Jump to content
Head Coach Openings 2024 ×
  • Current Donation Goals

    • Raised $2,716 of $3,600 target

The Coronavirus - a virus from eating bats, an accident or something sinister gone wrong?


swordfish

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, swordfish said:

https://babylonbee.com/news/pence-cancels-general-election-to-stymie-coronavirus?fbclid=IwAR1xWANqQoT_bkRXoFkP_G6nQKcjvklsP68XFPzNVXOWdWFDDzThTdQhtLw

WASHINGTON, D.C.—In real news that totally actually happened, President Trump has announced that in the interest of public safety, the 2020 presidential election has been canceled.

“It’s just too risky,” President Trump told the press while standing behind a sneeze guard. “We’ll get all these people gathered together at rallies or lined up to vote, and they’re all going to get sick. And Bernie and Biden -- they’re just so old. Sending them around crowds campaiging is basically trying to murder them. Anyway, it just seems pointless for a bunch of people to die when everyone knows I was going to win anyway.”

Trump has been a divisive figure in the past, but so far everyone has agreed with this move. The New York Times, which usually opposes absolutely everything Trump does, wrote an editorial in support of canceling the election. “It’s a smart, science-driven move,” the editorial said. “As important as democracy is, it’s just not worth dying over.”

Joe Biden and Bernie Sanders also seemed very relieved by the announcement, as they’re both very tired and worried about getting sick. Sanders was especially happy, telling the press, “You know, for a few moments there, it really seemed like I might win, and I didn’t know what was going to happen if people actually expected me to follow through on all that free stuff.” Sanders is now deciding in which of his three houses to self-quarantine.

🤣🤣

So it's true that the "Russians" were the base cause of COVID-19.  I thought so.

 

  • Haha 1
  • Disdain 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, There Are Libertarians in Pandemics: https://reason.com/2020/03/10/actually-libertarians-are-why-youll-probably-survive-this-pandemic/

Quote

It's almost never a good idea to use a public health crisis to score points against your political opponents—and if you're going to do it, you really ought to try to describe the situation accurately.

Actually, that second part applies even when there's no public health crisis.

It has, however, become fashionable for certain elements of the Very Online Left to use the ongoing coronavirus outbreak as evidence that libertarians either don't actually exist or that we quickly abandon our principles in the face of a pandemic. This recent outbreak of libertarian bashing—which makes only slightly more sense than the claims made by some on the right that libertarians are secretly running everything in Washington, D.C. and plotting to get your kids addicted to porn—seems to have started with a pithy tweet from Atlantic writer Derek Thompson on March 3. But it's become a ubiquitous online "take" since Sunday afternoon, when Bloomberg opinion writer Noah Smith logged on.

Libertarians: Government sucks, let's hollow out the civil service

*Pandemic comes, hollowed-out civil service is unable to respond effectively*

Libertarians: See, told you government sucks

— Noah Smith ???? (@Noahpinion) March 8, 2020

The take may have achieved its final form—at least let's hope so—with The Atlantic's publication on Tuesday of an 800-word piece from staff writer Peter Nicholas carrying the headline (sigh) "There Are No Libertarians in a Pandemic."

Lazy? Yes. Inaccurate? Yes.

Nicholas' article opens with a scene from CPAC—that's the Conservative Political Action Conference, by the way—and proceeds to detail all the ways in which the Trump administration has botched the federal response to the new coronavirus, called COVID-19. You know, the same Trump administration that is just full to the brim with libertarians. The same administration that is raising barriers to free trade, making it more difficult for people to move to America, giving bail-outs to politically favored industries, considering more bailouts to more politically favored industries, trying to regulate free speech online, suing newspapers in an attempt to curb the First Amendment, and launching missiles into foreign countries without congressional authorization. That administration? That's the libertarian one?

Nicholas tries to get away with this nonsense by setting up a false equivalency. Trump is campaigning against socialism, you see, and libertarians also dislike socialism—so therefore the Trump administration must be libertarian. Right? Therefore, when Trump starts talking like a socialist himself—by promising coronavirus bailouts and the repurposing of disaster recovery funds to cover people who come down with COVID-19—it is proof positive that the libertarian world has abandoned its commitment to smaller government. Voila!

Perhaps The Atlantic's editorial staff has self-quarantined from its duties—how else to explain how an otherwise thoughtful publication could allow a headline that confuses libertarianism with anything that the Trump administration is doing? For that matter, maybe Smith and Thompson believe that an army of strawmen are an effective defense against COVID-19. I hope it works out for them.

As a libertarian in a pandemic, let me first assure you that we do in fact still exist.

And, in fact, it is the free market—and, to a lesser extent, its defenders—who will help you survive the new coronavirus. All those groceries you're stocking up on in advance of the expected collapse of civilization? They didn't end up on grocery store shelves because government officials ordered it to happen or because someone was feeling particularly generous today. That gallon jug of hand sanitizer delivered to your front door less than 48 hours after you ordered it online? It didn't show up because Trump tweeted it into existence or because the surgeon general is driving a delivery truck around the country.

Bottled water? Face masks? They're available because someone is turning a profit by making and selling them. The first latex gloves were invented in the 1880s but the disposable variety that are so useful right now have "only been available since 1964, as innovated by the private company Ansell, founded by Eric Ansell in Melbourne, Australia. Thank you international trade," notes Jeffrey Tucker, editorial director of the American Institute for Economic Research.

Sure, one consequence of the success of private enterprise in reshaping the world is an interconnected planet that allows for something like COVID-19 to spread more rapidly than would have been possible in the past. But modern technology has also allowed doctors, private enterprises, and (yes) governments to respond more quickly than ever before.

It also means that you'll have access to nearly every piece of film, television, and music ever recorded by human beings if you have to self-quarantine for a week or two. It means that humans have the ability to live far healthier lives than they did in 1918, when a global flu pandemic killed 50 million people. The people who live through the current coronavirus outbreak because of stronger immune systems made possible by steady diets won't show up on any list of statistics after the coronavirus has passed, but capitalism is at least partially to thank for their survival.

In short, if you had to pick any time in human history to live through a global pandemic, you'd be incredibly foolish not to pick the current time. And the reason you'd pick this moment in history probably has less to do with who is running the White House, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, or the World Health Organization, and more to do with the technological and medical advances made possible by free enterprise.

"What is the mighty contribution of government these days?" asks Tucker. "To order quarantines but not to tell you whether you can step outside, how you will get groceries, how long it will last, who you can invite in, and when it will all end. Don't try to call the authorities. They have better and bigger things to worry about than your sorry plight that is causing you sleepless nights and endless worry. Thank goodness for digital technology that allows you to communicate with friends and family."

Yeah, there are libertarians in a pandemic. We're the ones willing to acknowledge how much more all of this would suck if the market didn't exist.

 

  • Disdain 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

OPEC Infighting and Coronavirus Adds Up to Affordable Gas: https://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/2020/03/opec-infighting-and-coronavirus-ads-up-to-affordable-gas/

Quote

With the coronavirus keeping people indoors and shale drilling keeping U.S. oil prices relatively stable, you’ve probably noticed gasoline bills being quite reasonable of late. Well, don’t get used to the sums you’re paying now, as analysts project fuel prices will drop even lower as 2020 progresses. While you might think this is due to national quarantines and lessened demand, you’d only be half right.

Last week, the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) failed to strike a deal that would have enacted production cuts to better stabilize the market. Instead of slashing output, Saudi Arabia started slashing prices as it sought ways to ramp up production. Russia immediately responded by promising to increase its own output, leading to what looks like an all-out price war. 

On Monday, oil prices dropped nearly 25 percent — knocking off about 10 bucks per barrel and leaving the per-barrel price hovering around $31. It was the largest single-day decline for U.S. West Texas Intermediate crude and Brent crude since 1991. While Tuesday morning saw a meaningful bump in prices as portions of the market came to its senses, OPEC members don’t seem to be on better terms.

According to Reuters, Saudi Arabia plans to supply 12.3 million barrels per day in April — a massive increase over its current production level of 9.7 million barrels per day. Russian oil minister Alexander Novak initially said he would not rule out joint measures with OPEC to stabilize the market, adding that the next OPEC+ meeting was planned for May-June. His tone changed slightly on Tuesday, however, with suggestions that the nation could raise its oil production by up to 300,000 barrels per day in the short term — something a few market analysts have claimed was its plan all along.

It’s probably not the best time for OPEC to try and tear itself apart (though that hasn’t stopped it in the past). China, the world’s largest oil importer, is currently hamstrung by the coronavirus. Other regions may follow shortly. Saudi Arabia seems to be attempting to grab market share but with demand so low, it’s a real gamble. Russia and U.S. shale producers are in a better position to weather the storm. Meanwhile, analysts are concerned the Arabian kingdom couldn’t possibly sustain the price cuts and increased output for any significant length of time without hurting itself.

While this could have long-term implications for the oil industry, it’s also likely to drive down gas prices though the spring. National averages (in the U.S.) are around $2.38 per gallon and dropping during a period where prices normally ramp up to meet higher summer demand. Patrick DeHaan, head of petroleum analysis at GasBuddy, expects per-gallon prices to fall below the two-dollar threshold by April if trends persist.

The International Energy Agency (IEA) is likewise concerned that the coronavirus could recreate what happened in 2016 when we had our last major global oil surplus. Bad for the world economy, but fantastic for your back account, as gas prices were similarly low back then. Of course, there are heaps of uncertainty in the market with varying assumptions as to how bad the pandemic will actually get. Many see it as a minor hurdle that will primarily impact China while others are convinced it will be much worse than anticipated. Most are simply shrugging their shoulders as they watch the market.

“The situation remains fluid, creating an extraordinary degree of uncertainty over what the full global impact of the virus will be,” the IEA reported this week. “In the IEA’s central base case, demand this year drops for the first time since 2009 because of the deep contraction in oil consumption in China, and major disruptions to global travel and trade.”

Go Coronavirus!  $1.89 for regular unleaded in Frankfort yesterday.  Haven't checked yet today.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sam's Club had a good TP supply over the weekend when Mrs. SF and I were there.  Last bought the jumbo size in October, shouldn't need more until this October.  Also had an adequate supply of hand sanitizer in the store.  I forgot we live in Northern Indiana where there is still a sense of level-headedness.....Had a client in the office last week from Brooklyn, NY whose wife called him and told him to pick up as much hand sanitizer as he could at the airport, since ALL of the stores in NYC were out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Trump Administration Swears Proposed Hotel, Airline, Cruise Bailout Is Totally Not a Bailout.  Actually, it's a bailout: https://reason.com/2020/03/11/treasury-secretary-says-proposed-hotel-airline-cruise-bailout-is-totally-not-a-bailout/

Quote

The White House and congressional Democrats are reportedly set to pass a short-term relief package to protect some politically favored industries from incurring financial losses due to the outbreak of coronavirus.

Just don't call it a bailout, says Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin.

"This is not a bailout," Mnuchin said, according to The Washington Post's Jeff Stein. "This is considering providing certain things for certain industries. Airlines, hotels, cruise lines."

So you might say it's a bailout.

The specifics of the package have not yet been released, but Mnuchin says the two sides have been talking about a smaller aid package aimed at "businesses and workers" that may be particularly hard-hit by the expected economic downturn triggered by the disease. He compared it to the type of disaster relief bill Congress might typically pass in the wake of a natural disaster like a hurricane.

There's no price tag on the deal, which is still being negotiated, but The Wall Street Journal reports that lawmakers expect it to be "in the billions."

And that's just the start.

"This package isn't going to include everything," Mnuchin said Wednesday. "This is round one. We'll be back for more."

As foolish as a bailout for the leisure industry might be, it also might be the least bad option currently on the table. Politico reports that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has squashed Trump's initial coronavirus stimulus proposal: a payroll tax holiday that would extend through November.

Fiscally, a payroll tax cut would be utterly irresponsible. The payroll tax funds Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid—all of which Trump has sworn to protect from cuts. That means his proposed payroll tax cut would only add to the shortfalls already facing those entitlement programs. According to the Tax Foundation, a nonpartisan tax policy center, Trump's proposed payroll tax holiday would reduce revenues by $900 billion between April and November.

And it would probably fail as a way to stimulate an economy hobbled by a pandemic anyway. Because the economic shock from the coronavirus is likely to be a supply-side disruption, stimulating demand—and that's what a tax cut would try to do—would be of limited use.

"Big tax cuts—such as the proposed employee payroll tax cut—seem an expensive blunt instrument for alleviating distress," writes Ryan Bourne, an economist with the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank. "If social distancing is necessary, we don't want employees out spending more money because they have more in their pockets."

The timing is also pretty convenient if you were, say, a president running for re-election who has been pushing for a payroll tax cut since well before the coronavirus outbreak began. Tax cuts are great, of course, but they have to be accompanied by spending cuts (which this wouldn't be) and tax policy should not be dictated by how it will affect the president's poll numbers.

There is one worthwhile tax policy idea under consideration, however. Mnuchin said Wednesday that the administration is considering a plan to postpone the April 15 income tax deadline. Not requiring Americans to pay their taxes on time would keep an estimated $200 billion in the economy—rather than having it vacuumed up by the government—and the fact that those tax bills would still be due at a later date means this approach wouldn't add to the deficit.

Another good idea would be for the Trump administration to lift the tariffs it has imposed on steel, aluminum, and imports from China. Politico reported Wednesday that business and industry groups are lobbying Congress and the White House to include tariff relief in any coronavirus stimulus package. Some House Democrats have already climbed aboard the effort, according to a report from Inside Trade.

On one hand, yes, this is just another example of a politician or interest group using the coronavirus as an excuse to pass policies they already wanted. On the other, lifting the tariffs would be a big economic boost that comes without any of the downsides of cutting the payroll tax.

The only problem? The Office of the U.S. Trade Representative, Politico reports, "was not receptive" to the tariff-cutting plan. Of course.

But none of this should be a surprise. The Trump administration says China is paying for the tariffs, despite all available evidence to the contrary. They said the 2017 tax cuts would pay for themselves without spending cuts, but that didn't happen.

Now Mnuchin says a bailout isn't a bailout. Don't buy that either.

 

  • Disdain 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, Impartial_Observer said:

Small win for IO today, cancelled the flights for the weekend trip, then rebooked same flights, and pocketed about $100.

 

More hand sanitizer or other "medicinal" alcohol with the proceeds? 😀

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

From a friend:

The country that stormed the beaches at Normandy, raised the flag at Iwo Jima, helped rebuild Europe and put a man on the Moon now runs around like Chicken Litlle and shuts down because less than a thousand people are sick. Stop being so soft and suck it up, folks! If you’re sick, stay home. If you’re not, wash your hands, brush your teeth, roll up your sleeves and get to work.

Stop going nuts and hoarding Purell and toilet paper. Help those in need. Be kind to one another, but quit cowering.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, swordfish said:

From a friend:

The country that stormed the beaches at Normandy, raised the flag at Iwo Jima, helped rebuild Europe and put a man on the Moon now runs around like Chicken Litlle and shuts down because less than a thousand people are sick. Stop being so soft and suck it up, folks! If you’re sick, stay home. If you’re not, wash your hands, brush your teeth, roll up your sleeves and get to work.

Stop going nuts and hoarding Purell and toilet paper. Help those in need. Be kind to one another, but quit cowering.

Stats wrong again.  Over 1200.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Constitution Isn’t Suspended Because of Coronavirus: https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/the-constitution-isnt-suspended-because-of-coronovirus/?utm_source=recirc-desktop&utm_medium=homepage&utm_campaign=river&utm_content=featured-content-trending&utm_term=first

Quote

The city of Newark is cracking down on “coronavirus disinformation,” warning that any “false reporting” — which includes misleading “allegations” on social media — will lead to criminal prosecution. What exactly makes Newark think it has the authority to threaten speech?

And how exactly is this kind of speech code going to be enforced? How will Newark police know if the person spreading “disinformation” even lives in their city? Will they subpoena the IP address of @Goldilox5073540586732 to find out? Will they extradite people from other cities who are making false statements about Newark? What if someone on Facebook tells Newarkites — Newarkians? — that coronavirus isn’t that big of a deal? Or what if they have an unprovable theory? Will the city’s department of safety consider those illegal “allegations?”

It’s likely that the threat is simply meant to discourage despicable people and conspiracy theorists from spreading rumors. If so, I suspect it will likely have the opposite effect. Threatening randos on Twitter reeks of panic.

To a lesser extent, I also find Washington governor Jay Inslee’s decision to “ban” gatherings of over 250 people in the Seattle area concerning. Of course, it makes sense for government officials to implore citizens to stay away from large groups. And the governor has wide-ranging powers — hard to believe how wide-ranging, to be honest — to enact restrictions in times of emergency. But what if 250 individuals want to get together to protest Inslee’s ban or the Trump administration’s handling of coronavirus? What if 250 individuals want to get together to pray? What constitutional right does a governor have to stop them?

Obviously, most people aren’t going to concern themselves with civil-liberty questions as the threat of a pandemic hangs over them, but they should. Because, as we’ve seen, while some threats are real, it’s easy to scaremonger — think “climate emergency” or “gun-violence epidemic” — in an effort to chip away at our rights.

Bingo.  And once those rights are chipped away the state doesn't want to give them back.  Ever.   See Patriot Act and FISA.

 

  • Disdain 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

https://www.vox.com/2020/3/10/21171481/coronavirus-us-cases-quarantine-cancellation

FTA:

Yet the speed at which the outbreak plays out matters hugely for its consequences. What epidemiologists fear most is the health care system becoming overwhelmed by a sudden explosion of illness that requires more people to be hospitalized than it can handle. In that scenario, more people will die because there won’t be enough hospital beds or ventilators to keep them alive.

A disastrous inundation of hospitals can likely be averted with protective measures we’re now seeing more of — closing schools, canceling mass gatherings, working from home, self-quarantine, self-isolation, avoiding crowds — to keep the virus from spreading fast.

Epidemiologists call this strategy of preventing a huge spike in cases “flattening the curve,” and it looks like this:

image.png.8b1c2ce62d2edc0a986ce5912b5675d0.png

“Even if you don’t reduce total cases, slowing down the rate of an epidemic can be critical,” wrote Carl Bergstrom, a biologist at the University of Washington in a Twitter thread praising the graphic, which was first created by the CDC, adapted by consultant Drew Harris, and popularized by the Economist. The chart has since gone viral with the help of the hashtag #FlattenTheCurve.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Talk about a chill going down the spine ... and as for "We haven't discussed that yet," color me skeptical.  Note the lines "If somebody gets a little bit out of control ..." and "But people know they're being watched."  That has Milleresque DNA all over it ... if you hear Barr utter it, be afraid.

 

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/trump-restricting-travel-u-s-possibility-if-coronavirus-pandemic-gets-n1156851

President Donald Trump said Thursday it's a "possibility" that the administration could impose travel restrictions within the U.S. to limit exposure to the coronavirus if certain areas get "too hot."

"We haven't discussed that yet," Trump said when asked about the option at a meeting with Irish Prime Minister Leo Varadkar. "Is it a possibility? Yes. If somebody gets a little bit out of control, if an area gets too hot.

"You see what they're doing in New Rochelle, which is good frankly," Trump continued, referring to the city just north of Manhattan where there is a growing cluster of coronavirus cases. "It's the right thing, but it's not enforced, it's not very strong. But people know they're being watched. New Rochelle, that's a hot spot."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, foxbat said:

Talk about a chill going down the spine ... and as for "We haven't discussed that yet," color me skeptical.  Note the lines "If somebody gets a little bit out of control ..." and "But people know they're being watched."  That has Milleresque DNA all over it ... if you hear Barr utter it, be afraid.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/trump-restricting-travel-u-s-possibility-if-coronavirus-pandemic-gets-n1156851

President Donald Trump said Thursday it's a "possibility" that the administration could impose travel restrictions within the U.S. to limit exposure to the coronavirus if certain areas get "too hot."

"We haven't discussed that yet," Trump said when asked about the option at a meeting with Irish Prime Minister Leo Varadkar. "Is it a possibility? Yes. If somebody gets a little bit out of control, if an area gets too hot.

"You see what they're doing in New Rochelle, which is good frankly," Trump continued, referring to the city just north of Manhattan where there is a growing cluster of coronavirus cases. "It's the right thing, but it's not enforced, it's not very strong. But people know they're being watched. New Rochelle, that's a hot spot."

Show me your papers, macht schnell!

 

 

  • Disdain 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Markets vs. Socialism: Why South Korean Healthcare Is Outperforming Italy with COVID-19: https://mises.org/wire/markets-vs-socialism-why-south-korean-healthcare-outperforming-italy-covid-19

Quote

Everyone is vitally aware of the spread of the novel COVID-19 pandemic as it rages in early stages across the globe. Travel restrictions are everywhere as people are trying to get tested, prepare for possible quarantines, and worrying about their jobs and their families. Events involving large groups of people are canceled, and in some cases entire countries are being locked down.

But in all this flurry of reaction over the crisis, there is an almost natural experiment in how well a socialized healthcare system can respond to such a problem. And the answer appears to be…not well. To demonstrate, we can look at the two cases of Italy and South Korea. As of the time of this writing (3/12/2020), Italy has experienced 15,113 cases while South Korea has confirmed 7,869. However, the South Korean number is rising at a relatively tepid ~100 cases a day to Italy’s roughly 2,500 added today. (Data on the spread of the novel coronavirus was obtained from this site tracking the outbreak.) Overall, Italy and South Korea have similar populations (around 60 million and 50 million, respectively), although the South Korean half of the Korean Peninsula is about a third of the size of Italy in terms of land area.

Italy is experiencing a quickly spiraling exponential growth in confirmed cases despite shutting down the entire country with curfews and travel restrictions and heavily focusing on the provision of care. By contrast, even with a cult that essentially spread the disease on purpose, South Korea has gained a strong foothold in containing COVID-19. There are many reasons for this difference in outcome, but some of them are directly related to the far more socialized healthcare system in Italy.

South Korean Healthcare

Although South Korea does have a state-monopolized system providing a universal health insurance, this state-provided insurance is not able to set prices in the market for healthcare. Hospitals and clinics routinely charge patients more than the state insurance will pay, which has caused many Koreans to take out private insurance to cover the difference. TheKorea Bizwire reports that eight out of ten Koreans take out such insurance, with the average Korean paying just over 20,000 won (about $120) a month for it.

Care is provided by a set of hospitals that are 94 percent privately owned, with a fee-for-service model and no direct government subsidies. Many of these hospitals are run by charitable foundations or private universities. Private hospitals in the country exploded in number from 1,185 in 2002 to 3,048 in 2012. The result is that South Korea has 10 hospital beds per 1,000 people, more than twice the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) average (and nearly three times as many as Italy’s 3.4 beds per capita). These private hospitals also charge significantly less (between 30–85 percent of the price) than US hospitals (which are also often required to get a “certificate of need” from the government before construction, depending on what state they are built in).

Italian Healthcare

In Italy, by contrast, surgeries and hospitalization provided by public hospitals or by conventional private ones are completely free of charge for everyone regardless of their income. This is entirely paid for by the the national health service, the Servizio Sanitario Nazionale (SSN) (as are family doctors' services). Waiting times can be up to a few months for large public facilities, though they are somewhat shorter for small private facilities with contracts to provide services through the SSN. Public and private medical providers offer “free market” options in which the patient pays directly, but this is rarely taken up and thus contributes very little to hospital revenues. Emergency medical service is always free of charge.

Wait times and other quality markers are significantly worse in the north of the country, with patients often going to southern Italy for better care. Doctors graduating from Italian medical schools often go elsewhere for work, and Italian officials are seeking to respond by reducing openings in medical programs. Italy experienced an ongoing health worker shortage even before COVID-19 struck the country. The number of hospitals in the country has been on a steady decline over the last couple of decades, from 1,321 in 2000 to 1,063 in 2017.  SSN prices for payments to hospitals were set below market rates for the purpose of saving money on healthcare, and the results were as expected for a de facto price control.

Conclusion

Currently, the Italian healthcare system is overwhelmed by the tens of thousands of COVID-19 cases it is already facing. They have turned to rationing care to prioritize the young, leaving those most at risk of the virus to essentially fend for themselves. Most just chalk this up to the severity and danger of the pandemic. However, the evidence tells a different story. It portrays a situation made far worse by a reliance on government-centralized healthcare that manages costs by de facto price rationing rather than a free market system. Although South Korea provides a basic safety net, it is also one of the closest healthcare systems in the world to a free market, outpacing to a significant degree even the US system (which includes a great number of supply-restricting regulations that only drive up costs and hurt availability). As a result, South Korean healthcare did what Italy’s already undersupplied system could not do—cope effectively with the pandemic and manage to get it under control without shutting down the entire country in the process. 

If US officials wish to effectively handle the rising number of cases in big cities, they would do well to take lessons from South Korea and start freeing the market for healthcare rather than bungling a monopolized testing protocol that did not need to be monopolized, and thereby preventing people from getting tested. This would not immediately resolve the problems created by bad regulation in the past, but it would certainly reduce its negative consequences while improving the healthcare system's ability to deal with these sorts of crises going forward. It would also have the benefit of reducing the cost of healthcare generally.

 

  • Disdain 1
  • Kill me now 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...