That free market cure website is hilariously bonkers. John Cohn of the New Republic and Ezra Klein (formerly of American Prospect and now Washington Post) are the people to read.

On this subject, I’d rather trust Paul Krugman than absurdly dogmatic right-wing libertarians any day of the week.

See: http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/07/25/why-markets-cant-cure-healthcare/

Tristan’s link suggests the removal of any sort of licensing or accreditation system from health care. So far as I can see, it advocates that absolutely anyone can tout for health care business. That would be “freedom”, removing state restriction which for people like Tristan is the source of all evil, and the ensuing competition would mean we would all get better and cheaper health care.

This is something like we already have in “complementary health”, where dubious products and services are heavily promoted by those who have a vested interest in them. In fact, most of this is a rip-off, I know many people who have been suckered into paying huge amounts of money to dubious practitioners of various sorts.

A problem with health care is that it’s not a market where I know what I want and can search for the best provider. Instead, I am reliant in the experts telling me what I need, which is a matter of great concern if those experts also make money from providing me with what they say I need. I myself have some scientific background, so can work out when people trying to sell me something in this line are saying rubbish, but most people don’t have that sort of background, which is why they seem so readily conned by smooth-talking salespeople.

One might also note there is some of this in the American approach to religion. The “set up your own Church” movement is booming, no need for accreditation or the strict training and ordination of established denominations, and profit collected directly and used by the self-accredited pastors. If one thinks that religion is useless, one can see how this uselessness booms and cons people through the lack of a system of control. But if one does value religion, one can see here how it leads to bad religion driving out good.

We may note how the clamour against Barack Obama’s healthcare proposals is being led by those who have a vested interest in the profits that can be made through the haphazard insurance systems that exist in the US. One can see how skilled these people are at telling lies. They have the wealth to manipulate the market of ideas so their ideas gain prominence and those which are not so geared to making personal profit do not get the airing they deserve.

Tristan says that “war against the poor” is waged by a system of licensing. He seems unable, however, to see how war against the poor and gullible and those simply lacking in expert knowledge is waged by smart salespeople. I myself would greatly prefer a system where health care is rationed by those who take no financial benefit from providing it and I have reason to believe will make an objective assessment to one which is the free-for-all market nirvana which people like Tristan advocate. I don’t want to have to spend my time thinking and worrying about health care, and poring over manuals and league tables to try and work out which is the best provider for me and who is a quack and who is really qualified. That is a diminution of my freedom, it is not enjoyable, it takes up time and mental energy I would rather be spending on things I like. What I want is for that health care to be there when I need it and for me to be able to trust it. A system of state accreditation seems to me to be the best way to provide that.

The UK NHS may not be perfect but it gernerally works well, delivers good service and provides universal health care for all according to their needs. What is wrong with that? That fact that US conservatives think this is “dangerous and orwellian” just shows how weird these people are. Why cant they enter into rational, calm debate based on respect instead of screaming and shouting and lying? Beats me.

God bless the NHS!

The US objectors are saying there are limits on what the NHS will provide. This is inevitable and we may see more of it as we discover new but very expensive ways of keeping people alive. The same would apply with any private insurers – the policies would have get-out clauses to avoid unlimited liability.

The US objectors are both exaggerating the extent of the limits, and hiding the fact that the existence of the NHS doesn’t prevent people from purchasing private health care if they feel the NHS is not providing what they need. Reality is that if people are left to die here because they fall outside the limits the NHS allows, how more so is it in the US where there isn’t the universal health care service of the NHS.