Re: medical politics & regulation

[Guest guest]

I think I read the entirety of Atlas Shrugged a long time ago, not

excluding the 100-page radio sermon by Galt or whoever it was that

gave it, whew makes me tired just thinking back on it. But I was quite

the liberal til getting sick which changed my outlook in several ways.

Anyway as far as libertizing medicine... theres another problem even if

you are willing to stomach an increase in individual people shooting

themselves in the foot with bad choices (which I generally am).

Situations arise where the personal interest/desire fails to align with

the social interest. The key example is abx. People want them for mild

colds, at least in the USA, according to the NY Times. Not a good

thing, as this apparantly is felt (I havent seen/sought the data

myself) to promote known problem organisms, and could also have other

unforseen consequences. Surely deregulation, by making medicine more

consumer driven, would yield an increase in this.

Effects on peoples children are a third tough spot for liberty, where

it comes to things like fundamentalist-Morman polygamy or Chinese

immigrants in NYC using semi-dangerous home insecticides because they

dont know any better. Because the children dont have any choice, of

course, where adults always have in principle the freedom to question

and learn even tho in practice this is truly way easier for some than

for others.

Interestingly the whole effort to create a polio vaccine was not

greatly contributed to by govt, according to a PBS documentary I

watched about polio. I think much of the money was from the March of

Dimes. I'm not sure but I think they said there was actually no

official oversight of the first large trial of the Salk vaccine in the

early 1950s.

>

> Ayn Rand considered that 'people beware' much more when at the market

> buying fruit from a selection of sellers, with history and

visibility,

> rather than when one buying from a licensed and 'supposedly

regulated'

> (whathaveyou) Dr. oh and who wares a white coat (that helps).

>

> the given is, can people be trusted to decide based on their own

> critical analysis skills. I guess it depends on what school they went

> too, ha.

> b

[Guest guest]

Ayn Rand was not a Libertarian, lets get that clear.

On 22 Jun 2006, at 22:29, wrote:

> I think I read the entirety of Atlas Shrugged a long time ago, not

> excluding the 100-page radio sermon by Galt or whoever it was

> that

> gave it, whew makes me tired just thinking back on it. But I was quite

> the liberal til getting sick which changed my outlook in several ways.

>

yes Im just going through Atlas Shrugged.

> Anyway as far as liberalizing medicine... theres another problem even

> if

> you are willing to stomach an increase in individual people shooting

> themselves in the foot with bad choices (which I generally am).

> Situations arise where the personal interest/desire fails to align

> with

> the social interest. The key example is abx. People want them for mild

> colds, at least in the USA, according to the NY Times. Not a good

> thing, as this apparantly is felt (I havent seen/sought the data

> myself) to promote known problem organisms, and could also have other

> unforseen consequences. Surely deregulation, by making medicine more

> consumer driven, would yield an increase in this.

I disagree with the claim. It is claimed that abx given for colds etc

promote resistance. And that may well be the case, but I do not buy and

take medicine that is ineffective willynilly. If I do once then I am

sure to not do so again as the price is inhibitive and the results

poor. This problem you highlight is actually caused IMO as a result of

1) absolving oneself of personal responsibility, 2) bad practice by

so-called professionals, 3) Free or low cost treatments RXed, thus lack

of the real personal consideration (is this worth the cost) added.

Further the actual problem of bacteria resistance is actually caused by

1) Duration of abx insufficient, 2) type of abx inadequate, 3) lack of

testing, followup and monitoring, 4) non compliance by people taking

treatment, 5) the complete adulteration of the symbiotic food chain, as

in abx rxed to livestock as a growth promoter willynilly.

It is yet to be proven that bacteria resistance would have proliferated

to this extent in a undistorted and controlled market (not a free

market). I think 'free markets' are akin to a war ground, that controls

should be by way of an 'effective - unbiased legal system' and an

undistorted monetary system.

>

> Effects on peoples children are a third tough spot for liberty, where

> it comes to things like fundamentalist-Morman polygamy or Chinese

> immigrants in NYC using semi-dangerous home insecticides because they

> dont know any better. Because the children dont have any choice, of

> course, where adults always have in principle the freedom to question

> and learn even tho in practice this is truly way easier for some than

> for others.

population control by proxy is better than by force. if someone else

sticks his kids head in his oven, then this is a claim of abuse and

should be dealt with by an 'effective unbiased legal system', (I.e,

nothing LIKE what we know now).

> Interestingly the whole effort to create a polio vaccine was not

> greatly contributed to by govt, according to a PBS documentary I

> watched about polio. I think much of the money was from the March of

> Dimes. I'm not sure but I think they said there was actually no

> official oversight of the first large trial of the Salk vaccine in the

> early 1950s.

There are a million cases of innovation by small connected intelligent

groups.

Government is very VERY rarely responsible for innovation.

BTW watch this Doc,

http://www.documentary-film.net/search/video-listings.php?e=5

See my thoughts

www.creatocracy.org

bleu

>

>

> >

> > Ayn Rand considered that 'people beware' much more when at the

> market

> > buying fruit from a selection of sellers, with history and

> visibility,

> > rather than when one buying from a licensed and 'supposedly

> regulated'

> > (whathaveyou) Dr. oh and who wares a white coat (that helps).

> >

> > the given is, can people be trusted to decide based on their own

> > critical analysis skills. I guess it depends on what school they

> went

> > too, ha.

> > b

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

> Ayn Rand was not a Libertarian, lets get that clear.

So it seems: http://tinyurl.com/5hqll

But notice she doesnt name any idiologic or policy disagreements with

them. Rather, it seems she finds them insufficiently discriminating

in their pragmatic coalition buliding with other subdominant

political groups, as well as insufficiently appreciative of her

intellectual contributions. It seems like she could almost as easily

have chosen to phrase her repulsion by saying that she was a true

libertarian and that they were not libertarians at all. But she

doesnt, because she sees the word already attached to a political

movement, and she obviously prefers systematic philosophical

persuasion to any gradual political solution.

Anyway I didnt mean the party or any historical referent. I used

libertarian to mean support for free markets, well restrained

government, and robust individual freedom - often with an

individualist philosophy of human purpose in addition. My usage is

probably too loose.

> It is yet to be proven that bacteria resistance would have

proliferated

> to this extent in a undistorted and controlled market (not a free

> market).

Well, sure, it hasnt been proven empirically. But I'm not as

optimistic as you that deregulation would improve problems you

mentioned such as incompliance. Yet theres no reason it should worsen

them. But I do maintain that it would worsen the volume of people

taking abx for colds, simply because doctors would be more beholden

to laypeoples desires if there were an " extremely " free market for

health care (ie no license required to practice medicine).

I dont know if I'm in favor of delicensure. It would be nice to see

licensure simplified and opened up. For example, what if people were

allowed to study for and take the medical boards themselves, then

apply for a residency if they passed (I'm pretty sure this cannot

happen now in the USA). The great majority of those taking the boards

would still go to med school, but it would be a serious check on the

power of med schools and would increase the supply of doctors in a

quality-controled way.

Tell you what right now, I'm pretty sure I would not like to see

socialized medicine in the USA. Thats a change of thinking for me and

one of the first impacts getting sick had on my views. I may be

buying many thousands of dollars of abx over the course of my life;

I'd really rather not also pay people (via govt) to goad CFS patients

to exercise, as the practice in the UK is.

[Guest guest]

AR was a rather edgy and held strong views against those that would

claim to be liberals. However, I personally see her most fundamental

flaws as 1) lack of understanding of the monetary system, 2) lack of

understanding with the legal system. To achieve a 'free' as in her

definition market would be tantamount to legalizing cannibalism. The

specific objection I hold to her theories are with regard to the legal

system, as sanctioned by government in its top down structure. Further,

that there is no 'Free market' in government nor in the legal system.

If there were ways to set up new businesses as independent conflict

resolution providers, and if this is what AR had called for as in free

market, then this would have IMO filled some gaping holes in her

theory. The monetary system is a whole other story.

On 23 Jun 2006, at 20:43, wrote:

>

> > Ayn Rand was not a Libertarian, lets get that clear.

>

> So it seems: http://tinyurl.com/5hqll

>

> But notice she doesnt name any idiologic or policy disagreements with

> them. Rather, it seems she finds them insufficiently discriminating

> in their pragmatic coalition buliding with other subdominant

> political groups, as well as insufficiently appreciative of her

> intellectual contributions. It seems like she could almost as easily

> have chosen to phrase her repulsion by saying that she was a true

> libertarian and that they were not libertarians at all. But she

> doesnt, because she sees the word already attached to a political

> movement, and she obviously prefers systematic philosophical

> persuasion to any gradual political solution.

>

> Anyway I didnt mean the party or any historical referent. I used

> libertarian to mean support for free markets, well restrained

> government, and robust individual freedom - often with an

> individualist philosophy of human purpose in addition. My usage is

> probably too loose.

>

> > It is yet to be proven that bacteria resistance would have

> proliferated

> > to this extent in a undistorted and controlled market (not a free

> > market).

>

> Well, sure, it hasnt been proven empirically. But I'm not as

> optimistic as you that deregulation would improve problems you

> mentioned such as incompliance. Yet theres no reason it should worsen

> them. But I do maintain that it would worsen the volume of people

> taking abx for colds, simply because doctors would be more beholden

> to laypeoples desires if there were an " extremely " free market for

> health care (ie no license required to practice medicine).

>

> I dont know if I'm in favor of delicensure. It would be nice to see

> licensure simplified and opened up. For example, what if people were

> allowed to study for and take the medical boards themselves, then

> apply for a residency if they passed (I'm pretty sure this cannot

> happen now in the USA). The great majority of those taking the boards

> would still go to med school, but it would be a serious check on the

> power of med schools and would increase the supply of doctors in a

> quality-controled way.

>

> Tell you what right now, I'm pretty sure I would not like to see

> socialized medicine in the USA. Thats a change of thinking for me and

> one of the first impacts getting sick had on my views. I may be

> buying many thousands of dollars of abx over the course of my life;

> I'd really rather not also pay people (via govt) to goad CFS patients

> to exercise, as the practice in the UK is.

>

>

>