premise on which I argue that "access to and distribution of
health-related services ought to be handled by the free market" is the
vast and complex set of subjective values which inform a transaction.
These subjective values are best expressed through free-flowing
prices, which is fundamental to a free-market. The absence of price
controls allows buyers and sellers to meet and conduct transactions on
their own terms, and serve the benefit of each party involved.
Health-related services as with any good or service has a cost. These
costs, rather than being addressed in terms of economics, are often
politicized and reduced to referendums on who has which right, legal or
moral. There are a couple of issues which would arise in the attempt to
sustain a "right to health care":
and nurses have no authority over the labor, services, or goods they
provide and would be coerced into submitting the aforementioned in order
to satisfy the claim that is one's "right."
- By "right,"
claimants mean "free of costs," or "free at the point of use" when
consuming health-related services. The former makes little sense if we
don't indulge the enslavement of physicians and nurses, and the latter
is a euphemism for debt deferment. If the government is going to
subsidize the consumption of these services, then the costs of said
services will be addressed through taxation--the forceful seizure of
property where in the absence of compliance, death can be a result.
These costs can be addressed in a manner that wouldn't involve
the prospect of crippling debt, satisfying nonsensical claims, or worst
case scenarios: enslavement or death. I propose, as the subject of this
debate suggests, freeing up the market. First, we must discern
the regulations and/or restrictions imposed, and how each play a role in
the exorbitant costs of health-related services. I will be using the
access and distribution of health-related services in the United Stated
as an exemplar.
- The American Medical Association
The American Medical Association is a government subsidized
organization which functions as a cartel for physician labor. The AMA is
able to restrict the amount of physician labor through the LCME (Liason
Committee on Medical Education,) which is responsible for
accreditation, and the ACGME (Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical
Education,) which is responsible for internships, residencies, and
American Medical Association which has been partnered with the
Association of American Medical Colleges since 1942 sponsors the LCME
, and is in part responsible for the creation of the ACGME for which it has four seats on its board of directors
In 1910, the American Medical Association lobbied the Republican
administration under William Taft to close or merge half of American
Medical Schools. The pretext was to prevent substandard medical
training; however, the report (The Flexner Report) on this substandard
medical training was authored by a person, Abraham
Flexner, who not only had no expertise at all in allopathic,
homeopathic, or even osteopathic medicine, but also was a critic of the
American College System
. In some of his inspections of medical schools, he was accompanied by N.P. Colwell
(page 9,) the secretary of the American Medical Association's Council
on Medical Education. Not to mention, Flexner was hosted in Chicago by
the American Medical Association when finishing his report.
By artificially restricting the supply of physician labor, the American Medical Association is essentially creating creating a shortage
(page 15 and onward,) especially in the advent of increased demand
borne from government subsidized consumption, which consequently
produces inflated physician salaries. These physician salaries in part
are extended to the final product contributing to the inflated costs of
health related services. By removing the government preference for the
American Medical Association, as well as removing the government subsidy,
we can reduce costs of health related services as well as spare billions in federal spending on health care.
In 1925, the United States under the the Coolidge administration allowed
for government-licensed drug monopolies through the patent system. This
allows select drug companies exclusive preference in the drug industry.
the patent system, the entry of cheaper generics will enter the
market.The consequential reduction in the inflated prices will, Once
again, Be extended to the final products: health goods and services.
This is more of an extension of the previous arguments. Much like the
American Medical Association, The FDA is very much an inhibitor to the
availability of promising drugs (as opposed to physician labor with the
former. ) The FDA determining which drugs are approved, Creates a
shortage of available drugs. The costs of getting approval by the FDA is
just south of $3 billion dollars.
We must ask ourselves whether we need the FDA in order to prevent the dissemination of
toxic or death-inducing drugs. We also must consider that no drug is free
from the prospect of toxicity or inducing death. There are several
scenarios that would happen if we freed up the market and allowed more
boards to over see the dissemination of drugs:
1. Drug companies produce drugs that are ineffective and have adverse side effects,
2. Drug companies produce drugs that are effective but have adverse side effects.
3. Drug companies produce drugs that are ineffective which lack adverse side effects.
4. Drug companies produce drugs that are effective which lack adverse side effects.
is my argument that addressing these restrictions and regulations would
see dramatic decreases in costs in health related services; also,
consequently, it is my argument that this is a better solution to the
costs of health-related services as opposed to meeting these costs
through debt deferment, nonsensical claims, enslavement or death. As we
continue our debate, I will expand on these points, and even add
supplementary points wherever necessary.