|
samboct -> RE: Ron Paul: Get government out of healthcare! (12/15/2007 6:42:38 AM)
|
Let me expand a bit on my comments that existing gov't regulation has been done badly and throw out some history-
1) Medical licensing boards- done on a state by state basis, rather than a federal level, and populated solely by physicians. Hence, getting a medical license is challenging, but once gotten, it becomes a sinecure for the most part. Also- a doc who loses his/her license in one state can basically set up shop in another. Consumers are angry because they know that when a doc has been drunk, or left a scalpel inside a patient, they should lose their license. Instead, docs are often not even given a slap on the wrist, thus consumers have lost confidence in the medical profession. Self regulating rarely works- and this is yet another example of when it doesn't. The legal profession sees a need- and presto- multi million dollar lawsuits and skyrocketing malpractice rates which are passed on. Yet the heart of the problem is a regulating board that isn't working. In Ron Paul's version of dystopia- what- anybody who wants to set up a practice can? (Hey- no gov't regulation of health care.) You think that today's physicians are bad? Wait till you get a load of the faith healers, quacks, and kooks that will be setting up shop in a heartbeat.
2) Let's look at the FDA. Yet another example of an agency that the neocons took a hammer to, and then complained the system was broken. Reagan gutted the FDA back in the 80s and consequently, it took longer than ever to get new drugs through the pipeline. The FDA also doesn't work from a corporate perspective. It costs a fortune to get a drug through the pipeline, but it provides little protection in an adverse event. This is because the FDA hasn't educated consumers well in terms of what a pharmaceutical compound can do and can't do- along with Congress that passed the Pure Food and Drug act of 1913. Congress declared that drugs have to be safe and effective. Well, any toxicologist will tell you there is no such thing as a "safe" drug. All drugs can be toxic- it's just a matter of dose. Don't believe me? Try eating a bottle of aspirin- but name me in your will first please. This is an example of bad regulation-consumers now have an unreasonable expectation that drugs carry no risks and side effects. Well, they do- and yet again, the lawyers have seen an opportunity and exploited it. Now we have manufacturers who have taken reasonable precautions (and some would say that they've gone overboard in lots of ways, but that's another debate) still getting multi million dollar lawsuits. Again- bad regulation- and inadequate responsibility on the part of the gov't. If the FDA is going to stand by their work- then the pharma company should be shielded if they've complied with the FDA and the FDA has granted approval. Only if there has been criminal action (i.e. deliberately falsified results) should either a lawsuit or a criminal prosecution be needed. If people are concerned about adverse events- use the vaccine model- have a pool of money established through taxes that pay for damages- but eliminate the lawyers. Be much cheaper and more effective.
Let's look at existing health care companies. Once insurance premiums have been collected- there is no profit in dispensing health care it's only an expense. Insurance works backwards compared to most capitalist enterprises where the goal is to sell more goods/services to increase profit. Insurance works that you decrease goods/services and wind up with increased profit- hence the need for regulation. These companies have found that dispensing health care costs them money- but bureacracies make them money- so now we have large bureacracies bent on denying care. This is an idiotic business model- and the reason why US health care is so expensive and lousy compared to the rest of the world. How is getting rid of the role of gov't here going to make anything any better?
One of the definitions of insanity is doing the same thing over again, and expecting a different result. Well, we've tried unregulated health care- and guess what-like most other unregulated part of a capitalist economy- it generally doesn't work to well. Look at the "advances" of the health care industry up to the 1920s. That our lifespans have increased so dramatically in the 20th century is due to scientific advances, and the role of gov't in wiping out diseases such as smallpox, diptheria, polio, cholera etc- by a combination of mandatory vaccines and improved infrastructure. The role of gov't in a free market economy isn't to stay off the playing field, it's to keep it level. We should be demanding better gov't- not less of it.
Sam
|
|
|
|
