The Solution: Free Market Health Care ...

ViRedd

New Member
A Free Market in Health Care Is the Only Solution

by Jacob G. Hornberger

The debate over the health-care monstrosity that Congress is considering enacting raises some fundamental issues about our lives, liberty, and health.

There is one reason why there is a health-care crisis in America: socialism and interventionism, both at the federal level and the state level. On the demand side, there are Medicare and Medicaid. On the supply side, there are regulations and occupational licensure of physicians and other health-care providers.

Yet, virtually all of the discussion about how to solve the health-care crisis takes place within well-defined parameters in which Medicare, Medicaid, regulation, and licensure are the given. The discussion then focuses on how to resolve the crisis within those parameters.

Just look at any health-care editorial or op-ed in the establishment press or just listen to any news-talk program on radio or television. You will inevitably notice that hardly anyone ever calls for a total repeal of Medicare, Medicaid, health-care regulations, and medical licensure.

Instead, virtually every one of the commentators has his own favorite plan for reforming the status quo.

All of this is a ridiculous waste of time and effort. Socialism and interventionism are inherently incapable of working. No matter how much time and energy are put into solving the health care crisis, it won’t matter one iota as long as the reformers are operating within the parameters of socialism and interventionism. The results will be same, no matter what the reform: chaos and crisis, which will only produce the need for more reforms down the road.

Why don’t Americans simply restore a free market to health care? Why are people so wedded to these socialist and interventionist programs? Why are they so committed to making them work instead of ditching them entirely?

Indeed, why is the free-market paradigm considered beyond the pale of legitimate discourse when it comes to solving America’s health-care crisis?

One reason is that many Americans don’t even realize that these programs are socialist and interventionist in nature. Instead, they falsely think that they’re core elements of free enterprise.

All their lives they’ve been taught, especially in the government schools they attended as children and in the state-supported colleges and universities they attended as adults, that America is a “free enterprise” country.

Thus, in the minds of many Americans, what has failed is not socialism and interventionism but rather free enterprise. And so the logical thing to do is to move toward the opposite — a government takeover of health care.

A second reason is a related one: all too many Americans fail to have an understanding and appreciation of the principles of a genuine free market — that is, a market that is free of all government interference. A free market produces wealth, which enables people to afford more things. It raises people’s standard of living and provides them with the means not only to sustain and improve their own lives through a myriad of choices and options, but also to use charity to help out others who are in need.

The freer an economy, the wealthier the society will be, and the better off the poor will be. Conversely, the more socialistic and interventionist an economy, the poorer society will be, and the worse off the people at the bottom of the economic ladder will be.

A third reason is that all too many modern-day Americans have a tremendous psychological fear of freedom. They have become emotionally dependent on the paternalistic welfare state. The thought that government would not be there to provide health care services to the elderly and the poor is so frightening that they won’t even let their minds go there.

By the same token, the notion that anyone should be free to offer health care services to people without the approval of the government is absolutely terrifying to many Americans. Immediately, their imaginations go wild with such fantasies that doctors without training will be performing brain surgery on them.

There is but one solution to the health care crisis — the free market, which would entail a complete separation of health care and the state, in the same way that our ancestors separated church and state. That would mean the repeal, not a reform, of Medicare, Medicaid, regulation, and occupational licensure and an end to the income taxation needed to pay for all this.

The future well-being of our country necessitates raising our vision to a higher level — one that goes beyond a reform of the status quo — one that necessitates an understanding and appreciation of free-market principles and a deep and abiding faith in ourselves and in a free society.

Jacob Hornberger is founder and president of The Future of Freedom Foundation.</I>
 

TheBrutalTruth

Well-Known Member
A Free Market in Health Care Is the Only Solution

by Jacob G. Hornberger

The debate over the health-care monstrosity that Congress is considering enacting raises some fundamental issues about our lives, liberty, and health.

There is one reason why there is a health-care crisis in America: socialism and interventionism, both at the federal level and the state level. On the demand side, there are Medicare and Medicaid. On the supply side, there are regulations and occupational licensure of physicians and other health-care providers.

Yet, virtually all of the discussion about how to solve the health-care crisis takes place within well-defined parameters in which Medicare, Medicaid, regulation, and licensure are the given. The discussion then focuses on how to resolve the crisis within those parameters.

Just look at any health-care editorial or op-ed in the establishment press or just listen to any news-talk program on radio or television. You will inevitably notice that hardly anyone ever calls for a total repeal of Medicare, Medicaid, health-care regulations, and medical licensure.

Instead, virtually every one of the commentators has his own favorite plan for reforming the status quo.

All of this is a ridiculous waste of time and effort. Socialism and interventionism are inherently incapable of working. No matter how much time and energy are put into solving the health care crisis, it won’t matter one iota as long as the reformers are operating within the parameters of socialism and interventionism. The results will be same, no matter what the reform: chaos and crisis, which will only produce the need for more reforms down the road.

Why don’t Americans simply restore a free market to health care? Why are people so wedded to these socialist and interventionist programs? Why are they so committed to making them work instead of ditching them entirely?

Indeed, why is the free-market paradigm considered beyond the pale of legitimate discourse when it comes to solving America’s health-care crisis?

One reason is that many Americans don’t even realize that these programs are socialist and interventionist in nature. Instead, they falsely think that they’re core elements of free enterprise.

All their lives they’ve been taught, especially in the government schools they attended as children and in the state-supported colleges and universities they attended as adults, that America is a “free enterprise” country.

Thus, in the minds of many Americans, what has failed is not socialism and interventionism but rather free enterprise. And so the logical thing to do is to move toward the opposite — a government takeover of health care.

A second reason is a related one: all too many Americans fail to have an understanding and appreciation of the principles of a genuine free market — that is, a market that is free of all government interference. A free market produces wealth, which enables people to afford more things. It raises people’s standard of living and provides them with the means not only to sustain and improve their own lives through a myriad of choices and options, but also to use charity to help out others who are in need.

The freer an economy, the wealthier the society will be, and the better off the poor will be. Conversely, the more socialistic and interventionist an economy, the poorer society will be, and the worse off the people at the bottom of the economic ladder will be.

A third reason is that all too many modern-day Americans have a tremendous psychological fear of freedom. They have become emotionally dependent on the paternalistic welfare state. The thought that government would not be there to provide health care services to the elderly and the poor is so frightening that they won’t even let their minds go there.

By the same token, the notion that anyone should be free to offer health care services to people without the approval of the government is absolutely terrifying to many Americans. Immediately, their imaginations go wild with such fantasies that doctors without training will be performing brain surgery on them.

There is but one solution to the health care crisis — the free market, which would entail a complete separation of health care and the state, in the same way that our ancestors separated church and state. That would mean the repeal, not a reform, of Medicare, Medicaid, regulation, and occupational licensure and an end to the income taxation needed to pay for all this.

The future well-being of our country necessitates raising our vision to a higher level — one that goes beyond a reform of the status quo — one that necessitates an understanding and appreciation of free-market principles and a deep and abiding faith in ourselves and in a free society.

Jacob Hornberger is founder and president of The Future of Freedom Foundation.</I>
People never benefit from setting a government on top of them...

the only people that benefit are the bureaucrats, whether they be elected or unelected.

The stronger the government, the weaker the people
The higher the taxes, the poorer the people
The more energetic the government, the more slothful the people.
 
K

Keenly

Guest
People never benefit from setting a government on top of them...

the only people that benefit are the bureaucrats, whether they be elected or unelected.

The stronger the government, the weaker the people
The higher the taxes, the poorer the people
The more energetic the government, the more slothful the people.

indeed...

2 words...... rationed healthcare....


hell no
 

hom36rown

Well-Known Member
When your sick and your health care denies a service because it isn't "necessary" or even retroactively cancels you leaving you with nothing, where do you go? Canada?

Private insurance companies and government subsidized health care can coexist.
 

ilkhan

Well-Known Member
Why can't a doctor set up his practice like a gym membership?
Not involve himself with insurance at all?
Simple answer, regulations.
Regulations kill the market.
The market is what keeps prices low.

Most insurance policies follow Government regulations one how they opporate.
SO IMO all the problems you describe whith health care insurance is in fact Governments fault.
So now we should just let them run the show?
Hell no.
 

TheBrutalTruth

Well-Known Member
Private insurance companies ration healthcare.
Uhm, dumb ass, I believe what you mean is that scarcity rations healthcare.

Obviously health care is not an infinite resource, and thus there is always goind to be some that get more, and some that get less. The government is not going to be able to change that.
 

TheBrutalTruth

Well-Known Member
Yeah, screw order, we don't need civilization...we need to be free.

I'm more than happy to enslave someone with your fringe ideology.
Actually our ideology is the one that founded this nation. Your arguments that government is society demonstrate a clear lack of understanding of what society is and what government is. Society is the voluntary construct of people cooperating together. Government is the act of governing to ensure that such cooperation is indeed voluntary.

Thus to address the Federal Corporation that names itself the Government of the United States, ignores that it is a Corporation and secondly a State, which can be defined as being a collection of people removed from the government of those that they hold dominion over. They do not actually produce anything, but reap the benefits of everyone else's labor. They do not actually contribute to the well being of society, but steal its bounties.

A government is those entities that are responsive to the demand of all its citizens not just the deluded who would sacrifice the rights endowed to them upon their birth of Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. A state is not responsive to all of its citizens, it relies upon force and coercion and enslavement.

The government you hold so dear is just a corporation that is hell-bent on stripping the rights of the citizens away from them, and turning them into slaves. Instead of a nation of free men that take pride in their freedom, and aspire to be independent, and thus fully mature adults, the nation is seeing itself transformed into a nation of children, of dependents. Dependency is a mental disorder, and thus any organization that makes its arguments surrounding dependency can be held up as being sociopathic. These idealogies are Socialism (in all of its various forms ranging from National Socialism (NAZI-esque) to International Socialism (Stalin-esque)), Fascism, and Statism.

A mature human being stands on their own two feet and takes pride in their independence and self-reliance. An immature child seeks to constant attentions of a parent that prevents them from inflicting harm upon themselves. A government that is just encourages the development of its citizens into mature, responsible, self-governance. A State is going to discourage such development and will attempt to encourage its citizens to not be mature adults, but to remain in a neotenous state of dependency.

The fringe ideology as you have the audacity to call it, is anything but. Your ideology on the other hand is the fringe ideology, and while it has the support of power-mongering politicians, self-serving bureaucrats, and deluded individuals that are blinded by their desires to do good, it is one that does not follow the course of development.

As oft quote, "If a man is not a Progressive at 25 he has no heart, but if a man is not a Conservative at 35 then he has no mind."

I'm not going to hypothesize upon your age...
 

hom36rown

Well-Known Member
the nation was not founded on anarchism or voluntaryism, which amounts to anarchism... I didn't read the rest of your post yet, but yeah, if it start out that ridiculously then it can't get much better.
 

TheBrutalTruth

Well-Known Member
I called it alright.
The nation didn't start out with an over-sized federal bureaucracy either. If California wishes to be Socialist, then that is California's business, nothing there but empty heads from hollywood anyway. If New Mexico, or Colorado, or Georgia or any other state wishes to adopt pure Capitalism then that is their right. There is no need for the federal government to regulate the states, which were intended to remain sovereign entities with a few responsibilities handed to the federal government to ensure that the states did not fight amongst themselves or violate each other's rights, or the rights of the citizens of other states.

As far as the formation of this country, and the behavior exhibited during its formation. Completely, and 100% voluntary. There was no obligation or claim of obligation laid upon the country by those that fought the revolutionary war.

The texts produced by Patrick Henry, Richard Henry Lee, Thomas Jefferson and the quotes produced by George Washington, Benjamin Franklin, and the Adams, can not be construed as creating your non-existent government-society. That is, the nation was not founded upon Socialism.

The founders of this nation recognized that all individuals were endowed by their humanity to the rights of life, liberty and pursuit of happiness, and by extension of the first two rights being itemized, property. Property of course is the fruit of one's life and liberty.

Your system on the other hand is built upon the criminal desire to deprive others of their property under the guise of claiming that government is society. Government is not society. There is no need for a federal government for society to function, and even with out a state government many cities would do just fine (if not better, being released from the yoke of having to surrender monies to state and federal bureaucracies.)

Your system argues for slavery, and violation of the rights that the very founders of this nation argued that every man was endowed with. It is not a system for free men, and independent adults, it is a system for children who desire to always have some parental figure watching them.

Perhaps you should go catch up on your historical reading, Declaration of Independence, Constitution of the United States, Rights of Man. Common Sense, all good documents that explain the mindset of those that risked their lives, fortunes and sacred honor to fight for the formation of the United States. And here you are, claiming that they did not stand for the very ideals that they did stand for.
 

hom36rown

Well-Known Member
The articles of confederation were a mess, the founding fathers realized a centralized federal government was necessary. What they envisioned is irrelevant to my political beliefs though, And I am not a socialist, however, I do believe in a federal government, just as the framers did.

I don not know what the hell you are talking about when You say, my system.
 

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
Yeah, screw order, we don't need civilization...we need to be free.

I'm more than happy to enslave someone with your fringe ideology.
I'm more than happy to leave you alone as long as you harm nobody. It's unfortunate you do not share that philosophy.

So there you have it COMRADE, we are different... leaving others alone makes me happy, enslaving makes you and your kind happy.
 

hom36rown

Well-Known Member
I'm more than happy to leave you alone as long as you harm nobody. It's unfortunate you do not share that philosophy.

So there you have it COMRADE, we are different... leaving others alone makes me happy, enslaving makes you and your kind happy.
Chaos and disorder make you happy, order and civilization make me happy.
 
Top