|
|
June 4th, 2009 | #1 |
Administrator
|
#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. |
June 4th, 2009 | #2 |
Administrator
|
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. |
June 5th, 2009 | #3 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 643
|
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. |
June 8th, 2009 | #4 | ||
Administrator
|
Quote:
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:
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. |
||
June 8th, 2009 | #5 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 643
|
Quote:
Quote:
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. |
||
June 8th, 2009 | #6 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 4,229
|
This particular quote is so true:
Quote:
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. |
|
June 28th, 2009 | #7 | |||||
Member
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 316
|
Good grief, Alex, you are sounding an awful lot like this guy: http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/today.guest.html
Quote:
Quote:
Socialism has become just another label to deaden thought and discussion - and that’s exactly how you use it, Alex. The same way the corporate-shill jewsmedia whores like Rush ridicule Global Warming to make it impossible for listeners/readers to “see beneath the surface” for viable Green Tech, pro-Aryan alternatives. Now why are you doing that? Quote:
The future of White People is in collectivism. Hitler realized this too late. Yockey wrote the definitive spiritual tome on Pan-Aryanism 60 years ago. The raison d’être of WN IS the health care of its people, along with protecting the race from its enemies – including those White predatory judeo-capitalists who have been bleeding us dry in business and medicine for the last 50 years, and would continue to do so even were the jews to be disappeared tomorrow. Quote:
Quote:
http://www8.nationalacademies.org/on...RecordID=11623 http://www.globalhealth.org/news/article/204 |
|||||
June 28th, 2009 | #8 | |
Genetically Wealthy
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 623
|
Quote:
Very little of our present system, excluding perhaps our military, is worth preserving. Once a few military leaders (perhaps merely one submarine commander) start seeing things the VNN way . . . then it will get interesting.
__________________
". . . the Jews are irreligious, atheistic, immoral bunch of bastards." "...generally speaking, you can't trust the bastards. They turn on us."- Richard Nixon black African Americans Asian Hispanic Black Katrina Blacks African-American Jew Negro Bush Negroes |
|
July 15th, 2009 | #9 | |
Administrator
|
Quote:
|
|
July 15th, 2009 | #11 | ||||
Administrator
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
||||
June 13th, 2009 | #12 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 3,311
|
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:
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. |
|
June 13th, 2009 | #13 | ||
Administrator
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
||
June 13th, 2009 | #14 |
Member
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 281
|
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.. |
June 14th, 2009 | #15 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 3,311
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
||
June 27th, 2009 | #16 | |
Junior Member
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 18
|
Quote:
The problem isn't "government". Governement is not intrinsically good or bad. It is what government rewards and what purposes it serves that make it so. The libertarian solution that you are championing disregards the complexity of medicine which can not (should not) be sold to the people like competing brands of soft drinks. Even professionals in complementary fields like surgery and medical oncology can not agree on treatment decisions in many cases, let alone the general public. What we need to remember is what medicine was like before the Flexner report and the regulation of medical practice. It was essentially quackery on a large scale. The fast talking, hand-holding, advertisement savvy, warm fuzzy family physician holding a diploma from some online diploma-mill medical school sure to arise in such a deregulated environment will be sure to garner more patients than honest practitioners. No American would be well-served by the massive deregulation you seem to favor. |
|
July 15th, 2009 | #17 | ||||
Administrator
|
Quote:
Quote:
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:
Quote:
The belief in regulation is even stupider and more unfounded than the belief in Jesus. |
||||
July 16th, 2009 | #18 | |
Junior Member
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 18
|
Quote:
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. |
|
July 16th, 2009 | #19 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 3,311
|
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. |
June 14th, 2009 | #20 | |||
Nuthin' But Luv, Baby
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 5,280
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
|||
Tags |
#1, health, health care, medicine |
Share |
Thread | |
Display Modes | |
|