Milton Friedman Speaks: The Economics of Medical Care (B1234) - Full Video
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 20 мар 2016
- Increasing government involvement in medical care will take us toward fully socialized medicine. This trend is clearly against the interests of patients, physicians, and other health care personnel. There is, of course, no such thing as "free" health care--you either pay for it directly, or via the tax system, with bureaucrats taking their usual cut along the way. The reality of the situation is that government involvement in the economics of medical care leads directly to higher costs for that care. There is no special role for government in medical care. Government should do there only what it does in other fields: Enforce laws against fraud and deception, and offer some assistance (comparable to flood or tornado relief) to those in extreme medical distress. Recorded at Mayo Foundation, Rochester, MN ©1978 / 45:26.
Check out our Facebook page here: / freetochoosenetwork
Visit our media website to find other programs here: freetochoosemedia.org/index.php
Connect with us on Twitter here: / freetochoosenet
Learn more about our company here: freetochoosenetwork.org/
Shop for related products here: www.freetochoose.net/
Stream from FreeToChoose.TV here: freetochoose.tv/ 
Развлечения
Love listening to Milton speak , his lectures should be mandatory in schools
I live in the UK and this has made me think of something. If we were to get rid of the monopolistic organisations that give out licenses to practice medicine, we could encourage more specialisation within medicine and reduce barriers to entry. Organisations will be set up that provide their own qualifications and/or membership for doctors, and they will be able to compete with each other. Organisations with high standards will attract doctors because they will give them more credibility with the public, thus balancing keeping healthcare prices down with maintaining good quality. Organisations will also be able to make a wider range of qualifications and make them more flexible. For example, they could offer qualifications for specific procedures and fields, as well as having very difficult qualifications that doctors could pursue to prove they are the best of the best. This will give consumers much more freedom and choice as well as increasing the number of doctors.
Yes agreed! Occupational licensing is a disaster as many other laws "intended to protect the consumer" like patents and the FDA but they all end up harming the consumers more than protecting them.
Prices only know two things: Supply and Demand. To reduce prices you must either reduce the demand for services or increase the supply of services. Medical care needs more supply but the AMA isn't into that. They want less Dr's not more.
In case you think (like so many Americans do) that Canada has it right. Not so. The admission of students to medical school is totally insufficient relative to needs of general population. I'm an old guy. My Doc retired, no one in his practice took on his patients therefore everyone had to seek another doctor. I live in a fair sized city but no doctors are taking on new patients. Result...? I have no doctor.
The system is rigged ( Culprit...? BCMA.).
Or price gouging laws could apply to pharmaceutical companies because people in imminent danger of death or serious bodily harm are in a state of emergency imo, and you could create more competition in the pharmaceutical companies with generic drugs to combat high prices. or you can reduce their patent times. Right now if a drug is made by someone they can patent it and have a monopoly for 20 years over the price of the drug.
Do you see what Friedman did here? He went into the belly of the best and told them exactly what they didn't want to hear.
He was a real intellectual unlike the pseudointellectuals of these days
The patent system is an example of government failure. Its designed to help, but ultimately hurts.
The UBI advocates should quote Friedman @ 44:22
"The problem of poverty is money, we ought to ... assure a minimum level of income and let people spend it the way they want"
Interesting, tks for posting
This is an interesting historical take on the health care system, circa 1978. There were already calls for an expanded national system for health care during this time, with Ted Kennedy the leading advocate. Until the ACA, there was no significant policy adopted in this direction. I wonder if Mr. Friedman maintains the same views after nearly 40 more years of a private insurance-based system? He states in this speech that health care is very much affordable by the average American family - this appears to be far less true now than it was then. More importantly, the number of low-income people who cannot afford health care has grown significantly as a percentage of the population. How can a free market solve these problems? Would removing government regulations such as doctor licensing (or the AMA in general), as he suggests here, reverse this trend?
He's dead so I don't think he maintains any views.
He passed away, as did the great George Carlin :-(
This couldn't be more relevant today, imo, but it isn't the cure all by any means. You have to stretch your imagination a little further and legalize all drugs.
"Nothing scare me about the notion of drugs being legal, what scares me is a notion of continuing on the path we're on now which will destroy our free society making it an uncivilized place." -- Milton Friedman
At the 10:40 mark during this interview on drug policy: ruclips.net/video/FKm2AXIOymI/видео.html
If you get a chance, a film on Amazon popped up called The Business of Disease. Our medical care system does not serve the best interests of everyone because the FDA can't patent everything in existence, but that's just my take. I think pharmacological freedom, and prescriptive authority, should be an individual's right.
I'm just a regular Joe, who understands little about health economics... However, if healthcare is so expensive today, maybe, and I say maybe, is just because of government interference policies, as he stated about it.
Healthcare industry has always been heavily regulated and not really a free enterprise. The increase of percentage of low-income people who can afford healthcare is due to the general economic progress and healthcare innovations and inventions DESPITE NOT BECAUSE OF government interference. The industry in the US still has been relatively more free compared to other countries. Ten out of top 20 biggest pharmaceutical companies in the world are in the US. Switzerland follows as the second with only 2 out of those top 20. The US healthcare and pharmaceutical technology is much more advanced and innovative compared to the rest of the world because the market has been relatively more free.
The biggest reason it costs more on low income people is b/c the pricing system is based on the maximum that insurance companies will pay the provider, which really shows it isn’t based on prices set by the market anymore under ACA as the Govt is now essentially mandating what the Insurance Company does. The biggest reason though is b/c the American Healthcare System is more sophisticated not just in terms of technology, procedures & types of medicine; but b/c Americans expect many different services from Healthcare providers that other countries simply don’t impose on there providers.