TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- The Right To Everything
Pages (4): « 1 2 3 [4]

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka Yes, but shit happens. It's one thing to have safety nets and social programs that give some supplemental assistance when the chips are down, but it's entirely another to institute obligatory multi-trillion dollar spending programs and mandates in a supposedly "free" country that results in rationing of services.

Something called a limited supply for an unlimited demand. All products and services are rationed by price. Healthcare isn't just any service and should therefore, be available to all, just as roads and highways are..

quote:

Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov The first and only argument should have been the one occ just pointed to - efficiency. What people can't seem to get their head around is that the cost won't really increase - it just shifts. The Franken video above includes the example of the Mayo Clinic that I think is very illuminating. Shifting the administration of health care institutions and insurance companies can reduce costs for the consumer that offsets any increase in public cost.

That seems unlikely. I believe that the administration is seriously underestimating the costs of expanding coverage to those who are presently uninsured.

Extending coverage to those presently uninsured will cost more than the current market value of insurance for them because it will increase demand and, since supply is inelastic, therefore the cost of medical services. The only alternative is to regulate the costs of medical services directly, but that will not solve our health care problems; rather, it will only cause supply to further contract, and instead of people having no access to health care because they cannot afford insurance, we will have large numbers of people who have no access to the health care they need because of inadequate supply.

Moreover, since the plan (effectively) requires people to have insurance, it removes incentives to reduce one's own consumption of health care services. Once a person is insured, the marginal cost of treatment is only their deductible or copayment, and therefore a rational person will be more inclined to seek unnecessary treatments which they would eschew if they had to pay the full cost of the treatment, even if they could afford it. Those currently uninsured have medical conditions for which treatment is required and for which they are unable to pay. That is certainly a problem that would be fixed by the plan, but those same people also have medical conditions for which treatment is optional. Once insured, there will be little incentive for them not to seek treatment for those conditions as well, even though they would not do so if they had to pay the cost themselves, since the marginal cost for such treatment will be low. The result is a tragedy of the commons, where the health care market would operate efficiently to everyone's benefit if such treatments were not purchased, but since each individual can shift the cost of her own treatment to everyone else those benefits are unlikely to be realized. The aggregate demand and cost of health care will increase accordingly, and much of it will be waste.

/\/\/\

what he said. I can't, for the life of me, understand any person who honestly believes the government when they say the cost of their programs will have no cost... or pay for themselves... or be deficit netural. The same people who believed that Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid, the War On Poverty, and scores of other government run social programs will ever be of little or no cost are drinking the kool-aid with this too. We are supposed to believe that because a bunch of elites have Ivey league educations, even with zero real world business experience they can run industries better and more efficiently than the people who specialize in doing that kind of work? lol

quote:

Originally posted by Arbiter That seems unlikely. I believe that the administration is seriously underestimating the costs of expanding coverage to those who are presently uninsured.

Do you think the added cost of the insured paying for the uninsured would be equal to or greater than the cost of insuring everyone?

quote:

Extending coverage to those presently uninsured will cost more than the current market value of insurance for them because it will increase demand and, since supply is inelastic, therefore the cost of medical services. The only alternative is to regulate the costs of medical services directly, but that will not solve our health care problems; rather, it will only cause supply to further contract, and instead of people having no access to health care because they cannot afford insurance, we will have large numbers of people who have no access to the health care they need because of inadequate supply.

I think there are ways to mitigate that such prioritizing treatment. The government could give tax breaks and subsidies to healthcare providers to incentivize them to keep costs low. Is there any reason why an MRI scan should cost $2000 but in the UK cost �300? How does Japan have universal health coverage and maintain a very high clinics/hospitalbeds per capita? It wasn't voodoo magic. They have high supply and universal coverage. I think it's possible here too but we have to work out how they did it. Supply probably will contract somewhat as we see in the wait times for certain treatments, but nonetheless, serious illnesses do get immediate treatment.

quote:

Moreover, since the plan (effectively) requires people to have insurance, it removes incentives to reduce one's own consumption of health care services. Once a person is insured, the marginal cost of treatment is only their deductible or copayment, and therefore a rational person will be more inclined to seek unnecessary treatments which they would eschew if they had to pay the full cost of the treatment, even if they could afford it. Those currently uninsured have medical conditions for which treatment is required and for which they are unable to pay. That is certainly a problem that would be fixed by the plan, but those same people also have medical conditions for which treatment is optional. Once insured, there will be little incentive for them not to seek treatment for those conditions as well, even though they would not do so if they had to pay the cost themselves, since the marginal cost for such treatment will be low. The result is a tragedy of the commons, where the health care market would operate efficiently to everyone's benefit if such treatments were not purchased, but since each individual can shift the cost of her own treatment to everyone else those benefits are unlikely to be realized. The aggregate demand and cost of health care will increase accordingly, and much of it will be waste.

Do you think prioritizing treatments would curtail this demand increase you'r talking about?

quote:

Originally posted by The17sss /\/\/\ what he said. I can't, for the life of me, understand any person who honestly believes the government when they say the cost of their programs will have no cost... or pay for themselves... or be deficit netural. The same people who believed that Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid, the War On Poverty, and scores of other government run social programs will ever be of little or no cost are drinking the kool-aid with this too. We are supposed to believe that because a bunch of elites have Ivey league educations, even with zero real world business experience they can run industries better and more efficiently than the people who specialize in doing that kind of work? lol

Private insurance companies specialize in rationing coverage so they can return profits to shareholders. Why should companies who only purpose is to return profits to shareholders be providing health insurance? We need companies whose purpose is to return profits back to policy holders in the form of increased coverage or lower costs.

The health insurance industry is basically an oligopoly. I'm not saying the companies are colluding but oligopolys tend to inadvertantly collude because each decision of one firm influence, and are influenced by, the decisions of other firms. I find this to be a primary reason why you won't be finding price wars in the health insurance industry. No 25% off sales or buy 1 get 1 free deals. They know demand is inelastic so they can charge higher prices and get little demand response. This is what happens when a few for-profit corporations are in charge of insuring people's health.

quote:

Originally posted by The17sss We are supposed to believe that because a bunch of elites have Ivey league educations, even with zero real world business experience they can run industries better and more efficiently than the people who specialize in doing that kind of work? lol

what i don't understand is why you have these opinions when there are examples all around the world that show govt doing exactly that (ie occrider's post).

a health system based entirely on profit will never be able to keep its costs down. i am amazed that there are still people that think capitalism and the private sector are the answers for everything, all the time.

great job they've done so far.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN what i don't understand is why you have these opinions when there are examples all around the world that show govt doing exactly that (ie occrider's post). a health system based entirely on profit will never be able to keep its costs down. i am amazed that there are still people that think capitalism and the private sector are the answers for everything, all the time. great job they've done so far.

PKC, the government is the reason why the capitalists can't do a great job. It's not the capitalist's fault!

quote:

Originally posted by The17sss /\/\/\ what he said. I can't, for the life of me, understand any person who honestly believes the government when they say the cost of their programs will have no cost... or pay for themselves... or be deficit netural. The same people who believed that Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid, the War On Poverty, and scores of other government run social programs will ever be of little or no cost are drinking the kool-aid with this too. We are supposed to believe that because a bunch of elites have Ivey league educations, even with zero real world business experience they can run industries better and more efficiently than the people who specialize in doing that kind of work? lol

Damn Ivey League educations really dont count for jack shit these days do they?

It's still a wonder why or how people can still believe that through this entire crisis, and economic collapses before this, we were ever a capitalist country. Capitalism is when capital, labor and goods is privately controlled. We know that this isn't entirely true in the USA since we have tons of legislature and government departments set up to take control of how private industries will operate in the market. Not to mention we have a central bank dictating interest rates and controlling the money supply for the entire country.

quote:

Originally posted by DOOMBOT It's still a wonder why or how people can still believe that through this entire crisis, and economic collapses before this, we were ever a capitalist country. Capitalism is when capital, labor and goods is privately controlled. We know that this isn't entirely true in the USA since we have tons of legislature and government departments set up to take control of how private industries will operate in the market. Not to mention we have a central bank dictating interest rates and controlling the money supply for the entire country.

If you take any economics 101 class, they teach that the US economy is a mixed economy. There are degrees of capitalism, laissez-faire capitalism being the most radical kind. This kind of capitalism, in my opinion, is no better than Stalinist communism, in it's radicalism. Think 9 year olds working in coal mines and sweat shops. The government though, does not centrally plan this economy, nor does it control the means of production, and it cannot be said this economy is a socialist or communist economy, as some ignorant people try to assert. Our economy is the most liquid in the world, with the most capital, and highest volume. This country is still very much capitalist, with Democrat or Republican in office, and it's very trivial to say any modern president is anti-capitalist. The only difference in opinion between the parties in our government is the degree to which capitalism should be maintained. Think about a nuclear reactor, where the engineers must maintain a delicate balance, with the nuclear reaction going on. They can't allow it to get out of control, or we have a meltdown, but we also can't allow it to not react at all, or we have no power. Same thing with the economy. We can't let it go wild as a laissez-faire capitalist would advocate. Nor can we control the economy to such an extent that it doesn't go anywhere.

This is why I disagree with some of the libertarian ideals I see from you or capitalizt. There's no doubt a free market is the best way to prosperity, but the market must be regulated to prevent one sector from dragging down the entire economy. We need the social protection. Just as we have free streets, there are still traffic laws to obey, in the interest of everyone's public safety.

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton There's no doubt a free market is the best way to prosperity, but the market must be regulated to prevent one sector from dragging down the entire economy. We need the social protection. Just as we have free streets, there are still traffic laws to obey, in the interest of everyone's public safety.

We are in complete agreement on the main point. The only question is what degree of federal intervention is desirable.. Since you agree a free market system is the best way to increase prosperity, I would HOPE you are leaning much further towards that end of the spectrum than authoritarianism..but it seems most of your posts these past few months have been on the other side. And your supcom name "Leftistliberal"..lol. Leftist economic policy is generally based on collectivism..in anti-capitalist, anti market ideas. WTF is going on krypt? You clearly recognize that free markets are the best (and only) way to create new wealth..but you nearly always seem to favor clamping down on them in one way or another.. I understand the need for balance..but the size of our government today seems to be pushing it to the breaking point. Every form of federal intervention is like pouring sand into the oil of capitalism's engine, and we are barely sputtering along as it is.. We have a monstrous debt load and trillions in unfunded liabilities for seniors, and I think one more permanent bureaucracy thrown on top (like healthcare entitlements for example) could finish us off for good.

quote:

Originally posted by Capitalizt We are in complete agreement on the main point. The only question is what degree of federal intervention is desirable.. Since you agree a free market system is the best way to increase prosperity, I would HOPE you are leaning much further towards that end of the spectrum than authoritarianism..

You assume authoritarianism is a solely leftist trait.

quote:

but it seems most of your posts these past few months have been on the other side.

I don't accept inequality as you do.

quote:

And your supcom name "Leftistliberal"..lol. Leftist economic policy is generally based on collectivism..in anti-capitalist, anti market ideas. WTF is going on krypt?

You assume leftists and liberals are against free markets.

quote:

You clearly recognize that free markets are the best (and only) engine to create wealth..but you nearly always seem to favor clamping down on them in one way or another.. I understand the need for balance..but the size our government has reached today seems near the breaking point. Every new burecuracy that gets formed or tax hike that is passed is like pouring sand into the oil of capitalism's engine, and I don't think it can take much more.

I am for equality of opportunity which requires addressing some of the social injustice inherent in capitalism, for example, access to healthcare being dependent on someone's socio-economic class. It would be in this nation's interest to have a healthy population, which would contribute to higher productivity within our economy.

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton If you take any economics 101 class, they teach that the US economy is a mixed economy. There are degrees of capitalism, laissez-faire capitalism being the most radical kind. This kind of capitalism, in my opinion, is no better than Stalinist communism, in it's radicalism. Think 9 year olds working in coal mines and sweat shops. The government though, does not centrally plan this economy, nor does it control the means of production, and it cannot be said this economy is a socialist or communist economy, as some ignorant people try to assert. Our economy is the most liquid in the world, with the most capital, and highest volume. This country is still very much capitalist, with Democrat or Republican in office, and it's very trivial to say any modern president is anti-capitalist. The only difference in opinion between the parties in our government is the degree to which capitalism should be maintained. Think about a nuclear reactor, where the engineers must maintain a delicate balance, with the nuclear reaction going on. They can't allow it to get out of control, or we have a meltdown, but we also can't allow it to not react at all, or we have no power. Same thing with the economy. We can't let it go wild as a laissez-faire capitalist would advocate. Nor can we control the economy to such an extent that it doesn't go anywhere. This is why I disagree with some of the libertarian ideals I see from you or capitalizt. There's no doubt a free market is the best way to prosperity, but the market must be regulated to prevent one sector from dragging down the entire economy. We need the social protection. Just as we have free streets, there are still traffic laws to obey, in the interest of everyone's public safety.

Even with all of this being said, I still don't see how or why people blame capitalism for our latest boom and bust. It was clearly the decisions of the Fed and legislation of the government that created this mess. Alan Greenspan even admits this to some extent. Having a central bank, first of all, has always proven to be a disaster in this country. You can't have a central bank setting interest rates for the entire nations banking system. It simply can not work. Secondly, you also can't have one controlling the money supply for the entire nation. I think every economist would agree that every boom and bust in this country was caused by the central banks inflation of the money supply and the misallocation of resources and malinvestment made due to the decisions the central bank has made. Again, if you look at every boom and bust ever caused in this country, that is exactly how it happened. It's funny that a lot of our forefathers saw this coming, declared this unconstitutional and when a central bank was made anyway, we went through recessions and depressions and panics.

Well, I wrote a lot. But anyway, my main point still stands in that I think you can hardly blame capitalism for any of the mess we are in. We both can agree that the market is heavily regulated by the federal government and the federal reserve and in knowing that, you have to wonder would any of this have ever happened had they not? I know some may say it would have and may have been worse but I've never seen any proof for anyone to have such an idea.

On a side note, when the hell are we going to realize that paper isn't money?

quote:

Originally posted by DOOMBOT Even with all of this being said, I still don't see how or why people blame capitalism for our latest boom and bust. It was clearly the decisions of the Fed and legislation of the government that created this mess. Alan Greenspan even admits this to some extent. Having a central bank, first of all, has always proven to be a disaster in this country. You can't have a central bank setting interest rates for the entire nations banking system. It simply can not work. Secondly, you also can't have one controlling the money supply for the entire nation. I think every economist would agree that every boom and bust in this country was caused by the central banks inflation of the money supply and the misallocation of resources and malinvestment made due to the decisions the central bank has made. Again, if you look at every boom and bust ever caused in this country, that is exactly how it happened. It's funny that a lot of our forefathers saw this coming, declared this unconstitutional and when a central bank was made anyway, we went through recessions and depressions and panics. Well, I wrote a lot. But anyway, my main point still stands in that I think you can hardly blame capitalism for any of the mess we are in. We both can agree that the market is heavily regulated by the federal government and the federal reserve and in knowing that, you have to wonder would any of this have ever happened had they not? I know some may say it would have and may have been worse but I've never seen any proof for anyone to have such an idea. On a side note, when the hell are we going to realize that paper isn't money?

jesus christ. go to school, get a degree and stop wasting our fucking time.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN jesus christ. go to school, get a degree and stop wasting our fucking time.

For someone who is a huge advocate for "going to school" and "get a degree" it is painfully obvious that you failed public speaking. Maybe people will be more interested in what you have to say if you'd stop acting as if you have an ass for a mouth.

At any rate, I'm sure Krypton will have an interesting rebuttal and I look forward to reading it.

quote:

Originally posted by DOOMBOT For someone who is a huge advocate for "going to school" and "get a degree" it is painfully obvious that you failed public speaking. Maybe people will be more interested in what you have to say if you'd stop acting as if you have an ass for a mouth.

im not here for people to be interested in my opinions. im actually hear to glean what useful information i can from other people. sadly, instead i end up reading a bunch of nonsense from people like you that don't display much of an understanding for the subject matter at hand.

quote:

It was clearly the decisions of the Fed and legislation of the government that created this mess

wrong.

quote:

Having a central bank, first of all, has always proven to be a disaster in this country.

wrong.

quote:

It simply can not work

wrong.

quote:

Secondly, you also can't have one controlling the money supply for the entire nation.

and the alternative is?

quote:

I think every economist would agree that every boom and bust in this country was caused by the central banks inflation of the money supply and the misallocation of resources and malinvestment made due to the decisions the central bank has made.

wrong.

quote:

It's funny that a lot of our forefathers saw this coming, declared this unconstitutional and when a central bank was made anyway, we went through recessions and depressions and panics.

wrong.

quote:

On a side note, when the hell are we going to realize that paper isn't money?

jesus h christ.

and no, im not gonna waste my time explaining why and how your post is brimming over with wrongability. i know you won't listen. those so tied up in their own ideology seldom do. im just thankful that you armchair economists dont have any actual influence in how things work.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN im not gonna waste my time explaining why and how your post is brimming over with wrongability.

It's obvious that you just simply can't.

quote:

Originally posted by DOOMBOT It's obvious that you just simply can't.

we've already talked about most of those points before, or had you forgotten?

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN we've already talked about most of those points before, or had you forgotten?

Things may very well be discussed more then once. If it bothers you that much, I don't see why you comment at all.

Take note at some of the conversation that goes on in this thread. Heck, just stay on this page. Something was said, I gave a pretty thorough response, Krypton gave me a nice extensive response back and I followed with my stance on the issue, also implying I still don't understand the main issue at hand as being a "___" problem. I'm pretty confidant that Krypton will respond back to me with something well thought out and then we will go from there.

You, on the other hand, have added absolutely nothing to the conversation. You never do. I honestly wish you would because I am seriously interested in what you might have to say on the topic. You constantly make your way into these political threads, so it's obvious you have an interest. And again, if you thought I was wrong, I'd hope that you would take the time to explain why. This is a learning experience for us all, I think we can agree on that. No one here is foolproof of making a mistake or has all of the answers. But no one is going to learn a damned thing from you if all you ever do is bash everyones thought without having the common courtesy to just explain your position in a civilized way.

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton You assume authoritarianism is a solely leftist trait.

no..government is authoritarian by it's nature..I'm well aware of the right wing authoritarianism we had under Bush..attempts to legislate morality, removing civil liberties, domestic spying. Generally anything that increases the power of government can be described as authoritarian. The right is usually authoritarian on social issues while the left is authoritarian on economics.

quote:

I don't accept inequality as you do.

Fine.

quote:

You assume leftists and liberals are against free markets.

I don't think they want to abolish free markets, but they certainly have an excessive dislike of what they view as the "selfishness" of capitalism, the profit motive, etc. Their policies usually act against the things which make the system work.

quote:

I am for equality of opportunity which requires addressing some of the social injustice inherent in capitalism, for example, access to healthcare being dependent on someone's socio-economic class. It would be in this nation's interest to have a healthy population, which would contribute to higher productivity within our economy.

A touchy-feely part of me agrees with you..but I can't justify the means to achieve it. I'd like a chicken in every pot, a car in every driveway, shoes on every foot, and free healthcare for everyone on the planet, but for reasons mentioned elsewhere in thread, this is impossible..and the growth of the state/restriction of liberty required to attempt it is beyond my tolerance. If you recognize free markets as the foundation of all wealth, it seems to me the best way to lift all boats in the tide is to remove capitalism's shackles and let it loose.. It may seem clumsy and chaotic..but the results can't be denied. The massive growth in China as they decontrol their economy is a perfect testament to this.

quote:

Originally posted by DOOMBOT Things may very well be discussed more then once. If it bothers you that much, I don't see why you comment at all. Take note at some of the conversation that goes on in this thread. Heck, just stay on this page. Something was said, I gave a pretty thorough response, Krypton gave me a nice extensive response back and I followed with my stance on the issue, also implying I still don't understand the main issue at hand as being a "___" problem. I'm pretty confidant that Krypton will respond back to me with something well thought out and then we will go from there. You, on the other hand, have added absolutely nothing to the conversation. You never do. I honestly wish you would because I am seriously interested in what you might have to say on the topic. You constantly make your way into these political threads, so it's obvious you have an interest. And again, if you thought I was wrong, I'd hope that you would take the time to explain why. This is a learning experience for us all, I think we can agree on that. No one here is foolproof of making a mistake or has all of the answers. But no one is going to learn a damned thing from you if all you ever do is bash everyones thought without having the common courtesy to just explain your position in a civilized way.

point taken. next time someone posts a load of utter garbage i will endeavour to provide a proper explanation for why their BS is beneath my time.

I see some problems with your theory which I will outline below:

quote:

Originally posted by Arbiter That seems unlikely. I believe that the administration is seriously underestimating the costs of expanding coverage to those who are presently uninsured. Extending coverage to those presently uninsured will cost more than the current market value of insurance for them because it will increase demand and, since supply is inelastic, therefore the cost of medical services. The only alternative is to regulate the costs of medical services directly, but that will not solve our health care problems; rather, it will only cause supply to further contract, and instead of people having no access to health care because they cannot afford insurance, we will have large numbers of people who have no access to the health care they need because of inadequate supply.

The problem I see with this argument is that you are treating the American health care system as a fungible commodity that is subject to very simplistic free market constraints and efficiencies; something that I consider to not be the case at all. On one aspect you state that the supply of health care is is inelastic ... only as a ratio of expenditures you are correct. There are no shortages of doctors, hospital beds, etc., at least in aggregate. And there is no shortage in demand for health care obviously. IMO the distortions largely come from that which is dictated by the insurance and litigation industries. And a large part is dictated by the insurance industry. The pay that doctors get are standardized by the type of procedure they offer so doctors are always incentivized to prescribe more operations or more exams. Via litigation and the health insurance industry doctors earn more money by prescribing more examinations. It's perverse and it's why our country spends money in health care per capita than any other.

Furthemore we already have a public health option in place. It's called EMTALA which requires emergency rooms to treat patients regardless of citizenship, legal status, or ability to pay. However, since emergency room treatment is substantively more expensive than preventative care, what argument is there to NOT provide preventative care via a public option when not doing so will simply lead to prohibitively more expensive costs via emergency care?

quote:

Moreover, since the plan (effectively) requires people to have insurance, it removes incentives to reduce one's own consumption of health care services. Once a person is insured, the marginal cost of treatment is only their deductible or copayment, and therefore a rational person will be more inclined to seek unnecessary treatments which they would eschew if they had to pay the full cost of the treatment, even if they could afford it. Those currently uninsured have medical conditions for which treatment is required and for which they are unable to pay. That is certainly a problem that would be fixed by the plan, but those same people also have medical conditions for which treatment is optional. Once insured, there will be little incentive for them not to seek treatment for those conditions as well, even though they would not do so if they had to pay the cost themselves, since the marginal cost for such treatment will be low. The result is a tragedy of the commons, where the health care market would operate efficiently to everyone's benefit if such treatments were not purchased, but since each individual can shift the cost of her own treatment to everyone else those benefits are unlikely to be realized. The aggregate demand and cost of health care will increase accordingly, and much of it will be waste.

Do you have employer provided health care? How do you use it? I have employer provided health care and I don't give two shits about rationing/consumption/efficiency, etc. If I have a weird rash I go to the derm ... if I have the most abstract hearing problem I go straight to the ENT ... even if it's not a severe problem (90%) of the time I will go to an expensive specialist. Why? Because employer based health insurance is retarded and has absolutely NOTHING to do with efficiency ... this is based upon personal experience at a number of firms. If I have a problem I dont care about costs because it's always masked via isnurance company procedures.

To me this is a simple argument. ANY argument applied to a public health care option should be equally applicable to Medicare. Fine, you want to get rid of the public option than get rid of Medicare. Arguing for one against the other is obtuse and is discrimantory.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.