the government more than we are contributing. Then it will be our children’s generations. Then it will be our grandchildren’s generation. And then it will be….

Think about it. Think about it long and hard. Are you willing to be ousted; released; murdered---for the supposed benefit of the rest of society? I, for one, am not.


Linda Schrock Taylor is a retired special education teacher; a reading specialist; former homeschooling parent; and outspoken constitutionalist. She is slowly writing her first book on remediating reading skills.

http://www.thenewamerican.com/index....nal-healthcare
 
Old July 30th, 2009 #59
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,381
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default

Get Busy!
July 28, 2009


This is a job you can all perform. It is of the utmost IMPORTANCE! We've simply got to stop the health care bill. The thousands of readers of my stuff can actually help to do this. I beg you to participate! PLEASE DO SO! Here's how:


Go to www.house.gov/tanner/blue.htm and print it. This is the list of the 51 "Blue Dog Democrats." 'Blue Dog' Democrats are Democrats who have a conservative lean, and if they all voted against Obama's health bill, this outrageous, sickening, pure socialism bill, would be defeated and America's health system possibly saved. It's plain that the blue doggers are highly suspicious or even embarrassed at Obama, and won't hesitate to vote against him to keep their constituents happy. Most of them are in conservative districts, so they need to keep us happy. Here's what the health care bill will 'provide' in only half of it's 1017 pages:


Page 22 mandates the government will audit all self insured employers.


Page 30 says there will be a government committee which will decide which treatments you get. Example: If you're over a certain age, you won't get heart or other operations, because you're too near death, if you can imagine such a thing. That's the way it works in Britain and Canada. Canadians burn up the roads coming here to save their lives. If this abortion is made law, where will they go?


Page 29 lines 4 -16, actually rations health care.


Page 42 says that the "Health Choices Commissioner," will choose what benefits you get.


Page 50 says that health care will be provided to ALL non-US Citizens, legal or otherwise.


Page 58, 195 says that the government will have access to all your finances and records, and a National Health ID card will be issued.


Page 59 says that government will have access to your bank accounts for electronic funds transfer.


Page 72 creates a 'health care exchange,' to bring private plans under government control.


Page 85 says government will regulate the benefits of private health care plans, including AARP members.


Page 95 says that various groups such as ACORN, and Americorps will be hired to sign up everyone.


Page 102 says that everyone of Medicaid age must be enrolled. No choice.


Page 127 tells doctors what they can make.


Page 145, 146 says that all part time employees and their families MUST be signed in, and employers must pay for it. (death to small businesses)


Page 167 says that anyone not having government 'approved' health care, will be taxed 2.5% of their income.


Page 170 says that non-resident aliens will be covered but not taxed for it! (you will pay)


Page 239 says that physician services for Medicaid seniors will be reduced.


Page 241, 253 says that all doctors will be paid the same, including specialists, heart surgeons, and the like, and government will set value of a doctor's time.


Page 272 rations cancer treatments; in so many words.


Page 280, 298 lets bureaucrats decide whether doctors actually know what they're doing, for all practical purposes, by deciding if return visits are needed. Need to go to a doctor twice? Ask a bureaucrat.


Page 317, 318 prohibits hospital expansions, but page 321 says exceptions can be made 'with community input.'


Page 341 says government has authority to disqualify all private health care plans and force users into government plans. (There goes the industry).


Page 354 limits enrollment of 'special needs' people.


Page 425 says government can actually plan end of life by providing 'end of life resources,' (euthanasia?) instructions on living wills, powers of attorney, what treatments you can have at end of life, which doctors can be used, etc. Mandatory.


Page 489 says government will cover marriage and family therapy (!)


Page 494-498 covers government mental health services, who gets them, and rations them.


So much for the first 500 pages. It's simply OUTRAGEOUS, and MUST BE STOPPED. All Republicans are voting against it, and if even 39 of the Blue Dog Democrats vote against it also, it is doomed. You can and must do your part not only for your own future benefit, but for America's. Please contact the Blue Dog Democrats in your state, and urge everyone you know to do so. Send this column to them. Now get busy!

http://www.coloradogold.com/archive/Get_Busy-881.html
 
Old July 30th, 2009 #60
Mike Parker
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 3,311
Mike Parker
Default

I doubt this grab bag is accurate but some of these points aren't as offensive as intended.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alex Linder View Post
Page 29 lines 4 -16, actually rations health care.
It's always rationed, whether by the market or something else. The alternative is everyone gets everything they want, at someone else's expense.

Quote:
Page 239 says that physician services for Medicaid seniors will be reduced.
I'm not sure why old people would be on Medicaid not Medicare, but by all means wield the hatchet. Medicaid is pure welfare.

Quote:
Page 241, 253 says that all doctors will be paid the same, including specialists, heart surgeons, and the like, and government will set value of a doctor's time.
I'm too lazy but someone should verify that.

Quote:
Page 272 rations cancer treatments; in so many words.
Are they rationing treatment or reimbursement? Aren't we already paying too much for people to suffer in n-stage?

Quote:
Page 317, 318 prohibits hospital expansions, but page 321 says exceptions can be made 'with community input.'
We already have too many hospital beds. We need factories.

Quote:
Page 354 limits enrollment of 'special needs' people.
The fewer retards the better.

Quote:
Page 425 says government can actually plan end of life by providing 'end of life resources,' (euthanasia?) instructions on living wills, powers of attorney, what treatments you can have at end of life, which doctors can be used, etc. Mandatory.
Interesting construction. Where's the obligatory Nazi bogeyman? But if people don't stick it out to the bitter end it's cheaper for me. I'll be happy to reciprocate when my time comes.
 
Reply

Tags
#1, health, health care, medicine

Share


Thread
Display Modes


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:43 AM.
Page generated in 0.21135 seconds.