Free market thinkers like Milton Friedman and Ayn Rand had a theory, a formula for a new world order that didn't include corruption and greed. Rep. Paul Ryan's new twist on their failed idea assumes business amasses too much power with the help of government regulation, but for reasons I don't understand, won't amass even more unchecked power without it. It's the simple concept of having or not having rules. Wouldn't it be fun returning to the idealized days of "buyer beware?"
Rep. Paul Ryan delivered a detailed policy speech sponsored by the Allan P. Kirby, Jr. Center for Constitutional studies and Citizenship, a project of Hillsdale College. In the following piece we'll get a bizarre reading of Ryan's perception of a free market health care reality, one that could only exist if we didn't already have a dysfunctional killer system in place now, and greed or corruption had been wiped of the face of the earth:
HUMAN EVENTS-From Ryan’s speech:
“Today, three models for health care delivery are available to us. First, today’s broken model, in which bureaucratized insurance companies monopolize the field in most states -- this is the ‘business-government partnership’ model, the ‘crony capitalism’ that’s corrupting our economy. Second, the Progressives’ ideal model, where centralized administration covers the field and government bureaucrats tell you which services they will allow you. Third, the true American model in my view, a free market in which health care services compete, and individuals, or consumer-patients, and their doctors are in control.A "range of resources" and "proportionate costs?" I think he means loved ones get the resources (treatment) they can afford (costs). Who could see any problems with that?
“Bureaucratized health care is not and cannot be ‘compassionate’ health care … they ration health care resources according to a dollar-driven social calculus. This isn’t a flaw in their plan. It is their plan … This heartless calculus is intended to eliminate compassionate care by loved ones under free markets with a range of health resources at proportional costs.
Ryan slips up near the end of the next paragraph, after whining about how the government will ration services, when he says "This is what free markets do." That makes rationing better?
“The idea that the government should make decisions about how long people should live and who should be denied healing is deeply repugnant and morally offensive. The supply of every service or product that exists is finite, but it’s a mistake to conclude that government must ration them. This is what free markets do: each buyer rations goods and services, including health care, ordering his individual needs and allocating his resources among competing producers.What Ryan describes is the "flaw" in his plan: self rationing. Ryan's "buyer" self rationing is still…rationing. And that's repugnant, right Paul? He treats medical care like goods and services. People don't "buy an illness." People don't have a choice to "order" (Ryan's word) or not "order" a doctor, like they do with "goods and services."
“Government rationing denies personal and natural rights … It conflicts with moral truth, with market freedom, with democracy, and with the medical excellence that has always drawn patients from socialist utopias to this country for treatment.But Americans don't have access to our medical excellence, you idiot. Ryan intentionally forgets to mention the powerful middleman between the patient and doctor, insurance companies.
“An authentic solution to the problem of affordability should be guided by the sure principles of moral and political freedom. It should respect doctor and patient privacy….The Republican plan, graded by the CBO, wrote that more people would end up uninsured than the current 47 million. Ryan forgot a few of the details:
“…there is no lack of sensible alternative solutions proposed by Republicans to put patients first … It would cover more uninsured Americans by spending current dollars wisely and efficiently … Our health care delivery alternative is guided by moral and political principles that respect the dignity of the person. It reflects America’s commitment to compassion, family choice, and individual freedom, together with responsibility for the nation’s economic well-being."How has that worked so far, Paul? Can you say pre-existing conditions or dropped coverage?
The second part of his speech dealt with moving to a completely free market system. That post will be written next.
Those who admire and criticize Ayn Rand’s beliefs about people standing on their own feet say she advocated selfishness, thereby greed. That implies self-centered, like the arrogant left. It is anti-individual creativity, which is not Ayn Rand. From her works, it is apparent Ayn Rand admired people who were courageous pebble-droppers, the nails standing above the boardwalk that ruling elite might trip over, who challenged the established and accepted way things were done. They were outer- and other-centered visionaries and dreamers. This is reflected in a new book due soon on Amazon called SAVE PEBBLE DROPPERS & PROSPERITY, also on claysamerica.com. She pitched for the accomplished individual and for individual freedom. Only the leftists believe individuals are bad and community, led by them, is good. They believe they are the elite who must rule and Ayn Rand opposed that. Claysamerica.com
ReplyDeleteAs always clay, individuals who think they are so self important often refer to everyone who disagrees as "the ruling elite." Or use SWEEPING generalizations that say liberals believe individuals are bad. Who said that?
ReplyDeleteThese are cliche's that really suggest just the opposite. Selfish belittling snots like you clay would do away with community, which would be led by no one in particular, just people helping people when they need it.
You act as though liberals don't own businesses and don't fight the system, like our founding fathers and the 60's protesters. I've been self employed for decades. What you convey is an unmistakable self-centered elitism that the arrogant right often projects.
Ayn Rand was a crackpot. After watching Youtube interviews, I thought her theories lacked a sense of reality. How successful were her followers, like Greenspan, in the last decade?
I wonder how anyone can succeed in America like they have over the centuries with so many regulations and liberals?