Four-Step Healthcare Solution

[mRx 16]

2. Eliminate all government restrictions on the production and sale of pharmaceutical products and medical devices. This means no more Food and Drug Administration, which presently hinders innovation and increases costs.

Costs and prices would fall, and a wider variety of better products would reach the market sooner. The market would force consumers to act in accordance with their own--rather than the government's--risk assessment. And competing drug and device manufacturers and sellers, to safeguard against product liability suits as much as to attract customers, would provide increasingly better product descriptions and guarantees.

Hans-Hermann Hoppe teaches economics at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas

Link

Ummm, first word in Food and Drug Administration - that's right - FOOD. It will still exist using this example....nevermind that they also regulate cosmetics too.

Maybe I'm not following what you mean, but, just because FDA is abolished, doesn't mean food will be abolished. We will not all starve.

[catknit 144]

I was just stating that if you abolish drug regulations you are not abolishing food regulations - and there are a TON of food regulations. Therefore, FDA will still be in business.

Now, if you want to abolish all drug, food, and cosmetic regulations - then yeah, you can kill the FDA.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

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.

I see - kind of like the rating agencies that gave AAA ratings to junk securities because if one hadn't then the other would have done to get the business and the fees that come with it? Great idea. The private and competing for-fee agencies in the financial markets have shown quite impressively that this concept works absolutely great. Or have they?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

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.

I see - kind of like the rating agencies that gave AAA ratings to junk securities because if one hadn't then the other would have done to get the business and the fees that come with it? Great idea. The private and competing for-fee agencies in the financial markets have shown quite impressively that this concept works absolutely great. Or have they?

There was an article I read recently that suggest that critically flawed mathetical models were used for decades to calculate risk and that the entire house of cards (which has now collapsed) was based on false premises.

[mRx 16]

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.

I see - kind of like the rating agencies that gave AAA ratings to junk securities because if one hadn't then the other would have done to get the business and the fees that come with it? Great idea. The private and competing for-fee agencies in the financial markets have shown quite impressively that this concept works absolutely great. Or have they?

Rating agencies for mortgages collapsed because of illusory prosperity created by inflation, so everyone could have a house. Which is exactly what the government wanted.

I'm sure had the housing market not been stimulated with cheap credit by subsidized GSE's, then the rating agencies wouldn't have made such ratings.

But, go ahead, blame Capitalism for everything.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

This puts a hell of a lot of trust in private individuals to behave in an ethical manner.

Like the government has a good track record of ethical behavior.

Like anyone has. At least we have some degree of democratic control over the government.

Hate to say it, but Constellation has a point. Which examples do we want to emulate more, countries with less government like Somalia and Rwanda or countries with more government like Canada or Australia?

Libertarianism is retarded.

But they're better than those damn terrorist neocons.

I used to feel the exact same way about people who believed in less government.

People assume that with less overlord control, that individuals will run mad. Rape, pillage, and murder will be mainstays of America-- But that's all bullsh!t.

The sole belief of Libertarianism (at least as I believe) is that people should have the freedom to live their as they see fit as long as they don't infringe on another's ability to pursue their own ends.

What's so extreme or retarded about that?

(BTW Governments like to deal only with other governments. They have huge incentive to establish ruling powers in foreign lands, which they've tried unsuccessfully in Somalia. The tribes are resisting such governance. They're not just fighting arbitrarily.)

Matt, on a slightly different tangent - referring back to that article you posted from Dr. Miller and the Federal Reserve....do read an article about Woodrow Wilson I posted.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

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.

I see - kind of like the rating agencies that gave AAA ratings to junk securities because if one hadn't then the other would have done to get the business and the fees that come with it? Great idea. The private and competing for-fee agencies in the financial markets have shown quite impressively that this concept works absolutely great. Or have they?

Rating agencies for mortgages collapsed because of illusory prosperity created by inflation, so everyone could have a house. Which is exactly what the government wanted.

I'm sure had the housing market not been stimulated with cheap credit by subsidized GSE's, then the rating agencies wouldn't have made such ratings.

But, go ahead, blame Capitalism for everything.

The rating agencies are driven by profit which they can only generate if they attract the business of issuers of securities that will pay them for the rating of the securities to be issued. There was an interesting report on PBS not too long ago where a guy that worked at one of the agencies detailed how they were more concerned to come up with mathematical models that would - against common sense - support high ratings for junk securities so that the issuers would flock to them to have AAA ratings slapped on bags of garbage.

I'm not suggesting that Capitalism is to blame for everything - it's still the best economic model out there. However, I'm also not a free market fetishist simply because I recognize that the marketplace is not perfect and never will be.

But, by all means, keep blaming the government for everything. Greed and irresponsibility in the marketplace never cause any harm to anyone. Ever.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Health is not a commodity, it is the foundation of the ability to engage life on any level.

Presumably in our new idealised anarchist commune/kibbutz we would all be ploughing the roads in winter and take it in turns to run the local power station.

Seriously this is definitely one of the most silly and ideologically over-stuffed things I've read in a long time. It's interesting that when muppets like this Hoppe guy talk of the Free Market, what they actually want is de-regulation (read: open slather for corporations).

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.

I see - kind of like the rating agencies that gave AAA ratings to junk securities because if one hadn't then the other would have done to get the business and the fees that come with it? Great idea. The private and competing for-fee agencies in the financial markets have shown quite impressively that this concept works absolutely great. Or have they?

Rating agencies for mortgages collapsed because of illusory prosperity created by inflation, so everyone could have a house. Which is exactly what the government wanted.

I'm sure had the housing market not been stimulated with cheap credit by subsidized GSE's, then the rating agencies wouldn't have made such ratings.

But, go ahead, blame Capitalism for everything.

The rating agencies are driven by profit which they can only generate if they attract the business of issuers of securities that will pay them for the rating of the securities to be issued. There was an interesting report on PBS not too long ago where a guy that worked at one of the agencies detailed how they were more concerned to come up with mathematical models that would - against common sense - support high ratings for junk securities so that the issuers would flock to them to have AAA ratings slapped on bags of garbage.

I'm not suggesting that Capitalism is to blame for everything - it's still the best economic model out there. However, I'm also not a free market fetishist simply because I recognize that the marketplace is not perfect and never will be.

But, by all means, keep blaming the government for everything. Greed and irresponsibility in the marketplace never cause any harm to anyone. Ever.

Here's the article I read not so long ago. Interesting reading.

[mRx 16]

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.

I see - kind of like the rating agencies that gave AAA ratings to junk securities because if one hadn't then the other would have done to get the business and the fees that come with it? Great idea. The private and competing for-fee agencies in the financial markets have shown quite impressively that this concept works absolutely great. Or have they?

Rating agencies for mortgages collapsed because of illusory prosperity created by inflation, so everyone could have a house. Which is exactly what the government wanted.

I'm sure had the housing market not been stimulated with cheap credit by subsidized GSE's, then the rating agencies wouldn't have made such ratings.

But, go ahead, blame Capitalism for everything.

The rating agencies are driven by profit which they can only generate if they attract the business of issuers of securities that will pay them for the rating of the securities to be issued. There was an interesting report on PBS not too long ago where a guy that worked at one of the agencies detailed how they were more concerned to come up with mathematical models that would - against common sense - support high ratings for junk securities so that the issuers would flock to them to have AAA ratings slapped on bags of garbage.

I'm not suggesting that Capitalism is to blame for everything - it's still the best economic model out there. However, I'm also not a free market fetishist simply because I recognize that the marketplace is not perfect and never will be.

But, by all means, keep blaming the government for everything. Greed and irresponsibility in the marketplace never cause any harm to anyone. Ever.

If an individual rating agency, drunk with greed and irresponsibility, fraudulently rates mortgages, then that business will not be a business for very long, I assure you. But when an entire industry of reputable rating agencies make the same errors, then the greed and irresponsiblity argument falls apart. Something greater is underlying. Illusory credit, as I've said. There is no way to not blame government-created credit for this.

I don't need a lesson in business motives, bro and I'll keep blaming government intervention for our economic woes as long as it applies. The only argument against mine is that from Progressive neanderthals like Thom Hartmann who prefer to simply blame our problems on greed.

The only government intervention we need is a policy that forces the D.C. heirarchy to take a basic economics class--Then maybe Congress won't be drafting these ridiculous polices.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

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.

I see - kind of like the rating agencies that gave AAA ratings to junk securities because if one hadn't then the other would have done to get the business and the fees that come with it? Great idea. The private and competing for-fee agencies in the financial markets have shown quite impressively that this concept works absolutely great. Or have they?

Rating agencies for mortgages collapsed because of illusory prosperity created by inflation, so everyone could have a house. Which is exactly what the government wanted.

I'm sure had the housing market not been stimulated with cheap credit by subsidized GSE's, then the rating agencies wouldn't have made such ratings.

But, go ahead, blame Capitalism for everything.

The rating agencies are driven by profit which they can only generate if they attract the business of issuers of securities that will pay them for the rating of the securities to be issued. There was an interesting report on PBS not too long ago where a guy that worked at one of the agencies detailed how they were more concerned to come up with mathematical models that would - against common sense - support high ratings for junk securities so that the issuers would flock to them to have AAA ratings slapped on bags of garbage.

I'm not suggesting that Capitalism is to blame for everything - it's still the best economic model out there. However, I'm also not a free market fetishist simply because I recognize that the marketplace is not perfect and never will be.

But, by all means, keep blaming the government for everything. Greed and irresponsibility in the marketplace never cause any harm to anyone. Ever.

If an individual rating agency, drunk with greed and irresponsibility, fraudulently rates mortgages, then that business will not be a business for very long, I assure you. But when an entire industry of reputable rating agencies make the same errors, then the greed and irresponsiblity argument falls apart.

No, it doesn't. A rating agency that would have properly rated junk securities as such would not survive since the issuers would not take their securities to that agency to have them affixed with a poor rating. The issuer will go to whoever offers the best rating.

[mRx 16]

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.

I see - kind of like the rating agencies that gave AAA ratings to junk securities because if one hadn't then the other would have done to get the business and the fees that come with it? Great idea. The private and competing for-fee agencies in the financial markets have shown quite impressively that this concept works absolutely great. Or have they?

Rating agencies for mortgages collapsed because of illusory prosperity created by inflation, so everyone could have a house. Which is exactly what the government wanted.

I'm sure had the housing market not been stimulated with cheap credit by subsidized GSE's, then the rating agencies wouldn't have made such ratings.

But, go ahead, blame Capitalism for everything.

The rating agencies are driven by profit which they can only generate if they attract the business of issuers of securities that will pay them for the rating of the securities to be issued. There was an interesting report on PBS not too long ago where a guy that worked at one of the agencies detailed how they were more concerned to come up with mathematical models that would - against common sense - support high ratings for junk securities so that the issuers would flock to them to have AAA ratings slapped on bags of garbage.

I'm not suggesting that Capitalism is to blame for everything - it's still the best economic model out there. However, I'm also not a free market fetishist simply because I recognize that the marketplace is not perfect and never will be.

But, by all means, keep blaming the government for everything. Greed and irresponsibility in the marketplace never cause any harm to anyone. Ever.

If an individual rating agency, drunk with greed and irresponsibility, fraudulently rates mortgages, then that business will not be a business for very long, I assure you. But when an entire industry of reputable rating agencies make the same errors, then the greed and irresponsiblity argument falls apart.

No, it doesn't. A rating agency that would have properly rated junk securities as such would not survive since the issuers would not take their securities to that agency to have them affixed with a poor rating. The issuer will go to whoever offers the best rating.

And if every rating agency affixes unrealistic ratings to mortgages, then perhaps one might also correlate the fact that mortgage lending standards were severely lowered by the FHA.

Furthermore, blaming rating agencies instead of the Federally-manipulated interest rates, is analogous to blaming the thermometer for the weather outside.

[mRx 16]

Health is not a commodity, it is the foundation of the ability to engage life on any level.

Health is indeed a commodity. Suggesting otherwise is absurd.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

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.

I see - kind of like the rating agencies that gave AAA ratings to junk securities because if one hadn't then the other would have done to get the business and the fees that come with it? Great idea. The private and competing for-fee agencies in the financial markets have shown quite impressively that this concept works absolutely great. Or have they?

Rating agencies for mortgages collapsed because of illusory prosperity created by inflation, so everyone could have a house. Which is exactly what the government wanted.

I'm sure had the housing market not been stimulated with cheap credit by subsidized GSE's, then the rating agencies wouldn't have made such ratings.

But, go ahead, blame Capitalism for everything.

The rating agencies are driven by profit which they can only generate if they attract the business of issuers of securities that will pay them for the rating of the securities to be issued. There was an interesting report on PBS not too long ago where a guy that worked at one of the agencies detailed how they were more concerned to come up with mathematical models that would - against common sense - support high ratings for junk securities so that the issuers would flock to them to have AAA ratings slapped on bags of garbage.

I'm not suggesting that Capitalism is to blame for everything - it's still the best economic model out there. However, I'm also not a free market fetishist simply because I recognize that the marketplace is not perfect and never will be.

But, by all means, keep blaming the government for everything. Greed and irresponsibility in the marketplace never cause any harm to anyone. Ever.

If an individual rating agency, drunk with greed and irresponsibility, fraudulently rates mortgages, then that business will not be a business for very long, I assure you. But when an entire industry of reputable rating agencies make the same errors, then the greed and irresponsiblity argument falls apart.

No, it doesn't. A rating agency that would have properly rated junk securities as such would not survive since the issuers would not take their securities to that agency to have them affixed with a poor rating. The issuer will go to whoever offers the best rating.

And if every rating agency affixes unrealistic ratings to mortgages, then perhaps one might also correlate the fact that mortgage lending standards were severely lowered by the FHA.

Furthermore, blaming rating agencies instead of the Federally-manipulated interest rates, is analogous to blaming the thermometer for the weather outside.

So you actually believe that the rating agencies were justified to labor as hard as they could to devise a mathematical model to be able to put their AAA stamps of approval on these junk securities? Do you really believe that?

[mawilson 2,133]

No, it doesn't. A rating agency that would have properly rated junk securities as such would not survive since the issuers would not take their securities to that agency to have them affixed with a poor rating. The issuer will go to whoever offers the best rating.

If an agency gives anyone and their dog a AAA rating as long as they pay for it, who would trust such a rating?

No sane investor would. And if their ratings are useless to investors, the agency won't stay in business for very long.

Edited June 5, 2009 by mawilson

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Health is not a commodity, it is the foundation of the ability to engage life on any level.

Health is indeed a commodity. Suggesting otherwise is absurd.

Come on Mr Matt - a few more words would be a bit more convincing than a trite one-liner.