Bumrungrad, Bangkok Thailand the real Free Market Healthare

Michael Moore takes us to Canada; he takes us to Cuba, but where do we go to hear the other side of the story--where do we go to see fully functioning free market healthcare? One place is Bumrungrad Hospital in the downtown of Bangkok, Thailand.

I made an appointment to see a dermatologist on the internet the day before and in less than 6 hours, I got my first choice time of 6:15pm the next day. From entering the hospital to when I was seen by a doctor took 14 minutes--from when the care was finished, billing, and leaving the hospital, 5.

I was proscribed a topical cream for some dermatitis on my shoulder. I paid 1,800 baht for everything, which is 53$ out of pocket, no insurance. I think that is about 3 times cheaper and 5 times quicker than anything I have ever experienced in the US. To get an appointment the next day, to my mind, was outrageous.

The Free Market: Helping People Help Each Other.

Thailand's booming medical industry would love for the US government to limit is choices of healthcare services, because huge numbers of people will just come get their healthcare here where the division of labor and rational property structures exist, and therefore prices are naturally low and resources abundant.

Trickle Down Is a Myth. So, Why Are We Doing It?

It comes tripping from the lips of millions "Trickle down is a myth!"

And who could disagree? When has a class of super rich led to economic development?

So my only question is, why does the current administration embrace trickle down as their central economic policy?

Making sure that huge conglomerate banks are flush with cash, and the Federal Government, the largest coorperation in America, can still borrow trillions, is not going going to lead to a trickle down to the middle class, much less, to the poor.

There is no defense for it. The stable foundation of economic recovery can only come from allowing people the freedom to experiment with new systems of barter and money.

Economics and buddhism

Just as the Ocean has a single flavor, the flavor of salt, so this teaching has single flavor, the flavor of freedom.
--The Buddha, The Numbered Discourses (Anguttaranikaya)--

Economics is the study of coping with unease. Buddhism is the study of coping with unease.

Economics' primary concern is with means, and has no way to evaluate the ends of individuals. Buddhism is the science of each individual's evaluation of their own ends.

The social economy optimizes means with given knowledge and resources. Buddhism optimizes ends with given knowledge and resources.

In both, the individual is still the end all be all of the study, although in economics, individual express their values through exchange, leading to money, and therefore prices, which create what is considered a social economy - competition, advanced division of labor, etc. In reality, there is no social economy either, just a cattalaxy of individual evaluations and actions. In buddhism there is no analogy, there is no social-buddhism nor cattalaxy.

In economics we seek choice in order to have satisfaction. In buddhism we want the "softness" that comes from the freedom from delusion.

The question "What do you want?" begins to overflow its material boundries and triviality to become a worthy, philosophical, and pressing question.

In our times, accidental material forces, particularly the expansion of the divison of labor and the improvement of capital and technical means, are making an afluence of means available to many individuals who already possess a scarcity of ends. The study of buddhism promises the enhancement of their individual ends.

Copywrite-Smoppywrite, why society might be better off with fewer monetary incentives

Just a rant, thoughtful article was written by my friend Igor, see links.

Adam Smith wasn't right about everything. For example, trade, which Adam Smith concluded is a natural and spontaneous behavior in human beings is not spontaneous, but only takes place under one set of conditions: when two people find that the other has something they want more than what they have and are both willing to part with what they have. However, there are things that humans do spontaneously: they create.

Creating has an intrinsic value for creators, a value that they take into account when deciding how to spend their time. However, the value of creation for the creator is socially undervalued. Copywrite and patent laws depend on the assumption that creative types would not lift a little finger unless it were for expected commercial profit. Creators will still create without copywrites.

Want to read a book published only for money? Do we want to live in a culture that is cluttered with music and books extracted from creators in exchange for money along side books and music produced because the creator chose to produce it?

Of course, pharmacuetical companies want infinite patents to protect their R and D investements, but is that best for society? It might be profitable to keep everyone sick and on medications, but the market inviability of drug R and D only goes to show that there are more beneficial alternatives for human health. Genetics, stem cell, nano-, and bio-tech, all promise treatments and preventions far more effective and long term than drugs. Lo and behold, in many cases they are cheaper. Could it be that the price mechanism has already identified the obselence of drug therapies in favor of technical treatment and genetic prevention?