On Jul 17, 2009, at 9:15 PM, John Williams wrote:
On Fri, Jul 17, 2009 at 8:55 PM, Warren
Ockrassa<war...@nightwares.com> wrote:
But we have free market solutions. We've had them for decades.
For healthcare? Free market as in, minimal government restrictions on
what consumers can buy and what providers can sell? I'd certainly like
to hear about such things.
I guess you've never visited an "herbal" healer then, or someone who
used "reiki" or "healing touch". You're not prevented from doing so.
The free market lets you.
There's a reason the FDA regulates treatments, and it's rooted in
snake oil sales. I don't think the FDA, in insisting on evidence-based
treatments, is overdoing things. (Well, not generally.) But with a
"minimal government restriction" approach, that's precisely what we'd
be left with: A deluge of quack cures.
Again, we had the "free market" model. Again, it *did not work*. I
won't insult you by quoting Santayana here; there's no reason to.
The idea of insurance is that a large number of people pool their
resources
together to lighten the burden of loss for a few.
The assumption being that you are INSURING against unexpected costs.
Most health care plans are not insurance in this sense, but are rather
cafeteria plans, since they cover a large chunk of yearly health
maintenance costs that are not particularly unexpected.
Really? There are health plans that include maintenance options? I'd
like to know what they are. The ones I know of don't pay for smoking
cessation, for instance; they only pay to treat lung cancer. They
don't pay for health club memberships; but they'll pony up for
bariatric surgery.
Just a few months ago I went to the allergist and had a scratch
test, and the $250 or
so bill cost me nothing. At all.
It cost somebody $250. Was it worth $250 to you if you had to pay it
yourself? Or is it only worth it if you are spending someone else's
money.
It would have cost that, under the "free market" model, yes. Was it
worth it? To my nose, sure. After all it was the "free market" that
set the cost. And to be certain, knowing what was making my eyes itch
was worth a few bucks to me.
But you're missing the point, which is that I didn't have to pay to
find out what was costing me in terms of happiness, comfort -- and
*productivity*. By feeling more comfortable after the scratch test, I
was a much more useful citizen in the economic pool and that dividend
has paid off rather well since then.
Now, suppose I was an indigent? Would I be worthy of the same level of
care, or not?
They're locked *out* of healthcare because the free-marked option
is not
available to them.
Unfortunately, the market in health care is far from free.
Oh horseapples. If I feel bad I can go to a doctor, herbalist,
homeopathic chirurgeon, or a Tai Chi master. Only one will provide me
with the fact- and evidence-based treatments I need. But the market
is, undeniably, a "free" one.
Government, by insisting on evidence-based standards before approving
treatments, is no more "interfering" than it is when it says you have
to build highways out of tarmacadam as opposed to construction paper.
--
Warren Ockrassa | @waxis
Blog | http://indigestible.nightwares.com/
Books | http://books.nightwares.com/
Web | http://www.nightwares.com/
_______________________________________________
http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
