Comments (4)

• Slim934

  It's a great article but I am a little confused about something.

  In the socialist calculation debate, wasn't it Hayek who made it more of a knowledge problem?

  It's been awhile since I've read up on it, but wasn't Mises' argument that it isn't so much knowledge, but that the state could never accurately gauge what consumer's actual preferences were and therefore could never perform the actual calculation process?

  Published: May 15, 2009 8:18 AM

• Ron

  It is indeed an excellent title, and a really good article.

  Published: May 15, 2009 8:22 AM

• Mac

  Here's what the article is saying:

  Because doctors take the Hippocratic Oath, they must do everything in their power to help their patients. And doctors who try to do everything for their patient, put an unnecessary burden on the health care system. The health care system can only do so much, so let the younger folks get a higher priority than older folks. To do this, the bureaucrat will decide who gets government mandated health care.

  Ouch...

  Published: May 15, 2009 9:43 AM

• Andy

  Slim934 -- Yeah you're right. He was making more of the Hayekian argument than the Misesian one.

  A decent as this article is I just wish there were more writers who really "get it" when it comes our health care industry. From top to bottom, left to right we do not have a free and robust market for health care. First of all health insurance isn't insurance proper. Copays for medications? What other goods do we purchase things like that? My car cost $$$ and last time I checked I paid for the whole damn thing. The whole employer based insurance system we have is due to tax code incentives (lower taxes on benefits relative to wages). Furthermore, I may be the consumer of health care services but I am not the CUSTOMER from who doctors, clinics, hospitals etc. try to win business. No that would be Daddy Employer Health Plan. Do I even have a choice in health plans? Not really unless I change jobs. Many health care services should be paid out of pocket and prices and services should be negotiated between doctors and patients (consumers). Patients should see the $85 doctor's visit and not some $20 copay. Services should be based on the abilty to pay just like all other goods and services in a free market. Wealthy people may blow their money on private hospital rooms while hospitals would offer 12 man wards for those who do not wish to pay for more exclusive treatment. Some of the most robust health care markets are in the ones where insurance has traditionally not covered the procedures. Look at plastic surgery. Not long ago only the wealthy could afford these procedures, now you have relatively poor people getting breast augmentations (I'll let you decide if that's a good thing). Corrective eye surgery? Way expensive years ago, but much more affordable now. You actually hear corrective eye surgeons advertise on the radio. They mention how they are better than their competitors, better success rate, years of experience etc.. Plastic surgeons show before and after photos of their work. Yeah! Some suck, some are great. We can know the difference.

  Your regular doc & hospital? Bland commercials that reference industry granted "awards" and feel good stories about "how much they care". Whatever.

  The FDA should go away. We need private competitive firms for drug and medical testing. These firms would compete, innovate and try to win business from their competitors and expand markets. There should be competitors to the AMA. Doctors and patients should be able to pursue treatments THEY deem appropriate rather than government approved treatments. There are a million and one other things to criticise about our system.

  The history (and theory) of markets have consistently shown that as production expands more and more people receive access to these goods. A robust market should expand access and lower costs and improve quality. Mass production for the masses as Mises once said. What does the State offer us? Rationing, price controls, decisions on who lives and who dies. All to acheive some perceived sense of security and egalitarian goal of "fairness". Evil.

  Published: May 15, 2009 10:55 AM