Well it's time I weigh in on this one. I have been reluctant to for some time, since I have long believed that guaranteed universal health care is a bad idea and that, even though most people want it, there is still no reasonable way it can be achieved. And we are now at a point in the debate where I believe it is clear that the idea is going to fail, so I think it's time to look at the real reasons why.
It has been argued that health care is too costly, that costs go up and up, largely because medical innovation continues - and will continue so long as we humans still experience death. It has been said that it is too complicated. It has been said that without tort reform (an impossibility for a Democratic administration), there can be no true reduction in cost. It has been said that the details of the plan are unbeknownst to anybody - including, based on his prevaricative explanations of the plan, the president. It has been said that the government can't do anything well or efficiently, and so they should not be put in charge of something as important as emergency medical treatment, long term care, or end of life decisions.
A lot more has been said besides, and it is all true. This sort of policy making is the messiest, sloppiest, most boondoggle-laden monstrosity that the government could possibly come up with. It was doomed to fail from the start.
But how did it get so complicated?
Why is it so so so so complicated?
Well I'll tell you why.
It's simple, of course. In any economic system, when you have a monopoly of control, when you have high degrees of regulation, you create unneeded complexity. It is a law of life- regulation created problems, it creates inefficiencies, it creates overlapping jurisdictions, it creates waste- it creates unmanageable systems.
And that is what we have in health care in this country.
But where, you say, are the regulations? Where is the monopoly?
The answer is that it is in the very concept of modern medicine itself.
As always, when things get crazy, the solution lies in uncovering assumptions we make that are incorrect and which lead to needless confusion. In our case, the assumption we make is that the only way (this is the monopoly part), the only way people get healthy is through western medical intervention. This is the false assumption upon which our entire system lies. It is one that is so entrenched, that people hardly see it for what it is - an assumption, not a truth. That the medical model has asserted supremacy over all forms of legally sanctioned healing is an impressive display of will and power that has taken nearly a century to consolidate. And now that it has, it is asking for more.
One other principle of economics, which compliments the problem of mandates and regulations, is that when you guarantee someone something, you are also guaranteeing waste and inefficiency. One can see this in all manner of government service jobs and in many positions that involve the guarantee of tenure. If you are guaranteed $100,000 a year to do your job, and you will get that money no matter what, your honor may compel you to do the job well for a time, but eventually, you will descend to perform it adequately, and eventually, once it sets in that you will be making your money anyway, you will apply your energy someplace else and do your job poorly- while still making the money, thus creating huge waste for your employer and unbearable annoyance to your customers.
When the government guarantees money to doctors and pharmaceutical companies - which it already does in the form of Medicare and Medicaid - you are giving them a monopoly on care, and you are guaranteeing corruption. It is a law of nature. Whether the doctors heal people or not, whether they do it efficiently or not, whether they use experimental methods on unwitting patients or not, they are still guaranteed the government's money. When there is no alternative to a method of care, when there are no choices, then you are no longer free, and you are no longer engaged in an open market system. And a closed system is a system that will breed waste, inefficiency, and corruption every single time. It will create confusion and overlap as different entities vie for their share of the guaranteed dollars. It will create a monster.
And that is what we have today in the medical model. A monster. An expensive monster that is growing and growing. Were Obamacare to succeed, we would be throwing gasoline on the fire. The financial guarantee to the medical industry would form a monopoly to make Microsoft look like the corner bookstore. It would divert nearly 1/3 of US dollars to the medical monopoly, who, if they were smart, would find new ways to make us sicker and so provide us with more drugs, tests, and procedures. It is a simple business model.
Right now, doctors have no idea why people really get sick, and what's more, they don't really seem to care. We have innumerable diseases that were non-existent even a generation ago. And the diseases that we used to have are presenting many times more frequently and more virulently than they ever were before. For someone who makes money treating the symptoms of these diseases, this is a very good thing for business- more customers. By treating symptoms and not underlying causes, we can create the illusion of health-giving, while insuring that true health - in the form of absence of need of doctors - is never achieved.***
I have been a raw food and detoxification enthusiast for five and a half years this September. I have seen miracle after miracle in my own body and in many of my colleagues who have followed this healing path. Most of us are convinced, through our own experience and transformation, that much of the underlying cause for what people call disease is horrendous nutrition combined with innumerable artificial toxins in our food, air, water - indeed in all areas of our life- including our medicine. Is it a coincidence that we ingest on a regular basis chemicals that have never been in contact with biological organisms in the past and that we are coming down with illnesses that have never afflicted us before either? Are these statistics not running in parallel with one another?
There are many other non-western medical healing modalities which produce miraculous healings on a daily basis. For many Christians, simple prayer is responsible for much in the way of increased health and healing. The Christian Science literature is jammed with testimonial after testimonial of disease reversal. And there are all manner of modern shamans, acupuncturists, and bodyworkers who have watched their clients' lives turn around through their work. Of course, as with any system that operates on the fringes of society, there are many incompetents and even frauds in these professions. This is undeniable. But that does not mean that they are all frauds - or that even most of them are, as the medical industry would prefer we believe. And with medical error (to say nothing of drug side effects) being the number 2 cause of death in America, I think it is unfair to say that the incompetents are in the alternative field alone.
While I am impressed by the work of these various healers, my own experience with deep tissue detoxification has convinced me that in a true level playing field of health practices, this method would win out over all. I have never felt more ecstatic - moment to moment - than when I have completed a deep cleanse and am fasting or eating raw foods. I now have a definition of health that is not merely, 'wow, my arm doesn't hurt today,' but 'wow, I feel really ecstatic today.' It is not simply an absence of disease that I feel, but a presence of health, radiance, and joy. To my knowledge, there is no parallel for this in modern medicine. One either has an illness or one is "healthy." But there is no thought that one could be healthier and healthier, though one can be sicker and sicker. There is no concept that the avoidance of disease is not the end but the beginning. For raw foodists, striving towards ever increasing levels of health and happiness is a lifelong passion. In a level playing field, raw foods would win every time.
But of course it is not a level playing field. Massive subsidies are provided by the government for drug research. Non-profit status is granted to hospitals and medical schools, saving them tens of billions of dollars in taxes each year. The foods we eat - which make us sick - are subsidized as well. We are funding both the diseases and the "cures" at the same time, creating a profit cycle that goes round and round and never stops. The libertarian and the rational economist both know that this is insane- that this is why you stop giving free money to companies in a free market. It is a guarantee of disaster. The danger here is that the majority of the population thinks it is helping them.
The only comparable wastes of money are the global war on terrorism and the global war on drugs. Our interventionist attitudes are feeding the resentment of America and growing new terrorists faster than we can kill the old ones. The drug war follows largely the same pattern, except the "terrorists" in this case are the domestic suppliers, whose market is insatiable. The good news, at least with the drug war, is that we are beginning to see that we can not afford to spend all our money incarcerating domestics and warring with foreign nationals when there is no tangible societal benefit. It is my hope that the head we are coming to in the medical debate will have a similar "wake-up" effect- that we simply can not afford to spend every last dime on the medico-pharmo industry. True alternatives must be found, and they will be found in healing practices that really produce health, not which tinker around the edges at ruinous cost.
Most economists understand the principles at work here. What they don't understand is the assumptions they have made guaranteeing medicine a primary position in the nation's pursuit of health. If they did, they would apply normal economical principles and let the different available modalities compete on an equal playing field. They would pull ALL the money to doctors and drug companies and let them compete against colon hydrotherapists and rolfers. This would eliminate much of the unnecessary complication and would radically reduce costs. It would eliminate layers of government bureaucracies, and it would increase innovation that leads to price reduction. Right now the medical innovations only increase the cost of doing business. That's not what innovation is supposed to do. It is supposed to make things cheaper and more accessible. If there are techniques of acupuncture that reduce suffering and inflammation better than surgery, then those would be flocked to by willing patients. And since acupuncture can be had for less than $100 per hour, it would be stiff competition for doctors performing $5000 surgeries + huge hospitalization bills.
If people became healthier by eating organic raw foods instead of corn-starch cereal, then they would do that. But right now, chemical foods and agriculture are being subsidized and raw food is not. This gives the illusion that such "food products" are cheaper. In fact, they are not cheaper even on their face, once the subsidies are lifted, and when the cost to people's health is factored in through early onset cancer or diabetes, then the costs turn out to be much, much higher.
Government intervention distorts the marketplace. Always. Always. This is true whether they are subsidizing sardines or surgery. Al-Ways. Understanding where we mistakenly think these subsidies are helping is the first step to simplifying the process and making it less expensive. But instead, subsidizing all health insurance will do the opposite. It will make everything more costly, less efficient, and more complicated. This is why I have opposed it from the start and continue to now. My only hope is that this breaking point in the debate opens up new avenues for the exploration of other, saner options. If this be the effect of the discussion at this point, then it will have been worth the fight.
***At the risk of appearing too cynical here, it is worth repeating what I have said elsewhere- that while the motives of doctors themselves may be as pure as the New England snowfall, the people who control them, the drug and medical equipment companies, are beholden to shareholders, not to patients. I, myself, own stock in some of these companies, and I assure you I have never taken the Hippocratic oath. It would be against my financial interest to do so. Again, I don't wish to impugn the motives of all doctors. In many ways they are the equivalent of well meaning, patriotic soldiers who wish to do good by the people. But these same loyal soldiers have placed their destiny in the hands of corrupt and mischievous governments whose interests often collide with those of the military- and even their own citizens. (I will not insult your intelligence by offering examples from recent history.) By turning their art over to anonymous corporate interests - like myself - doctors leave themselves vulnerable to these same unfortunate distortions.
The American
2 years ago
