Eye Didn't Know!

Free To Choose?

Most Americans today are clueless as to why our country is prosperous and many other countries are poor. Most in government today think that more and more government control of our medical system and our economy is a good thing.

Milton Friedman (1912-2006) understood before most of us that a free society was the route to a prosperity. I read his book, Free to Choose: A Personal Statement, during college, and it has influenced my thought ever since. 

Mart Laars, however, read his book as Estonia was achieving its freedom from the Soviet Union. At 32 years of age, Laars became Estonia's prime minister and instituted Friedman's ideas (for example, a flat tax, and privatizing industries). Estonia's prosperity has been a resounding success, while other former soviet states are mired in poverty, governed by statist thugs.

John Stossel, as always, introduces these ideas of freedom with clarity on his network television show. If you want intellectual ammunition to argue against the government takeover of medicine and of the economy, the ideas of Milton Friedman (and John Stossel!) are a good place to start.

Chiropractic Pseudoscience

What's the rationale behind the chiropractic field?

It's easy to trace the hierarchy and progression of scientific ideas behind most medical science (just as it's easy to show that medicine was pretty primitive 100 years ago). 

Medical students learn the biology, physiology, biochemistry, anatomy, pharmacology, pathology, and so on, of human diseases. Treatment of these diseases is mostly based on evidence, the gold standard being the double-blind, controlled clinical trial.

Most physicians and most of the public have no idea what chiropractic treatment is based on, beyond a vague notion of spinal manipulation. Evidently chiropractors themselves split themselves into a wide number of camps, depending on their belief systems regarding how much spinal manipulation can affect physical conditions, and how widely they wish to wander into other areas of alternative (non-evidence based) care, such as acupuncture, herbs, homeopathy, etc.

Here is an excellent video designed to educate the public of the philosophy behind chiropractic care. What intrigues me is that it most resembles a pre-scientific, faith-based belief system, rather than a science. 

The video was made in response to the incredible lawsuit by the British Chiropractic Association against the free-speech rights of a British scientist, Simon Singh, who publicly criticized chiropractic. 

It is important that science be able to advance without being stifled by the legal intimidation of lawsuits such as this. It is also important that the public be made aware of the lack of a rational foundation behind practices such as homeopathy and chiropractic. (I'm not sure, though, if what most people believe is really guided by reason).

Luckily, few chiropractors, that I am aware of, make claims that spinal manipulation is effective in treating disorders of the eye. This may be, in my opinion, because most eye diseases have fairly objective measurements, such as visual acuity, refractive error, or intraocular pressure, which are measurable and less susceptible to the placebo effect, which is the only likely benefit of many non-scientific treatments.

There are many ways to treat physical conditions, but not all of them are based on reason or evidence. Caveat emptor.

Medicare. Why Not Foodcare?

Here's a thought experiment. Which is more important, food, or medical care?

Why does food continue to improve in quality, yet decline in price?

Since government forces us into Medicare at age 65, shouldn't we all be forced into Foodcare? Why not?

Economist Mark Skousen elaborates on these ideas here.

What would real health reform look like?

For the answer, read this excellent article in January's issue of Reason Magazine.

Hint: it looks nothing like Congress's or our president's idea of "reform." 

The Singapore Alternative

Many people claim that health savings accounts, such as those used successfully at Whole Foods Market, cannot work on a large scale. John Stossel reports that Singapore uses health savings accounts as the model for their national health care. Almost 2/3 of medical expenditures are controlled by the individual. As a result, healthcare costs are less than half those of France, where the state controls almost all expenditures.

Read more about here.

Health Care Reform?

John Stossel interviews John Mackey, of Whole Foods Market, who provides a tested alternative to the  health care "reform" making its way through Congress. 

Unlike Congress's "reform", which, of course, will do nothing of the sort, John Mackey's Health Savings Accounts have been enthusiastically endorsed by his employees, have provided them with control over their health care spending, and have lowered costs.

The following video is part one of seven, which are all available by clicking on the You Tube logo in the corner of the screen.

How To Fix Health Care

Do you think more government is the solution to health care costs? 

Think about the cost of education, military, highways, and health care, which are all virtual government monopolies. Costs which have skyrocketed, with questionable quality. 

Now think about the rest of the economy. Computers, televisions, clothing, and for-profit medicine, such as lasik eye surgery. Costs have plummeted, and quality has increased exponentially. 

This is what happens when people are free to buy and sell as they please. Natural incentives encourage innovation, price-shopping, increasing quality, and lower costs. 

The following video explains succinctly, and clearly, how our government has mandated perverse incentives into the tax code and insurance laws which have created the monster which is today's health care, and three simple, common-sense solutions. 

Are these solutions discussed ANYWHERE in the proposed healthcare overhaul? Fat chance. 

Thanks to Dr. Maloney for contributing to this fine video.

 

Health Care Costs

Did you know? Imagine a restaurant where you don't pay for your food. Everyone else in the restaurant pays your bill. Imagine that none of the other diners pay for their food. You, and everyone else pay for their meal. Do a thought experiment as to what would happen to expenses at this restaurant. 

With everyone else paying for your food, you would likely indulge in the finest, most expensive food on the menu. As would everyone else at the restaurant. The restaurant would keep raising prices, as demand would keep rising. If all restaurants were forced to operate in this way, costs would explode, and dining would assume a greater and greater share of the nation's economy.

Do the same thought experiment with haircuts. Housing. Automobiles. Computers. Televisions. It is obvious that costs would rise in each situation.

Medical Care.

Oops, that situation today exists for most medical care.

Two historical events provided the incentives for this situation. In World War II, wage and price controls (never a good idea) were imposed. Employers wanted to reward their employees in other ways, so the government mandated that health insurance could be provided tax-free. Thus began the link between employment and insurance, and the incentive for insurance to become bloated, providing for more than just catastrophic illnesses and accidents, like insurance was designed to do.

Second, Medicare and Medicaid were started in the 1960s to provide "free" health care for seniors and the poor, thus creating the situation like the restaurant above. 

John Stossel, as usual, hits the nail on the head in this excellent video:

For a way out of this mess, John Mackey, president of Whole Foods Markets, provides these clear, economically sound solutions.

What is an ophthalmologist?

Did you know? I often find it surprising how many people do not know the difference between an ophthalmologist and an optometrist. For this subject, I will defer to the American Academy of Ophthalmology website. "One source of confusion stems from the fact that optometrists are often referred to as eye doctors although, unlike ophthalmologists, they do not have medical degrees... An Eye M.D. (ophthalmologist) receives a minimum of 12 years of education, which typically includes four years of college, four years of medical school, one or more years of general clinical training and three or more years in a hospital-based eye residency program, often followed by one or more years of subspecialty fellowship." That would explain why so many ophthalmologists have gray hair when we finish training!

Did you also know? In many offices optometrists are part of a team which may consist of ophthalmologists, optometrists, opticians, ophthalmic medical assistants, ophthalmic technicians, ophthalmic photographers, and nurses. A full explanation of all of these skilled professions is found at the American Academy of Ophthalmology.