A snapshot from my Ontario healthcare family album

For the past month I've been watching and negotiating my way through the Ontario healthcare system on behalf of my elderly mother. Fortunately the initial problem was not that critical, but when one is injured in a fall, at 92 years of age, even little problems get magnified.

For all of its faults, and there are so many, the Ontario Health Insurance Plan or OHIP system seems to function, but at such a poor level of service and timeliness, that no one would tolerate it if it were in any other service area. In healthcare, most Ontarians choose to ignore or excuse the long worrying waits, or the pain endured before treatment is available because somehow, they view the system as part of their definition of what it means to be Canadian.

When the paramedics brought my mother to the local emergency department, she was "triaged" rather than "served" even though the emergency room was not busy by any stretch, I was there. Most of the "treatment" she underwent was done by the paramedics en route. When she arrived at the hospital she was viewed as an elderly patient who may or may not survive, and she was treated as a costly liability rather than an opportunity to make profit. What other service industry do Canadians interact with, that treats you like that? Imagine a dentist being so cavalier with someone's pain, how long would they be in business? Of course in dentistry, people have choices. This was a major regional hospital, yet my mother was not even given pain medication for over 3 hours when the doctor on-call finally saw her.

You would think that the supposedly compassionate physicians of Ontario (or anywhere in Canada for that matter) would collectively rise up and challenge the government health care model, but you would be wrong. 

In the editorial introduction to a recent FP Magazine, the editor Terence Corcoran, writes that the Canadian Medical Association (CMA) has "essentially abandoned their customers," and "Canadian doctors, the state-nationalized victims of health-care delivery, are also its official defenders." This is cronyism of the worst kind, and all Canadian doctors should be ashamed.

I think Mr. Corcoran's editorial was not widely read or discussed, because I've barely heard a peep out of the rest of the media, but it is worthy of your time to read it. 

Regenerative medicine and longevity

When I first heard that Steve Jobs had pancreatic cancer I remember hoping to myself that the cancer was discovered early. I knew that survival rates for this type of cancer were low, but this guy was wealthy and could afford the world's best treatment. Little did I know what was revealed this week in Jobs' official biography by Walter Isaacson, that Jobs refused conventional treatment for nine months: "Instead of opting for surgery, he took on a vegan diet, acupuncture, herbal remedies and other treatments he found online, and even consulted a psychic." That revelation diminishes the respect I had for his genius, but not for his accomplishments.
People are funny that way, I guess technological and marketing savvy don't go hand-in-hand with scientific good sense. Maybe it wouldn't have made any difference but you would think the odds favoured the team with the best performance on the field, that is the medical scientists versus the herbalists and psychics.
Medical science of course is part of the reason for the increasing human life span, though most people fail to appreciate that the biggest advances came with the introduction of what is unfortunately called "public health." Simple things really, like separating sewage waste from drinking water, that was huge. Mass vaccination of populations was also huge. Death rates really dropped when those two practices became widespread.
But the big improvements of yesteryear have been replaced by medical tinkering in more recent years, even though the technology exists for human lifespans to take another great leap foreword. See that ear growing from the mouse's back? That's not a new story, that story goes back more than 20 years now - replacement parts.
Below is a recent video from ReasonTV that presents a new book by Sonia Arrison author of 100 Plus: How the Coming Age of Longevity Will Change Everything, From Careers and Relationships to Family and Faith, "because everyone has an interest in living healthier longer." The book purports to show how replacement parts may change things.
After watching the video think about the major impediments to some of this work, especially for the people that really need and want it. This is likely to be expensive treatment and with all of the regulatory barriers set up by various governments, it will become more expensive, not to mention hard to get (probably impossible in Canada unless drastic changes take place). Imagine being given the choice possibly between life and death, as the author describes in the video, and then being told treatment is disallowed by some government rules or bureaucrats? Not funny, right?
The expense side of organ replacement is also interesting and recalls a movie I saw recently called Repo Men. In that movie, people buy artificial organs on credit then fail to make regular payments. The movie puts a whole new spin on "repossession."    

Anarchy and libertarianism

If you were asked to distinguish between anarchy and libertarianism (are they different?), how would you approach it? From an economic viewpoint or a law and order position? I would start with economics because that is where I see the most massive intrusion by government. This is very apt in view of the "Occupy (fill in blank) Protests" that have sprung up in North American cities over the past few weeks, where economic ignorance abounds.

Whenever I try to explain to someone that a free enterprise economy is self regulating (given a chance), I invariably get asked a series of "what if" type questions. What if an entrepreneur has a monopoly, charges exorbitant prices and rips people off? What if an employer is exploiting his workers with low wages and long hours? Shouldn't government step in and regulate the price, or the hourly wage or do something? My answers range from a curt "no" to a pointless attempt at explaining Austrian Economic theory in 30 seconds. My answers invariably leave the listener thinking that I am an anarchist, even though nothing could be further from the truth. The big problem is, that this disagreement often shuts down any further discussion.
True laissez faire capitalism, the kind advocated by most libertarians, has an uncanny resemblance to anarchy for any one who believes that economies must be regulated, that governments must intercede to control prices and wages; in other words for anyone who advocates a "mixed" economy such as we have. This is true of anyone who is a socialist, or fascist, a Liberal, or Conservative, all of them are statists of some form or other. All would agree that some level of coercion is necessary for governments to function. In general, libertarians don't agree. So it's no accident that the libertarian idea is confused with anarchy. 

The spontaneous order of a free market is as impossible to understand for a brainwashed statist, as evolution by natural selection is for a brainwashed theist. 

Notice I haven't even mentioned the "law and order" aspect of government yet, the statists usually can't get past our economics to even hear about our ideas on a military, police, courts, and justice system that includes restitution.

 
Virtually all libertarians of my acquaintance including myself are minarchists of some sort, not anarchists. 

Minarchists believe in limited government, government whose sole purpose is to protect the negative rights of individuals, life, liberty, property, and personal security. These are the rights we were born into or were created by our own individual effort, and to a libertarian these are our only government entitlements. 

Libertarian anarchists believe the state is immoral and they would advocate stateless societies, just voluntary associations without a hierarchy. Doesn't that sound like some regular libertarians you may know? It does to me.   

My point is, there is some difference between a libertarian minarchist and a libertarian anarchist, but I would venture to say they are more similar than most libertarians are to conservative statists.

If we libertarians are attempting to bring about a new world order, one person at a time, then we must include everyone within our fold, anarchists, statists, and collectivists of all stripes, and everything in between. Libertarian persuasion should be universally applied.   

Warp Factor

“We don’t allow faster-than-light neutrinos in here,” says the bartender.

A neutrino walks into a bar. (That's a joke circulating on the web - explained below)

There was nothing more confusing than a Star Trek story where time travel was used as a plot device, and there were lots of them. 

Of course TV and movie screen plays and books don't need to conform to reality. So the idea of time travel has been very common in science fiction plots from the days of Jules Verne to well, the other night on TV.

This is an example of reality that doesn't conform to theory. A major scientific group discovered that neutrinos "seem" to travel faster than light, that seems to break some "theoretical rules" discovered by Prof. Einstein over there.

Relativity theory predicts that things that approach the speed of light develop infinite mass. Neutrinos aren't very heavy to begin with - mass is non-zero, so, that leaves lots of room for speculation. 

This discovery, if its true, is not yet support for Star Trek's warp speed, but it makes you wonder about neutrinos getting kicked out of taverns they have not yet entered, and it upsets most of modern-day physics.