Skip to main content

Canadian Critique

An associate recently forwarded the following critique of Canada's health care system, written by a Canadian Ed Bugos:

A subscriber and friend, Laurence Hunt (who has his own blog here, who lives in Canada, as do I, made some comments to the effect that the Canadian socialized medical system is better than a free market medical system.This is a very prevalent attitude in Canada.  Here was the main thrust of his argument:"The Canadian system delivers world class healthcare at half the cost due to disintermediation. The system is run like infrastructure, like the highways, and is more economical.   I'm still an advocate of government running infrastructure, as there has to be a method of collective participation. I do think that without government, the bullies would be in charge (they are hard to restrain under any system). Nothing is perfect, including freedom."The following is my response: 
Laurence I respectfully disagree with your comment. First, we would hope that healthcare is ultimately not run like "infrastructure," especially not like the highway system.  A warlock of Austrian Economics, Walter Block, who wrote a book lobbying for a return to private roads and highway, notes:"If the highways were now commercial ventures, as once in our history they were, and upward of 40,000 people were killed on them annually, you can bet your bottom dollar that Ted Kennedy and his ilk would be holding Senate hearings on the matter.  Blamed would be "capitalism," "markets," "greed," i.e., the usual suspects. But it is the public authorities who are responsible for this slaughter of the innocents."   
Aside from your comment on "infrastructure", if you are going to compare the Canadian system to the US system we need to first recognize the difference. In Canada there is a state monopoly in the provision of medical care (though not in the provision of essential goods to the medical system monopoly).In America they have had increasing state intervention into the medical industry starting with the AMA who in 1904 limited the number of doctors entering the field and closed down a bunch of schools.  This was done in the name of protecting the consumer, but in reality the doctors got together and did it to raise their incomes.They essentially created a labor monopoly within a private system.  This is typical, by the way. In Canada the state likes to control the industry; in the US monopoly power is doled out by the state but usually vests in private hands - so up here you have state monopolies and crown corporations while down there you have antitrust and cronyism...or "state capitalism" (or corporatism) - in Russia you have oligarchs. Progressively, over the years, the US government eventually forced employers to contribute, then granted the power of licensing to the states, and began to underwrite (subsidize) medical care demand a few decades ago.
Economics teaches us that when you restrict supply and subsidize demand you will get shortages and higher prices - and that's even before we throw the Fed into the mix.  The so called free market medical system in the US has been progressively sabotaged over the past century.  The universal coverage - Obamacare - is just a final straw.So the high price of medical care has nothing to do with it being relatively more private in the US than in Canada - in fact economics teaches us also that prices would fall if the industry were free from government.  So make sure to put the blame for the high cost where it belongs: on government regulation and subsidy, as usual. 
As for Canada's healthcare system costing half as much, undoubtedly the figures do not account for the lower 'quality' and the greater shortages we get here. So in reality you are getting half as much too. As the US system is more socialized you will find that our medical costs not only start to rise more, but also, their quality/availability will fall. 
Like it or not Canada has been a big beneficiary of the innovations of the relatively freer market down south in this industry.  I can attest to that personally.  If you slow down those innovations, because, say, the system is totally socialized, then our state monopoly system will suffer as well.That is, costs will rise and quality will fall.The soviets were the first to try out universal medical care.  As one of Gorbachev's economists pointed out, the system basically deteriorated to the point where a black market developed based on bribery - outside of which the doctors would quip that their patients "pretend they are paying us and we pretend we are working".  And if you were dying, they pushed you out the door so that the hospital statistics wouldn't look bad. The only reason this hasn't happened in countries like Canada that have adopted a similar system is that the rest of the economy here is not centrally planned.  Thankfully, there is a relatively free market in the goods that supply the medical provider monopoly.  And the state is loosening its grip on some provisions lately.
But the main point is that it is a matter of economic law that a private system in medical care would result in lower prices and better quality.  After all, all we want is to allow competition.  It's a ridiculous argument to say that we are better off because our government restricts competition.  Effectively, that is what our system is.In regard to your comment that "nothing is perfect, including freedom," of course you are correct.Undoubtedly nothing is perfect.  Let's not put that stick man up.  The socialists are always criticizing the imperfections of the market but the idea is not to achieve perfection.  Neither Jeff nor I nor Mises would claim the market is perfect.  Far from it. It is a matter of what is better - a state monopoly service or free market competition. 
The socialists will decry the quality of movies produced by Hollywood or the books written in a capitalistic society.  No doubt that in many cases they can produce better quality stuff - even better quality goods - if it were planned.  But the market may not want the "best" quality goods.  In a free system it gets what it wants.People get what they want.I hate what Hollywood produces personally, and it does show that the majority of people (the market) has bad taste, etc.  That doesn't mean that I would favor a centrally planned movie industry.  It would produce movies no one would want to watch even if by someone's standards they would be considered perfect.I'm sure that a centrally planned body could build better cars than we have on the road -but would everyone get one?  Would it be as cost effective without any competition?  In a market economy you would have goods that are near perfect that only a few millionaires could afford - like the Lamborghini - and you would havegoods like the Hyundai that everyone could afford.  You would have a full range for everyone.  This is just not possible through a state monopoly.We'd all either be driving the Yugo or only the despots would be driving their perfect autos.But one thing is for sure - apodictic  - competition ensures that the costs of providing goods is lower than it would be otherwise. 
In regard to your comment about the Government needing to intervene or we'd all be taken over by bullies.  How ironic to say that bullies would take advantage in a voluntary society so let's replace voluntarism with a coercive apparatus that prevents free competition.  Whenever the state controls an industry it is the coercive apparatus that is used instead of voluntary decisions that are being made.This stuff about a "bully" is another socialist tactic.  They've been using it on essential services since time immemorial.  It's almost as bad as the first stick man you used above!  But it's okay.  We're indoctrinated that way up here in Canada.  Unless you have read Mises and Rothbard you're defenseless against the socialists. In order to discredit the myth about bullies in a free market system one of my favorite authors, Frederic Bastiat, used to say: "In war, the stronger overcomes the weaker.  In business, the stronger imparts strength to the weaker."  This is 100% true.   
It is pure irony to say that the state protects the weak from bullies. The state is the biggest bully of all. It's this simple.  If you would not put the state in charge of providing electronics goods why put them in charge of providing ESSENTIAL goods?  Explain to me how anyone is "bullied" in any other industry that we'd agree was a free market industry.  I don't see it.  I see that businesses are accountable to consumers.  I also see that government is not.  I pay FEDEX for any important mail.  The post office is a great example of how government does things. Sure, it all looks great as long as there is no free market alternative. 
Free market medical care would be cheaper and it would be better.  It would be better all around.  I don't expect anyone to agree.  No one agrees, after all, that we could eliminate recessions altogether by going to a real gold standard.  They don't buy it because we've had a gold standard but we still had recessions.  For the same reason, people won't buy that a true free market would be 100 times better than what they call free medical care! They don't buy it because they see the so-called private system in the US costing more.  But they fail to credit the state with that problem, just like they failed to acknowledge that the gold standard of old was rigged too. For every story about a private doctor not treating someone, say, because the customer has no money, there are a dozen such stories under universal medical care systems where patients in dire need are either shoved out the hospital door or discharged by a death committee or otherwise mistreated.  There are many stories.  I can tell you from experience with markets in general that if I had a heart attack and no money I'm confident that the doctor in a free market system would still help me even if he wasn't going to get paid. Charity is something only a free market system can afford.

 I'll respond to Mr Bugos later in the week.

Popular posts from this blog

Puas Rental dan Sewa Mobil Di Area Cirebon

Puas Rental Mobil Cirebon . Puas Rent car ialah perusahaan transportasi penyedia layanan rental mobil di Cirebon. Puas Rent Car ialah bagian dari perusahaan Puaspark – taman rekreasi keluarga sangat terjangkau di Cirebon Timur. Kami pun melayani lokasi Bekasi sampai Seluruh Cirebon. Armada kami ialah mobil-mobil dalam situasi terawat dan pun mobil-mobil keluaran baru. Dengan opsi mobil yang kami sediakan paling variatif dan harga yang paling kompetitif di Cirebon.
Contact Puas Rental Mobil

Bagi Kami Kepuasan Konsumen nomer Satu..
Untuk Pemesanan klik Rental Mobil Avanza Di Area Cirebon
Karena Disitu Adalah Website Resmi Dari Puas Rental Mobil Cirebon

Puas Rent Car Cirebon menawarkan guna Anda seperti: Avanza. Kami melayani penyewaan mobil guna harian maupun bulanan. Kami meluangkan supir. kita juga dapat menyewa mobil-mobil kami tanpa supir.

Menjadi perusahaan transportasi penyedia jasa penyewaan mobil yang handal. Menjadi parner transportasi terbaik Anda. Terdepan melayani sewa / ren…

The Food Allergy Herbal Formula-2 (FAHF-2) Laundry List

So in all the time I've been writing about our experience with FAHF-2, I have never done a comprehensive post with all the links/info I've found over the years. Consider the situation rectified! I'll add to this as I find new sources. If you have good ones, please feel free to add them to the comments as well.

My FAHF-2 Posts
FAHF-2 Trials In Chicago!

We're In

BTDT, Got the FAHF-2 Food Allergy Clinical Trial T-Shirt

Brief FAHF-2 Update

Halfway There...But the Second Half Is All Uphill

FAHF-2: The Holy Grail?

Waiting in the Wings for the Show to Begin

FAHF-2 Clinical Trial Summary

Other People's FAHF-2 Experiences (from around the web)Chinese pharmacy vs. through Dr. Li

For severe eczema/MRSA

New York Times article

For asthma (Vitality magazine)

An asthma patient's personal experience

Description of Dr. Li's treatment plan

What Is FAHF-2?Patent application (contains all ingredients)

Phase 1 Clinical Trial Report (has very specific info about formula ingredients)

Yellow Empero…

Liberal, Overbearing, New Age, Alternative Medicine Food Allergy Moms

My mom called the other night.

"I talked to your cousin Donna last night. I told her she should call you. She's into a lot of the same stuff you're into."

"Um...what stuff would that be, Mom?"

"You know...all that stuff about the bees and GMOs and vaccines, honey. I told her you knew a lot about it and would be happy to talk with her."

YIKES! Since when did having a kid with food allergies automatically qualify me for the willing-to-accept-every-random-theory club?

As you guys know, I do a lot of reading and I have come to think there may be something to some of the alternative theories out there, particularly around pesticides and antibiotics killing off symbiotic gut bacteria. But I've also spent 25 years of my career firmly submerged in Western medicine and my mother knows this. So what the heck happened here?

A week later, I wondered it all over again as I read this article on Slate. It's apparently debunking an Elle magazine story that link…