View Full Version : SICK. Americans Losing Another Freedom!
It is obvious to me from the arguments on this site and in the general media that if nothing revolutionary is done quick to restore a working market-style, choice-based, health care system in the USA, we will soon lose the remainder of our control over our own bodies.
With the current system supported by PharmaCo and Insurihulk lap dog politicians who wrote the corporation-crafted trash bills that brought us to this crises, and a new system of Clinton-Romney style choice-removal being prepared as the replacement, it is clear that the last item on most Republican and Democratic lists is my freedom.
In fact, the only genuine friend of my freedom and only true voice of wisdom I hear lately is Dr. Ron Paul. In direct contradistinction to a certain fat, lying, socialist, movie director, Dr. Paul has spent a lifetime in medicine and has held thousands of precious new lives in his skilled hands.
Quote[/b] ]<span style='font-size:14pt;line-height:100%'>Lowering the Cost of Heath Care</span>
By Dr. Ron Paul
<span style='font-size:12pt;line-height:100%'>As a medical doctor, I’ve seen first-hand how bureaucratic red tape interferes with the doctor-patient relationship and drives costs higher. The current system of third-party payers takes decision-making away from doctors, leaving patients feeling rushed and worsening the quality of care. Yet health insurance premiums and drug costs keep rising. Clearly a new approach is needed. Congress needs to craft innovative legislation that makes health care more affordable without raising taxes or increasing the deficit. It also needs to repeal bad laws that keep health care costs higher than necessary.
We should remember that HMOs did not arise because of free-market demand, but rather because of government mandates. The HMO Act of 1973 requires all but the smallest employers to offer their employees HMO coverage, and the tax code allows businesses – but not individuals – to deduct the cost of health insurance premiums. The result is the illogical coupling of employment and health insurance, which often leaves the unemployed without needed catastrophic coverage.
While many in Congress are happy to criticize HMOs today, the public never hears how the present system was imposed upon the American people by federal law. As usual, government intervention in the private market failed to deliver the promised benefits and caused unintended consequences, but Congress never blames itself for the problems created by bad laws. Instead, we are told more government – in the form of “universal coverage” – is the answer. But government already is involved in roughly two-thirds of all health care spending, through Medicare, Medicaid, and other programs.
For decades, the U.S. healthcare system was the envy of the entire world. Not coincidentally, there was far less government involvement in medicine during this time. America had the finest doctors and hospitals, patients enjoyed high-quality, affordable medical care, and thousands of private charities provided health services for the poor. Doctors focused on treating patients, without the red tape and threat of lawsuits that plague the profession today. Most Americans paid cash for basic services, and had insurance only for major illnesses and accidents. This meant both doctors and patients had an incentive to keep costs down, as the patient was directly responsible for payment, rather than an HMO or government program.
The lesson is clear: when government and other third parties get involved, health care costs spiral. The answer is not a system of outright socialized medicine, but rather a system that encourages everyone – doctors, hospitals, patients, and drug companies – to keep costs down. As long as “somebody else” is paying the bill, the bill will be too high.
August 23, 2006</span>
http://www.davemcgraw.com/Images/RP/RonPaulAwokenRevolt.jpg
w4wtf
07-16-2007, 02:03 AM
Quote[/b] ]Most Americans paid cash for basic services, and had insurance only for major illnesses and accidents. This meant both doctors and patients had an incentive to keep costs down, as the patient was directly responsible for payment, rather than an HMO or government program.
Thats what I have been saying and proposing all along, and I and an evil heartless conservative.
The HMO's were indeed a governmnet mandate.. create a problem, then instead of looking at what you did to create it.... just use a bigger program to solve it.
Quote[/b] (w4wtf @ July 15 2007,18:03)]Thats what I have been saying and proposing all along, and I and an evil heartless conservative.
The HMO's were indeed a governmnet mandate.. create a problem, then instead of looking at what you did to create it.... just use a bigger program to solve it.
Where then is the leadership, now decades overdue from your Republican leaders in Congress? They are AWOL.
w4wtf
07-16-2007, 02:07 AM
Quote[/b] (al2i @ July 15 2007,19:05)]Quote[/b] (w4wtf @ July 15 2007,18:03)]Thats what I have been saying and proposing all along, and I and an evil heartless conservative.
The HMO's were indeed a governmnet mandate.. create a problem, then instead of looking at what you did to create it.... just use a bigger program to solve it.
Where then is the leadership, now decades overdue from your Republican leaders in Congress? #They are AWOL.
Sadly gone... both side now want to buy votes with tax dollars...the right just does it slower.
Well honestly, I don't want either the Government, drug companies or insurance companies deciding whether I live or die.
But I don't see a solution other than the Government stepping in and either taking control or taking away control from the drug and insurance companies.
So unless you have a $#!tload of money to spend on keeping you alive in case of serious illness, I don't see how you have a choice.
KI4PJW
07-16-2007, 02:16 AM
Hegelian dialectic at work again.
The Pinko Bunch (DEMPUBLICANS) wanted State run healthcare years ago, so they created the problem and now have begun the process of giving the solution.
Many think it is happenstance, I say there ain't no way.
Kruschev told JFK, "We will take your country..." how much more do they have to do before America wakes up?
n2ize
07-16-2007, 02:18 AM
Medical care should be covered by the taxes we pay. The medical establishment in this country was corrupted long ago. , Ron Paul is well aware of this. All Ron Paul wants to do is roll medicine back to an earler date and time where costs were somewhat cheaper and which ultimately led to what we have today. It is unrealistic to think that Ron Paul is going to accomplish such a goal and even if he could it would rapidly degenerate to where we are now.
face it, we are not going back to the 1950's, 1940's 1800's etc. We are not all going to be given a plot of land on which to hunt, fish, farm and do as we please and to call upon the country doctor when we fall ill. Times have changed, We need a national health care plan. If other countries can do it and survive then so can we.
n2ize
07-16-2007, 02:19 AM
Quote[/b] (KI4PJW @ July 15 2007,19:16)]Hegelian dialectic at work again.
The Pinko Bunch (DEMPUBLICANS) wanted State run healthcare years ago, so they created the problem and now have begun the process of giving the solution.
Many think it is happenstance, I say there ain't no way.
Kruschev told JFK, "We will take your country..." #how much more do they have to do before America wakes up?
Talk about consipracy theories.
Not unusual for someone who uses Hal Turner as a source!
Quote[/b] (N2RJ @ July 15 2007,18:09)]Well honestly, I don't want either the Government, drug companies or insurance companies deciding whether I live or die.
But I don't see a solution other than the Government stepping in and either taking control or taking away control from the drug and insurance companies.
So unless you have a $#!tload of money to spend on keeping you alive in case of serious illness, I don't see how you have a choice.
I agree with you OM, but I am not willing to abandon the idea of medical freedom as the Rx for the health care sickness we have now.
For an example from a few years ago, My daughter had strep throat. I thought it was strep because her friend had just been diagnosed with strep and it was going around her school. The school nurse had strep test kits for $6, but school was closed, so I wanted to get my daughter the test.
Cruising into the instant-care center, I entered the USA Health Care System. Immediately, costs began exploding. Despite the fact that my daughter simply needed a nurse to take a swab and use a six buck test kit, I now entered into records, insurance forms and medical licensure laws. We had to see a fricken PHd, so after a long wait and associated BS, he had a nurse administer the strep test, and after more waiting, we finally had a coveted prescription for Streptomyocin.
That prescription was the holy grail, because we are not free to simply go buy the stuff that we needed at a pharmacy like the Canadians or Mexicans are free to do. Freedom is not an option in the USA.
Post mortem: Strep Germs dead. Instead of paying $30-40 for a nurses time, a strep test, and a pharmacist's help, I paid about $130, or about 3-4 times what it should have cost. The nurse and the pharmacist were simple figure-heads in this process, as the decision for everything came through a PHd.
Solution: Simple freedom would have saved me a lot of time and money.
This was a while back, so I am sure the costs are all higher now.
Edit: Whatever the question, more government is probably the wrong answer.
Quote[/b] (n2ize @ July 15 2007,18:18)]Medical care should be covered by the taxes we pay.
Again your solution is more government force and looting. What moral calculus always leads you to a government gun?
AE6IP
07-16-2007, 06:06 AM
Ron Paul may be a doctor, but he doesn't know anything about the history of HMOs and he's naive about pharmas.
I don't know what the answer is, but I do know that market-based medical care is a prime cause of the problem. Think not? Take a careful look at the relationship between the for-profits moving into the health care business and taking over the NFPs, and at the impact of the pharma lobby.
The for-profit health organizations and the pharmas are the last people you want to deal with.
Quote[/b] (AE6IP @ July 15 2007,22:06)]Ron Paul may be a doctor, but he doesn't know anything about the history of HMOs
Sure. If you say so. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/laugh.gif
Quote[/b] (AE6IP @ July 15 2007,22:06)]I don't know what the answer is, but I do know that market-based medical care is a prime cause of the problem.
We'll see if that is true when there is a market-based medical care system.
Quote[/b] (al2i @ July 14 2007,20:00)]It is obvious to me from the arguments on this site and in the general media that if nothing revolutionary is done quick to restore a working market-style, choice-based, health care system in the USA, we will soon lose the remainder of our control over our own bodies.
With the current system supported by PharmaCo and Insurihulk lap dog politicians who wrote the corporation-crafted trash bills that brought us to this crises, and a new system of Clinton-Romney style choice-removal being prepared as the replacement, it is clear that the last item on most Republican and Democratic lists is my freedom.
In fact, the only genuine friend of my freedom and only true voice of wisdom I hear lately is Dr. Ron Paul. #In direct contradistinction to a certain fat, lying, socialist, movie director, Dr. Paul has spent a lifetime in medicine and has held thousands of precious new lives in his skilled hands.
Quote[/b] ]<span style='font-size:14pt;line-height:100%'>Lowering the Cost of Heath Care</span>
By Dr. Ron Paul
<span style='font-size:12pt;line-height:100%'>As a medical doctor, I’ve seen first-hand how bureaucratic red tape interferes with the doctor-patient relationship and drives costs higher. The current system of third-party payers takes decision-making away from doctors, leaving patients feeling rushed and worsening the quality of care. Yet health insurance premiums and drug costs keep rising. Clearly a new approach is needed. Congress needs to craft innovative legislation that makes health care more affordable without raising taxes or increasing the deficit. It also needs to repeal bad laws that keep health care costs higher than necessary.
We should remember that HMOs did not arise because of free-market demand, but rather because of government mandates. The HMO Act of 1973 requires all but the smallest employers to offer their employees HMO coverage, and the tax code allows businesses – but not individuals – to deduct the cost of health insurance premiums. The result is the illogical coupling of employment and health insurance, which often leaves the unemployed without needed catastrophic coverage.
While many in Congress are happy to criticize HMOs today, the public never hears how the present system was imposed upon the American people by federal law. As usual, government intervention in the private market failed to deliver the promised benefits and caused unintended consequences, but Congress never blames itself for the problems created by bad laws. Instead, we are told more government – in the form of “universal coverage” – is the answer. But government already is involved in roughly two-thirds of all health care spending, through Medicare, Medicaid, and other programs.
For decades, the U.S. healthcare system was the envy of the entire world. Not coincidentally, there was far less government involvement in medicine during this time. America had the finest doctors and hospitals, patients enjoyed high-quality, affordable medical care, and thousands of private charities provided health services for the poor. Doctors focused on treating patients, without the red tape and threat of lawsuits that plague the profession today. Most Americans paid cash for basic services, and had insurance only for major illnesses and accidents. This meant both doctors and patients had an incentive to keep costs down, as the patient was directly responsible for payment, rather than an HMO or government program.
The lesson is clear: when government and other third parties get involved, health care costs spiral. The answer is not a system of outright socialized medicine, but rather a system that encourages everyone – doctors, hospitals, patients, and drug companies – to keep costs down. As long as “somebody else” is paying the bill, the bill will be too high.
August 23, 2006</span>
http://i34.photobucket.com/albums/d148/ku4my/base_image.jpg
Fixed that for ya Dave! http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif
k4kyv
07-16-2007, 06:36 AM
Single-payer national health insurance works quite well in Canada, France, Great Britain, Australia, Germany, and just about all the rest of the industrialised world. So why couldn't it work in the US?
Those who say it can't work in this country must believe that Americans are either too stupid or we are too incompetent to set up a similar system here.
If that's the case, maybe we could do with medical care delivery what we have already done with manufacturing, technical support and about everything else. Go ahead and set up our national health plan that guarantees affordable coverage to everyone, using a tax to replace private insurance premiums, but outsource the management and administration of the delivery system to one of the other countries where the people have a track record of administrative ability that Americans apparently lack.
Simple really, we demand, expect and pay for quality here, when we don't get it we sue. Oh and you obviously have never been to a doctor or a hospital in Canada or the UK, have you? Nobody will say it won't work here, we don't want it here, for the very reason you pretty much ironed out here in this statement....
Quote[/b] ]Those who say it can't work in this country must believe that Americans are either too stupid or we are too incompetent to set up a similar system here.
Yep, we have a choice of our providers and no, we aren't stupid. If you want free medical care, then go back to where 'I' came from. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif
KI4PJW
07-16-2007, 04:49 PM
Quote[/b] (n2ize @ July 15 2007,01:19)]Quote[/b] (KI4PJW @ July 15 2007,19:16)]Hegelian dialectic at work again.
The Pinko Bunch (DEMPUBLICANS) wanted State run healthcare years ago, so they created the problem and now have begun the process of giving the solution.
Many think it is happenstance, I say there ain't no way.
Kruschev told JFK, "We will take your country..." #how much more do they have to do before America wakes up?
Talk about consipracy theories.
"Nothing ever happens in politics by accident. If it happens, it was planned that way" - FDR
KI4PJW
07-16-2007, 04:50 PM
Quote[/b] (N2RJ @ July 15 2007,01:25)]Not unusual for someone who uses Hal Turner as a source!
"Nothing ever happens in politics by accident. If it happens, it was planned that way" - FDR
There is always truth in something if you have the balls to search for it!
Quote[/b] (k4kyv @ July 15 2007,22:36)]Single-payer national health insurance works quite well in Canada
Oh yeah. That is why when I had a family member at a doctor's office in Bellingham most of the patients had Canadian plates, and when asked about it, one old codger said that his knees were "killing him", but by the time he could get something done about it in Canada, he'd be dead anyway, so he decided to pay out of pocket in the good ol' USA.
He was sure holding the costs down in Canada though.
AE6IP
07-16-2007, 05:26 PM
Quote[/b] (al2i @ July 15 2007,22:09)]Quote[/b] (AE6IP @ July 15 2007,22:06)]Ron Paul may be a doctor, but he doesn't know anything about the history of HMOs
Sure. If you say so. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/laugh.gif
The HMO came into existence during WW-II. It was founded by Henry Kaiser, a west coast builder. It was an attempt by Kaiser to reduce employee absenteeism.
The idea of offering insurance and other benefits also arose during WW-II. It was an attempt to work around government imposed wage controls.
It was the health industry that pushed the government to require employers to offer HMOs as an alternative to traditional health insurance. Ron Paul has it backwards. That particular introduction was a step toward a more open market, not away from it, as it increased the number of options available to employees.
He really doesn't know what he's talking about, and if you do even a modest amount of independent research, you'll figure that out for yourself.
Quote[/b] (KI4PJW @ July 16 2007,11:50)]Quote[/b] (N2RJ @ July 15 2007,01:25)]Not unusual for someone who uses Hal Turner as a source!
"Nothing ever happens in politics by accident. If it happens, it was planned that way" - FDR
There is always truth in something if you have the balls to search for it!
LOL.
There's always "truth" in things if you want to believe.
AE6IP
07-16-2007, 05:37 PM
Quote[/b] (al2i @ July 15 2007,22:10)]Quote[/b] (AE6IP @ July 15 2007,22:06)]I don't know what the answer is, but I do know that market-based medical care is a prime cause of the problem.
We'll see if that is true when there is a market-based medical care system.
There's already a market-based medical care system.
The for-profit health industry, especially the pharmas, are a significant part of the problem.
You might want to look at what actually happened before you start buying propaganda from Ron Paul.
There are several factors involved in the failure of the US health care system: unrealistic demands for government funded health services; a population that prefers not to be proactive in wellness; greedy, poorly run for-profit hospitals; doctors closing ranks to protect incompetents; malpractice insurance rates out of proportion to malpractice insurance costs; rapacious pharmas; and government incompetence.
I can imagine worse ways of going about solving the problems of health care than Ron Paul's, but not many, and not by much.
I don't know what the solution is, but it will, as a minimum, have to involve: changing attitudes about wellness, setting reasonable expectations of what health care every citizen should get (yes, there should be a minimal safety net,) better regulation of medical professionals, better regulation of malpractice insurance, and reining in the pharmas.
The current market-based system is the antithesis of the solution, and making the system more market-based will only exacerbate the problem.
AE6IP
07-16-2007, 05:41 PM
Quote[/b] (ku4my @ July 15 2007,23:05)]Simple really, we demand, expect and pay for quality here, when we don't get it we sue.
And you said that with a straight face.
Remind me again, how it is that while the quality of care hasn't been going up in the US over the past few decades the price, even inflation adjusted, has been, and sometimes very dramatically?
Quote[/b] (AE6IP @ July 15 2007,23:06)]Ron Paul may be a doctor, but he doesn't know anything about the history of HMOs and he's naive about pharmas.
I don't know what the answer is, but I do know that market-based medical care is a prime cause of the problem. Think not? Take a careful look at the relationship between the for-profits moving into the health care business and taking over the NFPs, and at the impact of the pharma lobby.
The for-profit health organizations and the pharmas are the last people you want to deal with.
So are you saying the "free market" system doesn't work, or is it just the convoluted mixed-bag medical system we have today?
Quote[/b] (AE6IP @ July 16 2007,10:37)]The current market-based system is the antithesis of the solution, and making the system more market-based will only exacerbate the problem.
Federal government involvement is never the answer to this country's woes. This comes from a long-time and retired fed worker.
K0RGR
07-16-2007, 06:24 PM
I have a lot of regard for Congressman Paul. He dislikes the neocons perhaps even more than I do. He is the poster child for the Libertarians.
My biggest problem with the Libertarian ideas, some of which might even work if they got the chance, is that they are too easily twisted into yet another way of shifting tax burdens from the wealthy to the middle class.
How about if government was to provide medical care for debilitating illness or injury, catastrophic cases, and chronic conditions that would otherwise impoverish their sufferers, and leave all other medical care to the individuals? That would get most of the major graft and corruption out of the current system, over time.
You guys bash the government for how poorly they handle everything from taxes, to the postal service.
And now you want them to run the health care system?
If you want socialized medicine, move to a country that has it.
If those foreign health care systems were all you think them to be, why then do people from other nations come here for health care??
Quote[/b] (al2n @ July 16 2007,13:24)]You guys bash the government for how poorly they handle everything from taxes, to the postal service.
I certainly don't! I think the USPS is marvellous. They're not perfect, but they've certainly gotten a lot better! Better, in fact, than UPS or FedEx who tosses your packages on your porch and leaves them without a signature!
Quote[/b] ]And now you want them to run the health care system?
If you want socialized medicine, move to a country that has it.
Easier said than done, but I think a lot of people who are nearing death because of their HMO or the high cost of drugs are probably wishing they could do that.
Quote[/b] ]If those foreign health care systems were all you think them to be, why then do people from other nations come here for health care??
Because we are one of the richest nations on Earth, and we have the technology and facilities that poorer countries simply cannot afford, socialized medicine or not.
Quote[/b] (AE6IP @ July 16 2007,09:37)]Quote[/b] (al2i @ July 15 2007,22:10)]Quote[/b] (AE6IP @ July 15 2007,22:06)]I don't know what the answer is, but I do know that market-based medical care is a prime cause of the problem.
We'll see if that is true when there is a market-based medical care system.
There's already a market-based medical care system.
The for-profit health industry, especially the pharmas, are a significant part of the problem.
You might want to look at what actually happened before you start buying propaganda from Ron Paul.
There are several factors involved in the failure of the US health care system: unrealistic demands for government funded health services; a population that prefers not to be proactive in wellness; greedy, poorly run for-profit hospitals; doctors closing ranks to protect incompetents; malpractice insurance rates out of proportion to malpractice insurance costs; rapacious pharmas; and government incompetence.
I can imagine worse ways of going about solving the problems of health care than Ron Paul's, but not many, and not by much.
I don't know what the solution is, but it will, as a minimum, have to involve: changing attitudes about wellness, setting reasonable expectations of what health care every citizen should get (yes, there should be a minimal safety net,) better regulation of medical professionals, better regulation of malpractice insurance, and reining in the pharmas.
The current market-based system is the antithesis of the solution, and making the system more market-based will only exacerbate the problem.
The problem is a simple lack of freedom, but I can see that you do not understand on multiple levels.
The things you mention, such as better regulation this and better regulation that, are doomed to fail before they are begun, because it is the many thousands of creeping interventions that have displaced market forces which brought the system to its knees.
Quote[/b] (NL7W @ July 16 2007,10:12)]Quote[/b] (AE6IP @ July 15 2007,23:06)]Ron Paul may be a doctor, but he doesn't know anything about the history of HMOs and he's naive about pharmas.
I don't know what the answer is, but I do know that market-based medical care is a prime cause of the problem. Think not? Take a careful look at the relationship between the for-profits moving into the health care business and taking over the NFPs, and at the impact of the pharma lobby.
The for-profit health organizations and the pharmas are the last people you want to deal with.
So are you saying the "free market" system doesn't work, or is it just the convoluted mixed-bag medical system we have today?
He is laughably labeling the system we have now as a "market system". http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/laugh.gif
The congress and senate seem to have pretty good insurance, lets all see if they will share
AE6IP
07-16-2007, 08:52 PM
Quote[/b] (NL7W @ July 16 2007,10:12)]Quote[/b] (AE6IP @ July 15 2007,23:06)]Ron Paul may be a doctor, but he doesn't know anything about the history of HMOs and he's naive about pharmas.
I don't know what the answer is, but I do know that market-based medical care is a prime cause of the problem. Think not? Take a careful look at the relationship between the for-profits moving into the health care business and taking over the NFPs, and at the impact of the pharma lobby.
The for-profit health organizations and the pharmas are the last people you want to deal with.
So are you saying the "free market" system doesn't work, or is it just the convoluted mixed-bag medical system we have today?
I don't believe that a 'market-based' system works. I don't see how anyone who is familiar with the last 50 years worth of history can think otherwise.
I'm certain that a "free" unregulated market would be a fiasco.
Quote[/b] (N9FE @ July 16 2007,14:49)]The congress and senate seem to have pretty good insurance, lets all see if they will share
Wasn't that John Kerry's plan?
AE6IP
07-16-2007, 08:54 PM
Quote[/b] (NL7W @ July 16 2007,10:15)]Quote[/b] (AE6IP @ July 16 2007,10:37)]The current market-based system is the antithesis of the solution, and making the system more market-based will only exacerbate the problem.
Federal government involvement is never the answer to this country's woes. This comes from a long-time and retired fed worker.
Never?
So The Louisiana Purchase was a bad idea?
AE6IP
07-16-2007, 08:56 PM
Quote[/b] (al2i @ July 16 2007,11:43)]The problem is a simple lack of freedom, but I can see that you do not understand on multiple levels.
The things you mention, such as better regulation this and better regulation that, are doomed to fail before they are begun, because it is the many thousands of creeping interventions that have displaced market forces which brought the system to its knees.
What "freedom" to obtain medical services do you lack?
The thing that Ron Paul is arguing against was, in fact, legislation that increased freedom of choice and let market forces lose.
As far as regulation, do you really think that the pharma's track record suggests that the FDA shouldn't be in business?
AE6IP
07-16-2007, 08:59 PM
Quote[/b] (al2i @ July 16 2007,11:45)]Quote[/b] (NL7W @ July 16 2007,10:12)]Quote[/b] (AE6IP @ July 15 2007,23:06)]Ron Paul may be a doctor, but he doesn't know anything about the history of HMOs and he's naive about pharmas.
I don't know what the answer is, but I do know that market-based medical care is a prime cause of the problem. Think not? Take a careful look at the relationship between the for-profits moving into the health care business and taking over the NFPs, and at the impact of the pharma lobby.
The for-profit health organizations and the pharmas are the last people you want to deal with.
So are you saying the "free market" system doesn't work, or is it just the convoluted mixed-bag medical system we have today?
He is laughably labeling the system we have now as a "market system". http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/laugh.gif
You keep saying that, but you've offered no evidence that the current US health care system is not market based.
It is, in fact, a classic example of a market base in which concentration of supply into the hands of a small number of providers has contributed greatly to the problem.
Higher costs track not to changes in federal regulation but rather to concentration of the hospitals into the hands of a declining number of for-profit owners and concentration of the pharmas into a handful of suppliers.
The government is responsible for some of the problems, but not the ones that Ron Paul wants to attribute to them.
Quote[/b] (AE6IP @ July 16 2007,12:56)]What "freedom" to obtain medical services do you lack?
The thing that Ron Paul is arguing against was, in fact, legislation that increased freedom of choice and let market forces lose.
As far as regulation, do you really think that the pharma's track record suggests that the FDA shouldn't be in business?
There are literally thousands of regulations interfering with the health care marketplace. Those regulations and the cost of compliance are not "freedom". As far as the freedom I lack, I refer you to my example story on page one of this thread.
In 2005, the latest year for which I have reliable data, total government spending in health care was $902,679 while private expenditures were $1,085,010, which means that 45 and a half cents of every health care dollar is government spending. (Source: http://www.cms.hhs.gov/NationalHealthExpendData/downloads/nhe2005.zip)
Quote[/b] ]I'm certain that a "free" unregulated market would be a fiasco.
That is what folks said about the airline industry.
Thanks to the free market without government control you can buy a ticket for 99 bucks.
During the days of regulation that ticket would have cost you many times more.
We could also talk about the phone industry as well.
Quote[/b] (AE6IP @ July 16 2007,12:59)]Higher costs track not to changes in federal regulation but rather to concentration of the hospitals into the hands of a declining number of for-profit owners...
Actually, my less than fully informed friend, we had a competing hospital that famously attempted to open a facility in the Mat-Su Valley for years, but they were prevented from doing so because they could not get a "Certificate of Need" from the government. It had nothing to do with freedom, and everything to do with the lack thereof.
The final decision was made by bureaucrats and politicians. Their answer: No Market.