In a free market people would still be trusting quacks and snake-handlers, not medical doctors. They'dve probably have been better off with them compared to what free market medicine of the European variant was.
People still trust quacks and snake oil salesmen, a lot of them are even FDA sanctioned, having government regulation of the medical field cannot change this because it is inherent in the nature of people.
The fact is however that most people are going to gravitate to the Doctors with the best records of success whether the government says they work or not.
I'm referring to the glory days of private medicine from the 5th-18th Centuries, before those evil socialists like Queen Victoria and Abraham Lincoln established actual standards for doctors and medicine.
It only advanced to understanding it from scholarship at a state-funded university, meaning that because the ebil state was involved that it wasn't a "real" free market. Somehow free market medicine didn't realize that Muslims knew what the Hell they were talking about when they'd discovered the existence of Germ theory 900 years prior.
I'm using that as a reference because it is a *real* free market. Not the mealy-mouthed Cyberpunk system Libertarians confuse with the term.
Actually, some very "mainstream" health practices today (I'm thinking specifically of OBGYN traditions) are not supported by evidence as "best practices". Medicine is disturbingly political, as this article highlights, and I don't think "science" should be championed as some objective Holy Grail of knowledge. For example, thanks to modern medicine, the C-section rate in the US has skyrocketed and is more than twice the rate (that is, the percentage of pregnancies in which a C-section is likely to be indicated as the best option) recommended by the World Health Organization. And no, it's not because of women not wanting a vaginal birth - the "too posh to push" hypothesis is not supported by any data of which I'm aware
( ... )
"Actually, some very "mainstream" health practices today (I'm thinking specifically of OBGYN traditions) are not supported by evidence as "best practices". Medicine is disturbingly political, as this article highlights, and I don't think "science" should be championed as some objective Holy Grail of knowledge. For example, thanks to modern medicine, the C-section rate in the US has skyrocketed and is more than twice the rate (that is, the percentage of pregnancies in which a C-section is likely to be indicated as the best option) recommended by the World Health Organization. And no, it's not because of women not wanting a vaginal birth - the "too posh to push" hypothesis is not supported by any data of which I'm aware."
Oh trust me I wasn't. I'm no great fan of the medical establishment and I think in most cases, especially ones dealing with pregnancy the least intervention is the best. I was merely pointing out that there were other changes that had occurred since the mid 1800's that mad quack nostrums more common back then.
As far as poor people having to choose the "Cheapest" option, well I'm sorry but there is no way around this.
I guess you and I fundamentally disagree on this, then. There is a way around this: It's called the government, and it's here to help us. Decommodification is a good thing: the role of the government SHOULD be to protect its people from the whimsy of the free market. In fact, such protection has even been linked to lower crime rates (see Messner and Rosenfeld's institutional anomie theory and tests of such).
That said lets face it, for 95% of all health care needs doctor quality is largely irrelevant anyway, it doesn't take a genius to diagnose the flu or give a tetanus shot.Nobody needs a doctor until they do, you mean? Pretty sure it takes a doctor to determine that your flu -- for the record, a virus that has killed millions -- is just a regular flu or the Avian Flu, Swine Flu, whatever. It also takes public health officials (also funded by government!) to track epidemics and make arrangements to prevent the spread of
( ... )
Reply
People still trust quacks and snake oil salesmen, a lot of them are even FDA sanctioned, having government regulation of the medical field cannot change this because it is inherent in the nature of people.
The fact is however that most people are going to gravitate to the Doctors with the best records of success whether the government says they work or not.
Reply
Reply
Yeah sure that is still a relevant topic when discussing health care TODAY.
Reply
I'm using that as a reference because it is a *real* free market. Not the mealy-mouthed Cyberpunk system Libertarians confuse with the term.
Reply
Reply
Oh trust me I wasn't. I'm no great fan of the medical establishment and I think in most cases, especially ones dealing with pregnancy the least intervention is the best. I was merely pointing out that there were other changes that had occurred since the mid 1800's that mad quack nostrums more common back then.
"That ( ... )
Reply
I guess you and I fundamentally disagree on this, then. There is a way around this: It's called the government, and it's here to help us. Decommodification is a good thing: the role of the government SHOULD be to protect its people from the whimsy of the free market. In fact, such protection has even been linked to lower crime rates (see Messner and Rosenfeld's institutional anomie theory and tests of such).
That said lets face it, for 95% of all health care needs doctor quality is largely irrelevant anyway, it doesn't take a genius to diagnose the flu or give a tetanus shot.Nobody needs a doctor until they do, you mean? Pretty sure it takes a doctor to determine that your flu -- for the record, a virus that has killed millions -- is just a regular flu or the Avian Flu, Swine Flu, whatever. It also takes public health officials (also funded by government!) to track epidemics and make arrangements to prevent the spread of ( ... )
Reply
This is not true. The FDA gets 'user fees' for many things, including granting exclusivity. They're getting a cut.
Reply
Leave a comment