Quick Roundup 514

Barack Obama vs. Hippocrates

Paul Hsieh's upcoming article in The Objective Standard will discuss one crucial aspect of Barack Obama's physician slavery proposal that has not been getting enough attention:

How state-run medicine keeps physicians from doing what is best for their patients.That British doctors would not administer these outlawed treatments is unsurprising: Breaking the law has consequencesc. But why did these doctors withhold information from their patients regarding treatments that were "widely available throughout Europe"? After all, patients rely on their physicians for information about treatment options--including an honest appraisal of all the risks, benefits, and alternatives--so they can make fully-informed decisions about their lives. Failure to disclose such information is a serious breach of a doctor's Hippocratic oath. [minor format edits]

Because, with some treatment options taken off the table by the government, some physicians judged providing such information potentially more "upsetting" or "confusing" than it was worth.

The idea that the government can magically grant "access" to all medical treatments to all people all the time is a lie. Hell, under socialized medicine, we won't even necessarily have "access" to the best medical information. Instead, we'll live under the threat of de facto censorship of the range of medical information our doctors can provide us.

In two related posts, Amit Ghate points to an editorial by a doctor (and relative of Barack Obama) who opposes physician slavery and posts on the recent desperation move (quoting Paul Hsieh) by Nancy Pelosi to force a "Health Care" vote this week.

From the former:

This free-market approach has worked for everything from high-definition TVs to breakfast cereals, but will it work for medicine? It already is. Take Lasik eye surgery, for example. Because patients are allowed to be informed consumers and can shop anywhere, doctors work hard for their business. Services, availability and expertise have all increased, and costs have decreased. Should consumers demand it, insurance companies - now answerable to you rather than your employer - would cover it.

And from the later:

I personally think that the most important thing we can do in the next few days will be to directly contact our Congressmen and have friends/family do the same.

If you read nothing else on the web today, get outta here and read that entire post.

The Grapes of Wrath in Reverse

Michael Roston of Newsbroke takes a look at recent economic trends in California vis a vis migration to Oklahoma. Eight counties in the former have unemployment rates in excess of 20%. The latter has gained residents from California every year for over a decade. He concludes:

The Joads have spent a few generations in California and may be wondering if they left a little too much behind on that dusty farmland where their Okie forebears squatted. And with more than 1 in 4 people jobless in Imperial, the county that abuts San Diego County in southern California, the ones going east to destinations like Oklahoma City just might be making the right bet.

We'll forgive Roston's obvious amazement that nice, inexpensive places to live exist in "flyover country:" It's an interesting point.

All I can add is that it's not so much what the Joads may have left behind, but what the fools in California didn't turn Oklahoma into: An immoral and impractical, freedom- and wealth- destroying welfare state.

(Intentionally) Blurry Vision towards the Left

Amit Ghate's most recent piece in Pajamas Media discusses a crucial distinction the Left has obfuscated for decades.

The left's modus operandi then, is to denounce the open use of "violence," while promoting and condoning every other form of force.

Indeed, under the left's influence and urging, government now exerts force against its own citizens in myriad and ubiquitous ways. It forcibly takes our tax dollars to fund public schools -- leaving us with little choice or means to give our children the education we consider best. It decides which drugs can and can't be tested; how approved drugs are to be marketed; and which patients, no matter how willing they are to take a risk, qualify for experimental drugs, etc. It regulates commerce and trade in issues ranging from trivial to critical. Just ask any businessman how many arbitrary rules he must heed every single day -- under punishment of fine, closure or even jail. Everything from the placement of signs, to interview questions, to campaign contribution limits -- even pricing! -- is dictated to businessmen.

The initiation of force, whatever its form, is always immoral. The left wants us to wallow in moral self-doubt about "violence" (i.e., the use of force in self-defense) while it illegitimately occupies the moral high ground -- and uses force against us willy-nilly.

Three Cheers for the "Robber" Barons

SB excerpts from a Letter to the Editor that appeared recently in the Wall Street Journal:

Eighth graders understood the concept.

Our President clearly does not.

-- CAV