|
jrodefeld posted:I'd like to give it a go and try to have a discussion about libertarianism with you all. But, to reiterate on what I said before my hiatus, the race talk has to stop. It is not that I have an issue with discussing the subject, it is only that such talk lends itself to people to use partisan demagoguery and hurl insults at one another. I am disheartened though by SedanChair's post a few replies above this one where he claims that ALL libertarians, WITHOUT EXCEPTION, are racist. Such comments are not worthy of a serious response. In fact, people who make such sweeping generalizations and slanderous accusations should be ignored not just by me, but by everyone who is interested in any sort of productive discussion. That was a short gone forever! Sadly I'm back into the month of hell so I'm going to have to be brief. As other posters have stated, myself included, if you don't want us to talk abou trace, shut the gently caress up about race. Seriously. You have the control over the situation here. If you build it they will come, and if you talk about something else and just flat out say you're not talking about it anymore and be done with it. Seriously dude. quote:As a follow up to my request to drop the non-productive accusations of racism, I furthermore am going to request that if I cite an argument made by, say, Rothbard or Ron Paul that the discussion remains on the argument itself not on some other view he may or may not have. You might think that I am reflexively defending libertarian intellectuals because I am blinded by my adulation towards my "heroes" and am unable to admit their failings. At least the more respectful among you (like Caros) grant me that courtesy, those who don't irresponsibly claim I am an overt bigot personally despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Just don't take the bait. People are going to point out (rightfully) that Rothbard has a bunch of lovely opinions. You can't stop them anymore than you can stop the tides by yelling at them. Just don't acknowledge them or acknowledge them only to say that this is a topic which you will find no common ground. And yes, I do think you are reflexively defending your heroes, which is why you still refuse to admit a man who talks on a weekly basis about women throwing their vaginas around like boomerangs to snag up men isn't a misogynist. You have a fundamental misunderstanding of hate groups and there is nothing we can do to fix you at the moment, so just ignore it. quote:This is not at all the case. I have no problem whatsoever in pointing out statements that I consider to be racist or insensitive. Yet given the breadth of the material I have read from Rothbard, Woods, Paul and the others that have been accused of harboring ill will towards minorities, I cannot put any of them into the category of "racist". I too read certain articles authored by Rothbard and I am offended or I feel he has used the most untactful language to describe a social problem. Yet then I read articles where he is praising certain civil rights figures and decrying Jim Crow and I cannot believe that he holds any ill will towards any racial group. The most one could say against Rothbardian libertarians is that they hold to their First Principles and their abstract theory to such a degree that they are blind to certain utilitarian effects that those principles can sometimes lead. I could accept this criticism as fair (though I don't necessarily agree). What I can't accept is ascribing racial bigotry as a driving force for libertarian ideology. I can think of two examples in the hundreds of posts you've written. You have a problem pointing out the statement "Women hoover up cash with their vaginas" is misogynistic dude. If you don't want to talk about it, then stop coming back and talking about it. We aren't going to let you get away with acting like you are some enlightened person when you support these people, so just agree to disagree and talk about something else. Oh and saying that you are surprised that MLK was so eloquent despite being black isn't "untactful' its racist. quote:I am personally invested in the positive utilitarian effects that I believe would come for minorities if libertarian reforms are enacted. It's just a passion of mine. I will be outspoken in situations where libertarians say or do racist things. I'll point and say "that is racist and offensive". For example, I'll say the infamous Ron Paul Newsletters were racist and offensive, no caveats necessary. In fact, I think the entire Paleo-conservative coalition that Rothbard supported late in his life was a tactical mistake and saddled some libertarians with unnecessary social baggage. Are you outspoken against Hoppe who you agreed in this loving thread is probably a 'race realist'? No, you drop one mention of it in one post and then proceed to pretend like it never loving happened. That said, I'm glad to hear you admit the Ron Paul newsletters that were authored by either Paul himself or by Lew Rockwell are racist, and that the Paleo-Conservative coalition (of which Ron Paul is a prominent member) was a tactical mistake. You could have just called him a racist by the way, because if you are a 'race realist' you are a racist. quote:If we disagree on who's racist and who isn't, then we should drop the discussion and focus on the policies, the utilitarian effects of said policies. Absolutely. Let this be your last word on the subject and lets talk other cool beans. Jam this poo poo in bold at the top of every post you make from now on and I'll happily do the same and we can together find other things that will hopefully one day make you realize that you are in a really bad place ideologically and on the wrong side of human progress. quote:I'll even be extra charitable and say plainly that I think most of you are genuine people with good motivations who want the best for others. It would be nice if you could reciprocate that courtesy and deal with me as if I am a decent person who honestly believes everyone would be better off in a libertarian society. Motives are hard to prove anyway so it is best to take the high road and assume the best of intentions from your opponents. I agree, apart from the fact that I think you are unwilling to acknowledge the many, many racists that you quote I don't think you are a bad person. Even with that I'm more worried for you than anything because racism is learned behavior, and you have picked up bits and pieces of it from the culture you are immersing yourself in. I genuinely see you as myself from a few years ago and more than anything I want to help you.  quote:Now, what IS on the table for discussion are the utilitarian outcomes of libertarian policies for minorities. That is a fine topic for discussion. But accusing your opposition of sinister motives forestalls any real discussion of what SHOULD be a far more important debate. Lead on!
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 07:56
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 22, 2024 02:09 |
|
|
jrodefeld posted:I want to ask how many of you are genuine Marxists or Socialists? Just so I'm clear, I don't mean a moderately regulated free market with a social safety net, but one who is committed to the idea that private ownership of the means of production and income inequality are inherent evils that must be combated through nationalization of industry and/or workers taking control of the means of production? Personally I'm opposed to being attached to any kind of -ism that isn't environmentalism, but that desire to fight global warming and widespread extinction has put me dangerously close to a lot of Socialist and Marxist circles. To me protection of the earth requires a proactive state, ideally a democratic one. Someone with power needs to be able to approach a factory or a refinery and say "Stop that, you're putting poison in the air. It won't kill us today but will definitely kill our children 40 years from now" Because the most rational choice in the world is to not give a poo poo what may or may not happen long after you die, and I've said that about five different ways on this thread alone.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 07:56
|
|
|
Muscle Tracer posted:THEN SHUT THE gently caress UP ABOUT IT and actually make one of these substantive arguments you're supposedly sitting on. I wasn't trying to deny that more advanced techniques can be more expensive, in fact I readily admitted as much. I was merely making the eminently sensible observation that when a consumer makes choices without even knowing or caring about the costs of the product or service rendered, then costs will be inflated higher than they otherwise would be. During the past decade there are MANY economists and commentators who are not libertarian who nonetheless made this exact argument, specifically that the lack of price competition has removed one of the primary market mechanisms by which prices are driven lower. The proposed reforms involve opening up markets in healthcare and allowing price competition to enter into more healthcare decisions. If you give the consumer an incentive to look for a lower price or at least be cognizant of the costs of various treatments, then costs will fall for a variety of reasons. Most healthcare decisions are not life or death decisions. Most decisions are not made under duress. Even if I were to concede the argument made about the non elasticity of some healthcare prices, the fact remains that some healthcare choices are highly elastic. It might be healthier if you get a routine physical twice a year. But if it costs more than a certain amount, you might take a risk and get a physical only once a year. Doctors frequently over test. Many people get MRIs, CAT Scans and blood work done due to an infinitesimal chance of finding something. Doctors are worried about lawsuits, State-mandated regulations confine the choices of doctors to a bureaucratic "standard of care" protocol that might be inadequate for the individual patient, and patients don't care what the costs of all this extra testing is because they don't have to pay for it. If their insurance pays or the State pays, they could care less. This all pushes costs higher. This is NOT a very controversial point. This is actually accepted by many mainstream commentators and economists. As far as comparing US health care costs and those of, say, Canada, there are many factors that influence the final cost of medicine. The first point I'll make is that just because Canada or the United Kingdom have a single payer system where the State supposedly offers "free" healthcare to everyone, that does not automatically mean that the State is "more involved" in medicine. For example, our government only provides healthcare as a "right" to the elderly, to veterans, to some of the poor. Yet, the subsidies that are paid to health insurance agencies are expenditures of money that the State dolls out. What about benefits to the pharmaceutical lobby? Then there are the regulations and rules foisted upon doctors that, while not necessarily increasing access to medicine, nevertheless clearly constitute government involvement in medicine. Furthermore, general inflation in the economy contributes to rising costs across the economy. If the national budget of the US Government is much higher than that of Canada or the United Kingdom, then the devaluation of the US Dollar will continue to push up costs of medicine. Furthermore, different demographics influence healthcare expenditures as do lifestyles and health choices that are cultural and cannot be mandated through State enforced law. I understand why you all are so intent on pushing the discussion back to healthcare. You feel that this is one of the strongest arguments that left-progressives have and I admit the argument is emotionally appealing. It is no fun to have a serious illness that can be treated but be denied access due to inability to pay. Yet I believe that the market is entirely capable of providing healthcare services just as the market provides food and water. But let's deal with practicality for a minute. In the United States in 2015, Medicare and Medicaid are the biggest things that are blowing a hole in the Federal Budget. Every honest observer has to admit when looking at the numbers, that the unfunded liabilities created by entitlement programs cannot be met in the next fifty, sixty and seventy years. The obvious remedy is that the Federal Government must cut back and cover fewer people with such entitlement programs and not more. Here is a quote on the unfunded liabilities that confront the US State: "Early in August 2012, Kotlikoff and financial writer Scott Burns published an article on the increase of the unfunded liabilities of the US government. According to the figures issued by the Congressional Budget Office, Kotlikoff concluded that there had been an increase in unfunded liabilities over the past 12 months of $11 trillion. The total obligation of the federal government to voters that is not funded at the present time is now $222 trillion. This does not mean that, over the entire life of the program, the government will be short $220 trillion. It means that the present value of the unfunded liability is $220 trillion. This means that the government would have to set aside $220 trillion immediately, invest this money in nongovernment projects that will pay a positive rate of return, and will therefore fund the amortization of this debt. I have written about the estimate here. The federal government at the present time is running annual on-budget deficits of about $1.2 trillion. It spends something in the range of $3.7 trillion. But it needs to have $222 trillion immediately to invest in private markets. It of course does not have this money. There is also the question of which markets could absorb a total of $222 trillion overnight and be able to gain a constant rate of return of, say, 5 percent per annum? It simply is not possible. Kotlikoff's figures indicate that the federal government at some point will have to default on large portions of the long-term debt. The numbers do not lie. Kotlikoff's numbers are larger than most estimates, but other economists have estimated the total unfunded liability in the range of $90 trillion. This number is as unmanageable as $222 trillion." http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/01/opinion/laurence-kotlikoff-on-fiscal-gap-accounting.html?_r=0 http://www.realclearpolicy.com/blog/2012/12/01/economist_laurence_kotlikoff_us_222_trillion_in_debt_363.html Canada and the United Kingdom have their own histories, their own budget issues and their own currencies to deal with. No matter what the cost of healthcare in those countries, what is being proposed here is to expand medical care coverage to include not just the Elderly and some of the poor, but ALL Americans. This would be an expansion by, what, 60-70% coverage? Yes I understand that medical care costs for the elderly are always higher, but that is still a massive expansion of coverage from a government that cannot possibly cover its existing obligations. How do your proposed single-payer reforms deal with this budgetary reality?
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 08:01
|
|
|
RuanGacho posted:I'm kind of confused why you're putting Marxists and Socialists in the same camp, that would be kind of like using anarcho-capitalists and Austrian economists interchangeably. Yeah I know what you are saying. I just wanted to cover my bases in case someone strongly identified with one of those labels but not the other.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 08:08
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:I want to ask how many of you are genuine Marxists or Socialists? Just so I'm clear, I don't mean a moderately regulated free market with a social safety net, but one who is committed to the idea that private ownership of the means of production and income inequality are inherent evils that must be combated through nationalization of industry and/or workers taking control of the means of production? Me... sort of. I fall into the pit trap that socialism isn't even remotely acceptable in north america, meaning my best solution is to work towards socialist goals such as mincome in the system we have since I'm not really a 'vanguard of the people' sort of guy. I actively campaign for candidates willing to work for leftist causes and do a lot of charity work in that regards, so calling me a utopian is sort of laughable. As for the first part of this, I explain the fall of the Soviet states as a lost battle against capitalism. I don't have to believe the communism or marxism or socialism can beat capitalism in a fight to think that they are practical, and the fact is that capitalist countries brutally repressed socialist or even socialist leaning regimes the world over during the cold war. On top of this, and I've said this multiple times to you but you never loving reply which is sort of telling, you do understand that there was sort of a difference in starting points. The USSR was a backwards shithole when the soviets took power, and when Stalin stepped up to start throwing around five year plans the predominant trade in the Soviet Union was agriculture. You are comparing a society that was basically pre or early industrial to the United States and going "Why did their economy not keep up with ours!?" From a technical standpoint the overall standard of living jumped dramatically under the Soviet rule, turning them from a podunk countries to an industrialized world super power, albeit not quite as strong of one as the country that started industrializing multiple decades ahead of them on a resource rich continent over which they had almost total dominance. And finally, lets be clear about that 100 million deaths number. That has absolutely gently caress all to do with socialism or marxism. Intentionally starving millions of an ethnic group that you dislike is not a socialist trait, its the trait of a strong arm dictator. Also a huge part of that number comes from famine related deaths due to a loving drought in china, albiet one that was handled incredibly poorly by the totalitarian government. Do we control the weather now too? President Kucinich posted:Real talk, I like what you're doing and I hope you succeed even if I don't think it has a chance in hell of working. I agree with the general ideas. I was actually very sympathetic to Eripsa in his last thread but he kind of comes off as a condescending prick to an almost impossible degree. If I thought he had a hope in hell I'd be up to help him, but frankly it reeks of vaporware and weird pie in the sky thinking in a way that is neither practical nor (in my opinion) socially beneficial. I like the general idea, I just hate every single thing about the execution.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 08:21
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:I understand why you all are so intent on pushing the discussion back to healthcare. You feel that this is one of the strongest arguments that left-progressives have and I admit the argument is emotionally appealing. It is no fun to have a serious illness that can be treated but be denied access due to inability to pay. Yet I believe that the market is entirely capable of providing healthcare services just as the market provides food and water. Food and water? Food is probably the most regulated, subsidised, government-interventionist industry worldwide, no matter what country you look at, because the free market is loving terrible at providing food at reasonable costs to the people who need it (aka everyone). And you wouldn't even have access to a clean drinking water supply without a government because again, it's a massive infrastructural effort that only a government can afford to make because of how spectacularly necessary AND unprofitable it is (unless you're fine with poor people dying of thirst, like in sub-Saharan Africa and the like). I've spent the last four years in South-East Asia, first in Cambodia and then in Laos. These governments are corrupt as balls and generally not very effective (the 'communist' Laos government is at least marginally less lovely than the 'capitalist' Cambodian one, but I digress). They can't collect taxes, can't fix the roads, can't provide universal healthcare, they can't even provide drinkable running water. You know what they can do? They can subsidise the living gently caress out of their farming industries so nobody has to go hungry, and they can make and enforce laws so people don't sell drinking water which isn't actually drinkable. Those countries would be 90% subsistence farmers right now without that. (As it stands there's still a massive amount of subsistence farming, but there's at least the beginnings of an industrial-technological economic base which can eventually drag these countries up; again, I digress.) Healthcare isn't just an emotionally appealing issue either. It's utilitarian by virtue of people being dead not being able to derive any value, for want of being alive. Hierarchy of needs and all that. I won't address the rest of your post because I don't have the patience of Saint Caros, but from what little I remember of US economic policy the Medicare budget hole is mostly the result of Bush-era tax cuts combined with some wonky math regarding economic growth forecasts (the models based on US growth being 2% when it's usually 3-4%, IIRC).
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 08:23
|
|
|
Jrodefeld has still not shown any knowledge of non-authoritarian forms of socialism, despite my rubbing them in his face for years.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 08:27
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:I'd like to give it a go and try to have a discussion about libertarianism with you all. But, to reiterate on what I said before my hiatus, the race talk has to stop. It is not that I have an issue with discussing the subject, it is only that such talk lends itself to people to use partisan demagoguery and hurl insults at one another. I am disheartened though by SedanChair's post a few replies above this one where he claims that ALL libertarians, WITHOUT EXCEPTION, are racist. Such comments are not worthy of a serious response. In fact, people who make such sweeping generalizations and slanderous accusations should be ignored not just by me, but by everyone who is interested in any sort of productive discussion.  You want people to stop talking about the racism that's inherent in libertarianism, so you decide to spend 1 paragraph asking people not to talk about it and then you spend 2 paragraphs talking about it quote:I am personally invested in the positive utilitarian effects that I believe would come for minorities if libertarian reforms are enacted. It's just a passion of mine. That's ironic, considering the numerous times that you've tried to convince us that deontology is way better than utilitarianism and that we're all a bunch of dirty utilitarians for choosing to examine the potential negative outcomes of libertarian ideas quote:I will be outspoken in situations where libertarians say or do racist things. I'll point and say "that is racist and offensive". For example, I'll say the infamous Ron Paul Newsletters were racist and offensive, no caveats necessary. In fact, I think the entire Paleo-conservative coalition that Rothbard supported late in his life was a tactical mistake and saddled some libertarians with unnecessary social baggage. gently caress, if you don't want to talk about libertarian racism then stop talking about libertarian racism. Over half of your post is about it. Talking about this much is not going to convince anyone that you want to stop talking about it quote:I'll even be extra charitable and say plainly that I think most of you are genuine people with good motivations who want the best for others. It would be nice if you could reciprocate that courtesy and deal with me as if I am a decent person who honestly believes everyone would be better off in a libertarian society. Motives are hard to prove anyway so it is best to take the high road and assume the best of intentions from your opponents. Okay, let's talk about the utilitarian outcomes of libertarian policies for minorities. But we have to concentrate on policies that are specific to ancap libertarianism and not just merely social liberalism. You tend to want to claim that drug legalization is a uniquely libertarian thing when it absolutely is not; most of the posters in this thread would agree that ending the Drug War (including the domestic Drug War) would help everyone. So issues like drug legalization are basically off the table, since they're already issues on which we agree and they can be accomplished without going full-on libertarian. Instead, let's talk about desegregation. You have posited before that businesses that refuse to serve black people would be shunned by non-racists, thus they would lose business and eventually there would only be non-racist establishments left. But if that's the case, then why didn't this happen naturally? Your previous deontological argument would have been that desegregation itself was immoral, but now you want to talk about utilitarian outcomes, so please, enlighten us: how would bringing back the right for business owners to kick out minorities help these minorities? If I run the only hospital in the area, is it really okay for me to turn away people on the basis of skin color, no matter what kind of medical care they might require? This kind of thing would be permitted in ancap libertopia, so do you really believe that being able to deny life-giving care to minorities is beneficial for those minorities? Nothing stops someone from opening a hospital that treats the people that I refuse, aside from the incredible investment that this kind of venture requires, but that's small consolation to someone dying on the street because of their skin color. We've discussed slavery before, but it's worth bringing up again. In ancap libertopia, nothing stops me from enslaving people, on the basis of skin color or otherwise. However, slavery has tended to be inflicted upon minority groups throughout history, most often as a result of one group conquering a different, weaker group. Romans enslaved many of the people that they conquered, Vikings frequently captured slaves during raids, millions of native Americans were enslaved by invading Spaniards and Portuguese, etc. If all governments fell tomorrow, slavery would be in vogue by the following day. And why wouldn't it? You might cite the non-aggression principle, but that is not relevant to most people. The actual outcome would be the enslavement of weaker groups by more powerful groups, resulting in that weaker group becoming a minority in that society. Surely you wouldn't argue that enslavement is a positive outcome for the enslaved?
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 08:41
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:I wasn't trying to deny that more advanced techniques can be more expensive, in fact I readily admitted as much. I was merely making the eminently sensible observation that when a consumer makes choices without even knowing or caring about the costs of the product or service rendered, then costs will be inflated higher than they otherwise would be. This can also be the result of a lot of other factors. Such as inelastic demand! quote:During the past decade there are MANY economists and commentators who are not libertarian who nonetheless made this exact argument, specifically that the lack of price competition has removed one of the primary market mechanisms by which prices are driven lower. The proposed reforms involve opening up markets in healthcare and allowing price competition to enter into more healthcare decisions. If you give the consumer an incentive to look for a lower price or at least be cognizant of the costs of various treatments, then costs will fall for a variety of reasons. Which is why you should agree that we go full socialist. Because despite your bullshit claims to the contrary the government not only cares about these prices, but is in a unique position to bargain them down. quote:Most healthcare decisions are not life or death decisions. Most decisions are not made under duress. Even if I were to concede the argument made about the non elasticity of some healthcare prices, the fact remains that some healthcare choices are highly elastic. It might be healthier if you get a routine physical twice a year. But if it costs more than a certain amount, you might take a risk and get a physical only once a year. Doctors frequently over test. Many people get MRIs, CAT Scans and blood work done due to an infinitesimal chance of finding something. Doctors are worried about lawsuits, State-mandated regulations confine the choices of doctors to a bureaucratic "standard of care" protocol that might be inadequate for the individual patient, and patients don't care what the costs of all this extra testing is because they don't have to pay for it. If their insurance pays or the State pays, they could care less. The expensive ones are. The vast majority of medical care costs are in end of life, particularly at old age. Americans don't pay twice what the rest of the world does because they get hosed on little stuff, they pay that much because they get hosed where it counts. Also you are entirely right, it would help lower costs and improve outcomes if people could get routine physicals, which is why you should support single payer healthcare where there is no disincentive for people to leave that horrible gash on their arm and hope it gets better so that they can pay the power bill this month. Also are you seriously suggesting that the government mandates a "Standard of care" that is less than what patients need, and that patients would be more likely to get the care that they need if only the government wasn't in the way? That is absurd. The government mandates the minimum standard of care and loving competency so that people don't have to spend half a day researching which hospital is safe to go to when they get stabbed. No one wants to see doctor nick. quote:This all pushes costs higher. This is NOT a very controversial point. This is actually accepted by many mainstream commentators and economists. Feel free to cite some. quote:As far as comparing US health care costs and those of, say, Canada, there are many factors that influence the final cost of medicine. The first point I'll make is that just because Canada or the United Kingdom have a single payer system where the State supposedly offers "free" healthcare to everyone, that does not automatically mean that the State is "more involved" in medicine. For example, our government only provides healthcare as a "right" to the elderly, to veterans, to some of the poor. Yet, the subsidies that are paid to health insurance agencies are expenditures of money that the State dolls out. What about benefits to the pharmaceutical lobby? Then there are the regulations and rules foisted upon doctors that, while not necessarily increasing access to medicine, nevertheless clearly constitute government involvement in medicine. No one in Canada thinks our healthcare is free. We aren't loving children, and no politician or person I've ever met or seen has gone "I love me free healthcare." We know where it comes from, and that is part of why it has higher approval than cute puppies. As for the rest of this, are you seriously trying to argue that the government of Canada, the single payer for all medical service in Canada, is somehow less involved in Canadian medical care because we don't pick and chose? Jesus dude. quote:Furthermore, general inflation in the economy contributes to rising costs across the economy. If the national budget of the US Government is much higher than that of Canada or the United Kingdom, then the devaluation of the US Dollar will continue to push up costs of medicine. Furthermore, different demographics influence healthcare expenditures as do lifestyles and health choices that are cultural and cannot be mandated through State enforced law.  MONEY DOES NOT WORK THAT WAY! Overall inflation in the USD is not considerably higher or lower than that of Canada or the UK. The size of the budget does not loving matter in the slightest when discussing this, and i have no idea where you get this bizarre idea. Can you please explain this further, because I really am having difficulty even understanding what you are talking about. Also, demographic differences do not even come close to accounting for the differences in care. We know this because we can compare outcomes across people of similar age, racial, gender, age and other groups. While I'm sure 'fat americans' do increase your costs somewhat, they don't do so in nearly the way that you would like to pretend. We're talking part of a percent. quote:I understand why you all are so intent on pushing the discussion back to healthcare. You feel that this is one of the strongest arguments that left-progressives have and I admit the argument is emotionally appealing. It is no fun to have a serious illness that can be treated but be denied access due to inability to pay. Yet I believe that the market is entirely capable of providing healthcare services just as the market provides food and water. We're so intent because you came in talking all sorts of poo poo about how much you knew about healthcare. Then like... forty posters kicked your teeth in and you tried to change the topic. Also because the US healthcare is pretty much the pinnacle example of how socialism can do much, much better than capitalism in action. Even though you argue it isn't capitalism. I'm going to ask this again since you never replied. If the market is always better than the state, and the state is always lovely at providing outcome, why does a Hybrid system do worse by pretty much every metric that counts except "Service for rich people" quote:But let's deal with practicality for a minute. In the United States in 2015, Medicare and Medicaid are the biggest things that are blowing a hole in the Federal Budget. Every honest observer has to admit when looking at the numbers, that the unfunded liabilities created by entitlement programs cannot be met in the next fifty, sixty and seventy years. The obvious remedy is that the Federal Government must cut back and cover fewer people with such entitlement programs and not more. gently caress you gently caress you gently caress you. Sorry. I hate debunking this idiotic argument because it feels like trying to explain marginal tax rates. A grade schooler should know this poo poo. First off, medicare is not an unfunded liability. An unfunded liability is when you say "I will put 50 bucks in this jar every month and have 600 at the end of the year for my kid's birthday" Then you skip two months. You now have an unfunded liability because that money has to be spent at the end of the year, but you don't loving have it. Medicare and Medicaid are Pay-Go systems, that is, they are systems that were designed from the very begining to be this way. Current retirees are paid for by current workers, who will be paid for by future workers and so forth. There is no end date unless you think we will one day run out of retirees or workers. If we run out of either we have a lot bigger loving problem than a future deficit in medicare, like the asteroid that just wiped out humanity. This absurd idea that there is $222 Trillion does not make any sense. Consider, for that 222 Trillion figure to make any sense we would have to pay out 222 Trillion dollars to current and future retires, that means my parents, then me, then my kids. Basically every single person who is born currently. Yet at the same time as we continue to pay out this absurd amount of money, we simultaneously have literally no one working. At all. No one is paying taxes, including people who will later collect on benefits We would have to be giving benefits out for three quarters of a century with no one working for that bullshit number to ever even begin to make sense. The line that medicare and Social Security are unfunded liabilites is a made up thing. Its made up by someone who wants to scare you with big numbers and assumes you are too ignorant to understand why those big numbers are not at all frightening. Edit: Seriously, look at those numbers again for two seconds. They are talking like they suddenly realized that the US govenment has a 200 trillion dollar hole that it didn't realize it had. Do you have any idea how loving stupid this is? If you answer nothing about this post, answer this. quote:Canada and the United Kingdom have their own histories, their own budget issues and their own currencies to deal with. No matter what the cost of healthcare in those countries, what is being proposed here is to expand medical care coverage to include not just the Elderly and some of the poor, but ALL Americans. This would be an expansion by, what, 60-70% coverage? Yes I understand that medical care costs for the elderly are always higher, but that is still a massive expansion of coverage from a government that cannot possibly cover its existing obligations. Why? Seriously, why can't the US handle it? If you agree that the elderly and the poor are by far the highest risk groups, then I have news for you, the US government covers the most high risk groups in the country, roughly 1/3 of the population, at 1/2 of your total healthcare spending. Covering the remaining 2/3rds of healthy individuals should be a cinch if you simply take the 50% of your GDP and redirect it from greedy insurance companies to government spending. Mind you it wouldn't actually cost that much, because the government would then use its substantial leverage to reduce overall prices on healthcare, but even assuming worst case scenario you could still insure everyone in your country under single payer for the amount you are paying now rather than have people literally die of treatable diseases for no reason. Caros fucked around with this message at 08:53 on Feb 3, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 08:48
|
|
|
Caros posted:Me... sort of. You strike me as more of a true-blue progressive, unless you secretly want social or state ownership of the means of production
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 08:49
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:You strike me as more of a true-blue progressive, unless you secretly want social or state ownership of the means of production In a perfect world? Socialist. I'd like to see social ownership of production but short of Synereo taking off and revolutionizing the way we deal with one another I don't see it happening in my lifetime so I'll take what I can get.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 08:52
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:Yeah I know what you are saying. I just wanted to cover my bases in case someone strongly identified with one of those labels but not the other. And by doing it, you also managed to show that your understanding of history has not improved one jot in your small break, either. To answer your actual question, though: Yes, I identify heavily yith Marxism. The economic and historical analyses it provides are convincing. It also helps that it's based on empiricism and facts rather than loving Praexology, and is thus open to alteration as new evidence is presented or uncovered. Overall, I don't think you can reasonably deny that Marx was, in essence, right about capitalism as it existed in his time. His prediction about its evolution dovetails quite nicely with actual events during the 19th and early 20th Century. (Un)Fortunately, because his theories were taken seriously, the evolution he predicted didn't pan out as he, and subsequent thinkers laid out ( that is, capitalist exploitation leading to rising class-consciousness leading to social revolution leading to socialism, culminating in full communism ), and for two very good reasons: In the first instance, the bourgeoisie saw the rising proletariat in the form of trade-unions and their attendant political parties ( videlicet the various shades of "Labour" showing up around the turn of the 19th Century as a party-affiliation ) as a threat, and rightly so. What Marx had apparently not anticipated was that the bourgeoisie and petit-bourgeoisie would actually surrender some of their stranglehold on capital and power in order to mollify the workers, while at the same time cracking down on the most radical elements. In essence, faced with the prospect of losing it all or give up some, the bourgeoisie and petit-bourgeoisie elected to keep what they could and use the rest to placate the proletariat ( see also: Otto von Bismarck ). However, this was the seed of Social Democracy, which has always tried to move gently and slowly towards a form of socialism while working within the existing economic and political system, eschewing revolution. The second reason is that, as Caros has already pointed out, for fully predictable reasons the Soviet Union and Soviet China ended up as totalitarian dictatorships. In Russia's instance - and this is where I need you to listen very carefully, Jrod, because this is important context - serfdom, the system where peasants were bound to the land and considered property of the nobility about on par with livestock, had only been abolished in 1861. In essence, the post-mideaval period in the Russian Empire began some 300 years after most of the rest of Europe. Both China and Russia were - at least in theory - absolute and totalitarian monarchies before their respective revolutions, with very few , if any, democratic traditions and virtually no modern industry at all. What they did have were strong traditions for authoritarianism and a bourgeoisie that were not on any account going to give an inch. The horrors that followed were as predictable as they were deplorable, and quite a few marxists and socialists at the time they were going on said so, loudly and vociferously. This also gave the bourgeoisie and petit-bourgeoisie in the Western world a cudgel to beat anyone who spoke a bit too stridently about worker's rights over the head with, and split the International Worker's Movement into pieces. This is why there's no contradiction in me being both a marxist and telling you to gently caress off when you're trying to have me defend Joseph loving Stalin. The man was a monster and I have no problem saying it, either. Lenin is more of a mixed bag, but yeah, he did horrifying poo poo too. The Soviet Union was built on an ocean of blood shed by workers that ended up just as exploited as those in the West, in the final instance. That's not a failing of Marxism, however, it's a failing of humanity. No matter the ideological underpinnings, it's only in very, very rare instances that violent revolutions don't end up in terror. Or do I actually need to mention "Libertè, Egalitè, Fraternitè"? TLM3101 fucked around with this message at 09:13 on Feb 3, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 08:59
|
|
|
What do you think about group negotiation and group leverage during business negotiations Jrod?
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 09:11
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:I wasn't trying to deny that more advanced techniques can be more expensive, in fact I readily admitted as much. I was merely making the eminently sensible observation that when a consumer makes choices without even knowing or caring about the costs of the product or service rendered, then costs will be inflated higher than they otherwise would be. Yeah, I'm just going to defer to Caros on this one. Going to the doctor is cheap. Receiving life-saving medical care is extremely expensive. You can see this by looking at the cost trend of medical insurance by age group: young people who tend not to have expensive life-threatening illnesses have lower premiums, old people who might need a triple bypass tomorrow have higher premiums. However, you are correct that most healthcare decisions are not life or death decisions. But most healthcare decisions are also cheap. Visiting the doctor and getting some antibiotics to treat an infection is all common, routine, and extremely inexpensive. Taking your kid to get their vaccinations is all common, routine, and extremely inexpensive. Showing up at the doctor's office with cancer symptoms is uncommon, not at all routine, and extremely expensive no matter where you turn (because life saving diagnosis and treatment often costs a lot of money). quote:As far as comparing US health care costs and those of, say, Canada, there are many factors that influence the final cost of medicine. The first point I'll make is that just because Canada or the United Kingdom have a single payer system where the State supposedly offers "free" healthcare to everyone, that does not automatically mean that the State is "more involved" in medicine. For example, our government only provides healthcare as a "right" to the elderly, to veterans, to some of the poor. Yet, the subsidies that are paid to health insurance agencies are expenditures of money that the State dolls out. What about benefits to the pharmaceutical lobby? Then there are the regulations and rules foisted upon doctors that, while not necessarily increasing access to medicine, nevertheless clearly constitute government involvement in medicine. What are you trying to say here? The UK and Canada foist plenty of rules upon their doctors, so that's not even a difference between the systems. Single payer is the end-all be-all of medical regulation; if you want to talk about government involvement in medicine, then single payer is cranking the amp to 11. Single payer systems set the prices for all procedures, the pay of all doctors, the price of all drugs, and the availability of care to all people. Despite all of that government involvement, single payer systems are more successful on just about every metric than the US healthcare system, a mix of private/public with a lot of rules but not nearly as much state intervention as single payer. quote:Furthermore, general inflation in the economy contributes to rising costs across the economy. If the national budget of the US Government is much higher than that of Canada or the United Kingdom, then the devaluation of the US Dollar will continue to push up costs of medicine. Furthermore, different demographics influence healthcare expenditures as do lifestyles and health choices that are cultural and cannot be mandated through State enforced law. In an earlier post you pointed out that inflation does not come close to explaining rising medical costs, which is true. So I don't know why you're trying to claim the opposite of that here. But there's an even worse problem here: the UK has consistently had higher average rates of inflation than the US for nearly all of last century. So that doesn't explain why the UK's healthcare is less expensive Different demographics and lifestyle choices certainly due influence healthcare expenditures, but the difference in expenditures per capita is so insanely large and the cultural differences so small that there's not much point in looking here for a reason. UK people (per capita) are about as fat as we are, they smoke more often, and their lifestyle choices aren't really any better on average, yet they spend way less on healthcare per person. You're grasping at straws here. quote:I understand why you all are so intent on pushing the discussion back to healthcare. You feel that this is one of the strongest arguments that left-progressives have and I admit the argument is emotionally appealing. It is no fun to have a serious illness that can be treated but be denied access due to inability to pay. Yet I believe that the market is entirely capable of providing healthcare services just as the market provides food and water. This is a tangent. As someone else pointed out, food and water are heavily subsidized and controlled by all of the governments in all of the societies that you would count as having sufficient access to food and water. It's possible for healthcare to be provided by the free market, but it's going to be more expensive and less accessible than in a single payer system, as can be shown by example. Let's consider the Swiss system. I have personal experience with this system, having lived in Switzerland for half a decade. It's a private/public system much like in the US, but with way more government involvement; the Swiss government sets the prices for procedures, insurance premiums, drugs, etc. People get their choice of provider and can purchase supplemental insurance, but everyone has to get at least one of the government-designed plans from a health insurance provider. Their involvement in the healthcare system is way more extreme than our own (it's basically Obamacare with way more direct control over providers and prices), yet their healthcare spending per capita is pretty low and their medical care is exceptional. quote:But let's deal with practicality for a minute. In the United States in 2015, Medicare and Medicaid are the biggest things that are blowing a hole in the Federal Budget. Every honest observer has to admit when looking at the numbers, that the unfunded liabilities created by entitlement programs cannot be met in the next fifty, sixty and seventy years. The obvious remedy is that the Federal Government must cut back and cover fewer people with such entitlement programs and not more. No, that's not the obvious remedy. c = b - a You are arguing that the only way to increase c is to reduce a. A different but also obvious remedy is to convert Medicare into single payer healthcare. Get everyone paying mandatory health insurance premiums to instead pay premiums to the Medicare program, which covers everyone. More people will have access to affordable preventative care, reducing the prevalence of expensive preventable illness. Drug prices and medical equipment will fall, as being the largest healthcare provider gives you ultimate bargaining power, as evidenced by facts like how people prescribed statins in the US pay 400% more than people prescribed statins in the UK and about 250% more per capita on drugs in general than the UK. People who can't afford care under the current system will be able to receive cheap and effective treatment instead of resorting to expensive (for the taxpayer) emergency room care. And since Medicare has lower overhead costs than any private insurance company, you'll see immediate savings there alone. quote:Here is a quote on the unfunded liabilities that confront the US State: A) Unfunded liabilities extrapolated over 50 years aren't a reasonable metric for anything, especially not when you discount revenue B) The deficit in 2014 was less than $0.5 trillion, much less than half of this guy's estimate, so his numbers aren't even reasonable. In 2013 (6 months before this opinion piece was written) it was $0.7 trillion and had been steadily falling. It's probably safe to assume that his other numbers are also wrong quote:Canada and the United Kingdom have their own histories, their own budget issues and their own currencies to deal with. No matter what the cost of healthcare in those countries, what is being proposed here is to expand medical care coverage to include not just the Elderly and some of the poor, but ALL Americans. This would be an expansion by, what, 60-70% coverage? Yes I understand that medical care costs for the elderly are always higher, but that is still a massive expansion of coverage from a government that cannot possibly cover its existing obligations. It can cover its existing obligations by increasing revenue. It's important to remember that these obligations are only considered "unfunded" because we can't say that we've collected taxes for future years yet. It's nice for making a big scary number, but it's effectively meaningless unless you expect that everyone is just going to collectively decide to stop paying taxes. quote:How do your proposed single-payer reforms deal with this budgetary reality? Convert health insurance premiums into government revenue and reap the economic benefits of single payer healthcare, as described above. QuarkJets fucked around with this message at 18:55 on Feb 3, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 09:38
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:Convert health insurance premiums into government revenue and reap the economic benefits of single payer healthcare, as described above. Or, you know, have the doctors and nurses be public employees, directly hired and managed by the municipality and/or state. But, of course, that would be  socialism. I'll take the liberty of once again linking to that bastion of socialism, that den of marxist fanatics, that seething pit of radical leftism that is... Forbes Magazine. Yes, I know that it's been linked and discussed before, but I think it's amusing, dammit!
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 10:00
|
|
|
Sedanchair you beautiful bastard
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 10:26
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:I wasn't trying to deny that more advanced techniques can be more expensive, in fact I readily admitted as much. I was merely making the eminently sensible observation that when a consumer makes choices without even knowing or caring about the costs of the product or service rendered, then costs will be inflated higher than they otherwise would be. All right, first question that comes to mind: how am I, the apparently smart-shopping patient with a nose for bargains, supposed to have the medical knowledge and professional expertise required to know if the MRI or blood work is necessary or not? Isn't that why I go to the loving doctor, so he can tell me what diagnostics are appropriate? Am I just supposed to get my own medical degree on Wikipedia and WebMD and then show up at the hospital with a list of diagnostics I want performed and a price sheet? Now if we had a bureau that acts as a single payer for medical care (we could call it...Medicare) whose procedures were crafted by or in consultation with doctors and professionals, who are just as capable as my doctor of judging whether a diagnostic is a necessary procedure that they'll pay for, or a frivolous or unnecessary expense they'll reject, then that sure would be a good reliable second opinion!
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 11:36
|
|
|
Caros posted:In a perfect world? Socialist. I'd like to see social ownership of production but short of Synereo taking off and revolutionizing the way we deal with one another I don't see it happening in my lifetime so I'll take what I can get. A perfect world would be an anarchy and it would "just work" because everyone is perfect.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 14:40
|
|
|
Jrod I have a relatively softball question for you: if you don't think a majority of people are smart enough to be qualified to elect officials to represent them why do you believe that they will be smart enough to always make perfectly informed purchases in a libertarian society?
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 17:11
|
|
Who What Now posted:Jrod I have a relatively softball question for you: if you don't think a majority of people are smart enough to be qualified to elect officials to represent them why do you believe that they will be smart enough to always make perfectly informed purchases in a libertarian society? My attempted response: he doesn't in fact believe the former that much, and believes the latter is more likely to produce a society that rewards the deserving, though their power will be checked by the checks the untrammelled market supplies against malfeasance. It's more important either way that you covenant in to the form of organisation you have.
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 17:37
|
|
|
Disinterested posted:My attempted response: he doesn't in fact believe the former that much, and believes the latter is more likely to produce a society that rewards the deserving, though their power will be checked by the checks the untrammelled market supplies against malfeasance. It's more important either way that you covenant in to the form of organisation you have. jrod believes anything any libertarian wrote down to be indisputably true and one of their primary criticisms of democracy is that in general people are far too stupid to be trusted with choosing leaders. I have no doubt that he absolutely believed this is true, I just don't think he's ever taken a moment to reflect on the implications of this belief and how it meshes with his other beliefs. Unless, of course, there is a Mises article that addresses this.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 17:47
|
|
|
The masses: Too stupid for democracy, they vote irrationally and often counter to their own interests, support stupid people and stupid parties. The market: made up of rational informed masses supporting the best leaders and corporations based on merit.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 18:37
|
|
Baronjutter posted:The masses: Too stupid for democracy, they vote irrationally and often counter to their own interests, support stupid people and stupid parties. I think the more important factor always winds up being that you don't covenant in to states, and when you do it's somewhat irrevocable. Moreover, because you're born to them, your performance in your covenant toward the state is naturally coerced, as well as coerced in other ways (e.g. unagreed taxation; conscription etc.).
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 18:41
|
|
|
This week in the free marketplace, in the unregulated herbal supplement market it turns out that 4 out of 5 herbal supplement bottles contain none of the advertised ingredient. Here's a choice quote:quote:At Walmart, the authorities found that its ginkgo biloba, a Chinese plant promoted as a memory enhancer, contained little more than powdered radish, houseplants and wheat — despite a claim on the label that the product was wheat- and gluten-free. I sure do love unregulated marketplaces! Hope you don't have celiac disease or a nut allergy, here's your bottle of Gineseng Extract that's actually just powdered legumes and wheat. Oh look at this filthy loving statist trying to interfere with a free market: quote:The attorney general sent the four retailers cease-and-desist letters on Monday and demanded that they explain what procedures they use to verify the ingredients in their supplements. gently caress YOU STATIST, if people have a nut allergy then they should have to test all of the pills that they consume on their own. It's my god-given right to sell people pills made of powdered nuts while claiming that it's acai berry extract! QuarkJets fucked around with this message at 19:56 on Feb 3, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 19:51
|
|
|
A corporation in a libertarian world would never do that because the victim's insurance and DRO's would go after the corporation and win because. Sure maybe at first there will be more deaths from mislabeled products but consumers would quickly wise up and hire food-tasters and a whole industry of private inspection would crop up, creating many jobs. Also restaurant staff hand washing should be optional, because freedom. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/in-the-loop/wp/2015/02/03/the-next-public-health-debate-hand-washing/?tid=trending_strip_1 Baronjutter fucked around with this message at 21:04 on Feb 3, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 20:00
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:How do your proposed single-payer reforms deal with this budgetary reality? Caros has already thoroughly responded to this, but I want to point something out. Socialist systems like those of the UK and Canada achieve lower costs per procedure / pill / whatever than capitalist systems like that of the US. This is a fact, it is easily provable (QuarkJets mentions it in his post). Medicare and Medicaid pay less in the US than private insurance or uninsured individuals do, which can also be easily verified. This is, as Caros and QJ explain, because of the incredible bargaining power of a single payer: when the only person buying your service is the Government, you charge the price they're willing to pay, or you go out of business. Since the buyer, not the seller, has the power, prices go down. Let's assume that this $220 trillion estimate is true. The figure is, essentially, merely the number of procedures that will be needed multiplied by the cost that will be payed for them: c = a*b. As mentioned, governments pay less for healthcare than individuals or insurance companies, so if we take Medicaid out of the equation, b will increase, and it logically follows that c will increase dramatically beyond $220tn—if we remove an organization renowned for getting the best available deal from the picture and convert it into a mass of vulnerable, economically disenfranchised geriatrics and cripples, prices will rise, because that's what happens when the balance of power shifts from buyer to supplier. People aren't suddenly going to stop having cancer because Medicaid isn't around to pay for their chemotherapy regimen. They're not going to stop having heart attacks because their insurance premiums are rising. And although they might cancel their annual checkups because their copays are going up, that will be an unequivocal ill, both from the perspectives of cost and outcomes. Given that—what the hell does your system—one of powerless individuals completely in the grip of their healthcare providers—deal with the medical costs of the future?
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 21:31
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:This week in the free marketplace, in the unregulated herbal supplement market it turns out that 4 out of 5 herbal supplement bottles contain none of the advertised ingredient. Here's a choice quote: Logically a product labeled as gluten free acai berry will not have any wheat or nuts, therefore in accordance to praxeology it must not contain them. Any empiric evidence to the contrast is clearly false statist lies.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 21:46
|
|
|
I'll place my nuts anywhere I want. Vote Ron Paul.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 22:03
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:gently caress YOU STATIST, if people have a nut allergy then they should have to test all of the pills that they consume on their own. It's my god-given right to sell people pills made of powdered nuts while claiming that it's acai berry extract! Before God, can somebody please find that facebook rant by some fedora against the state where his mom came in and said "without the state I would never have been able to care for you, my nut allergy son"
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 22:17
|
|
|
Since the topic of vaccinations is currently the hot topic in the news, I'd like to know where you stand on that subject, JRode.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 22:40
|
|
|
Mr Interweb posted:Since the topic of vaccinations is currently the hot topic in the news, I'd like to know where you stand on that subject, JRode. Every child has the right to spend their hard earned money on radium water.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 22:57
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:gently caress YOU STATIST, if people have a nut allergy then they should have to test all of the pills that they consume on their own. It's my god-given right to sell people pills made of powdered nuts while claiming that it's acai berry extract! Testing everything you eat for safety and reliability isn't onerous at all to the population of Libertopia, who if you'll remember, have already been assumed to have been fully professionally trained in medicine and every other conceivable career so they can make fully-informed rational decisions about whether the MRI their doctor recommends is "really" necessary or whether he's just trying to pad his bill and/or cover his rear end by ordering unnecessary procedures*. *Protip: if the treatment is anything other than colloidal silver and powdered-gold enemas, it's an evil statist plot by the medical industry to steal your Ron Paul Liberty dollars! 
VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 00:50 on Feb 4, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2015 00:44
|
|
|
In Libertopia, everyone is Doc Savage and everyone has a tricorder.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2015 00:48
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:I wasn't trying to deny that more advanced techniques can be more expensive, in fact I readily admitted as much. I was merely making the eminently sensible observation that when a consumer makes choices without even knowing or caring about the costs of the product or service rendered, then costs will be inflated higher than they otherwise would be. No, you weren't making that observation. Or if you did, you did a massively terrible job. But let's be honest - who in the world doesn't care about the cost of something? The only time I don't care about the cost of something is if it is cheap enough. Healthcare does fall on the kind of expensive side. Also, do you have any understanding how people or governments pay for healthcare? You don't think the British government orders from the people who can give them the cheapest cost? Or are you claiming that people in America don't care about healthcare costs? I really don't know what you're talking about because from either angle, you clearly don't know what you're talking about. quote:During the past decade there are MANY economists and commentators who are not libertarian who nonetheless made this exact argument, specifically that the lack of price competition has removed one of the primary market mechanisms by which prices are driven lower. The proposed reforms involve opening up markets in healthcare and allowing price competition to enter into more healthcare decisions. If you give the consumer an incentive to look for a lower price or at least be cognizant of the costs of various treatments, then costs will fall for a variety of reasons. Once again, the question you have to answer is why hasn't this happened yet today. Because it hasn't happened. And while there are some factors you can't work against, don't you think a businessman could make a killing on a hospital that won't bankrupt you if you need to stay there a couple of days? quote:Most healthcare decisions are not life or death decisions. Most decisions are not made under duress. Amazingly enough, the ones that bankrupt people tend to be life or death decisions. I could not choose not to have surgery. It is by the grace of God that I have good insurance. The stuff that ruins people is the incredibly expensive treatment. I didn't have insurance for a while. Seeing the doctor was about 75 bucks. The blood work was another 70 or 80. It's not cheap, but it's not bankruptcy expensive either. Granted, there are a lot of people who can't get basic healthcare because even the 140 I just mentioned is not something they could easily drop on themselves. Or they can't get the time off from work to do it. There's a lot of factors. quote:Even if I were to concede the argument made about the non elasticity of some healthcare prices, the fact remains that some healthcare choices are highly elastic. It might be healthier if you get a routine physical twice a year. But if it costs more than a certain amount, you might take a risk and get a physical only once a year. Even if people are getting physicals once a year, that still is more healthcare than people are getting. quote:Doctors frequently over test. Many people get MRIs, CAT Scans and blood work done due to an infinitesimal chance of finding something. What? What reality are you from? People don't just go and get MRIs and CAT Scans because there's an infinitesimal chance of finding something. You know why? Because that poo poo is invasive, it's expensive, and it's a very limited resource. You're not going to waste everybody's time getting images of a person's insides unless you NEED to get images of a person's insides. Blood work is so common, that I just don't know. And do you know why doctors over test? because many of them get PAID PER SERVICE. That means if they run 3 tests, they can get paid 3 times. Why wouldn't that change in a free market economy? quote:Doctors are worried about lawsuits, State-mandated regulations confine the choices of doctors to a bureaucratic "standard of care" protocol that might be inadequate for the individual patient, and patients don't care what the costs of all this extra testing is because they don't have to pay for it. If their insurance pays or the State pays, they could care less. Dude, Jrodefeld. This is your brain speaking. You know that thing you call an "rear end." Use it for making GBS threads, not for constructing arguments. You are aware that Medicare and Medicaid will often set prices that doctors feel is too cheap. They pay less than other healthcare plans. And even with insurance, you still pay out of pocket, up to your deductible. So you loving know I care. You know what. I'm gonna tell you a story. I work for a living. And my employer gives me insurance that pays 100% of my healthcare costs for most things, except for medications. But that's normal. So if I go see the doctor, I pay nothing. I could get a million tests done, and I will pay nothing. You know what - I still care plenty about the tests that are being run. You see, some tests are physically uncomfortable, or others are time consuming. And I have a life. So, no, I'm not getting extreme amounts of testing done for my essentially free healthcare. I'm getting the same I got when there was a copay. quote:This all pushes costs higher. This is NOT a very controversial point. This is actually accepted by many mainstream commentators and economists. You need to understand the why, not the what. quote:As far as comparing US health care costs and those of, say, Canada, there are many factors that influence the final cost of medicine. The first point I'll make is that just because Canada or the United Kingdom have a single payer system where the State supposedly offers "free" healthcare to everyone, that does not automatically mean that the State is "more involved" in medicine. For example, our government only provides healthcare as a "right" to the elderly, to veterans, to some of the poor. Yet, the subsidies that are paid to health insurance agencies are expenditures of money that the State dolls out. What about benefits to the pharmaceutical lobby? Then there are the regulations and rules foisted upon doctors that, while not necessarily increasing access to medicine, nevertheless clearly constitute government involvement in medicine. And your point being? The rules being "foisted" upon doctors are there to make sure that healthcare is as efficient for people as possible. It's about safety. The benefits to specific lobbies? Well, I don't know. Those things are typically done to protect their bottom line. You're comparing apples and oranges here. quote:Furthermore, general inflation in the economy contributes to rising costs across the economy. If the national budget of the US Government is much higher than that of Canada or the United Kingdom, then the devaluation of the US Dollar will continue to push up costs of medicine. Furthermore, different demographics influence healthcare expenditures as do lifestyles and health choices that are cultural and cannot be mandated through State enforced law. For someone who claims to study economics, you really have a loose grasp on the basic facts, don't you. quote:I understand why you all are so intent on pushing the discussion back to healthcare. You feel that this is one of the strongest arguments that left-progressives have and I admit the argument is emotionally appealing. It is no fun to have a serious illness that can be treated but be denied access due to inability to pay. Yet I believe that the market is entirely capable of providing healthcare services just as the market provides food and water. You don't understand. And that's why you're so cute. You just tried so hard. See, if the market was capable, then why hasn't the market stepped in and overcome the forces of government? There was a documentary on Healthcare, where they were talking to a guy in Belgium, I believe. And he said that if someone went bankrupt over medical bills over there, it would be a huge national scandals. Politicians would be kicked out of office. Here, that happens all the time. People decide "Do I buy food or my medication?" Where is your loving market? So, when the rest of the loving first world has universal health care and it works just fine, you have to be a big loving massive idiot to say "Guys, the market can step in" when it hasn't. It loving hasn't. quote:But let's deal with practicality for a minute. In the United States in 2015, Medicare and Medicaid are the biggest things that are blowing a hole in the Federal Budget. Every honest observer has to admit when looking at the numbers, that the unfunded liabilities created by entitlement programs cannot be met in the next fifty, sixty and seventy years. The obvious remedy is that the Federal Government must cut back and cover fewer people with such entitlement programs and not more. Other people addressed this. quote:Canada and the United Kingdom have their own histories, their own budget issues and their own currencies to deal with. No matter what the cost of healthcare in those countries, what is being proposed here is to expand medical care coverage to include not just the Elderly and some of the poor, but ALL Americans. This would be an expansion by, what, 60-70% coverage? Yes I understand that medical care costs for the elderly are always higher, but that is still a massive expansion of coverage from a government that cannot possibly cover its existing obligations. Here's the thing, there's a lot of issues in America. Right now, we have a tax system that favors the rich where most rich people pay less in taxes, percentage wise, than I pay. Also, the cost of expanding it takes into account a few things. First off, people would be paying into the system too. So, you take your insurance premium, and instead of paying it to a private company, you pay it to the government. Also, some of the costs are limited, like the cost of supporting the system. Also, there's the fact that the rest of the world does it, so why can't the US?
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2015 01:55
|
|
|
Here's a full article on the supplements: http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2015/02/03/383524379/new-york-state-clamps-down-on-herbal-supplements The best part is definitely the defense of "your scientists don't know how to assay our ingredients" which by his explanation are completely destroyed by their manufacturing process but somehow still beneficial to put in your body. I heard this story on the radio and I thought instantly of you, Jrizzle. How is this unregulated market predominated by fraudulently-labeled products possible? Why did prescient consumers keep buying useless or harmful products instead of taking their business elsewhere? Literally anything can be printed on a bottle of obecalp-filled gelatin capsules if you print "This product / these claims have not been evaluated by the FDA" in 2pt font on the back. You can pay a chiropractor with a talk show to tell people they "may prevent cancer" and since there is no empirical data as to what your product even contains, let alone what it does, people will put it in their bodies. If they wanted, they could seek FDA approval to say that it does have a scientifically validated indication. Why are these honest merchants afraid to have their 'medications' subjected to double-blind clinical trials? Why should I want to abolish the FDA and have this kind of non-regulation to apply to prescription drugs? Nothing fills me with confidence like "This product has not been evaluated for safety or efficacy and is not indicated for the treatment, prevention, or diagnosis of any condition." Levothyroxine* 88mcg** tablets * - possibly ** - 20% of tablets are of the labeled weight. we don't know the difference between a mcg and a mg.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2015 02:04
|
|
|
I predict Jrod's next post will be something along the lines of "don't you see? Healthcare was so much cheaper in the 19th century before government intervention!"Antares posted:Here's a full article on the supplements: sup thyroid condition buddy 
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2015 03:37
|
|
|
How does bankruptcy work in jrodtopia? Indentured servitude, possibly for life, depending on the size of the debt? Why would a creditor ever agree to any sort of arbitration that might allow for the debtor to discharge his debts? I know chances are infinitesimal I'll get a response, but I'm genuinely curious how jrod addresses this. In his society, how can contracts be abrogated except by mutual consent?
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2015 03:48
|
|
|
Antares posted:Here's a full article on the supplements: The existence of the US regulatory apparatus probably does in some way aid these sorts of scammers. I can't prove it, but I have a strong suspicion that many Americans don't realize just how much deception is legally allowed, and what categories of products the FDA does/doesn't test. Unethical companies can play on these misconceptions, whereas more consumers would probably be more skeptical if there was no FDA. But of course you could also solve this in a sane manner by 1) increasing regulations to actually cover the things consumers assume should be covered, and 2) educating consumers on what claims are and aren't verified by the FDA.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2015 03:57
|
|
|
That's not because of the regulatory apparatus, it's because the regulatory apparatus is effectively barred from considering these problems thanks to that fucker Orrin Hatch.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2015 04:08
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 22, 2024 02:09 |
|
|
Jack of Hearts posted:How does bankruptcy work in jrodtopia? Indentured servitude, possibly for life, depending on the size of the debt? Why would a creditor ever agree to any sort of arbitration that might allow for the debtor to discharge his debts? Murder of your debt holder and all of his heirs. Or run away to join Valhalla DRO I guess.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2015 04:16
|
|