Want Public Plan Health Care? Obama Played yo Ass.

[Mastermind]

Since you've never been to business school you wouldn't know now would you? Why do people like you always walk around with a big ass chip on their shoulders?

If "big" words intimidate you, for God sake's pick up a book. Einstein failed high school physics. Andrew Carnegie was a grade school drop out. You're going to have a tough time in like spending so much time trying to "prove" you're just as good as those "other people".

And for the record it's "I", not "i" dear....

ha i actually did graduate from a business school - a pretty good one too.

big words hardly intimidate me but it's worth noting that the vast majority of highly successful business owners rarely use them while the people who do use them... are usually their employees.

 

[LogicFlux]

Right, but this is based on the presumption that insurance and pre-pay are the same things.

Expected expenses can't be insured against. You wouldn't insure a pyromaniac with fire insurance. You don't insure the gas you put in your car, or insure your tires against wear.

Insurance is where there is risk involved. You only need it for the unforeseen. It doesn't make sense to insure someone with cancer for cancer treatment. That's not insurance (risk pooling) but strictly pre-pay. And in an industry with escalating costs, it is nearly impossible to price long term contracts (hence why inflation is so damaging to entrepreneurial activity).

Your post was super lucid, but is based on this premise that insurance is a fixed variable in health care.

If there is competition in home insurance, and auto insurance, I don't understand why there can't be competition in medical insurance. That's for truly exceptional risks, not for expected claims for routine health care, or the predictable effects of age. Again, we wouldn't insure our car against the engine wearing down over time. But we would insure it against theft or collision.

The more likely the insured event is to happen, the higher the premiums must be.

This is a factually based post so I can't disagree much grilla. But I do think there's competition in medical insurance just like there is in other types of insurance, it's just that not servicing certain people or charging ungodly premiums in that business is the natural way to compete and to be profitable.

I don't think it's right to force insurance companies to cover those with pre-existing conditions; you're correct in differentiating between pre-pay and insurance.

Apparently republicans are also for making insurance companies cover those with pre-existing conditions, at least I've heard them say that, but I don't know the details of what they've proposed.

I think that forcing insurance companies to take on anyone and everyone is probably worse than offering a public option, because I see less of a problem with putting a competing entity in the marketplace that's funded by the public than I do with regulating an industry in such a way that will force them to make decisions that are so fundamentally in conflict with their interests, that so fundamentally interferes with their ability to be profitable.


To be honest I don't see a good solution to the problem. I'm not overly educated on the subject and if I were I'm still not sure a solution would be clear. But I do think it's a problem that has to be taken on. And ideally I'd like to see a public/private mix. A solution that minimizes the debt the public will have to take on, that minimizes restriction of businesses and that maximizes the access to and quality of health care to our people. Are those three things incompatible? I hope not. Even if they are not I don't expect to see a solution that reflects a balanced concern for all things. Our system of government is based on compromise, the problem with compromise is it can't really be dictated.

PS. I wish the national dialogue that's taking place regarding this subject was as intelligent as the one taking place in this thread.

 

[Mastermind]

have a tough time in like spending

And for the record it's "life" not "like" dear...

 

[guerilla]

I posted, then realized I was being nasty and you deserve a break because you hooked me up with seth so I deleted it.

But still, this rhetoric can't stand unchallenged.

Precisely. I will paypal anyone here $100 if they can enlighten we readers by citing a peer-reviewed scientific study that supports the following

Appeal to authority

ASSUMPTIONS
1) Information asymmetries are a scientific fallacy and perfect information always exists any place outside of a textbook (1)

2) Rational choice theory is always at work (riigggght.....and brain research supports this?) (1)

3) Individuals (via their utility functions) and firms (via their profit functions) always are motivated by the desire to maximize monetary profit(1)

Strawman. Strawman. Strawman.

These are the 3 basic assumptions of Economics 101. Theory and practice are not one and the same. That's why you are making money with sites you've ranked with nofollow links even though the "theory" says you can't....

Non-sequitur

That said, don't hold your breath trying to explain this to L.U.D. sufferers (loyalty to unverified data....). Then again it's actually quite funny when you think about it...:2twocents:

Ad hominem.

Economics is a SOCIAL SCIENCE

True

based on INDIVIDUAL PREFERENCES (it's called indifference curves (individuals) and profit/costs curves (firms) in theory)

False. Economics is the study of incentives upon human action. No curves are necessary. Try a priorism.

and not a NATURAL SCIENCE based on NATURAL LAW...

Not quite true. Human action is axiomatic. See praxeology.

one of these days people will figure this out and realize that one man's tea is another man's poison and there is no "right" or "wrong" from a scientific standpoint.....

Strawman. Economics does not try to define right and wrong. It is wertfrei. Unfortunately, you are prone to using a lot of logical fallacies in your argumentation and exhibit significant bias.

I expect better dear.

 

[conv3rsion]

OT,


No, under a regime of enforced property rights, you could not pollute anyone else's property without their consent (compensation).

A shared resource, like air, is not anyone's personal property. If you want, you can define nearly anything as falling under property rights.

 

[guerilla]

A shared resource, like air, is not anyone's personal property. If you want, you can define nearly anything as falling under property rights.

Air is only a common resource because it isn't scarce.

If you were on mars, and had your breathable atmosphere in tanks, it would be easy to treat it as property. But air is not so valuable on earth (yet) that we bottle it like water. That day may yet come, and then the incentives to own it and treat it like property will also emerge.

There is a lot of scholarship into free market environmental solutions. So much in fact, that while I will admit there are no perfect answers, I don't think the case for public goods can stand up to it.

I gotta get back to work. Unlike Riddar, I can't spend all day posting and painting my toenails.

 

[conv3rsion]

Air is only a common resource because it isn't scarce.

If you were on mars, and had your breathable atmosphere in tanks, it would be easy to treat it as property. But air is not so valuable on earth (yet) that we bottle it like water. That day may yet come, and then the incentives to own it and treat it like property will also emerge.

There is a lot of scholarship into free market environmental solutions. So much in fact, that while I will admit there are no perfect answers, I don't think the case for public goods can stand up to it.

I gotta get back to work. Unlike Riddar, I can't spend all day posting and painting my toenails.

i may not always agree with you, but I appreciate the fact that you can argue like a fucking adult and actually support your argument with logic and reason, which on the internet, is a rarity.

 

[WickedJoe]

Appeal to authority
Strawman. Strawman. Strawman.
Non-sequitur
Ad hominem.
False. Economics is the study of incentives upon human action. No curves are necessary. Try a priorism.
Not quite true. Human action is axiomatic. See praxeology.

Strawman. Economics does not try to define right and wrong. It is wertfrei. Unfortunately, you are prone to using a lot of logical fallacies in your argumentation and exhibit significant bias.

Hate to say it but when someone starts talking like this it's a big sign they're just trying to sound smart. This is almost as irritating as a post criticizing someone's spelling.

Don't get me wrong, I think you're well read, but didn't James T Kirk teach you anything - you Vulcan wanna be?

If your goal in life is to talk in circles never accomplishing anything and never getting anywhere then start speaking like a logician or philosopher. That will do it. This is coming from a Philosophy Minor.

 

[BlueYonder]

we actually need pharma companies, despite their iron grip. they actually produce something with R&D.

Insurance companies are simply a middleman - which have no reason for existence.

As much as I loathe insurance companies and everything about them, they do have a purpose. There should be a basic minimum of health care for everybody in the country, and those who want enhanced services should have the option to buy it with insurance. This is the way the system works in Britain, most people are satisfied, everybody is covered and the system pays out far less.

 

[guerilla]

Hate to say it but when someone starts talking like this it's a big sign they're just trying to sound smart.

Riddar is more educated than I am, and she is more than capable of keeping up with my critique. I'm hoping she shows the humility to admit that she's not arguing in good faith as much as she could.

 

[guerilla]

i may not always agree with you, but I appreciate the fact that you can argue like a fucking adult and actually support your argument with logic and reason, which on the internet, is a rarity.

Thank you. I just need to avoid spending too much time on STS and more time slangin' dem berries!

 

[Refrozen]

guerilla, you're my hero. WickedJoe, you're not. You shouldn't get in debates you don't understand just because its socially "right" to have a political opinion.

Start here: [ame="http://www.amazon.com/Principles-Microeconomics-N-Gregory-Mankiw/dp/0324319169/ref=dp_ob_title_bk"]Amazon.com: Principles of Microeconomics (9780324319163): N. Gregory Mankiw: Books[/ame]

 

[Refrozen]

ASSUMPTIONS
1) Information asymmetries are a scientific fallacy and perfect information always exists any place outside of a textbook (1)

2) Rational choice theory is always at work (riigggght.....and brain research supports this?) (1)

3) Individuals (via their utility functions) and firms (via their profit functions) always are motivated by the desire to maximize monetary profit(1)

These are the 3 basic assumptions of Economics 101. Theory and practice are not one and the same.

There's none, because you're 100% correct, they don't exist, ever. That said, the assumptions of an introduction to economics class being partially incorrect really don't discredit its ideas - because its the ideas, you should be taking from ECON 101, not the numbers, and the ideas are solid. Whiiiich still has nothing to do with the leftism vs. small government debate; nothing. Its putting words in the collective libertarian mouth, when if you actually read some liberty literature you'd realize its not a bunch of supply-and-demand graphs with forces applied to them.

Somewhat unrelatedly though. You should take a look at some structuralist/evolutionary/structuralist-evolutionary economics if the inaccuracy of those assumptions bothers you. Neoclassical economics is a little insane to be used for actual real-world predictions (at least ones which involve numbers; qualitative predictions I don't think its that unreasonable).

This is a great book, totally off topic in terms of health care, from a structuralist-evolutionary perspective, and I seriously highly recommend it, if the topic of heterodox economics/technological growth/well-being/welfare economics in general interests you at all. Economic transformations: general ... - Google Books

That's why you are making money with sites you've ranked with nofollow links even though the "theory" says you can't....

wat.

 

[Refrozen]

Ran past my edit time, but...

Economics is a SOCIAL SCIENCE based on INDIVIDUAL PREFERENCESand not a NATURAL SCIENCE based on NATURAL LAW...one of these days people will figure this out and realize that one man's tea is another man's poison and there is no "right" or "wrong" from a scientific standpoint.....

This is ridiculously wrong. Economics is a social science which aims to create both positive and normative theories regarding the distribution of limited resources in a world of unlimited wants - it is anthropocentric, which suggests that in fact there is a level of "natural law" involved (human action is predictable, unless you're going to discredit the entire field of psychology too).

(it's called indifference curves (individuals) and profit/costs curves (firms) in theory)

Have you never heard of welfare economics? Community indifference curves? Speaking of that, while we're on it, since you seem to miss it, you realize there's orthodox economic models to account for imperfect information (or information asymmetries) (and a shitload of research going on right now regarding this), non-rational choice models, and the profit-seeking rather than profit-maximizing behaviour of firms and individuals (a topic that is very large in heterodox schools structuralist/evolutionist economics).

Edit: reading the thread more carefully I see guerilla touched on basically everything I had to say here and furthermore an important part. economic models from any individual school of thought aren't all that important: the study of distribution of finite goods in a world of greater-wants, the "curves" don't matter, its the incentives that count.

 

[somebody]

Precisely. I will paypal anyone here $100 if they can enlighten we readers by citing a peer-reviewed scientific study that supports the following - and I want legit, quantitative data (numbers numbers) coupled with peer-verified qualitative (opinions) scientific research:

ASSUMPTIONS
1) Information asymmetries are a scientific fallacy and perfect information always exists any place outside of a textbook (1)

2) Rational choice theory is always at work (riigggght.....and brain research supports this?) (1)

3) Individuals (via their utility functions) and firms (via their profit functions) always are motivated by the desire to maximize monetary profit(1)

These are the 3 basic assumptions of Economics 101. Theory and practice are not one and the same. That's why you are making money with sites you've ranked with nofollow links even though the "theory" says you can't....

That said, don't hold your breath trying to explain this to L.U.D. sufferers (loyalty to unverified data....). Then again it's actually quite funny when you think about it...:2twocents:

Economics is a SOCIAL SCIENCE based on INDIVIDUAL PREFERENCES (it's called indifference curves (individuals) and profit/costs curves (firms) in theory) and not a NATURAL SCIENCE based on NATURAL LAW...one of these days people will figure this out and realize that one man's tea is another man's poison and there is no "right" or "wrong" from a scientific standpoint.....

(1) Sources:
Main
Theoretical Economics
Yale Economic Review: A Yale University Student Publication
Oxford Journals | Social Sciences | Oxford Economic Papers
Electronic Journals
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=931686
The Dana Foundation - New Neuroscience, Old Problems: : Legal Implications of Brain Science

This thread is about healthcare and related issues. Is it just me, or were you replying in another thread?

Anyway, my reply in one word: strawman.

 

[HarveyJ]

Welcome to the new American health system. For more information, please watch the following piece of musical theater:



Honestly, for all the people getting their panties in a twist about a state run system, the hybrid systems run in numerous other countries work fine, and in many cases, a damn sight better than the current US system.

The OP again wasn't about what's wrong with the system or what type to go for. It was about endemic corruption that means debating whether to go with public or private, in the USA, is pointless, because they are effectively being dictated by the same group, and to get any kind of effective system, this level of incestuousness needs to be busted up a bit.

Also, for those spouting the bullshit that America is the only country that does medical R&D, go get a fucking clue. Yes, plenty of medical R&D gets down in the States, but plenty of it gets done elsewhere.

guerrilla:Greed isn't rational self-interest.
Greed is greed, and rational-self-interest is rational-self-interest. They can coincide, but they are not the same thing.
Rational self interest does not drive a person to insist on billion dollar profits, having a sports car less than a year old, a personal jet, etc. That's just greedy. Rational people are happy when their needs and luxuries are met, which are easily done on hundreds of thousands, or even tens of thousands, of dollars per year.
I'm not going to bother arguing if there's anything morally wrong about greed, just that it's not the same as a rational self interest.

Also, have you thought about moving to Rapture?
You and Andrew Ryan would get along so well.

 

[guerilla]

guerrilla:Greed isn't rational self-interest.
Greed is greed, and rational-self-interest is rational-self-interest. They can coincide, but they are not the same thing.

Greed, despite being used as a pejorative by small minded hypocrites, is in fact, rational self-interest.

Rational self interest does not drive a person to insist on billion dollar profits, having a sports car less than a year old, a personal jet, etc. That's just greedy.

Some people who have those things, also make massive donations. They also employ a lot of people, earn profits by servicing their clients better than their competitors, and there is nothing wrong with owning a sports car or a personal jet, people make a living producing those items too.

You simply have a disdain for people being more successful than you and enjoying the fruits of their labor. It's called envy. It's a typical problem for progressives (aesthetics).

Rational people are happy when their needs and luxuries are met, which are easily done on hundreds of thousands, or even tens of thousands, of dollars per year.

Rational means directed towards an end. It doesn't mean the end is rational to anyone else. Preferences are subjective, and unique to every individual. Insisting there should be a limit to wealth is absolutely silly. If someone's talent and drive lies in entrepreneurship, management and vision, why shouldn't they maximize their talents doing so?

Do you also resent the compensation for athletes, actors and artists?

I'm not going to bother arguing if there's anything morally wrong about greed, just that it's not the same as a rational self interest.

Of course you're not going to bring up morality, because there is nothing immoral about success. It just drives socialists batshit that someone can succeed while they are so full of anti-capitalist fail.

Also, have you thought about moving to Rapture?
You and Andrew Ryan would get along so well.

I'm not sure what is more lame. That you don't know that I am not an Objectivist, or that you can't come up with a better insult than an obscure video game reference.

You embarrass yourself on a forum of entrepreneurs, protesting the making of money like your values and morals are better than anyone elses.

 

[xmcp123]

Welcome to the new American health system. For more information, please watch the following piece of musical theater:



Honestly, for all the people getting their panties in a twist about a state run system, the hybrid systems run in numerous other countries work fine, and in many cases, a damn sight better than the current US system.

The OP again wasn't about what's wrong with the system or what type to go for. It was about endemic corruption that means debating whether to go with public or private, in the USA, is pointless, because they are effectively being dictated by the same group, and to get any kind of effective system, this level of incestuousness needs to be busted up a bit.

Also, for those spouting the bullshit that America is the only country that does medical R&D, go get a fucking clue. Yes, plenty of medical R&D gets down in the States, but plenty of it gets done elsewhere.

guerrilla:Greed isn't rational self-interest.
Greed is greed, and rational-self-interest is rational-self-interest. They can coincide, but they are not the same thing.
Rational self interest does not drive a person to insist on billion dollar profits, having a sports car less than a year old, a personal jet, etc. That's just greedy. Rational people are happy when their needs and luxuries are met, which are easily done on hundreds of thousands, or even tens of thousands, of dollars per year.
I'm not going to bother arguing if there's anything morally wrong about greed, just that it's not the same as a rational self interest.

Also, have you thought about moving to Rapture?
You and Andrew Ryan would get along so well.

No offense to Australia, but I'm not a fan of the nanny state.
The "greater good" thought process brings ya there.

And most R&D is done here. We make the best monopolies in the world sir.

 

[LazyHippy]

problem is that many european countries ban their citizens from paying for R&D, which leads our prescription drug costs to go up, because we're the only ones paying for it.

Who do you think invests decades and billions of dollars into research and development? Not Europe with it's awesome health system, that's for sure. They reap the benefits of the drugs we invent and pay practically nothing for them.

How about backing up your bullshit claims with some evidence?

Europe does not have cheaper meds because the American taxpayer subsides their development. It is European government that subside the cost to the patient. Pharma companies might get away with charging US insurers more than EU Governments but that is another story.

As for European citizens being banned from paying for medical research.... must explain why charities such as Cancer Research UK receive millions each year. What a load of crap.

Oh, and by the way.. plenty of research goes on outside your isolated little bubble, even in countries with a state healthcare system and even (get this) without the motive of profit!

 

[hellblazer]

How about backing up your bullshit claims with some evidence?

Interesting...WickedJoe makes the EXACT opposite assertion without any evidence - and you challenge me. Nice double standard.