In fact, socialized medicine failed so badly under Russian communism that most of their best physicians fled to freer climes, an exodus from which the quality of Russian medical care has yet to recover -- ever hear of a world political leader or captain of industry rushing to Moscow for surgery?

What does "free medical care" mean if you have to wait for months, facilities are decades out of date (since no one will invest in upgrades without the hope of profit), and the flight of the best practitioners leaves you in the care of someone who would barely qualify as a veterinarian anywhere else?

And this phenomenon is again asserting itself today, as better doctors flee the mindless rationing of today's Canadian system to the still (somewhat) freer United States.

This was all predicted by the great free-market economist Ludwig von Mises, of course. Von Mises' Law warns us that any government intervention in the market will lead to calls for even more freedom-destroying government measures, intended to correct the problems caused by the earlier government interventions.

What American medicine needs is less government meddling in the market, not more. If medical costs are too high, then why are the states purposely rationing the number of medical licenses they issue, in order to limit the supply of doctors, when the limiting of supplies always keeps prices high? (Look at the lengths to which Florida uses the might of government to keep semi-retired New York physicians from moving south and hanging out their shingles -- they don't even claim the New Yorkers "aren't as good.")

Think how far prices might fall if our doctors could simply accept cash -- if they could be free of the small armies of clerks they must now retain just to negotiate billings and seek "permission to treat" from the various government and semi-private insurance outfits. (If these insurers were truly private, they'd be able to offer their customers cheaper policies that didn't cover sundry politically correct procedures, wouldn't they?)

So: how is it most of our physicians now fight for greater freedom to practice as they choose -- for a reduction in government interventions in the market for health care?

Why, they dutifully pay their dues to the American Medical Association, which last week at its convention in Chicago voted to seek more heavy-handed government intervention to ban minors from using tanning salons or buying violent video games, and additionally to instruct its lobbyists to ask our rulers to increase alcohol taxes on higher-proof beverages, because they're "riskier."

Various medical societies have already lobbied for gun bans and mandatory seatbelt laws -- things once not thought of as "medical" questions. How long will it be before the AMA seeks jail sentences for those of us who fail to take our blood pressure medications, or who eat too many bacon cheeseburgers? And what about demanding higher motor vehicle fees for cars with more horsepower -- aren't they "riskier"?

But in the midst of this lemming-like race toward behavioral fascism, the AMA's delegates, who claim to represent about 250,000 U.S. physicians, imitated the stopped clock last week and managed to be right, twice.

A wise AMA report recommended several measures to promote breast feeding, specifying that mothers "should not be singled out and discouraged from nursing their infants in public places." That's good -- though the report seems to have stopped short of demanding that depraved TSA airport goons stop demanding that mothers drink their own breast milk before being allowed to carry it onto airplanes with their newborns.

And despite the fact that most of the misguided doctors who testified on the measure favored a congressionally enforced moratorium on "direct-to-consumer" drug advertising (TV ads for prescription sexual enhancement drugs, heartburn nostrums, etc.), the group heeded the advice of a committee warning that they were treading on the First Amendment, and decided further study was needed before calling for a ban on such advertising.

Weirdly, the testifying doctors expressed concern that such ads will result in more prescriptions for potentially harmful drugs being issued to people who do not need them.

And here I thought the whole "prescription" game existed so physicians could refuse to prescribe potentially harmful drugs to patients who don't need them.

If doctors are not exercising that "gatekeeper" function (which should deeply offend a free people, mind you, but we're just going with the official theory, here), why not just get rid of the whole "prescription" rigmarole, and let adults buy any drug they want, over the counter?

In fact, advertising is vital to progress in these matters. One of the great steps towards liberating modern women came when the first magazines started accepting ads for feminine hygiene products, informing women of their availability and merits and launching the ongoing competitive battle for improvement.

Similarly, Daniel Jaffe, executive vice president of the Association of National Advertisers, told the New York Times on June 21 that "Somewhere between 24 (million) and 30 million people have gone to their doctor to talk about a health problem they had never discussed before, after seeing a prescription drug ad."

Is that something we want to discourage -- people discussing perceived health problems with their doctors?

Demanding "further study"on a drug ad ban falls considerably short of a resounding First Amendment champion's "Hell, no!"

But from this bunch, it's real progress.