Cafe Hayek: Is health care a right?

« Cowen on money | Main | A Non Sequitur» Don Boudreaux

March 19, 2008

Is health care a right?

Russell Roberts

Is health care a right? I have no idea. What I do know is that treating it like a right can be hazardous to our health. Here's my debate on the issue with a doctor who thinks health care is a right and the government should provide it.

Posted by Russell Roberts in Health | Permalink

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/23120/27249164

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Is health care a right?:

Comments

What do you mean you "have no idea"? You have an idea, you have an intuition, you have a inclination, you have something.

I get your point that you want to move beyond that question to talk about the practical aspects of a national health care system, the real tradeoffs that would have to be made, but I think you do have an idea.

Posted by: scott clark | Mar 19, 2008 12:08:45 PM

Individuals have a right to acquire health care via voluntary exchange. They do not have a right to acquire health care by enslaving others to the task of paying for it.

Posted by: Sam Grove | Mar 19, 2008 12:28:04 PM

Even if we begin to consider health care as a basic right, why is the government responsible in supplying us with this right?

I think you are correct in respect to the fact that with the introduction of a government run system the incentive to innovate is removed.

Can't wait till everyone's favourite bolshevik comes in and tells us why this is not the case...

Posted by: Jonathan Nehmetallah | Mar 19, 2008 12:28:40 PM

Of course there are those who assert that, merely by living here, we have volunteered to let everybody else do whatever they want with the value we create.

Posted by: Sam Grove | Mar 19, 2008 12:32:35 PM

Of course healthcare is a right - if you're willing to pay for it. In the Soviet Union, healthcare was a constitutional right of all citizens. Of course, the practical cost of providing that right meant that there was only one (usually overflowing) toilet per 76 patients, anesthesia was rationed (woke up during surgery? too bad), you needed to have "connections" in high places to get hold of necessary medication, even urban hospitals often didn't have hot water and rural hospitals rarely had running water of any temperature. Doctors were paid so little that they refused to treat patients without adequate payment first - we called it a bribe, but it was really payment.

This is the "healthcare" we had a right to.

In Europe you can't get anything that approaches healthcare, as Americans know it, without paying out of pocket for private providers. The net result of this is that only the very wealthy and well connected are actually able to purchase the sort of healthcare available the "poor" in this pseudo-socialist healthcare system we have now.

Whether healthcare is a right or not is the wrong question. Even if we decide it's a right, the definition of "healthcare" changes.

Posted by: Methinks | Mar 19, 2008 12:39:22 PM

One way I like to think about this question is even if we agree that "health-care" (however you define it) is a right, how do you deal with a situation where an innovator discovers an incredibly expensive yet perfectly successful way to treat a major disease (e.g. a cure for diabetes). Suppose that the cure, initially, costs over $1,000,000 per treatment. Does everyone instantly have a right to that treatment?

That would be hard to argue in the affirmative, even if "health care is different."

Posted by: wintercow20 | Mar 19, 2008 12:43:04 PM

Wintercow, I'm not entirely sure that anyone would bother producing such a treatment if everyone had a right to it. Assuming that everyone else's right to the inventor's product supersedes the inventor's right to be paid a price he believes is appropriate, why would anyone bother taking the time, energy and investment to develop such a cure?

Note that before national healthcare, Europe was the leader in drug development and on the cutting edge of medical research. Note also that today, almost no products are developed in Europe.

I'm hoping this thread will attract CPUrick but I'm sure it'll only attract Muirgeo.

Posted by: Methinks | Mar 19, 2008 12:52:13 PM

Concerning health care as a 'right' I'll post what I've posted before.

The 'right to health care' must mean that if I decide of my own cognizance to hire a doctor to provide me with treatment that the police are not going to pound down my door and arrest me.

Yet, that is precisely what happens in socialists countries. Socialized medicine is not a 'right to health care' it is the surrender of that right. It is a surrender of that right to politicians and bureaucrats to ration health care for their own purposes.

Posted by: Marcus | Mar 19, 2008 1:08:44 PM

Sam Grove said:

"Individuals have a right to acquire health care via voluntary exchange. They do not have a right to acquire health care by enslaving others to the task of paying for it."

Just change a few words:

"Individuals have a right to acquire [a public education/a retirement stipend] via voluntary exchange. They do not have a right to acquire [a public education/a retirement stipend] by enslaving others to the task of paying for it."

While I agree with it, I'm afraid that your particular argument has already been lost....down a slippery slope.

Posted by: I_am_a_lead_pencil | Mar 19, 2008 1:14:49 PM

What is scary to me is the percentage of people who want the government to nationalize health care or health insurance: http://www.pollingreport.com/health3.htm

I'd be curious to see what percentage of respondents are approaching or actually retired. Using the HHS statistics, the working-class pays, for themselves and their children, less than retirees out of their own pockets (it's about 70:30 for working-class, with the ratio being reversed for retirees). I don't understand how the working-class voters can want to pay for all of the health care costs for themselves, their children, and their parents rather than just for themselves and their children.

As for the innovation that comes out of the US, I can't agree more. I'll be eagerly awaiting the outcome of the election, doing with biotech and drug company companies what I did with military hardware companies immediately following 9/11 and during the run-up to the Iraq invasion.

Posted by: Justin Bowen | Mar 19, 2008 1:29:11 PM

I find it amazing that proponents of single-payer systems or universal care continue to talk about life expectancy and child mortality.

The other surprising thing is his recurrent insistence that America's health care failures are due to the lackluster profit-seeking system. Instead, I think it's because the tax code creates an employer provided care monopoly.

Do we replace that with the government's own monopoly, or consumer choice (e.g. individual coverage or HSAs).

Posted by: Will | Mar 19, 2008 1:45:54 PM

Let's dispense with it now then. No such right to healthcare exists. You have the right to be left alone, you have the right to your life and your property (things become your property though homesteading and then through voluntary exchange), you have the right to all the thoughts in your head and the right to express the thoughts to anyone who wants to listen.

You don't have the right to anyone else's care. You have no right to make people care about you by force. You can persuade them to care about you, you can exhibit all sorts of merit and good features and niceness and kindness to get people to care about you, but you would be wrong to force them. Healthcare is the same as any other kind of care. It means taking the time and attention of other people to come to your aid. Doctors are not slaves, they don't go to study biology to such a degree they when they gain a certain mastery of the subject they themselves then become submissive to the cries of sick, or submissive to the force of the government that tells them they must answer to the cries of the sick. They do it so they can trade their special value (healing knowledge) for some other value.

You don't have the right to food, but you can go and trade for food, or mix your productivity with unused, unclaimed land and the woodland creatures upon it to get food, oceans too, you don't have right to shelter, but no one can stop you from sheltering yourself with your own productivty and the resources you acquire openly and honestly.

Also, just so we're clear, you have rights by your nature as a human, a creature that can contemplate its own existence, can think about the future and make plans, can save its current production and invest in new methods of production, and harness and transform the environment around it to better suit its plans. Any thing that can do all those things has rights, any thing that can't do those things gets none. So AI robots get rights, fish, cows, other animals, no rights. The mentally ill or disabled who may not be able to exhibit all the above characteristics have the same rights as members of the species that can do those things, but they have no more rights then the rest of their species. Children have the same rights as well, but those rights are held in trust and can be excercised or suppressed by adults that take care of them, with the one irrevocable, unsuppressible child's right, the right to leave its current living arrangement at which point it will have its full adult human rights and responsibilities to care for itself or will be able to put them in trust to another who will take care of it.

I hope that clears it up. You make your own life the best way you know how, there are lots of people along the way who will help, but absent any explicit, voluntary contracts to the contrary, they owe you nothing.

Posted by: scott clark | Mar 19, 2008 1:49:29 PM

What's healthcare?

I'm not trying to be facetious. If Healthcare is a right, do I have a right to cosmetic surgery? What if it's to remedy a cosmetic problem caused by life-saving surgery? What about birth control? Do women have a right to birth control pills? How about condoms? If I get hooked on drugs, do I have a right to methadone treatment? What about the right to a sex change operation? Is Viagra a right? What about treatment for skin cancer from a tanning bed? Treatment for lung cancer from smoking? How about dental implants?

If these things are what the founders would have called "natural rights" -- i.e. rights which everybody has, just by being human -- then shouldn't there be some dividing line?

When somebody talks about health care as a "right," they ignore the fact that there is no guiding principle there -- somebody has to decide that treatment "X" is healthcare that somebody has a right to, and treatment "Y" isn't. And, there are no natural rights which only exist at the whim of a person. (That's why they're called natural rights.)

So, the position isn't "Everybody has a right to health care." Instead, the position is "The government should create a right to certain kinds of healthcare under certain circumstances." But, that's a lot harder to convince people of.

Posted by: Chris | Mar 19, 2008 1:53:05 PM

Seems like many folks don't know what a "right" is. Rights come from freedom, and freedom is constrained by the actions of others. Thus, rights are about being free of interference in your choices by others.

So, in the American context, you do not have rights to "things", but you have the right to be free of "things", those "things" being interference and constraint. We have chosn to employ collective action in the form of a government to guarantee those freedoms from interference.

In this framework, the statement "we have the right to health care" is simple nonsense.

However, instead of seeing government as a limited form of protection against the predations of others, too many people see government as the provider of things. And since government cannot generate any wealth through its industrial endeavors, it must steal from some to give away these "things" to which many people seem to think they have "a right".

Of course, when I speak like this to the average member of the public, they look at me funny and slowly move away. :-)

Posted by: bartman | Mar 19, 2008 1:58:27 PM

To people who don't believe in personal responsibility, everything becomes a "right". I don't see how its solved until you solve that larger problem.

Posted by: FreedomLover | Mar 19, 2008 2:04:28 PM

methinks - all those horror stories of medical care in the USSR aren't true because muirduck didn't see it!

Posted by: FreedomLover | Mar 19, 2008 2:05:40 PM

While I agree with it, I'm afraid that your particular argument has already been lost....down a slippery slope.

But the argument must be made.

Posted by: Sam Grove | Mar 19, 2008 2:16:15 PM

The clearest commentary on this imho is from Dr. Walter Williams.
http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=2005

Posted by: Chris Meisenzahl | Mar 19, 2008 2:38:09 PM

Sam,

Yes, the argument must be made. First to keep from sliding futher down the slope, and also, when the programs already implemented begin to fail, it will be good to understand why they failed.

Posted by: Randy | Mar 19, 2008 2:39:02 PM

Randy - it's pretty useless to appeal to logic when so many view this is a fundamental moral.

Posted by: FreedomLover | Mar 19, 2008 2:45:37 PM

If health care is a right, lets make sure we aren't leaving out anything more important. I would consider food more important than healthcare. We can live a lot longer without health care than we can without food. We do have a right to eat? It's true we have relatively fewer people who go to bed hungry in the US than exists in other countries. Does that mean its less important? Lets make sure all of our people have eaten, realized their right to food, before we worry about health care.

I propose we nationalize the food industry, institute a single payer system. Instead of going to the grocery store with credit card in hand (we have to pay with a credit card due to the lack of funds in our bank accounts to write checks), we simply tell the cashier how many members of our family and they provide our allotment of rice, potatoes, beans, and milk. If we're lucky, we're in the front of the line and get a small chicken leg.

I've thought about this idea of whether its a right or not and where it came from. My guess is that thinking we have a "right" to health care falls under the previously expressed (back in '76) right to life. If we have a right to life, we, by extension, have a right to anything that helps us prolong life, enjoy life, etc. I disagree, but I wonder if that might be the thinking of those who believe it. I also think that calling it a right in the first place is simply an attempt to appeal to the inner Thomas Jefferson in us, a hope our emotions overcome our reason. But we shouldn't be surprised with this, because its the approach modern liberals have used for decades.

Posted by: hutch | Mar 19, 2008 2:49:19 PM

sorry. meant to say "Do we have a right to eat?"

Posted by: hutch | Mar 19, 2008 2:51:08 PM

I just wanted to add something. I haven't finished all of Russ's audio link, but I heard something interesting at the beginning. The moderator mentioned something about "mak[ing] health care a right." I've often thought of the debate being whether or not it was a right (as in from the beginning), not whether or not we should make it one. It doesn't change my opinion, but I thought it was interesting. We're talking about whether this is an "inalienable", natural right, or else the founders would have included it. We're talking about whether we want to make it one. Again, by using the word right, they're clouding the argument because most people think of a right as something that comes with being human, not something that other humans can bestow.

Posted by: hutch | Mar 19, 2008 3:06:04 PM

Randy,

Take another look at the argument:

"They do not have a right to acquire health care by enslaving others to the task of paying for it."

Social security and mandatory public schooling have rendered this argument impotent. These accepted programs have paved the erroneous ethical path down which ‘universal healthcare’ is now marching. We should not be surprised that this is the case. Arguing against walking down this path - which we have strode along for decades - is not going to win many folks over….even if a few of us can agree it is not the proper path that we should have walked on.

Looking at “why they failed” (or will fail) is a separate argument - but it has nothing to do with the ethical one.

Posted by: i_am_a_lead_pencil | Mar 19, 2008 3:29:55 PM

Where is my right to free markets?

Posted by: Unit | Mar 19, 2008 3:50:36 PM

I loved your responses on the question "Would making health care a right benefit the country?".

I also loved how the first thing the doctor said was how he didn't think the right to health care meant you had a right to provide health care. Nothing like protecting your monopoly, doctor.

And finally, I loved how the good doctor could easily run a health care system for the whole country, all we have to do is make him the dictator of health care. What a fascist.

Posted by: Keith | Mar 19, 2008 4:31:18 PM

the first thing the doctor said was how he didn't think the right to health care meant you had a right to provide health care.

Sorry, I can't get the interview to play on this computer - did you mean "...didn't have the obligation to provide health care"?

If this is what he said, then we're graduating some very logic-impaired doctors.

Posted by: Methinks | Mar 19, 2008 5:00:34 PM

lead pencil,

"Looking at “why they failed” (or will fail) is a separate argument - but it has nothing to do with the ethical one."

Well, it seems to me that an ethical argument must also be practical. For example, can we argue that soviet style communism is ethical when we know from experience that it is impractical?

Posted by: Randy | Mar 19, 2008 5:10:16 PM

Do we have a right to not be murdered?

Do we have a right to golf on the country club course anytime we want?

Do we have a right to drive on the left side of the road?

Rights IMO are given based on the established rules of society or of a club to which we are born or choose to join.

Myself and Von Hayek both agree a good case can be made for a universal public health care system. Likewise the doctor in the interview made all the appropriate points to back up his position.

Posted by: muirgeo | Mar 19, 2008 5:27:05 PM

And we're off!

here you have it, folks!! Muirduck and Hayek are in complete agreement if society decides to change its rules regarding murder, we will be able to murder with impunity. As long as society establishes it as a rule. Awesome.

Posted by: Methinks | Mar 19, 2008 5:44:31 PM

If armed men will shoot me for doing something (or not doing something) to you, you have a right. That's the only sense I've ever made of the word "right". Nuff said.

Universal health care is an obligation to carry health insurance and a more limited obligation to contribute to the health insurance premiums of people who can't afford them. I think this obligation is O.K. myself, with some caveats. The other side of this obligation is a right to certain health care.

I feel the same way about automobile liability insurance for similar reasons. We aren't going to leave critically sick people in the streets in the U.S. Someone must pay for health care. Ideally, I pay for mine, and you pay for yours, and we share risks through insurance.

Does this doctor therefore have a right to a job? No. Do auto mechanics have a right to a job? No.

Posted by: Martin Brock | Mar 19, 2008 5:52:41 PM

Then perhaps you haven't heard of an unalienable right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

We do not have to constrain our context to the legal sense, even if you choose to do so.

Posted by: Sam Grove | Mar 19, 2008 5:59:29 PM

I've heard a lot about it. Flapping lips and a few bucks will get you a cup of coffee at Starbucks, these days.

The trouble with your unconstrained sense is that the word "right" means whatever you want it to mean in this sense, and different people want it to mean a dizzying variety of contradictory things. I already have the word "preference" for this purpose.

Posted by: Martin Brock | Mar 19, 2008 6:06:59 PM

Martin - once this country used to be about rugged individualism.

Posted by: FedFan_2007 | Mar 19, 2008 6:34:09 PM

The trouble with your highly constrained sense is that we are then left at the mercy of politicians to do the defining.

I am aware of how you look at things, but as I am not philosophically a utilitarian, I do not find myself constrained to your way of looking at things, nor have I seen any benefit in doing constraining my self in such a manner.

I am quite aware of the nature of the state, the men with guns, etc. I do think I comprehend the symbiotic relationship between the manifestation of political power and the common sensibility of the people that support that manifestation either by belief, actions, or absence of same (defaulting).

Acknowledging the very real nature and state of our existence and the manifestation of state power does not relieve us of the necessity of examining those beliefs and figuring what about that symbiotic relationship is amenable to modification and what modifications should be made.

Nor does that acknowledgment require us to constrain our imaginations and our discussions to how we deal with the 'what is'.

Yes many different people make various claims about rights. The task is to separate the wheat from the chaff.

Even if we go by your sense, the task remains as to what should be legally defined as a right and what should not. Adopting the utilitarian philosophy does not resolve the problem, it merely changes the way we talk about it.

I think the right to your life is not at all unconstrained. It seems to me to be quite specific. And liberty means essentially a right to be left alone as long as I am not interfering with the equivalent rights of others to their lives and fruits of their labors. Is anyone really confused by that, anyone that does not understand the meaning?

Preference: I prefer to wear a hat outdoors.
"I prefer life over death" isn't quite strong enough to indicate the situation. I am actually imbued by nature with a compulsion to avoid death.

Posted by: Sam Grove | Mar 19, 2008 6:42:56 PM

Martin,

I have no problem with insurance. Insurance is voluntary and you know that you're signing up for spreading both the risk and cost over the pool of insured at the time that you acquire insurance. My biggest problem with insurance is that insurance regulation has prevented competition and choice. Lack of competition and choice means that more people in states with lots of mandates can't afford insurance.

Posted by: Methinks | Mar 19, 2008 6:53:36 PM

methinks - my biggest problem is FORCED insurance. I don't like that I'm forced to buy anything by the government. What I buy should be dictated by my own needs, and nothing else. But I guess that makes me an evil, selfish bastard Republican.

Posted by: FreedomLover | Mar 19, 2008 7:53:52 PM

Those who claim to believe that people have a right to health care are lying to themselves and to others. What they actually mean is that people are entitled to health care. And, in an entitlement society (as other commenters noted), that means government taking wealth from some and giving it to others. This tiresome trend towards socialism makes me ill.

The physician arguing about the right to health care actually was arguing to ensure that all his patients have the ability to pay for the care he provides. This type of self-serving behavior among my fellow physicians is partly responsible for the declining trust people have for the profession.

Posted by: Dr. T | Mar 19, 2008 8:09:55 PM

“I have no problem with insurance.”

- Methinks

“Ned considers insurance a form of gambling.”

-Maude Flanders (The Simpsons)

Posted by: Mesa Econoguy | Mar 19, 2008 8:20:08 PM

Health care IS a right, but there are far more competent people than government to administer it---like doctors, for instance.

http://www/gopcatholics.blogspot.com

Posted by: Peter | Mar 19, 2008 11:02:19 PM

The most competent people to manage health care are those who pay for it: consumers. And doctors can do what they're damn well told.

Posted by: Marcus | Mar 19, 2008 11:08:05 PM

I don't like that I'm forced to buy anything by the government. What I buy should be dictated by my own needs, and nothing else. But I guess that makes me an evil, selfish bastard Republican.

Selfish, evil Republican bastard,

I agree. It's even worse when we are forced to buy insurance designed by the government itself.

Posted by: Methinks | Mar 19, 2008 11:45:55 PM

"Rights IMO are given based on the established rules of society or of a club to which we are born or choose to join." - Murthaduck ("the children they've killed in cold blood").

Sam, Methinks,

Have pity on our poor little troll - he's trying. It only took him twenty years to read "We the people". Those are big words! Perhaps in another forty years he'll get to the document that explains that rights aren't 'given'.

BTW, Murthaduck. I'm still waiting for you to pony up for that printing press and Thompson that you agreed is owed to me as you interpret the Constitution.

Posted by: brotio | Mar 19, 2008 11:55:17 PM

Anyone have any thoughts on the doctor's claim that NIH has been an effective distributor of research dollars? How do we know whether NIH is effective? As compared to... what?

Posted by: Student | Mar 20, 2008 12:33:22 AM

"As for the innovation that comes out of the US, I can't agree more. I'll be eagerly awaiting the outcome of the election, doing with biotech and drug company companies what I did with military hardware companies immediately following 9/11 and during the run-up to the Iraq invasion."
-Justin Bowen

I can only assume you had success in developing military hardware after 9/11, your post made me realize. While there is fear of big government killing innovation and stifling freedom on the one side, there is the same level of fear on the other side that the reason you had success in military hardware and hope to in drug companies will be prompted by malfeasance, maliciously created wars and medical disasters for the explicit purpose of manufacturing an incentive for individuals to innovate and create solutions, the window breaking thing.

I am not stating my belief but found it fascinating how equal the fears are on both sides.

What I really wanted to contribute was how I enjoy the public school analogies. It reminded me of a famous Thomas Paine quote "A long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right." I am reminded of this quote because many people in my area think the public schools are wonderful, but when I hear how far back the US is in education internationally, I realize all the public schools seem wonderful because they are in comparison to themselves making them seem proficient.

I would gather that if the healthcare system stagnates upon being substituted by a government monopoly it could keep its appearance but after time as it doesn't progress it will still seem fine, even if other countries are surpassing the US.

Posted by: Brian-NJ | Mar 20, 2008 12:48:53 AM

"If armed men will shoot me for doing something (or not doing something) to you, you have a right. That's the only sense I've ever made of the word "right". Nuff said."

Thank you, M. Brock. To me a 'right' implies a positive duty on other. To say a 'right' can be stand alone (say, self-defense) is not really so much a 'right' as much as an 'ability' hence Liberals deny there's any thing such as 'natural rights'. E.g. a woman who demands not to be raped in an overt patriarchal society where women don't any rights might as well spit into the wind and it may be discomforting if the only way that woman could make the 'right' real is to marry a man and get her protection from rape because she is that man's 'property'.

Similarly to say people shouldn't use 'force&fraud' implies a duty on people NOT to use force&fraud which contradicts the notion of 'negative rights'. Therefore for the notion of 'no force&fraud' not be in contradiction it is a personal moral directive of Libertarians to self-identify when force&fraud is being used against them and defend by themselves or voluntarily group up with others.

See:

http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-rights.htm

Posted by: Gil | Mar 20, 2008 1:12:53 AM

I loved the little note at the end, about how some state is mandating that pediatricians provide mental health screening for Medicare kids. The doctor they interview asks where they will find the time with their workload of flu shots, colds, etc.

And the other part I loved was Russ's debate opponent decrying the series of events that cemented employer subsidized health insurance into our system, not long after channeling muirgeo to say that the government does everything right by definition. Hilarious. But not quite so hilarious as when the good doctor talked about how this messed up our competitiveness. I noticed that Russ didn't try to tell him how to conduct brain surgery.

Posted by: BoscoH | Mar 20, 2008 1:33:59 AM

BTW, any of our debates are tempest in the tiniest teapot. 99% of Americans are socialist boobs who will never follow 1% of Hayek's advice.

Posted by: FreedomLover | Mar 20, 2008 2:47:34 AM

If health care is a right -- an entitlement right -- then what is stopping us from advocating for housing and food as an entitlement right? Housing and food are every bit as important as health care.

I'll take the steak and lobster and the mansion in the Hamptons. But who's going to get my crappy-ass temporary apartment in Roswell? muirgeo, you're an altruist, will you switch places with me. You take my apartment and I'll stay at your Villas at LF. It's a short hop from there to my childhood hometown of Martinez...not all that far from the John Muir house off Alhambra Road.

Posted by: LowcountryJoe | Mar 20, 2008 7:14:30 AM

Quote from Methinks: "Sorry, I can't get the interview to play on this computer - did you mean "...didn't have the obligation to provide health care"?"

No, I think the doctor was saying that people don't have a right to provide health care, as in you don't have a right to practice medicine.

Posted by: Keith | Mar 20, 2008 7:34:06 AM

Thank you, Keith. Somehow, I'm not more impressed with the doctor....ugh

Posted by: Methinks | Mar 20, 2008 9:56:30 AM

I believe all the Rights spelled out in the Constitution have litte if any cost for the government. Free speech is, for the most part free. The right to bear arms does not mean the government buys us all a Berreta 92.

Professor Roberts may not have had any rage debating this fellow, but I sure did. This man is a prime example how the education system is failing us by not teaching basic economic principles.

Posted by: DTT | Mar 20, 2008 10:26:05 AM

Freedom,

It occurs to me that we would be better off commenting on some liberal blog because at least we would not be preaching to the choir. This would be very irritating, tiring, and time-consuming, but... it would spread the message.

Posted by: Cliff | Mar 20, 2008 11:25:53 AM

Why not make it clear what we are talking about with this debate of rights, privilege, and entitlement.

Chris & bartman, et. al,

Government is not a natural thing, it is a legal myth, created by agreements among men; and, therefore can create nothing more than two individual men can create, agreement and privilege. One man can not create a right for another, only a privilege.

Sorry guys but natural rights have been defined and expressed numerous times, especially in Libertarian literature.

Natural Law – Natural law is the birthplace of natural rights. Each individual is free to do with himself and his property anything and in anyway; unless and/or until the exercise of that right interferes or prohibits another from doing so equally with himself and his property. (Nothing in this statement implies license or privilege)

Rights are endowed by our creator (God, Mother nature, or the pink fairies of the socialist state), rights can not be created by government, nor can they be taken away by government. (Nothing in this statement denies that a power can physically restrain you and prohibit you from exercising a right)

hutch,
Governments do not deal in the arena of rights, not being able to create them, they also can not take them away. Governments deal in the arena of privilege, which is sometimes expanded and called entitlement. Governments can create privilege and take them away (deny) at will. I understand what you said but disagree on the point of what does most of Americans think of as a right, and I’ll give you great odds that the majority of Americans when asked about rights will have no clue and say something stupid like, “Healthcare is a right”.

Dr T,

I believe Dr. T is much closer to the truth than anyone else so far.

This brings me to Peter,

“Healthcare IS a right, but there are far more competent people than government to administer it---like doctors, for instance.

Self administered healthcare would be a right by natural law. No other healthcare can be.

I do not take issue with Methinks lightly because I am sure of what she was trying to say above, I just think it could be expanded a little and said better.

Even having the ability to pay for healthcare provided by another does not give one a right to that healthcare. The provider must be in agreement and willing to provide. Because I have payment does not over-ride his natural right to choose. If I, or government in my behalf, coerce the provider to provide against his will (at any price) we have made a slave of that provider. We will have violated natural law and the provider’s natural rights.

Among the rights of natural law is the right to free association of our choosing. We do not lose that right of free association when we open a privately owned business. A healthcare provider has that same right of association and the right to chose his patients according to any standard he may believe is beneficial to his practice. So, again, having the means to pay does not mean having the right to buy.

There it is guys, pure and simple. And, everything I just wrote applies to the socialist evangelicals misinterpretation of the word right, and twisting of the principles in the word right and applying them to privilege.

Anything the government does in the way of regulating or interfering in the healthcare industry only denies rights and creates injustice.

If the standard for access to healthcare is ability to pay (and I think it should be) then natural law calls for the provider to chose his patients based upon his own criteria of what he will take as payment from each individual potential client. He may choose to do charity work and treat certain patients for little or nothing. Nor do I think he is, or should be, compelled to post a price list it is no one’s business what he charges any particular patient. That is his natural right to do so and not a cause for complaint or action by any other.

Posted by: vidyohs | Mar 20, 2008 11:27:05 AM

At one pole lies freedom and at the other lies slavery; and, there is nothing in between.

Posted by: vidyohs | Mar 20, 2008 11:31:59 AM

So vidyohs, are we in America slaves or are we free?

No one cept sam answered the question before. Are we a socialist country? Yes or No?

Posted by: muirgeo | Mar 20, 2008 11:34:58 AM

nuirduck,

The answer is in your question.

But, as a hint just go to my last post on natural law and rights and read it again. I gave you you're answer quite clearly.

It is neither your right or privilege to receive a better answer, and if you're incapable of seeing the answer (and I believe you are)then just run up and down the porch and yip for attention.

Posted by: vidyohs | Mar 20, 2008 11:54:05 AM

We are on the road to total slavery, but not quite there yet. We currently are slaves in some realms, and free in others.

The trouble is politicians keep trying to convince us we should be slaves, and far too many people think being kept as such will make their lives better.

Posted by: Hammer | Mar 20, 2008 11:56:24 AM

Muirduck,

No questions asked, we are slaves. The income tax is the modern day form of chains and shackles. The government has a 'right' to my income, and is kind of enough to give some of it back to me. Then, it taxes everything I buy through nonsense like corporate taxes, which are totally passed through to the consumer, and add onto that, the nice inflation tax, which, according to my future social security benefits check is running at 1-2%, while my pocketbook tells me 10.

This whole argument about whether or not we're in socialism or not is ridiculous. After universal healthcare, they'll be telling us what we can and cannot eat, what we can and cannot do to our bodies, etc. etc. because, as a logical consequence of the state being in control of our healthcare, they now must control what we do to our bodies. When will the government mandated blood and hair tests start?

If that is not socialism, I don't know what is.

Posted by: DK | Mar 20, 2008 12:14:37 PM

After listening to the debate, I believe even more firmly that Dr. T got it right.

Furthermore I believe that Dr. T will agree with me that the good doctor debating Russ is probably old, successful, in the twilight of his career, and financially set for life. Therefore a slide into universal healthcare won't affect him like it will the younger guys who are still struggling.

But hey, since when did a socialist have to care about the financial struggles of others when they have it made?

Posted by: vidyohs | Mar 20, 2008 12:38:00 PM

Freedom,

Posted by: Cliff | Mar 20, 2008 11:25:53 AM

I've learned that it's impossible to convert anyone on the interwebs. Totally pointless, since those predisposed to be active in comment sections are usually the most diehard ideologues.

Posted by: FedFan_2008 | Mar 20, 2008 12:47:42 PM

So if we have socialism and if we are slaves how do all the successful people here explain their success?

I definitely think we can do better but if you are calling this socialism I'd have to say socialism works pretty good. And why are you not moving to a non-socialist country. That's a very fair question.

Why were Methinks pauper families so poor in Russia but able to succeed in this socialist nation?

Posted by: muirgeo | Mar 20, 2008 12:57:08 PM

Therefore a slide into universal healthcare won't affect him like it will the younger guys who are still struggling.

Vidyohs, beyond that, he is "well connected" as a doctor. In a socialist system, the only way to move up on a wait list is if you have connections. Or if you bribe people. The only reason I'm alive today is because my uncle was a highly ranked military surgeon who had access to medicine and doctors that others didn't and we could afford the bribes.

Posted by: Methinks | Mar 20, 2008 1:00:27 PM

Why were Methinks pauper families so poor in Russia but able to succeed in this socialist nation?

Unlike you, we mastered the English language and basic punctuation.

Posted by: Methinks | Mar 20, 2008 1:05:09 PM

Muirgeo, how do you feel about paying for the occupation of Iraq?

Posted by: Sam Grove | Mar 20, 2008 1:16:58 PM

Oh, incidentally, we were not poor in the Soviet Union. We were actually very well off there - which was equivalent to being Apalachian-style poor here. The state owned everything we had and could (and did) take our stuff at will. We owned nothing.

Due to your extreme case of Muirpidity, I realize you aren't capable of processing the fact that I said that while we lived in the ghetto for a while in the United States, we thought it was a massive improvement over the Soviet Union.

Posted by: Methinks | Mar 20, 2008 1:18:37 PM

Muirgeo, how do you feel about paying for the occupation of Iraq?

Posted by: Sam Grove

I don't like it. Nor do most and those who put us there are leaving the political establishment or being voted out of office.

How do you feel about driving on public roads or drinking clean water from your tap or backpacking in a National Forest? I like all those things and so do most. In fact they mostly want more of these things and less of the war things. And this November they will get a government that better represents their wants.

Sam if you were a member of a Country Club would argue about the fees or the rules?

Posted by: muirgeo | Mar 20, 2008 1:37:30 PM

The merry-go-round is open.

Posted by: Methinks | Mar 20, 2008 1:47:42 PM

Muirgeo,

Socialism is like a creeping, toxic mold in your house. A little isn't going to kill you but let it go long enough and you're going to need to burn down the house.

Posted by: colson | Mar 20, 2008 2:03:36 PM

methinks - arguing with muirduck is like arguing with a duck. Pointless.

Posted by: FreedomLover | Mar 20, 2008 2:08:00 PM

How do you feel about driving on public roads or drinking clean water from your tap or backpacking in a National Forest?

When I drive, I don't mind paying my share for it whether it be government of private. What I do mind is that the government is trying to do so many things that it is unable to properly maintain those roads. I do not assume that the only way to have roads is via government.

drinking clean water from your tap

In my previous residence, the water was supplied by a private company.

backpacking in a National Forest?

I don't really do any backpacking, but I understand that there are a lot of middle class types, that could otherwise afford it, that do enjoy subsidized backpacking.

Posted by: Sam Grove | Mar 20, 2008 2:29:32 PM

I think this graphic is some interest regarding the subject of climate change.

Posted by: Sam Grove | Mar 20, 2008 2:50:38 PM

backpacking in a National Forest?

I don't really do any backpacking,
Posted by: Sam Grove

That's too bad... because there is nothing more liberating then to be on ones own in a wilderness. It's a great way to escape or at least confront ones ego. Ego's need a good beatin back every now and again so we can see our connectedness to all the universe rather then presuming it revolves around us... as our ego's like us to believe. It's all connected Sam.

Posted by: muirgeo | Mar 20, 2008 2:57:33 PM

I think this graphic is some interest regarding the subject of climate change.

Posted by: Sam Grove

What's it tell you Sam? It tells me that humans have never existed during those great climate swings. It tells me that humans and civilization evolved during the Hollocene ( which means mild climate). Also the greatest of swings are ussually correlated with mass extinctions. Best to avoid swings if possible. Finally, it tells me that man has to make his presence on Earth in such a graph prominant by stretching out the last thousands of years of the Earth so that we appear as more then a blink of an eye or the width of a human hair.

Posted by: muirgeo | Mar 20, 2008 3:02:27 PM

Muirduck,

I won't put this one on the list of "muir(stu)pidties of the duck", though it is justified. The reason I won't is because most people would need an explanation of why it belongs, and I'd rather stick to your muirpidities that just jump out and evoke laughter and wonder at the vacuity.

"Sam if you were a member of a Country Club would argue about the fees or the rules?
Posted by: muirgeo | Mar 20, 2008 1:37:30 PM"

In a discussion about involuntary taxation and the squandering and misappropriation of said wealth by government, asking this question to try and make a valid point in support of that evil is so childish, pointless, and ignorant.

Sam, as you do, believes that he can not refuse to be a citizen of the corporate United States of America; so therefore, he sees taxation as a means of legally stealing his wealth. Sam believes he has no choice, or if he makes the "wrong" choice he will be punished.

But, Sam also knows that he can refuse to join a Country Club; or, should he wish too, he has the privilege of reviewing the rules and fees and making his decision based on his personal desires. And, yes, Sam might actually negotiate, or attempt it, to see what flexibility in the rules and fees might exist that are not commonly known.

No one has to attack you, muirduck, with your muirpidities you do such an excellent job of slaughtering yourself.

Posted by: vidyohs | Mar 20, 2008 3:07:23 PM

Posted by: muirgeo | Mar 20, 2008 2:57:33 PM

Ah once again the might muirduck is making value judgements based on trivialities. You don't make policy based on aesthetics.

Posted by: FreedomLover | Mar 20, 2008 3:12:12 PM

The graphic also shows that we are still on the low side. Yes, it would be nice, I suppose, if we could moderate climate change to some optimum...tell me, what is the optimum?

It's all connected Sam.

Do tell. Then why is your comprehension of economics so...mercantilist?

Posted by: Sam Grove | Mar 20, 2008 3:26:49 PM

Sam, as you do, believes that he can not refuse to be a citizen of the corporate United States of America;
vidyohs

I don't believe that. I'm free to leave and will do so if I felt there was no hope of improvement or if I thought there was a better place. Why can't he refuse to be a citizen??

Methinks family refused to be a citizen of communist Russia and left for this place... one you all claim is socialistic and makes slaves of its citizen.

No trust me vidyohs... you are free to go. But insted you choose to stay and complain. And your only solution is violence. That's not my/our fault or my/our problem.

Posted by: muirgeo | Mar 20, 2008 3:30:17 PM

But, just think! If you spend enough time wandering in the woods, you too could become as smart as Muirduck! It's all connected.

Posted by: Methinks | Mar 20, 2008 3:30:22 PM

No trust me vidyohs... you are free to go. But insted you choose to stay and complain. And your only solution is violence. That's not my/our fault or my/our problem.

More straw armies. How do you do it ducky?

Posted by: FreedomLover | Mar 20, 2008 3:56:55 PM

Perhps, muirgeo, I'm not as self-absorbed as you seem to assume.

Perhaps you also haven't realized that part of the cost of your subsidized backpacking is the priviledge of paying for the empire.

Posted by: Sam Grove | Mar 20, 2008 4:08:23 PM

That everyone should have a right to healthcare is something that could be discussed but that everyone has the right to feel that he has a right to a healthcare is something that no one could object to.

And so, in a democracy, if a majority feels we should have a health care and it should not be that we way… we’ve got a problem Houston... a problem that is not solved by ignoring the red lights.

I am as much against the sausage factory of government as anyone, though more so when I feel that the sausage factory of government is working against me and in favor of those with more influence than me.

I know it is natural that those with more influence than me have more influence than me… but at the same time it is my human right not to like it.

What is most important though is the aligning of the incentives since you have to be blind to see that like in the financial sector the incentive structure is just not working.

Posted by: Per Kurowski | Mar 20, 2008 4:18:16 PM

But, just think! If you spend enough time wandering in the woods, you too could become as smart as Muirduck! It's all connected.

Posted by: Methinks | Mar 20, 2008 3:30:22 PM

LOL! Like I said earlier, ducky confuses aesthetics and wisdom.

Posted by: FreedomLover | Mar 20, 2008 4:22:30 PM

Perhaps you also haven't realized that part of the cost of your subsidized backpacking is the priviledge of paying for the empire.

Posted by: Sam Grove

Yep that's true. But it beats the hell out of all land being held in private property by a small minority. All my best places with NO TRESPASSING signs and the only work available is to Serf on private land.... Wow now there's Liberty for you. No thanks! I love the privledge of publically owned lands. It's our best invention yet.

Posted by: muirgeo | Mar 20, 2008 4:23:37 PM

Has the sausage factory of government ever worked any other way?

but at the same time it is my human right not to like it.

Fair enough. In a free country, you're entitled to your feelings.

Posted by: Methinks | Mar 20, 2008 4:38:17 PM

But it beats the hell out of all land being held in private property by a small minority.

Go look up the word "easement".

Posted by: Methinks | Mar 20, 2008 4:39:05 PM

methinks - ducky thinks that his feelings MUST be implemented by government or else he's oppressed.

Posted by: FreedomLover | Mar 20, 2008 4:57:18 PM

Fair enough muirduck,

I didn't say what I did in tight enough detail.

"I don't believe that. I'm free to leave and will do so if I felt there was no hope of improvement or if I thought there was a better place. Why can't he refuse to be a citizen??
Posted by: muirgeo | Mar 20, 2008 3:30:17 PM"

I will now correct my sloppy presentation to reflect my true meaning.

Sam believes, as do you, that to remain here in the home of his birth and he must be a citizen of the corporate United States of America. Which also means he believes that he suffers the injustice of having his wealth taken through unjust taxation and squandered relgiously by government.

Now that I have taken away your strawman of immigration to another country where he would only be even worse off, I will close by telling you that I do not trust you, after seeing your intellectual ability and ignorance, I will never trust you, and I find it extremely difficult to believe you function in an atmosphere of diagnosis and treatment and not kill kids left and right.

Anyone who gets to be middle aged and has to be told that the sun is the source of all surface warmth on Earth is not someone who has achieved a high degree of education or intellect.
#9 on the list of muir(stu)pidities:

9. "When some one says the climate is warming because it is following its natural course they need to be more specific. That's all I'm saying. Is it warming from the Sun, El Nino.... what? And provide evidence."
Vidyohs... your ego so controls you. You should learn how to tame it. You'll be a happier person.
Posted by: muirgeo | Mar 20, 2008 10:28:10 AM"

Posted by: vidyohs | Mar 20, 2008 5:08:38 PM

Freedom lover,

"methinks - ducky thinks that his feelings MUST be implemented by government or else he's oppressed."

Sorry my friend, there are no facts in evidence to support your words "ducky thinks".

muirduck may say, may feel, but all evidence provided by the duck himself shows that "thinking" is not in his toolkit.

Posted by: vidyohs | Mar 20, 2008 5:12:59 PM

Go look up the word "easement".

Posted by: Methinks

I don't need to know about the word easement because I have a right, the right, to go to some of the most amazing places in the world and pitch a tent and no one can tell me otherwise. That's freedom...that's liberty. And it's granted by being a member of this society.

Posted by: muirgeo | Mar 20, 2008 5:32:13 PM

methinks - ducky thinks that his feelings MUST be implemented by government or else he's oppressed.

What do you expect from someone who, by his own admission, is lost in the woods?

Sorry my friend, there are no facts in evidence to support your words "ducky thinks".

Clearly this means he's qualified to run for office and make healthcare decisions on your behalf, Vidyohs. Or at least, that's the impression one gets by observing government in action and the ducks who "run" it.

Posted by: Methinks | Mar 20, 2008 5:34:56 PM

Anyone who gets to be middle aged and has to be told that the sun is the source of all surface warmth on Earth...

Posted by: vidyohs

Strictly speaking the Sun is not the source of all surface warmth on Earth. You are apparently forgetting another two sources. But regardless the Sun is not the only cause for climate variation and the degree of warmth can vary markedly independent of solar output.

Posted by: muirgeo | Mar 20, 2008 5:39:08 PM

But it beats the hell out of all land being held in private property by a small minority.

You can make the assumption that this is the only alternative. I do not make such an assumption. And I don't really mind there being national parks so much as I mind that you may not be paying enough for your use of them. If there must be national parks, let them be paid for by them that use them according to their usage. IOW, charge use fees such that no one must be taxed to support those parks.

Better yet, separate the parks from the government in the form of land trusts administrated by a self supporting non-profit non-government administration.

Posted by: Sam Grove | Mar 20, 2008 5:46:21 PM

But regardless the Sun is not the only cause for climate variation and the degree of warmth can vary markedly independent of solar output.

This is particularly the case in the short term. But climatologists have not yet explained the long term cycles, this is, why sometimes the earth gets cold and sometimes warm.

The main driver of climate is, nonetheless, the sun. And various factors determine variations in how much energy reaches the surface. There are anthropogenic factors, but no one has shown how significant those are relative to many other factors. Yes, there are hypotheses, but there are also other hypotheses.

Posted by: Sam Grove | Mar 20, 2008 5:56:25 PM

"There are anthropogenic factors, but no one has shown how significant those are relative to many other factors."
Sam

That is a false statement presumably based on a lack of familiarity with the scientific literature on the subject.

Posted by: muirgeo | Mar 20, 2008 6:14:40 PM

That is a false statement presumably based on a lack of familiarity with the scientific literature on the subject.

Some have offered their interpretations on the matter, but they are 'interpretations'. There are a wide variety of assertions as to the exact significance of the anthropogenic contribution, but no evidence to suggest that the models are any better than a straight line extension of the measured trends.

And the measured trend is not unquestioned as regards the validity of the measurements and the corrections that have been applied.

Posted by: Sam Grove | Mar 20, 2008 6:23:06 PM

Quote from miurgeo: "It tells me that humans and civilization evolved during the Hollocene ( which means mild climate)."

Incorrect. Humans evolved in the Pleistocene (i.e., during ice ages). Civilization developed soon after the end of the last ice age (i.e., the Holocene). Civilization is cultural not biological. Humans had spread to inhabit most of the Earth (i.e., all climates) long before civilization developed.

Posted by: Keith | Mar 20, 2008 7:24:38 PM

Peer reviewed doesn't signify as much as some wish. It is my experience that schools have been indoctrinating students in the culpability of humankind for any and all problems, particularly to blame are western civilization, industrial society, and capitalism.

Politics has soiled science.

Posted by: Sam Grove | Mar 20, 2008 7:57:27 PM

Fair enough muirduck,

"Strictly speaking the Sun is not the source of all surface warmth on Earth. You are apparently forgetting another two sources. But regardless the Sun is not the only cause for climate variation and the degree of warmth can vary markedly independent of solar output.
Posted by: muirgeo | Mar 20, 2008 5:39:08 PM"

No muirduck I did not ignore the minescule heat from the Earth's core that percolates to the surface in such insignificant quanity as to yet be a known factor in affecting the climate. Nor, did I calculate that the heat output of natural sources such as fires and un-natural sources such as industrial/mechanical generated heat would be worth mentioning, except now in this case to simply cut you off from the cracks.

So we modify my statement to seal you in.

"Anyone who gets to be middle aged and has to be told that the sun is the source of all surface warmth on Earth is not someone who has achieved a high degree of education or intellect."
#Posted by: vidyohs | Mar 20, 2008 5:08:38 PM

"Anyone who gets to be middle aged and has to be told that the sun is the only significant source of all surface warmth on Earth is not someone who has achieved a high degree of education or intellect. Furthermore for anyone to claim that heat from the Earth's core, natural surface heat such as forest fires and volcanos, or heat generated by man's activities reacts in any significant way with the atmosphere to cause climate change has clearly stepped beyond the maximum allowable limits of stupidity and is merely grasping at strawmen in order to maintain an imagined dignity.

The sun, muirduck, without it we freeze and die; discounting the possibility of some small number burrowing into the Earth and using fossil fuels to survive for awhile. Without the sun there is no weather, no climate, only a dead world twirling in the void without even a breeze to stir the pinheaded socialist skulls found beneath the receding glaciers.

Posted by: vidyohs | Mar 20, 2008 8:27:46 PM

If healthcare is a "right", then we should be prohibited from dangerous activities like skydiving, scuba diving, motorcycles, skiing, boating, flying ... (you get my drift??) because these make the system more expensive to run.

Posted by: True_Liberal | Mar 20, 2008 9:37:31 PM

Sam Grove raises the prospect of national parks held as private property.

Experience shows that, on the whole, private property is better cared for, because the owner has an incentive to maintain its value. Public property has no such system of incentive; if I flip a lighted match out the car window in a public park I will feel no direct personal loss (unless I get caught).

Posted by: True_Liberal | Mar 20, 2008 9:45:09 PM

..... I have a right, the right, to go to some of the most amazing places in the world and pitch a tent and no one can tell me otherwise.

So, can I live in your house? Would you be happy with that?

How about if the govt passes a law saying that anyone can live in your house? Would you still be upset?

Posted by: raja_r | Mar 20, 2008 10:51:38 PM

I have a right, the right, to go to some of the most amazing places in the world and pitch a tent and no one can tell me otherwise.

I can go to Fisherman's Wharf just about anytime I like and no one will stop me, in fact, they encourage us to come...and it's private property.
Disneyland, Disneyworld, same way.
The big difference is, I only pay when I go there, same as everyone else.

Waiting for: "What about the poor?".

Posted by: Sam Grove | Mar 20, 2008 11:28:41 PM

Muirgeo says:

How do you feel about driving on public roads or drinking clean water from your tap or backpacking in a National Forest?

This is one of the dumbest, dimmest and most lame come-backs from nitwits like you. You know what I think? These services are peanuts, some are covered by user fees and others are handled locally. Either way, they are the least of anyone's worries when talking about the role of government.

BTW, you really are an idiot. Twit.

Posted by: John V | Mar 21, 2008 12:31:50 AM

roflamo!

I don't know about you muirgeo but I think Anarcho-Socialists types like Noam Chomsky are at least consistent. Libertarians bitch and whine about the Big Bad Guvmint when they get to choose between two equally crap alternatives yet if someone else gets stuck with two crappy choices in a free market arena they are told it's perfectly fine it's the market at work. At least Anarcho-Socialists are correct in pointing out if you're against Guvmint for imposing unpleasant choices then you should be against unpleasant choice in the private business world too. But I'm sure this contradiction is resolved because Libertarians probably reckon that when it Guvmint's it's the powerful minority imposing itself in the honest majority, if it's private enterprise then it's the incompetent idiot who's worked himself into corner by his own fault yet trying to coerce the honest majority into getting him out of trouble.

Posted by: Gil | Mar 21, 2008 3:15:17 AM

Excuse me for being slightly off topic, but I noticed the hostess used the title Dr. when she introduced the M.D. but for Russ she introduced him simply as Russell Roberts. The title Dr. belongs not just to medical doctors but to Ph.D.'s as well. If she used the title for one, she should have used it for both.

Posted by: Dano | Mar 21, 2008 3:26:39 AM

Ill health and disability have many different causes. Shouldn't the proposed solutions be tailored accordingly?

Posted by: Sackerson | Mar 21, 2008 6:19:44 AM

No question about it, sackerson, this entire debate or argument is about who does the tailoring and whether the cost is freely negotiated or imposed.

Posted by: vidyohs | Mar 21, 2008 6:21:53 AM

Gilduck,

Noam Chomsky is not an anarcho-socialist, LOL. The man is a full blown Stalinist style communist.

The only way he and you can make a case for the silly shit you just posted is to believe that each individual is helpless and incapable of making their own decisions and enjoying/suffering the results of those decisions.

For the umpteenth millionth time, markets may offer unpleasant or disagreeable choices but they have no force to back them upm only temptation or persuasion.

So libertarians have no incentive to hurl invective at free choice, but have ample reason to hate and fear the raw naked force represented by the government thug.

If you can split so many fine hairs in your little labels of ideas and philosophy, why can't you see and understand the huge vast enormous life-affecting difference between the freedom of the market and the compulsion of government.

At times you challenge muirduck in muirpidities.

Posted by: vidyohs | Mar 21, 2008 6:27:10 AM

I could ask at what point does Guvmint really use force&fraud? Or if you complain about the land monopoly Guvmint has and how Guvmint won't let people be private landowners why would private landowners be any different from Guvmint? They make rules for tenants, expect payment and get men with guns to come around and ask tenants why they won't pay. Oh and pray tell how the private landowners reply with the 'pay up or leave' is any different from Guvmint?

Who knows? Maybe another example is slavery. Traditional chattel slavery could be considered 'statist' because someone is kidnapped and is forced to work against their will for someone else through no choice on their own. Bond slavery, on the other hand, could be considered compatible with the free market - if a person takes up a debt with an employer and the debt is such that it can't be paid off hence the person has to work indefinitely for the employer then it would be argued that the person has voluntarily entered into that contract.

Posted by: Gil | Mar 21, 2008 7:22:15 AM

Muirgeo:

Myself and Von Hayek both agree a good case can be made for a universal public health care system.

Speak for yourself. Hayek believed that the state could provide a safety net without compromising liberty and destroying the economy, but he also believed the safety net shouldn't kick in till your own money had all run out.

Until your argument approximates that, you're not in Hayek's club.

Posted by: cpurick | Mar 21, 2008 8:39:51 AM

I feel bad for anyone born before 1900, deprived of their right to modern medical care! How awful!

Posted by: Jon | Mar 21, 2008 9:42:30 AM

Gilduck,

It has been obvious from the git go that, like muirduck, there is a level of your socialist convictions that common sense and reason will never reach.

These words:

"If you can split so many fine hairs in your little labels of ideas and philosophy, why can't you see and understand the huge vast enormous life-affecting difference between the freedom of the market and the compulsion of government."

might as well have been written in Chinese script.

Personally, I don't care if they ever do penetrate; I just can't help but feel sorry for you that you are so blind and so afraid of free association, voluntary negotiation, and willing free market agreements.

Posted by: vidyohs | Mar 21, 2008 9:50:41 AM

Duh there's a big gulf that muirgeo and I get but yous don't and vice versa. The dreary 'masterstroke' between government and business is that business is supposed to give you choice but government doesn't. Yet at what level does even government run at a true monopoly? There over 200 active national governments around the world and probably even more than 200 currencies. Yous whinge because for yous changing governments seems to be a big bother. On the other hand, if people complain they are feeling 'coerced' by private operators but that OK because they can change private operators for a better transaction or forego the transation altogether, even it that person feels it is a great bother, yet that's 'natural justice'.

It seems in both cases people have a choice so why should it make any difference at all?

Posted by: Gil | Mar 21, 2008 11:22:45 AM

The Grass Is Not Always Greener: A Look at National Health Care Systems Around the World Michael D. Tanner - pdf version

Critics of the U.S. health care system frequently point to other countries as models for reform. They point out that many countries spend far less on health care than the United States yet seem to enjoy better health outcomes. The United States should follow the lead of those countries, the critics say, and adopt a government- run, national health care system.

However, a closer look shows that nearly all health care systems worldwide are wrestling with problems of rising costs and lack of access to care. There is no single international model for national health care, of course. Countries vary dramatically in the degree of central control, regulation, and cost sharing they impose, and in the role of private insurance. Still, overall trends from national health care systems around the world suggest the following:

* Health insurance does not mean universal access to health care. In practice, many countries promise universal coverage but ration care or have long waiting lists for treatment.
* Rising health care costs are not a uniquely American phenomenon. Although other countries spend considerably less than the United States on health care, both as a percentage of GDP and per capita, costs are rising almost everywhere, leading to budget deficits, tax increases, and benefit reductions.
* In countries weighted heavily toward government control, people are most likely to face waiting lists, rationing, restrictions on physician choice, and other obstacles to care.
* Countries with more effective national health care systems are successful to the degree that they incorporate market mechanisms such as competition, cost sharing, market prices, and consumer choice, and eschew centralized government control.

Although no country with a national health care system is contemplating abandoning universal coverage, the broad and growing trend is to move away from centralized government control and to introduce more market-oriented features.

The answer then to America’s health care problems lies not in heading down the road to national health care but in learning from the experiences of other countries, which demonstrate the failure of centralized command and control and the benefits of increasing consumer incentives and choice.

Posted by: Sam Grove | Mar 21, 2008 12:41:14 PM

Gilduck,

Teaching English to a supposed English speaker is tedious.

Do you, in these words,

See any qualification or specification attached to the word government?

As there are none that means the word government as used by myself is all inclusive and applies to all government(s) around the world, and past or present.

The same with any reference to free trade or markets I have made, all inclusive, around the world, and past or present.

All governments operate on compulsion and all markets should be free.

I fear government, I do not fear markets.

Now do you see why your suggestion that I simply move to another place with another government to cure my complaint about government compulsion is simply silly shit from a twit?

Posted by: vidyohs | Mar 21, 2008 5:39:50 PM

I could see the argument that the "right" to access to health care is a right like the "right" to access to fire and police protection. Of course all the members of the doctor cartel would have to become municipal employees.

Posted by: johng | Mar 21, 2008 6:57:28 PM

Estimates have shown (sorry for the passive voice....don't have the periodical handy) that we will consume 1/3 to 1/2 of our total "care" in our last two weeks of life.
Is this a basic human right for a 75-year-old? A 90-year-old? How much of a right to care is there when The Law Of Diminishing Returns starts kicking in?

Posted by: Allen in Fort Worth | Mar 21, 2008 7:28:00 PM

I have to disagree. The only professionals who need to be addressed as "Doctor", are those who hold their Doctorates in Medicine. For anyone else, it is just a courtesy that need not be extended unless they insist upon it and a) they can fire you. Or b) they can give you a failing grade. And c) these previous two things, if applicable, are something you care about.

Besides, the host called him by his most correct title, "Professor of Economics" which really sort of implies that he holds a Doctorate in (most likely) Economics. And, this was a way to differentiate him from the actual Medical Doctor being interviewed.

Posted by: LowcountryJoe | Mar 21, 2008 7:45:09 PM

Of course all the members of the doctor cartel would have to become municipal employees.

Posted by: johng

No not true. I collect from Medicare/MediCal but I am not a government employee. They just run the insurance and far more efficiently then the private plans.

I compete with other doctors for my patients and market forces are somewhat in effect. A government single payor system could actually increase consumer choice and market competition.

Posted by: muirgeo | Mar 21, 2008 9:10:06 PM

Muirduck,

Thank you for #10. on my list of muir(stu)pidities.

10.”I compete with other doctors for my patients and market forces are somewhat in effect. A government single payor(sic) system could actually increase consumer choice and market competition.”
Posted by: muirgeo | Mar 21, 2008 9:10:06 PM

Yes indeed, under a single payer (payer muirduck...not payor) system, doctors would certainly be encouraged to differential pricing so as to attract and keep clients; and, of course patients will not be told which doctor to see but will have free choice of all available doctors.

LOL, when pigs f-ing fly!

muirduck, you are muirpid on so many levels it is mind-boggling!

Posted by: vidyohs | Mar 21, 2008 9:47:49 PM

Oh dear not getting the question? Or even 'ducking'? :\/

Quite frankly I'm in sure your wonderful world of Conservative living you'd come out things like 'the world doesn't owe you a living' or 'you come into this world with nothing'. So why should competition in one arena be any more different than another? Or Libertarians don't get to make rules therefore can they complain when the rules aren't to there liking? Or why can't non-Libertarians not get a smirk when Libertarians complain how it's 'not their time yet'. Them thar Communists believed in their idea such that they fought for their cause so why can't Libertarians (the Communists acted in 'self-defense' against 'property thieves') do something to change their lot in life?

Posted by: Gil | Mar 21, 2008 10:01:15 PM

This guy's claim that "the profit motive does not work to deliver good health care" is the most idiotic and juvenile thing I've ever heard.

I wonder, if his child is sick, does he take them downtown to the free health clinic, or the costly one? If he's taking a guest out to lunch, does he go to the gospel soup kitchen, or the profit-making steak house?

There's a reason people go to higher cost profit making entities for good quality. Adam Smith explained this hundreds of years ago, "regard to his own self-interest" is what makes the butcher deliver the quality goods.

This guy is out of touch even with his own daily reality.

Posted by: IMM | Mar 22, 2008 10:26:31 AM

I think that Russ was too kind and defensive in this debate. He made very good points, but their timing was somewhat off. The essential question is whether Health Care is a right. And the answer is no, on philosophical grounds. I think a politician can get a pass on such a statement, when made during a sound-bite-based debate. But it does not stand to scrutiny. I think that most people (from Amartya Sen to Robert Barro) may agree that everyone has a potential right to health. This means that we have to i) understand the set of primary services that ensure that the population is sufficiently healthy; ii) assess its cost, and prioritize it.

I argue that the health of the US population is not dramatically worse than that of the best-ranking countries. What is dramatically worse is our efficiency in delivering health care, and there are no easy solutions for it.

It does not make much sense to advocate for universal health care (and higher costs) just because in Europe health care is better.

Posted by: gappy | Mar 25, 2008 11:29:35 AM