2278 replies to this topic

[CaneBrain]

AmScray, on 29 May 2012 - 07:21 AM, said:

Can anyone refute the substance of that article?

The headline is inflammatory therefore the substance is irrelevant. The article is really talking about one Republican who is frustrated that other Republicans are acting like morons. Which is basically how all moderate GOPers must feel right now.

[hblask]

FCP Bob, on 29 May 2012 - 06:06 AM, said:

The headline is bad.The article is good and if you take the time to read it I would be surprised if anybody who supports a free market disagrees with the substance of it.

This article is why I'm not optimistic, even with it looking like Obamacare is going to be shot down. Even if the R's were to control all three branches, they don't have the slightest clue about how to fix the system, because they are all in the pockets of the insurance and pharmaceutical companies.The number one problem is health care is the lack of pricing information and pricing pressure. For the R's to stop a bill that moves toward solving that is a reason to just disband the Republican party completely.

[AmScray]

hblask, on 29 May 2012 - 05:43 PM, said:

The number one problem is health care is the lack of pricing information and pricing pressure.

I don't think it's the #1 problem, but it's a huge, huge problem.The question is, how do we go forward and build a better system?As is standard, you take the high-flying ideological position, whereby if we just revert to anarchistic grass roots, the magic powers of economic equilibria will make it so CT scans will be $5.99 in drive-thrus and doctors will take chickens and apple pies as payment for housecalls. This is obviously retarded, but you predicate the logical leap of faith on the basis of a very credible complaint, so its understandably hard to shake you off it. Also, you live in what I can only presume is somewhere in Rural/Exurban Minnesota, where social conditions are 'quant' to say the least. With this as your only point of reference, it makes sense that you can put your stock in laughably impractical idealism without realizing how unworkable it is in the world the rest of us live in. It's the equivalent of taking advice from Canadians. We have an entire world to look at, as far as how other systems work.A lot of very advanced civilizations have determined that things like roadways, national defense, health care, police and fire services, bridges, waterways should be managed as a function of the state, since allowing 'free markets' doesn't build that interstate or take care of human life who the health care corporations determine will cost them too much to insure.The question boils down to, how should we move forward?We could implement your ideas, remove all price constraints, then wait 20 years for the system to shake itself out, determine the winners and losers and arrive at something resembling a free market balance, but there is no guarantee- or even distant implication- that the endgame will produce anything resembling an optimal outcome, in terms of solving the problems we face (without even bothering to consider the Pandoras box of new problems and unintended consequences this might give rise to)Or, we can look at all the other countries that have a state run health option and perhaps acknowledge that like roads and police, this is a service where the unique powers (and ideological principles) of a Democratic state can achieve a better outcome than corporate managers maximizing shareholder value? And yes, we definitely do need to get the political influence of Pharma and Corporate Health Care out of the mix. We need to let free markets determine pricing, but fixing 'that problem' doesn't fix 'the problem'?

[hblask]

AmScray, on 29 May 2012 - 11:26 PM, said:

We have an entire world to look at, as far as how other systems work.

This is one of the key factors in my belief. We can look at a number of things across the world: level of govt control vs quality of care vs percentage of innovation by country vs access vs any number of other factors.Pretending you can pick and choose the best from each system is just silly, it's college freshman thinking. It's all about tradeoffs. For me, constant innovation, price competition and the gaps filled by lightweight social programs easily beats stagnation, rationing and copying the rich countries as a solution.

[hblask]

AmScray, on 29 May 2012 - 11:26 PM, said:

A lot of very advanced civilizations have determined that things like roadways, national defense, health care, police and fire services, bridges, waterways should be managed as a function of the state, since allowing 'free markets' doesn't build that interstate or take care of human life who the health care corporations determine will cost them too much to insure.

Ah, the old "who will build the roads" ploy. Seriously, I thought you were a little more advanced in your thinking than that.

[hblask]

AmScray, on 29 May 2012 - 11:26 PM, said:

We could implement your ideas, remove all price constraints, then wait 20 years for the system to shake itself out, determine the winners and losers and arrive at something resembling a free market balance, but there is no guarantee- or even distant implication- that the endgame will produce anything resembling an optimal outcome, in terms of solving the problems we face (without even bothering to consider the Pandoras box of new problems and unintended consequences this might give rise to)

Food is more necessary for life on a day-to-day basis than medicine. Over 98% of medical care is non-emergency care. So why don't all your objections apply even more to food than they do to medicine?If you can't give a clear answer to that question, you need to rethink your ideas.

[hblask]

So what happens if a state were to move toward a more free market health care system? It can't possibly work, right?A few years ago Maine created strict laws designed to control costs and increase coverage. 4 of the 5 companies left the state.Now, much of that law was rolled back, and prices are dropping dramatically. And that's not even a free market yet, it's just a small step in that direction. Think what could happen if companies were allowed to actually compete.

[AmScray]

hblask, on 30 May 2012 - 04:56 PM, said:

Ah, the old "who will build the roads" ploy. Seriously, I thought you were a little more advanced in your thinking than that.

Ploy?Pursuant to the ideals advanced by people like yourself, roads would be built by private corporations who would install toll booths for every stretch they own and charge whatever they pleased. Really, there's absolutely nothing inherent to anarchistic free-market Libertarianism that can refute this since it's absolutely native to that position, or, you can refute it, but in doing so you're going to look like a huge double-talking retard on health care.

[AmScray]

hblask, on 30 May 2012 - 04:58 PM, said:

Food is more necessary for life on a day-to-day basis than medicine. Over 98% of medical care is non-emergency care. So why don't all your objections apply even more to food than they do to medicine?If you can't give a clear answer to that question, you need to rethink your ideas.

If Monsanto, ADM and ConAgra charged people $10,000 for access to any foods containing Vitamin C and there were no viable market or subsistence based alternatives (ie- I can't plant an Endocrinologist tree in my back yard) and for whatever reason, large groups of people were somehow ineligible to purchase food on the basis of their eating history- or society would provide them with the food they needed but it would result in bankruptcy- yes, I would absolutely support drastic governmental intervention to nationalize food production.

[AmScray]

hblask, on 31 May 2012 - 05:38 PM, said:

So what happens if a state were to move toward a more free market health care system? It can't possibly work, right?A few years ago Maine created strict laws designed to control costs and increase coverage. 4 of the 5 companies left the state.Now, much of that law was rolled back, and prices are dropping dramatically. And that's not even a free market yet, it's just a small step in that direction. Think what could happen if companies were allowed to actually compete.

Agree with this. You've answered 10% of the question. Now, for the other 90%.

[AmScray]

hblask, on 30 May 2012 - 04:55 PM, said:

Pretending you can pick and choose the best from each system is just silly, it's college freshman thinking.

It's the basis for Japan.

[BaseJester]

AmScray, on 02 June 2012 - 11:13 PM, said:

. . . and for whatever reason, large groups of people were somehow ineligible to purchase food on the basis of their eating history-

You're conflating health care with health insurance in this analogy.

[hblask]

AmScray, on 02 June 2012 - 11:11 PM, said:

Ploy?Pursuant to the ideals advanced by people like yourself, roads would be built by private corporations who would install toll booths for every stretch they own and charge whatever they pleased. Really, there's absolutely nothing inherent to anarchistic free-market Libertarianism that can refute this since it's absolutely native to that position, or, you can refute it, but in doing so you're going to look like a huge double-talking retard on health care.

Except, you know, reality. There are a number of private toll roads now in the US that are doing quite well, and there aren't toll booths every few feet on them.

[hblask]

AmScray, on 02 June 2012 - 11:13 PM, said:

If Monsanto, ADM and ConAgra charged people $10,000 for access to any foods containing Vitamin C and there were no viable market or subsistence based alternatives (ie- I can't plant an Endocrinologist tree in my back yard) and for whatever reason, large groups of people were somehow ineligible to purchase food on the basis of their eating history- or society would provide them with the food they needed but it would result in bankruptcy- yes, I would absolutely support drastic governmental intervention to nationalize food production.

If if if... if the world weren't anything like it is, then it would not be anything like it is.The existence of our current population without starvation is directly tied to the existence of major corporations doing things that you claim in the healthcare marekt they will not. The problems you discuss in medicine exist BECAUSE OF regulatory intervention in free markets. I am continuously amused by people who point to the most regulated industries -- cable, electric, education, and medicine -- as examples of why free markets don't work, while ignoring the fact that the exact same hurdles and issues have been solved by free markets thousands of times in unregulated industries.Seriously, make an attempt. A lame joke about "planting an endocrinologist" in your back yard is an evasion, not a serious reply. You can't plant a tree that produces bananas 365 days per year in your back yard either, and you can't plant an international transportation system that is capable of feeding millions in your back yard, either.

[hblask]

AmScray, on 03 June 2012 - 12:02 AM, said:

It's the basis for Japan.

You mean economically stagnant Japan that has had basically zero growth for 15 years and where pregnant women die in the street after being turned away from seven hospitals?Seriously, that's your example? LOL

[AmScray]

hblask, on 03 June 2012 - 09:05 AM, said:

Except, you know, reality. There are a number of private toll roads now in the US that are doing quite well, and there aren't toll booths every few feet on them.

Just so we're on the same page here and you can't dance away from your own implications:You think that private toll roads are an adequate characterization of what the US public road system 'could aspire to'? Or that the private toll road system that exists now is an example of how things would look of all roads had been left to private industry? Please just answer those questions clearly.

[AmScray]

hblask, on 03 June 2012 - 09:11 AM, said:

If if if... if the world weren't anything like it is, then it would not be anything like it is.

****. Are you seriously this dumb? You proposed a rhetorical question and I gave a rhetorical answer, which kind of eliminates you being able to lament the existence of hypothesis, since the answer was in response to your own ground rules.Retard.

[AmScray]

hblask, on 03 June 2012 - 09:13 AM, said:

You mean economically stagnant Japan that has had basically zero growth for 15 years and where pregnant women die in the street after being turned away from seven hospitals?Seriously, that's your example? LOL

OK, again, you and anecdotes. If I could pick one metric to appraise the general caliber of someones intellect, it would be how influential anecdotes are to their broader positions and outlook. You're pretty much dumber than most primates. Of course there are anecdotes from any country on earth. All you have to go is go to google and type in (country name) + (anecdotal description). For example, (country) + "denied medical treatment".As far as Japans economic stagnation, that's completely true, but it's partly based on the fact that it gets damn hard to achieve meaningful growth once your standard of living and population reach a certain point. There's still no challenging their methodology, which is what you're attempting to do.You are a deluded ideologue. What that means is that your entire existence is tucked safely in the realm of theory. You can always enjoy the role of gadfly, but will never be able to propose a workable solution (even though you sincerely believe that reciting mountainous ideologies are "workable solutions") When confronted with fact or reality that doesn't jive with your ideals, you bounce back and forth between insanely isolated anecdotes (to 'evidence' your position) and hyperbolically broad idealism (to articulate your position) while failing to realize that isn't a workable methodology. This is why Large L Libertarianism has zero traction anywhere on earth. It's the right wing equivalent of 'perfect world idealism' similar to what we see from their failed counterparts on the left (Communists) Like, in this example, we have you criticizing those subhuman monkeys in Japan. Presumably, you'd do the same for those in Norway, or England, or France, or anywhere cited as a working example of a system that doesn't jive with Libertarian delusions. You'd run to Google and type in "Sweden" + " Denied Health Care" and post an anecdote about this poor legless man in Nyköping who was denied a wheelchair, then smugly delude yourself into believing you've 'made a point'.Really, you are an example of stupid people being unaware that they're stupid, but they're still allowed to roam freely in the world, forcing everyone to endure their dumb shit.

[hblask]

AmScray, on 03 June 2012 - 08:03 PM, said:

Just so we're on the same page here and you can't dance away from your own implications:You think that private toll roads are an adequate characterization of what the US public road system 'could aspire to'?Or that the private toll road system that exists now is an example of how things would look of all roads had been left to private industry?Please just answer those questions clearly.

I think most of our roads could be privatized or a private-public partnership. And yes, a free market that includes congestion-level pricing is certainly scalable. The gas tax is a completely inadequate means of funding roads, and a toll system, whether private, private-public, or public, would solve most of the issues of gridlock that exist in every major city.

[hblask]

AmScray, on 03 June 2012 - 08:05 PM, said:

****. Are you seriously this dumb? You proposed a rhetorical question and I gave a rhetorical answer, which kind of eliminates you being able to lament the existence of hypothesis, since the answer was in response to your own ground rules.Retard.

It wasn't a rhetorical question, it was an important fundament question about markets. Over any given 3 month or six month or 12 month period, food is more important to 99% of the population than health care. Yet the claims of why health care markets don't work is because they are a matter of life and death. Yet clearly that is less the case for the vast majority of the population than it is for food.So why don't food producers charge $1000 for a box of rice? Why don't they gouge people, knowing their life is on the line.If you cannot provide a clear answer to such a fundamental question, then you really shouldn't discuss economics in a public forum (unless it is just for your education, of course -- which may be the case here).And no, the insult doesn't cause me to forget that you ignored and avoided the question.