In the preceding post, I spoke of the justifications offered by those who would legislate federally regulated health care. What these justifications lack is that they give no consideration to factors that have been driving
the cost of medical care through the roof for decades and to the very curious fact that, of all of the powers that Congress has chosen to appropriate unto itself, through distorting the original meanings of the “Welfare, Commerce, and Necessary and Proper” clauses of the constitution, it has steadfastly refused to assume the power under the “
Commerce Clause” to trump state laws and mandate that insurance policies can be bought across state lines. Such competition would go a long way in driving down the cost of health insurance.
Mandating that everyone participate in the government’s scheme is purportedly necessary, according to national health care proponents, in order to keep costs down. However, a very careful,
empirical study of this issue, published back in 1991 by researchers at Bentley College, now Bentley University, did not find support for this purported necessity.
To determine the effects of government on the performance of the health care sector, the researchers studied differences in infant mortality rates in 20 countries that belonged to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) during the six adjacent half decades from 1960 to 1985, using highly technical analyses involving
multiple regression. [Note: infant mortality rates were chosen for this international study, which included the U.S., for very specific, reasons, the rationale for which the authors spell out carefully in the article. Regarding their research purpose, they write:
This paper examines government involvement in health care from both a theoretical and empirical standpoint. From a theoretical perspective, government involvement in health care matters may have an adverse impact on the quality of care. Numerous analyses of other sectors of the economy have found that both the quantity and quality of output suffers from public intervention and regulations. In particular, analysts use the postal system, local schools, rent control laws, and the pre-deregulated transportation sector as prime examples of areas in which government enterprise and regulations have inhibited efficiency….Moreover, Canadian policymakers have recently begun to question the desirability of their own health care delivery system….
They write later:
Indeed, the theory of public choice…[and] the theory of government enterprise…and the theory of economic regulation…all suggest that more government involvement is very likely to have an adverse, rather than a beneficial, impact on the performance of the health care sector....
After analyzing their data, the Bentley researchers found that
“The empirical results suggest that greater government involvement has no impact on infant mortality….Clearly, the results lend no support for the point of view that greater government involvement reduces mortality, at least not among infants....
“The results [also] fail to support the basic hypothesis that greater government financing leads to a lower level of health care spending.”
The researchers, thus, concluded:
Our results raise serious doubt about the desirability of a national health care program in the United States. Evidently, government is unable to influence infant mortality or control total health care spending. But what about other roles for government in the health care sector? [Emphasis added.]
Perhaps government can indirectly improve the performance of the health care sector by creating an environment that allows the macroeconomy to function properly. Our results indicate that infant mortality is greatly influenced by higher levels of real GDP. The more favorable socioeconomic conditions associated with higher levels of income apparently lead to better health care outcomes. If so, ensuring macroeconomic growth is a good strategy for lowering infant mortality.
Alternatively [they suggested], from a microeconomic perspective, the government might encourage the allocation of inputs to the medical services industry. Our empirical study also finds that more abundant medical services cause infant mortality to decline by a substantial percentage. Certainly, the government should not adopt regulations that negatively affect the quantity and quality of medical inputs….
And, they had one additional suggestion to offer from their data.
From a slightly different microeconomic perspective, the government can help foster better health through education. The results suggest that better educated populations are associated with lower infant mortality rates. Indeed, the recent campaign to wipe out illiteracy in the United States could, if successful, have a tremendous impact on infant mortality. Furthermore, local schools might devote more resources to health education.
Of course, more studies are needed before any empirical generalizations can be made and policy implications can be safely drawn. Our suggestions for an appropriate government role are cautiously prescribed, and we eagerly await other opinions. Future studies should attempt to untangle the effects of government financing and production on the performance of the health care sector. Providing free access to private medical care, as does the Canadian health care system, may have an impact different from that of the national health care system of Great Britain, where production is nationalized. In our study, we were unable to separate and measure the differential impacts of these two kinds of health care programs. It is hoped that other researchers will pursue that fruitful line of inquiry.
It should be noted that since this study was published nearly two decades ago, the relative standing of the USA in the world regarding infant mortality has declined even further.
In 1990, the U.S. ranked #23 among the countries having the lowest infant mortality rates. This standing had
declined from the #12 position in 1960, a drop of eleven rank positions in 30 years. But, the drop in the past 19 years has been precipitous,
declining to #44 (about three times as rapid as the decline in the preceding 30 years), as estimated by the CIA’s World Factbook in 2009. This is after dropping to
the 30th rank in 2005, which represents almost a ten-fold increase, since 2005, in the rate of decline in infant survivability, relative to the 30-year interval between 1960 and 1990.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) website states: “Infant mortality is an important indicator of the health of a nation….” And, it further indicates that “Much of the high infant mortality rate in the United States is due to the high percentage of preterm births.”
About 8 years ago, I did an analysis of data supplied by the CDC, correlating the percentage of a state’s water supplies having fluoridation and infant mortality in the state. I found a positive, statistically significant rank correlation of about 0.53, which indicated that the higher fluoridation level in the state, the higher the infant mortality rate. This was a surprisingly high correlation, given the crudeness of the measures.
Other studies have found similar results, including a
very recent one.
But, the CDC has steadfastly promoted public water fluoridation as one of the ten top medical achievements of the 20th Century, despite an ever increasing body of evidence which shows that this position is that of the waxing ecstatic over the “Emperor’s New Clothes.” Even after a indicting report by an investigative committee for the National Research Council (NRC), they have remained in denial. Thus, this federal agency remains committed to policy that is damaging the health of the citizenry by coercive control of one of the most fundamental requirements of life—drinking water. This is a clear insult to the Constitution and a travesty for each and every American, who is taken in by the mantra, “I’m from the government and I’m here to help you.”
Another federal agency, the EPA, has played its role in the “Freedom Follies” to which we are all spectators. The EPA sets Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) for pollutants in drinking water. It has set the MCL for arsenic at 10 parts per billion (ppb). It has set the MCL for lead at 15 ppb. Now, fluoride is more toxic than lead and only slightly less toxic than arsenic, so at what level do you think the EPA has set the MCL for fluoride in public drinking water? Logically, it should be somewhere in between the levels for arsenic and lead and closer to the level for lead, right? Maybe 11 or 12 ppb?
WRONG! Take a wild guess at where it has been set now for many years and even several years after the NRC report recommending that it be lowered. Try 4,000 ppb!!!
Now, is it not folly to trust anything the federal bureaucrats tell us? Obviously, there have been payoffs by corporate lobbying interests.
In the following video interview…
“…Christopher Bryson, an award-winning journalist and former producer at the BBC, discusses the findings of his new book The Flouride Deception. EARLY REVIEWS of The Fluoride Deception: "Bryson marshals an impressive amount of research to demonstrate fluoride?s harmfulness, the ties between leading fluoride researchers and the corporations who funded and benefited from their research, and what he says is the duplicity with which fluoridation was sold to the people. The result is a compelling challenge to the reigning dental orthodoxy, which should provoke renewed scientific scrutiny and public debate." -- PUBLISHERS WEEKLY
So, we’ve been had, folks, as we have watched the federal government’s ongoing performance of the FREEDOM FOLLIES, in each episode of which we have been led, insidiously, to believe that we are being protected and that our freedom is being ensured. Nothing could be further from the truth. NOTHING!
