Four-Step Healthcare Solution

[mRx 16]

The issue I have with the Austrian school of anarcho-capitalists is that their theories are just that - theories. Much like Marx' theory was just that. There are concepts that can be explored on paper and there they would appear to make a lot of sense. The problem comes about when any of these theories are tried to be implemented because the very premise on which these concepts are based simply does not exist in any real society.

That's the same summation that Pike comes to--That it's some unproven pie-in-the-sky theory.

But it's really not.

No? It isn't? What country has successfully implemented and functions on this anarcho-capitalist theory? If it's really practical and beneficial, then you should have no problem to name just one country that employs a truly anarcho-capitalist approach on it's economy in the 21st century. Just one.

Free capitalism is the antithesis of government--so don't expect ruling powers to enthusiastically adopt a system in which they cannot directly control; Cannot determine the winners and losers.

As I said, freedom is not implemented; But it is merely the absense of coercion.

In the question of freedom vs. control, if our condition today is any indicator, we know which way we should be heading.

So, none, then. Thanks for confirming that it really is nothing but an unproven pie-in-the-sky theory.

The concepts of freedom of exchange are proven and are deduced from Praxeology (a proven theorem). If you disagree, then disprove it. You seem to be confusing a priori and a posteriori theories. Natural laws follow the former, while social laws follow the latter.

Additionally, the theory of government intervention is a proven failure. Look around you.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

The issue I have with the Austrian school of anarcho-capitalists is that their theories are just that - theories. Much like Marx' theory was just that. There are concepts that can be explored on paper and there they would appear to make a lot of sense. The problem comes about when any of these theories are tried to be implemented because the very premise on which these concepts are based simply does not exist in any real society.

That's the same summation that Pike comes to--That it's some unproven pie-in-the-sky theory.

But it's really not.

No? It isn't? What country has successfully implemented and functions on this anarcho-capitalist theory? If it's really practical and beneficial, then you should have no problem to name just one country that employs a truly anarcho-capitalist approach on it's economy in the 21st century. Just one.

Free capitalism is the antithesis of government--so don't expect ruling powers to enthusiastically adopt a system in which they cannot directly control; Cannot determine the winners and losers.

As I said, freedom is not implemented; But it is merely the absense of coercion.

In the question of freedom vs. control, if our condition today is any indicator, we know which way we should be heading.

So, none, then. Thanks for confirming that it really is nothing but an unproven pie-in-the-sky theory.

The concepts of freedom of exchange are proven and are deduced from Praxeology (a proven theorem). If you disagree, then disprove it. You seem to be confusing a priori and a posteriori theories. Natural laws follow the former, while social laws follow the latter.

Great but that still leaves you with a theory that lacks any practical value to the issue at hand. Unless there's real world, practical evidence that the anarcho-capitalist approach is the answer to the issues our health care system faces, I am not buying no matter how hard you're trying to sell. Again, it's odd that the allegedly best solution to the issue hasn't been successfully applied anywhere in the real world.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

That's the same problem I have - the big weakness of Matt's argument is the total lack of precedent.

In its way it isn't different from communism, which should also work "in theory" if it didn't assume that people weren't corrupt.

[Peikko 1,575]

It also seems to me to rely on this idea that each individual has an equal influence to a multinational business entity, which is of course nonsense unless somehow this 'egalitarian' utopia has a year zero. I am not quite sure how dr's are going to learn their trade without a training model - no diplomas, no teaching hospitals. How will that work out?

[mRx 16]

That's the same problem I have - the big weakness of Matt's argument is the total lack of precedent.

In its way it isn't different from communism, which should also work "in theory" if it didn't assume that people weren't corrupt.

What precedent is lacking?

I have shown numerous times that this theory is proven true. Every individual makes decisions to reach a greater level of satisfaction. This precedent guides all human action--most importantly economics. I have shown examples of the small scale (the TV/Guitar example), and the larger scale (the food industry). What I can't show, is how this natural system would run holistically. Because, in making these examples, I have to isolate the government involvement out of the situation. When I attempt to isolate the government involvement on the whole scale, I'm cast aside as an idealist, or a pie in the sky theorist. However, when I isolate any particular action, the axiom proves true. So, if everything works interdependantly in isolation, there is absolutely no need to assume that it would fail holistically. Again, this system is natural, a priori, and needs no implementation. It is rooted in the axiom of human action, and the mutually beneficially total-sum gain of all participants making decisions.

Communism, (or more specifically, Marxism) attempts to ignore this axiom, by theorizing that each individual make decisions towards the common good. We have seen, however, that this goes against the very core of human action, and was bound to fail since inception.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

That's the same problem I have - the big weakness of Matt's argument is the total lack of precedent.

In its way it isn't different from communism, which should also work "in theory" if it didn't assume that people weren't corrupt.

What precedent is lacking?

I have shown numerous times that this theory is proven true. Every individual makes decisions to reach a greater level of satisfaction. This precedent guides all human action--most importantly economics. I have shown examples of the small scale (the TV/Guitar example), and the larger scale (the food industry). What I can't show, is how this natural system would run holistically. Because, in making these examples, I have to isolate the government involvement out of the situation. When I attempt to isolate the government involvement on the whole scale, I'm cast aside as an idealist, or a pie in the sky theorist. However, when I isolate any particular action, the axiom proves true. So, if everything works interdependantly in isolation, there is absolutely no need to assume that it would fail holistically. Again, this system is natural, a priori, and needs no implementation. It is rooted in the axiom of human action, and the mutually beneficially total-sum gain of all participants making decisions.

Communism, (or more specifically, Marxism) attempts to ignore this axiom, by theorizing that each individual make decisions towards the common good. We have seen, however, that this goes against the very core of human action, and was bound to fail since inception.

No you haven't Matt - you've rattled off a few hypothetical examples that could have come off the pages of a textbook.

Real world precedents - you have not provided. Give us a few case studies.

Edited August 18, 2009 by Private Pike

[mawilson 2,133]

1. Eliminate all licensing requirements for medical schools, hospitals, pharmacies, and medical doctors and other health care personnel. Their supply would almost instantly increase, prices would fall, and a greater variety of health care services would appear on the market.

Yeah, brilliant idea.

Would you trust a doctor with a diploma from the Online Baptist Medical University of Mud Creek?

No. Would you?

If he had a medical license - absolutely. Otherwise - probably not.

[mawilson 2,133]

My point is, the idea of "eliminating licensing requirements for medical schools, hospitals, pharmacies, and medical doctors and other health care personnel" is insanely stupid. Their supply would instantly increase, but so would the number of unqualified persons who claim medical knowledge or other skills.

If for some reason you wanted to "increase the supply" of drivers on the road, would you eliminate the licensing requirement for new drivers?

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

That's the same problem I have - the big weakness of Matt's argument is the total lack of precedent.

In its way it isn't different from communism, which should also work "in theory" if it didn't assume that people weren't corrupt.

What precedent is lacking?

I have shown numerous times that this theory is proven true. Every individual makes decisions to reach a greater level of satisfaction. This precedent guides all human action--most importantly economics. I have shown examples of the small scale (the TV/Guitar example), and the larger scale (the food industry). What I can't show, is how this natural system would run holistically. Because, in making these examples, I have to isolate the government involvement out of the situation. When I attempt to isolate the government involvement on the whole scale, I'm cast aside as an idealist, or a pie in the sky theorist. However, when I isolate any particular action, the axiom proves true. So, if everything works interdependantly in isolation, there is absolutely no need to assume that it would fail holistically. Again, this system is natural, a priori, and needs no implementation. It is rooted in the axiom of human action, and the mutually beneficially total-sum gain of all participants making decisions.

Yes, because you can't sit there pretending that taking government out of the economy is a realistic and viable option. It simply isn't. Not in a globally interdependant economy where each nation tends to protect and further it's own interests. Government invovement in and regulation of the markets is, if not a neccessity in this day and age, at least a reality that isn't about to change.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

If you get rid of licensing institutions, then you're effectively getting rid of centralised standards for assessing the quality of medical personnel.

This is an argument that's been presented before - that getting rid of government imposed regulations in their entirety (not just the AMA, but things like OSHA) will result in an economy where private enterprises self-regulate for the benefit of the individual (which assumes of course that Joe Blow is able to exert an equal level of influence to say, Bill Gates - and that this provides a natural check and balance to corporate corruption).

Self-regulation works (to some extent) in regard to the print media, but its a whole other kettle of fish applying the same principle to the medical profession, construction or manufacturing.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

If for some reason you wanted to "increase the supply" of drivers on the road, would you eliminate the licensing requirement for new drivers?

There better be no shortage of commercial pilots. It would certainly drive down the cost of flying if we didn't have to pay them pilots such high salaries. Stop the licensing requirements and we'll have more pilots competing over the available jobs bringing down those salaries. No worries since those that aren't truly qualified will crash and burn anyways - quite literally and along with the passengers who would then never be flying with that unqualified pilot ever again. Which proves that market self regulation truly works.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

My point is, the idea of "eliminating licensing requirements for medical schools, hospitals, pharmacies, and medical doctors and other health care personnel" is insanely stupid. Their supply would instantly increase, but so would the number of unqualified persons who claim medical knowledge or other skills.

If for some reason you wanted to "increase the supply" of drivers on the road, would you eliminate the licensing requirement for new drivers?

We already see some of that with unaccredited lawyers or paralegals and (yes) quacks pretending to be doctors.

Centralised standards are necessary in order to protect the public - the institutions are certainly open to abuse, but by and large the government doesn't exactly have an agenda other than to protect the interests of the public, certainly not one that is profit driven.

If for some reason you wanted to "increase the supply" of drivers on the road, would you eliminate the licensing requirement for new drivers?

There better be no shortage of commercial pilots. It would certainly drive down the cost of flying if we didn't have to pay them pilots such high salaries. Stop the licensing requirements and we'll have more pilots competing over the available jobs bringing down those salaries. No worries since those that aren't truly qualified will crash and burn anyways - quite literally and along with the passengers who would then never be flying with that unqualified pilot ever again. Which proves that market self regulation truly works.

The same rationale could apply to construction too - seems to work well in Calcutta where - if they want more living space - they just slap a new floor on the top of a pre-existing building

Edited August 18, 2009 by Private Pike

[mRx 16]

From the OP:

Competing voluntary accreditation agencies would take the place of compulsory government licensing--if health care providers believe that such accreditation would enhance their own reputation, and that their consumers care about reputation, and are willing to pay for it.

This type of regulation is realizable across the board.

[mRx 16]

That's the same problem I have - the big weakness of Matt's argument is the total lack of precedent.

In its way it isn't different from communism, which should also work "in theory" if it didn't assume that people weren't corrupt.

What precedent is lacking?

I have shown numerous times that this theory is proven true. Every individual makes decisions to reach a greater level of satisfaction. This precedent guides all human action--most importantly economics. I have shown examples of the small scale (the TV/Guitar example), and the larger scale (the food industry). What I can't show, is how this natural system would run holistically. Because, in making these examples, I have to isolate the government involvement out of the situation. When I attempt to isolate the government involvement on the whole scale, I'm cast aside as an idealist, or a pie in the sky theorist. However, when I isolate any particular action, the axiom proves true. So, if everything works interdependantly in isolation, there is absolutely no need to assume that it would fail holistically. Again, this system is natural, a priori, and needs no implementation. It is rooted in the axiom of human action, and the mutually beneficially total-sum gain of all participants making decisions.

Communism, (or more specifically, Marxism) attempts to ignore this axiom, by theorizing that each individual make decisions towards the common good. We have seen, however, that this goes against the very core of human action, and was bound to fail since inception.

No you haven't Matt - you've rattled off a few hypothetical examples that could have come off the pages of a textbook.

Real world precedents - you have not provided. Give us a few case studies.

I consider the examples I've given to be real world, and they came from no textbooks.

Tell me what precedent your looking for.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

A case study is pretty self-explanatory - an actual example that doesn't rely on theoretical notions of how things "should work" but rather on how they are working in the real world.