Simple Fact: None of the great famines of the last 100 years – Ukraine in the ’30s, Bengal in the ’40s, China at various times but focuses in the ’50s, India and Bangladesh in the ’60’s, Sub-saharan Africa in the ’70s, Ethiopia in the ’80s – was caused by a lack of food.
None. Zero. Every last one of the above was caused by government action.
A further simple fact: no place with a free market and a free press has ever suffered a famine. Every one of the famines above were caused by governments that had dictatorial powers, either structurally (most of them) or due to exigent circumstances (British-controlled Bengal in the early forties, in which the government assumed wartime powers over distribution and the press).
In every case above, but for government intervention (usually hostile, as in the case of the USSR, China and Ethiopia, but sometimes “well-meaning”, as with the spectacular, grisly failure of India’s foray into big-state socialism), the means – food! – existed to solve the famine.
Of course, it’s misleading to compare the Ukranian Famine of the ’30s – which was induced by Stalin’s Cheka/NKVD to force the collectivization of Ukrainian farmland – with India, whose hamfisted attempts at creating an industrial powerhouse by second-world means was such an incredible human catastrophe. Isn’t it?
Well, not if you’re starving.
All of that is just backgrond for this story; Hugo Chavez is sending the army to confiscate food from Venezuela’s food merchants, to “alleviate shortages”:
Venezuela’s top food company has accused troops of illegally seizing more than 500 tonnes of food from its trucks as part of President Hugo Chavez’s campaign to stem shortages.
The leftist Chavez this week created a state food distributor and loosened some price controls, seeking to end months of shortages for staples like milk and eggs that have caused long lines and upset his supporters in the OPEC nation.
Price controls? State distribution?
Yeah, goodness knows that’s worked so well every time it’s been tried.
Simple economic fact: You can not make something worth other than what people are willing to pay for it.
Artificially lower the price? Expect shortages; people will gladly pay $1 for $2 worth of product! Expect the black market to try to make up for the shortages; expect massive amounts of the artificially-cheap product to find their way to the black market.
Artificially raise the price? Expect the black market to fill the demand for cheaper.
Did someone say “black market?”
The highly publicised campaign has also included government crackdowns on accused smuggling, with the military seizing 1,600 tonnes of food and sending 1,200 troops to the border with Colombia.
Using the military to crack down on the black market caused by government-induced shortages?
Why, it’s like a “war on drugs”, only with food!
Jose Anzola, a director of food company Alimentos Polar, told reporters that troops stopped 27 of its trucks over the last three days and described the seizures as “illegal, arbitrary and irresponsible.”
Troops said they halted the transport of 350 tonnes of food to states along the Colombian border on suspicion of smuggling, he said. Another 165 tonnes were impounded in an eastern state on accusations of hoarding, he added.
In other words, he’s sending the military to undo peoples’ responses to the shortages his own government is causing.
Business leaders say shortages of these products are caused by strict price controls, which have lagged inflation that is Latin America’s highest.
Chavez is focusing on practical issues like food supply and crime after losing a December referendum that would have let him run for re-election indefinitely and expand his self-styled revolution.
He announced an increase of more than 30% in the retail price of milk in an effort to ease shortages that have created headaches for consumers of all social classes.
He also threatened to expropriate companies selling food above regulated prices.
“Anyone who is distributing food … and is speculating, we must intervene and we must expropriate (the business) and put it in the hands of the state and the communities,” Chavez said during the inauguration of a new state-run market in Caracas.
Let’s see how well that works.
Any bets?
BONUS QUESTION: What do you suppose happens when Hillary, Obie or Silkypony does the same exact thing to healthcare in the US?
RickDFL-
Wow. Based on the following statements, you have much grander plans than just creating single payer health care.
“Well first you eliminate the entire insurance underwriting industry, because there is no need to segregate risk factors. You eliminate most of the insurance marketing industry. Ditto most drug marketing. Eliminate most of the insurance claims industry and much of the billing department for health care providers.”
You are gutting/regulating significant sections of the US economy. You are moving from a free market system to a nationalized system. I hope the unemployment and upheaval are worth it. I guess you’ve got to break eggs to make an omelet. (hat tip: Duranty) In the main post above, Mitch lays out the consequences of those actions. See: Venezuela.
“Cut way back on drug prices and doctor fees.”
I’m assuming this is referring to some regulation of prices. See Mitch’s post above regarding consequences of that action.
“Redirect excess resources in high-end specialty clinics into primary and preventive care.”
This sounds like this is the rationing of resources I was speaking of earlier.
“Reduce medical malpractice costs and defensive medicine.”
I’m not sure how this can be accomplished without restricting people’s right to renumeration. Will government dictate that people can’t sue or cap the amounts? John Edwards may take umbrage with this idea. 🙂
This is kind of disappointing. I was hoping that I was going to be presented with something new that I hadn’t heard before. I guess all I see is a bunch of nationalization and restriction on people’s freedoms. In short, the exact same thing we see in other socialized health systems. Having lived in a country with one, this is not at all appealing.
When things are laid out on the table like this, how does one anticipate ever getting widespread support for such an idea?
Would you ever consider looking for solutions in the other direction? Such as reducing the amount of third party spending?
Terry:
1. “Who cares? You have less information than I have.” Then provide it. It will not show that Hawaii had a universal system or that it eliminated private health insurance of basic health care.
2. “the current Canadian system dates to 1984”
Wrong: “Since 1962, Canada has had a government-funded, national healthcare system founded on the five basic principles of the Canada Health Act. The principles are to provide a healthcare system that is: universally available to permanent residents; comprehensive in the services it covers; accessible without income barriers; portable within and outside the country; and publicly administered.” The 1984 law prohibited user fees.
3. I dislike the U.S. health care system because it is inefficient. It provides too little quality care for too much money. But you clearly get better care in an inefficient system that spends lots of money, than in an equally inefficient system that spends very little money. Most industrial countries in the OECD spend 10% of GDP on health care. That seems about right. The U.S. spends 5% too much, Russia 5% too little.
“health care in Russia is gauranteed and free at the point of use; if you want extra care you have to pay for it.” What in the world does this mean? Conceivably it describes every system in the world.
4. “You aren’t interested in that number because it will be far, far smaller than 47 million.”
You moron, I said early I was willing to stipulate to a number of 30 million legal citizens who wanted insurance but could not afford to purchase it. That is still one in every ten Americans.
Andrew:
“You are gutting/regulating significant sections of the US economy” And autos killed the horse carriage industry, so what. The sectors I listed are unproductive
Andrew:
“You are gutting/regulating significant sections of the US economy” And autos killed the horse carriage industry, so what. The sectors I listed are unproductive. They can get real jobs. Creative destruction and all that.
“I’m assuming this is referring to some regulation of prices. See Mitch’s post above regarding consequences of that action.” First, why not examine how other liberal democracies price drugs? Don’t you think that might be a better comparison? After all, in this case you are the one preventing me from buying Canadian drugs on the free market. Second, no one is forcing the drug companies to sell at a price dictated to them, ala Venezualian food producers. I just want them to negotiate a fair price with one or a few large scale purchasers.
“This sounds like this is the rationing of resources I was speaking of earlier.” Only is the sense that any economic system seeks to allocate resources away from unproductive enterprises and into productive ones. In most cases, e.g. commodities, consumer goods and services, ect, market competition does this most efficiently. But it does not work that way in health care.
“Will government dictate that people can’t sue or cap the amounts?” Sort of. Standards of care will be much clearer and well-defined. Plus, there will probably be a more robust non-legal grievance procedure to resolve disputes. John Edwards will live with it.
“all I see is a bunch of nationalization and restriction on people’s freedoms”
I don’t want to nationalize the provider systems (hospitals and clinics) and I am willing to allow private insurance companies to continue to sell policies for procedures and services not in the basic package. Basically the gov. would provide a low floor to provide basic coverage for all, but the private market could allow people to buy a lot of extra coverage up to a very high ceiling.
“Such as reducing the amount of third party spending?” Yes, that is what I achieve buy cutting back the private health insurance industry.
RickDFL-
You do know that the pigs in 1984 are the bad guys, don’t you?
Never claimed that it did. There’s that reading comprehension problem again, RickDFL.
As I wrote, the current system dates to 1984. The health act prevented patients from paying a doctor for services.
Nonsense. Dear boy, you hate the US system because it offers people choice. It allows them to spend their own dollars on the health plan they choose — or they can gamble and go without. You don’t like efficiency so much as you hate freedom.
You said you were willing to stipulate the number, but I didn’t agree to accept it. Reading comprehension again, RickDFL! If you can’t understand a few written sentences how in the world do you think you can redesign the US health system?
Terry: My inability to comprehend your writing has less to do with my reading ability and more to do with your ability to make a point with anything like clarity.
“it allows them to spend their own dollars on the health plan they choose — or they can gamble and go without. You don’t like efficiency so much as you hate freedom.” I like to play poker, but I lose everytime. Can I have something like $2,000 from you and every other American to go lose at the Casino? Of course not. In the same way, you do not get to gamble on your health care because it requires a system that costs me and every other American $2,000 a year.
Cancer woman runs out of time in NHS battle
Sarah-Kate Templeton, Health Editor
A WOMAN suffering from breast cancer has run out of time to benefit from a potentially life-extending drug which the National Health Service (NHS) denied her, even though she was prepared to pay for it.
Colette Mills has been told by doctors that in the four months since she asked for the drug the disease has taken such a hold in her body that the cancer will no longer respond to the treatment.
She is the victim of a ruling which states that any patient who wants to pay for additional drugs not prescribed by the NHS should lose their entitlement to their basic NHS cancer care and pay for all their treatment. She was prepared to pay for the drug but not her whole treatment.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/health/article3257529.ece
“Terry: My inability to comprehend your writing has less to do with my reading ability and more to do with your ability to make a point with anything like clarity.”
That’s because you think you can compare apples & oranges if you think it somehow helps your point.
“In the same way, you do not get to gamble on your health care because it requires a system that costs me and every other American $2,000 a year.”
Well, commisar RickDFL, I’m looking forward to reading your proposed laws against sodomy, divorce, drug use, and other voluntary activities that are associated with poor health & so cost you & me money.
You really are a fascist, RickDFL. People do not belong to society and they certainly do not belong to the state. Why don’t you move to Cuba? Seriously. You’d probably like it there.
“My inability to comprehend your writing has less to do with my reading ability and more to do with your ability to make a point with anything like clarity”
Ahahahahaha! RickDFL actually said this. Unbelievable!
Don’t treat the old and unhealthy, say doctors
By Laura Donnelly, Health Correspondent
Last Updated: 11:52pm GMT 26/01/2008
Have your say Read comments
Doctors are calling for NHS treatment to be withheld from patients who are too old or who lead unhealthy lives.
# Have your say: Should lifestyle play a role in deciding who gets NHS treatment?
Smokers, heavy drinkers, the obese and the elderly should be barred from receiving some operations, according to doctors, with most saying the health service cannot afford to provide free care to everyone.
Smoker – Don’t treat the old and unhealthy, say doctors
£1.7 billion is spent treating diseases caused by smoking, such as lung cancer and emphysema
Fertility treatment and “social” abortions are also on the list of procedures that many doctors say should not be funded by the state.
The findings of a survey conducted by Doctor magazine sparked a fierce row last night, with the British Medical Association and campaign groups describing the recommendations from family and hospital doctors as “outrageous” and “disgraceful”. [. . .]
http://tinyurl.com/2mqjew
Terry:
As I said earlier, once the U.S. has a universal HC plan for basic health care, I would be happy to allow (ala France) individuals to purchase additional coverage through private markets.
“That’s because you think you can compare apples & oranges if you think it somehow helps your point.”
So what are your apples to apples measures to compare health care systems?
“sodomy, divorce, drug use, and other voluntary activities that are associated with poor health & so cost you & me money” They do not cost anything like $2000 per person per year. The adverse health costs of tobacco, alcohol, and drugs (if legalized) can be and are captured through a special sales tax. Trying to enforce some sort of health fee on sexual behavior or most forms of personal behavior would clearly be unenforceable and ineffective.
It seems like you have completely given up the effort to show that the American health care system delivers higher quality care in any systematic way.
Terry wrote:
“You do know that the pigs in 1984 are the bad guys, don’t you?”
Yes, they were the ones who sent Boxer not to the vet, but to the knacker. No universal health care on Animal Farm.
“It seems like you have completely given up the effort to show that the American health care system delivers higher quality care in any systematic way.”
Reading comprehension again, RickDFL! I never made an “effort to show that the American health care system delivers higher quality care in any systematic way.”
Instead I’ve tried to get you to show that your proposed health care plan would be acceptable to most Americans. You’ve failed. No one determines the quality of their health care by checking the almanac to see how much GDP per capita their nation’s health care consumes, what average lifespan or infant mortality is. Bureaucrats and commissars measure health care that way.
On top of that you’ve more or less admitted that you’d consider taxing or penalizing some behaviours you consider ‘bad’ if you could only do so in an effective way. You said Trying to enforce some sort of health fee on sexual behavior or most forms of personal behavior would clearly be unenforceable and ineffective. “Unenforceable and ineffective”, not undesirable. This right wing, Church going conservative considers any such an effort not only undesirable, but ridiculous and loathsome at the same time.
You’ve also demonstrated a commissar’s callousness towards the people he supposedly serves with your callous remarks about the Canadian kid who had to wait years for an MRI to find out if he had cancer in his remaining kidney: The kid waiting for an MRI in Canada is cancer free. Not wasting resources on healthy people is a good way to save money. If the Canadians want to reduce wait times for MRIs they can spend some more money.
“Instead I’ve tried to get you to show that your proposed health care plan would be acceptable to most Americans.”
I think most Americans would accept and prefer a system that gives them guaranteed access to health care of equal quality for around $2000 less a year. Please explain why you think most Americans would reject that.
“On top of that you’ve more or less admitted that you’d consider taxing or penalizing some behaviours you consider ‘bad’ if you could only do so in an effective way.”
Yep me and almost every American support taxes on cigs and booze.
So what kind of callousness does it take to let 30 million U.S. citizens to go without health insurance. What do you say when they need treatment for cancer? Not mention the people with insurance whose provider rejects their claim or there desire for ‘experimental’ procedures or drugs.
“I think most Americans would accept and prefer a system that gives them guaranteed access to health care of equal quality for around $2000 less a year. Please explain why you think most Americans would reject that.”
Because you didn’t show that. Instead you acted the commissar and told people they really didn’t need them fancy MRI’s and the self-directed health care they’ve become addicted to was a luxury the nation couldn’t afford.
“Yep me and almost every American support taxes on cigs and booze.”
Except I was talking about behavior, not consumption. You are not a subtle thinker, RickDFL.
“So what kind of callousness does it take to let 30 million U.S. citizens to go without health insurance.”
Your number, not mine. How can it be callous to allow people to not buy insurance they can afford? How can it be callous not to force people to sign up for the medicaid they are already entitled to?
The people who really need help under the American system are people who fall between the cracks of medicaid and medicare, long term, and those people who are uninsurable and are looking at losing their life’s savings if (say) their cancer comes back.
You don’t need to put the government in charge of all health care to help those people, RickDFL. It could probably be done this year or next by congress. But you’re not in favor of that because it leaves people in charge of their own health care decisions. Not enough collectivism to satisfy RickDFL.
“Because you didn’t show that”
Which part do you dispute?
“Instead you acted the commissar”
I am just making a policy proposal, I am not forcing people to do anything undemocratically.
“told people they really didn’t need them fancy MRI’s and the self-directed health care they’ve become addicted to was a luxury the nation couldn’t afford.”
No, I said a universal system will provide equal or better care for less money.
“The people who really need help under the American system are people who fall between the cracks of medicaid and medicare, long term, and those people who are uninsurable and are looking at losing their life’s savings if (say) their cancer comes back. You don’t need to put the government in charge of all health care to help those people”
But a universal system would cover them and everyone else for less money, so why not do it? Why do you prefer a system that covers fewer people for more money?
RickDFL wrote “I won’t tax people who opt out as long as they agree to never ask for or receive any health care services in the U.S.”
So at present I have a choice to purchase any healthcare that I choose but under your “improved” system I can either opt out of your national health care plan or take part in it? The catch is that if I opt out and agree to purchase my own I cannot receive any health care services in the US?
…and you dont see this for what it is, the taking away of my liberty? In all fairness, why arent those who “opt out” (by not purchasing health care at present, especially those that aren’t even legal citizens) barred from receiving any services in the US now? Dont you see this as a double standard?
couleeman:
I think you’ll find that there is a lot that RickDFL doesn’t see.
Couleeman:
If there is a national health insurance plan, conceivably you could allow people to ‘opt out’. This would not mean ‘opt in’ to a competing private insurance plan b/c that would allow private plans to “cherry-pick” healthy individuals and leave the sick in the public plan. But conceivably you could allow people who opted out to purchase their own care directly from providers. Of course, the public insurance plan would probably require the providers to charge them a very high price, to capture lost revenue. Since sick patients who ‘opted out’ and needed treatment would be desperate, you could charge prices quite high. But all of that is quite theoretical, my only real point is that you can not allow free riders who refuse to pay into an insurance pool until they need the service. You don’t buy auto insurance after your car crashes.
The current system does not allow much in the way of liberty that you talk about. You do not usually get to refuse your companies health care plan in return for a big raise. Nor do you get to opt out of taxes to support the various kinds of gov. health care.