patrick.net

@Honest

That's only true if information is readily available and accessible. Which isn't the case for Drs.

I'm glad you addressed all my points ah. Good job bolstering your position

Honest Abe says

Any product, market, or service is self regulating based on the wishes of consumers. Its only when governmnet interferes that the efficiency of free will becomes negated, efficiency lost, costs go up, jobs get ‘out-sourced,’ taxes go up, peoples standards of living go down.

So that would make somolia and nigeria the most efficient places on earth with the highest standard of living? There are no scams, hustlers, or con artists in your perfect world?

tatupu70 says

@Honest
That’s only true if information is readily available and accessible. Which isn’t the case for Drs.

Or almost any business or government agency you care to name. Why bother to call for less regulation when the regulators we have are simply handmaidens of the industries they regulate? Madoff, medicare, housing, banking whatever. There were plenty of regulations on the books that could have prevented disaster in each case that no one bothered to enforce. Bush (actually probably Rove and Cheney) was very smart about that. Instead of getting into a political battle about regulations he didn't like he just eliminated enforcement.

AdHominem says

bob2356 says

This doesn’t really make sense to me. Public health care rates are set by politicians.

No, they are set by bureaucrats and lobbyists.

Freshman government 101. Bureaucrats administer the laws passed by politicians. Whats your point with this hair splitting?

Based on the wishes of CONSUMERS. No, its not a perfect world, but CONSUMERS make choices based on their own best interest. That dynamic has nothing to do with scams, hustlers or con-artists. Hustlers and con-artists are criminals, if they are breaking the law. Again, that has nothing to do with consumers making free choices.

Free choices by consumers reward the efficient produces and punish the inefficient. Its self cleansing...all based on consumers "voting" with their dollars.

Our government, on the other hand, has rewarded the inefficient companies, with taxpayer dollars. That kinda sucks, doesn't it ??? My wife is going to try the government method, she's going to spend us out of debt.

Lew Rockwell.com

Honest Abe says

Free choices by consumers reward the efficient produces and punish the inefficient. Its self cleansing…all based on consumers “voting” with their dollars.

OK--but how do I make an efficient choice about my doctor then? If I pick a bad one and he kills me, I certainly won't choose him again, but I'm thinking it's probably too late at that point....

I agree with tatupu70. The free market does not work for essential medical care.

Are you going to go to "Budget Surgeon" because it's a good value, half the price but 20% more fatalities from complications? I think not.

For small or elective medical treatment, the market works.

For big or essential medical treatment, the market fails completely. They charge whatever they want, and you have to pay or die. (That's also known as "robbery" if you want the legal term.)

The insurance market is even worse. Competition could work there, but they have corrupted Congress, so anti-trust laws are not enforced against them and there are only a couple of insurers in each state, each one offering the same BAD deal. Take your pick of bad deals.

Tatupu - you'd make a decision about a doctor the same way you do now.

Patrick - Why would you assume "For big or essential medical treatment, the market fails completly". According to who? The "market" is the collective free choice of millions of people...free choice can never be "wrong".

And its not "you have to pay or die". Treatment is given before payment...or else my nephew would have died a week ago.

For small or elective medical treatment, the market works.

Good So lets start there. restore a free market in small and elective medical treatment. And allow people to buy insurance just for catastrophe.

AdHominem says

For small or elective medical treatment, the market works.

Good So lets start there. restore a free market in small and elective medical treatment. And allow people to buy insurance just for catastrophe.

People are perfectly free to buy catastrophic coverage now. No one is stopping them. The only thing stopping them is that most people, for whatever reason, prefer comprehensive coverage. What is your point?

bob2356 says

What is your point?

Conservatives: Good. Liberals are the root cause of all evil and have victimized him.

That's his point.

elliemae says

Conservatives: Good. Liberals are the root cause of all evil.

not "liberals", but "liberalism". Liberals are just victims. Liberalism is the cancer.

bob2356 says

AdHominem says

For small or elective medical treatment, the market works.

Good So lets start there. restore a free market in small and elective medical treatment. And allow people to buy insurance just for catastrophe.

People are perfectly free to buy catastrophic coverage now. No one is stopping them. The only thing stopping them is that most people, for whatever reason, prefer comprehensive coverage. What is your point?

Bob, the point, though you will probably never get it is that government policy coerces people to "buy comprehensive coverage" by making it tax free when "given" as part of "benefits package" at work. This means government is subsidizing the insurance industry. Then the rest of the people who don't get insurance from work rely on the government to bail them out. Demand is high, supply is low. The curve is shifted and they are not in equilibrium. Demand is shifted due to government policy and liberal philosophy which makes people feel entitled to health care and everyone else should to pay for it. Supply is shifted because insurance and government set prices not the free market/consumer.

right on AH, right on.

AdHominem says

Demand is shifted due to government policy and liberal philosophy which makes people feel entitled to health care and everyone else should to pay for it

There are a couple of things wrong with that... #1--that's not liberal philosophy. #2--even if it were liberal philosophy, that wouldn't artificially shift demand. It's where demand rightfully should be. If I believe something and make purchases based on my belief, then that's real demand--not artificial demand.

Your ideas are interesting, but not very practical for reasons that I've detailed on another post. Health care is one of those rare cases where free market yields a less desirable result. Poor information flow and lack of substitutes are just some of the reasons why..

good post tatupu.

but, the fact that poor people are made into psuedo consumers through transfered wealth, making tax-payers fund their own competition, instead of just getting the poor people services for free from providers does create falsehoods in the market (any market) .. right?

It'd be alot easier if we cut out welfare programs altogether. Once the people starve to death and die from exposure and lack of healthcare, we wouldn't have to deal with their pesky requests.

We should quit subsidizing the military (they WANT to serve, let 'em) and cut out all the funding for old people in nursing homes, stop funding stupid projects like the interstate road system, and allow state governments to fail. And we should eliminate tax breaks for everyone, no more house credit, head of household deductions, etc.

Let's start with healthcare, tho. Let's make it illegal to access healthcare without payment. Arrest them as they arrest in the ER.

Bap33 says

but, the fact that poor people are made into psuedo consumers through transfered wealth, making tax-payers fund their own competition, instead of just getting the poor people services for free from providers does create falsehoods in the market (any market) .. right?

I'm not sure that I completely follow your supposition. Transferred weath? Do you mean a social program? When I think of transferred wealth, I think of my hard work going to fund my company's board of directors meeting in Paris, or the corporate jet that takes them there, or the millions in bonuses... but I digress.

So, you're saying we'd be better off forcing Drs. to give their services out for free? To poor people? How exactly would that work? What if a Dr didn't want to give away his services for free? After all he's $300K in debt and needs $$. Would there be free clinics? or do you go to the Drs. office?

And even if you came up with answers to all the above, don't you think the providers would raise their rates to everyone else?

well, yes, I do think the providers will have the OPTION to over-charge paying customers, and those customers will have the OPTION to take their business elsewhere.

The free service/clinic deal might work like this: If a person wants to be a med professional they get to take an entrance test and begin that journey FOR FREE at a Gov school for med pros. Not at a current school for med, those will have to compete for the med pros, but will still be a pay-as-you-attend school as they are now. The gov med pro school will be an entire new set-up, designed to only allow entry to those who bring the required minimum abilities. Those that attend these free schools and graduate and pass ability exams will then work in the free gov supplied clinics at 80% of the going rate in that area/market (the pay-for places set the rates by tax records) for 10 years minimum. After 10 years of service in the free clinic they are free to go as they wish. Imagine it a little bit like Naval Officer Pilots .... get their wings for free in the Navy, fly for the Navy for a minimum number of years, then they can head to United. Kind of like that.

What this does is it gives unlimited access to healh care clinics staffed by not-for-profit, med pros that owe us. They get 6 or 8 years of med pro schooling, they then get a job and a wage and are obligated to do what they agreed to do .... or pay back every dime, or sit in debtors prison for a like amount of time.

Now, here is where we may not agree. I do not feel there should be an income qualification to walk into a free clinic. I think that ANYONE should have the same right to gov supplied health clinics, not just some portion of the group designated by a vote-whore. Free to all who wish to access it.

Those who can and do have insurance or means to pay for their care will go where they wish ... including the free places, if they wish.

THat makes things a little more acceptable for me. You see, all money does is give a person more choice. If you have no money, you walk everywhere. If you have a little money you ride a bike. If you have lots of money you get flown by helicopter. It is not fair to force working people to pay for other folks to ride a helicopter, but most folks need something better than walking, so teach grads how to build bikes and then set bikes out for use by ANYONE. If you want a helicopter ride, you pay for it. If I must pay for the ride, make it non-profit and make it avbailable to ANYONE, and do not worry if it's only a bike. A bike is better then walking.

Also, I see the docs and pharms grinning all the way to the bank. How they have been able to stay hidden durring this crap is amazing. The docs and pharms get paid - automaticly - when a person is "poor". They would love nothing more than for the entire population to fall under gov-nanny-med classification.

Make all med and pharm service not-for-profit and full public access, like the protection of the Army or Fire, and then I will not have a beef. Ofcourse, the med pros may not be driving BMWs and such, but that's not my worry.

AdHominem says

Bob, the point, though you will probably never get it is that government policy coerces people to “buy comprehensive coverage” by making it tax free when “given” as part of “benefits package” at work. This means government is subsidizing the insurance industry.

So explain it to me. You keep talking about this but never actually come up with any explanation of how or why. Just general feel good phrases like above. The same so called subsidy applies to catastrophic as well as comprehensive policies. Where exactly is this coercian? The same insurance companies write both kinds of policies. What subsidies apply to comprehensive policies that don't apply to catastrophic. Why don't all the people who pay for health insurance themselves choose catastrophic now? The exact same tax issues apply to both kinds of policies.

You have never addressed this basic point which is central to your entire argument. People want comprehensive policies. People like comprehensive policies. Short of passing a law forcing them to have catastrophic policies, people will continue to want comprehensive policies. I am actually speaking from personal experience here. I had a catastrophic policy when I was self employed. The agent didn't even know how to write it, he had never had anyone ask for one before.

Good ideas bap. The military actually does this with doctors already. The Indian health service is somewhat along these lines. There are repayment of student loans for work in rural areas programs also in place. Of course the tin hat crowd will totally freak out at any such ideas. Just the word government sends them into deep apoplexy.

Making all med and pharm services not-for-profit and full public access is what the rest of the first world does already.

tatupu70 says

If I believe something and make purchases based on my belief, then that’s real demand–not artificial demand.

do you actually pay 100% of the cost of all your health care? I assume not. And therefore you demand more care than you are willing to pay for just like most Americans.

bob2356 says

People want comprehensive policies.

Yes they do. However a comprehensive policy actually does not exist. There is no insurance policy that I know of (except for maybe members of congress) that will cover any expense and every expense, with no copays, no prior authorizations, no questions asked just pay the doctor whatever he wants, pay the pharmacy whatever they want etc... No waiting in line, no denial of benefits. It doesn't exist. Why doesn't it exist? Because it would bankrupt whoever wrote the policy.

What America wants IS full coverage. But NOBODY wants to pay for it. They all want SOMEONE ELSE to pay for it.

.

B.S.

I can't believe all the uneducated people that pop out of the woodwork.
The unelected body is your INSURANCE COMPANY.

If we don't get a PUBLIC OPTION, I really hope all you Republicans, Bluedogs and Woodwork sickos get sick and die fast.

swooshn says

If we don’t get a PUBLIC OPTION, I really hope all you Republicans, Bluedogs and Woodwork sickos get sick and die fast.

How about you pay for the "public option" then? hope you have deep pockets and/or a printing press.

The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money.

opm
opium

AdHominem says

How about you pay for the “public option” then? hope you have deep pockets and/or a printing press.
The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people’s money.

All evidence to the contrary, of course. Since it's working well in...... well, in every other industrialized nation in the world. Better care at much lower cost. Funny how that works.

tatupu70 says

The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people’s money.

That's actually a demonstrated problem with rentierism, which is present in both as a feature of capitalist and as a bug in collectivist systems. We had to reboot the system several times in the 19th century, the panic of 1907 (no socialism then!), the Soviet Union of course spiralled into wholesale corruption towards the end, only to reemerge with its formerly public assets in the hands of private wealth and not much more functional than before.

There is a middle road. High taxes. High government services. It works pretty well, and the secret AFAIK is that high taxes serve to mainly depress land valuations, which inhibits the the predatory rentiers that do their best to suck all the wealth out of the productive sectors of the economy.

Socialism is like pregnancy. You can't have just a touch of pregnancy. You either have socialism or you don't. And socialism once established, grows like bacteria. Exponentially. We must either kill it or embrace it. There is no middle ground.

tatupu70 says

Better care at much lower cost. Funny how that works.

funny how people are just flocking to live in these socialist countries. Businesses too.

AdHominem says

tatupu70 says

Better care at much lower cost. Funny how that works.

funny how people are just flocking to live in these socialist countries. Businesses too.

oh and could you name which of these socialist countries is in the black. Doesn't have massive national debt?

Nomograph says

AdHominem says

funny how people are just flocking to live in these socialist countries. Businesses too.

100% incorrect. Haven’t you ever been abroad? People are flocking to live in Europe. They have a terrible immigration problem, just like the US. Businesses thrive in Europe, and many of the world’s largest and most profitable companies are found there. I get the impression that you don’t get out much.
AdHominem says

Socialism is like pregnancy. You can’t have just a touch of pregnancy. You either have socialism or you don’t. There is no middle ground.

100% incorrect. By your definition, humans have been under the yoke of socialism since the cave man days. Humans live in societies that, by nature, have socialist elements. I think you have created a boogeyman for yourself. Better hide under the bed.

I assume that this like your other posts is just a satire, and an unfunny one once again.

AdHominem says

funny how people are just flocking to live in these socialist countries. Businesses too.

Japan is socialist in your world then? And England? And Canada? Which countries aren't socialist then--by your definition? You're sounding more and more like McCarthy....

tatupu70 says

AdHominem says

funny how people are just flocking to live in these socialist countries. Businesses too.

Japan is socialist in your world then? And England? And Canada? Which countries aren’t socialist then–by your definition? You’re sounding more and more like McCarthy….

Japan, is in deflation. Want to live there? And yes with their massive public works projects socialism is taking over there too.

AdHominem says

Japan, is in debt. Want to live there? And yes with their massive public works projects socialism is taking over there too

But you didn't answer my last question. Which countries aren't socialist?

AdHominem says

Want to live there? And yes with their massive public works projects socialism is taking over there too.

oh noes! teh sociaizm.

and yes, もう一度日本に住みたい。It's a great place to live. Tokyo is damn near a city in a class of its own. Only needs a Chipotle or two to be perfect :)

elvis says

Capitalism = productive. Socialism = destructive.

Capitalism = self-destructive. Socialism = positive feedback of wealth-creation.

Gee, it's great talking this unfounded BS-talk generalities you guys like so much.

Drilling down, neither capitalism or whatever state socialism you think we liberals want is the final answer. The state exists to curb capitalism's short-term inefficiencies and provide extra-market impetuses -- think of them as sky-cranes -- to redirect the path-dependent nature of private profit-seeking into new areas it would not get into as easily on its own.

Seminal examples of this are government investment in military and aerospace technology in the 1960s that gave private industry the seeds of the PC revolution of the 1970s. Plus gummint socialists in ARPA seeding the early development of the totally non-commercial internet, building the first webserver at CERN and the first web-browser with NCSA money. Private industry in the 80s was jacking around with for-profit walled gardens like CompuServe, GEnie, BIX, AOL, etc).

Private industry with its profit motive -- rent-seeking -- and ability to ignore if not prefer externalities is NOT the most efficient in creating wealth.

Granted, to really screw things up requires a government. Just ask the Germans of the 1930s, Japanese of the 1940s, and Russians of the 1990s - now.

tatupu70 says

Which countries aren’t socialist?

The ones that are fascist I guess. We either see socialism or fascism in most governments today.

But I realize that you are just trying to distract us all from the fact that socialists want more socialism. You are trying to make us all forget that you don't actually pay for the true cost of much of your own medicine. You like most Americans demand more care than you yourself are willing to pay for. And now you want to government (aka taxpayers) to pay for even more care.

The sad fact however is that we are already up to our neck in debt. We can't afford it. We have not only run out of other people's money but we continue to borrow from those stupid enough to lend.

Nomograph says

People flock to Europe for it’s thriving economy,

Germany, Italy, Hungary, Japan, Poland, Russia are all in population DECLINE.

Socialism is working well!

Bummer.

AdHominem says

The ones that are fascist I guess. We either see socialism or fascism in most governments today.
But I realize that you are just trying to distract us all from the fact that socialists want more socialism. You are trying to make us all forget that you don’t actually pay for the true cost of much of your own medicine. You like most Americans demand more care than you yourself are willing to pay for. And now you want to government (aka taxpayers) to pay for even more care.
The sad fact however is that we are already up to our neck in debt. We can’t afford it. We have not only run out of other people’s money but we continue to borrow from those stupid enough to lend.

straw man, anyone? It's true that Socialists probably do want more Socialism. But Liberals aren't Socialists. Nor are Democrats. Nor am I. So your argument is moot. And you're missing the point--Universal Health Care has proven to be cheaper in every country that has adopted it. So it would help businesses compete with China and wouldn't increase the debt.