This update focuses on health care. Liberals continue to advocate socialist medicine. Michael Moore's new movie promotes socialism and communism. The free market is the solution to America's health care problems.
Walter Williams: Health Care: Government vs. Private
Marsha Blackburn: SCHIPing Away at Seniors' Medicare Benefits
WorldNetDaily: MANIA: The shocking link between psychiatric drugs, suicide, violence and mass murder
Humberto Fontova: Moore’s Pro-Castro Propaganda Hides Cuban Suffering
Deroy Murdock: 'SKiPO': Michael Moore's 'SiCKO' Skips Over Facts on Road to Government Medicine
Ericka Andersen: 'Sicko': A Universal Nightmare
Stuart Browning: Socialized Medicine is Sicko
POLITICAL UPDATES are archived here.
12 comments:
You deal with none of the arguments here Allan. More total garbage from people who make money off of the current system. The free market is designed to maximize the efficient use of scarce resources ONLY when it is not interfered with. Where's your posting against government subsidies going towards drug companies or towards HMOs or towards less efficient, private care plans? I do not care for Michael Moore either; however, until you address the issue that America's health care system does not operate in free market conditions, there is plenty about universal care that is appealing.
http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=4993
A great article about health care and the free market.
Stossel is perhaps the greatest communicator of free market ideals in our time. I feel he carries the torch for Milton Friedman in educating the world on how free markets can solve our problems more effectively and efficiently than any other mechanism.
Um...that was hardly an "article" of note. It was basically a recollection of a conversation the two men had. Strossel cited no studies and produced nothing but a few armchair facts. This is supposed to be some bit of proof that Moore is wrong? As I said to Allan, I am no fan of Michael Moore. Nevertheless, let's look at one of his examples; water. He produced one case where a privatized water scheme worked. There are many other examples where it did not. Take Stockton, California where prices went up, service declined and even those who supported the measure were forced to concede it was a bad idea. Then there’s the 2002 failure of water privatization in Atlanta. Have we forgotten California’s disastrous energy privatization scheme? Prices went up availability went down and people suffered. While Matt, you might be itching to point out that this is how the market works. I say woe unto him who says basic services should be provided in such a manner. Now you're a fan of citing Greg Mankiw no small amount of the time. What does he say in Principles of Economics? Markets sometimes fail. Government has a role to play when this happens. For those of you who don't know, this was President Bush's Chief Economic Advisor. So what does all this say about health care? For one, the problem with cross-country health care comparisons is that it is never clear what indicators are being measured or how you can isolate variables. There is no clear way to say what system is better. Still, the question I would like to ask you is that if these other countries really do have sub-standard care levels, why do you not see more outcry and demands for American-style systems? Is it because the governments browbeat people into compliance? Hardly. It is because Europeans value the welfare state and the benefits it provides. A free market in health care creates incentives for people to deny care to others simply to make money. This is not a system I feel compelled to support in any way.
Markets do sometimes fail, but that does not then automatically conclude that government intervention is either a) necessary, or b) leaves individuals better off than the market. Higher prices do not necessarily mean the system is worse; if government made a decree that all goods and services were now free, would this be better than the market, despite its higher prices?
I am not educated enough to your specific examples to directly comment on them, however I will say that neither Stossel nor yourself have produced, at least in the information presented on this post, any actual evidence of once system being better than the other. Citing a few "armchair facts" indeed does not make the case; why then did your attack on Stossel do just that, with no studies cited?
Why are Europeans not demanding the American-style system? Because the American style system is unfortunately a very far cry from a free market system. Our hybrid of socialism and market policies has led us to, in many cases, the worst of both worlds. You get the profit motive leading to denial of care and the government bureaucracy and regulation that destroys competition and price discrimination. The market is not allowed to function and the processes that make it work are eliminated.
In a true free market in health care, individuals are not using insurance to pay for every level of care they receive. Therefore it is individuals and doctors, not insurance providers, making the ultimate decisions on care. Price discriminating individuals can make the cost/benefit analysis with their doctors; not insurance companies. Indeed, the question most asked when a procedure is recommended by a doctor is not, "Do I really need it," or "How much does it cost?" but rather, "Does my insurance cover it?" This leads to patients who don't care about what a procedure costs, or if they actually need it, but whether their insurance covers it. This destroys the price system that makes the market work. People still get most of their health coverage from insurance due to WWII-era laws that create incentives for employers to provide health insurance rather than individuals providing it. HSAs are one solution to this problem.
You are a link in the long chain of people who create the strawman that the American system of healthcare equals a free market, and that by destroying the American system strawman, you invalidate a free market system. The American system is far from a free market, and moving more towards one will make Americans healthier and wealthier.
Clearly Matthew you need to reread my original comment to Allan. It was exactly his contention that our health care system operates in free market conditions that so drew my ire! I suppose the question now sir, is why are you supportive of a party that is clearly beholden to government subsidies to large corporations in seemingly every walk of life? My friend, the GOP is no free market party just as the Democrats are not socialists. One true to his beliefes would admit this and start by leaving the WMU GOP.
While the GOP has members with different levels of commitment to conservative ideals, certainly there are strong backers of the free market within the Republican party at both a local and national level. Visa vera, one must concede there are also many Democrats that are effectively Socialists. My goal is that, through the WMU GOP, we can help promote and elect the kind of Republicans that do support our conservative ideals.
Why not support a third-party? Why must you always be associated with the worst of the GOP just as sensible Dems are associated with socialists?
The most practical and effective way of achieving positive change by promoting conservative policy is currently through the Republican Party. If you have a better way of doing this, by all means let me know.
I'm not much for people who seek to conserve the status-quo...for that is what being conservative means. If this is not the case with you, I say again that the GOP is not your party.
Sometimes labels "conservative" or "progressive" are misleading: http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/opinion/columnists/boudreaux/s_521069.html
In many ways conservative ideals, specifically the economic ones, are far more dynamic and produce far more positive change than their "progressive" counterparts.
Ahh Matt. You're a liberal. You know you are.
Post a Comment