Rebane's Ruminations
November 2012
S M T W T F S
 123
45678910
11121314151617
18192021222324
252627282930  

ARCHIVES


OUR LINKS


YubaNet
White House Blog
Watts Up With That?
The Union
Sierra Thread
RL “Bob” Crabb
Barry Pruett Blog

The beginning of wisdom is to call things by their right names. Chinese proverb

George Rebane

This important topic was resurrected in a comment thread under ‘Happy Thanksgiving – 2012’.  Two readers voiced strong opinions (one with cited evidence) that our freedoms have increased.  One reader disputed that, and I join in that dispute.  I believe evidence abounds that will support the case that we are less free today than we were fifty years ago.  However, the issue has complexities that compel exploration as our governments’ scope and reach continues to grow, and doubly so given the consequences of the last two national elections that are propelling us toward autocratic collectivism (redundancy intended) at an ever faster pace.

First of all, freedom has more than one dimension, made up of more than one factor, or what is technically known as being composed of multiple attributes.  For example, under one form of governance we can be totally free to have sex with chickens at public gatherings, but not free to select and place ceiling lights in our new kitchen.  There are behaviors and things I may want to do to express my understanding of individual freedoms, things which may be of no interest or import to you, and vice versa.  The point here is that different people, maybe based on their education, culture, life experiences, etc will measure freedom and personal liberty quite differently.

There is no absolute measure of freedom.  The closest social organization that attempts to define a broadly accepted and ubiquitous environment for liberty is the US Constitution.  But even before it began to be amended, the Founders admonished us with caveats as to what kind of populace the document would successfully serve.  Time has proved them to have been right.

The problem, of course, arises when such people with disparate views and beliefs are forced to live cheek-by-jowl, and worse, if one cohort wants and is able to proscribe what is dear to the other.


As a personal vignette, my family’s path up the economic ladder would have been either grossly delayed, stunted, or made impossible had we been burdened during the 1950s with the laws, regulations, and ordnances that are common fare today.  (This alone can explain away the decrease in social mobility in the US.)  Being capable in many trades, my parents moved us into houses that required more than a little loving to make them presentable.  We all worked in the most expedient manner possible to bring the dwellings up to middle class standards.  As long as you were working on your own residence, permits with their applications, costs, and delays ranged from optional to unheard of.

In exurban Indianapolis boys going into the nearby woods with their 22s or 410s were a most unremarkable sight.  Plinking in the back yard was an irritant to neighbors only if it went on too long, and that was settled with a neighbor-to-neighbor phone call.  In Los Angeles, as long as you didn’t violate the open fire restrictions during fire season, you could walk into any of the surrounding mountains with your sleeping bags (and gun), and have a campout.  The Mojave Desert and the High Sierra were open lands that really did belong to the people.

In this debate we have to be careful not to be diverted by the ‘would you either have this or that’ argument.  These are simply specious.  Nobody wants to go back to a past that also had parts that were clearly improvable.  Breaking up Ma Bell and being able to own your own phones did not require us to give up a bushel load of freedoms; we could simply have broken up the telephone oligopolies.  And deregulating trucking and airlines did not require the restricting of access to federal lands.

So the argument really comes down to what kinds of freedom were important in the lifestyles and daily round of Americans, not whether some obscure federal banking regulation was in force or not.  The entrepreneurship and individual enterprise evident in the immediate decades after WW2 are unmatched anywhere in the history of economic and personal freedoms.  A library of tomes has been written in recent years about how these have been circumscribed and/or lost.  Some factors, in no particular order, to consider about the last 50 years.

1.    The number of laws, ordnances, regulations, fees, taxes, … by any count has increased without bound, all limiting what we can do and how we may do what remains.
2.    Entire departments of government have begun deporting themselves as rogue fiefdoms not answerable to either legislatures or the voters – e.g. IRS, EPA, HHS, California’s ARB, … .  Read about the new “regulatory flood” on the way.
3.    Even organized socialists argue we now have less freedom from their own interesting perspective.
4.    Then there are conservatives like Jonah Goldberg who argue that we are now more free.  The easy criticism of this stance is found here.
5.    Many laws continue on the books prohibiting free trade from shoes to sugar, more on the way as ‘exporting jobs’ becomes harder for private firms.
6.    Assimilaton of immigrant populations has diminished, today multiple cultures in America seeking more autonomy.  Government’s response is to replace cultural norms by government pan-cultural edicts enforced by its gun.
7.    Meanwhile the government grows more and more afraid of an armed American citizenry, and is doing everything possible to roll back the ownership and use of firearms.  California leads the way.  Public schools no longer teach that the prime purpose of gun ownership was to oppose government tyranny, not duck hunting.
8.    Fed agencies and departments are arming themselves against US citizens, expecting massive civil unrest beyond the power of local constabularies to control.  Why?  (BTW, did everyone see the first public use of the new massive urban assault vehicles during the Sandy recovery efforts on Fox News?  (RR reported here.)
9.    Double jeopardy is now commonplace in our judicial system (criminal then civil suits, multiple times).
10.    Criminalizing formerly normal/legal behaviors with examples: ongoing switch from civil to criminal laws to punish behaviors (here).
11.    Abuse of the Patriot Act outlined here.
12.    Numerous institutional indexes on economic and personal freedoms show US being downgraded over recent years. Economic freedoms decline here, and on Cato, and on Heritage, and in the UN index of personal freedoms US ranks 13th already in 1991, on the World Liberty Index 2006, and on the World Liberty Index 2012

Posted in , , ,

83 responses to “Are We More or Less Free?”

  1. Ryan Mount Avatar

    Paul-
    I’ve been interested in a response from Conservatives regarding the “Hospital as primary care” meme for the underprivileged. I’ve been waiting for a straight answer on how to solve this. If you don’t have any money or income, is it wise to use the ER as your PCP?
    1) Is the answer as my Scottish Mom would say: “Tough titty.” Time to die. I think not. I hope not. Note: my Mother would never say “time to die” even in her most Braveheart moments
    2) Is it, “we’ll just bill you and you maybe can pay it off in 40 years with interest”?
    3) Is it, “let the market decide”? Whatever that means (that means #1)
    4) Do we just extend medicare and raise taxes?
    I think the answer is probably a measly socialized heath care service for the underprivileged, and private supplemental and higher quality care for more affluent folk.
    After that, what’s likely to happen is the quality of care and/or access to it for more affluent people will probably decline and become more expensive for twice-told reasons here and elsewhere. As I mentioned over on RL’s blog, the un and under-insured will have long lines and grouchy doctors (probably Nurse Practitioners or similar), but at least they won’t die or at least have a chance some basic/limited care.

    Like

  2. George Rebane Avatar

    PaulE 1141am – that’s a tired argument. Whatever was then was then. The point is that the Dems have rejected the only possibility for something sustainable that was (and continues to be?) proposed by the Repubs. All your arguments center around now is revenge – the Repubs didn’t solve the problem then, so now we also get a free pass on screwing things up even more.
    And the ’emergency room healthcare’ argument is more than tired, it’s expired. No one is proposing continuing what we have now; it is only a strawman that liberals like to (re)construct, and then demolish with great fury and high dudgeon.

    Like

  3. Ryan Mount Avatar

    George-
    Then what do we do with the ER visits and the uninsured? Same old/Same old? And have the government pick up some of the costs, and the hospitals write-off the balance? (the latter just means it increases costs on those of us who do pay)
    And medical bankruptcies? Just let them happen? I’m guessing that most people who go through medical bankruptcies didn’t have it coming to them because of reckless behavior. But then again, bankruptcy is better than dying.

    Like

  4. George Rebane Avatar

    RyanM 204pm – For some reason, I don’t think anyone is listening. Let me posit a rule (in the event no one has beaten me to it) – ‘That which can’t happen, won’t.’
    You sound like the chorus that believes somehow the ER visits and the treatment for the uninsured will continue. It can’t, it’s unsustainable and so is Obamacare, so it won’t. Unless the solution I have outlined is put into effect, people will die, and the poorer people will die first. That’s reality and we can’t bullshit our way over, under, or through it. 20th century Communist governments tried and failed miserably, in the process killing untold millions of their own citizens.
    For certain problems there are very few solutions, for others no solution at all. The sooner we understand that, the sooner we will find workable solutions for those problems that admit them.

    Like

  5. Paul Emery Avatar

    George
    Emergency rooms as an option were proposed by Romney during the campaign so from that view it’s entirely contemporary unless you consider last spring old history.
    “Well, we do provide care for people who don’t have insurance,” Romney told interviewer Scott Pelley. “If someone has a heart attack, they don’t sit in their apartment and — and die. We pick them up in an ambulance, and take them to the hospital, and give them care. And different states have different ways of providing for that care.”
    The majority support Obamacare as reflected by the Dems romp in the Presidential and Senate races so dumping it is not a popular option and will not happen.

    Like

  6. Paul Emery Avatar

    RE George 29 November 2012 at 02:15 PM
    Wow. You are far more cynical than I thought. So in your view there will be a kind of controlled burn of poor people. This is truly a line in the sand between the have and the have not’s. If you are fortunate enough to have insurance or are on welfare you will be able to survive illness or injury if not you will be left on the streets to die after whatever money you and your family have accumulated is looted by the collection agencies of the medical industry. Unless, of course we follow George’s path which no country in the civilize world has adopted or considered.
    No George, I believe there are greater ideas that will prevail. Caring for our fellow human beings and the earth are what makes us human beings and different from animals.

    Like

  7. Ryan Mount Avatar

    George, I beg your pardon for my denseness. And I apologize for getting in between you and Paul on this discussion.
    Isn’t it possible that there will be a gradual, maybe rapid I dunno, decrease in medical service* coupled with an increase of cost** as we (that is, we as Americans) move to provide health care for the underprivileged?
    I’m not saying I like this, for the record. I do not find it rewarding paying taxes out of my ass to not really reap any (very few) of its benefits. (It’s that zerohedge link Greg provided in another thread that has me steaming still. I might do better to be a terrible farmer and get bailed out by the Federal Government, according to http://www.benefits.gov)
    Or maybe look at it this way: the underprivileged will finally will have some formal care, and the more privileged will have less of it and probably pay more. To that end, some people will be less free at the expense of the collective.
    * fewer specialists, longer waits for appointments, shorter appointments
    ** higher taxes, higher premiums

    Like

  8. George Rebane Avatar

    RyanM 326pm – You are as much a part of this discussion as anyone Ryan. But to be a contributor to it we must get past the ‘caring for our human beings’ and ‘this is what makes us human’ platitudes. It is these that have cost over 200 million government inflicted non-war related deaths during the last century.
    We will not be able to do anything for our fellow man save we have the wherewithal to do it – aka a roaring economy, a lukewarm one will no longer do. Then the better ways to healthcare will probably be private charities that will be funded mostly by the upper two quintiles. (My family benefited from such a system after arriving in America.) The devising of a bottom-of-the-bucket safety net that doesn’t invite the behaviors of a commons will be tricky. But make no mistake, in any society being poor and poorest has its consequences that platitudes (of socialism) will only make worse.
    And because otherwise reasonable people like PaulE refuse to face reality, we will soon have to wallow in another kind of reality. In the final analysis that is why we are no longer one nation – one side believes the other to be insane beyond redemption, and that side returns the compliment by believing its opposite to be heartless and greedy beyond redemption. Both should live peacefully in environments where they can implement and savor their own belief systems.

    Like

  9. Ryan Mount Avatar

    I just want to know who’s gonna pay for the people who show up at the ER with no ability to pay. I think in the mid to long term, you’re (George) are saying it’s gonna be nobody, because there ain’t gonna be nothing. Probably true at this rate. In the short term, Paul is saying somebody’s gotta pay for it, which would be the hospitals with write downs, and I’m assuming Medi-Cal/Medicare for small amounts. PPACA certainly ain’t gonna fix it.
    When we eat May’s wheat in April, eventually May comes around I suppose.
    I’m not against paying more [some 5% more? 10%? Not sure. That would certainly mean less spending in my family] taxes if I think it will do good. The problem is, I don’t see any good coming out of this current mismanagement. I’m gonna ask some of my doctor friends for their opinion on this healthcare issue. The PPACA is a sham and the long game is for single payer anyway. Boil the frog slowly as they say. Cynical, but effective.

    Like

  10. Paul Emery Avatar

    So George in your view it’s morally correct to spend trillions of dollars of revenue for military adventures and security and not spend what is necessary to ensure the health of our citizens. To you that becomes a step on the path to totalitarianism but military spending does not. Can you explain that.

    Like

  11. George Rebane Avatar

    RyanM 456pm – I have talked to about ten physicians about practice under Obamacare, and 1) they all believe it to be the biggest sham in healthcare they have ever seen, and 2) they will quit practicing medicine as soon as they can (five of them will retire instantly). PaulE sent his crickets to respond to the Gallup poll of 54% of Americans who believe government should play no role in providing healthcare.
    PaulE 505pm – I have not been talking about morals, but only fiscal realities. Our military spending has NEVER threatened our sovereignty or our constitutional governance – in fact they are the constitutional defenders of both. But collectivist fiscal irresponsibility has taken down a number of countries either into destitution, revolution, or unspeakable tyrannies. From that you can figure out your own morals.

    Like

  12. Russ Steele Avatar

    We have been talking to our Doctors and two of the three are going to retire before 2014. The third is still evaluating his options, and my go into full time teaching and not take patients. We are looking a grim reality, a mandatory health care system with no doctors to provide the care. ObamaCare has removed the incentive for being a doctor, being a government slave labor just does not cut it!

    Like

  13. Paul Emery Avatar

    George
    All 20 countries on the freedom index you quote have national health care except for the US at least until Obamacare takes effect. Are you saying that all those countries will all fall into “destitution, revolution, or unspeakable tyrannies”?
    Also am I correct assuming that the military, police and fire departments area commons we are justified in supporting but national health care as a commons is not.

    Like

  14. Paul Emery Avatar

    Russ
    How do you explain that in Europe they seen to have no problem providing doctors and health care workers and in fact spend more time with their patients than they do here?

    Like

  15. Ryan Mount Avatar

    I know two doctors personally. Both specialists. Both have a hard time understanding how they are going to be able to stay in their practices over the next 5 years without moving into a hospital’s organization. I haven’t had a chance to ask my local PCP for an opinion on all of this, but I will in a few weeks when I see her.
    This is not about “they don’t like change.” This is about them running the numbers and not being able to keep their practices open.
    When prices are high, everyone bitches about inflation. So then we price-fix goods and services (think recently: Hurricane Sandy and gasoline shortages), supply goes down. And then everyone predictable complains about shortages. It’s not rocket science. Or brain surgery.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=THNPmhBl-8I

    Like

  16. Paul Emery Avatar
    Paul Emery

    So Ryan where does all the money go considering millions have n coverage? 18% of GDP is no chump change. In Denmark they cover everyone on less than 7%. I respect your views so give me a little help with this.

    Like

  17. TheMikeyMcd Avatar
    TheMikeyMcd

    Someone please hold me, like my momma should. Paul neglected to comment on my question(s).
    29 November 2012 at 10:58 AM

    Like

  18. Russ Steele Avatar

    Paul,
    Rationing and ignoring the aged In the UK. Here are some of conditions not being treated:
    • Hip and knee replacements only being allowed where patients are in severe pain. Overweight patients will be made to lose weight before being considered for an operation.
    • Cataract operations being withheld from patients until their sight problems “substantially” affect their ability to work.
    • Patients with varicose veins only being operated on if they are suffering “chronic continuous pain”, ulceration or bleeding.
    • Tonsillectomy (removing tonsils) only to be carried out in children if they have had seven bouts of tonsillitis in the previous year.
    • Grommets to improve hearing in children only being inserted in “exceptional circumstances” and after monitoring for six months.
    More details here: http://blog.heritage.org/2011/08/01/could-britains-health-care-rationing-come-to-the-states/

    Like

  19. Michael Anderson Avatar
    Michael Anderson

    Russ, if people have these conditions shouldn’t they (or their parents) be able to pay for it? They have no options under the present system.
    These issues are NOT AT ALL what we are talking about, we are talking about BASIC COVERAGE. After that, do whatever the hell you like!!
    Treating people in the ER makes me pay, as a small businessman, WAY TOO MUCH. Stop the madness. Get efficient.
    Sorry Russ, your experience comes from another century; it is neither relevant, pertinent, important, nor significant. It has no value.
    Your rationing boogeyman is bullshit, and I reject it wholeheartedly.

    Like

  20. Paul Emery Avatar

    Mikey re 29 November 2012 at 10:58 AM
    You didn’t really ask a question it was more of a statement. I will repost it here for convenience
    “Paul, your faith in government regarding government health care is scary. You of all people must see the atrocities provided by government (war on drugs, medicare’s negative impact on existing health care system, war in general, piss-poor educational system, etc).
    For the life of me I cannot find ANY reason to trust the largest, most corrupt, mismanaged, most bureaucratic entity on the planet with the power you are eager to relinquish to the US government. I certainly don’t want government central planning my health (physical and financial).”
    To answer your non question I can only say that most European health care systems allow private options for those that can afford and want them Everyone else gets basic coverage. I personally consider basic health care to be a necessary utility for all persons. We do live in 2012 for goodness sake. My view is that we fund universal health care with the same necessity that we support police, fire protection and yes military. Of course we must have tort reform to cut out the legal leeches. By creating a single option insurance plan you also eliminate excessive executive gluttony which at the same time denies coverage to those with pre existing conditions and unfortunate hereditary conditions. I have no confidence that there are free market options for a necessity that is akin to air, water and food.
    Yes Russ there may be rationing and limits. Currently nearly 50 million Americans don’t have any options except the emergency room which is rationing to the max.

    Like

  21. Todd Juvinall Avatar

    I am with PaulE and MikeA on the right of the government to take over the medical needs of all Americans. And while we are at it, how about the government taking over the music industry PaulE makes his living at and the electronics industry (or whatever industry) MA is making his living from. I think they should be the peons of all encompassing government just as they propose all the doctors, hospitals and medical suppliers, insurance companies etc. sould be. Hey fair is fair. So, you two lovelies rush down to BiG G and sign over all your life’s work so some DMV type can tell you what to do. What a hoot!

    Like

  22. Ryan Mount Avatar

    Paul I understand your argument against wasteful spending as is impacts both health care inflation and ironically a lack of service for the under privileged. I am perfectly willing to sacrifice some admitted luxuries (we really don’t need 300 DirecTV channels) in my family’s lives in the form of higher taxes if we can rationally provide the uninsured with care.
    Someone just needs to tell me (us really) how we’re going to do it. Will somebody step-the-hell-up and lead on this issue? PPACA isn’t gonna do it, Medicare/Medicade is ostensibly broke beyond belief. Who is going to pay for the $300 15 minute PCP doctor visits? Or the $1000 ER visits?
    And as a rhetorical question, when we decrease supply, as in reduce or prescribe (via regulations) payments to doctors, what effect does that have?
    Paul said> I can only say that most European health care systems allow private options for those that can afford and want them Everyone else gets basic coverage.
    That’s what I said above is coming to ‘Merika. And that makes privileged folk pay more and arguably receive less service for what they’re paying And in their minds, that means “less free.” So to George’s topic, some are probably less free. You can also make a somewhat specious argument that the privileged are more free because they can buy supplemental private insurance to augment a single payer system.
    On the the other hand, the poor are less free to die. So that’s a problem.

    Like

  23. Russ Steele Avatar

    Paul and Michael I am wondering what is your experiences with government run medical systems. I spend 20 year under a military run health care and I was one of the elites in the system being an aviator. However, my family was served by a system which rationed the medical care based on the availability of doctors. They had no choice over the doctors, it was who ever was on duty. Some were better that others, many were immigrants that had accepted government money to attend medical school and had to serve in the military, and some struggled with the english language, the deep accents made them hard to understand at times. Our biggest concern was not having a choice. It was who every was on duty, and when there was a doctor shortage, the wait for appointments could take weeks. Officers families were often give priority over enlisted families, not a matter of policy, but that is just the way the system worked. Flyers were a higher value asset.
    Anyone that thinks when doctor shortage exist that some will be treated differently than others based on station in live are ignorant of how government run systems work. We have family members living in Canada and one had tumor behind the ear. It was causing pressure on the brain, which was painful and cause some behavior problems. She had to wait months for appointments and it was almost two years before the Doctor would operate, and during that two years the tumor grew larger. Finally an emergency room doctor demanded something be done immediately, the operation was scheduled, and then canceled when a higher priority medical emergency needed the operating room. It was a month before she was rescheduled. There are more MRI machines in the city of Sacramento than all of BC. Canada health care is free, but rationed.
    We were in Omaha NE, station at Offutt AFB, which had a joint nuclear planning staff with officers from NATO Countries. The cocktail conversation was often about the wonder medical care that the officers and their families were getting in the US, especially dental and eye care that was rationed in their home countries. One family we know extend their stay so the children could have their teeth straightening completed. A service not available in the home country.
    Now there is my experience, perhaps you can share yours?

    Like

  24. Russ Steele Avatar

    Reality Check: Paul and Michael The Daily Mail reports on path ways to death in the UK:
    Sick children are being discharged from NHS hospitals to die at home or in hospices on controversial “death pathways.”
    Until now, end of life regime the Liverpool Care Pathway was thought to have involved only elderly and terminally-ill adults.
    But the Mail can reveal the practice of withdrawing food and fluid by tube is being used on young patients as well as severely disabled newborn babies.
    One doctor has admitted starving and dehydrating ten babies to death in the neonatal unit of one hospital alone.
    Writing in a leading medical journal, the physician revealed the process can take an average of ten days during which a baby becomes “smaller and shrunken.”
    The LCP – on which 130,000 elderly and terminally-ill adult patients die each year – is now the subject of an independent inquiry ordered by ministers.
    The investigation, which will include child patients, will look at whether cash payments to hospitals to hit death pathway targets have influenced doctors’ decisions.
    Medical critics of the LCP insist it is impossible to say when a patient will die and as a result the LCP death becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. They say it is a form of euthanasia, used to clear hospital beds and save the NHS money.

    You can see why the concept of “death pathways” and “death pathway targets” is handy in a government-run system of health care. We have a lot to learn about ObamaCare and the built in “death panels”

    Like

  25. TheMikeyMcD Avatar
    TheMikeyMcD

    The only solution to health care is the free market.
    Health care is not a right and is not as essential as air or water. Folks lived more hapilly than us without giving health care a thought for centuries.

    Like

  26. Ryan Mount Avatar

    Mikey-
    http://healthcare.procon.org/#pro_con
    That sums up most of the entitlement debate (and the Great Divide) over health care.
    There are two core arguments from the Pro crowd we should note:
    1) If we don’t take care of sick people, then we risk harm to ourselves. This is the collective “herd” argument, and frankly not a bad one. Vaccines are a good example of this.
    2) Everywhere else has universal coverage except here. (this is Paul’s argument to some extent). Many [somewhat irrelevant] correlations and assumptions follow this one like “heath care is cheaper when it’s socialized” and “the economy will get a boost because of more health dollars” etc. This, of course, is also a Argumentum ad Populum fallacy. Often called the “bandwagon” fallacy. Because it assumes that popularity equals truth. Or 50 million Elvis fans can’t be wrong. The fact of the matter is our health care economy, and our economy in general is vastly different that other 1st world countries. Lots to say about that.
    The Con arguments can best be described as this:
    1) It’s not in the Constitution. And legislation is misinterpreting the Constitution. To put a finer (and hair-splitting) point on that, the Constitution has things like “Promote” the general welfare, not provide it. This maybe technically true, but since the 1960s Civil Rights and subsequent Acts, no one give a shit about the Constitution in that way anymore. That is, until one is unlawfully searched by an asshole cop. Then suddenly s/he are suddenly very interested in the 4th Amendment.
    2) [Artificially] increasing the demand (lit. more patients) for healthcare, will increase costs, lower service and de-incentize research/development even as it brings more people into the fold. This is probably a true statement, even if there are fiscal savings made from things like a single payer system. The well does not have an infinite supply of water, so to speak.

    Like

  27. Paul Emery Avatar

    Mikey
    “Folks lived more happily than us without giving health care a thought for centuries. ”
    Sure they did Mikey for an happy average age of about 40. Let’s go back to the good old days of witch doctors and shamans and traveling quacks with rusty saws.
    Russ
    The Daily Mail is a rag akin to the National Inquirer. Aside from that it’s easy to pot shot any system through google so have at it. I was raised in the military for 16 years and don’t recall any problems with doctors or medical treatment.
    Again in most European systems there is no doctor shortage. This is astonishing. The US is 47th in the world in doctor to patient ratios just ahead of Moldovia !!!! Most European countries are way ahead of us.
    http://www.nationsencyclopedia.com/WorldStats/WDI-health-services-physicians.html

    Like

  28. JesusBetterman Avatar

    ” Folks lived more hapilly than us without giving health care a thought for centuries. ” ~Russ~
    You might try calling up their spirits and see what they had to say about ingrown toenails, toothaches, and appendicitis. And broken bones and pneumonia.

    Like

  29. JesusBetterman Avatar

    That was Mikey, not Russ.

    Like

  30. Ryan Mount Avatar

    Paul-
    http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/07/15/how-much-do-doctors-in-other-countries-make/
    Doctors make more here, almost double the global average. Is that a supply and demand issue? Perhaps.
    Also the nationsencyclopedia report assumes that the medical community and its support and liability apparatuses are equal. They’re obviously not. So a simple question: What if US doctors are more productive than say ones from Cuba due to more automation and skill? This chart does NOT address any assumptions like that. Is the North Kprean Army more powerful than the US’s army because they have more soldiers?
    Anyhow, let’s assume this is correct (it might be). Is the solution to supply more doctors to drive costs down then? How does something like a single payer address this? And who’s gonna pay the liability premiums for these doctors when we cut their salaries by, say, 1/3 to match the Netherlands?

    Like

  31. JesusBetterman Avatar

    A doctor here has higher expenses, and supposedly more rigorous and thorough training. Likewise, teachers and programmers.

    Like

  32. Paul Emery Avatar

    Mikey
    So in your view the poor should celebrate they have the freedom to die or live with illness or injury because there is no government healthcare options. Libertarian thought has to be inclusive of all people or it will just be another elitist group like the Republicrats.

    Like

  33. TheMikeyMcD Avatar
    TheMikeyMcD

    Paul, I know that the advances in medicine that blesses the world today come from capitalism and not government central planning. I know that the largest impediment to affordable/quality health care in the USA is government. To expect better for anyone (rich or poor) we need less government regulations, tort reform and free enterprise systems (insurance, etc).

    Like

Leave a comment