The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 BlogviewRon Paul Archive
New Year’s Resolutions for Donald Trump and Congress
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New Reply
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

In the spirit of New Year’s, here are four resolutions for president-elect Trump and Congress that will enable them to really make America great again:

1) Audit the Fed….and then end it: The Federal Reserve Bank’s easy money polices have eroded the American people’s standard of living and facilitated the growth of the welfare-warfare state. The Fed is also responsible for the growth in income inequality. Yet Congress still refuses to pass Audit the Fed, much less end it.

During the campaign, then-candidate Donald Trump promised that Audit the Fed would be part of his first 100 days agenda. Unfortunately, he has not spoken of auditing the Fed or another aspect of monetary policy since the election. President-elect Trump should keep his promise and work with Congress to pass Audit the Fed and finally let the American people know the truth about the Fed’s conduct of monetary policy. Then, of course, end the Fed.

2) Bring the troops home: President Barack Obama has not only failed to withdraw American forces from Afghanistan and Iraq, he has further destabilized the Middle East with reckless interventions in Egypt, Libya, and Syria. The Obama administration has also brought us to the brink of a new Cold War.

President-elect Trump has criticized the 2003 Iraq war and promised to end nation-building. However, he has also made hawkish statements such as his recent endorsement of increased US military intervention in Syria and has appointed several hawks to key foreign policy positions. President-elect Trump also supported increasing the Pentagon’s already bloated budget.

America cannot afford to continue wasting trillions of dollars in a futile effort to act as the world’s policeman. Rejecting the neocon polices of nation-building and spreading democracy by force of arms is a good start. However, if Donald Trump is serious about charting a new course in foreign policy, his first act as president should be to withdraw US troops from around the globe. He should also veto any budget that does not drastically cut spending on militarism.

3) Repeal ObamaCare: ObamaCare has raised healthcare costs for millions of Americans while denying them access to the providers of their choice. Public dissatisfaction with ObamaCare played a major role in Donald Trump’s election.

Unfortunately, since the election president-elect Trump and the Republican Congress have talked about retaining key parts of Obamacare! While it is reasonable to have a transition to a new healthcare system, Congress must avoid the temptation to replace ObamaCare with “ObamaCare lite.” Congress must pass, and President Trump must sign, a true free-market health care plan that restores control over healthcare to individuals.

4) Cut Taxes and Spending: President-elect Trump and Congressional leadership both favor tax reform. However, some leading Republicans have recently said they will not support any tax reform plan that is not “revenue neutral.” A true pro-liberty tax reform would reduce government revenue by eliminating the income tax. Fiscal hawks concerned with increasing federal deficits should stop trying to increase tax revenues and join with supporters of limited government to drastically cut federal spending. Congress should prioritize ending corporate welfare, reducing military spending, and shutting down unconstitutional federal agencies like the Department of Education.

If President Trump and Congress spend the next six months passing Audit the Fed, ending our militaristic foreign policy, repealing ObamaCare and replacing it with a true free-market health care system, and cutting both spending and taxes, they will begin to make America great again. If they fail to take these steps, then the American people will know they have been fooled again.

(Republished from The Ron Paul Institute by permission of author or representative)
 
• Category: Ideology • Tags: Donald Trump 
Hide 24 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
    []
  1. Svigor says:

    1. Secure the borders.
    2. Enforce immigration laws.
    3. Pass E-Verify laws and crack down hard on criminal employers of criminal aliens.
    4. Pass laws to deny federal services to criminal aliens.
    5. Pass laws to deny welfare to legal aliens until 4th generation.
    6. Enact worker-friendly tarrifs in reciprocity against foreign (e.g., Chinese) protectionism.
    7. Keep us out of foreign wars.
    8. Cut taxes on the middle class.
    9. Welfare reform (to remove incentives to indolence).
    10. Ignore libertarians.

    If you simply must enact libertarian laws, start by repealing most direct affront to liberty in America today, which libertarians are too cowardly to address: the panoply of illegitimate anti-liberty laws passed under the rubric of “anti-discrimination,” “diversity,” etc.

    Read More
    • Replies: @jtgw
    Your 7 and 8 were already covered under his 2 and 4. Healthcare is one of our biggest and most expensive welfare programs, so that's covered, too.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
    AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
    These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
    Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
    Sharing Comment via Twitter
    /rpaul/new-years-resolutions-for-donald-trump-and-congress/#comment-1705463
    More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  2. MarkinLA says:

    a true free-market health care plan that restores control over healthcare to individuals.

    There is no plan that will give control to the individuals given the BS billing practices of the medical profession. There will also be millions of people who will never get any kind of insurance whose plan will consist of ending up in bankruptcy court at the first major health scare.

    If I go to the hospital and sign my name I can be faced with a bill for hundreds of thousands of dollars even if an insurance company would only pay 1/10 of that bill. It is up to THEM (the provider) and not me how much of the bill they will deduct. They are legally entitled to sue me for the entire amount and me claiming that nobody pays that amount is not a defense. Me claiming they did not tell me what the bill would be ahead of time only that “they don’t know” is not a defense.

    They say liberalism is a disease. Libertarianism is better than LSD for creating fantasy world delusions.

    Read More
    • Replies: @jtgw
    You're assuming that the billing practices would remain the same under a true free market system.

    Ask yourself one thing: why have medical expenses increased beyond the general rate of inflation over the past 50 years, even as the government has shouldered an increasing proportion of those expenses? Could it possibly be the case that government involvement drives up costs for everybody? Same goes for education.
    , @jtgw
    The first problem is that all our routine medical costs are meant to be covered by insurance under the current system, which is actuarially absurd. Insurance is supposed to be for unforeseen costs, not foreseen costs. The only reason insurance companies dominate the system is because of the skewed tax incentives government uses to shove employees into medical insurance plans.

    You should check out Atlas MD, which is a group that provides healthcare directly to patients, bypassing insurance companies completely. Medical costs turn out to be affordable when you cut out the middleman.

    https://blog.atlas.md/
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  3. jtgw says:
    @MarkinLA
    a true free-market health care plan that restores control over healthcare to individuals.

    There is no plan that will give control to the individuals given the BS billing practices of the medical profession. There will also be millions of people who will never get any kind of insurance whose plan will consist of ending up in bankruptcy court at the first major health scare.

    If I go to the hospital and sign my name I can be faced with a bill for hundreds of thousands of dollars even if an insurance company would only pay 1/10 of that bill. It is up to THEM (the provider) and not me how much of the bill they will deduct. They are legally entitled to sue me for the entire amount and me claiming that nobody pays that amount is not a defense. Me claiming they did not tell me what the bill would be ahead of time only that "they don't know" is not a defense.

    They say liberalism is a disease. Libertarianism is better than LSD for creating fantasy world delusions.

    You’re assuming that the billing practices would remain the same under a true free market system.

    Ask yourself one thing: why have medical expenses increased beyond the general rate of inflation over the past 50 years, even as the government has shouldered an increasing proportion of those expenses? Could it possibly be the case that government involvement drives up costs for everybody? Same goes for education.

    Read More
    • Replies: @MarkinLA
    You’re assuming that the billing practices would remain the same under a true free market system.

    And why would they change? This is the delusion of the libertarian. Once the market is "free" all the problems disappear.

    We currently have a system that IS a free market system. It is the most free market of any medical system in the industrialized world. The fact that we have insurance doesn't change this. Every hospital and doctor is free to charge as much as they want and every insurance company is free to enter into a contract with that hospital or doctor and pay them what ever they can get away with. Only the guy without insurance has to deal with this crooked system where a hospital gives you a bill with a 10 times mark-up so they can sue you for a ton of money should they decide to.

    Instead, the delusional libertarian thinks that somehow the government must be at fault. Do you ever listen to people in the medical profession? They are constantly complaining about the inadequate level of payment from government agencies. Have you ever read about insurance companies not paying for a procedure - it is usually because it has not been approved by Medicare yet. This was a BIG deal for us at St. Jude Medical, getting our devices approved for reimbursement. So in reality, the government is holding costs down. In reality, the government is keeping insurance companies from paying for unproven practices. The providers are forever crying that they have to screw their non-insured customers because they are "losing" money from their insured patients.

    What kind of logic is that - they voluntarily take large numbers of patients they are losing money on so they need to screw their much smaller number of other patients.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  4. jtgw says:
    @MarkinLA
    a true free-market health care plan that restores control over healthcare to individuals.

    There is no plan that will give control to the individuals given the BS billing practices of the medical profession. There will also be millions of people who will never get any kind of insurance whose plan will consist of ending up in bankruptcy court at the first major health scare.

    If I go to the hospital and sign my name I can be faced with a bill for hundreds of thousands of dollars even if an insurance company would only pay 1/10 of that bill. It is up to THEM (the provider) and not me how much of the bill they will deduct. They are legally entitled to sue me for the entire amount and me claiming that nobody pays that amount is not a defense. Me claiming they did not tell me what the bill would be ahead of time only that "they don't know" is not a defense.

    They say liberalism is a disease. Libertarianism is better than LSD for creating fantasy world delusions.

    The first problem is that all our routine medical costs are meant to be covered by insurance under the current system, which is actuarially absurd. Insurance is supposed to be for unforeseen costs, not foreseen costs. The only reason insurance companies dominate the system is because of the skewed tax incentives government uses to shove employees into medical insurance plans.

    You should check out Atlas MD, which is a group that provides healthcare directly to patients, bypassing insurance companies completely. Medical costs turn out to be affordable when you cut out the middleman.

    https://blog.atlas.md/

    Read More
    • Replies: @MarkinLA
    I went to their website and It didn't say what was covered. There are plenty of garbage medical plans out there that do not require any underwriting. You pay about 3600 dollars a year and it covers you up to about 20,000 a year. If you only see a doctor twice in a year for a cold - they win big. If you break your arm or have a simple operation twice in a year, you win big. That won't do anything for a major accident, heart attack, pre-existing condition, or cancer scare.

    Those are the policies that need to be underwritten and those are the policies that routinely reject anybody with even the slightest risk factor like high blood pressure or high cholesterol.

    The only reason insurance companies dominate the system is because of the skewed tax incentives government uses to shove employees into medical insurance plans.


    Insurance became part of compensation during WWII when wages were controlled. Insurance was cheap then because medicine was not high-tech. As medical costs increased insurance became more valuable and more costly outside of group plans and almost impossible to get so became something employees demanded.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  5. jtgw says:
    @Svigor
    1. Secure the borders.
    2. Enforce immigration laws.
    3. Pass E-Verify laws and crack down hard on criminal employers of criminal aliens.
    4. Pass laws to deny federal services to criminal aliens.
    5. Pass laws to deny welfare to legal aliens until 4th generation.
    6. Enact worker-friendly tarrifs in reciprocity against foreign (e.g., Chinese) protectionism.
    7. Keep us out of foreign wars.
    8. Cut taxes on the middle class.
    9. Welfare reform (to remove incentives to indolence).
    10. Ignore libertarians.

    If you simply must enact libertarian laws, start by repealing most direct affront to liberty in America today, which libertarians are too cowardly to address: the panoply of illegitimate anti-liberty laws passed under the rubric of "anti-discrimination," "diversity," etc.

    Your 7 and 8 were already covered under his 2 and 4. Healthcare is one of our biggest and most expensive welfare programs, so that’s covered, too.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  6. Svigor says:

    JGTW: yeah but I put them in their proper place: 7 and 8.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  7. “America cannot afford to continue wasting trillions of dollars in a futile effort to act as the world’s policeman.”

    Really the function is the taxpayer cost of acting as Wall Street’s global enforcer. That really is a genuine case of “Hands Up, Don’t Shoot.”

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  8. MarkinLA says:
    @jtgw
    You're assuming that the billing practices would remain the same under a true free market system.

    Ask yourself one thing: why have medical expenses increased beyond the general rate of inflation over the past 50 years, even as the government has shouldered an increasing proportion of those expenses? Could it possibly be the case that government involvement drives up costs for everybody? Same goes for education.

    You’re assuming that the billing practices would remain the same under a true free market system.

    And why would they change? This is the delusion of the libertarian. Once the market is “free” all the problems disappear.

    We currently have a system that IS a free market system. It is the most free market of any medical system in the industrialized world. The fact that we have insurance doesn’t change this. Every hospital and doctor is free to charge as much as they want and every insurance company is free to enter into a contract with that hospital or doctor and pay them what ever they can get away with. Only the guy without insurance has to deal with this crooked system where a hospital gives you a bill with a 10 times mark-up so they can sue you for a ton of money should they decide to.

    Instead, the delusional libertarian thinks that somehow the government must be at fault. Do you ever listen to people in the medical profession? They are constantly complaining about the inadequate level of payment from government agencies. Have you ever read about insurance companies not paying for a procedure – it is usually because it has not been approved by Medicare yet. This was a BIG deal for us at St. Jude Medical, getting our devices approved for reimbursement. So in reality, the government is holding costs down. In reality, the government is keeping insurance companies from paying for unproven practices. The providers are forever crying that they have to screw their non-insured customers because they are “losing” money from their insured patients.

    What kind of logic is that – they voluntarily take large numbers of patients they are losing money on so they need to screw their much smaller number of other patients.

    Read More
    • Replies: @jtgw
    How is the market free when the government pays the costs of everybody over 65? I.e. the demographic that uses the bulk of medical care. If the government picks up the tab, then providers don't have an incentive to control costs. And if government sometimes does refuse to pay, how is that the market's fault? That's just an example of a shortage, which is what happens when the government controls prices. If you don't let the market set its own prices, you get shortages and rationing.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  9. MarkinLA says:
    @jtgw
    The first problem is that all our routine medical costs are meant to be covered by insurance under the current system, which is actuarially absurd. Insurance is supposed to be for unforeseen costs, not foreseen costs. The only reason insurance companies dominate the system is because of the skewed tax incentives government uses to shove employees into medical insurance plans.

    You should check out Atlas MD, which is a group that provides healthcare directly to patients, bypassing insurance companies completely. Medical costs turn out to be affordable when you cut out the middleman.

    https://blog.atlas.md/

    I went to their website and It didn’t say what was covered. There are plenty of garbage medical plans out there that do not require any underwriting. You pay about 3600 dollars a year and it covers you up to about 20,000 a year. If you only see a doctor twice in a year for a cold – they win big. If you break your arm or have a simple operation twice in a year, you win big. That won’t do anything for a major accident, heart attack, pre-existing condition, or cancer scare.

    Those are the policies that need to be underwritten and those are the policies that routinely reject anybody with even the slightest risk factor like high blood pressure or high cholesterol.

    The only reason insurance companies dominate the system is because of the skewed tax incentives government uses to shove employees into medical insurance plans.

    Insurance became part of compensation during WWII when wages were controlled. Insurance was cheap then because medicine was not high-tech. As medical costs increased insurance became more valuable and more costly outside of group plans and almost impossible to get so became something employees demanded.

    Read More
    • Replies: @jtgw
    But why did medical costs increase? You can't say it's because medical technology is more advanced; as computer technology has advanced, costs have gone down. That's what technological innovation is all about: increasing efficiency and reducing costs. So if medical costs are going up, it's not because medicine is more advanced.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  10. jtgw says:
    @MarkinLA
    I went to their website and It didn't say what was covered. There are plenty of garbage medical plans out there that do not require any underwriting. You pay about 3600 dollars a year and it covers you up to about 20,000 a year. If you only see a doctor twice in a year for a cold - they win big. If you break your arm or have a simple operation twice in a year, you win big. That won't do anything for a major accident, heart attack, pre-existing condition, or cancer scare.

    Those are the policies that need to be underwritten and those are the policies that routinely reject anybody with even the slightest risk factor like high blood pressure or high cholesterol.

    The only reason insurance companies dominate the system is because of the skewed tax incentives government uses to shove employees into medical insurance plans.


    Insurance became part of compensation during WWII when wages were controlled. Insurance was cheap then because medicine was not high-tech. As medical costs increased insurance became more valuable and more costly outside of group plans and almost impossible to get so became something employees demanded.

    But why did medical costs increase? You can’t say it’s because medical technology is more advanced; as computer technology has advanced, costs have gone down. That’s what technological innovation is all about: increasing efficiency and reducing costs. So if medical costs are going up, it’s not because medicine is more advanced.

    Read More
    • Replies: @MarkinLA
    What costs have gone down in the computer industry? Yes the price of SOME microchips has decreased but not the cost in terms of salaries and development facilities. The level of control needed in the form of filtering the air and controlling for static electricity had increased significantly from the first days of DIPs with a few gates on them. Do you think Intel's costs have decreased year over year?

    The salaries for doctors hasn't decreased and a lot of medical products have nothing to do with microelectronics. Although some of the manufacturing of those items has been automated the rest of the costs are quite high. We used a highly toxic gas to sterilize our pacemakers. If there was ever a gas leak this gas was so toxic you probably wouldn't make it out of the building before you collapsed. It was needed because a pacemaker is going to be inserted within the body of people whose immune system is not the strongest given their heart condition and you can't boil a pacemaker or heat it to the temperature necessary to kill all the germs.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  11. jtgw says:
    @MarkinLA
    You’re assuming that the billing practices would remain the same under a true free market system.

    And why would they change? This is the delusion of the libertarian. Once the market is "free" all the problems disappear.

    We currently have a system that IS a free market system. It is the most free market of any medical system in the industrialized world. The fact that we have insurance doesn't change this. Every hospital and doctor is free to charge as much as they want and every insurance company is free to enter into a contract with that hospital or doctor and pay them what ever they can get away with. Only the guy without insurance has to deal with this crooked system where a hospital gives you a bill with a 10 times mark-up so they can sue you for a ton of money should they decide to.

    Instead, the delusional libertarian thinks that somehow the government must be at fault. Do you ever listen to people in the medical profession? They are constantly complaining about the inadequate level of payment from government agencies. Have you ever read about insurance companies not paying for a procedure - it is usually because it has not been approved by Medicare yet. This was a BIG deal for us at St. Jude Medical, getting our devices approved for reimbursement. So in reality, the government is holding costs down. In reality, the government is keeping insurance companies from paying for unproven practices. The providers are forever crying that they have to screw their non-insured customers because they are "losing" money from their insured patients.

    What kind of logic is that - they voluntarily take large numbers of patients they are losing money on so they need to screw their much smaller number of other patients.

    How is the market free when the government pays the costs of everybody over 65? I.e. the demographic that uses the bulk of medical care. If the government picks up the tab, then providers don’t have an incentive to control costs. And if government sometimes does refuse to pay, how is that the market’s fault? That’s just an example of a shortage, which is what happens when the government controls prices. If you don’t let the market set its own prices, you get shortages and rationing.

    Read More
    • Replies: @MarkinLA
    Doctors don't have to accept Medicare patients that's how it's free. Nobody has to do anything they don't want. The only requirement on heath care is that patients have to be treated in an emergency. That does not apply to some doctor at his office. It applies to a hospital that patches him up and dumps him off on the county hospital if he doesn't have insurance.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  12. robt says:

    Send condolences to Russia for the loss of the Army Chorus (who so beautifully sang God Bless America on one of their last overseas visits).
    Somebody, anybody with a bit of class should and would.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  13. MarkinLA says:
    @jtgw
    But why did medical costs increase? You can't say it's because medical technology is more advanced; as computer technology has advanced, costs have gone down. That's what technological innovation is all about: increasing efficiency and reducing costs. So if medical costs are going up, it's not because medicine is more advanced.

    What costs have gone down in the computer industry? Yes the price of SOME microchips has decreased but not the cost in terms of salaries and development facilities. The level of control needed in the form of filtering the air and controlling for static electricity had increased significantly from the first days of DIPs with a few gates on them. Do you think Intel’s costs have decreased year over year?

    The salaries for doctors hasn’t decreased and a lot of medical products have nothing to do with microelectronics. Although some of the manufacturing of those items has been automated the rest of the costs are quite high. We used a highly toxic gas to sterilize our pacemakers. If there was ever a gas leak this gas was so toxic you probably wouldn’t make it out of the building before you collapsed. It was needed because a pacemaker is going to be inserted within the body of people whose immune system is not the strongest given their heart condition and you can’t boil a pacemaker or heat it to the temperature necessary to kill all the germs.

    Read More
    • Replies: @jtgw
    "What costs have gone down in the computer industry?" Is that a serious question? OK, take cellphones. You could get a big clunky thing in the late 1980s that could only do calls, no texts and certainly no web surfing; it would cost you over a thousand dollars. Now you can get a decent, pocket-sized Motorola for about a hundred that can do more than ten times as much. I mean, the decreasing costs of IT and telecommunications is about the most self-evident example of technology reducing costs that I know of and you're the first person I've come across who has seriously questioned it.

    Here is a simple benchmark you can use: is it cheaper or more expensive now to get a 1965 level of healthcare? While newer treatments unheard of fifty years ago might be more expensive, at the very least, you should be able to get treatments available in 1965 for a fraction of the price now, given all the innovation since then. If they are now more expensive, that tells you something screwy is going on.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  14. MarkinLA says:
    @jtgw
    How is the market free when the government pays the costs of everybody over 65? I.e. the demographic that uses the bulk of medical care. If the government picks up the tab, then providers don't have an incentive to control costs. And if government sometimes does refuse to pay, how is that the market's fault? That's just an example of a shortage, which is what happens when the government controls prices. If you don't let the market set its own prices, you get shortages and rationing.

    Doctors don’t have to accept Medicare patients that’s how it’s free. Nobody has to do anything they don’t want. The only requirement on heath care is that patients have to be treated in an emergency. That does not apply to some doctor at his office. It applies to a hospital that patches him up and dumps him off on the county hospital if he doesn’t have insurance.

    Read More
    • Replies: @jtgw
    "Nobody has to anything they don't want". "Hospitals are required to provide emergency care regardless of ability to pay." Kind of contradicting yourself there.

    Is it no accident that people flood the emergency rooms with non-emergency problems in order to receive free care? If all services were "free", of course, then the demand would go up for all services, creating shortages across the board, just as now we have shortages in provision of emergency care because of the artificially heightened demand. So in countries with universal coverage, like the UK, you have people dying on waiting lists for necessary treatment:

    https://www.theguardian.com/society/2016/sep/08/nhs-perpetual-winter-waiting-list-record-bed-blocking

    What's the good of universal coverage if you don't actually get the healthcare you need when you need it? No government can actually fulfill a promise of universal healthcare: if the market doesn't determine who gets care and who doesn't, the state must make that choice, and I'm not sure why any government bureaucrat should have the right to choose who gets treatment and lives and who doesn't get treatment and dies. At least in a market system, if you can't afford care, the provider is free to lower the price or offer services for free. When Ron Paul practiced medicine in the 1960s, not only were costs so much lower that most people paid for routine services out of pocket; he also worked for hospitals that regularly provided care free of charge to those who could not pay.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  15. jtgw says:
    @MarkinLA
    What costs have gone down in the computer industry? Yes the price of SOME microchips has decreased but not the cost in terms of salaries and development facilities. The level of control needed in the form of filtering the air and controlling for static electricity had increased significantly from the first days of DIPs with a few gates on them. Do you think Intel's costs have decreased year over year?

    The salaries for doctors hasn't decreased and a lot of medical products have nothing to do with microelectronics. Although some of the manufacturing of those items has been automated the rest of the costs are quite high. We used a highly toxic gas to sterilize our pacemakers. If there was ever a gas leak this gas was so toxic you probably wouldn't make it out of the building before you collapsed. It was needed because a pacemaker is going to be inserted within the body of people whose immune system is not the strongest given their heart condition and you can't boil a pacemaker or heat it to the temperature necessary to kill all the germs.

    “What costs have gone down in the computer industry?” Is that a serious question? OK, take cellphones. You could get a big clunky thing in the late 1980s that could only do calls, no texts and certainly no web surfing; it would cost you over a thousand dollars. Now you can get a decent, pocket-sized Motorola for about a hundred that can do more than ten times as much. I mean, the decreasing costs of IT and telecommunications is about the most self-evident example of technology reducing costs that I know of and you’re the first person I’ve come across who has seriously questioned it.

    Here is a simple benchmark you can use: is it cheaper or more expensive now to get a 1965 level of healthcare? While newer treatments unheard of fifty years ago might be more expensive, at the very least, you should be able to get treatments available in 1965 for a fraction of the price now, given all the innovation since then. If they are now more expensive, that tells you something screwy is going on.

    Read More
    • Replies: @MarkinLA
    While newer treatments unheard of fifty years ago might be more expensive, at the very least, you should be able to get treatments available in 1965 for a fraction of the price now, given all the innovation since then.

    This is really stupid since medicine is a labor intensive industry and consumer electronics is not. When you go to the hospital you are paying for all the equipment that might be needed. You are paying for all that staff that might be needed. How much did a nurse make in 1965 verses today? In addition, if prices and costs go up, so does the amount of profit needed to keep the operation in the black. That is the major portion of your costs. So even a broken bone costs more today than it did in 1965. If you think you can, build a robot that diagnoses, sets, and casts broken bones. Get the FDA to approve it and one can be put in every emergency room and urgent care facility in the country and you will make a fortune.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  16. jtgw says:
    @MarkinLA
    Doctors don't have to accept Medicare patients that's how it's free. Nobody has to do anything they don't want. The only requirement on heath care is that patients have to be treated in an emergency. That does not apply to some doctor at his office. It applies to a hospital that patches him up and dumps him off on the county hospital if he doesn't have insurance.

    “Nobody has to anything they don’t want”. “Hospitals are required to provide emergency care regardless of ability to pay.” Kind of contradicting yourself there.

    Is it no accident that people flood the emergency rooms with non-emergency problems in order to receive free care? If all services were “free”, of course, then the demand would go up for all services, creating shortages across the board, just as now we have shortages in provision of emergency care because of the artificially heightened demand. So in countries with universal coverage, like the UK, you have people dying on waiting lists for necessary treatment:

    https://www.theguardian.com/society/2016/sep/08/nhs-perpetual-winter-waiting-list-record-bed-blocking

    What’s the good of universal coverage if you don’t actually get the healthcare you need when you need it? No government can actually fulfill a promise of universal healthcare: if the market doesn’t determine who gets care and who doesn’t, the state must make that choice, and I’m not sure why any government bureaucrat should have the right to choose who gets treatment and lives and who doesn’t get treatment and dies. At least in a market system, if you can’t afford care, the provider is free to lower the price or offer services for free. When Ron Paul practiced medicine in the 1960s, not only were costs so much lower that most people paid for routine services out of pocket; he also worked for hospitals that regularly provided care free of charge to those who could not pay.

    Read More
    • Replies: @MarkinLA
    So in countries with universal coverage, like the UK, you have people dying on waiting lists for necessary treatment:

    It is obvious that you are delusional. Nobody in the UK is dying waiting for necessary treatment unless it is the same reason they are dying here on waiting lists - there are no suitable donors.

    At least in a market system, if you can’t afford care, the provider is free to lower the price or offer services for free.

    This is beyond stupid. There is nothing stopping that from happening now and it happens all the time. Ever see those ads for St. Jude Hospital in Tennessee. They don't charge anything but I expect it is hard to get you kid in there. And of course they bill your insurance company if you have it as anybody would to try a defer some of their costs.

    I’m not sure why any government bureaucrat should have the right to choose who gets treatment and lives and who doesn’t get treatment and dies.


    By your every post it is obvious you know nothing about the health care system and see the words "free market" and start barking out nonsense like Pavlov's dog.

    So a government bureaucrat choosing who gets treatment is somehow different than a insurance company bureaucrat doing the same thing? Maybe if you paid any attention to the world outside video games you would realize that people go public all the time with their stories of how their insurance has denied them coverage - usually because the therapy is unproven. The hope is the public pressure will get them to approve.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  17. MarkinLA says:
    @jtgw
    "Nobody has to anything they don't want". "Hospitals are required to provide emergency care regardless of ability to pay." Kind of contradicting yourself there.

    Is it no accident that people flood the emergency rooms with non-emergency problems in order to receive free care? If all services were "free", of course, then the demand would go up for all services, creating shortages across the board, just as now we have shortages in provision of emergency care because of the artificially heightened demand. So in countries with universal coverage, like the UK, you have people dying on waiting lists for necessary treatment:

    https://www.theguardian.com/society/2016/sep/08/nhs-perpetual-winter-waiting-list-record-bed-blocking

    What's the good of universal coverage if you don't actually get the healthcare you need when you need it? No government can actually fulfill a promise of universal healthcare: if the market doesn't determine who gets care and who doesn't, the state must make that choice, and I'm not sure why any government bureaucrat should have the right to choose who gets treatment and lives and who doesn't get treatment and dies. At least in a market system, if you can't afford care, the provider is free to lower the price or offer services for free. When Ron Paul practiced medicine in the 1960s, not only were costs so much lower that most people paid for routine services out of pocket; he also worked for hospitals that regularly provided care free of charge to those who could not pay.

    So in countries with universal coverage, like the UK, you have people dying on waiting lists for necessary treatment:

    It is obvious that you are delusional. Nobody in the UK is dying waiting for necessary treatment unless it is the same reason they are dying here on waiting lists – there are no suitable donors.

    At least in a market system, if you can’t afford care, the provider is free to lower the price or offer services for free.

    This is beyond stupid. There is nothing stopping that from happening now and it happens all the time. Ever see those ads for St. Jude Hospital in Tennessee. They don’t charge anything but I expect it is hard to get you kid in there. And of course they bill your insurance company if you have it as anybody would to try a defer some of their costs.

    I’m not sure why any government bureaucrat should have the right to choose who gets treatment and lives and who doesn’t get treatment and dies.

    By your every post it is obvious you know nothing about the health care system and see the words “free market” and start barking out nonsense like Pavlov’s dog.

    So a government bureaucrat choosing who gets treatment is somehow different than a insurance company bureaucrat doing the same thing? Maybe if you paid any attention to the world outside video games you would realize that people go public all the time with their stories of how their insurance has denied them coverage – usually because the therapy is unproven. The hope is the public pressure will get them to approve.

    Read More
    • Replies: @jtgw

    It is obvious that you are delusional. Nobody in the UK is dying waiting for necessary treatment unless it is the same reason they are dying here on waiting lists – there are no suitable donors.
     
    You sure about that?

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2802344/condemned-die-waiting-list-shambles-day-3-mail-s-expose-welsh-nhs.html

    This is beyond stupid. There is nothing stopping that from happening now and it happens all the time. Ever see those ads for St. Jude Hospital in Tennessee. They don’t charge anything but I expect it is hard to get you kid in there. And of course they bill your insurance company if you have it as anybody would to try a defer some of their costs.

     

    Sure, it can still happen, but as everything gets more expensive there is less left over for charity. The point is that it seems to have happened a lot more frequently back in the day when the market was freer than it is now. According to you, the less free the market in healthcare, the better it's supposed to be, right?

    So a government bureaucrat choosing who gets treatment is somehow different than a insurance company bureaucrat doing the same thing? Maybe if you paid any attention to the world outside video games you would realize that people go public all the time with their stories of how their insurance has denied them coverage – usually because the therapy is unproven. The hope is the public pressure will get them to approve.

     

    Insurance company bureaucrats can indeed be awful, but I'm not sure why that lets failures in government systems off the hook.

    In any case, you yourself admitted earlier that our dependence on insurance companies is an artifact of government regulation and not something that arose out of the marketplace. Employers pay for employees' health insurance out of pre-tax dollars, while individual policies are paid for out of income that has already been taxed.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  18. MarkinLA says:
    @jtgw
    "What costs have gone down in the computer industry?" Is that a serious question? OK, take cellphones. You could get a big clunky thing in the late 1980s that could only do calls, no texts and certainly no web surfing; it would cost you over a thousand dollars. Now you can get a decent, pocket-sized Motorola for about a hundred that can do more than ten times as much. I mean, the decreasing costs of IT and telecommunications is about the most self-evident example of technology reducing costs that I know of and you're the first person I've come across who has seriously questioned it.

    Here is a simple benchmark you can use: is it cheaper or more expensive now to get a 1965 level of healthcare? While newer treatments unheard of fifty years ago might be more expensive, at the very least, you should be able to get treatments available in 1965 for a fraction of the price now, given all the innovation since then. If they are now more expensive, that tells you something screwy is going on.

    While newer treatments unheard of fifty years ago might be more expensive, at the very least, you should be able to get treatments available in 1965 for a fraction of the price now, given all the innovation since then.

    This is really stupid since medicine is a labor intensive industry and consumer electronics is not. When you go to the hospital you are paying for all the equipment that might be needed. You are paying for all that staff that might be needed. How much did a nurse make in 1965 verses today? In addition, if prices and costs go up, so does the amount of profit needed to keep the operation in the black. That is the major portion of your costs. So even a broken bone costs more today than it did in 1965. If you think you can, build a robot that diagnoses, sets, and casts broken bones. Get the FDA to approve it and one can be put in every emergency room and urgent care facility in the country and you will make a fortune.

    Read More
    • Replies: @jtgw
    You still haven't explained why these procedures should cost more now. Let's say a newer, faster way of fixing broken bones is invented. Because it requires more training or more expensive equipment, it may cost more than the old method. But why can't the cheaper but slower old method not be on offer for customers who don't want to pay for the newer faster method? This means providers of the newer method have to compete with providers of the old method, so that puts pressure on them to provide value for money. Likewise, providers of the old method will have to keep prices low enough that the cheapness offsets the slowness.

    So the trend should be lower prices for older, less efficient methods, and also downward pressure on prices for new methods. It doesn't make sense that things should be getting more expensive, unless there are external factors driving up costs, e.g. artificial restrictions on supply of medicines (FDA regulations) or doctors (AMA monopoly on medical licensing).
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  19. jtgw says:
    @MarkinLA
    So in countries with universal coverage, like the UK, you have people dying on waiting lists for necessary treatment:

    It is obvious that you are delusional. Nobody in the UK is dying waiting for necessary treatment unless it is the same reason they are dying here on waiting lists - there are no suitable donors.

    At least in a market system, if you can’t afford care, the provider is free to lower the price or offer services for free.

    This is beyond stupid. There is nothing stopping that from happening now and it happens all the time. Ever see those ads for St. Jude Hospital in Tennessee. They don't charge anything but I expect it is hard to get you kid in there. And of course they bill your insurance company if you have it as anybody would to try a defer some of their costs.

    I’m not sure why any government bureaucrat should have the right to choose who gets treatment and lives and who doesn’t get treatment and dies.


    By your every post it is obvious you know nothing about the health care system and see the words "free market" and start barking out nonsense like Pavlov's dog.

    So a government bureaucrat choosing who gets treatment is somehow different than a insurance company bureaucrat doing the same thing? Maybe if you paid any attention to the world outside video games you would realize that people go public all the time with their stories of how their insurance has denied them coverage - usually because the therapy is unproven. The hope is the public pressure will get them to approve.

    It is obvious that you are delusional. Nobody in the UK is dying waiting for necessary treatment unless it is the same reason they are dying here on waiting lists – there are no suitable donors.

    You sure about that?

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2802344/condemned-die-waiting-list-shambles-day-3-mail-s-expose-welsh-nhs.html

    This is beyond stupid. There is nothing stopping that from happening now and it happens all the time. Ever see those ads for St. Jude Hospital in Tennessee. They don’t charge anything but I expect it is hard to get you kid in there. And of course they bill your insurance company if you have it as anybody would to try a defer some of their costs.

    Sure, it can still happen, but as everything gets more expensive there is less left over for charity. The point is that it seems to have happened a lot more frequently back in the day when the market was freer than it is now. According to you, the less free the market in healthcare, the better it’s supposed to be, right?

    So a government bureaucrat choosing who gets treatment is somehow different than a insurance company bureaucrat doing the same thing? Maybe if you paid any attention to the world outside video games you would realize that people go public all the time with their stories of how their insurance has denied them coverage – usually because the therapy is unproven. The hope is the public pressure will get them to approve.

    Insurance company bureaucrats can indeed be awful, but I’m not sure why that lets failures in government systems off the hook.

    In any case, you yourself admitted earlier that our dependence on insurance companies is an artifact of government regulation and not something that arose out of the marketplace. Employers pay for employees’ health insurance out of pre-tax dollars, while individual policies are paid for out of income that has already been taxed.

    Read More
    • Replies: @MarkinLA
    In any case, you yourself admitted earlier that our dependence on insurance companies is an artifact of government regulation and not something that arose out of the marketplace.

    I said no such thing. I just pointed out where company paid insurance came from and without it a lot of people would have no insurance.

    I read your stupid article. Did you? It was full of speculation and conjecture with little to show but a few anecdotes and was all about how bad the Welsh system was compared to the English system. Have you ever been to a county hospital in the US. Well guess what, there are plenty of people in the US having the exact same problems as the Welsh. I am willing to bet that more people dependent on the LA County public hospitals have suffered serious problems than in the entire British system which would include Wales, England, Scotland, and Northern Ireland. 13 million compared to 65 million and we have a worse system.

    Sure, it can still happen, but as everything gets more expensive there is less left over for charity. The point is that it seems to have happened a lot more frequently back in the day when the market was freer than it is now. According to you, the less free the market in healthcare, the better it’s supposed to be, right?

    You get more and more stupid with each post. Nobody could be this stupid so I am assuming you are putting me on and I won't respond any more. This doesn't make any sense at all. This assumes health care is a zer0-sum entity and fixed which it is not. People want an unlimited amount of it. And I make no claims about the free market being better or worse only that the belief that it is the answer to the problem is the most F-ing stupidest thing I have ever heard.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  20. jtgw says:
    @MarkinLA
    While newer treatments unheard of fifty years ago might be more expensive, at the very least, you should be able to get treatments available in 1965 for a fraction of the price now, given all the innovation since then.

    This is really stupid since medicine is a labor intensive industry and consumer electronics is not. When you go to the hospital you are paying for all the equipment that might be needed. You are paying for all that staff that might be needed. How much did a nurse make in 1965 verses today? In addition, if prices and costs go up, so does the amount of profit needed to keep the operation in the black. That is the major portion of your costs. So even a broken bone costs more today than it did in 1965. If you think you can, build a robot that diagnoses, sets, and casts broken bones. Get the FDA to approve it and one can be put in every emergency room and urgent care facility in the country and you will make a fortune.

    You still haven’t explained why these procedures should cost more now. Let’s say a newer, faster way of fixing broken bones is invented. Because it requires more training or more expensive equipment, it may cost more than the old method. But why can’t the cheaper but slower old method not be on offer for customers who don’t want to pay for the newer faster method? This means providers of the newer method have to compete with providers of the old method, so that puts pressure on them to provide value for money. Likewise, providers of the old method will have to keep prices low enough that the cheapness offsets the slowness.

    So the trend should be lower prices for older, less efficient methods, and also downward pressure on prices for new methods. It doesn’t make sense that things should be getting more expensive, unless there are external factors driving up costs, e.g. artificial restrictions on supply of medicines (FDA regulations) or doctors (AMA monopoly on medical licensing).

    Read More
    • Replies: @MarkinLA
    I explained it to you but you are incredibly dense. Why does a house cost more today than it did in 1965 when so many more of the parts are assembled in a factory as compared to 1965?

    Because building a house is labor intensive and the cost of labor has gone up as well as the prices of the materials.

    Maybe you missed that story of some guy buying a small pharmaceutical company that is the only one left supplying a particular drug and he immediately raised the price 10 times. That is the free market for you and why prices don't go down.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/21/business/a-huge-overnight-increase-in-a-drugs-price-raises-protests.html

    It seems like you really don't know anything about this subject but ASSUME that somehow the free market is a fix for everything.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  21. MarkinLA says:
    @jtgw
    You still haven't explained why these procedures should cost more now. Let's say a newer, faster way of fixing broken bones is invented. Because it requires more training or more expensive equipment, it may cost more than the old method. But why can't the cheaper but slower old method not be on offer for customers who don't want to pay for the newer faster method? This means providers of the newer method have to compete with providers of the old method, so that puts pressure on them to provide value for money. Likewise, providers of the old method will have to keep prices low enough that the cheapness offsets the slowness.

    So the trend should be lower prices for older, less efficient methods, and also downward pressure on prices for new methods. It doesn't make sense that things should be getting more expensive, unless there are external factors driving up costs, e.g. artificial restrictions on supply of medicines (FDA regulations) or doctors (AMA monopoly on medical licensing).

    I explained it to you but you are incredibly dense. Why does a house cost more today than it did in 1965 when so many more of the parts are assembled in a factory as compared to 1965?

    Because building a house is labor intensive and the cost of labor has gone up as well as the prices of the materials.

    Maybe you missed that story of some guy buying a small pharmaceutical company that is the only one left supplying a particular drug and he immediately raised the price 10 times. That is the free market for you and why prices don’t go down.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/21/business/a-huge-overnight-increase-in-a-drugs-price-raises-protests.html

    It seems like you really don’t know anything about this subject but ASSUME that somehow the free market is a fix for everything.

    Read More
    • Replies: @jtgw
    Housing is another market that suffers from heavy government involvement. Fannie Mae?

    https://mises.org/library/new-deal-origins-fannie-mae-and-government-housing-complex

    You need to pick an industry that is relatively free from regulation and subsidy and show that its rising costs are entirely market-driven. Rising costs are not normal or expected when you have technological innovation; they are generally an artifact of regulation and artificially increased money supply.

    And your examples of pharma companies gouging customers conveniently ignores the way the FDA restricts the market with long delays before approval of new drugs. Do you think pharma could afford to jack up prices like that if competitors could enter the market without restriction? Why do you think we have laws keeping out cheap foreign generics?

    https://mises.org/blog/lack-epipen-competitors-fdas-fault
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  22. MarkinLA says:
    @jtgw

    It is obvious that you are delusional. Nobody in the UK is dying waiting for necessary treatment unless it is the same reason they are dying here on waiting lists – there are no suitable donors.
     
    You sure about that?

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2802344/condemned-die-waiting-list-shambles-day-3-mail-s-expose-welsh-nhs.html

    This is beyond stupid. There is nothing stopping that from happening now and it happens all the time. Ever see those ads for St. Jude Hospital in Tennessee. They don’t charge anything but I expect it is hard to get you kid in there. And of course they bill your insurance company if you have it as anybody would to try a defer some of their costs.

     

    Sure, it can still happen, but as everything gets more expensive there is less left over for charity. The point is that it seems to have happened a lot more frequently back in the day when the market was freer than it is now. According to you, the less free the market in healthcare, the better it's supposed to be, right?

    So a government bureaucrat choosing who gets treatment is somehow different than a insurance company bureaucrat doing the same thing? Maybe if you paid any attention to the world outside video games you would realize that people go public all the time with their stories of how their insurance has denied them coverage – usually because the therapy is unproven. The hope is the public pressure will get them to approve.

     

    Insurance company bureaucrats can indeed be awful, but I'm not sure why that lets failures in government systems off the hook.

    In any case, you yourself admitted earlier that our dependence on insurance companies is an artifact of government regulation and not something that arose out of the marketplace. Employers pay for employees' health insurance out of pre-tax dollars, while individual policies are paid for out of income that has already been taxed.

    In any case, you yourself admitted earlier that our dependence on insurance companies is an artifact of government regulation and not something that arose out of the marketplace.

    I said no such thing. I just pointed out where company paid insurance came from and without it a lot of people would have no insurance.

    I read your stupid article. Did you? It was full of speculation and conjecture with little to show but a few anecdotes and was all about how bad the Welsh system was compared to the English system. Have you ever been to a county hospital in the US. Well guess what, there are plenty of people in the US having the exact same problems as the Welsh. I am willing to bet that more people dependent on the LA County public hospitals have suffered serious problems than in the entire British system which would include Wales, England, Scotland, and Northern Ireland. 13 million compared to 65 million and we have a worse system.

    Sure, it can still happen, but as everything gets more expensive there is less left over for charity. The point is that it seems to have happened a lot more frequently back in the day when the market was freer than it is now. According to you, the less free the market in healthcare, the better it’s supposed to be, right?

    You get more and more stupid with each post. Nobody could be this stupid so I am assuming you are putting me on and I won’t respond any more. This doesn’t make any sense at all. This assumes health care is a zer0-sum entity and fixed which it is not. People want an unlimited amount of it. And I make no claims about the free market being better or worse only that the belief that it is the answer to the problem is the most F-ing stupidest thing I have ever heard.

    Read More
    • Replies: @jtgw

    And I make no claims about the free market being better or worse only that the belief that it is the answer to the problem is the most F-ing stupidest thing I have ever heard.
     

    Maybe you missed that story of some guy buying a small pharmaceutical company that is the only one left supplying a particular drug and he immediately raised the price 10 times. That is the free market for you and why prices don’t go down.

     

    So you are making claims about the free market, actually. If you're going to insult me you can at least try to be honest and consistent.

    Compare regular medicine with cosmetic surgery. Cosmetic or elective surgery is labor-intensive, too, right? So if labor costs are going up, why are prices still going down? E.g. the price of Lasik eye surgery has about halved in the past 20 years.

    I don't imagine everybody would get the healthcare they needed in a free market. But I see this tendency to make excuses for government failures while holding markets to a higher standards. When Laura Hillier in Canada died because a bed shortage led to a delay in treatment, why does that not count against the Canadian system?

    Moreover, just as no country has a purely free market in healthcare, very few healthcare systems are completely socialized or centrally planned. Single-payer systems like the British NHS contract with competing private companies to produce equipment, for example. So when looking at the successes of those other systems, you also have to ask if those successes arise out of their socialistic aspect or their market aspect.

    Yes, I do start from the assumption that the free market is better. It is easy to pick out examples of some company gouging customers, but it is harder to look at the bigger picture and ask what conditions the government creates where it is so easy for a company to do so without being instantly undercut by competitors. You can say there are naturally high barriers to entry, but it's tough to claim that when we know there are also artificial barriers due to regulation, e.g. long approval waiting times from the FDA.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  23. jtgw says:
    @MarkinLA
    I explained it to you but you are incredibly dense. Why does a house cost more today than it did in 1965 when so many more of the parts are assembled in a factory as compared to 1965?

    Because building a house is labor intensive and the cost of labor has gone up as well as the prices of the materials.

    Maybe you missed that story of some guy buying a small pharmaceutical company that is the only one left supplying a particular drug and he immediately raised the price 10 times. That is the free market for you and why prices don't go down.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/21/business/a-huge-overnight-increase-in-a-drugs-price-raises-protests.html

    It seems like you really don't know anything about this subject but ASSUME that somehow the free market is a fix for everything.

    Housing is another market that suffers from heavy government involvement. Fannie Mae?

    https://mises.org/library/new-deal-origins-fannie-mae-and-government-housing-complex

    You need to pick an industry that is relatively free from regulation and subsidy and show that its rising costs are entirely market-driven. Rising costs are not normal or expected when you have technological innovation; they are generally an artifact of regulation and artificially increased money supply.

    And your examples of pharma companies gouging customers conveniently ignores the way the FDA restricts the market with long delays before approval of new drugs. Do you think pharma could afford to jack up prices like that if competitors could enter the market without restriction? Why do you think we have laws keeping out cheap foreign generics?

    https://mises.org/blog/lack-epipen-competitors-fdas-fault

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  24. jtgw says:
    @MarkinLA
    In any case, you yourself admitted earlier that our dependence on insurance companies is an artifact of government regulation and not something that arose out of the marketplace.

    I said no such thing. I just pointed out where company paid insurance came from and without it a lot of people would have no insurance.

    I read your stupid article. Did you? It was full of speculation and conjecture with little to show but a few anecdotes and was all about how bad the Welsh system was compared to the English system. Have you ever been to a county hospital in the US. Well guess what, there are plenty of people in the US having the exact same problems as the Welsh. I am willing to bet that more people dependent on the LA County public hospitals have suffered serious problems than in the entire British system which would include Wales, England, Scotland, and Northern Ireland. 13 million compared to 65 million and we have a worse system.

    Sure, it can still happen, but as everything gets more expensive there is less left over for charity. The point is that it seems to have happened a lot more frequently back in the day when the market was freer than it is now. According to you, the less free the market in healthcare, the better it’s supposed to be, right?

    You get more and more stupid with each post. Nobody could be this stupid so I am assuming you are putting me on and I won't respond any more. This doesn't make any sense at all. This assumes health care is a zer0-sum entity and fixed which it is not. People want an unlimited amount of it. And I make no claims about the free market being better or worse only that the belief that it is the answer to the problem is the most F-ing stupidest thing I have ever heard.

    And I make no claims about the free market being better or worse only that the belief that it is the answer to the problem is the most F-ing stupidest thing I have ever heard.

    Maybe you missed that story of some guy buying a small pharmaceutical company that is the only one left supplying a particular drug and he immediately raised the price 10 times. That is the free market for you and why prices don’t go down.

    So you are making claims about the free market, actually. If you’re going to insult me you can at least try to be honest and consistent.

    Compare regular medicine with cosmetic surgery. Cosmetic or elective surgery is labor-intensive, too, right? So if labor costs are going up, why are prices still going down? E.g. the price of Lasik eye surgery has about halved in the past 20 years.

    I don’t imagine everybody would get the healthcare they needed in a free market. But I see this tendency to make excuses for government failures while holding markets to a higher standards. When Laura Hillier in Canada died because a bed shortage led to a delay in treatment, why does that not count against the Canadian system?

    Moreover, just as no country has a purely free market in healthcare, very few healthcare systems are completely socialized or centrally planned. Single-payer systems like the British NHS contract with competing private companies to produce equipment, for example. So when looking at the successes of those other systems, you also have to ask if those successes arise out of their socialistic aspect or their market aspect.

    Yes, I do start from the assumption that the free market is better. It is easy to pick out examples of some company gouging customers, but it is harder to look at the bigger picture and ask what conditions the government creates where it is so easy for a company to do so without being instantly undercut by competitors. You can say there are naturally high barriers to entry, but it’s tough to claim that when we know there are also artificial barriers due to regulation, e.g. long approval waiting times from the FDA.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
Current Commenter says:

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone


 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments become the property of The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Ron Paul Comments via RSS