Page 1 of 1

The case FOR Free Market Medicine...

Posted: Thu Oct 25, 2007 4:26 am
by nomorecomastep
Please read entirely before responding. I'd love a discussion of ideology, not an argument of semantics and rhetoric. Thanks in advance.

Summary:
Last week the congressional Joint Economic committee on which I serve held a hearing featuring two courageous medical doctors. I had the pleasure of meeting with one of the witnesses, Dr. Robert Berry, who opened a low-cost health clinic in rural Tennessee. His clinic does not accept insurance, Medicare, or Medicaid, which allows Dr. Berry to treat patients without interference from third-party government bureaucrats or HMO administrators. In other words, Dr. Berry practices medicine as most doctors did 40 years ago, when patients paid cash for ordinary services and had inexpensive catastrophic insurance for serious injuries or illnesses. As a result, Dr. Berry and his patients decide for themselves what treatment is appropriate.


by Ron Paul, Dr. July 24, 2007

Last week the congressional Joint Economic committee on which I serve held a hearing featuring two courageous medical doctors. I had the pleasure of meeting with one of the witnesses, Dr. Robert Berry, who opened a low-cost health clinic in rural Tennessee. His clinic does not accept insurance, Medicare, or Medicaid, which allows Dr. Berry to treat patients without interference from third-party government bureaucrats or HMO administrators. In other words, Dr. Berry practices medicine as most doctors did 40 years ago, when patients paid cash for ordinary services and had inexpensive catastrophic insurance for serious injuries or illnesses. As a result, Dr. Berry and his patients decide for themselves what treatment is appropriate.

Freed from HMO and government bureaucracy, Dr. Berry can focus on medicine rather than billing. Operating on a cash basis lowers his overhead considerably, allowing him to charge much lower prices than other doctors. He often charges just $35 for routine maladies, which is not much more than one’s insurance co-pay in other offices. His affordable prices enable low-income patients to see him before minor problems become serious, and unlike most doctors, Dr. Berry sees patients the same day on a walk-in basis. Yet beyond his low prices and quick appointments, Dr. Berry provides patients with excellent medical care.

While many liberals talk endlessly about medical care for the poor, Dr. Berry actually helps uninsured people every day. His patients are largely low-income working people, who cannot afford health insurance but don’t necessarily qualify for state assistance. Some of his uninsured patients have been forced to visit hospital emergency rooms for non-emergency treatment because no doctor would see them. Others disliked the long waits and inferior treatment they endured at government clinics. For many of his patients, Dr. Berry’s clinic has been a godsend.

Dr. Berry’s experience illustrates the benefits of eliminating the middleman in health care. For decades, the U.S. healthcare system was the envy of the entire world. Not coincidentally, there was far less government involvement in medicine during this time. America had the finest doctors and hospitals, patients enjoyed high quality, affordable medical care, and thousands of private charities provided health services for the poor. Doctors focused on treating patients, without the red tape and threat of lawsuits that plague the profession today. Most Americans paid cash for basic services, and had insurance only for major illnesses and accidents. This meant both doctors and patients had an incentive to keep costs down, as the patient was directly responsible for payment, rather than an HMO or government program.

We should remember that HMOs did not arise because of free-market demand, but rather because of government mandates. The HMO Act of 1973 requires all but the smallest employers to offer their employees HMO coverage, and the tax code allows businesses- but not individuals- to deduct the cost of health insurance premiums. The result is the illogical coupling of employment and health insurance, which often leaves the unemployed without needed catastrophic coverage.

While many in Congress are happy to criticize HMOs today, the public never hears how the present system was imposed upon the American people by federal law. In fact, one very prominent Senator now attacking HMOs is on record in the 1970s lauding them. As usual, government intervention in the private market failed to deliver the promised benefits and caused unintended consequences, but Congress never blames itself for the problems created by bad laws. Instead, we are told more government- in the form of “universal coverage”- is the answer.

We can hardly expect more government to cure our current health care woes. As with all goods and services, medical care is best delivered by the free market, with competition and financial incentives keeping costs down. When patients spend their own money for health care, they have a direct incentive to negotiate lower costs with their doctor. When government controls health care, all cost incentives are lost. Dr. Berry and others like him may one day be seen as consumer heroes who challenged the third-party health care system and resisted the trend toward socialized medicine in America.

Posted: Thu Oct 25, 2007 4:35 am
by misk
tl;dr

Posted: Thu Oct 25, 2007 10:33 am
by *grand*
interesting read, now put forth a question...

Posted: Thu Oct 25, 2007 10:51 am
by pk-
As with all goods and services, medical care is best delivered by the free market, with competition and financial incentives keeping costs down. When patients spend their own money for health care, they have a direct incentive to negotiate lower costs with their doctor.
i've never been able to get my head around this idea of medical care as a commodity to be bought or haggled over, as if it's a luxury rather than a basic right :?

Posted: Thu Oct 25, 2007 11:40 am
by nomorecomastep
*Grand* wrote:interesting read, now put forth a question...
How do you feel about what you've read... agree or disagree... why?



PK- until the HMO act was passed, the level of untreated disease was close to zero in this country. People could go to the hospital without worry. The care isn't FREE, but it is affordable--and those who cannot afford the care are given the care by charity.

It is much preferable that we don't steal from others to pay for those who can't/won't take care of themselves. I donate money to causes by choice. I'm a lot less interested in being forced though.

Posted: Thu Oct 25, 2007 2:17 pm
by rickyricardo
pk- wrote:
As with all goods and services, medical care is best delivered by the free market, with competition and financial incentives keeping costs down. When patients spend their own money for health care, they have a direct incentive to negotiate lower costs with their doctor.
i've never been able to get my head around this idea of medical care as a commodity to be bought or haggled over, as if it's a luxury rather than a basic right :?
you get used to it :-/

Posted: Thu Oct 25, 2007 3:25 pm
by adruu
Uhhh...Yeah ok...

This doctor is in Rural Tennesee, not exactly a hotbed for uninsured urban
poor is it? And not entirely representative of the entire US is it?

How about the racial makeup of his patients? If your patients are your neighbors then yes it easier for small town medical programs like this guy's to work. This is how it works in India.

If this is an argument for dismantling medicare and medicaid, it is incredibly irresponsible, and at this point in american history, very dangerous.

Now, if it was an argument for freeing up rural doctors in areas of small population from medicare/ "guhvernment", maybe that would be a little more reasonable...BUT THIS ISNT.

Not really going to expand on how I feel about Ron Paul or his supporters. There is a good analogy in about how "real conservatives" feel about Paul, to how "real liberals" felt about Nader. If you support Paul, get ready for dissappointment.

Posted: Thu Oct 25, 2007 5:27 pm
by umkhontowesizwe
so the level of health care you receive should be based on the amount of money you have in your bank account?

the only way i would maybe ever support this is if everyone was born into this world with equal opportunities, which is clearly not the case (although a lot of libertarians seem to think so? :? ).

Posted: Thu Oct 25, 2007 6:24 pm
by guerillaeye
RickyRicardo wrote:
pk- wrote:
As with all goods and services, medical care is best delivered by the free market, with competition and financial incentives keeping costs down. When patients spend their own money for health care, they have a direct incentive to negotiate lower costs with their doctor.
i've never been able to get my head around this idea of medical care as a commodity to be bought or haggled over, as if it's a luxury rather than a basic right :?
you get used to it :-/
haha.. you get REAL used to it :-/


wanna buy a watch?

Posted: Fri Oct 26, 2007 1:57 am
by nomorecomastep
ADRUU wrote:Uhhh...Yeah ok...

This doctor is in Rural Tennesee, not exactly a hotbed for uninsured urban
poor is it? And not entirely representative of the entire US is it?

How about the racial makeup of his patients? If your patients are your neighbors then yes it easier for small town medical programs like this guy's to work. This is how it works in India.

If this is an argument for dismantling medicare and medicaid, it is incredibly irresponsible, and at this point in american history, very dangerous.

Now, if it was an argument for freeing up rural doctors in areas of small population from medicare/ "guhvernment", maybe that would be a little more reasonable...BUT THIS ISNT.

Not really going to expand on how I feel about Ron Paul or his supporters. There is a good analogy in about how "real conservatives" feel about Paul, to how "real liberals" felt about Nader. If you support Paul, get ready for dissappointment.
It's funny how everything that is blamed on Conservatives and the Free Market was enacted by FDR in his New Deal, etc...

I bet you people wanna keep social security, too?

Get a fucking job, save your fucking money, pay your own fucking way. If you can't pay your way, Charity.

This is how life works. Everyone wants to eliminate God and religion from Schools, where most charity and giving come from, but you only advocate Darwinism until it affects your entitlements from the Federal Government...

I like Ralph Nader, Dennis Kucinich, etc... in general I share most of their beliefs. Neither of them would tell you that they want to get rid of a free market, they wouldn't apply it to medicine though. On almost every other issue, they are the same as the MOST CONSERVATIVE person in congress... the only difference is the reasons behind the position.

Posted: Fri Oct 26, 2007 10:20 am
by pk-

Posted: Fri Oct 26, 2007 10:25 am
by nomorecomastep

Posted: Fri Oct 26, 2007 10:27 am
by chunkie

Posted: Fri Oct 26, 2007 10:29 am
by pk-

Posted: Fri Oct 26, 2007 10:30 am
by nomorecomastep

Posted: Fri Oct 26, 2007 10:37 am
by pk-
can you stay on topic please? this is a serious thread.