Government Intervention in Healthcare: A Brief History

[jrogers]

Heh. So when a highly regarded and educated doctor tells me to heavily vaccinate my infant child, I should obey because he is a doctor and I'm not.

But when a highly regarded and educated doctor tells me he has studied the field of homeopathy and thinks it has some legitimate uses, he is a quack and I should not listen to him.

Am I getting this right?

I don't know a whole lot about homeopathy and its effectiveness is not really relevant to this discussion. What is relevant is that some very intelligent and educated people think that is is effective and the AMA and AHA should not be allowed to use their government-sponsored monopoly to exclude practitioners of it.

Allow me to introduce you to argumentum ad auctoritatem, although it would appear you're already quite familiar. Letigimate medicine is supported by scientifically rigorous studies, not someone with a degree insisting that it works without showing any evidence. Your examples betray a shocking failure to understand how modern medical standards are set.

But since you appear to be anti-immunization it is clear that you are entirely uninterested in scientific evidence and prefer to rely on hysteria.


Well I know that you do. You're a standard collectivist/statist. I wasn't asking you, I was asking mrjarrell who actually believes in liberty.

I do find it curious that you're supporting crony capitalism, which is the entire point of this article, but I wasn't expecting much consistency.

You presume I read the article. My response was entirely directed at quack medicine and its willfully misled proponents. I find it appalling but not unsurprising that one of our most vocal homeschooling advocates rejects the scientific method in favor of magical thinking.

 

[steveh_131]

Allow me to introduce you to argumentum ad auctoritatem, although it would appear you're already quite familiar. Letigimate medicine is supported by scientifically rigorous studies, not someone with a degree insisting that it works without showing any evidence. Your examples betray a shocking failure to understand how modern medical standards are set.

But since you appear to be anti-immunization it is clear that you are entirely uninterested in scientific evidence and prefer to rely on hysteria.

I am not necessarily anti-immunization. I am also not necessarily pro-homeopathy.

I am fairly certain that both subjects and their research have been tainted by a corrupt elitist organization and its government enforcers. I am certain that the history of your supposed 'legitimate' medicine began with bleeding people out and poisoning them with mercury, allowing homeopathy to overtake them in popularity and efficacy. I am certain that you don't have the slightest idea what you're talking about, as you parrot the talking points fed to you by a massive monopoly that has overtaken an entire field of study in the west. Not only do you parrot them, but you seemingly worship them as absolute truth.

You presume I read the article. My response was entirely directed at quack medicine and its willfully misled proponents. I find it appalling but not unsurprising that one of our most vocal homeschooling advocates rejects the scientific method in favor of magical thinking.

I am all for the scientific method, contrary to your obvious straw-man argument. The scientific method works, and I employ it when making decisions for my family's medical care. Are 'scientists' impervious to bias? Are they impervious to manipulation? Are they always honest? Of course not. They are no more impervious to these things than the 'quacks' who study alternative forms of medicine.

So please explain to me why I should instinctively trust the 'scientific methods' of an organization that formed itself to protect its favorite methods of blood-letting and poisoning, using nefarious political methods and outright lies.

This thread isn't about 'quack medicine', it is about liberty and freedom of personal choice. It is about crony capitalism and government-sponsored monopolies.

 

[rambone]

They are no more impervious to these things than the 'quacks' who study alternative forms of medicine.

Alternative forms of med--.... HEY! You aren't supposed to use that word unless the FDA allows it. Fraud!! Guards, seize him!

 

[jrogers]

I am not necessarily anti-immunization. I am also not necessarily pro-homeopathy.

I am fairly certain that both subjects and their research have been tainted by a corrupt elitist organization and its government enforcers.

What evidence do you have to support the claim that immunization research and homeopathy research has somehow been tainted? No one is preventing you or anyone from designing a rigorous scientific study of homeopathy. Similarly, the "research" upon which the anti-immunization hysteria is based has been shown to be fabricated.

I am certain that the history of your supposed 'legitimate' medicine began with bleeding people out and poisoning them with mercury, allowing homeopathy to overtake them in popularity and efficacy.

This point would only be valid if doctors still used these dangerous and ineffective treatments. They don't because those "treatments" have been shown not to work. This is the difference between real medicine and homeopathy. Are you sure you sure we disagree, because you've made a very good point in support of Western medicine. Furthermore, it is ridiculous to claim that homeopathy has overtaken Westerm medicine in efficacy because there no evidence to support the claims made by homeopathy advocates. Simply saying "It works!" doesn't make it so no matter how much you want it to.

I am certain that you don't have the slightest idea what you're talking about, as you parrot the talking points fed to you by a massive monopoly that has overtaken an entire field of study in the west. Not only do you parrot them, but you seemingly worship them as absolute truth.

No one is preventing people from exposing homeopathy to the scientific method to see how it holds up. There is no law preventing this. Yet advocates are more interested in railing against real medicine than putting any effort into proving that their magical panacea actually does anything. My "talking points" are based on evidence. Your claim that I "worship" the claims of real medicine as "absolute truth" is ludicrous, as I have stated time and again that I am interested only in the science, not wild, unsubstantiated claims. The idea that I accept anything on faith is especially ironic given that I am specifically objecting to accepting homeopathy on faith simply because it's "alternative."

I am all for the scientific method, contrary to your obvious straw-man argument. The scientific method works, and I employ it when making decisions for my family's medical care. Are 'scientists' impervious to bias? Are they impervious to manipulation? Are they always honest? Of course not. They are no more impervious to these things than the 'quacks' who study alternative forms of medicine.

I've made no strawman argument, and you obviously have no idea what the scientific method actually is if you believe you use it to select health care. Rejecting Western medicine for homeopathy because it is possible for a scientist to be biased, manipulated, or dishonest is not a tenable position. It is the case that any person could be unreliable, and that is why in evidentiary-based medicine the studies and their results are published and examined by the reviewing authorities you seem to hate so much. The check against dishonesty is repeatability, but as a well-educated student of science you must be well aware of this, no? Repeatability isn't always even necessary, as often simply examining the data can reveal dishonesty. This is the case with the wholly discredited Wakefield paper that is still cited to this day by misinformed or dishonest anti-immunization advocates. The difference between the verifiable scientific evidence that exists apart from the individuals who produce it and the wild, unsupported claims of homeopathy practitioners should be obvious to even the most casual observer. The latter is entirely based on our old friend argumentum ad auctoritatem, whereas with in the case of the former res ipsa loquitur.

So please explain to me why I should instinctively trust the 'scientific methods' of an organization that formed itself to protect its favorite methods of blood-letting and poisoning, using nefarious political methods and outright lies.

That doesn't even resemble my claim. I don't think you should "instinctively trust" anyone. You certainly shouldn't conflate whatever fictional shadowy organization you're losing your mind over with legitimate medical researchers. Perhaps if you went to a real doctor you'd be pleased to discover that it is no longer common practice to balance the humours with blootletting or treat STIs with mercury.

This thread isn't about 'quack medicine', it is about liberty and freedom of personal choice. It is about crony capitalism and government-sponsored monopolies.

I disagree. As long as this posters in this thread defend homeopathy and/or quack medicine in general as legitimate medical treatment it will be appropriate to point out that they are incorrect.

 

[steveh_131]

What evidence do you have to support the claim that immunization research and homeopathy research has somehow been tainted? No one is preventing you or anyone from designing a rigorous scientific study of homeopathy. Similarly, the "research" upon which the anti-immunization hysteria is based has been shown to be fabricated.

My 'evidence' is a long-standing trail of lies and deceit by its opponents.

And yes, anyone choosing to design a rigorous study of homeopathy goes up against the organization that holds their careers in its hands. If your results produce any conclusion other than 'quackery', you would simply be labeled a 'quack'.

This point would only be valid if doctors still used these dangerous and ineffective treatments. They don't because those "treatments" have been shown not to work. This is the difference between real medicine and homeopathy. Are you sure you sure we disagree, because you've made a very good point in support of Western medicine. Furthermore, it is ridiculous to claim that homeopathy has overtaken Westerm medicine in efficacy because there no evidence to support the claims made by homeopathy advocates. Simply saying "It works!" doesn't make it so no matter how much you want it to.

I didn't claim that it has still overtaken it. I'm discussing history, something you seem vastly ignorant of. Homeopathy had overtaken it, because it was considered (by the general public) to be more effective a hundred years ago, when it was squashed by the big government monopoly. It may be nonsense, but I would prefer to see it excluded by a free market approach than by lies and extortion.

No one is preventing people from exposing homeopathy to the scientific method to see how it holds up. There is no law preventing this. Yet advocates are more interested in railing against real medicine than putting any effort into proving that their magical panacea actually does anything. My "talking points" are based on evidence. Your claim that I "worship" the claims of real medicine as "absolute truth" is ludicrous, as I have stated time and again that I am interested only in the science, not wild, unsubstantiated claims. The idea that I accept anything on faith is especially ironic given that I am specifically objecting to accepting homeopathy on faith simply because it's "alternative."

Did you do the research? Did you do the tests? You accept that the results are honest based on faith in 'science' and the inherent goodness of its practitioners. There is none.

And again, why would anyone want to do 'real research'? What do you think would happen if they did find some favorable results? You think the medical community would say, "Wow! I guess we were wrong!"? They wouuld not. They would label those researchers quacks and exclude them, again, using their big government monopoly. They've had a hundred years of practice.

I've made no strawman argument, and you obviously have no idea what the scientific method actually is if you believe you use it to select health care.

I tested the homeopathic treatments and observed their effect. This is the scientific method, right?

Rejecting Western medicine for homeopathy because it is possible for a scientist to be biased, manipulated, or dishonest is not a tenable position. It is the case that any person could be unreliable, and that is why in evidentiary-based medicine the studies and their results are published and examined by the reviewing authorities you seem to hate so much.

I have certainly not rejected western medicine. Who said that I did? Strawman, again?

I don't hate anyone. Unfortunately, they have proven themselves to be liars and I don't trust them.

That doesn't even resemble my claim. I don't think you should "instinctively trust" anyone. You certainly shouldn't conflate whatever fictional shadowy organization you're losing your mind over with legitimate medical researchers. Perhaps if you went to a real doctor you'd be pleased to discover that it is no longer common practice to balance the humours with blootletting or treat STIs with mercury.

Good grief, did I say that it was still a common practice? Do you even read the things you're responding to? The point is not that they still do these things. The point is that these things were becoming quite unpopular and the favored approach of the 'western' medical society was to keep doing it anyways and destroy their competition. What makes you think this approach has changed?

How do I find a 'real doctor'? This one was recommended by the top pediatric hospital in Chicago. Tell me, oh wise medical adviser, please just tell me.

I disagree. As long as this posters in this thread defend homeopathy and/or quack medicine in general as legitimate medical treatment it will be appropriate to point out that they are incorrect.

I haven't defended homeopathy. I, personally, have seen no positive effects from its treatments yet. We have so far seen better results from other kinds of treatments.

I do think that it hasn't been given a fair shake by the medical community, and it bothers me that government force was used to this end.

 

[jrogers]

And yes, anyone choosing to design a rigorous study of homeopathy goes up against the organization that holds their careers in its hands. If your results produce any conclusion other than 'quackery', you would simply be labeled a 'quack'.

The AMA doesn't require a vast conspiracy of research suppression to keep homeopathy on the fringes. Provide an example of valid research that returned a repeatable result in support of homeopathic efficacy. Surely you have such an example if you're willing to make such a bold statement about how the medical community would treat a researcher who makes such a finding. Otherwise it's simply paranoid conjecture and not meaningful debate.

I didn't claim that it has still overtaken it. I'm discussing history, something you seem vastly ignorant of. Homeopathy had overtaken it, because it was considered (by the general public) to be more effective a hundred years ago, when it was squashed by the big government monopoly. It may be nonsense, but I would prefer to see it excluded by a free market approach than by lies and extortion.

I'm discussing the merits of homeopathy and Western medicine, not the history thereof. It doesn't matter whether n people believed in the nonsense that passed for medicine and n+1 believed in the nonsense known as homeopathy hundreds of years ago because the discussion is about the testable efficacy of modern medicine vs. that of homeopathy. A "free market approach" is nonsensical when it comes to health care because without actual knowldege of the efficacy of the treatment it is impossible to make an informed decision.

Did you do the research? Did you do the tests? You accept that the results are honest based on faith in 'science' and the inherent goodness of its practitioners. There is none.

You have no idea what you are talking about. This is the old "but believing in science is just faith!" logical fallacy that is not worth taking seriously. A researcher doesn't have to be a good person. That's the entire point.

And again, why would anyone want to do 'real research'? What do you think would happen if they did find some favorable results? You think the medical community would say, "Wow! I guess we were wrong!"? They wouuld not. They would label those researchers quacks and exclude them, again, using their big government monopoly. They've had a hundred years of practice.

Presumably a group would undertake research in homeopathy to determine its efficacy. If they found that homeopathy is effective it would turn a great deal of our current understanding of
medicine on its head. If the studies are rigorous and repeatable then they would be accepted. There is no vast conspiracy. Tell me more about these hundreds of years of practice: what research proving the efficacy of fringe medicine has been suppressed for all that time?

I tested the homeopathic treatments and observed their effect. This is the scientific method, right?

That depends upon what you mean by "tested," but if you just swallowed something someone told you was homeopathic and then later got better then no, that is not the scientific method.

I have certainly not rejected western medicine. Who said that I did? Strawman, again?

You reject science itself on the premise that its practicioners are evil liars. You rail against modern medicine's hundreds of years of monopoly. You embrace unproven so-called "alternative" medicine. If you have not rejected Western medicine you certainly show a great many signs of doing so.

Good grief, did I say that it was still a common practice? Do you even read the things you're responding to? The point is not that they still do these things. The point is that these things were becoming quite unpopular and the favored approach of the 'western' medical society was to keep doing it anyways and destroy their competition. What makes you think this approach has changed?

It is disingenuous to pretend that modern, science-based medicine is the same as that which passed for mainstream medicine hundreds of years ago when treatments were not based on exhaustive research. Even if you are correct about what happened in the past that does not make modern medicine ineffective or homeopathy effective.

How do I find a 'real doctor'? This one was recommended by the top pediatric hospital in Chicago. Tell me, oh wise medical adviser, please just tell me.

Here's a tip for you: If a doctor, that is to say someone who holds an M.D. from an accredited medical school and is licensed to practice in your area, recommends homeopathic treatments to you then they believe that your complaint can be resolved via the placebo effect.

I haven't defended homeopathy. I, personally, have seen no positive effects from its treatments yet. We have so far seen better results from other kinds of treatments.

I do think that it hasn't been given a fair shake by the medical community, and it bothers me that government force was used to this end.

Homeopathy has been "given a fair shake by the medical community." Like any other treatment it must first be proven effective. That you inexplicably believe that there is some AMA/Federal Government hit squad waiting to swoop in on any researcher who makes a finding in support of the efficacy of homeopathy in order to suppress the evidence and crush the researcher's career does not make it the case. The problem is that practitioners of homeopathy, reflexology, crystal healing, et al. have no interest in pursuing such research because they're already doing just fine fleecing desperate people with treatments that are unproven at best. I'm well aware that it is a dominant opinion around here that our government should have no hand in consumer protection whatsoever, but sick people will clutch at any straw to get better, and to allow the promotion of unproven therapies as medicine is to allow the exploitation of the ill. When advocates of homeopathy and similar fringe treatments show more interest in raging against the medical community and promulgating ludicrous conspiracy theories than working to determine the actual efficacy of their procedures it certainly makes them seem less like woefully mistreated healers than opportunistic scam artists from my point of view.

 

[jamil]

Well someone has pooped on a potentially good topic. I wish the forum subscription mechanism could notify me when the side issue opinion bashing is complete and the discussion is back on topic.

 

[buckstopshere]

Well someone has pooped on a potentially good topic. I wish the forum subscription mechanism could notify me when the side issue opinion bashing is complete and the discussion is back on topic.

The role of the troll.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

How did I miss this one?!?!?!?!?!

6 days and this is all the response it has received? (I can't believe everybody else missed it too!)

I can only add that tort reform couldn't hurt, but it's hardly the critical factor in the boondoggle.

Yeah, I missed it too. Nice write up, Steve.

 

[Tsigos]

Medical malpractice (including procedures done for no reason other than avoiding lawsuits) makes up roughly 2.4% of total health care costs (2010 stats). I'm not necessarily against reforming it, but it really is a very small portion of the problem. I was surprised when I learned that, I had always touted tort reform as the answer to this problem. In my opinion, it is pushed by the medical industry as a red herring to distract from the real issues while possibly increasing their profit margin (when tort reform legislation is enacted).

Agreed. "Tort Reform" is a distraction at best. Many people on this board call for it without realizing that Indiana has already enacted tort reform. Nobody noticed because it did not decrease the cost of insurance or healthcare for Indiana residents. It did increase the profits of insurance companies and medical providers though.

 

[steveh_131]

Well someone has pooped on a potentially good topic. I wish the forum subscription mechanism could notify me when the side issue opinion bashing is complete and the discussion is back on topic.

You're right. It was an interesting topic that I researched well, but now I'm arguing against straw-man claims that I never made with a person who didn't even read the OP. I'm finished with that.

 

[steveh_131]

Agreed. "Tort Reform" is a distraction at best. Many people on this board call for it without realizing that Indiana has already enacted tort reform. Nobody noticed because it did not decrease the cost of insurance or healthcare for Indiana residents. It did increase the profits of insurance companies and medical providers though.

Good point. How long ago did we get tort reform? I certainly don't remember my premiums dropping.