כל מה דעביד רחמנא לטב עביד

מורדכי בן דוד – הכל לטובה – מונה 7

Published on Oct 16, 2017

……………………..ממלכת המוזיקה היהודית……………….
הצטרפו לעמוד הרשמי של ממלכת המוזיקה היהודית……
http://www.facebook.com/hjklhlshf

………..כל המוזיקה מכל העולם לכולם …………….

מאתר יוטיובכאן

שיר הרב שלום שבזי נגד הימורים

מאיר בנאי – המשחק בקוביא (אודיו)

Published on May 2, 2011
SUBSCRIBE 11K
Subscribe Subscribed Unsubscribe
► עמוד הפייסבוק הרשמי: http://www.facebook.com/Meir.Banai
► אתר אינטרנט: http://www.meirbanai.co.il/
► iTunes – רכישת שירים: https://itunes.apple.com/il/artist/me…
► מקום בעולם-הזמנת הופעות: booking@makombaolam.co.il / 052-7799027
———————————————————————————————————-

מילים: עממי
לחן: מאיר בנאי

המשחק בקוביא מכתו טריה
ואחריתו שאיה יקולל בשערים
יפזר ממונו ויוסיף עוונו
גם מורד בקונו בשבועות שקרים
יחשוב כי ירוויח ולעולם לא יצליח
ובימיו לא יפריח כי אחריתו מרורים
יאכל בחיפזון בלי ברכת מזון
גם ימצא רזון כעינוי כיפורים
יילך מעיר לעיר מקומו לא יאיר
והוא עני וצעיר מדלג על הרים

ראשו פרוע וביגדו קרוע
כי רוע ירוע לעצמו ולאחרים
כל אנשי ביתו שונאים אותו
ומצפים יום מותו בשמחה ובשירים

המשחק בקוביא יקולל בשערים
יפזר ממונו בשבועות שקרים
יחשוב כי ירוויח ואחריתו מרורים

המשחק בקוביא…

http://www.meirbanai.co.il/
http://www.facebook.com/Meir.Banai

מאתר יוטיוב, כאן.

American Medical Care

Free Market Medical System?

In this Fox article, Edward K. Glassman, my long ago Harvard classmate, author of Dow 36,000 (predicting Dow at that level by 2005), and current director of the George W. Bush Institute, extolls our free market medical system. The first reader to comment agrees that we have a “ free market” system, but thinks that “ profit based healthcare” should be “outlawed.” Another reader thinks that we actually have “socialized medicine.”

So what do we have? I think the most apt description would be crony capitalist medicine, one in which powerful special interests conspire with government officials to create legally mandated monopolies, with the specific goal of thwarting free market competition.

Here is how it actually works:

 1. Most people wonder why there are no visible prices in medicine. You only find out what the charge has been after the service has been delivered. There actually are prices, controlled prices, but you aren’t supposed to know what they are. Each year a committee of the American Medical Association recommends a set of prices to Medicare. The committee is dominated by medical specialists, so specialists tend to do particularly well. Medicare is actually run, not by government, but by private insurance companies, and these companies adopt these prices for private insurance purposes as well.

Congress further sweetened this price controlled system for hospitals by requiring Medicare to pay  more for the same service if provided by  hospital employees. This has inevitably led to local hospitals buying out most of the surrounding private medical practices, which has in turn created local medical service monopolies that feed patients to the hospital for its more costly services.

2. These monopolies are further sweetened for doctors by legally barring nurses, chiropractors, four year trained naturopathic doctors, and other health professionals from using the full extent of their medical training. In this way, the supply of medical services is constrained, which further raises prices.

3. Notwithstanding all the preceding, it is not the American Medical Association, which is itself financed by a monopoly in medical coding granted by the US government department of Health and Human Services, nor the hospitals, nor the medical doctors as a group that actually run the medical system. The top spot is reserved for the drug companies, which in turn share their largesse with the AMA, doctors, medical journals, media companies, and especially with politicians. In return, drug companies are granted a series of powerful monopolies, monopolies that are drive up the cost of medicine and, given the employer role in healthcare, destroy jobs, raises, and economic opportunity as well.

First, drug companies claim a legal monopoly when they patent a drug. The drug research may have been done by the government or by a university using government money but it doesn’t matter. The grant of monopoly stands.

Then the drug company takes the patented medication through the FDA approval process ( average cost of $3 billion over what can easily be a decade). Drug companies do not object to this ordeal, because the stiff price both eliminates any competition from unpatentable treatments and also flows into the salaries of FDA employees, who consequently tend to take a friendly view of drug companies and zealously guard the legal exclusivity of their products.

FDA enforcement includes armed raids and threats of a lifetime in jail for any producer who makes medical claims without permission. Even cherry and walnut growers have been threatened. The agency takes the position that for producers to make health claims for these heavily researched and very healthy “ superfoods,” they must first turn them into drugs through the drug approval process.

The end result is a narrow supply of licensed drug treatments that are often highly toxic and rarely cure anyone, both because curing the patient would end the gravy train, and also because drug side effects inevitably lead to the prescription of more drugs. If a treatment is safe, effective, and cheap, it is immediately purged from the medical system as “unapproved,” not “ standard of care,” when in effect its real defect is that drug companies cannot make billions from it.

For example, people who have acid reflux are more often than not suffering from a lack of stomach acid, not too much of it. The resulting incomplete digestion is the source of the problem.  They could cure it with acid supplements costing pennies, but nobody will ever tell them about this or suggest testing their acid production. Similarly, patients with frightening heartbeat irregularities are rarely told that they need more magnesium, a very cheap mineral,  although they may need it in IV or transdermal form for the same reason ( lack of stomach acid is interfering with absorption of the mineral). Instead,  reflux patients are given expensive prescription acid blocking drugs that pose a risk to the entire immune system, and have been linked to pneumonia, other infections,  bone loss, and many other medical calamities, while heart patients are put on prescription blood thinners that can themselves cause life threatening internal bleeding as well as bone loss and other problems.

No, this is not a free market system nor anything remotely close to one. In a genuine free market  system, prices reflect the decisions of consumers. Producers who solve significant problems are rewarded with high prices and profits. High prices and profits in turn attract lots of competition. The competition not only prevents monopoly. It also improves quality and very importantly increases supply, which is the only sustainable way to reduce prices. Consumers then get better medicine and ever lower prices. Producers dislike competition, and therefore try to buy government help in manipulating or fixing prices. This is more easily accomplished in medicine, because it can all be done under the guise of government “ protecting” consumers when actually the consumers are being fleeced and impoverished.

There are many honest and dedicated medical professionals sincerely devoted to the healing arts. But they are trapped in a system that can more accurately be described as a crony capitalist nightmare.

From LRC, here.

The State of the British National Health Service

Patients Are “Dying in Corridors” of Britain’s Socialised Health System

hallwa.PNG

01/23/2018 

“Patients dying in hospital corridors.” So went the headline which appeared on the BBC’s website last week, detailing the newest outrages which have emerged from Britain’s crisis-beset healthcare system. This most recent revelation came as a result of an open letter sent to the prime minister by 68 senior doctors, offering details of the inhuman conditions which have become common in the National Health Service’s hospitals.

The letter, which collected statistics from NHS hospitals in England and Wales, found that in December alone over 300,000 patients were made to wait in emergency rooms for more than four hours before being seen, with thousands more suffering long waits in ambulances before even being allowed into the emergency room. The letter further noted that it had become “routine” for patients to be left on gurneys in corridors for as long as 12 hours before being offered proper beds, with many of them eventually being put into makeshift wards hastily constructed in side-rooms. In addition to this, it was revealed that around 120 patients per day are being attended to in corridors and waiting rooms, with many being made to undergo humiliating treatments in the public areas of hospitals, and some even dying prematurely as a result. One patient reported that, having gone to the emergency room with a gynecological problem which had left her in severe pain and bleeding, a lack of treatment rooms led hospital staff to examine her in a busy corridor, in full view of other patients.

While it’s tempting to believe that these extreme cases must be a rare occurrence, the fact is that such horror stories have become increasingly the norm for a socialised healthcare system that seems to be in a permanent state of crisis. Indeed, as the NHS entered the first week of 2018, over 97% of its trusts in England were reporting levels of overcrowding so severe as to be “unsafe.”

Almost as predictable as the regular emergence of new stories of this kind is the equally unwavering refusal of British commentators to consider that the state-run monopoly structure of the system itself might be to blame. Many, including the prime minister herself, have pointed to the spike in seasonal illnesses such as the flu at this time of year, to distract from the more fundamental flaws of the system. However, officials from Public Health England recently went so far as to openly dismiss this as a major cause of the current healthcare crisis, clarifying that current levels of hospital admissions due to the flu are “certainly not unprecedented.” The aging of the population, and local councils’ failure to provide more non-hospital care have also been blamed.

By far the most commonly suggested remedy, however, is simply to inject more taxpayers’ money into this failing system. Indeed, the belief that Britain’s perpetual healthcare crisis is solely the result of funding cuts by miserly Conservative politicians is so widespread that it is almost never challenged, least of all by the trusted experts within the system itself, many of whom stand to benefit from increased funding.

However, the popular caricature of the NHS as suffering from chronic underfunding is simply a myth. In fact, even when adjusting for inflation, it is clear that government funding to the NHS has been increasing at an extraordinary rate since the turn of the millennium, much more quickly than during the early years which its supporters look back on so fondly.

pickering1.png

Indeed, under the Conservative government of 2015–16, almost 30% of Britain’s public services budget was spent on its monopoly healthcare system, compared with around 11% in the NHS’s first decade.

One commonly heard soundbite from supporters of the current system is that the Conservatives have allowed healthcare spending to slump to historically low levels; all it would take to return the NHS to the levels of success it supposedly previously enjoyed would be to increase its funding back to the same level it previously enjoyed, or so they say. However, to believe such a statement one would have to make two separate misinterpretations of the statistics, both so basic that they would strike shame into even the dullest high school math students: firstly, it is not the absolute amount of spending on the NHS which has fallen under the Conservative-led governments of 2010–18, but merely the rate at which spending is continuing to increase, even when adjusting for inflation. Second, the only reason that the rate of increase seems to have fallen is because of how disproportionately high it had been been under the infamously spendthrift Labour governments of 1997–2010.

Not only is the NHS not underfunded, but it suffers from dismally low efficiency in terms of healthcare bang per buck compared with similarly developed countries. This suggests that no matter how much its funding is increased, the current set-up is prone to chronically waste that money away.

To overcome these problems, reforms to the fundamental nature of the system itself are desperately needed, to increase the economic freedom of healthcare providers in the UK as well as the freedom of choice of consumers. In short, as long as British healthcare is organised as a taxpayer-funded state monopoly it will continue to fail, just as the other nationalised monopolies of the 1970s failed. To get to a point where the British public would even consider reforms of that kind, however, would require the breaking of a taboo that has defined the past 70 years of British politics.

George Pickering is the Almoayyad Fellow in Residence at the Mises Institute this summer, and is a student of economic history at the London School of Economics.

From Mises.org, here.