It had 7 comments. Here they are:

Scott Baker
Additional Observations

Editor’s Note: Here at OEN, we like to present a wide variety of viewpoints, mostly, but not always, with a Progressive slant. This article fits into the ‘not always’ category. Personally, I agree with almost nothing the author has proposed. Uneducated laymen are in no position to judge what medical practitioners or medications are best for them if they can’t even go to people who have been trained for that purpose. Medical schools, for all their faults, exist for a reason – because it is simply not sufficient to get medical information from WebMD, your friends, or your local drug dealer. Eliminating Medicare/Medicaid would eliminate the old people who depend on it, as they were eliminated before these programs came into existence. Most OEN readers would probably vote to extend those working programs to more people, not reduce them. They work, they keep people alive longer. They are underfunded, or poorly funded, but that is another discussion and there are lots of articles (including my own) about that.

And an ‘open-market’ of drugs, available to all, unverified by even the admittedly insufficient FDA would lead to mass-deaths, as patients would be turned into mass-experiments. We already have Big Pharma funding so-called ‘Independent Reviews’ and their bias is a big reason we can’t trust the medicines we take. While I support de-criminalization of Marijuana, I would never dream of removing drug treatment programs for it, let alone monitoring side effects of prescription drugs by medical professionals. What’s next? Should we all build own cars? Our own houses? Butcher our own food? Would you want to drive/live-in/eat such products?

The author seeks to undo regulations in the health care industry the way regulations were undone in the financial industry. This time, instead of paying with our wallets and purses, we will pay with our lives.

____________

Zak Maymin
Additional Observations?

I am not against people asking medical practitioners for advice. I go even further. I am against forbidding people asking advice from anybody they want.

I am not against medical schools. I go even further. I am against restriction on the quantity of medical schools.

I am not against medical insurance for old people. I go even further. I offer a real reform for them to get any insurance of their choice for free.

“” insufficient FDA would lead to mass-deaths, as patients would be turned into mass-experiments.” Come on. Nobody forces you to participate in any medical experiment. Nobody forces you to trust Big Pharma either. That’s the main difference between the Big Pharama and the Big Gov. The big Pharma doesn’t have the enforcement mechanism and can’t prevent anybody else from reviewing the drugs.

You have to decide whether you let the government criminalize any drug or not. You can’t pick and choose which one to criminalize. Otherwise you leave too much to the politicians and to the mob – you can’t count that whatever politicians you support will be in power forever. I am glad you don’t want to prevent me from using Marijuana. But why stop there? And who should decide where to stop?
What’s next? Alcohol? We’ve been there, for many years”

Yes, we should build our own cars and our own houses. We shouldn’t let the Gov decide how big the pressure should be in our showers and toilets, how bright our lights can be, what temperature we can have in our houses, what seatbelts we should use, and so on. This is just silly – as long as we don’t harm others, whose business is it to decide for us what products to use?

Progressivness stands for real reforms, not for same old government regulations that’s been plugging us for years.

____________________
RobKall
Professor Venkman had the reply,

With all due respect to you, Zak, and as much respect as I can scrape up for libertarianism, which ain’t much….

In Ghostbuster, Bill Murray, playing Professor Peter Venkman, describes what your wishlist would produce;

“Riots in the streets, dogs and cats living together, mass hysteria!

That’s what libertarianism would lead to. You want absence of all regulations– that’s a milton friedman kind of thing. Problem is, it’s a bad theory that’s never been proven.

I’ll tell you what has been proven– the laws of nature. That’s right. Nature has laws. Disobey them and you die, or fail to flourish. And socieities and cultures need laws too. Your idea doesn’t cut it. Take the FDA, for example. I don’t particularly like the way it currently works, but without it there would be fraud, abuse, unsafe products– and the caveat emptor, let the market take care of working things out model would not work. It would allow predators and sociopaths– and there plenty of them in the corporate world– to do a lot of damage.

Take away Medicare? You think that will save money by privatizing it? What planet are YOU on? Your solutions would make things far worse, could bring down this nation. Of course, from a libertarian perspective, that might be a good thing.

_______________

Zak Maymin
Rob, you are already almost a libertarian!

I don’t want absence of all regulations. I want the government protection of my property.

I don’t want to privatize Medicare. I want to replace it with charity. I want people to pay for it voluntarily and if you allow them to deduct their income, they will gladly do it.

I write this article exactly because I don’t want to bring this nation down with the healthcare bill that is under consideration.

You seem to believe that if the right people are in charge, they will use the law to improve our lives. And even if some of us don’t agree with that, tough luck, that’s the necessary price for the civilization.

Here’s an example. You are making a passionate call against corruption by Bush-appointed attorneys. What should be done about it? Change the system, so that the citizens are protected against crooked political appointees. What’s your suggestion? Fire Bush’s people, put your people in charge. You see the problem with your solution?

I came from Russia. I have the experience of knowing that the majority could be wrong. I know that good people could come with outrageous laws if the system allows them. And I know that all too often good people support bad laws.

The only way the public can protect itself from social engineers with good intentions is to not allow passing a law that goes beyond protection of private property. Is there any other possibility?

________________

Man B. Free
FDA kills

Rob, your argument holds no water. You say that without the FDA there would be fraud, abuse, and unsafe products.

Fraud and abuse are and always have been illegal. Adding an extra regulation to prevent fraud and abuse is exactly like this cartoon: http://www.bored.com/comics/dumpster.html

Unsafe products? Unsafe as defined by who, for whom, in what situation? Unsafe as defined by the FDA? Then please PLEASE give us those unsafe products! Unsafe as defined by the doctor who wouldn’t prescribe them anyway? No change. Unsafe as defined by the person who would weigh the risks against the reward, the same way we do when we decide to drive or fly or eat? Bring it on.

Libertarianism is “a bad theory that’s never been proven”? What an absurd misunderstanding of all human history and progress. You think government innovated to bring you the incredible standard of living we have today? Think again.

And not only is libertarianism and freedom in general proven time and time again, whenever progress is made, but there is a moral component too. Who the hell are you to tell me I can’t decide what to put in my body? What kind of ownership do you claim on me, and by what right? When did I ever sell myself into slavery to you?

Or did you just appropriate me for my own good?

Leave me alone.
________________

Simple Truth
Ignorance

Is what comes to mind after reading this article. I am surprised Zak didn’t mention tort reform as a cure for runaway health care costs.

The current status quo for the health care industry is price gouging, billing out a huge list of materials and tests that often times were never used, ridiculous fees for operations, over priced drugs, botched operations and a basic mind set of profiteering off of the sick.
If the government did get out of the way and drop oversight and regulations big insurance and the health services sector would price themselves out of business and wind up just like wall street, holding out tin cups and begging the treasury department for billions. A sorry begging bunch of socialists indeed!

____________________

Zak Maymin
Tort reform and bailouts

Tort reform is a controversial topic which is not really essential to the main issue under discussion – should we have more government regulation of healthcare or less.

The problem with the Wall Street is not whether they begged for money or not, but the fact that our government got scared and bailed them out.

You don’t doubt that it’s possible to run a profitable operation insuring people, do you? So, even if the entire sector goes under, it should just present an opportunity for you and me to start a new business – if the government doesn’t interfere.