Last Saturday many concerned Americans watched in horror as the House passed the healthcare reform bill. If this bill makes it through the Senate, it would massively overhaul the way healthcare is delivered in this country. Today, obviously, we don’t have a perfect system, but this legislation takes all the mistakes we are making with healthcare and makes them worse. Most of what is wrong with healthcare stems from decades of government intervention and the resulting unintended consequences.
But the government’s prescription for the ills caused by intervention is always more intervention. We see this not only in healthcare policy, but also in foreign policy, in economic policy, and in monetary policy – basically, in all areas of public policy. It was even claimed that the House bill would increase competition in healthcare, and thereby improve the private sector’s business model for insurance.
It is fascinating that politicians would use the language of the free market in this way to justify more corporatism. This demonstrates a couple of things. One, that politicians truly do not understand the very basic tenets of a free market. By definition, a free market is free from government intervention. But once a little intervention is accepted as legitimate, politicians will blame the problems created by their intervention on the free market and present themselves as saviors that must intervene even more.
It also demonstrates that politicians know that Americans still believe the free market is a good thing. People know and understand that competition among businesses is better for the consumer than a monopoly. However, competition between a private business and a government or government-favored entity is not real competition.
In real competition, your competitor can go bankrupt if they do a bad job. Everyone knows a government program is forever, no matter how poorly it performs. In real competition, efficiency is necessary for survival. In government programs, waste is rewarded as budgets are often determined by how much money a department is able to consume in a year. In real competition, one business does not have regulatory or taxation authority over its competitors. In real competition, businesses get sued and punished for breaking contracts and defrauding people, and are kept accountable in this way. But just try to sue the government when you are unjustly harmed by it!
The reason real competition is a good thing is because good businesses get bad ones out of the consumer’s way. Can the government put someone out of business? Most certainly! But it will have the opposite effect: an otherwise good business will be replaced by a poorly performing government agency, or a government-favored monolithic business that behaves almost like a government agency.
If Washington really wanted to give consumers more choices they would remove legislative and regulatory barriers to competition across state lines for health insurers. They would remove barriers for new and innovative models of healthcare and tort reform. They wouldn’t have run so many church and charitable hospitals out of business. Washington is keenly interested in healthcare reform, but it is certainly not going to increase competition or to expand your options for healthcare.
#63 “Please go back and study”
I would suggest you do the studying. A standing military force is not, repeat is not, a federal power listed in the constitution.
The preamble says “provide for the common defense” as carried out by “We the people.”
In article six, Federal Powers, military force is not mentioned. As long as “We the people” get the job done the Federal Government need not worry its pretty little head. Of course that is foolish!
My point is that any argument saying ‘if X is not mentioned specifically in the Constitution as a Federal power, then the Feds better back off’ is complete rubbish.
Your statement that PM contractors are generally doing the same job as regular military, but for higher wages is entirely true. But why is this a good thing? And does this not suggest that there are potentially huge cost savings by nationalizing healthcare.
64, I forgot to mention that on your complete rubbish comment over ‘if X is not mentioned specifically in the Constitution as a Federal power, then the Feds better back off’ is also incorrect.
Go see the 10th Amendment (Bill of Rights) which clearly addresses your point but invalidates.
Ron Paul’s THE MAN.
#29 Health actually qualifies as a need not a want. Health cannot be treated as a commodity. To do so is no better than slavery. The scarcity of healthcare could easily be alleviated by redirecting funds from the military which was my original point.
Article 1, Section 8 “To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years”
Notice I said “standing” force, not any force. In practical terms you end up needing a standing federal force because of the capital investment required and the fact you can’t pick a good one up at Wal-Mart in a pinch.
At that time I think that the framers did not intend any significant Federal land military during peacetime. A Navy was okay because they were out protecting US ships and ships took a long time to build.
As to “general welfare” I would think that is typically slippery language meant to apply differently at different times.
There is a history of the Federal Government forcing public health measures on states, even over their objections. And, aptly, it involves the military.
An outbreak of Yellow Fever in 1905 brought Federal involvement in Louisiana. Maj. Walter Reed’s researchers discovered mosquitos transmitted Yellow fever. The Feds sent public health reps down to forcibly undertake a mosquito eradication program.
As a percentage of population that was a bigger problem, but by simple numbers more people are hurt today by our system.
# 65 Guyver said,
“..running and maintaining a military force is expensive”
-No f’n sh*t!
-apparently, the Pentagon bills us $1million Per Soldier, Per year!
For the Afghan war.
“the million dollar quote”
from a New York Times Article on
November 14th, 2009:
Article Link:
So people…do you still believe
Uncle Sam will do health care better & cheaper?
-and that obama is still the dreamy peace president?
-s
# 59 Phydeau said,
“Now where did that little punk LL go? Here, LL, I’ll make it easy for you. One simple question, Mr. Free-Market-Handles-Everything: Should we get rid of the Environmental Protection Agency, and force Americans to sue mega-billion dollar companies if they dump toxic waste in our back yards?
Yes or no.”
You’re right. That is easy. The answer is yes.
“And regarding health care… a free market approach just doesn’t work for it. I think Mr. Fusion spelled it out, but here’s just one example: if I need heart bypass surgery, there’s no way I can make a meaningful choice between competing heart surgeons, because I don’t have the knowledge to choose meaningfully. There are certain criteria that must be met to have a free market, and health care doesn’t meet them.”
Actually, the free market approach works too well. Unbridled competition drives margins down relentlessly. Most fat-cats won’t stand for that and have ready recourse to politicians who, for a nominal sum, will erect regulatory agencies that only ostensibly look out for the little guy. The fat-cats know that they will eventually “capture” the regulatory agency and make it serve them. It will then exist primarily to protect the fat-cats from competition. For a few dollars more, the fat-cats can subvert the entire educational apparatus so that people who graduate and think that they have been educated have in fact only been indoctrinated so that they will vehemently oppose their own interests.
Whether you are talking goods or services is irrelevant, competition has the same effect on margins as long as the consumer cares about price.
There is also little difference between the various services whether it is a painter or a heart surgeon both will compete on price and quality – if they think they have to.
You can argue that you don’t know enough about heart surgery to make a choice between two doctors – presumably because you have no degree in medicine. But since you are equally ignorant about the art of the other service providers you employ, you must have worked out a solution to that problem.
Those of you who “know” that only totalitarianism can bring true freedom need to familiarize yourselves with the real world. Maybe read a history book that was not assigned….
Boys, the Left thinks the corporations are the problem, and the Right thinks the government is the problem, but the reality is that they are mostly the same, up there at the top they are in league. Can it really be any different short of taking down the corruption in the system? For amusement they must be continually amazed that the infighting down here continues as if nobody knows this.
Carry on.
How about this to see how divided we really are; as a start get the friken government to allow the people to allocate where their taxes go.
Do you really think this country would not have health care then? And we’d kill the wars too. But hey, that’d be democracy.
We can fight about the ideologies later.
#67, Timmy,
Did you forget? God does not approve of his being toyed with. If you want to live in a monastery go for it. Just quit trying to run man’s world.
Remember, “What Would Jesus Do”. So far, that hasn’t crossed your mind.
#71 So the fat cats have captured our regulatory structure. That doesn’t mean we throw it away. It means we throw out the fat cats and make the regulatory structures work. There is no free market without strong regulation to keep the fat cats playing fair. How many times do we have to say this, and yet how many times do the libertarians say “get rid of all regulation!”
Some people never learn…
#71 You can argue that you don’t know enough about heart surgery to make a choice between two doctors – presumably because you have no degree in medicine. But since you are equally ignorant about the art of the other service providers you employ, you must have worked out a solution to that problem.
This was particularly incoherent. No, we haven’t worked out a solution, we guess blindly. Because we aren’t medical experts. Which is why we need regulation, medical experts working for “we the people”, making sure any doctor who offers heart bypass surgery is competent.
Sheesh, Somebody is sounding a lot like the liberty lover in hiding… 😉
Fido,
I’ve been out of town with limited internet.
However, seeing your typical “pile more regulation on top of existing useless regulation” arguments, I see I haven’t missed much.
Besides, once you’ve been proven wrong, you always claim boredom and run off.
#77 That’s OK LL, you never have anything new to say anyway. We all know that fat cat corporations corrupt regulatory agencies. Your solution is to throw away regulatory agencies. My solution is to fix the regulatory agencies. Because without strong regulation to keep the fat cats honest, there is no free market. The founders of capitalism know that, but somehow that has escaped you and your fellow libertarians.
You’ve proven nothing except your own ignorance.
#68, #29 Health actually qualifies as a need not a want.
Health is a need.
Health Care is a want.
That’s what I said.
Health cannot be treated as a commodity.
Correct.
However, Health Care can be. Anything that can be produced and sold is a commodity (though not in the sense it is traded on an exchange).
The scarcity of healthcare could easily be alleviated by redirecting funds from the military which was my original point.
How so? That will only drive prices up, not make it more available. Anytime anything is subsidized, the prices go up. It may not be not indicated on the price tag, but you are paying more for it somehow, either through more taxes, fees, or lack of access.
This is something most people don’t understand — if something can be had for more money, the price is going up to that point, whether through supply and demand or subsidization. It won’t go down.
75, Obama Czar Agrees With Mao – Also Thinks Free Market is ‘Nonsense’: http://tinyurl.com/ylzc69l
Fid,
My solution is to fix the regulatory agencies.
What is your solution to fixing it?
Who are you going to hire to fix it?
#77, Loser,
I’ve been out of town with limited internet.
Which means your mother shut down your internet.
However, seeing your typical “pile more regulation on top of existing useless regulation” arguments, I see I haven’t missed much.
And what useless regulations would you like to remove? Oh, you can’t single out any, you can just make blanket statements. Riiiight.
# 76 Phydeau said,
“This was particularly incoherent. No, we haven’t worked out a solution, we guess blindly. Because we aren’t medical experts. Which is why we need regulation, medical experts working for “we the people”, making sure any doctor who offers heart bypass surgery is competent.”
OK, fine. But let’s take your argument to its logical conclusion. Only doctors know enough to write regulations for doctors. Only bankers know enough to write regulations for bankers. Only airlines know enough to write regulations for airlines. And of course, this is how it is done in the real world. You end up with regulations that say that passengers MUST OBEY airline employees. That’s a smoking deal! Maybe clue-givers could get regulated…
The end result is that the effect of the regulation (and indeed the the whole point of the regulation) is to shield the fat-cats from competition. That is how they remain fat-cats long after they stop honestly serving the public. That is what they want. That is what you are defending.
“How many times do we have to say this, and yet how many times do the libertarians say “get rid of all regulation!””
We’re going to keep saying it until you finally get it. But do be fair. There is a difference between law – as it would exist in a free and just society – and regulation such as you support. Also, you must admit that we explain – oh, so patiently explain – why regulation is a bad thing.
“Some people never learn…”
True. But I haven’t given up on you yet.
#82, I guess you think asking questions is not the same as talking to me.
Why would you sacrifice others to save your wife?
#83, Somebody,
“How many times do we have to say this, and yet how many times do the libertarians say “get rid of all regulation!””
We’re going to keep saying it until you finally get it. But do be fair. There is a difference between law – as it would exist in a free and just society – and regulation such as you support. Also, you must admit that we explain – oh, so patiently explain – why regulation is a bad thing.
Why can’t Libertarians ever be specific about WHAT regulations they want removed? I’m patient, please tell us. Then tell us why those regulations must be removed.
A few months ago there was a Georgia peanut plant shut down for operating even though the management knew they had an E. Coli contamination. On this very blog Liberty Loser heralded the fact that the same company also owned an unregistered and uninspected plant in Texas. Until it came out that this plant too was contaminated with E. Coli
As for Only airlines know enough to write regulations for airlines., you couldn’t be more wrong.
All FAA regulations are written after input from ALL sectors involved. That includes Airports, Airlines, Pilots, consumer groups, cities, National Transportation Safety Board, the military, and manufacturers. After the proposed regulations are written, they are circulated for discussion and feedback. Only after review are they published as a regulation. Even the Airlines recognize an accident is not good for the bottom line.
I understand the FCC follows the same, if less intense, procedure.
It might be an annoyance to you, but there is good reason for every regulation I must follow as a commercial pilot. Yes, some may seem silly or redundant but an analysis shows they are required. Simply put, I can’t pull off to the side of the sky and call a tow-plane.
“All FAA regulations are written after input from ALL sectors involved. That includes Airports, Airlines, Pilots, consumer groups, cities, National Transportation Safety Board, the military, and manufacturers. After the proposed regulations are written, they are circulated for discussion and feedback. Only after review are they published as a regulation. Even the Airlines recognize an accident is not good for the bottom line.”
Well, it is certainly heart-warming that they go to all that trouble to make it appear that diverse interests are being accommodated.
“It might be an annoyance to you, but there is good reason for every regulation I must follow as a commercial pilot.”
No doubt. I seem to recall that there was a regulation about keeping the cock-pit door locked that was on the books on 9/11. You would think that not following that rule would have lead to massive liability for the airlines. Somehow it did not.
Now, on the other hand, if the feds had honored the second amendment, 9/11 would not have been possible.
#85, Why can’t Libertarians ever be specific about WHAT regulations they want removed? I’m patient, please tell us. Then tell us why those regulations must be removed.
We keep telling you, but you keep plugging your fingers in your ears.
How many times have we got to say it?
ALL OF THEM!!! Until you can find an unbiased group of people with nothing to gain personally from the regulations, you will never have a reasonable regulation.
Until it came out that this plant too was contaminated with E. Coli
You are worse than Fox News, twisting what was said to suit your own agenda. Try explaining the whole thing next time.
’nuff said on the cockpit door thing. If the airline industry wasn’t so bogged down in regulation, it wouldn’t require subsidizing by the federal government. Perhaps you can explain where all the vacuum pump manufacturers went that used to service the aviation industry?
Note — I don’t fly commercially, but I am a pilot. I am familiar with the regs as well.
Pilots, True?
“The FAA adopted the armed pilot rule shortly after the Cuban missile crisis of 1961 to help prevent hijackings of American airliners. It remained in effect for four decades.
But in July 2001 – just two months prior to the Sept. 11 attacks – the rule was rescinded.”
I seem to recall that there was a regulation about keeping the cock-pit door locked that was on the books on 9/11. You would think that not following that rule would have lead to massive liability for the airlines. Somehow it did not.
Someone that “thinks” they know something when they don’t. There was no regulation about keeping the cockpit door locked. The doors were to be kept closed and only opened from the inside.
I noticed you still didn’t give us any examples of “useless” regulations. Instead you gave us a supposed regulation that wasn’t enforced. You wanted a regulation.
#89, And we still have heard where all the VP manufacturers went.