Docs 4 Patient Care is an active, reputable physician's group working hard to promote health care freedom. I have personally talked with a number of the board members. They are hard working, honest individuals dedicated to providing quality care to their patients and restoring independence and freedom to medical decision making. Please check them out and provide them support.
My son thinks the following YouTube clip is "scaremongering" similar to the tactics of the global warming alarmists. Perhaps he is right about the tone and the style of message--but the major difference I see is that Dr. Scherz is correct in stating that socialized medicine increases pain, suffering and death. That statement is not conjecture but fact.
Dr. Berwick openly advocates the redistribution of wealth as necessary to the provision of health care. This is the fundamental premise of socialism: from each according to his ability, to each according to his need. This is the premise which led to the totalitarianism of the Soviet Union, and is causing the current economic stagnation of Europe, and increasingly in the United States. It's time that President Obama and Speaker Pelosi were honest about their socialist intentions so that the debate in America can center on the right issue.:
Do we still believe in individual rights, freedom and limited government, or do we submit to the directives and central planning of the political elite?
Freedom or Statism.
The choice is still ours.
Dr. Berwick:
"Any health care funding plan that is just, equitable, civilized and humane must, must, redistribute wealth from the richer among us to the poorer and the less fortunate. Excellent health care is by definition redistributional."
17 comments:
BEth you might want to check on your assertion that the econmies of Europe are stagnant. Aside from the current conditions, which are an export of the USA, compliments of unregulated Wall street practices, Europe is apparently doing a better job of competing with China. The French and German economies are far from stagnant, and their workers earn the same high wages our corporations blame on the need to export jobs to China. What they are exporting is the low standard of living associated with lack of work place regulations and pollution control, both of which are starting to appear in China. In response corporations are beginning to look to Vietnam and other less developed countries where they can manufacture without bothering with worker protection or paying for externalized costs like pollution.
I have yet to meet a person from Canada or the EU who shares the opinions of those opposed to "Obama Care." Granted, it's not a statistically meaningful sample, but I find it odd that the claims made by callers to radio shows, guests on TV shows and reports in the newspapers have no corroboration anectdotally. Don't look now, but the wait to see cancer specialists in this country sometimes are two months or more. I know of one oncologist who books our six weeks (that would be 'months' in the vernacular) routinely.
People are only deluded into thinking they have a choice in this country. Granted, if one possesses sufficient wealth, wait times and insurance company approvals are irrelevant, as they are in the 'socialized medicine countries.' Treatments in this country are routinely denied by insurance companies because they are not profitable for them. For citizens of sufficient wealth wait times and availability are not issues in socialized systems or in ours. For the average citizen the only difference appears to be who is making the decisions: the government, based on available resources; or the insurance companies, based on profitability.
"Freedom or Statism" is a false dichotomy. Freedom or Corporatism is a more apt statement of the problem, in my opinion; and we are losing the battle.
Anonymous1
The United States is a mixed economy. It is a mixture of freedom and state control of the economy. You can argue if it is primarily state intervention of the socialist type (state ownership of the means of production) or the corporatism type (state control of the economy through legally protected cartels)
from Wikipedia:
"One of the most prominent forms of corporatism is economic tripartism involving negotiations between business, labour, and state interest groups to set economic policy.[4]"
from "What is American Corporatism? Robert Locke 2002
"What is corporatism? In a (somewhat inaccurate) phrase, socialism for the bourgeois. It has the outward form of capitalism in that it preserves private ownership and private management, but with a crucial difference: as under socialism, government guarantees the flow of material goods, which under true capitalism it does not. In classical capitalism, what has been called the "night-watchman" state, government's role in the economy is simply to prevent force or fraud from disrupting the autonomous operation of the free market. The market is trusted to provide. Under corporatism, it is not, instead being systematically manipulated to deliver goods to political constituencies. This now includes basically everyone from the economic elite to ordinary consumers."
Capitalism is the separation of economics and the state. Government is limited to the protection of individual rights --which includes prosecution of harm, fraud, contract enforcement, etc.
Corporatism requires state intervention, not in the protection of individual rights and equality before the law, but for special interest groups. Without the force of the state the corporate entities could not gain special favors.
Corporatism is a form of statism. I stand by my conclusion.
Just a few sources on Europe:
Euro Area GDP Growth Rate
United Kingdom GDP Annual Growth Rate
Germany GDP Annual Growth Rate
France GDP Annual Growth Rate
United States GDP Growth Rate
Slow Economic Growth is a Crucial European Problem May 2010
Notes on Europe’s Economic Decadence
The more we emulate the European welfare state, the more our economic outlook will mimic theirs.
Thanks, I'll look at the numbers in the links you sent. I took a brief look at one link and I have to concede that the GDP growth doesn't look impressive. On the other hand, they laugh at us becuase we live to work, while they work to live. Maybe it's worth a point or two off the GDP growth for them to be able to smell the roses, eh? There are articles that suggest that they are doing a better job of competing against China, as well.
Regarding 'corporatism' i wasn't intending literalism. The corporations arguably have control of this country. Their influence is stronger than the voters'. I just listened to an interview with a NY Times financial reporter who explained how the new financial regulation bill was formulated. It turns out, not surprisingly, that the financial world is so complex that the financial industry lobby has to teach congress what they can and cannot mess with. The analogy was congress in a high tech engine room, afraid to touch anything for fear of breaking it, and the lobbyists coming in and telling them they can press that button and pull this lever, but they can't mess with that lever because if they do it will be bad.
I know that is an argument for less regulation, given that it allows certain industries and players to use congress to their advantage. However, we need to protect the country against the actions of financial players who have the ability to bring down the entire economy.
Anonymous1
Work to live or live to work--shouldn't that be an individual choice, not the result of government policy?
Regarding corporatism:
Even if you stick with how you are employing the term---corporations as a special interest would not have the force of government behind their actions in a free society based on equality before the law.
And yes, we do need a way to protect ourselves from fraud, and breach of contract. I think if we stuck with these, and prevented government manipulations of the market (most importantly, the money supply) and consistently held people accountable for their poor decisions, as well as allowing them to benefit from their successful honest one, this would be sufficient to prevent anyone from gaining enough power "to bring down the entire economy."
regarding 'corporatism' i wasn't intending literalism. The corporations arguably have control of this country. Their influence is stronger than the voters'. I just listened to an interview with a NY Times financial reporter who explained how the new financial regulation bill was formulated. It turns out, not surprisingly, that the financial world is so complex that the financial industry lobby has to teach congress what they can and cannot mess with. The analogy was congress in a high tech engine room, afraid to touch anything for fear of breaking it, and the lobbyists coming in and telling them they can press that button and pull this lever, but they can't mess with that lever because if they do it will be bad.
I know that is an argument for less regulation, given that it allows certain industries and players to use congress to their advantage. However, we need to protect the country against the actions of financial players who have the ability to bring down the entire economy.
two false premises.
1. It was not the "financial players" who brought down the entire economy. The crisis was caused by government interventions and this was extensively discussed elsewhere
2. It is a lie that the financial businesses managed to do any efficient lobbying. If they had any lobbyists, then they failed miserably to protect Wall Street from this assault.
The new law will give the government virtually unlimited power to regulate the financial market.
Echoing Rousseau and Hegel - somebody's gotta interpret the General Will or represent the Absolute Spirit, don't they? Otherwise, how would all these "do something(s)" that need to be done, get done?
Thanks, Mo.
I am swamped in health care stuff and have had to let go of staying abreast of the financial issue 9let's call it division of labor) Do you have one or two good articles you can refer me to so in a limited amount of time I can gain a bit more info on this bill?
There is a youtube video (8 clips) where John Allison discusses the financial crisis. In it he discusses banking practices, government monetary policy and regulation over the last few decades. I think its worthwhile to check out.
the Major culprits in the crisis are:
1- Federal reserve
2- FDIC
3- Government Housing Policy (particularly Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae)
4- SEC
I've added the first 2 clips below:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aSxA-vtjRx0&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fAtd5WjEeAw&feature=related
Regarding 'corporatism' i wasn't intending literalism. The corporations arguably have control of this country. Their influence is stronger than the voters'. I just listened to an interview with a NY Times financial reporter who explained how the new financial regulation bill was formulated. It turns out, not surprisingly, that the financial world is so complex that the financial industry lobby has to teach congress what they can and cannot mess with. The analogy was congress in a high tech engine room, afraid to touch anything for fear of breaking it, and the lobbyists coming in and telling them they can press that button and pull this lever, but they can't mess with that lever because if they do it will be bad.
I know that is an argument for less regulation, given that it allows certain industries and players to use congress to their advantage. However, we need to protect the country against the actions of financial players who have the ability to bring down the entire economy.
it’s a common phenomenon in mixed economies for some wealthy individuals or corporations to use their economic power to influence the political process, and sometimes that is a bad thing. But even here we need to remember what makes that possible: either corrupt politicians who accept bribes or politicians, corrupt or mistaken, who politicize the economy in the first place. Political power is the power to compel others, and it does not require the consent of all of the parties. This is where coercive power really lies.
It is for this reason that we need to move in the direction of separating politics and economics, for exactly the same reasons we separated politics and religion. Depoliticized markets are necessary given this current climate of burdensome regulations and peusdo-markets.
Imposing further bureaucracy and regulations and shifting the blame of government interventions onto "financial players" is not the solution to these problems.
Let's suppose that there are four economies that for the eight quarters prior to Jan '08 showed average annualized growths of 2.7, 2.9, 2.4 and 2.5 % of GDP. Further assume that the standard deviaton of the growth (an indication of the fluctuation in the growth) was 0.23, 0.87, 0.30 and 1.7, for each of the economies, respectively. Which one offers the strongest, steadiest growth? I think we would all agree tht the first three economies offer robust growth similar to the fourth economy, but with less fluctuation and uncertainty. The data comes from the links provided above. The fourth economy, the one with growth rate all over the board (you can read that as economic uncertainty) is the USA. The other three are the UK, Germany and France. Until the US manufactured financial meldown happened they seem to have been doing better than we had been. The bottom line is that none of the links provided supports the notion that we are doing better than the European countries that we should not want to emulate. Quite the contrary. They are doing better than we are. "The more we emulate the European welfare state, the more our economic outlook will mimic theirs." The data suggests we should emulate them post-haste.
John Allison makes some compelling arguments for the groundwork of the financial crisis, but interestingly doesn't mention (in the first two clips) the role of investment banks in bundling mortgages and selling them. He does assert, though, that Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac wouldn't exist in the free market. As I understand it Goldman was competing with Fannie and Freddit to buy mortgages and bundle them. Someon please tell me how that free market activity is different from the traditional buyng and budling that Fannie and Freddie do.
EVen if government intervention laid the groundwork for the crisis, it was the rational actions of individuals attempting to increase their wealth that preciitated the crash.
Anonymous1
RE: "it was the rational actions of individuals attempting to increase their wealth that preciitated the crash."
By this are you saying that when men act rationally to increase their wealth, they are doomed to destroy themselves and others?
So, is the answer then to stop people from acting rationally? Or stop them from seeking wealth? Or from living for their own sake?
I am confused about what you are condemning and what you would offer as an alternative.
First, what I'm saying is that the data provided in the links you posted show that the US economy is doing worse than those of our European peers. I restrict my comment to 'European peers' because if you include the struggling Eastern European and Mediteranian economies the economic picture becomes obscure. France, Germany and the UK, the socialist states, appear to be doing just fine, thank you very much.
Regarding the effects of rational actions, Mises asserts that all human action is rational, even when it makes no sense. He views as rational any action taken in the effort to satisfy a desire; these sometimes make no sense due to errors in logic, poor assumptions, or misinformation, but they are rational. This relates back to our convrsation about free will. If I recall correctly your view of free will is not necessarily predicated on action. I believe it is. Free will can only be deteced by observing action, which also inlcudes doing nothing, but the act of the will is always to accomplish something.
Not all actions intended to increase wealth will result in destruction of the actors or those affected. IN the case of the Wall Street meltdown the private sector players (I'll give a nod to the role the Fed played in this) who were integral to the crisis were compensated handsomly for their efforts. What do they care of sevral million people are thrown out of work and the economy is brought to the brink of collapse if they get a bonus of $100 million for the part they played? The point here is that the Objectivist view would say it not rational for the financial players bring the economy to the brink of collapse. The Mises view is that exactly that outcome is perfectly rational if it satisfies the actors' desires; and a big bonus is generally the desire.
So, the industry bears watching. And a bill fashioned on the model of the FDIC, that will allow the government to step in to smoothly facilitate the free market ideal of dissolution of the company that gets itself into trouble in a manner that avoids the turmoil created when a huge financial institution implodes and the fear of total economic collapse is a good thing.
I'm further saying that Mr. Allison is wrong when he asserts that the Fanny/Freddie business model would not exist in the private sector. It's genesis may not have occurred in the private sector, but more recently it did exist in the private sector, and the extent of its presence in the private sector, coupled with the unregulated and unmonitored interaction of it with the derivatives markets was key in the financial collapse.
Finally, Mo's assertion that there ws no effective lobbying in the financial reform bill is incorrect, according to my information. As I understand it one of the key provisions is to limit proprietary trading at banks. At least, there has been much noise about the government meddling in this aspect of banking. However, the limits on proprietary trading were set, due to lobbying efforts, at levels above what the industry is currently doing or aspires to do. Maybe 'effective' lobbying would have resulted in elimination of the limits, but setting them beyond the scope of what banks seek to do accomplishes the same thing and still allows banks to cry interference. Genius!
-Anonymous1
I am going to focus on coming to some type of agreement on the use of terms--because without this I see on way to move any discussion forward.
What would von Mises call irrational, if anything? I can see that people usually have reasons for what they do---but I do not see that all thinking or all reasons are necessarily rational, and certainly not all actions.
Some actions are the result of NOT thinking (ie rational)--e.g. knee-jerk responses to emotions; actions based on habit. I would say that actions based solely on one's emotions and whims is irrational. Reason looks to the external world for truth about the external world. Emotionalism grants validity to the internal world for answers about the external world. I do not find the action-based definition of von Mises helpful because it fails to distinguish between these two very different means of directing one's actions.
I see rationality as the concerted effort to use reason as the sole source of valid knowledge and the guide for my actions. Reason is the faculty of man's consciousness that identifies and integrates the information we receive about reality via sense perception into a non-contradictory set of concepts. Reason is the method of connecting our concepts and higher abstractions to reality--since that is what knowledge is: the correct identification of reality.
So, what would I consider irrational (besides emotionalism)? Ignoring or denying a fact of reality is irrational. Some but not all errors in reasoning are irrational--but I need to think more about this.
I am struggling on how we can talk with each other about free will when we have such a disparate definition for it. I do not equate free will with an externally visible action. Physical action (even the "action" of not moving) are one manifestation of free will---but not the only one. The most important act of free will is the choice to focus, or not--followed by the choice to think or not. this is observed introspectively--and has no external manifestation.
Hayek has an interesting point about distinguishing between freedom and power. Freedom is the absence of coercion--which is very different from the power to do what you would like to do--i.e. one's efficacy. Free will is about choosing--not about one's efficacy in putting one's choices into effect.
Does any of this bring us closer in our understanding of rationality or free will?
On your analysis of Europe vs. the US--interesting. Slow and steady wins the race sort of argument. I would agree that the US economic environment has been less certain and more erratic as of late. And, based on economic freedom indicators, we already are not that far away from the European welfare states.
Parenting manuals and behavioral psychology makes the point that it is better to be authoritarian but consistent and predictable when compared to the ruleless and arbitrary. Based on that, a totalitarian dictatorship may be superior to anarchy. But, I would argue, both are inferior to a system of just, predictable rules grounded firmly on the appropriate respect for the life and rights of the individuals involved.
Regarding what type of system is best for economic growth and for improving quality of life, I refer you to the following:
Gapminder The Health and Wealth of the World
Economic Freedom of the World
Index of Economic Freedom.
You have been very willing to check out my source recommendations. Do you have any for me?
I think we are on the same page regarding free will. Inaction is actually an action. It can satisfy a desire.
I just skimmed very quickly the passage on rationality. Consider this: when a financial trade takes place, there are two sides to the trade, often with diametrically opposed outcomes. For example the credit default swaps that were central to the economic collapse one side was betting that the underlying morttgage backed obligations were going to implode and lose value and one side was betting they would never have to pay out due to that outcome. Both positions were rational but based on different views.
Interpreting facts is just that, an interpretation. That is why two people can look at the same thing and assimilate it differently. I once toured the Texas School Book Depository museum in Dallas. After going through the tour and seeing all the evidence I was convinced that there had to be more than just Lee Harvey Oswald involved in Kennedy's assassination. When I got the end of the exibit I went to sign the guest register and the woman who was just ahead of me throughout the exhibit stated that what she saw confirmed without doubt that Oswald acted alone. SAme exhibit, both rational conclusions, diametrically opposed.
-Annymous1
RE: the museum exhibit.
Reasoning can lead to different conclusions---but only one of those conclusion is actually correct. Either LHO acted alone--or he didn't.
The information presented in the exhibit may not be sufficient to draw a definite conclusion, or one of you erred in your reasoning.
Part of rationality includes dedicating oneself to understanding which of those cases occurred.
As long as the defense of one's conclusions uses evidence and logic--then you are applying reason, even if you make a mistake.
Not all actions and decisions are based on a logical assessment of the facts. Sometime people act from an unexamined gut feeling, or a momentary emotional reaction. Those are not examples of rationality--which is why I would disagree with von Mises as you have portrayed him in saying all actions are rational.
The point of the museum story is that two people can look at the same thing and interpret it differently. Isn't that one of the problems with epistemology? We know lots of things basedon induction and deduction, but somewhere along the way we make observations which are necessarily influenced by our senses and we interpret them within the limits of our brains.
Mises, Part 1, Section 4 (Rationality and Irrationality, Subjectivism and Objectivity of Praxeological Research) of "Human Action." "Human action is necessarily always rational. When applied to the ultimate ends of action, the terms rational and irrational are inappropriate and meaningless." His argument follows a path from establishing that men act to satisfy a desire or alleviate some uneasiness. As we all have different desires and different sources of uneasiness, noone is in a position ot tell another what they should be striving gain or allevaite. One example he gives is the notion that an individual who "sacrafices life, health or wealth to the attainment of 'higher' goods--like fidelity to his religious, philosophical or political convictions or the freedom or flowering of his nation--is motivated by irrational considerations." He dispells this notion by noting that the desired ends no less rational than any other end, and that the chioces are individual. I'm just starting to read this book, but that pasaage jumped out at me because it flies in the face of the basis of objectivism, as I understand it. If Mises perspective is true, it negates Ayn Rand's notion that once we get everyone acting rationally, everything will run smoothly without the need for regulation, excessive laws and such.
Anonymous1
RE: museum story
I realize that you are presenting this story to illustrate that people can observe the same information and come to different conclusions. But, are you claiming that both are equally correct in their conclusions? Or that there is no way to determine which, if either is correct?
(And yes, this is a key question in epistemology. How--by what method--do we evaluate the evidence of our senses, and the validity of our inductions and deductions? How much evidence is required before we can claim possibility, probability or certainty to our conclususion?)
I agree that people can draw different conclusions--but in cases such as you describe, there are not two truths. There is only one truth--one conclusion that is aligned with what really happened. That is why I stated:
Reasoning can lead to different conclusions---but only one of those conclusions is actually correct. Either LHO acted alone--or he didn't.
The information presented in the exhibit may not be sufficient to draw a definite conclusion, or one of you erred in your reasoning.
So--did one of the museum visitors error? Did both? If so, how? Or was there insufficient evidence presented to draw a definite conclusion? Both visitors can draw valid but differing conclusions from the evidence presented (i.e. their logic was correct with in the context of the information presented)--but still be in error with regards to what actually happened because the evidence is insufficient to support either conclusion.
Reason is the method which allows us to discover what the truth is. We need such a method because we are neither infallible nor omniscient.
It will take more time to respond to you comment on Mises.
Post a Comment