More evidence in support of the hypothesis by Ludwig von Mises of the impossibility of calculation in a socialist system was provided in a New York Times article from July 24, 2010 titled "Remaking British Health Care: The Doctor Is In, and in Charge."
The opening sentence of Sarah Lyall's article describes the inevitable reaction of all central planners to the reality of Mises's hypothesis: "Perhaps the only consistent thing about Britain's socialized health care system is that it is in a perpetual state of flux, its structure constantly changing as governments search for the elusive formula that will deliver the best care for the cheapest price while costs and demand escalate." I doubt Mises said it better himself. I know I cannot.
Paragraph #3: "Practical details of the plan are still sketchy. But its aim is clear: to shift control of England's $160 billion annual health budget from a centralized bureaucracy to doctors at the local level." This illustrates the tendency of central planners to redistribute power within the central plan, rather than question the central plan itself, when the central plan inevitably fails. Of course the primary reason for the failure of the central plan is the truth of Mises's hypothesis.
"The health secretary, Andrew Lansley, also promised to put more power in the hands of patients." This is the shameful first sentence of paragraph #6. Imagine a criminal organization granting you the privilege of self-ownership concerning your health care. Thank you, Master. More patient power, when the reader delves into the details, apparently means "how and where patients are treated ... with some of these choices going to patients."
Paragraph #9 notes that "critics ... doubt that general practitioners are the right people to decide how the health care budget should be spent." The libertarian bioethicist agrees with this criticism. Obviously, in a just society, patients would decide how the health care budget should be spent.
The 12th paragraph parrots a common market anarchist critique of anarchosyndicalist schemes. ""It's like getting your waiter to manage a restaurant," Mr. Furness said." Waiters are not owners; surely Mises wrote this line somewhere decades prior to my birth.
Paragraph #24 details the ultimate consequence of the impossibility of calculation in a socialist system: rationing of low-quality services. "People need to understand that while the needs of everyone may be met, their wants will be limited." This is a quote from Dr. Richard Vautrey, deputy chairman of the British Medical Association general practitioner committee.
I have nothing to add. Mises was right. The central planners of yesterday, today, and tomorrow are wrong.
The opening sentence of Sarah Lyall's article describes the inevitable reaction of all central planners to the reality of Mises's hypothesis: "Perhaps the only consistent thing about Britain's socialized health care system is that it is in a perpetual state of flux, its structure constantly changing as governments search for the elusive formula that will deliver the best care for the cheapest price while costs and demand escalate." I doubt Mises said it better himself. I know I cannot.
Paragraph #3: "Practical details of the plan are still sketchy. But its aim is clear: to shift control of England's $160 billion annual health budget from a centralized bureaucracy to doctors at the local level." This illustrates the tendency of central planners to redistribute power within the central plan, rather than question the central plan itself, when the central plan inevitably fails. Of course the primary reason for the failure of the central plan is the truth of Mises's hypothesis.
"The health secretary, Andrew Lansley, also promised to put more power in the hands of patients." This is the shameful first sentence of paragraph #6. Imagine a criminal organization granting you the privilege of self-ownership concerning your health care. Thank you, Master. More patient power, when the reader delves into the details, apparently means "how and where patients are treated ... with some of these choices going to patients."
Paragraph #9 notes that "critics ... doubt that general practitioners are the right people to decide how the health care budget should be spent." The libertarian bioethicist agrees with this criticism. Obviously, in a just society, patients would decide how the health care budget should be spent.
The 12th paragraph parrots a common market anarchist critique of anarchosyndicalist schemes. ""It's like getting your waiter to manage a restaurant," Mr. Furness said." Waiters are not owners; surely Mises wrote this line somewhere decades prior to my birth.
Paragraph #24 details the ultimate consequence of the impossibility of calculation in a socialist system: rationing of low-quality services. "People need to understand that while the needs of everyone may be met, their wants will be limited." This is a quote from Dr. Richard Vautrey, deputy chairman of the British Medical Association general practitioner committee.
I have nothing to add. Mises was right. The central planners of yesterday, today, and tomorrow are wrong.
RSS Feed
