Posted on 08/09/2009 7:23:28 PM PDT by sickoflibs
This article originally appeared as a pamphlet published by The Jefferson School of Philosophy, Economics and Psychology 1994 during Hillary Care debate. Sections at link are :
1.The Medical Crisis and the Need for Radical Procapitalist Reform
2.The Right to Medical Care and the Causes of the Medical Crisis
a.The potential for a limitless rise in the price of medical services
b.The potential for a practically limitless increase in the quantity of medical care demanded
c.Irrational medical malpractice awards
d.Perverting technological progress into a source of higher costs rather than lower costs
e.The very high prices of many patented prescription drugs
f.Hospitals wasting money in the purchase of unneeded costly equipment
g.Below market Medicaid rates and cost shifting
h.Bureaucratic interference with medicine and the rise in administrative costs
3.The Clinton Plan
4.The Free-Market Solution
5.Toward a Free Market in Medical Care
ARTICLE LINK: The Real Right to Medical Care versus Socialized Medicine
(Excerpt) Read more at mises.org ...
If you realize both parties in Washington think our money is theirs and you trust them to do the wrong thing, this list is for you.
If you think there is a Santa Claus who is going to get elected in Washington and cut a few taxes and spend a few trillion and jump start the economy, and get our lost money back, this list is not for you.
You can read past posts by clicking on : schifflist , I try to tag all relevant threads with the keyword : schifflist.
Ping list pinged by sickoflibs.
To join the ping list: FReepmail sickoflibs with the subject line add Schifflist.
(Stop getting pings by sending the subject line drop Schifflist.)
Good catch.
I agree: end government licensing of doctors.
Government licensing retards medical progress, raises the cost of medicine, and conditions citizens to behave like dumb children.
I don't know whether I'm going to read this story. I am very surprised to see something from Mises that would so badly miss the mark on "free men and free markets" (I love that phrase from Capitalist Pig) in the title of one of their articles. This is not the Ludwig Von Mises I knew. (Or, thought I knew)
“The causes of the present crisis in medical care, namely, its runaway cost, which the Clinton plan is intended to address, can all be subsumed under one essential heading: the government’s violation and/or perversion of the individual’s actual, rational right to medical care.”
that about sums up the article IMO.
“In exactly the same way, the right to medical care does not mean a right to medical care as such, but to the medical care one can buy from willing providers. One’s right to medical care is violated not when there is medical care that one cannot afford to buy, but when there is medical care that one could afford to buy if one were not prevented from doing so by the initiation of physical force. It is violated by medical licensing legislation and by every other form of legislation and regulation that artificially raises the cost of medical care and thereby prevents people from obtaining the medical care they otherwise could have obtained from willing providers. The precise nature of such legislation and regulation we shall see in detail, in due course.”
“This then is the concept of rights, and specifically of rights to things, that I uphold. One’s rights to things are rights only to things one can obtain in free trade, with the voluntary consent of those who are to provide them. All such rights are predicated upon full respect for the persons and property of others. This is the concept of rights appropriate to rational human beings living in a civilized society. Henceforth, I shall refer to it as the rational concept of rights.”
I had not bothered to read the article, because I was put off by the title. Your excerpt is much more in tune with the Ludwig I thought I knew. (ie-more along the lines of "Free Men and Free Markets" I get all tingly thinking of Capitalist Pig saying that)I will revisit the website. Thank you again.
One’s rights to things are rights only to things one can obtain in free trade, with the voluntary consent of those who are to provide them. All such rights are predicated upon full respect for the persons and property of others.
Taking a little breather here to thank you again for sending your excerpt. Although this article was written in 1994, and pertains to specifically to HillaryCare, ObamaCare is no different. Only the dates have changed.
I still say that "Health Care" (more correctly, "Medical Treatment") is simply a service. Calling it a "right" only serves to emotionally charge the issue.
you completely lost me
that about sums up the article IMO.
I beg to differ.
...the alleged right to medical care as such implies an alleged right to force others to pay for one's medical care against their will or to force the providers of medical care, such as doctors and hospitals, to provide it against their will.
I, of course, could be wrong, but I think that sums up the article. I also love the term "alleged right."
RE :”I still say that “Health Care” (more correctly, “Medical Treatment”) is simply a service. Calling it a “right” only serves to emotionally charge the issue. “
I should have posted that excerpt. He is trying to show that socialized medicine is anti-rights because it is anti-freedom like minimum wage law. Minimum wage law does not give you a right to a minimum wage job and in fact takes away your ability to take a job under minimum wage, your right to work.
well according to the liberals we are all our brothers keeper, we should be happy to pay to stop some suffering around the world.
we should all suffer to make others live better ..
isn’t this what created the financial meltdown in essence?
Everyone was entitled to have affordable housing?
What the hell ever happed to personal responsibility?
Working for what you want?
all this crap that they are forcing now down our throats to me is ..
You have nice stuff, we all want nice stuff. We will take what you have and give it to others to be fair.
ummmm hello .....isn’t that stealing???
No, no, I should have read the referenced article before popping in to comment. Sorry.
But, I have it on good authority that the really cool kids on FR don't actually read the articles. ;) Just kidding.
ummmm hello .....isn’t that stealing???
Ding...Ding...Ding...we have a winner--in fact, the author does distinguish between a "need-based or wish-based concept of rights" and "rational rights". I say that he shouldn't fall into the trap of calling Health Care (Medical Treatment) a right at all, but should merely call it a service.
RE :”No, no, I should have read the referenced article before popping in to comment. Sorry”
I normally post entire Mises articles but this one was too long. Mises’s tends to get deep and takes a while to get to the point. It’s not a political site.
Yeah, their stuff doesn't really lend itself to the Twitterati :)
bah ... we are just living in the past ..... 233 years ago ...
dont worry though Obama is in the process of doing away with that pesky constitution thing right now ...
And that is what the article says. I'm amazed you'd think mises.org would print anything else.
From the article "In exactly the same way, the right to medical care does not mean a right to medical care as such, but to the medical care one can buy from willing providers"
You have the right to all the medical care you can buy from willing providers. Got any complaints with that?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.