I have claimed that there is no such thing as American conservatism that is not libertarian. That is, the only possible kind of conservatism is one that aims to preserve institutions that protect liberty. A conservatism that claims to be cultural is either not American or not really conservative. The reason is that American institutions were started from scratch and had little to do with the Medieval approach to government that existed in England and Europe at the time of the colonies' founding. The Americans started their free market approach to political economy despite instructions from the British companies that funded them to do otherwise. They established churches that were frequently at odds with established religion in England and Europe. Theirs was not a traditionalist belief system but one based on living faith.
A living faith is NOT CONSERVATIVE. A direct belief does not require adherence to past tradition. It can, but it does not have to. Thus, anyone who claims that their faith is "traditional" either comes from a specific faith that is traditionalist or else lacks faith and simply mimics past practice in the name of tradition. The first is fine, the second seems weak kneed to me. In either case, people who believe these things cannot be said to be particularly American or to preserve American values any more than people to whom faith is revealed directly or who find a new faith.
It is the people of living faith and living ideas who are true Americans. Whether that faith is traditional is beside the point. But it is ONLY INSTITUTIONS THAT PROTECT LIVING FAITH that can be said to be truly American institutions. Enforced conservatism in faith is anti-American because it is anti-libertarian.
Thursday, October 15, 2009
Thoughts on Health Reform
I just posted some thoughts on health reform on Raquel Okyay's blog.
Health care costs started going up within a decade after establishment of two government programs: Medicare and Medicaid. In the rest of the world government limits the amount of testing and the kinds of operations people can get. In America, socialists dominate the public health schools and the literature on health reform. They do not consider the effects of socialism on innovation and downplay the interaction of socialism and rationing.
1. Most medical innovation has occurred in the United States, which is also the only nation with anything resembling a free market in health care. If America goes the way of Europe, then what will happen to medical innovation world wide? This issue is not discussed in the academic literature on health reform, and no Democratic Party media has had the competence to ask this question.
2. Excessive use of health services is stimulated by tax exemption of health benefits. This is further magnified by government-paid benefits. Furthermore, third party payers and what economists call information asymmetries stimulate demand (that is, doctors demand excessive services because they are shielded from competition by government-enforced licensing that was established in the early twentieth century).
3. Health care is one of several government-dominated fields that have not globalized and so have had costs increasing more rapidly than general inflation. These include higher education and government services (including lower education) as well as health care. What does college tuition have in common with fixing your kid's broken arm? Both are prevented from being globalized by government regulation and both are dominated by government. As a result, both have rapidly escalating costs.
4. Health services can be globalized just like other products and services. An operation done in India or Mexico costs one tenth of what it costs here.
5. Many Americans are willing to pay 10% of gross national product to satisfy the narrow-minded, chauvinistic belief that American doctors are better than Indian doctors and so globalization of health services is an absurd idea. I disagree.
6. In my region and yours, Kingston, NY and New Paltz, NY, virtually all of the physicians were born in India, Arabia and other countries that are likely suspects for health care globalization. Hence, the chauvinism is based on illusion.
7. Globalized health care can be regulated through joint treaty. America's health providers are fully capable of developing quality systems equal to those in other industries such as Japanese car makers. If Toyota or General Electric can operate international organizations to capture low labor costs, why not hospitals?
8. The health care debate is fake. Since regulation and government programs cause rising costs, the debate starts from a false premise, that GOVERNMENT IS THE ALMIGHTY AND ETERNAL. Government-run health care is a reactionary concept. Free market health care is an innovative, radical concept.
9. There is no need for health reform if regulation is scrapped and health companies are freed to globalize as companies in low cost, high quality industries have and high cost, low quality organizations in education, government and health care have not.
So long as the American people prefer chauvinism and regulation over affordable health care, I have little to more say to them about this topic except, as in most every field, their discussion is nonsensical and conducted by a bird-brained, Democratic Party media.
And I am tired of being forced at gunpoint to conform to the crappy services and stupid ideas of the violent Democrats and Rockefeller Republicans. If they like crappy health care, why can't they buy their own instead of forcing me to participate?
Health care costs started going up within a decade after establishment of two government programs: Medicare and Medicaid. In the rest of the world government limits the amount of testing and the kinds of operations people can get. In America, socialists dominate the public health schools and the literature on health reform. They do not consider the effects of socialism on innovation and downplay the interaction of socialism and rationing.
1. Most medical innovation has occurred in the United States, which is also the only nation with anything resembling a free market in health care. If America goes the way of Europe, then what will happen to medical innovation world wide? This issue is not discussed in the academic literature on health reform, and no Democratic Party media has had the competence to ask this question.
2. Excessive use of health services is stimulated by tax exemption of health benefits. This is further magnified by government-paid benefits. Furthermore, third party payers and what economists call information asymmetries stimulate demand (that is, doctors demand excessive services because they are shielded from competition by government-enforced licensing that was established in the early twentieth century).
3. Health care is one of several government-dominated fields that have not globalized and so have had costs increasing more rapidly than general inflation. These include higher education and government services (including lower education) as well as health care. What does college tuition have in common with fixing your kid's broken arm? Both are prevented from being globalized by government regulation and both are dominated by government. As a result, both have rapidly escalating costs.
4. Health services can be globalized just like other products and services. An operation done in India or Mexico costs one tenth of what it costs here.
5. Many Americans are willing to pay 10% of gross national product to satisfy the narrow-minded, chauvinistic belief that American doctors are better than Indian doctors and so globalization of health services is an absurd idea. I disagree.
6. In my region and yours, Kingston, NY and New Paltz, NY, virtually all of the physicians were born in India, Arabia and other countries that are likely suspects for health care globalization. Hence, the chauvinism is based on illusion.
7. Globalized health care can be regulated through joint treaty. America's health providers are fully capable of developing quality systems equal to those in other industries such as Japanese car makers. If Toyota or General Electric can operate international organizations to capture low labor costs, why not hospitals?
8. The health care debate is fake. Since regulation and government programs cause rising costs, the debate starts from a false premise, that GOVERNMENT IS THE ALMIGHTY AND ETERNAL. Government-run health care is a reactionary concept. Free market health care is an innovative, radical concept.
9. There is no need for health reform if regulation is scrapped and health companies are freed to globalize as companies in low cost, high quality industries have and high cost, low quality organizations in education, government and health care have not.
So long as the American people prefer chauvinism and regulation over affordable health care, I have little to more say to them about this topic except, as in most every field, their discussion is nonsensical and conducted by a bird-brained, Democratic Party media.
And I am tired of being forced at gunpoint to conform to the crappy services and stupid ideas of the violent Democrats and Rockefeller Republicans. If they like crappy health care, why can't they buy their own instead of forcing me to participate?
Town Subsidies to Democratic Party Legal?
Dear Board of Elections;
I have a question. I am aware of a Town that provides in-kind benefits in the form of trash removal and police serving as labor for a Democratic Party fundraiser in the town. The Democratic Party holds an annual fundraising event and the Town pays police to entertain children. When other groups (such as the Republican Party) hold equivalent fundraisers (that are much smaller as the Democratic fundraiser is the largest event) they are charged for park cleanup and there are no services provided, but when the Democrats hold their fundraiser they are not charged, services are donated by the Town and the amounts are much larger into the thousands of dollars (whereas the other groups are small).
Is it legal for the Town to subsidize the Democrats and not the Republicans or anyone else?
Sincerely,
Mitchell Langbert
I have a question. I am aware of a Town that provides in-kind benefits in the form of trash removal and police serving as labor for a Democratic Party fundraiser in the town. The Democratic Party holds an annual fundraising event and the Town pays police to entertain children. When other groups (such as the Republican Party) hold equivalent fundraisers (that are much smaller as the Democratic fundraiser is the largest event) they are charged for park cleanup and there are no services provided, but when the Democrats hold their fundraiser they are not charged, services are donated by the Town and the amounts are much larger into the thousands of dollars (whereas the other groups are small).
Is it legal for the Town to subsidize the Democrats and not the Republicans or anyone else?
Sincerely,
Mitchell Langbert
More Town of Olive Subsidies to the Democratic Party
I just received this e-mail from a person of good will who knows a little bit about the Town's parks. She writes that in addition to thousands spent on trash removal in Davis Park that is not spent on behalf of any other partisan or public interest group:
"the town also pays for 3 parks people to be at Olive day all day and pays for all the overtime for all employees that work the day of Olive day. Most all received overtime pay for Olive Day which has nothing really to do with the town other than being the fund raiser for the Olive Democrats."
"the town also pays for 3 parks people to be at Olive day all day and pays for all the overtime for all employees that work the day of Olive day. Most all received overtime pay for Olive Day which has nothing really to do with the town other than being the fund raiser for the Olive Democrats."
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
