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: 45,375
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: 45,375
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: 45,375
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 8th, 2009 #7
Curious
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 2,109
Default

If you want to say f... you against the government, a good idea is no longer notice the government of a new birth. This way you create invisible people.

Last edited by Curious; June 8th, 2009 at 07:08 AM. Reason: inform=>notice; better English
 
Old June 13th, 2009 #8
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 #9
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,375
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 #10
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 #11
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 14th, 2009 #12
odin
Nuthin' But Luv, Baby
 
odin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 4,992
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.
 
Old June 14th, 2009 #13
Oy Ze Hate
We're the Good Guys
 
Oy Ze Hate's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Pediatric Burn Unit
Posts: 4,776
Oy Ze Hate
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kievsky View Post
This particular quote is so true:



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.
No child left behind roughly translates from pc jewspeak to no white boys get ahead. The jews need and work to create a society of unthinking idiots because the society they design is tailored toward unthinking idiots. I'm not sure that makes sense but what I'm driving at is these epidemics of dysfunctional families, obese people, dumb kids; all of it by design.

Jewish society (ZOG) is gut-wrenching stupid and their society creates morons and dysfunction because it has to. I mean, take the Holocaust. The slightest investigation on Google will quickly show a reasonable man that the whole thing is a giant scam. But few Americans seem to care even enough to google Holocaust + hoax.

Second result:


What does it say about our jewed society that people won't even take the time to question the jews' propaganda ace in the hole? If the myth called the Holocaust fell apart in the eyes of society, what would the jews suddenly appear to be?

I don't know, sort of rambling around here. It's just that the stupidity and apathy of most people is stunning.
 
Old June 14th, 2009 #14
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,375
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default

[Totally wrong on thalidomide above, you're just repeating government lies. I'll print the facts next time I come across them.]

Confessions of a 'Public Servant'

by Mr. X

You're looking for a job. You want to get paid several times your worth, come and go when you please, work only when you feel like it, take as long a lunch as you want, and get ten paid holidays per year and six weeks paid vacation per year. There's only one way to go: work for the federal government.

Few Americans, I'm afraid, have any idea, what it's like. If they did, there would be a political earthquake. As a member of the Parasitic Class for 15 years, I have witnessed and participated in this corrupt and grotesquely unfair system first hand. I am both qualified and morally obligated to expose it.

You could, of course, call me a hypocrite. I have prospered financially beyond my wildest dreams. Given my talents and work, my standard of living is higher than anything I could earn in the private sector.

But by reading the right books, and talking at length with my wife (a private-sector employee) and our friends in the private sector, I have come to see this repugnant system for what it's worth.

What draws people to government work? What keeps them there for a lifetime? It's simple: overcompensation, huge benefits, and great working conditions. It's attractive to sign up and nearly impossible to leave. That's because the government, by and large, rewards skills and experience that are unmarketable in the private sector, at least not at the same level of pay.

Take me for example. I have a degree in political science. I write, edit, and research. The taxpayers pay me approximately $65,000 in salary, excluding benefits. I could not legally earn this in the private sector. If you don't believe me, peruse the want ads. Salaries for "writer/editor" and "research analyst" start in the low $20s.

Let's say I took a job in the private sector (presuming that someone would hire a person who has spent his whole adult life working for the government). And let's pretend I can earn $65,000.

What would I lose if I left the government? The short work week would be out the window. I could take off early, but this would be detrimental to my income. I would have to meet deadlines, because consumers want jobs done in a timely manner.

$20 $18



I would have to forget about ten paid holidays. People in the private sector have a hard time getting paid on Thanksgiving. My private-sector friends laugh at me when I tell them I get paid for such bogus holidays as Presidents Day, Martin Luther King Day, and Columbus Day.

And vacations? Right now, I can spend 8.7% of my work time on vacation. That's six weeks per year in perpetuity. The average vacation time in the private sector is two weeks, and it's not an entitlement.

I could also forget about the unofficial "bennies": for example, I take an hour-long jog every day, followed by a shower and a leisurely lunch. It keeps me in tip-top condition for my vacations. And shopping excursions during work are always possible. What about stress? If relaxation lengthened life, bureaucrats would live to be 150 years old.

Every few years, a big-shot commission bemoans the disparity between public and private sector work. It invariably concludes that bureaucrats need much higher salaries and more benefits. Nonsense. If bureaucrats were paid according to their net value to society, the result would be mass exodus and the federal government would have to shut down.

For anyone versed in free-market economics, the reasons for all this taxpayer abuse are obvious. Unlike the private sector, the government is not subject to the rigors of the profit and loss system. The government can tax, print, and borrow money to meet its obligations. It can pay millions of people salaries absurdly out of proportion, and not be outcompeted.

Lacking the discipline imposed by the market, the government cannot be efficient by private-sector standards. It will never terminate or scale back unnecessary functions on its own. So long as people are tricked into thinking that government employees are sacrificing anything for the public good, politicians won't feel pressure to end it.

I have begun in earnest to look for employment in the private sector. I have to take a huge salary cut and give up those generous "bennies," but I will at least then contribute something to society. And at least I'll be able to live with myself.

June 15, 2009

Mr. X "works" for the federal government.
 
Old June 15th, 2009 #15
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,375
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default

Sadism Is Sexual

by Fred Reed

I’ve been reading the news again. It’s great fun, like watching an EEG trace as it…slowly…flat-lines. Reading a newspaper increasingly reminds me of watching a leper to see which finger falls off next. You can make bets.

In the news I find more on torture. I’m so proud. Home of the brave, land of the free, though we may pull your fingernails out. What nobody talks about is where we get our torturers. I mean, is it a rating, like Radioman First Class? Do recruiters offer it? What civilian applications do they see when an eager young Torquemada leaves the military? Local police?

The question of recruiting is fascinating. How much would you have to be paid to crush knees with a sledge hammer? Where do they find these guys? The boss at Langley presumably doesn’t just walk through the office saying, “Hey, we need someone TDY for Guantanamo to crush genitals. Sally, you up for it? Bill? You get overseas pay and it looks good on your résumé.”

Or does he? The military didn’t have any trouble getting those girl soldiers at Abu Ghraib into it. Ooooh! King-ky!

Sadism is sexual. People don’t do it who don’t like it. We’re not talking fun and games among suburban S&M hobbyists who like to spank each other. Don’t even think about what goes on in Saudi prisons in league with the American military. Do our twisted patriots spend a few hours breaking some poor kid’s mind and then rush into an adjoining room to masturbate? Do they swap techniques?

Next, I see that some guy named Ahmadinnerjacket claims he has been elected Prez of Iran again. It seems that he is being threatened by the Prime Minister of Israel, who for some time I believed to be named Bibi Nut-and-Yahoo. This struck me as unusually candid. Why don’t I care? Sounds like a personal problem. If they nuked each other, the planet would be so much quieter.

Meanwhile North Korea threatens South Korea with nuclear war, and the US pledges noisily to defend the South at all costs. Why? The South has lots more population and industry than does the North. If South Korea wants to defend itself, it can. If it doesn’t want to, I don’t care. I’m not Seoul’s mother.

When you enlist in the military you pledge to defend the Constitution. Is it in Korea? I didn’t pay much attention in high-school civics.

Next, I see that the US has killed thirteen more civilians with drone strikes in Afghanistan. Lovely. What fun. I picture some wet-lipped CIA psychopath goobering at his screen in search of someone to blow up. It’s a cinch they don’t know who they are aiming at. The CIA has never been very good at intelligence, but it doesn’t matter. It’s the spirit of the thing. Besides, Afghans breed like flies. If you splatter one kid with a really neat drone, got buttons, got knobs, they can beget another.

Next, California is broke. Good. They deserve it. It’s not as if bankruptcy were an act of God, like getting hit on the head by a giant meteor. It was deliberate stupidity. Spend more than you make, and you end up on the street. I’m supposed to feel sorry for that? I’ve known roundworms with better sense. As I understand it, the Democrats refuse to cut spending and the Republicans refuse to raise taxes. See? A lobotomy in two-part harmony. Sounds like the whole country.

Next, I see that Precedent O’Bama wants to take on the pharmaceutical companies to lower the price of prescriptions. The subhead alleged that important congressmen have “ties to the industry,” as if this were somehow not right or normal.

OK, a brief excursion into cosmic truth. First, socialism. 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. Socialism is of course a system in which the government owns the means of production. Check your dictionary.

Ah! But in America, the means of production own the government. Inverted socialism it is. Here is a far better thing. If you are a means of production, anyway.

Example: Bausch & Lomb makes ophthalmic salt water, useful in treating corneal edema, under the trade name “Muro.” In the Yankee Capital, it costs $23 for 1.8 ounces; in Wincherster, Va., $19; in Farmacias Guadalajara, about $6. The identical product. The generic here, Hipoton, comes in at about $3.

You could call it price-fixing, but I prefer to think of it as governmental regulation of prices. It is perfectly legal, because Big Pharma owns the government.

I believe that Econ textbooks say that price controls haven’t worked from Diocletian on. Wrong. They work splendidly. Ask Bausch & Lomb. If you could make over twenty-two bucks on a dime’s worth of salt water, wouldn’t you be in favor of governmental interference in the economy?

Let me explain medicine briefly. It’s an unholy scam. Here in Mexico my wife occasionally gets ear infections. At any pharmacy, we pick up Amoxicillin, 250mg three times a day for ten days. Six bucks.

Recently we were staying in Maryland with friends, and she got an ear ache. Amoxicillin is by prescription only in the US, which means that doctors have a monopoly on ear aches. It was Friday evening. It was either agony until Monday or go to one of those mall-based walk-in clinics, which wanted $150 for the appointment and prescribed $78 in medicines.

It’s a scam, pure and simple. Above the level of county government, the US is as corrupt as Mexico could ever be, and it’s mostly legal. Yes, I know all the who-struck-John from doctors about engendering resistant bugs. Funny. Any pharmacist in Thailand will tell you the same thing a US doctor will – Amoxicillin, take all ten days’ worth, etc. Scam.

Finally, I find that Northrop has “unveiled” an unmanned fighter, the X-47 I think. (“Unveiled” is a curious word, suggesting a blushing virgin.) Again, it’s inverse socialism. America has no military enemies and the country is going broke, but the means of production own the government, and so we’ll get the thing at some huge cost. Northrop is picking the pocket of the corpse as it begins to decompose. Reminds me of Wall Street. Government by looters.

Aaagh!
 
Old June 15th, 2009 #16
Mike Parker
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 3,311
Mike Parker
Smile Once a government employee...

Great stuff, I always enjoy other people's career frustrations.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alex Linder View Post
What draws people to government work? What keeps them there for a lifetime? It's simple: overcompensation, huge benefits, and great working conditions. It's attractive to sign up and nearly impossible to leave. That's because the government, by and large, rewards skills and experience that are unmarketable in the private sector, at least not at the same level of pay.
He's making two different arguments here: they stay because they think it's so great, and they can't get out because nobody else will have them. I'm pretty sure it's not the former; Mr. X sounds like a guy who does a lot of grousing with his colleagues in all their spare time. As for the latter, yes, something like a "program analyst" is of little use to the private sector. OTOH, there are people in regulatory agencies with inside knowledge and contacts who are highly marketable, and make lots more money when they jump. It helps to have a plan.

Quote:
It can pay millions of people salaries absurdly out of proportion, and not be outcompeted.
That's even more true of the bulge bracket investment banks.

Quote:
So long as people are tricked into thinking that government employees are sacrificing anything for the public good, politicians won't feel pressure to end it.
Who believes that? It sounds like a throwaway line in an Obama commencement speech. Most people know the truth: in the Kwa which is all about making and spending money, government is the employer of last resort, and winds up with the dregs of the labor market. But traditionally it was quite the opposite in Prussia and even in England.

Quote:
I have begun in earnest to look for employment in the private sector.
How earnest, really? Think of all the resumes that could have been sent out and all the networking that could have been done in the time it took to write that piece.

Quote:
And at least I'll be able to live with myself.
Not so fast. A corporation isn't there for your moral rejuvenation. And while a wry malcontent can last 15 years with ZOG, he'd be shown the door within a couple of weeks in the private sector. At the least, don't burn any bridges.
 
Old June 26th, 2009 #17
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,375
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default

Quote:
Most people know the truth: in the Kwa which is all about making and spending money, government is the employer of last resort, and winds up with the dregs of the labor market.
You need to open your eyes and look around. People in a small town will apply hundreds of time over to get Post Office jobs, which pay 2-3x the going rate and offer benefits you'd never get privately. Same thing on the upper end too. Departments like the EPA are filled with lawyers making six figures doing very little work. Government now soaks up 50% of the economy, and its health benefits alone are better than all but a tiny percentage of private companies can afford to offer.
 
Old June 26th, 2009 #18
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,375
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default

Government Medicine

by Bob Murphy

To listen to the mainstream media explain things, now that the feds have dealt with the recession, reformed the banking sector, and come up with a plan to fight global warming, it’s time for the politicians in D.C. to fix the health care system. In reality, the Obama administration so far has given us "solutions" that will only make the original problems worse. Their plans to expand government involvement in health care will likewise fail.

Two of the main complaints over health care are the rising costs and the hassles of obtaining service. Insurance premiums continue rising, placing insurance out of reach for many households. On the other hand, those with insurance must grapple with doctors and treatments that are "in plan" or "out of network," and they have to keep track of a bewildering set of rules governing health savings accounts, co-pays, and deductibles.

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?

Let’s take the issue of rising costs. Is there a single government program in U.S. history that achieved falling costs? Look at higher education, for example. Has college tuition become more affordable over the years, given the huge sums poured in by the politicians? The Pentagon is a "single payer" when it comes to military hardware. Is that why fighter jets are so cheap?

We’ve seen that the government doesn’t have a stellar history when it comes to cutting costs. Yet it has a miserable record when it comes to reducing paperwork, too. When filling out tax forms every April, nobody says, "Wow, that was refreshingly easy! If only the rest of the world worked like the I.R.S.!"

The government ruins everything it touches. Many high school graduates are functionally illiterate, even though per pupil funding is much higher now than in previous generations. Despite billions in subsidies over the years, Amtrak continues to lose money. The Post Office, though not an official arm of the government, enjoys a monopoly on first-class mail and is not renowned for its efficiency. And when a comedian wants to illustrate poor customer service, his reference case is the Department of Motor Vehicles.

Why in the world do so many people want to entrust this same government with our health care?

Things get worse. It’s not merely that bigger government will exacerbate the problems in the health care industry. More than that, the problems themselves are largely the fault of earlier government intervention.

For example, government restrictions allow the American Medical Association to act as a cartel, limiting the supply of new health care providers. Many tasks (such as checking blood pressure, administering shots, and otherwise prepping a patient) could be safely administered by employees with merely on-the-job training. Yet many of these tasks are "union jobs" under the present system. Government regulations also restrict the supply of pharmacies who are able to fill prescriptions, tending to raise prices.

Excessive and unpredictable malpractice awards are another contributor to rising health care expenses. Doctors have to pay higher premiums themselves for malpractice insurance, and they order batteries of tests even for obscure risks, in order to protect themselves in court. These higher costs on suppliers ultimately lead to smaller output of medical services and higher prices for consumers.

Most people never stop and ask why their health care is tied to their employer in the first place. The answer is that government wage controls during World War II made it illegal for employers to attract skilled workers by offering higher salaries. Instead, they offered the legal maximum in explicit pay, but also offered to pay for a job candidate’s health insurance.

Thus we see the familiar process of unintended consequences: The government ran the printing press to help pay for the war effort during the 1940s. In order to combat the rising prices which followed, the government imposed price and wage controls. But this started the practice of employer-provided health insurance, which means that in times of high unemployment, millions of Americans are both jobless and uninsured. So a string of previous government interventions has led to a situation in which the government insists it needs yet more money and power in order to "fix" the country.

The way to fix health care is to get the government out of it. The same goes for every other "problem area" in society today.

June 26, 2009

Bob Murphy [send him mail], adjunct scholar of the Mises Institute, is the author of The Politically Incorrect Guide to Capitalism, The Human Action Study Guide, and The Man, Economy, and State Study Guide. His latest book is The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Great Depression and the New Deal.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/murphy/murphy158.html
 
Old June 26th, 2009 #19
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,375
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default

Government Medicine

by Bob Murphy

To listen to the mainstream media explain things, now that the feds have dealt with the recession, reformed the banking sector, and come up with a plan to fight global warming, it’s time for the politicians in D.C. to fix the health care system. In reality, the Obama administration so far has given us "solutions" that will only make the original problems worse. Their plans to expand government involvement in health care will likewise fail.

Two of the main complaints over health care are the rising costs and the hassles of obtaining service. Insurance premiums continue rising, placing insurance out of reach for many households. On the other hand, those with insurance must grapple with doctors and treatments that are "in plan" or "out of network," and they have to keep track of a bewildering set of rules governing health savings accounts, co-pays, and deductibles.

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?

Let’s take the issue of rising costs. Is there a single government program in U.S. history that achieved falling costs? Look at higher education, for example. Has college tuition become more affordable over the years, given the huge sums poured in by the politicians? The Pentagon is a "single payer" when it comes to military hardware. Is that why fighter jets are so cheap?

We’ve seen that the government doesn’t have a stellar history when it comes to cutting costs. Yet it has a miserable record when it comes to reducing paperwork, too. When filling out tax forms every April, nobody says, "Wow, that was refreshingly easy! If only the rest of the world worked like the I.R.S.!"

The government ruins everything it touches. Many high school graduates are functionally illiterate, even though per pupil funding is much higher now than in previous generations. Despite billions in subsidies over the years, Amtrak continues to lose money. The Post Office, though not an official arm of the government, enjoys a monopoly on first-class mail and is not renowned for its efficiency. And when a comedian wants to illustrate poor customer service, his reference case is the Department of Motor Vehicles.

Why in the world do so many people want to entrust this same government with our health care?

Things get worse. It’s not merely that bigger government will exacerbate the problems in the health care industry. More than that, the problems themselves are largely the fault of earlier government intervention.

For example, government restrictions allow the American Medical Association to act as a cartel, limiting the supply of new health care providers. Many tasks (such as checking blood pressure, administering shots, and otherwise prepping a patient) could be safely administered by employees with merely on-the-job training. Yet many of these tasks are "union jobs" under the present system. Government regulations also restrict the supply of pharmacies who are able to fill prescriptions, tending to raise prices.

Excessive and unpredictable malpractice awards are another contributor to rising health care expenses. Doctors have to pay higher premiums themselves for malpractice insurance, and they order batteries of tests even for obscure risks, in order to protect themselves in court. These higher costs on suppliers ultimately lead to smaller output of medical services and higher prices for consumers.

Most people never stop and ask why their health care is tied to their employer in the first place. The answer is that government wage controls during World War II made it illegal for employers to attract skilled workers by offering higher salaries. Instead, they offered the legal maximum in explicit pay, but also offered to pay for a job candidate’s health insurance.

Thus we see the familiar process of unintended consequences: The government ran the printing press to help pay for the war effort during the 1940s. In order to combat the rising prices which followed, the government imposed price and wage controls. But this started the practice of employer-provided health insurance, which means that in times of high unemployment, millions of Americans are both jobless and uninsured. So a string of previous government interventions has led to a situation in which the government insists it needs yet more money and power in order to "fix" the country.

The way to fix health care is to get the government out of it. The same goes for every other "problem area" in society today.

June 26, 2009

Bob Murphy [send him mail], adjunct scholar of the Mises Institute, is the author of The Politically Incorrect Guide to Capitalism, The Human Action Study Guide, and The Man, Economy, and State Study Guide. His latest book is The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Great Depression and the New Deal.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/murphy/murphy158.html
 
Old June 26th, 2009 #20
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,375
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default

Great column, absolutely right.

The political solutions to our problems lie in combining the economic wisdom in the column above with the racial knowledge we have here at VNN.

We are about white-manism, not white-antism.
 
Reply

Tags
#1, health, health care, medicine

Share


Thread
Display Modes


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:05 AM.
Page generated in 0.21408 seconds.