Thread: Medicine

With the election of Obama in the United States there is a lot of talk about medicine and how to best fund it. Some have suggested the Invisible Hand fund it. We'll call them Bad Guys. Some have suggested the State fund it. We'll call them Ugly Guys. The Bad Guys say the Ugly Guys' suggestion is a bad idea because the Ugly Guys did it some other place and look at all the problems. The Ugly Guys say the Bad Guys' suggestion is a bad idea because the Bad Guys did it right here at home and lo, all the same problems. Whether its funded by the Invisible Hand or the State, the same problems.

Maybe the problem isn't the funding of medicine, but the management of medicine.

The Bad Guys and the Ugly Guys agree, the State should manage medicine. That is why the Bad Guys who, favouring the Invisible Hand, are not Good Guys. It is always scary when everybody agrees. Something is wrong.

Discussion point: who should manage medicine?

I believe the Invisible Hand should manage medicine. Like everything else, subject to the constant democracy of free markets, where transactions are votes, the quality of medicine would go up and the cost of medicine would go down. The Invisible Hand makes mistakes, sometimes very horrible mistakes, but no worse than those of the State, and that same democracy of free markets has a very effective system of impeachment. Criminal activities would still be the jurisdiction of the Courts, of course. I think the solution to our medical woes, which pale in comparison to those of our ancestors, lies in medical liberty. Freedom in medicine and medicine within our means. That is my cry. Right now we're being offered this choice between public or privately funded publicly managed medicine. There is a third way. Not a middle way, but a third way. The options are not just socialist nirvana and corporatist cold.