Sicko

I wonder if this is in Michael Moore's new movie. It should be. From the New York Times:

[P]sychiatrists earn more money from drug makers than doctors in any other specialty. ... [T]he more psychiatrists have earned from drug makers, the more they have prescribed a new class of powerful medicines known as atypical antipsychotics to children, for whom the drugs are especially risky and mostly unapproved.

I will put my libertarian bona fides up against anybody's, but I part ways with libertarianism on the healthcare issue: I'm a reluctant socialist when it comes to getting sick and getting better. Too many private-entity players in the health market as we know it have conspired and colluded in ways that put profit maximization first and patients' interests last. I love this country, but healthcare-wise, I'd be better off in my old stomping ground, the Netherlands, or in at least 35 other countries, including Saudi Arabia, Colombia, Chile, and Costa Rica. Enough.

Socialized medicine is no panacea, and I, too, am leery of creating a system like the U.K.'s, crippled by chaos and low expectations. But we ought to be able to learn from Britain's mistakes, and Canada's, and create a kind of medical care that will make the U.S. if not the envy of the world, then at least a Top-10 player.

And yes, I am aware of smart and coherent arguments against "socialized medicine." I just wonder whether, when it gets right down to it, the writers of such pro-market pleas would prefer to get sick in Canada or in the U.S. — and if the latter, would they feel the same way if they were uninsured, as roughly 45 million Americans are?

I hope Moore's movie, and other evidence of the shamefulness of our healthcare system, such as that Times article, will serve as a series of clarion calls to burn down what we've wrought, and start over.

Our lives depend on it.

Comments

[Phelps]

I would rather give taking the state authority away from the medicine cartel (AMA) first and see how we do with non-cartel member medical businesses. This is a lack of competition, not a failure in the market. If we have the same problems once we have competition, then we can look at a more drastic solution.

Let's see how letting people practice medicine without being a member of the AMA cartel works.

[George Arndt]

It should be noted that the government is already subsidizing healthcare-in the emergency room. It’s the only place where uninsured and poor people are guaranteed to get healthcare in the US. At an expense many times greater than a regular visit to the doctor. Also, people who see a doctor regularly are more likely to take care of health problems before the get worse, thus saving the both the government and patient much money.

[Timothy]

I don't think shifting the third party payer problem from insurance companies to the government is going to change much of anything. I agree that our system is screwed up, but do you want the same folks who brought you Iraq, and Homeland Security running your doctor's office?

[Phil]

I guess the question, Timothy, isn't if the government would do a GOOD job, it if they'd do a better job.

[megs]

The biggest mistake of Canada's is that they are so fearful of a "two-tier" system where people with money might get better care. Government getting involved in providing health care seems necessary and could even be useful, but forbidding private care should be an absolute "no".

I'd like to see vouchers for things like yearly check-ups and screenings, like yearly pap smears for women and whatnot. Put taxpayer money behind preventative care first, continue ER subsidies for the uninsured and see how that goes. I'm afraid that big operations and advanced treatments would suffer in quality and would not go down in price without a market.

[K. Dale Boley]

If I have to pay for your health care Rogier, I will want to know a few things about you.
I'm also going to need to take a peek at your schedule this weekend. I wouldn't want you going about risking yourself in any way. I will take a complete inventory of your kitchen. After all, you are State Property. Everything you eat, smoke, how and when you sleep(and with whom), your hobbies, and habits, are my business now.

You must think that Government would never use health care to justify invasions into all those aspects of life. Have you learned nothing from your own posts to this very blog?

As mentioned in an earlier comment, health care is expensive because of a lack of capitalism. Not because of it.
One can only recieve in our country "approved" care from "approved" providers. If we did that with any service, the results would be the same. Let's only let people who have 12 years of college cook our food and see what it costs to eat at McDonald's. I'm an adult, I should be able to legally go down the street to the butcher to have my tonsils removed if I so choose. And so should you.

[Frank]

I might be on Roger with this one. It's my opinion that the only socialist entities should be those that cannot (or should not) be operated for a profit. Homeless shelters fall into the first category.

Most, if not all, private shelters are non-profit organizations that survive on government assistance and private grants. DESC in Seattle is an example of such an org. It is my opinion that 911 style emergency services are in the category of "should not" be operated for a profit. With 911, I can't take my business elsewhere "after" receiving unsatisfactory service from a private entity, cause I'm already dead.

I am all in favor of private security, fire, and medical. I just believe that there are often moments where the government should have the basic safeguards in place should there be a catastrophic failure somewhere. Say, a hurricane or something that floods my city. Basically, I want the gov to protect me when I ask for it. If I want someone to serve me, I'll go to a higher quality joint with better service.

Megs,
How would you react to the suggestion that only emergency services be socialized?

I'm not sure where that puts me on the libertar-o-meter.

Frank

[fermie]

I would like to make it known that I have spent the majority of my life believing I was a republican, and the last 4 months knowing that I'm a type of libertarian.
I want you to know this, not because I'm appologizing for anything I'm about to say, but because I need you to understand what I think of micheal moore.
I might punch him in the face if I met him, then pick his heafty carcass up and treat him to a beer.
He is an unsavory and abrasive individual. (did you know he thinks America's involvement in WWII was a detestable mistake?)

Consider this with the fact that I am 100% behind him on this issue.
A genius with morally ambiguous objectives. That is: Being right rarely has anything to do with being smart.
Somehow, some way, he has latched onto a fully legitimate ideal, and (for now) I support him as much as I am able.
He might smell of spoiled feet and have the social skills of a retarded squash, but he is (plain and simply) a genius. And I applaud his zeal in what might be a genuine desire to better humanity (there still exists the chance he's out to promote himself as much as possible. He's comfy with Hollywood remember)
My mother and I are currently living on $400 a month. She owes at least a quarter million in medical bills and I am not able to work because of her frailty. We cannot recieve govt aid because we own land, though. A lot of land. Land that costs us about $5000 a year to own actually. It cannot be used for cultivation of any kind because we cannot affort the startup fees/permits/licenses/bribes that one needs to do so. We'd sell it, but we both want my nephew to have somewhere to hunt when grows up. (if that's still legal at that point)
For the naysayers, I am far from lazy, as a thinking person might have realized hearing already of my duties. I have attented university, but had to withdraw to cope with mother's constant heart attacks. I hand-plow (look it up, it's SORTA labor intensive) a one acre plot in order to off-set foodcosts for a few months (I can't afford a license to sell what I grow, so we eat it).
I will never marry.
I will never have children.
I will never have a chance to even fool myself into thinking I can be happy, and will likely drink myself to death after my mother's death.
We are fucked because of medical bills.
So I say to those who dislike him, "A good idea is a good idea. Don't let your view of it's speaker discourage your want to support his claim"

[megs]

Frank - I'd say the problem with only socializing emergency medicine is that you end up training those who cannot afford regular health care to put off treatment until something becomes an "emergency". It's also cheaper, if taxpayers are footing the bill, to catch most ailments early on. Preventative care can be extremely cheap if RNs and the like are allowed to give check-ups.

At some point in discussions about health care, my pragmatist side takes the lead over the libertarian and that's when I start to see some taxpayer funded initiatives as a solution.

[Roger Ritthaler]

The only reason that "oo many private-entity players in the health market as we know it have conspired and colluded in ways that put profit maximization first and patients' interests last" is because of government involvement in that health market: it creates distortions. Companies try to find ways to "work the system." They wouldn't be able to "work" the users if there was competition.

[Kyle]

When the government is paying for a person's healthcare, doesn't it have a right to dictate how that person lives their life? Why should others be forced to pay more taxes because someone wants to smoke a cigarette or eat themselves to obesity or anything else that harms their health?

And doesn't this fly directly in the face of your social libertarianism?