The French Are Right (Again)

[Carl]

http://www.salon.com/opinion/conason/2009/04/03/g20/index.html


great article. This guy makes sense.

[HDRoberts]

Indeed, so many conservatives here decry the "socialism" in Europe, yet the time I went there, everyone was pretty happy. The health care, education, and worker benefits are to be modeled, not looked down upon.

However, I'm not so sure I am as enthralled with the big paid maternity/paternity leave. I think new parents deserve it, for sure, but what about equality for singles? The frequently get stuck with all the work. When do they get 16 paid weeks off to pursue their personal goals? This is something I think needs fixed in the US, too.

[fallout2600]

I disagree, competition is what makes this country tick. Socialism is an end to that.

[HDRoberts]

I think freedom is what makes this country tick. But anyway, I'm pretty sure there is still competition in France.

[fallout2600]

Freedom allows competition to thrive. Socialism erodes freedoms which in turn destroys competition.

[HDRoberts]

And how does "socialism" (the European version, NOT communism) erode freedom?

[Carl]

And how does "socialism" (the European version, NOT communism) erode freedom?

it doesn't .....neocons are just afriad their old ways will be proved wrong and the end of the GOP will finally come.....:)

[fallout2600]

And how does "socialism" (the European version, NOT communism) erode freedom?

Well, let's take the example of Universal Healthcare. In this case, doctors would have to conform to standards set by the Federal govt. This would cause doctors to have no incentive to be better than the next doctor. The doctors' freedoms to practice medicine would be squeezed causing him to think, "well the Feds say I can't prescribe this or that because it costs to much money". This results in worse patient care than we have now. By removing the doctor's freedom and latitude to do what's best, the patient loses and competition is removed from the system.

[HDRoberts]

This results in worse patient care than we have now.

Not how it has worked in France.

From the WHO:
USA:
Total population: 302,841,000
Gross national income per capita (PPP international $): 44,070
Life expectancy at birth m/f (years): 75/80
Healthy life expectancy at birth m/f (years, 2003): 67/71
Probability of dying under five (per 1 000 live births): 8
Probability of dying between 15 and 60 years m/f (per 1 000 population): 137/80
Total expenditure on health per capita (Intl $, 2006): 6,714
Total expenditure on health as % of GDP (2006): 15.3

France:
Total population: 61,330,000
Gross national income per capita (PPP international $): 32,240
Life expectancy at birth m/f (years): 77/84
Healthy life expectancy at birth m/f (years, 2003): 69/75
Probability of dying under five (per 1 000 live births): 5
Probability of dying between 15 and 60 years m/f (per 1 000 population): 124/57
Total expenditure on health per capita (Intl $, 2006): 3,554
Total expenditure on health as % of GDP (2006): 11.1

Cheaper, and people live longer.

Fascinating NYT Editorial:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/12/opinion/12sun1.html

Seven years ago, the World Health Organization made the first major effort to rank the health systems of 191 nations. France and Italy took the top two spots; the United States was a dismal 37th.

[fallout2600]

Not how it has worked in France.

From the WHO:
USA:
Total population: 302,841,000
Gross national income per capita (PPP international $): 44,070
Life expectancy at birth m/f (years): 75/80
Healthy life expectancy at birth m/f (years, 2003): 67/71
Probability of dying under five (per 1 000 live births): 8
Probability of dying between 15 and 60 years m/f (per 1 000 population): 137/80
Total expenditure on health per capita (Intl $, 2006): 6,714
Total expenditure on health as % of GDP (2006): 15.3

France:
Total population: 61,330,000
Gross national income per capita (PPP international $): 32,240
Life expectancy at birth m/f (years): 77/84
Healthy life expectancy at birth m/f (years, 2003): 69/75
Probability of dying under five (per 1 000 live births): 5
Probability of dying between 15 and 60 years m/f (per 1 000 population): 124/57
Total expenditure on health per capita (Intl $, 2006): 3,554
Total expenditure on health as % of GDP (2006): 11.1

Cheaper, and people live longer.

Fascinating NYT Editorial:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/12/opinion/12sun1.html

While those numbers look great on paper, what's the main difference, the population. The USA has 241,000,000 more people than France. That means we have x number of more smokers dying from heart disease and cancer. That means we have x number of more people dying in automobile accidents, breast cancer, etc. Our per capita death rate will always be higher than France's. Also, we would have 241 million more people competing to get doctor visits with a govt provided health care system. Scary :05:. It just isn't the best solution for America.

If we want a better health care system for all, we need to end this health insurance scam that has driven up costs and bring the prices back down. A doctors visit should be 5-10 dollars, not 100 bucks with a co-pay, etc.

[Bear Paws]

Indeed, so many conservatives here decry the "socialism" in Europe, yet the time I went there, everyone was pretty happy. The health care, education, and worker benefits are to be modeled, not looked down upon.

However, I'm not so sure I am as enthralled with the big paid maternity/paternity leave. I think new parents deserve it, for sure, but what about equality for singles? The frequently get stuck with all the work. When do they get 16 paid weeks off to pursue their personal goals? This is something I think needs fixed in the US, too.

You went there?? Thats a the measure or yard stick? Live and make a living there like the locals do.. Especially Outside of Paris, Lyon or Marseilles. Pretty happy?? The ones that live and work there have nothing to compare to. They have never known anything but what it is. Mediocrity. Borne of a stifling and smothering socialist system with the ONLY benefit to appease the people being health care and 12 weeks (incl. holidays) paid vacation. 10 million live as very poor. 27 million workers support your 61.5 million population. Of that 27m work force 8% are unemployed on the average. AS typical of most socialistic oppressed countries GDP growth has been consistently negitive for years (many). This goes along with what "Fallout" was saying.

People in Appalachia and the Ozarks are happy people too. Of course most in those areas actually have a higher standard of living than do the outlaying areas in France. For example.. meat, a car and sat TV is is not a luxury seen only in villas by servants in the US. So are the North Koreans happy for that matter. Just Ask them.

Just a quick note on the 16 weeks paid leave.. Needs to be fixed in the USA? WHO do you think pays for that? The employer. Which means you.. or what you don't get in your pay check..
Tax is payable upon the net profits of the company and the rate is currently fixed at 33.33%, plus a surtax of 3%, which brings the effective tax rates to 34.33%.
Social security contributions are levied on gross salaries at 35 to 45% for the employer, and 14 to 20% for the employee. Hows that compare with our 7% and 7%??? Want to start a business to get a leg up in France?? :free-happy-smileys-
Income taxes alone is 49.6% on 50K Euro -$65,000 gross.. Sales tax is 19.6% on EVERYTHING, hidden in the retail price. TV tax. A tax on every TV you own..
Habitation Tax. A tax on where you live regardless if you own, rent or squat.
Property Taxes. Highest in Europe.

[HDRoberts]

While those numbers look great on paper, what's the main difference, the population. The USA has 241,000,000 more people than France. That means we have x number of more smokers dying from heart disease and cancer. That means we have x number of more people dying in automobile accidents, breast cancer, etc. Our per capita death rate will always be higher than France's. Also, we would have 241 million more people competing to get doctor visits with a govt provided health care system. Scary :05:. It just isn't the best solution for America.

If we want a better health care system for all, we need to end this health insurance scam that has driven up costs and bring the prices back down. A doctors visit should be 5-10 dollars, not 100 bucks with a co-pay, etc.

That is the most illogical statement I've read. We have a higher death rate per capita because we have more people? That's what the "per capita" calculation is for. I'm also pretty sure that while there would be 241M more people competing for doctor's visits, there would be more doctors here, too.

[HDRoberts]

You went there?? Thats a the measure or yard stick? Live and make a living there like the locals do.. Especially Outside of Paris, Lyon or Marseilles. Pretty happy?? The ones that live and work there have nothing to compare to. They have never known anything but what it is. Mediocrity. Borne of a stifling and smothering socialist system with the ONLY benefit to appease the people being health care and 12 weeks (incl. holidays) paid vacation. 10 million live as very poor. 27 million workers support your 61.5 million population. Of that 27m work force 8% are unemployed on the average. AS typical of most socialistic oppressed countries GDP growth has been consistently negitive for years (many). This goes along with what "Fallout" was saying.

People in Appalachia and the Ozarks are happy people too. Of course most in those areas actually have a higher standard of living than do the outlaying areas in France. For example.. meat, a car and sat TV is is not a luxury seen only in villas by servants in the US. So are the North Koreans happy for that matter. Just Ask them.

Just a quick note on the 16 weeks paid leave.. Needs to be fixed in the USA? WHO do you think pays for that? The employer. Which means you.. or what you don't get in your pay check..
Tax is payable upon the net profits of the company and the rate is currently fixed at 33.33%, plus a surtax of 3%, which brings the effective tax rates to 34.33%.
Social security contributions are levied on gross salaries at 35 to 45% for the employer, and 14 to 20% for the employee. Hows that compare with our 7% and 7%??? Want to start a business to get a leg up in France?? :free-happy-smileys-
Income taxes alone is 49.6% on 50K Euro -$65,000 gross.. Sales tax is 19.6% on EVERYTHING, hidden in the retail price. TV tax. A tax on every TV you own..
Habitation Tax. A tax on where you live regardless if you own, rent or squat.
Property Taxes. Highest in Europe.

There are TV taxes because there is no pay TV. Yes, there are high taxes, but there is far less out of pocket, like childcare and health insurance.

If it is so horrible for the French, they have a democracy, so they can change. Wonder why no staunch capitalists have been elected? If our system is the model, people should be modeling themselves after us.

[vurbano]

There are TV taxes because there is no pay TV. Yes, there are high taxes, but there is far less out of pocket, like childcare and health insurance.

If it is so horrible for the French, they have a democracy, so they can change. Wonder why no staunch capitalists have been elected? If our system is the model, people should be modeling themselves after us.

Because generations have been sucking on the governement tit for so long and the lazy asses now outnumber the workers. Once you yell "free beer" who would elect someone that wanted to charge you for it?

[vurbano]

You went there?? Thats a the measure or yard stick? Live and make a living there like the locals do.. Especially Outside of Paris, Lyon or Marseilles. Pretty happy?? The ones that live and work there have nothing to compare to. They have never known anything but what it is. Mediocrity. Borne of a stifling and smothering socialist system with the ONLY benefit to appease the people being health care and 12 weeks (incl. holidays) paid vacation. 10 million live as very poor. 27 million workers support your 61.5 million population. Of that 27m work force 8% are unemployed on the average. AS typical of most socialistic oppressed countries GDP growth has been consistently negitive for years (many). This goes along with what "Fallout" was saying.

People in Appalachia and the Ozarks are happy people too. Of course most in those areas actually have a higher standard of living than do the outlaying areas in France. For example.. meat, a car and sat TV is is not a luxury seen only in villas by servants in the US. So are the North Koreans happy for that matter. Just Ask them.

Just a quick note on the 16 weeks paid leave.. Needs to be fixed in the USA? WHO do you think pays for that? The employer. Which means you.. or what you don't get in your pay check..
Tax is payable upon the net profits of the company and the rate is currently fixed at 33.33%, plus a surtax of 3%, which brings the effective tax rates to 34.33%.
Social security contributions are levied on gross salaries at 35 to 45% for the employer, and 14 to 20% for the employee. Hows that compare with our 7% and 7%??? Want to start a business to get a leg up in France?? :free-happy-smileys-
Income taxes alone is 49.6% on 50K Euro -$65,000 gross.. Sales tax is 19.6% on EVERYTHING, hidden in the retail price. TV tax. A tax on every TV you own..
Habitation Tax. A tax on where you live regardless if you own, rent or squat.
Property Taxes. Highest in Europe.

Soon the french will just get their allowance from the government instead of a paycheck from their employer. Obama's dream of a Utopia.

[HDRoberts]

Because generations have been sucking on the governement tit for so long and the lazy asses now outnumber the workers. Once you yell "free beer" who would elect someone that wanted to charge you for it?

Well, so long as the guy gave you free beer and there was no downside, what's wrong with that?

[msmith198025]

Well, so long as the guy gave you free beer and there was no downside, what's wrong with that?

Free beer???? YAY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!:)

[Bear Paws]

[QUOTE]There are TV taxes because there is no pay TV. ??? You jest.. No Pay TV? Most of their "commercial" TV is pay TV. The licensing is so expensive that is the only way they can do it. Its like a over taxed private sector competing with the tax subsidized government sector. The French have Sat if they can afford it. What they do have is 4, Count them FOUR, Nationally owned TV Stations. You know .. Like PBS but in this case STATE RUN TV and all in SDTV. . As a matter of fact the majority of Private Stations are Pay-TV. THere are subscription Channels like Canal+ HD A Private. Subscription network, with some programs without encryption in SDTV. The reasons why the Pay TV survives is because like everything else run by private enterprise its so much superior to the government run entities. You know like Amtrak and CSX.



Yes, there are high taxes, but there is far less out of pocket, like childcare and health insurance. Where does taxes come from.. Not out of your pocket?? Oh I get it.. The Socialist way..out of someone else's pocket....The Forgotten Man ... got it.


If it is so horrible for the French, they have a democracy, so they can change. Wonder why no staunch capitalists have been elected? If our system is the model, people should be modeling themselves after us.
They did. They got rid of the leftist elite Chiroc and elected Sarkozy. They are working on it.The French like so many Euros bought into the "Progressive" (euphemistic code for Socialism) lie during the 50s and now are trying to reverse 50 years of failure. But now they have such a huge dependent society that it will take years if ever to cleans. Socialism like Communism, although attractive appearing in theory, once ubiquitous is a sticky slimy slippery smothering snot that is hard to get off once its attached to the populace.

Its interesting that countries that where once Communist and Socialist have abandoned it completely or are desperately trying to rid themselves of it and warning us not to do it. To look to their failure as a lesson. Its not like they didn't try every incarnation and version man could think of. They did and then some. Only Third world countries still want to try it. The great ones that did are now third world countries.

The problem with any form of socialism is that you need to first alter human nature before you change the society. Of course Stalin's method almost worked. Fence everyone in and beat the crap out of them.

[Carl]

Sounds like jealously of Obama to me. Don't worry, you neocons will get another good candidate someday.....:free-happy-smileys-

[msmith198025]

Sounds like jealously of Obama to me.

How so?

[Carl]

becasue all the neocons can see or try to see, is obama perceivd inperfactions.
They are jealous he is such a well liked well received candidate.

[Bear Paws]

becasue all the neocons can see or try to see, is obama perceivd inperfactions.
They are jealous he is such a well liked well received candidate. Obviously you have no clue what a Neocon is other than just being a progressive pejorative talking point in your mind.

99% of conservatives have never been neocons past the age of 21 or what ever age they became of adult age and thinking...

Jealous?? Sorry. Not hardly.. The emotional guttural response is more disgust and disdain.. I have no pride nor respect for a President or any man for that matter, that bows submissively to a king, speaks ill of our people to our enemies and friends, criticizes a twice elected predecessor and sells our country out for the sake of adoration..like Obama has done.

I'll take the Cowboy approach that made us great and called upon first when the world was on fire and we where their last hope to pull their fat out of the flames of eminent annihilation by their own cowardice. Do you think they would call Obama. Would you? Or would you make the first call to Crawford if your hair was on fire. The difference my young friend is a speech of darling rhetoric or action of daring do. I would call Texas.

[Carl]

Obviously you have no clue what a Neocon is other than just being a progressive pejorative talking point in your mind.

99% of conservatives have never been neocons past the age of 21 or what ever age they became of adult age and thinking...

Jealous?? Sorry. Not hardly.. The emotional guttural response is more disgust and disdain.. I have no pride nor respect for a President or any man for that matter, that bows submissively to a king, speaks ill of our people to our enemies and friends, criticizes a twice elected predecessor and sells our country out for the sake of adoration..like Obama has done.

I'll take the Cowboy approach that made us great and called upon first when the world was on fire and we where their last hope to pull their fat out of the flames of eminent annihilation by their own cowardice. Do you think they would call Obama. Would you? Or would you make the first call to Crawford if your hair was on fire. The difference my young friend is a speech of darling rhetoric or action of daring do. I would call Texas.
First i am not young.
That cowboy approach got into Iraq when we did not need to be and dispised by the rest of the world.
I have every confidence in Obam to handle any situation as well or better then Bush.

[vurbano]

First i am not young.
That is unfortunate. It leaves only one other explaination.

[vurbano]

Obviously you have no clue what a Neocon is other than just being a progressive pejorative talking point in your mind.

99% of conservatives have never been neocons past the age of 21 or what ever age they became of adult age and thinking...


I am certainly no neocon. My conservative views have been this way since birth.

[froggigger]

Health care costs began the upward spiral as soon as government got involved in it after WWII, especially with the start of Medicare and Medicaid. Health care and health insurance are probably the most heavily regulated industries in the USA. Decade after decade of cost increasing regulations is the main cause of the health care "crisis" that you socialist medicine advocates claim to be so worried about. I say claim because it goes far beyond cost factors. At any rate, government control of the health care market is the problem and yet the "fix" is even more government involvement? Keep dreaming.

[HDRoberts]

Health care costs began the upward spiral as soon as government got involved in it after WWII, especially with the start of Medicare and Medicaid. Health care and health insurance are probably the most heavily regulated industries in the USA. Decade after decade of cost increasing regulations is the main cause of the health care "crisis" that you socialist medicine advocates claim to be so worried about. I say claim because it goes far beyond cost factors. At any rate, government control of the health care market is the problem and yet the "fix" is even more government involvement? Keep dreaming.

You seem to believe correlation = causation. You seem to think that health care problems began around WWII, and so did the early beginnings of government influencing heath care. But we can't instantly say one caused the other. Medical science began to grow by leaps and bounds after WWII, so that access only then began as an issue. To me, it is 2 things caused by the same thing, not one causing the other.

[froggigger]

You seem to believe correlation = causation. You seem to think that health care problems began around WWII, and so did the early beginnings of government influencing heath care. But we can't instantly say one caused the other. Medical science began to grow by leaps and bounds after WWII, so that access only then began as an issue. To me, it is 2 things caused by the same thing, not one causing the other.

No. I said costs spiraled after WWII with the advent of more government involvement. In the '40s, the IRS allowed companies to pay workers in untaxed health care benefits. This amounts to a subsidy which gives workers a discount on medical costs. In effect, it hides the true cost from those that pay them and allows government to spend health care dollars in the voting booth as well as in the market.

The third-party payer system in the form of government, employers, or insurance insulates consumers from the true cost and encourages over-consumption and inflated costs. The AMA and state medical boards also contribute to the mess but that's for another day. The tax code allows employers to deduct health care costs but has never allowed individuals to deduct the majority of their medical expenses or all the cost of their insurance. Employers paid the higher costs in place of higher wages, making coverage more expensive for employers. The side-effect was that employees took advantage of the perceived "free" or "cheap" health care. This puts greater demand on providers, thus driving up the price for all.

Government also forces prices up by mandating coverage, which forces insurance companies to provide benefits that the individual may never need. For example, a post-menopausal woman paying for maternity benefits that she obviously will never need. Mandating benefits means higher premium costs, which dramatically increased health care costs. I haven't gotten to Medicare and Medicaid yet.

Medicaid alone is putting a serious hurt on state budgets. The Fed and state governments have imposed massive regulations on doctors, hospitals, insurance companies, etc. All price busters. Medicare tries to control costs by routinely turning down around 20% of the procedures that doctors feel are necessary. Guidelines that cover 100,000+ pages drive costs higher by burdening doctors with regulations that, in many cases, forces them to undercharge for services. Plus, Medicare will go broke. Not if. When.

You mention science growing by leaps and bounds. You didn't specify but I believe you were attributing that to increasing costs. So why do new drugs and new medical tools raise costs nearly 3x and consume an ever increasing share of national income? Technical innovation usually lowers costs. The health care industry is the only one I can think of where prices keep going up no matter what. More government control ain't the answer. It's the problem.

[Bear Paws]

What Frogger said... To add:
The only medical procedure not covered at this point by Government or Government mandated insurance is one of the most highly technical advances in medicine since heart bypass. The only one procedure that, at least this point, is elective and free market competitive. Getting safer, better daily, and readily available as a "walk-in" hair cut and cheaper at $499 than John Edward's $600 hair cut . Lasik eye surgery...A Tylonol can cost that under government mandated hospital insurances., How do you account for that anomaly?

With that $499 are included;
* Royalties owed to laser manufacturers.
* Purchase and maintenance of surgical and technical equipment.
* Surgical gowns, gloves, masks, and other sterile and disposable materials.
* Medications used before, during, and after surgery, including anesthesia, eye drops, and oral pain medications.
* Rent for surgical and office facilities.
* Surgical and office staff salaries.
* Advertising fees.
* Pre- and post-operative evaluations for up to one year after surgery.
* Post-surgical enhancement, if needed.

[froggigger]

What Frogger said... To add:
The only medical procedure not covered at this point by Government or Government mandated insurance is one of the most highly technical advances in medicine since heart bypass. The only one procedure that, at least this point, is elective and free market competitive. Getting safer, better daily, and readily available as a "walk-in" hair cut and cheaper at $499 than John Edward's $600 hair cut . Lasik eye surgery...A Tylonol can cost that under government mandated hospital insurances., How do you account for that anomaly?

With that $499 are included;
* Royalties owed to laser manufacturers.
* Purchase and maintenance of surgical and technical equipment.
* Surgical gowns, gloves, masks, and other sterile and disposable materials.
* Medications used before, during, and after surgery, including anesthesia, eye drops, and oral pain medications.
* Rent for surgical and office facilities.
* Surgical and office staff salaries.
* Advertising fees.
* Pre- and post-operative evaluations for up to one year after surgery.
* Post-surgical enhancement, if needed.

Excellent example. :thumbup:

[Carl]

No. I said costs spiraled after WWII with the advent of more government involvement. In the '40s, the IRS allowed companies to pay workers in untaxed health care benefits. This amounts to a subsidy which gives workers a discount on medical costs. In effect, it hides the true cost from those that pay them and allows government to spend health care dollars in the voting booth as well as in the market.

The third-party payer system in the form of government, employers, or insurance insulates consumers from the true cost and encourages over-consumption and inflated costs. The AMA and state medical boards also contribute to the mess but that's for another day. The tax code allows employers to deduct health care costs but has never allowed individuals to deduct the majority of their medical expenses or all the cost of their insurance. Employers paid the higher costs in place of higher wages, making coverage more expensive for employers. The side-effect was that employees took advantage of the perceived "free" or "cheap" health care. This puts greater demand on providers, thus driving up the price for all.

Government also forces prices up by mandating coverage, which forces insurance companies to provide benefits that the individual may never need. For example, a post-menopausal woman paying for maternity benefits that she obviously will never need. Mandating benefits means higher premium costs, which dramatically increased health care costs. I haven't gotten to Medicare and Medicaid yet.

Medicaid alone is putting a serious hurt on state budgets. The Fed and state governments have imposed massive regulations on doctors, hospitals, insurance companies, etc. All price busters. Medicare tries to control costs by routinely turning down around 20% of the procedures that doctors feel are necessary. Guidelines that cover 100,000+ pages drive costs higher by burdening doctors with regulations that, in many cases, forces them to undercharge for services. Plus, Medicare will go broke. Not if. When.

You mention science growing by leaps and bounds. You didn't specify but I believe you were attributing that to increasing costs. So why do new drugs and new medical tools raise costs nearly 3x and consume an ever increasing share of national income? Technical innovation usually lowers costs. The health care industry is the only one I can think of where prices keep going up no matter what. More government control ain't the answer. It's the problem.

With the Federal Government streamlining costs health care we be uninversal in the USA. There is so much corporate greed in the health care industry and drugs it is ridiculous. It is time Corporations work for people instead of on their backs.

[froggigger]

With the Federal Government streamlining costs health care we be uninversal in the USA. There is so much corporate greed in the health care industry and drugs it is ridiculous. It is time Corporations work for people instead of on their backs.

You've been repeating a lot of talking points but so far I have seen little to nothing that will back up what you are repeating. Now's the time. How will costs be streamlined? How is corporate "greed" affecting prices in the health care industry? Why do drugs cost so much? Is government equally on the people's backs as corporations are? Is government blameless in the health care mess? Your credibility is on the line. What ya got?

[Bear Paws]

With the Federal Government streamlining costs health care we be uninversal in the USA. There is so much corporate greed in the health care industry and drugs it is ridiculous. It is time Corporations work for people instead of on their backs. With the Federal Government streamlining costs health care we be uninversal in the USA.
The Amtrak of healthcare. :free-happy-smileys-

Then why is 85% of the population happy with their health care. ("gallup.com/poll/102934/Majority-Americans-Satisfied-Their-Own-Healthcare") Of the remaining 15%, 5% don't want it and the rest just want us to pay for it. Because either they are lazy or socialists.. Or both..
http://www.gallup.com/poll/102934/Majority-Americans-Satisfied-Their-Own-Healthcare.aspx

"Americans are quite happy with their health plans. Eighty-three percent of Americans rate the quality of healthcare they receive as excellent or good, while only 15% say theirs is poor. Slightly less, 70%, say their healthcare coverage is excellent or good. These ratings have been fairly stable in the seven years in which Gallup's Healthcare survey has been conducted."

You and the socialist won't rest until everyone has crappy DMV (dept motor vehicle) style healthcare that we pay through the nose for. If your so damn worried about the 15% then give it to them....But wait... they already have it.. In most cases better than I have because they go to the hospital ER , that I pay for, to get a $200 gold plated aspirin for their sneeze. Just leave me and the rest of the 85% the hell out of your Commie scheme.

[HDRoberts]

No. I said costs spiraled after WWII with the advent of more government involvement. In the '40s, the IRS allowed companies to pay workers in untaxed health care benefits. This amounts to a subsidy which gives workers a discount on medical costs. In effect, it hides the true cost from those that pay them and allows government to spend health care dollars in the voting booth as well as in the market.

The third-party payer system in the form of government, employers, or insurance insulates consumers from the true cost and encourages over-consumption and inflated costs. The AMA and state medical boards also contribute to the mess but that's for another day. The tax code allows employers to deduct health care costs but has never allowed individuals to deduct the majority of their medical expenses or all the cost of their insurance. Employers paid the higher costs in place of higher wages, making coverage more expensive for employers. The side-effect was that employees took advantage of the perceived "free" or "cheap" health care. This puts greater demand on providers, thus driving up the price for all.

Government also forces prices up by mandating coverage, which forces insurance companies to provide benefits that the individual may never need. For example, a post-menopausal woman paying for maternity benefits that she obviously will never need. Mandating benefits means higher premium costs, which dramatically increased health care costs. I haven't gotten to Medicare and Medicaid yet.

Medicaid alone is putting a serious hurt on state budgets. The Fed and state governments have imposed massive regulations on doctors, hospitals, insurance companies, etc. All price busters. Medicare tries to control costs by routinely turning down around 20% of the procedures that doctors feel are necessary. Guidelines that cover 100,000+ pages drive costs higher by burdening doctors with regulations that, in many cases, forces them to undercharge for services. Plus, Medicare will go broke. Not if. When.

You mention science growing by leaps and bounds. You didn't specify but I believe you were attributing that to increasing costs. So why do new drugs and new medical tools raise costs nearly 3x and consume an ever increasing share of national income? Technical innovation usually lowers costs. The health care industry is the only one I can think of where prices keep going up no matter what. More government control ain't the answer. It's the problem.

So how does taxing health care benefits solve the problem? That seems to be the point of your first paragraph.

The point of your second paragraph seems to be that employer provided healthcare makes people go to the doctor too much, because it is cheap. While there are some hypochondriacs out there that drag down the system, most Americans, myself included, don't go to the doctor enough. Plus, that seems to fly in the face of your later complaint about Medicare turning down 20% of necessary procedures. While if people really are going to the doctor too much, Medicare is probably right.

Mandating coverage was necessary to counter corporate greed. It keeps insurers from offering el-chepo policies that don't cover the most basic of medical problems. Imagine going to the hospital with appendicitis only to discover your insurance doesn't cover it. Yet that's the kind of thing that would happen if certain coverage was not mandated. And your post menopausal woman: another example of corporate greed. It shouldn't take an actuary to discover that giving her maternity coverage costs next to nothing. But insurers just see another way to cheat the public.

Again, regulation is necessary to keep corporate America from providing an even lower standard of care. You don't want a bureaucrat deciding what care you get. But I'd rather a bureaucrat than a CEO whose paycheck goes up for every dollar he saves on my care.

And while innovation EVENTUALLY brings prices down, these innovations are extremely expensive when new. Think of how much your first computer costs. Yet in medicine, there are countless new procedures, techniques, and tools. Plus, I'm betting some companies aren't cutting costs for their innovations as fast as they should so they can make a few extra bucks.

And I don't know where Bear Paws gets his Lasik surgery. It cost nearly 4 times that, and can be much more.


A report commissioned by AllAboutVision.com from a leading industry analyst in 2008 listed average LASIK costs as:

* $2,105 for all laser-based vision correction procedures in which a single price is quoted.
* $1,662 for non-customized LASIK using a bladed instrument (microkeratome) and excimer lasers that are not guided by wavefront analysis.
* $2,341 for wavefront-guided LASIK using IntraLase.

Note that there can be wide variation in what an advertised price will include. Beware of advertising that, for example, promises "LASIK from $499 per eye." Look for the fine print. Typically, only a few select people are actually eligible for LASIK at prices that sound unusually low, because most eyes require more extensive correction or more follow-up after the surgery.

[fallout2600]

More interesting facts about the myths of "universal" healthcare:


Myth #3: U.S. Health Care is Inferior to the Rest of the World

One of the major arguments used by the proponents of socialized medicine is the substantial cost of health care in the United States as compared to other industrialized countries, mainly Canada and Europe. Advocates of socialized medicine constantly assert the superiority of other nations over the US based on the false belief that health care is inexpensive to citizens of these countries. Many even claim that health care in those countries is universal or "free."

In reality there is nothing free about it. The Health Care system in France is funded through a 13.55 percent payroll tax, a 5.25 percent income tax and other taxes on tobacco, alcohol and drug-company revenues. And the system is still running a deficit equivalent to more than 15 billion dollars.

In the United Kingdom we see more of the same: perceived low costs with hidden expenses that increase price and decrease quality. The UK's National Health Service (NHS) serves as a reminder of what can happen when competition begins to fade and socialized medicine takes over.

When it comes to the medical field, private industry leads to new and effective treatments and medicines. With no competition, government control over health care would lead to higher prices and a massive decline in quality. Some hospitals in Great Britain are being forced to cut services in order to cut costs. Controlled by the NHS, some hospitals have resorted to asking patients to bring drugs in from home, or removing every third light bulb from hallways. One government-controlled hospital even encouraged staff to save money on laundry costs by flipping over dirty bed sheets between patients instead of washing them.

Merely saying that people have health insurance is meaningless. Many countries provide universal insurance but deny critical procedures to people who become nothing more than numbers in a database. In Sweden some patients have had to wait more than six months for heart surgery, a procedure that from start to finish would take a matter of days in the U.S.

Private companies are responsible for the medical innovations we see today. The private sector gives us flat screen televisions and digital cameras while the government gives us the Post Office and the Department of Motor Vehicles. Private industry generates healthy competition that leads to better quality products and a reduced cost for consumers.

Government control limits the choices people have when looking for care and it prevents patients from receiving the best care possible. By allowing the free market to work we produce the best available products and the best service possible. The benefits of government intervention in the health care sector are grossly exaggerated and based solely on myth, not on fact.

[Carl]

With the Federal Government streamlining costs health care we be uninversal in the USA.
The Amtrak of healthcare. :free-happy-smileys-

Then why is 85% of the population happy with their health care. ("gallup.com/poll/102934/Majority-Americans-Satisfied-Their-Own-Healthcare") Of the remaining 15%, 5% don't want it and the rest just want us to pay for it. Because either they are lazy or socialists.. Or both..
http://www.gallup.com/poll/102934/Majority-Americans-Satisfied-Their-Own-Healthcare.aspx

"Americans are quite happy with their health plans. Eighty-three percent of Americans rate the quality of healthcare they receive as excellent or good, while only 15% say theirs is poor. Slightly less, 70%, say their healthcare coverage is excellent or good. These ratings have been fairly stable in the seven years in which Gallup's Healthcare survey has been conducted."

You and the socialist won't rest until everyone has crappy DMV (dept motor vehicle) style healthcare that we pay through the nose for. If your so damn worried about the 15% then give it to them....But wait... they already have it.. In most cases better than I have because they go to the hospital ER , that I pay for, to get a $200 gold plated aspirin for their sneeze. Just leave me and the rest of the 85% the hell out of your Commie scheme.

So we should let the people who are having thier lives ruined by an outdated system continue to have them ruined. I prefer we help people.

[HDRoberts]

First off, no one advocating universal health care is saying it is free. But honestly, what is the difference paying a private insurer and paying the government for coverage?

"Many countries provide universal insurance but deny critical procedures to people who become nothing more than numbers in a database" Yeah, that is SO different than what we are to insurance companies. I'm POSITIVE I am SOOO much more than a number to the CEO of my insurer, Medical Mutual.

Oooh, the private sector gave us flat screen TVs. If the government DID design those, you would scream "waste of taxpayer dollars!" or "interference in private industry!" Yes they gave us the post office, where for $0.42, you can send a letter to the other side of the country, delivered right to the recipient's door. Gee, I wonder what private industry would want for that service?

Private industry if far more interested (as Idiocracy taught us) in giving us a cure for baldness and longer lasting, well, you knows, than doing things like curing cancer and the common cold.

[Derwin0]

Private industry if far more interested (as Idiocracy taught us) in giving us a cure for baldness and longer lasting, well, you knows, than doing things like curing cancer and the common cold.
You do realize that almost all the vaccine that have been developed were done so by private industries. :rolleyes:

[HDRoberts]

You do realize that almost all the vaccine that have been developed were done so by private industries. :rolleyes:

And they have been so busy getting us vaccines for AIDS, colds, and a universal flu vaccine. But I can get 3 different flavors of b*ner pills. :augentreher:

[msmith198025]

And they have been so busy getting us vaccines for AIDS, colds, and a universal flu vaccine. But I can get 3 different flavors of b*ner pills. :augentreher:

Are you saying that they have not been doing those things?

Where do you think the treatments for them that we have now came from?

[fallout2600]

First off, no one advocating universal health care is saying it is free. But honestly, what is the difference paying a private insurer and paying the government for coverage?

"Many countries provide universal insurance but deny critical procedures to people who become nothing more than numbers in a database" Yeah, that is SO different than what we are to insurance companies. I'm POSITIVE I am SOOO much more than a number to the CEO of my insurer, Medical Mutual.

Oooh, the private sector gave us flat screen TVs. If the government DID design those, you would scream "waste of taxpayer dollars!" or "interference in private industry!" Yes they gave us the post office, where for $0.42, you can send a letter to the other side of the country, delivered right to the recipient's door. Gee, I wonder what private industry would want for that service?

Private industry if far more interested (as Idiocracy taught us) in giving us a cure for baldness and longer lasting, well, you knows, than doing things like curing cancer and the common cold.

You are missing the entire point, but, I do see your point. You think the govt can do it better, I believe the private sector is and will continue to do it better. Look how our Dems and Repubs have handled Social Security over the years, its a broken system that is bankrupt. At least we can agree to disagree.

Your $0.42 stamp comment also alludes to the fact that you believe health care will be cheaper if the govt was in charge. How do you figure?

[HDRoberts]

You are missing the entire point, but, I do see your point. You think the govt can do it better, I believe the private sector is and will continue to do it better. Look how our Dems and Repubs have handled Social Security over the years, its a broken system that is bankrupt. At least we can agree to disagree.

Your $0.42 stamp comment also alludes to the fact that you believe health care will be cheaper if the govt was in charge. How do you figure?

As I have said before, the difference between the government and private enterprise is democracy. CEOs answer only to shareholders. Politicians answer to voters. Neither of them can run health care as it should. But I'll trust the one we can change. No one wants a bureaucrat making health care decisions, true, but can it be worse than what we have not, executives making health care decisions?

Can the government run things cheaper? I don't know. The USPS example was just to show that the government can do an OK job running things, giving all Americans access to an affordable service we all need. But it is certainly possible. Look how socialized medicing countries do:

Canada:
Total expenditure on health per capita (Intl $, 2006): 3,672
Total expenditure on health as % of GDP (2006): 10.0

France:
Total expenditure on health per capita (Intl $, 2006): 3,554
Total expenditure on health as % of GDP (2006): 11.1

UK:
Total expenditure on health per capita (Intl $, 2006): 2,784
Total expenditure on health as % of GDP (2006): 8.4

Finland:
Total expenditure on health per capita (Intl $, 2006): 2,472
Total expenditure on health as % of GDP (2006): 7.6

Israel:
Total expenditure on health per capita (Intl $, 2006): 2,263
Total expenditure on health as % of GDP (2006): 7.8

Those are just some examples. How does the US compare?

USA:
Total expenditure on health per capita (Intl $, 2006): 6,714
Total expenditure on health as % of GDP (2006): 15.3

It seems to me there are other government run health care systems that are cheaper than our private version.

[HDRoberts]

By the way, all data from the World Heath Organization

[Bear Paws]

So we should let the people who are having thier lives ruined by an outdated system continue to have them ruined. I prefer we help people.
You didn't read a word I said...did you..? Or is that more a comprehension problem??

[Bear Paws]

[QUOTE]First off, no one advocating universal health care is saying it is free. But honestly, what is the difference paying a private insurer and paying the government for coverage?
THe same Indifference you would get at the DMV or any other state run agency.. Incompetence, Ignorance, and Ineptitude .

"Many countries provide universal insurance but deny critical procedures to people who become nothing more than numbers in a database" Yeah, that is SO different than what we are to insurance companies. I'm POSITIVE I am SOOO much more than a number to the CEO of my insurer, Medical Mutual. You can always seek out someone better. Apparently 85% of the people seem to find them..


Oooh, the private sector gave us flat screen TVs. If the government DID design those, you would scream "waste of taxpayer dollars!" or "interference in private industry!" Yes they gave us the post office, where for $0.42, you can send a letter to the other side of the country, delivered right to the recipient's door. Gee, I wonder what private industry would want for that service? Lets not forget the 10 billion tax dollars a year we have to supplement the USPS with to deliver that $0.42 letter. When did UPS or FedEx ask for a subsidy?


Private industry if far more interested (as Idiocracy taught us) in giving us a cure for baldness and longer lasting, well, you knows, than doing things like curing cancer and the common cold.
See DerwinO.
Idiocracy? You didn't read the "lost" or missing chapters ...did you?

[HDRoberts]

[quote=HDRoberts;4554] THe same Indifference you would get at the DMV or any other state run agency.. Incompetence, Ignorance, and Ineptitude .
You can always seek out someone better. Apparently 85% of the people seem to find them..

Lets not forget the 10 billion tax dollars a year we have to supplement the USPS with to deliver that $0.42 letter. When did UPS or FedEx ask for a subsidy?

See DerwinO.
Idiocracy? You didn't read the "lost" or missing chapters ...did you?

I get plenty of indifference, incompetence, ignorance, and ineptitude at my private insurer.

85% find what? An insurer that cares about them as a person. Surely you are joking.

We do not give the USPS a $10B /year subsidy. First, most of their "subsidies" are tax exemptions. And the value is between $39M and $117M/year, even according to this rather anti USPS article: http://www.heartland.org/policybot/results/23182/FTC_Report_US_Postal_Service_Needs_More_Freedom_an d_Less_Protection.html

Of course, a private delivery service would also refuse to deliver to most of rural America, choosing to cherry pick the best areas to serve.

I bet some sorting facilities for private delivery services have gotten some good subsides, too.

[fallout2600]

As I have said before, the difference between the government and private enterprise is democracy. CEOs answer only to shareholders. Politicians answer to voters. Neither of them can run health care as it should. But I'll trust the one we can change. No one wants a bureaucrat making health care decisions, true, but can it be worse than what we have not, executives making health care decisions?

Can the government run things cheaper? I don't know. The USPS example was just to show that the government can do an OK job running things, giving all Americans access to an affordable service we all need. But it is certainly possible. Look how socialized medicing countries do:

Canada:
Total expenditure on health per capita (Intl $, 2006): 3,672
Total expenditure on health as % of GDP (2006): 10.0

France:
Total expenditure on health per capita (Intl $, 2006): 3,554
Total expenditure on health as % of GDP (2006): 11.1

UK:
Total expenditure on health per capita (Intl $, 2006): 2,784
Total expenditure on health as % of GDP (2006): 8.4

Finland:
Total expenditure on health per capita (Intl $, 2006): 2,472
Total expenditure on health as % of GDP (2006): 7.6

Israel:
Total expenditure on health per capita (Intl $, 2006): 2,263
Total expenditure on health as % of GDP (2006): 7.8

Those are just some examples. How does the US compare?

USA:
Total expenditure on health per capita (Intl $, 2006): 6,714
Total expenditure on health as % of GDP (2006): 15.3

It seems to me there are other government run health care systems that are cheaper than our private version.

So why is it that health care in the USA costs more than other countries? What are the reasons for it?

[HDRoberts]

So why is it that health care in the USA costs more than other countries? What are the reasons for it?

Well, I think one is our litigious society. Doctors cover too many bases because they are afraid of getting sued. We need tort reform.

Another factor is greed. Since insurers negotiate such low rates for some things, it has left hospitals to have massively inflated rates for a lot of procedures. This winds of being paid by "out of network" patients and those with no insurance (and then in turn is paid by the government frequently).

Perhaps we should also ask, what do these other countries do that keeps costs down?

[fallout2600]

Well, I think one is our litigious society. Doctors cover too many bases because they are afraid of getting sued. We need tort reform.

Another factor is greed. Since insurers negotiate such low rates for some things, it has left hospitals to have massively inflated rates for a lot of procedures. This winds of being paid by "out of network" patients and those with no insurance (and then in turn is paid by the government frequently).

Perhaps we should also ask, what do these other countries do that keeps costs down?


Here are some interesting tidbits on why the cost is so high:


Why, then, is our health care so astronomically expensive? Let’s look at some of the conventional beliefs.



• We don’t ration care Unlike citizens in the U.K. and Canada, we don’t have to wait weeks for elective surgery or an MRI. But when researchers from the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health looked at the 15 procedures and tests that account for the majority of waiting lists in other countries, they found that they amounted to just 3 percent of costs in the United States, not nearly enough to explain the huge difference in spending.



• Malpractice is the culprit Doctors say their worries about lawsuits drive them to order costly tests and procedures that their patients do not actually need. Malpractice reform will help save money, but not as much as some people believe. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that while tort reforms could lower malpractice-insurance premiums for physicians by as much as 25 to 30 percent, the overall savings to our health care system would be a minuscule one-half percent.



• Inefficient insurance companies are to blame We devote nearly a third of our health care dollars to administrative costs—paper pushing, in effect. (Canada’s single-payer system, by contrast, is a model of efficiency, spending only about 16 percent of its health care dollars on administrative overhead.) If we could be as efficient as Canada, we could save $360 billion each year. That’s a lot of money, but it’s only about one seventh of our total health care spending.



• Consumers aren’t shopping wisely The moral-hazard argument says that because people don’t pay out of pocket, they use more-expensive health care than necessary. Moral hazard says we go to the doctor when we don’t really need to; we insist on getting a CT scan for a twisted ankle when ice and an Ace bandage will do. Experts will tell you that as many as one in four doctor’s-office visits are “social calls,” and nearly half of emergency room visits are for care that could have been handled in a nonemergency setting. But even this argument doesn’t explain why health care costs so much. That’s because 20 percent of patients account for 80 percent of spending, and that 20 percent is made up mostly of the chronically ill. These patients are often sick with multiple conditions—such as diabetes, heart disease, and high blood pressure—and more than half of the money we devote to caring for them is spent when they are in the hospital. People who are sick enough to be hospitalized are generally too ill to be insisting on certain tests or procedures.


Indeed, perhaps the most significant reason Americans are drowning in health care debt may shock you: Americans are getting far too much unnecessary care. Of our total $2.3 trillion health care bill last year, a whopping $500 billion to $700 billion was spent on treatments, tests, and hospitalizations that did nothing to improve our health. Even worse, new evidence suggests that too much health care may actually be killing us. According to estimates by Elliott Fisher, M.D., a noted Dartmouth researcher, unnecessary care leads to the deaths of as many as 30,000 Medicare recipients annually.
So the real question becomes whether our doctors are doing too many tests and procedures on us? So, would you rather proactive doctors as we have here in the USA that are thorough and cover all basis? Or doctors that are limited in the scopes of the tests they can run on a patient?

[froggigger]

So how does taxing health care benefits solve the problem? That seems to be the point of your first paragraph.

That's not even close to the point. The point is that it insulates the actual consumer of the service from the actual cost of the service. The tax part was mentioned merely to explain why it was done.


The point of your second paragraph seems to be that employer provided healthcare makes people go to the doctor too much, because it is cheap. While there are some hypochondriacs out there that drag down the system, most Americans, myself included, don't go to the doctor enough. Plus, that seems to fly in the face of your later complaint about Medicare turning down 20% of necessary procedures. While if people really are going to the doctor too much, Medicare is probably right.

Again, it's all about cost. Employees pay for their health care, or at least a majority of it in most cases through lower wages, etc. It's another example of the consumer being insulated from true cost. Lower costs translates to more demand. That's why stores run sales. It's human nature to use something more if the price is, for lack of a better term, reasonable. Every sniffle, every ingrown toenail, impacted boogers, whatever, many people will go to the doctor where if the full cost came directly from their own pocket they'd be much less likely to do so for trivial problems. As for Medicare, I said necessary procedures. A doctor decides what is necessary and what isn't. A bureaucrat sitting behind a desk should play no part.


Mandating coverage was necessary to counter corporate greed. It keeps insurers from offering el-chepo policies that don't cover the most basic of medical problems. Imagine going to the hospital with appendicitis only to discover your insurance doesn't cover it. Yet that's the kind of thing that would happen if certain coverage was not mandated. And your post menopausal woman: another example of corporate greed. It shouldn't take an actuary to discover that giving her maternity coverage costs next to nothing. But insurers just see another way to cheat the public.

Greed. Those of the left side of the creek love that word. Funny how it is never used when government wants more of your money to redistribute for votes. It's amazing to me that an entity like government can have its hand in your pocket up to the elbow and constantly trying to force it further in to grab more, but it has nothing to do with "greed". Only people who want to make a profit can be "greedy". Yeah, that's it. That being said, you seem to advocate government mandates to decide individual coverage. What do you have against the individual making that decision? Are you of the school that believe people are too dumb to make their own decisions? That's the thinking that is the result of government intrusion. No insurer could force anyone to buy an el-cheapo policy with minimal coverage. It should be a personal decision, not made by the same bureaucrat as before. Or, are they too dumb to realize what they are signing so big daddy needs to step in and "help"?

Next to nothing? Heard that before. This new tax is small and cost next to nothing. This regulation will cost next to nothing. This fee is small and will cost next to nothing. When all is said and done all this "next to nothing" has gotten us over 70,000 pages of regulations in the Federal Register and over 67,000 pages in the tax code. Good old incrementalism. Next to nothing indeed.


Again, regulation is necessary to keep corporate America from providing an even lower standard of care. You don't want a bureaucrat deciding what care you get. But I'd rather a bureaucrat than a CEO whose paycheck goes up for every dollar he saves on my care.

Regulation is what caused all the mess. The mistake many make, possibly you make the same mistake, is thinking that the free market is what caused the mess and government needs to ride in on its white horse and fix it. Government breaks, not fixes. The very idea that our health care system is free is absurd. In 2006, government accounted for over 45% of all health care expenditures. That's equates to 20% of GDP. It also spends more per capita that any other OECD country, and that includes those with socialist, government funded health care.

The bottom line is that the reason prices are so high is because the health care industry is so heavily subsidized. One reason that government intervention grows and never contracts is because you always get more of anything that is subsidized. Doctors raise their prices for people who pay out of pocket to cover those who do not pay. IOW, the ones that government pays for through forced donations, ie. taxes. For now, we still have entrepreneurs who compete in the industry despite government's attempts to stifle all competition.


And while innovation EVENTUALLY brings prices down, these innovations are extremely expensive when new. Think of how much your first computer costs. Yet in medicine, there are countless new procedures, techniques, and tools. Plus, I'm betting some companies aren't cutting costs for their innovations as fast as they should so they can make a few extra bucks.

Need an example of innovation bringing down prices now? Private companies that do business without government intervention, and without being granted a government-sanctioned monopoly, must offer better-quality services and/or lower prices to continue to attract customers. Wal-Mart is doing it and doing it well. The government adds layer after layer of bureaucracy and continues to throw money at the problem and it just gets worse. Wal-Mart is innovating and offering health care to many people without government "help". They offer walk-in, inexpensive services by leasing space to private clinics. Along with a good number of $4 prescriptions, health care is now affordable to millions and there is no requirement to have health insurance. The $4 prescription plan alone has already saved customers over $1 billion since it started. Prices are very transparent, usually around $45 per office visit. You know your cost now, not months later after all the insurances are filed and what's left unpaid is your out of pocket cost.

The best part is that it will increase competition unless government gets in the way, which is likely. The more profit Wal-Mart makes, the more competition there will be to compete for the consumer's money. Despite your "corporate greed" mantra, profit is not a dirty word. The more profit a company earns, ideally in a free market, the better it is serving their customers. Without consumer demand, profits will suffer. Injecting government in the equation skews the formula beyond all recognition.

We have lived under a system that is far removed from a free market, yet the free market is the whipping boy because people are economically ignorant---and government likes it that way. If the market was allowed to work freely, health care prices would be lower and quality would be higher. With government in the mix, you get high prices and poor service. Our current health care mess is a fine example what happens when the government steps in to "fix" something. More government? Thank you, Sir, may I have another.

[Derwin0]

So why is it that health care in the USA costs more than other countries? What are the reasons for it?
Malpracice Availability...
More Doctors Available...
More Nurses Available...
More facilities built and available...
More equipment purchases and available...
State of the art treatments available...
No waiting lists...

[msmith198025]

More Doctors...
More Nurses...
More facilities...
More equipment...
State of the art treatments available...
No waiting lists...

Yeah, that is it right there. There is a reason people come to the US for treatment on rare or difficult cases.

[stevenl]

and that reason is clear.

http://help.com/user-avatars/user-photo-252000-566216.

[msmith198025]

and that reason is clear.

http://help.com/user-avatars/user-photo-252000-566216.

Haha, I WAS going to say, "havent you guys seen house???" Gosh:)

[HDRoberts]

Again, it's all about cost. Employees pay for their health care, or at least a majority of it in most cases through lower wages, etc. It's another example of the consumer being insulated from true cost. Lower costs translates to more demand. That's why stores run sales. It's human nature to use something more if the price is, for lack of a better term, reasonable. Every sniffle, every ingrown toenail, impacted boogers, whatever, many people will go to the doctor where if the full cost came directly from their own pocket they'd be much less likely to do so for trivial problems. As for Medicare, I said necessary procedures. A doctor decides what is necessary and what isn't. A bureaucrat sitting behind a desk should play no part.

So the way to bring costs down is... to make people pay more?

I agree, some people use to much in the way of medical services. Buit I think the uninsured, who have to use the ER are just as big as a problem. Let's get everyone insured. Yeah, their maybe be waiting lists, but maybe that is what is needed. Maybe when mom's precious snowflake twists her ankle, she might demand an MRI. But when she feels fine after the 2 week wait, maybe she will realize she didn't need to bother and cancel.


Greed. Those of the left side of the creek love that word. Funny how it is never used when government wants more of your money to redistribute for votes. It's amazing to me that an entity like government can have its hand in your pocket up to the elbow and constantly trying to force it further in to grab more, but it has nothing to do with "greed". Only people who want to make a profit can be "greedy". Yeah, that's it. That being said, you seem to advocate government mandates to decide individual coverage. What do you have against the individual making that decision? Are you of the school that believe people are too dumb to make their own decisions? That's the thinking that is the result of government intrusion. No insurer could force anyone to buy an el-cheapo policy with minimal coverage. It should be a personal decision, not made by the same bureaucrat as before. Or, are they too dumb to realize what they are signing so big daddy needs to step in and "help"?

Next to nothing? Heard that before. This new tax is small and cost next to nothing. This regulation will cost next to nothing. This fee is small and will cost next to nothing. When all is said and done all this "next to nothing" has gotten us over 70,000 pages of regulations in the Federal Register and over 67,000 pages in the tax code. Good old incrementalism. Next to nothing indeed.
It's not greed with the government. As detestable as many bureaucrats are, I don't see them reaping multi-million dollar bonuses while cuddling up to the 10k+ square ft mansions.

Yes, insurers can force people into el-chepo policies. They same way they have been doing it: by making real policies too expensive for the average person. People are also generally stuck with what their employer provides, and in the search of profit, they may go with that el-chepo policy. Most people are smart enough to realize what coverage they need. But knowledge isn't the only thing preventing them from getting a good policy, money is.

And when I said next to nothing, I wasn't referring to the regulations. If the government mandates that all women need maternity coverage, insurers should not use that as an excuse to charge a post menopausal woman more. They should be smart enough to realize her chances for using it are small to nonexistent, and charge her very little if anything. Same way me, as a person in their 20s can get cheaper life insurance than someone in their 60s. Risk. Insurers are just using these government regualtions as a shield for their greed, seeing it as a line item where thy can add to their profits and blame someone else.


Regulation is what caused all the mess. The mistake many make, possibly you make the same mistake, is thinking that the free market is what caused the mess and government needs to ride in on its white horse and fix it. Government breaks, not fixes. The very idea that our health care system is free is absurd. In 2006, government accounted for over 45% of all health care expenditures. That's equates to 20% of GDP. It also spends more per capita that any other OECD country, and that includes those with socialist, government funded health care.

Care to explain how things would have proceeded differently with no regulations? I'll say how it would have gone. Insurers would cherry pick only the healthiest of individuals and deny coverage of tens or even hundreds of million Americans. Hospitals would deny care to them and millions would be dead simply because of accidents, poverty, or birth defects.

Where do you get that 45% number from. Probably some conservative think think attributing everything they can to the government. It is impossible. As the WHO statistics I quoted show, the US spends 15.3% of GDP on health care. How can 45% of that be 20% of GDP?


The bottom line is that the reason prices are so high is because the health care industry is so heavily subsidized. One reason that government intervention grows and never contracts is because you always get more of anything that is subsidized. Doctors raise their prices for people who pay out of pocket to cover those who do not pay. IOW, the ones that government pays for through forced donations, ie. taxes. For now, we still have entrepreneurs who compete in the industry despite government's attempts to stifle all competition.

What other choice is there? Deny everyone who can't pay any treatment? We need to get EVERYONE covered, then we don't have those that can't pay. As the French show, it can be done, and for less than conservatives think.



Need an example of innovation bringing down prices now? Private companies that do business without government intervention, and without being granted a government-sanctioned monopoly, must offer better-quality services and/or lower prices to continue to attract customers. Wal-Mart is doing it and doing it well. The government adds layer after layer of bureaucracy and continues to throw money at the problem and it just gets worse. Wal-Mart is innovating and offering health care to many people without government "help". They offer walk-in, inexpensive services by leasing space to private clinics. Along with a good number of $4 prescriptions, health care is now affordable to millions and there is no requirement to have health insurance. The $4 prescription plan alone has already saved customers over $1 billion since it started. Prices are very transparent, usually around $45 per office visit. You know your cost now, not months later after all the insurances are filed and what's left unpaid is your out of pocket cost.

So now you say our health care system needs to be run like Wal-Mart? It frat happens, all medical supplies will be made in Chinese sweatshops and heath care workers will get paid minimum wage and can't afford their own services. Yes, the $4 prescription drug program is nice, but only applies to certain generic prescriptions on which the patent has expired. The latest "innovative" drugs? Still too expensive for Wal-Mart shoppers. The $45 office visit sounds nice, but I wonder what they do besides basic services like checkups, tetanus shots, and referring people to specialists (which are certainly more then $45 office visits).


The best part is that it will increase competition unless government gets in the way, which is likely. The more profit Wal-Mart makes, the more competition there will be to compete for the consumer's money. Despite your "corporate greed" mantra, profit is not a dirty word. The more profit a company earns, ideally in a free market, the better it is serving their customers. Without consumer demand, profits will suffer. Injecting government in the equation skews the formula beyond all recognition.

Profit is not a dirty word. The problem is many executives who will seek profit above patient care. You are loath to let a bureaucrat decide anything about your care, but you seem to have no problem letting a profit-seeking executive, who makes more money for every treatment they deny, decide your care and the care of millions of others. The more profit it earns does not equate to how well it is serving its customers, and especially the public. Look at the oil companies last year. They earned record profits, yet I'd say they didn't serve their customers well at all.


We have lived under a system that is far removed from a free market, yet the free market is the whipping boy because people are economically ignorant---and government likes it that way. If the market was allowed to work freely, health care prices would be lower and quality would be higher. With government in the mix, you get high prices and poor service. Our current health care mess is a fine example what happens when the government steps in to "fix" something. More government? Thank you, Sir, may I have another.

I still want to hear how, with no government regulations, insurance giants won't take the opportunity to screw consumers, as there is no longer an incentive for them not to. If the Gordon Gekko's of the world did not exist, your proposal might work.

[Derwin0]

I agree, some people use to much in the way of medical services. Buit I think the uninsured, who have to use the ER are just as big as a problem. Let's get everyone insured.
Yeah, their maybe be waiting lists, but maybe that is what is needed. Maybe when mom's precious snowflake twists her ankle, she might demand an MRI. But when she feels fine after the 2 week wait, maybe she will realize she didn't need to bother and cancel.
And maybe that bad headache can wait for the Cat Scan to become available, but when the aneurysm bursts before hand (but could have been caught with an earlier cat scan) and kills her, at least everyone is saved some money. :rolleyes:

I'm sorry, but as someone who has family in the Canadian Health Care System, I can say that waiting lists kill. There's actually a big hoopla up there about them.
Not to mention the ER are more heavily relied on up there for things like colds and cuts, because there are not enough family doctors available. My wife's hometown of Kirkland Lake only has enough family doctors for 30% of the population, so the other 70% have to go to the ER (or Emerg as they say it).

[HDRoberts]

And maybe that bad headache can wait for the Cat Scan to become available, but when the aneurysm bursts before hand (but could have been caught with an earlier cat scan) and kills her, at least everyone is saved some money. :rolleyes:

I'm sorry, but as someone who has family in the Canadian Health Care System, I can say that waiting lists kill. There's actually a big hoopla up there about them.
Not to mention the ER are more heavily relied on up there for things like colds and cuts, because there are not enough family doctors available. My wife's hometown of Kirkland Lake only has enough family doctors for 30% of the population, so the other 70% have to go to the ER (or Emerg as they say it).

So I guess we can't win. The system is expensive because people with headaches insist on CAT scans, but we kill people if they don't get CAT scans.

I guess there are only unnecessary procedures if the people are poor and uninsured. :(

[Derwin0]

I guess there are only unnecessary procedures if the people are poor and uninsured. :(
But the poor and uninsured get them at the ER, which is required to treat patients without regard for ability to pay.

[HDRoberts]

But the poor and uninsured get them at the ER, which is required to treat patients without regard for ability to pay.

Which is part of the problem as to why health care is so expensive. Which is why we need to get everyone covered. Which won't be done under current conditions or free market conditions.

[froggigger]

So the way to bring costs down is... to make people pay more?

I agree, some people use to much in the way of medical services. Buit I think the uninsured, who have to use the ER are just as big as a problem. Let's get everyone insured. Yeah, their maybe be waiting lists, but maybe that is what is needed. Maybe when mom's precious snowflake twists her ankle, she might demand an MRI. But when she feels fine after the 2 week wait, maybe she will realize she didn't need to bother and cancel.

The way to get costs down is to get government out of the equation and let the free market shine. Eliminate licensing requirements and let competing voluntary accreditation services take the place of required government licensing. Without people believing in the mythical "national standard" of health care, they will make much more discriminating choices.

Then, eliminate the FDA and end government restrictions on the sale and production of pharmaceutical products and devices. That idea scares hell out of you, huh? It shouldn't because it merely forces consumers to act according to their own personal risk assessment and not the government's. Health care providers, sellers, and manufacturers would also be forced to safeguard against liability suits by providing better, safer, products. Competition and safety will be the rule, not some arbitrary government mandate.

Next, deregulate the health care industry. That will stop the pooling of risk, ie. forcing uninsurable risks to be pooled with actual insurable risks. The current system is nothing short of another government income redistribution scheme. Irresponsible people and high-risk groups benefit at the expense of responsible people and low-risk groups. This is a major reason for high the prices that continue growing.

Finally, get rid of subsidies. I'll let you chew on that one a while. This is what it takes to make the market free once again. Too bad it will never happen because too many people just give lip-service to freedom. They really want no part of it. It takes too much effort.



It's not greed with the government. As detestable as many bureaucrats are, I don't see them reaping multi-million dollar bonuses while cuddling up to the 10k+ square ft mansions.

A greedy government is such a foreign concept to liberals that the very idea seems utterly absurd. Government is darn sure "greedy". How else do you explain a government that believes all earnings belong to government, and whatever a person is allowed to take home after taxes is considered an expenditure? It's absolutely hypocritical to assume government can't be greedy but corporate "fatcats" can. We are inundated with claims of "corporate greed" and it is usually contrasted against the "need" of the middle class and the poor. This pretty much sums up how a Marxian-style of drama based on human motivation is created. "Need and "greed" are words intended to elicit an emotional response but in reality mean little. Both are in the eye of the beholder.


Yes, insurers can force people into el-chepo policies. They same way they have been doing it: by making real policies too expensive for the average person. People are also generally stuck with what their employer provides, and in the search of profit, they may go with that el-chepo policy. Most people are smart enough to realize what coverage they need. But knowledge isn't the only thing preventing them from getting a good policy, money is.

So lets get the government out of it so the market can force prices lower. If government regulation and control could make the system work better, our system would be nearing perfection. We have the most heavily regulated health care system in the world. It is naive to believe that even more laws and regulations will fix the system.


And when I said next to nothing, I wasn't referring to the regulations. If the government mandates that all women need maternity coverage, insurers should not use that as an excuse to charge a post menopausal woman more. They should be smart enough to realize her chances for using it are small to nonexistent, and charge her very little if anything. Same way me, as a person in their 20s can get cheaper life insurance than someone in their 60s. Risk. Insurers are just using these government regualtions as a shield for their greed, seeing it as a line item where thy can add to their profits and blame someone else.

So regulations have no effect on cost? Surely you don't believe that. BTW, if regulations are a shield for greed than you just helped make my case. Get rid of the shield.


Care to explain how things would have proceeded differently with no regulations? I'll say how it would have gone. Insurers would cherry pick only the healthiest of individuals and deny coverage of tens or even hundreds of million Americans. Hospitals would deny care to them and millions would be dead simply because of accidents, poverty, or birth defects.

The free market provides what the consumer demands. Evidently, you believe the government will provide what the people "need", and, of course, the same government will determine who "needs" what. Look at the system we have now. It's what government and its regulations will get you. Yet you advocate more. Amazing.


Where do you get that 45% number from. Probably some conservative think think attributing everything they can to the government. It is impossible. As the WHO statistics I quoted show, the US spends 15.3% of GDP on health care. How can 45% of that be 20% of GDP?

I don't remember where I got the 20% figure from so I'll stand corrected and use your figure of 15.3%. As for the 45%, it stands. Not only is it possible, it's growing every year. Here is the chart and a link that came from a conservative think think.

http://www.ncpa.org/images/396.gif

http://www.ncpa.org/pub/st286

Since you'll immediately poo-poo that link, here's another one.

http://thehill.com/business--lobby/govt-nearing-50--of-health-spending-total-2009-02-23.html


What other choice is there? Deny everyone who can't pay any treatment? We need to get EVERYONE covered, then we don't have those that can't pay. As the French show, it can be done, and for less than conservatives think.

What other choice? Free market. Or, we can emulate France which does indeed have very good health care---for now. Workers are required to pay 21% of their income into the national health care system. Employers pick up about half of that, but it constrains their ability to hire new workers. It's also harder to keep costs under control because of the generosity of the system. In 2008, France's national health system was $9 billion in the red. Government was forced to charge more for some drugs and other services. Eventually, rationing and the resulting waiting lists will be the only way to contain cost.


So now you say our health care system needs to be run like Wal-Mart? It frat happens, all medical supplies will be made in Chinese sweatshops and heath care workers will get paid minimum wage and can't afford their own services. Yes, the $4 prescription drug program is nice, but only applies to certain generic prescriptions on which the patent has expired. The latest "innovative" drugs? Still too expensive for Wal-Mart shoppers. The $45 office visit sounds nice, but I wonder what they do besides basic services like checkups, tetanus shots, and referring people to specialists (which are certainly more then $45 office visits).

I sure hope you didn't knock your knee out of joint. Like most liberals, you end up making stuff up. Where did I say the system should be run like Wal-Mart? I said "Need an example of innovation bringing down prices now?" If more entities existed similar to Wal-Mart, a majority of "basic services" could possibly be done there, and done cheaper than if the person went to their family doctor who, btw, will also refer people to specialists. Plus, the list of $4 drugs represents up to 95 percent of the prescriptions written in the majority of therapeutic categories. That's hardly trivial.


Profit is not a dirty word. The problem is many executives who will seek profit above patient care. You are loath to let a bureaucrat decide anything about your care, but you seem to have no problem letting a profit-seeking executive, who makes more money for every treatment they deny, decide your care and the care of millions of others. The more profit it earns does not equate to how well it is serving its customers, and especially the public. Look at the oil companies last year. They earned record profits, yet I'd say they didn't serve their customers well at all.

You don't have even a basic understanding of how the free market works. When companies are forced to live and die by being competitive in the marketplace, having unsafe products or charging too much will put them out of business. There is always an entrepreneur ready to fill any void in the market or offer a lower price than the "greedy" executive wants to charge. Too bad government schools only teach the goodness of government, just as a Catholic school teaches the goodness of Catholicism over other religions and a home school teaches what the parent believes over what other parents believe. You believe in government to do what's right. I'm sure it's what you were taught. I choose people.

As for the oil companies, they made record profits due to the extremely high barrel prices. Their profit margin remained relatively unchanged. How many times did you go to the pump and there was no fuel there to buy? What about oil changes? Did you have to put it off because there was none? There was always product to buy wherever I traveled. The price may have been high but the service was excellent, as usual.


I still want to hear how, with no government regulations, insurance giants won't take the opportunity to screw consumers, as there is no longer an incentive for them not to. If the Gordon Gekko's of the world did not exist, your proposal might work.

There is an even bigger incentive for them to not screw consumers. There are no longer any regulations to hide behind, as you claim they do. I could try to explain it all day but it's obvious your mind is closed. You simply can't believe anything can run safely and efficiently without government's hand in the batter. Here's another example of the free market at work for you to ignore.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig3/huebert8.html

[Bear Paws]

[quote=Bear Paws;4632]

I get plenty of indifference, incompetence, ignorance, and ineptitude at my private insurer.

85% find what? An insurer that cares about them as a person. Surely you are joking.

We do not give the USPS a $10B /year subsidy. First, most of their "subsidies" are tax exemptions. And the value is between $39M and $117M/year, even according to this rather anti USPS article: http://www.heartland.org/policybot/results/23182/FTC_Report_US_Postal_Service_Needs_More_Freedom_an d_Less_Protection.html

Of course, a private delivery service would also refuse to deliver to most of rural America, choosing to cherry pick the best areas to serve.

I bet some sorting facilities for private delivery services have gotten some good subsides, too.
This is what more government gets you, From your own linked article..

"the FTC report also noted serious drawbacks for USPS.
For instance, FTC concluded government regulations hinder USPS's ability to manage its labor force and configure its network, increasing costs by as much as $782 million a year."


Then there is this;http://www.postalreporter.com/news/2007/09/26/usps-reports-54-billion-deficit-for-fy-2007/

USPS Reports $5.4 Billion Deficit for FY 2007
Projects net loss of $600 million in 2008

Now I have to read the rest of the thread to see where else you guys are wrong about health care.

[HDRoberts]

The way to get costs down is to get government out of the equation and let the free market shine. Eliminate licensing requirements and let competing voluntary accreditation services take the place of required government licensing. Without people believing in the mythical "national standard" of health care, they will make much more discriminating choices.

Then, eliminate the FDA and end government restrictions on the sale and production of pharmaceutical products and devices. That idea scares hell out of you, huh? It shouldn't because it merely forces consumers to act according to their own personal risk assessment and not the government's. Health care providers, sellers, and manufacturers would also be forced to safeguard against liability suits by providing better, safer, products. Competition and safety will be the rule, not some arbitrary government mandate.

Next, deregulate the health care industry. That will stop the pooling of risk, ie. forcing uninsurable risks to be pooled with actual insurable risks. The current system is nothing short of another government income redistribution scheme. Irresponsible people and high-risk groups benefit at the expense of responsible people and low-risk groups. This is a major reason for high the prices that continue growing.

Finally, get rid of subsidies. I'll let you chew on that one a while. This is what it takes to make the market free once again. Too bad it will never happen because too many people just give lip-service to freedom. They really want no part of it. It takes too much effort.

Eliminate licensing? Great. Now when I'm in a car accident, I've got to check and see if my doctor has his training at Johns Hopkins, or the "voluntarily accredited" Coney Island U (Go Whitefish!). They I've got to wonder if those unregulated generic drugs they are pumping me with from Chica actually have the active ingredient in the proper quantities, or if the factory was running shot that do. Oh, wait, I don't think about such things, since I'm unconscious and have no choice in the matter.

So, under your plan, what do you propose we do with higher risk people, since under the "free market" they will be kicked out to bring down costs? Let them die? I wonder if that opinion changes when your son or daugheter is born with a birth defect, and is immediately denied coverage because he or she is an unacceptable risk. Sharing risk is the WHOLE CONCEPT of insurance.



A greedy government is such a foreign concept to liberals that the very idea seems utterly absurd. Government is darn sure "greedy". How else do you explain a government that believes all earnings belong to government, and whatever a person is allowed to take home after taxes is considered an expenditure? It's absolutely hypocritical to assume government can't be greedy but corporate "fatcats" can. We are inundated with claims of "corporate greed" and it is usually contrasted against the "need" of the middle class and the poor. This pretty much sums up how a Marxian-style of drama based on human motivation is created. "Need and "greed" are words intended to elicit an emotional response but in reality mean little. Both are in the eye of the beholder.

Oh, so CEOs "need" those corporate jets and big bonuses just as much as a middle class person needs the ability to bay for medicine? Or the poor person needs money to get food? Please.

Here is how greed is defined: excessive desire to acquire or possess more (especially more material wealth) than one needs or deserves

You can't tell me there are not thousands, maybe hundreds of thousands of executives that fit that definition. Might the government? Sure. But I don't call it greed when they want to give people heath insurance.


So lets get the government out of it so the market can force prices lower. If government regulation and control could make the system work better, our system would be nearing perfection. We have the most heavily regulated health care system in the world. It is naive to believe that even more laws and regulations will fix the system.

I find it also naive to think that eliminating regulations won't cause corporations to go back to the dirty tricks that prompted the regulations to begin with.

For example, "dietary supplements" are not regulated at drugs, only as food. So what do we see? Countless products sold in your local GNC promising weight loss, cancer prevention, and even extending your manhood. All to make a quick buck.

Heck, yank regulations, and what is to stop Vicodin being sold OTC? Or nervous college students ODing on Ritalin to help study?


So regulations have no effect on cost? Surely you don't believe that. BTW, if regulations are a shield for greed than you just helped make my case. Get rid of the shield.

Well, of course there is an effect on cost. I just find it the lesser of 2 evils. And get rid of the shield, they won't NEED a shield, because unscrupulous activities won't be illegal.


The free market provides what the consumer demands. Evidently, you believe the government will provide what the people "need", and, of course, the same government will determine who "needs" what. Look at the system we have now. It's what government and its regulations will get you. Yet you advocate more. Amazing.

I never said the current system is good. I just disagree that this is what too much regulation gets. I believe the government providing insurance to all will make things get better, and simply yanking regulations wholesale will make things get worse. Are there some regulations that can be removed? Yes. Are there others that should not? Absolutely. Are there other areas that need more regulations? Damn straight.

And the free market does not provide what the consumer DEMANDS. The provide what consumerS (plural) as a whole will accept. One individual consumer wants things different? Only if you have the big bucks neccesary to be self insured.


I don't remember where I got the 20% figure from so I'll stand corrected and use your figure of 15.3%. As for the 45%, it stands. Not only is it possible, it's growing every year. Here is the chart and a link that came from a conservative think think.

http://www.ncpa.org/images/396.gif

http://www.ncpa.org/pub/st286

Since you'll immediately poo-poo that link, here's another one.

http://thehill.com/business--lobby/govt-nearing-50--of-health-spending-total-2009-02-23.html

Nice charts. Interesting France is excluded. Anyway, the US is spending 45% on medicine. Probably equivalent to 60%+ in these other countries as they don't have our massive military budget. Yet they manage to cover all citizens with that money, we cover very few. Seems like that chart sows that for a little more, we can get everyone covered.


What other choice? Free market. Or, we can emulate France which does indeed have very good health care---for now. Workers are required to pay 21% of their income into the national health care system. Employers pick up about half of that, but it constrains their ability to hire new workers. It's also harder to keep costs under control because of the generosity of the system. In 2008, France's national health system was $9 billion in the red. Government was forced to charge more for some drugs and other services. Eventually, rationing and the resulting waiting lists will be the only way to contain cost.

Hmmm, so essentially employees are responsible to pay 10.5% of their income for insurance, and employers pay 10.5% as well. Seems that is not too different from what happens here. I know plenty of people who pay 10% to get covered. Employers even pay more. My company, I know, pays in excess of 15% of my salary to health benefits. Yet millions more in America are not covered.



I sure hope you didn't knock your knee out of joint. Like most liberals, you end up making stuff up. Where did I say the system should be run like Wal-Mart? I said "Need an example of innovation bringing down prices now?" If more entities existed similar to Wal-Mart, a majority of "basic services" could possibly be done there, and done cheaper than if the person went to their family doctor who, btw, will also refer people to specialists. Plus, the list of $4 drugs represents up to 95 percent of the prescriptions written in the majority of therapeutic categories. That's hardly trivial.

Certainly true, but ask millions of Americans if they want the heath care system run like Wal-Mart, they will say "no".


You don't have even a basic understanding of how the free market works. When companies are forced to live and die by being competitive in the marketplace, having unsafe products or charging too much will put them out of business. There is always an entrepreneur ready to fill any void in the market or offer a lower price than the "greedy" executive wants to charge. Too bad government schools only teach the goodness of government, just as a Catholic school teaches the goodness of Catholicism over other religions and a home school teaches what the parent believes over what other parents believe. You believe in government to do what's right. I'm sure it's what you were taught. I choose people.

First, they're may be willing entrepreneurs, but in today's massive economy, no one will come up with the capital to challenge the status quo. So you want to start a competing hospital with fair prices in your newly deregulated market? What are you going to do. "pssst, can I borrow $10 Billion to build a hospital?" Or the same thing with an insurer. And what's to stop the big boys from using practices to ensure your new venture fails, advertising that your voluntarily accredited doctors aren't as good as theirs? The free market might of worked 100 years ago, but not today.

You also seem to see these entrepreneurs as white knights that will recue all from any unfair practices. In reality, though, don't they only have incentive to screw customers slightly less than the other guy?


As for the oil companies, they made record profits due to the extremely high barrel prices. Their profit margin remained relatively unchanged. How many times did you go to the pump and there was no fuel there to buy? What about oil changes? Did you have to put it off because there was none? There was always product to buy wherever I traveled. The price may have been high but the service was excellent, as usual.

A profit "margin". You think what the oil companies did was fair? Let me illustrate it this way?

Suppose you own a store that sells candy bars. You buy them for $0.50, and sell them for $1.00. Your profit is $0.50, and profit margin is 50%. But the company you buy them from decided to raise prices unexpectedly, to $1.00. Prices went up $0.50, so so should yours, right. While, you decide to make your prices $2.00. You were content making $0.50 a sale before, but you would rather screw the consumer sou your margin can stay the same.

Oh, did I mention that you also own the company making the candy bars, and you only raised prices because a competitor did, and your cost to produce the candy bar only went up $0.05?

Yeah, that's what the oil companies, operating with little more than some environmental regulations, did.


There is an even bigger incentive for them to not screw consumers. There are no longer any regulations to hide behind, as you claim they do. I could try to explain it all day but it's obvious your mind is closed. You simply can't believe anything can run safely and efficiently without government's hand in the batter. Here's another example of the free market at work for you to ignore.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig3/huebert8.html

Nice of that guy to completely credit the "free market" for that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_Credit_Billing_Act

And what to experts say about debit cards, not covered by this clearly beneficial regulation?

http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/Banking/CreditCardSmarts/DebitCardsTooRiskyForBigPurchases.aspx

Besides, you want to use credit cards as a positive example of the free market at work? The same companies that will double your interest rate if you pay your gas bill late? The same companies that only want a minimum payment of $12 on an $8,000 balance?

[froggigger]

Eliminate licensing? Great. Now when I'm in a car accident, I've got to check and see if my doctor has his training at Johns Hopkins, or the "voluntarily accredited" Coney Island U (Go Whitefish!). They I've got to wonder if those unregulated generic drugs they are pumping me with from Chica actually have the active ingredient in the proper quantities, or if the factory was running shot that do. Oh, wait, I don't think about such things, since I'm unconscious and have no choice in the matter.

Everything involves risk. When you make an appointment to see your doctor, there is also risk. Each year between 6,000 and 9,000 people die of treatment injuries and prescriptions received from their doctor at his office. Once you are admitted to a hospital, the risk is even greater. Conservative estimates show that over 100,000 patients die in U.S. hospitals each year from accidental injuries, medication errors, and adverse drug reactions. This is not patients dying of their diseases. It is patients dying of their treatment. Millions more are injured each year by our health care industry.

If the airline industry did as bad a job of protecting airline passengers as the health care industry does at protecting patients, there would be two major airline crashes each day. The problem is so bad that in 2000 President Clinton set up a special task force to address it. The 911 attacks altered our priorities and nothing of substance has yet been done about these medical dangers. One thing is very clear. The high prices we are paying for health care in the United States is not buying us any extra safety. Rules, regulations, and licensing do not make things any safer. More of the same will just be---more of the same.


So, under your plan, what do you propose we do with higher risk people, since under the "free market" they will be kicked out to bring down costs? Let them die? I wonder if that opinion changes when your son or daugheter is born with a birth defect, and is immediately denied coverage because he or she is an unacceptable risk. Sharing risk is the WHOLE CONCEPT of insurance.

Higher risk people pay higher premiums. Why is that such a hard concept for you? Putting everyone in the same risk pool just increases cost for everyone. Know why it's done? Social engineering. Let me give you an example to ignore. Companies like https://www.23andme.com/ are able to offer comprehensive genetic profiles that can reveal predispositions towards certain health problems, and allow patients to take measures to prevent them. Too bad this potentially lifesaving diagnosis will not be available to most people because of so-called "genetic privacy" laws, such as the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11244-genetic-privacy-protected-by-law.html), passed by the House last year. It's the usual one size must fit all reasoning that is so common on the left. The justification is that genetic profiling will lead to a "second class" of people who cannot obtain insurance or employment. Ain't government wonderful.


Oh, so CEOs "need" those corporate jets and big bonuses just as much as a middle class person needs the ability to bay for medicine? Or the poor person needs money to get food? Please.

Good old class warfare. Without it, liberals can't survive. It's the same tired zero-sum argument. If the CEO has a jet or a big bonus, it's taking food from some poor person's mouth or taking money that some poor unfortunate person could use to pay for medicine. The size of the pie never changes. :rolleyes:


Here is how greed is defined: excessive desire to acquire or possess more (especially more material wealth) than one needs or deserves

You can't tell me there are not thousands, maybe hundreds of thousands of executives that fit that definition. Might the government? Sure. But I don't call it greed when they want to give people heath insurance.

I will say unequivocally that NO ONE knows how many executives fit that definition because greed is entirely subjective. Who determines what "excessive" desire is? Who or what determines what any person "needs" or "deserves"? Evidently you are comfortable with some nameless government bureaucrat making that determination for everyone and thus, by default, making that judgment for you personally. If you are happy having a third party determining how hard you work and what you "deserve" for that work, then so be it. I want no part of it.


I find it also naive to think that eliminating regulations won't cause corporations to go back to the dirty tricks that prompted the regulations to begin with.

Dirty tricks caused the regulations? That is utterly ridiculous. The regulations began with the formation of the AMA who, working hand in hand with state governments and later the Fed, created a monopoly that exists to this day. Read some history. If necessary, I'll be happy to run down the whole sordid affair for you.


For example, "dietary supplements" are not regulated at drugs, only as food. So what do we see? Countless products sold in your local GNC promising weight loss, cancer prevention, and even extending your manhood. All to make a quick buck.

What's your point? Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems to me that you think people are too stupid to spend their money wisely so regulations need to be in effect to protect them from themselves. I look at it differently. If a person buys some wonder "drug" and it doesn't work, they should stop buying it. If they don't, they are indeed stupid. If they think it works, whether it does or not, they are happy so what's the harm. Either way, no one is holding a gun to their head forcing them to help someone "make a quick buck". Only government can use the police power of the state to separate people from their money. You have given no indication of that being a problem---ever.


Heck, yank regulations, and what is to stop Vicodin being sold OTC? Or nervous college students ODing on Ritalin to help study?

Drugs are abused now despite massive regulations. Anyone who wants Vicodan or Ritalin is not going to let a regulation get in the way. It may take a bit more work but they will get it.


Well, of course there is an effect on cost. I just find it the lesser of 2 evils. And get rid of the shield, they won't NEED a shield, because unscrupulous activities won't be illegal.

Obviously, you will never believe a free market can be self-regulatory, or that unscrupulous activities will put you out of business, as will ripping off customers. Again, correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem to believe that without regulation, the markets will be chaotic. The market will be like a busy intersection with no stoplight where drivers would be crashing into each other. You believe we need the state to guide all business so the markets won't crash and burn.

You believe regulation is applied only when businesses abuse the freedom that the government has so graciously given them. Free markets result in chaos, corruption, and abuse of customers that finally becomes so bad that government has to clean up the mess. Then, businesses are forced to behave in an orderly fashion, and people can again gain confidence in government and the economy, as trustworthy, disinterested people who do not game the system when they take control of the regulatory structure. Do I have that about right?

The problem with this thinking is that it makes assumptions that are not true. The assumption is that everyone who operates in a market system is flying blind in the same way that proponents of this "theory" assume drivers will go full speed and with blinders on through intersections without a traffic signal. Remember Enron? Regulations and regulators did not expose the company's fraudulent operations. Potential investors found out the shell games being played internally. Enron became a penny stock thanks to the judgment of investors. Regulations were useless. Businesses engage in many activities that are self-regulatory and there are also various types of classifications as signals of quality. Many certification organizations are privately run and require those who wish to join that profession to pass rigorous exams. The test to become CPAs is notorious for its difficulty.

If you're still worried about fraud in a free market, keep in mind that fraud was a crime under common law long before our government began setting up regulatory agencies. Looking at it another way, government interventions actually create a false sense of security. If the government is regulating it, everything must be a-ok. Nothing could be further from the truth.


I never said the current system is good. I just disagree that this is what too much regulation gets. I believe the government providing insurance to all will make things get better, and simply yanking regulations wholesale will make things get worse. Are there some regulations that can be removed? Yes. Are there others that should not? Absolutely. Are there other areas that need more regulations? Damn straight.

Are you an advocate of Obama's plan for health care? If so, why? What areas need more regulation? Inquiring minds want to know. ;)


And the free market does not provide what the consumer DEMANDS. The provide what consumerS (plural) as a whole will accept. One individual consumer wants things different? Only if you have the big bucks neccesary to be self insured.

The free market will indeed provide what the customer demands. You just can't see it through your government-fogged glasses. If there is low demand there will probably be little competition and the price will be high. A niche market, so to speak. High demand will be met, and competition will ensure that prices remain reasonable.


Nice charts. Interesting France is excluded. Anyway, the US is spending 45% on medicine. Probably equivalent to 60%+ in these other countries as they don't have our massive military budget. Yet they manage to cover all citizens with that money, we cover very few. Seems like that chart sows that for a little more, we can get everyone covered.

LOL. I was wondering when you'd squeeze the military budget in the mix. That is, after all, about the only government expenditure that liberals have no problem with reducing.


Hmmm, so essentially employees are responsible to pay 10.5% of their income for insurance, and employers pay 10.5% as well. Seems that is not too different from what happens here. I know plenty of people who pay 10% to get covered. Employers even pay more. My company, I know, pays in excess of 15% of my salary to health benefits. Yet millions more in America are not covered.

Everyone in America is covered. No hospital can refuse treatment for inability to pay. Plus, we do not suffer from chronically high unemployment as France and most other socialist-style economies.


Certainly true, but ask millions of Americans if they want the heath care system run like Wal-Mart, they will say "no".

That's a valid opinion but it's only opinion. Too bad we'll never know because government will never ask the people their opinion. Like all else government, it will be shoved down our throats.


First, they're may be willing entrepreneurs, but in today's massive economy, no one will come up with the capital to challenge the status quo. So you want to start a competing hospital with fair prices in your newly deregulated market? What are you going to do. "pssst, can I borrow $10 Billion to build a hospital?" Or the same thing with an insurer. And what's to stop the big boys from using practices to ensure your new venture fails, advertising that your voluntarily accredited doctors aren't as good as theirs? The free market might of worked 100 years ago, but not today.

Ok then, if the free market can't work today, explain Hong Kong?


You also seem to see these entrepreneurs as white knights that will recue all from any unfair practices. In reality, though, don't they only have incentive to screw customers slightly less than the other guy?

There will always be unfair practices. They run rampant even now and regulations barely slow it down. It's obvious regulation can't do the job so it's about time for change we can believe in. Laissez-faire.



A profit "margin". You think what the oil companies did was fair? Let me illustrate it this way?

Suppose you own a store that sells candy bars. You buy them for $0.50, and sell them for $1.00. Your profit is $0.50, and profit margin is 50%. But the company you buy them from decided to raise prices unexpectedly, to $1.00. Prices went up $0.50, so so should yours, right. While, you decide to make your prices $2.00. You were content making $0.50 a sale before, but you would rather screw the consumer sou your margin can stay the same.

Oh, did I mention that you also own the company making the candy bars, and you only raised prices because a competitor did, and your cost to produce the candy bar only went up $0.05?

Yeah, that's what the oil companies, operating with little more than some environmental regulations, did.

You don't know what the hell a profit margin is. With all due respect, educate yourself.


Nice of that guy to completely credit the "free market" for that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_Credit_Billing_Act

And what to experts say about debit cards, not covered by this clearly beneficial regulation?

http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/Banking/CreditCardSmarts/DebitCardsTooRiskyForBigPurchases.aspx

Besides, you want to use credit cards as a positive example of the free market at work? The same companies that will double your interest rate if you pay your gas bill late? The same companies that only want a minimum payment of $12 on an $8,000 balance?

You can't see the forest for the trees. The article wasn't about minimum payments or interest rates. It all goes back to personal responsibility. If you can't handle the credit card, don't get one or get rid of the one you have. Own too much to get rid of it? Who's gun was pointed at your head forcing you to swipe it through the reader? Personal responsibility.

[HDRoberts]

Everything involves risk. When you make an appointment to see your doctor, there is also risk. Each year between 6,000 and 9,000 people die of treatment injuries and prescriptions received from their doctor at his office. Once you are admitted to a hospital, the risk is even greater. Conservative estimates show that over 100,000 patients die in U.S. hospitals each year from accidental injuries, medication errors, and adverse drug reactions. This is not patients dying of their diseases. It is patients dying of their treatment. Millions more are injured each year by our health care industry.

If the airline industry did as bad a job of protecting airline passengers as the health care industry does at protecting patients, there would be two major airline crashes each day. The problem is so bad that in 2000 President Clinton set up a special task force to address it. The 911 attacks altered our priorities and nothing of substance has yet been done about these medical dangers. One thing is very clear. The high prices we are paying for health care in the United States is not buying us any extra safety. Rules, regulations, and licensing do not make things any safer. More of the same will just be---more of the same.

Yes, there is risk. But there is less risk when I know that my doctor has been independently examined and found to be competent. I find there to be much more risk when we say no one has to have a license




Higher risk people pay higher premiums. Why is that such a hard concept for you? Putting everyone in the same risk pool just increases cost for everyone. Know why it's done? Social engineering. Let me give you an example to ignore. Companies like https://www.23andme.com/ are able to offer comprehensive genetic profiles that can reveal predispositions towards certain health problems, and allow patients to take measures to prevent them. Too bad this potentially lifesaving diagnosis will not be available to most people because of so-called "genetic privacy" laws, such as the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11244-genetic-privacy-protected-by-law.html), passed by the House last year. It's the usual one size must fit all reasoning that is so common on the left. The justification is that genetic profiling will lead to a "second class" of people who cannot obtain insurance or employment. Ain't government wonderful.

That justification is exactly what would happen. There would be millions deemed too high a risk to insure, some who get that scarlet letter bast on a genetic test conducted at birth. Under your system, the poor and sick would be denied medical care and be left to die. I hope you never become dictator of this land.




Good old class warfare. Without it, liberals can't survive. It's the same tired zero-sum argument. If the CEO has a jet or a big bonus, it's taking food from some poor person's mouth or taking money that some poor unfortunate person could use to pay for medicine. The size of the pie never changes. :rolleyes:

Then explain why the rich have been getting richer and the poor poorer in this country. The fact is the pie is not getting bigger. In fact, when it does get bigger, that is called inflation, and isn't a good thing. If we really want to make sure that a rising tide floats all boats, I propose that total compensation be capped, not by some arbitrary number, but by a multiplier of the pay of the lowest paid person in your company, any subsidiaries or the parent company. Say a multiplier of 100. An exec want's $5M/year, his janitor better be getting $50k.




If you are happy having a third party determining how hard you work and what you "deserve" for that work, then so be it. I want no part of it.

That is pretty well what EVERYONE has, except rich executives that set their own pay. Some third party, maybe your boss, some middle manager, or even some executive decides how hard you work and what you deserve for that work.


Dirty tricks caused the regulations? That is utterly ridiculous. The regulations began with the formation of the AMA who, working hand in hand with state governments and later the Fed, created a monopoly that exists to this day. Read some history. If necessary, I'll be happy to run down the whole sordid affair for you.

Not all may have come from dirty trick, but many have. The FDA started regulating drugs in 1905, as products like Radol came on the market. Radol thried to capitalize of the fascination with radiation, and was said to be a mixture of radium that could cure cancer. Well, (fortunatley I suppose), there was no radium, and the FDA had it pulled. In those early days, they investigated 1900 drugs on the market, and had to recommend that the makers of 115 be prosecuted for fraud. We see how well the free market did in regulating the pharmaceutical industry 100 years ago.

Just recently in Cleveland, a new law was being push for my some parents. Their daughter was in the hospital. To save a few bucks, the hospital began having practically untrained pharmacy techs mix drugs rather than an actual pharmacist. The person mixed the treatment wrong and killed the girl. Now, there is mandatory training for these pharmacy techs. It may cost a little more, but it is way safer.


What's your point? Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems to me that you think people are too stupid to spend their money wisely so regulations need to be in effect to protect them from themselves. I look at it differently. If a person buys some wonder "drug" and it doesn't work, they should stop buying it. If they don't, they are indeed stupid. If they think it works, whether it does or not, they are happy so what's the harm. Either way, no one is holding a gun to their head forcing them to help someone "make a quick buck". Only government can use the police power of the state to separate people from their money. You have given no indication of that being a problem---ever.

Yes they are stupid. But if it is what the masses want, then that is what they will get with your system. I, for one, don't want people driving around high on Oxycontin. Also, people making bad financial decisions can have a horrid effect on the economy. Currently, 92% of us are paying our mortgages. But because 8% made bad financial coices, all our house valused are in the crapper.

And the police forcibly shaking you down? Please. If that is happening, you are a tax cheat. As conservatives are fond of saying, you don't like it, leave. Don't like income tax, move to Monaco. Hope you can afford it.




Drugs are abused now despite massive regulations. Anyone who wants Vicodan or Ritalin is not going to let a regulation get in the way. It may take a bit more work but they will get it.

So is suppose you don't lock your doors? It may take a bit more work but they will get in and steal your stuff.

Making prescription drugs more accessible by yanking regulations will only make things worse.



Obviously, you will never believe a free market can be self-regulatory, or that unscrupulous activities will put you out of business, as will ripping off customers. Again, correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem to believe that without regulation, the markets will be chaotic. The market will be like a busy intersection with no stoplight where drivers would be crashing into each other. You believe we need the state to guide all business so the markets won't crash and burn.

You believe regulation is applied only when businesses abuse the freedom that the government has so graciously given them. Free markets result in chaos, corruption, and abuse of customers that finally becomes so bad that government has to clean up the mess. Then, businesses are forced to behave in an orderly fashion, and people can again gain confidence in government and the economy, as trustworthy, disinterested people who do not game the system when they take control of the regulatory structure. Do I have that about right?

The problem with this thinking is that it makes assumptions that are not true. The assumption is that everyone who operates in a market system is flying blind in the same way that proponents of this "theory" assume drivers will go full speed and with blinders on through intersections without a traffic signal. Remember Enron? Regulations and regulators did not expose the company's fraudulent operations. Potential investors found out the shell games being played internally. Enron became a penny stock thanks to the judgment of investors. Regulations were useless. Businesses engage in many activities that are self-regulatory and there are also various types of classifications as signals of quality. Many certification organizations are privately run and require those who wish to join that profession to pass rigorous exams. The test to become CPAs is notorious for its difficulty.

If you're still worried about fraud in a free market, keep in mind that fraud was a crime under common law long before our government began setting up regulatory agencies. Looking at it another way, government interventions actually create a false sense of security. If the government is regulating it, everything must be a-ok. Nothing could be further from the truth.

I'm not saying regulations will make everything hunky dory. But you are right, as long as businesses are controlled by "me first" profit minded execs, things will not be self regulating. In a world with no traffic laws, will everone blindly careen through an intersections? No. But might their be a few stupid people that will run red lights and take other risks than can hurt others, knowing there is no legal consequences? Absolutely.

Again, I want the lesser of 2 evils. No system a human can come up with will be perfect.



Are you an advocate of Obama's plan for health care? If so, why? What areas need more regulation? Inquiring minds want to know. ;)

I don't directly support Obama's plan, but supported it more than McCain's. I think we do need government medicine, like the French have. Neither was willing to propose that.




The free market will indeed provide what the customer demands. You just can't see it through your government-fogged glasses. If there is low demand there will probably be little competition and the price will be high. A niche market, so to speak. High demand will be met, and competition will ensure that prices remain reasonable.

So again, any poor person who is looking at a niche service, as that is the best choice for them, is screwed.


LOL. I was wondering when you'd squeeze the military budget in the mix. That is, after all, about the only government expenditure that liberals have no problem with reducing.

No, there are plenty of other things I'd like to see cut.


Everyone in America is covered. No hospital can refuse treatment for inability to pay. Plus, we do not suffer from chronically high unemployment as France and most other socialist-style economies.

So, if one post, you complain about government health care spending, saying it is too high, put are apparently OK with the government paying for the poor to go to the ER for medical care. I don't get it.




That's a valid opinion but it's only opinion. Too bad we'll never know because government will never ask the people their opinion. Like all else government, it will be shoved down our throats.

They ask for opinions on the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November every 2 years.




Ok then, if the free market can't work today, explain Hong Kong?

I'm not sure what part of Hong Kong you are talking about, but if it is quality of health care, maybe because it is well regulated?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hong_Kong_Hospital_Authority
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_and_Health_Bureau
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secretary_for_Food_and_Health




There will always be unfair practices. They run rampant even now and regulations barely slow it down. It's obvious regulation can't do the job so it's about time for change we can believe in. Laissez-faire.

I guess we have to agree to disagree. I think we can lessen unfair practices with smarter regulation, you are strangely convinced that NO regulation will do the job. Like I said, we me fist people being the sole population of this planet, I don't see how telling people they can do what they want helps.




You don't know what the hell a profit margin is. With all due respect, educate yourself.

Profit margin is net profit over revenue. Granted, for simplicity sake, I didn't take into account taxes, but the idea is the same. Their revenues skyrocket do to increased fuel prices. So they had to increase their profits even more to keep the margin the same. So when they were content to make $2B a quarter, not they had to make $10B a quarter. It wasn't right.




You can't see the forest for the trees. The article wasn't about minimum payments or interest rates. It all goes back to personal responsibility. If you can't handle the credit card, don't get one or get rid of the one you have. Own too much to get rid of it? Who's gun was pointed at your head forcing you to swipe it through the reader? Personal responsibility.

No, the article is about how much less regulated debit cards can be dangerous to use. Your the one that bought up how great unregulated credit cards are. I just showed that one reason they are pretty good with customer service is regulations.

[msmith198025]

Then explain why the rich have been getting richer and the poor poorer in this country. The fact is the pie is not getting bigger. In fact, when it does get bigger, that is called inflation, and isn't a good thing. If we really want to make sure that a rising tide floats all boats, I propose that total compensation be capped, not by some arbitrary number, but by a multiplier of the pay of the lowest paid person in your company, any subsidiaries or the parent company. Say a multiplier of 100. An exec want's $5M/year, his janitor better be getting $50k.




I just can not agree with this. I can not see how we can tell the owners/executives of companies what they can and cant make based on what their employees are making. In most cases, these owners/executives have a much larger financial stake in the company than does the average employee. They took the risks financially to get the comany started, to make improvements in how things are run, bought the equipment, and in most cases put in hours that the average employee would not dream of, why shouldnt they reap the rewards of that?

[HDRoberts]

I just can not agree with this. I can not see how we can tell the owners/executives of companies what they can and cant make based on what their employees are making. In most cases, these owners/executives have a much larger financial stake in the company than does the average employee. They took the risks financially to get the comany started, to make improvements in how things are run, bought the equipment, and in most cases put in hours that the average employee would not dream of, why shouldnt they reap the rewards of that?

That may be true of the couple sole proprietorship that grow into multinationals. Maybe Bill Gates and Steve Jobs. But way more execs come on board later, with their hot shot Ivy League MBAs, and immediately see how they can get bigger bonuses by cutting pay for everyone else.

[msmith198025]

That may be true of the couple sole proprietorship that grow into multinationals. Maybe Bill Gates and Steve Jobs. But way more execs come on board later, with their hot shot Ivy League MBAs, and immediately see how they can get bigger bonuses by cutting pay for everyone else.

So now they are penalized for getting a higher education at an Ivy League school? Not an easy thing to accomplish I would gather. Everyone has that opportunity if I am not mistaken. Some simply do not have the desire, willpower to commit themselves to the task, or honestly the smarts to do so. They do have the opportunity however.

[HDRoberts]

So now they are penalized for getting a higher education at an Ivy League school? Not an easy thing to accomplish I would gather. Everyone has that opportunity if I am not mistaken. Some simply do not have the desire, willpower to commit themselves to the task, or honestly the smarts to do so. They do have the opportunity however.

Making 100 times your lowest paid employee is a penalty?

Also, not everyone has an opportunity in the Ivy leage. You need an incredible application and a ton of cash, or you need to have had mommy or daddy go to school there. Hardly equal opportunity.

[msmith198025]

Making 100 times your lowest paid employee is a penalty?

Also, not everyone has an opportunity in the Ivy leage. You need an incredible application and a ton of cash, or you need to have had mommy or daddy go to school there. Hardly equal opportunity.

If you have the ability to make more, IMHO, yes. Who are we to tell them what they can and cant make. They put in the effort to get a top notch education, and generally speaking, the higher the education, the more you make. Now we want to cap that?

Yes, everyone does have the opportunity. The application is controlled by the person based on how they apply themselves. Make the grades, do the extracurriculars, get good recommendations, ect. Again, many will not do this for the reasons I said above. The cost is high, yes. There are student loans and scholorships to help with this. No one said it was easy, and most wont make it, but you or I had the opportunity to do so, the same as everyone else.

Also, lets not make this just an ivy league issue when it comes to higher ed. There are many top executives ( I would guess) that did not go to these schools. These days there are many excellent public and private schools that will take you far.

[fallout2600]

Making 100 times your lowest paid employee is a penalty?

Also, not everyone has an opportunity in the Ivy leage. You need an incredible application and a ton of cash, or you need to have had mommy or daddy go to school there. Hardly equal opportunity.

You DON"T have to go to an Ivy league to make 70k (as per your janitor example). You could get an associate's degree at a state university or community college and work your way up to 70k! You just have to do it.

[Derwin0]

The cost is high, yes. There are student loans and scholorships to help with this. No one said it was easy, and most wont make it, but you or I had the opportunity to do so, the same as everyone else.

Also, lets not make this just an ivy league issue when it comes to higher ed. There are many top executives ( I would guess) that did not go to these schools. These days there are many excellent public and private schools that will take you far.Yes, but some people just aren't "fortunate" enough to have the work/study ethic needed to do that. :rolleyes:

[HDRoberts]

You DON"T have to go to an Ivy league to make 70k (as per your janitor example). You could get an associate's degree at a state university or community college and work your way up to 70k! You just have to do it.

I got a bachelors degree and am getting $47k. I'm working on it.

In fact, as I work for the city, that cap wouldn't even help me.

I'm just tired of people like the Walton getting rich on the backs of countless minimum wage employees.

You keep saying that the rich may be taking bigger pieces of the pie, but the pie is getting bigger. It is not, at least not at the same rate the rich are increasing their slices. People say a rising tide floats all boats. It does not, and this recession has show that a sinking tide doesn't sink all boats either.

The fact is, most (if not all) of us came here from SatelliteGuys. Home theater enthusiasts. This indicates a great deal disposable income. Thus, you are not the people that are experiencing the smaller pie piece. It seems none of you are making over 100 times less than the CEO.

You have also all (at least as far as I know) worked very hard to get where you are. And no doubt many blow you have not. But there are also many below that have worked hard and not gotten ahead due to circumstances beyond their control.

Why no compassion for them? Why no desire to make sure everyone gets a fair shake? Sure, it won't happen under human rule, but can't we at least try?

[msmith198025]

I do have compassion for them. Believe me.
However it is not our right to be able to take from someone just as deserving that has made it to "equal" things out.

There are other jobs, other options, and again, higher education to better their own chances of getting ahead.

[stevenl]

Who didnt get a fair shake? They grew up in the same world I did. They have the same chances I did. They compete for the same jobs I do. They can goto the same schools I can.. Where is the problem? If you are over 18 and not in school and making minimum wage or barely above it, thats your own fault. Get off your butt and do something with your life. You can make 10$ an hour or more in my area cutting grass. I know I did it for a few months inbetween jobs.

[Derwin0]

I'm just tired of people like the Walton getting rich on the backs of countless minimum wage employees.
These guys didn't come straight out of school into those executive jobs. They have usually worked their way up that ladder.
A path available to anyone that is willing to work for it.

[fallout2600]

The fact is, most (if not all) of us came here from SatelliteGuys. Home theater enthusiasts. This indicates a great deal disposable income. Thus, you are not the people that are experiencing the smaller pie piece. It seems none of you are making over 100 times less than the CEO.


My father once told me something that I hold on to this day. "Son, the amount of money you make is no one's business but your owns, the amount of money your neighbor makes is his business."

That being said, I learned to not compare salaries among other people's salaries b/c its none of my business. IMO, Every person has an instilled work ethic from their up-bringing and certain potentials that make themselves unique. If you exploit your potential, then you can be very successful. But if you always sit back and compare the end result (your salary) to other people's end result, you will NEVER be happy. Never.

I know a guy in our data center that got access to the payroll database and started looking at salaries. It made his life miserable, but eventually he learned the lesson. He asked me why I make more than him and I told him he needed to prove himself to the company and "dig-in". He began working his butt off. Boss wanted people at work at 8AM, he started showing up at 7:30AM. Boss wanted a project done by Friday, he finished it on Wednesday and asked what was next. The next time he came up for review, he got a pay raise for his ability to "dig-in". That is what corporations look for and reward.

[froggigger]

Yes, there is risk. But there is less risk when I know that my doctor has been independently examined and found to be competent. I find there to be much more risk when we say no one has to have a license

Once again, you simply can't believe a free market can do what the government does, and do it much better. The independent examination you cite is done under massive government regulations, many written by politicians for political favors. If regulations were the answer our entire economy would be nearing perfection. Look at it another way. Regulations serve as a device that limits activities of people in the marketplace. That's inarguable. However, the implication that government regulation keeps the market from erupting in chaos is wrong.

First, there are regulations and there are laws. There have long been laws against fraud, even well before regulations began in earnest. Other tort actions also existed in the pre-regulatory USA under the common law system. The past has proven that the assertion that without government regulation there is no legal oversight of the system is patently false.

Second, it is false that there are no self-regulatory aspects on individual behavior in a market setting. To believe this one must also believe that markets operate on the edge of chaos. What is not taken into consideration is that private enterprise operates on a purely volunteer basis. No business can force anyone to do business with him. In a free market, business survives only by offering goods or services that people want to purchase. Loss of reputation, poor service, crappy products, and the like serve as very real boundries.

Plus, there are currently many private organizations that police business, test products, settle disputes, etc. These organizations have a very real regulatory effect on individuals that participate in private production and voluntary exchange. The statist claim that government is necessary to prevent chaos is not true historically.

The bottom line is that regulation is much like inflation in that both are portrayed as bad, both are state products, yet they continue to exist because some influential individuals benefit from them. You can bet your butt that the ones who gain will ensure that these issues are portrayed in a favorable light.


That justification is exactly what would happen. There would be millions deemed too high a risk to insure, some who get that scarlet letter bast on a genetic test conducted at birth. Under your system, the poor and sick would be denied medical care and be left to die. I hope you never become dictator of this land.

Free market, friend, free market. Demand will be met. Insurance will be offered to all risk levels and the buyer will definitely be able to choose the level of coverage they desire, and what they want covered. The one size fits all nonsense will disappear. Prices will vary but healthy competition will keep prices reasonable. We'll just have to disagree, though. I'll likely never be able to convince you of that.


Then explain why the rich have been getting richer and the poor poorer in this country. The fact is the pie is not getting bigger. In fact, when it does get bigger, that is called inflation, and isn't a good thing. If we really want to make sure that a rising tide floats all boats, I propose that total compensation be capped, not by some arbitrary number, but by a multiplier of the pay of the lowest paid person in your company, any subsidiaries or the parent company. Say a multiplier of 100. An exec want's $5M/year, his janitor better be getting $50k.

That's the easiest question you have asked so far. The rich get richer because they do things that make them richer. The poor stay poor because they do things that keep them poor. Since the massive income redistribution scheme known as the Great Society began under LBJ, the percentage of poor has remained relatively constant. Throwing billions of dollars worth of welfare at the poor enables their "poorness" and does nothing to lift them out of it. OTOH, the middle class is shrinking. Politicians love to throw out that tidbit but they leave out the fact that, if the percentage of poor is the same, then the middle class is moving up. They are doing what the rich folks are doing.

Salary caps? An economy operating under laissez-faire always correctly allocates resources to their best use. Government intervention changes the allocation so resources are applied to areas that are much less beneficial to a society. Government creates roadblocks. Salary caps are a big roadblock.


That is pretty well what EVERYONE has, except rich executives that set their own pay. Some third party, maybe your boss, some middle manager, or even some executive decides how hard you work and what you deserve for that work.

You left out a critical part of the equation. If anyone isn't satisfied, they are free to find other work that pays better, if they can. If government sets the caps, that option would be minimal if it existed at all. Without a brass ring to reach for, stagnation will result.


Not all may have come from dirty trick, but many have. The FDA started regulating drugs in 1905, as products like Radol came on the market. Radol thried to capitalize of the fascination with radiation, and was said to be a mixture of radium that could cure cancer. Well, (fortunatley I suppose), there was no radium, and the FDA had it pulled. In those early days, they investigated 1900 drugs on the market, and had to recommend that the makers of 115 be prosecuted for fraud. We see how well the free market did in regulating the pharmaceutical industry 100 years ago.

Radol was not pulled by the FDA. Radol's creator was put out of business when fraudulent claims could no longer be ignored and the Post Office denied him the use of the US Mail. Then, you buttress my case. Prosecuted for fraud. Knowing that being prosecuted for fraud is a very real reality is, in and of itself, a self-regulatory aspect. No regulation necessary.


Just recently in Cleveland, a new law was being push for my some parents. Their daughter was in the hospital. To save a few bucks, the hospital began having practically untrained pharmacy techs mix drugs rather than an actual pharmacist. The person mixed the treatment wrong and killed the girl. Now, there is mandatory training for these pharmacy techs. It may cost a little more, but it is way safer.

You can find examples of no regulation causing death or injury just as you can find regulations that were ignored causing death or injury. It's tragic in every case. This particular tragedy would be addressed by the market just as easily, and just as effectively (likely more so), as it is being addressed by government.


Yes they are stupid. But if it is what the masses want, then that is what they will get with your system. I, for one, don't want people driving around high on Oxycontin. Also, people making bad financial decisions can have a horrid effect on the economy. Currently, 92% of us are paying our mortgages. But because 8% made bad financial coices, all our house valused are in the crapper.

I feel sure you don't want people driving around drunk either. Stupid people will do stupid things and no government regulation will stop them. "You can't fix stupid. Stupid is forever" --Ron White.

The 8% that made bad choices would have barely been a ripple on the economy if they had lost their bad investment. Government is attempting to eliminate a critical part of a healthy economy. Failure. I won't even get into the problems caused by the Fed's control of the money supply through the infernal Federal Reserve. Fiat is not just an Italian car.


And the police forcibly shaking you down? Please. If that is happening, you are a tax cheat. As conservatives are fond of saying, you don't like it, leave. Don't like income tax, move to Monaco. Hope you can afford it.

Stop paying your taxes. Stop paying any government required tax or fee. In fact, stop doing anything that government requires of you. Eventually, a person in a uniform carrying a gun will come to your door and give you a ride to town. It makes no difference if the tax is excessive or is repressive in your opinion. It makes no difference if you are singled out unfairly. The police power of the state will force compliance.


So is suppose you don't lock your doors? It may take a bit more work but they will get in and steal your stuff.

Bingo. Locks only create a small delay for a thief. Maybe we should have a law or regulation that makes breaking and entering illegal. Oh, wait...


Making prescription drugs more accessible by yanking regulations will only make things worse.

Why? If a pharmacist hands out drugs willy-nilly and Willy kills someone after taking the drug, the pharmacist can be sued. Besides, a drug will not be dispensed without a valid prescription, regulation or not. It's just good business.


I'm not saying regulations will make everything hunky dory. But you are right, as long as businesses are controlled by "me first" profit minded execs, things will not be self regulating. In a world with no traffic laws, will everone blindly careen through an intersections? No. But might their be a few stupid people that will run red lights and take other risks than can hurt others, knowing there is no legal consequences? Absolutely.

I agree. Whether heavily regulated or laissez-faire, there will always be people who will do something stupid. Ain't a regulation in the world going to stop it. However, there will be legal consequences. There will still be the rule of law and the courts.


Again, I want the lesser of 2 evils. No system a human can come up with will be perfect.

You can't make that judgment without comparing both systems in a historical context. Unfortunately, true freedom throughout history has been scarce. One thing that can't be ignored, though, is that throughout history the more freedom a people enjoy, the more prosperous they are.


I don't directly support Obama's plan, but supported it more than McCain's. I think we do need government medicine, like the French have. Neither was willing to propose that.

Make no mistake. Obama's proposal will result in total government control of the health care system. He knows it and that is his goal, but it would be political suicide to be upfront about it.


So again, any poor person who is looking at a niche service, as that is the best choice for them, is screwed.

Nope. The market will meet any demand that exists.


No, there are plenty of other things I'd like to see cut.

I bet my list is longer than yours. :)


So, if one post, you complain about government health care spending, saying it is too high, put are apparently OK with the government paying for the poor to go to the ER for medical care. I don't get it.

I suppose you don't get it because I didn't say that. I just said everyone is covered because hospitals can't refuse treatment for inability to pay. I never gave any indication, implied or otherwise, that I was ok with it.



They ask for opinions on the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November every 2 years.

And we're almost to the point where half of those opinions will be paying very close to zero taxes. They will vote for whoever promises them more of the same.


I'm not sure what part of Hong Kong you are talking about, but if it is quality of health care, maybe because it is well regulated?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hong_Kong_Hospital_Authority
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_and_Health_Bureau
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secretary_for_Food_and_Health


You said: "The free market might of worked 100 years ago, but not today." Hong Kong is very close to a free market, and it is working very well. That's why I said explain Hong Kong.


I guess we have to agree to disagree. I think we can lessen unfair practices with smarter regulation, you are strangely convinced that NO regulation will do the job. Like I said, we me fist people being the sole population of this planet, I don't see how telling people they can do what they want helps.

What is strange is that you believe regulation will do the job when reality is staring you in the face. Madoff, Enron, Global Crossing, S&Ls, housing, etc. etc. etc. All happened under massive regulations. So you still think the problem was that there aren't enough regulations or existing regulations are just not "smart" enough. Now that's strange.


Profit margin is net profit over revenue. Granted, for simplicity sake, I didn't take into account taxes, but the idea is the same. Their revenues skyrocket do to increased fuel prices. So they had to increase their profits even more to keep the margin the same. So when they were content to make $2B a quarter, not they had to make $10B a quarter. It wasn't right.

You must have been using "new" math in your example. A candy bar bought for $0.50 and sold for $1.00 means a profit margin of 100%, not 50%. If the buy price rose to $1.00 and the selling price rose to $2.00, that's still a profit margin of 100%. Profit doubled but margin was the same. That's why the oil companies had enormous profits. Their profit margin, however, remained a fairly steady 8% or so. In reality, 8% is not an unreasonable return on investment. Other industries are much higher. BTW, government makes more profit than the oil companies on every gallon of gas sold, yet government contributes nothing getting it to the pump.

http://i61.photobucket.com/albums/h57/texasrainmaker/ProfitsOilVsOtherIndust3rdQ2005.gif



No, the article is about how much less regulated debit cards can be dangerous to use. Your the one that bought up how great unregulated credit cards are. I just showed that one reason they are pretty good with customer service is regulations.

I reread the article again and have yet to find where debit cards were even mentioned. You must have read a different article. The article I read said things like:

"Given these advantages, and the disadvantages of the government system, what credit-card holder wouldn't prefer the nongovernmental alternative?"


"This goes to show that the common belief that only government can provide justice in consumer-fraud cases is false. Indeed, as we have seen, the government is an inferior provider of justice in this realm."

"What primarily holds these arrangements together is not the threat of government intervention, but the desire of all involved to do business with one another."

"The credit-card chargeback regime advances those prospects by letting customers know that they will have an opportunity for redress if they are wronged, and will not have to rely on outdated, inefficient, ineffective, and costly government courts."

Maybe you clinked on the wrong link...

[Carl]

WOW...great post!
took 2 cups of coffee to get through.

[HDRoberts]

Well, I'm a little weary of blowing through an hour each morning responding to posts here.

I guess we agree to disagree. It's good you agree we need the rule of law. Your previous posts seemed to imply you wanted to do away with laws related to medical care. I'm pretty sure it's the law that requires doctors to be licenses, not some regulation. The only difference between a law and regulation is laws are made by the legislature, regulations are made by the executive branch in enforcement of laws or by agencies authorized by the legislative branch. They are both equally enforceable, although a law does outweigh a regulation if there is a conflict.

You also seem to think just because regulation hasn't stopped some crooks means we should get rid of regulation. I find that nuts. To go to your traffic example, a drunk driver wipes out a family of four, so that means we should make drunk driving legal, because the law doesn't work? That doesn't make sense.

One point, I do have to pick on TREMENDOUSLY as it is one of the stupidest things I have read is this statement

government makes more profit than the oil companies on every gallon of gas sold, yet government contributes nothing getting it to the pump.

Do you know what gas taxes are used for? BUILDING AND MAINTAINING ROADS. Those nifty strips of concrete and asphalt, they aren't natural formations. We would not have anywhere to drive our cars if it wasn't for the government building roads. I'm pretty sure the tanker that delivered the gas had to use those government made roads. I'm also pretty sure each and every customer relied on those roads to get to the gas pump. Yet you have the audacity to say that the government collects gas taxes and contributes nothing.

I'd be interested to here your explanation as to how the free market would replicate the federal highways system and each and every road we use on a daily basis, as well as how they would maintain them.

My argument is simply devoted profit will serve the best interest of shareholders (particularly wealth shareholders), which frequent are not the best interests of customers. This is particularly the case in the medical industry, where it is only profitable to provide medial services to people who are likely to stay healthy the majority of their lives, and thus profitable to provide no service to those with chronic health problems. Good medical care is something everyone should have affordable access to, but I don't see that happening in a completely free medical market.

So I guess we have to agree to disagree.

Oh, the article I was referring you is just one example of what every consumer advice columnist I have ever seen has said. Without the legal protections of the Fair Credit Billing Act, debit cards can be dangerous. I was not referring to the article you posted, which forgot that one of the reasons you can do a credit card chargeback is because THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT THE FAIR CREDIT BILLING ACT REQUIRES THEM TO DO.

http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/Banking/CreditCardSmarts/DebitCardsTooRiskyForBigPurchases.aspx

[Bear Paws]

[QUOTE]That's the easiest question you have asked so far. The rich get richer because they do things that make them richer. The poor stay poor because they do things that keep them poor. Since the massive income redistribution scheme known as the Great Society began under LBJ, the percentage of poor has remained relatively constant. Throwing billions of dollars worth of welfare at the poor enables their "poorness" and does nothing to lift them out of it. OTOH, the middle class is shrinking. Politicians love to throw out that tidbit but they leave out the fact that, if the percentage of poor is the same, then the middle class is moving up. They are doing what the rich folks are doing. :bravo-009::bravo-009::hatsoff::thumbup: The whole post. Great work.. I chose only this one paragraph because of brevity for the quote but foremost, although its the easiest, its also the essence of free market capitalism. Its irrefutable in logic and in historical context. One small correction I would add is the cost of the Great Society has been 11 trillion and sadly the single most destructive and devastating force to the American black population since slavery and the citizenry in general . Arguably in some ways re enslaving them and us all.. It has set us back probably forever if the policies continue. If expanded we will be The Last Great Society.

[HDRoberts]

Thanks for reminding me of one more point I wanted to cover.

The number of poor has not been static. It has been for a few years, but experiences grown form 2001-2005. Read some of the peverty press releases from the Census bureau
http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/releases/archives/income_wealth/index.html

The middle class are also under an increased squeeze. They haven't dropped enought to be poor (for which you have to be crazy poor), but are definatley far from financially secure.

http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2008/07/pdf/middleclasssqueeze.pdf

I agree that some poor people do stupid things that keep them poor. But others don't. You falsely assume no one ever leaves poverty.

No one is denying the rich are getting richer, yet it seems the poor and middle class are feeling the squeeze. We are certainly not, as Frog's signature implies, all seeing our wealth increase. The upper middle class and upper class just like to tel themselves that to make them feel better.

[Bear Paws]

Thanks for reminding me of one more point I wanted to cover.

The number of poor has not been static. It has been for a few years, but experiences grown form 2001-2005. Read some of the peverty press releases from the Census bureau
http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/releases/archives/income_wealth/index.html

The middle class are also under an increased squeeze. They haven't dropped enought to be poor (for which you have to be crazy poor), but are definatley far from financially secure.

http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2008/07/pdf/middleclasssqueeze.pdf

I agree that some poor people do stupid things that keep them poor. But others don't. You falsely assume no one ever leaves poverty.

No one is denying the rich are getting richer, yet it seems the poor and middle class are feeling the squeeze. We are certainly not, as Frog's signature implies, all seeing our wealth increase. The upper middle class and upper class just like to tel themselves that to make them feel better. Then I must delusional... I may be the only one here to ever leave poverty. Go from lower to middle to upper middle class. I never got rich by some's standards because I wasn't willing to work hard enough to get there. I settled for upper. My choice all the way.

[froggigger]

Well, I'm a little weary of blowing through an hour each morning responding to posts here.

I guess we agree to disagree. It's good you agree we need the rule of law. Your previous posts seemed to imply you wanted to do away with laws related to medical care. I'm pretty sure it's the law that requires doctors to be licenses, not some regulation. The only difference between a law and regulation is laws are made by the legislature, regulations are made by the executive branch in enforcement of laws or by agencies authorized by the legislative branch. They are both equally enforceable, although a law does outweigh a regulation if there is a conflict.

What I would like to see is laissez-faire. I'll never convince you that's it the best politico-economic system but I am absolutely convinced that it is. It's very simple really. It's based on the private ownership of all means of production. State powers are limited to the protection of the individual's rights against the use of force by other individuals, foreign governments, and, most importantly, by the individual's own government.

This is accomplished by a constitution, a system of division of powers and checks and balances, a bill of rights, and eternal vigilance on the part of the people with the right to keep and bear arms. Sounds kind of familiar, huh? Under laissez-faire, the state consists essentially of a police force, law courts, and a national defense establishment, which deter and combat those who initiate the use of physical force. That's it. Plain and simple. No doubt you think this type of system would result in crisis. Well, look around. There are crisis' in every direction and lack of regulations darn sure ain't the cause. It'll never happen, though. Government is out of control and have no intention of ceding any power.


You also seem to think just because regulation hasn't stopped some crooks means we should get rid of regulation. I find that nuts. To go to your traffic example, a drunk driver wipes out a family of four, so that means we should make drunk driving legal, because the law doesn't work? That doesn't make sense.

It doesn't make sense because you read what I said, then told me what I meant. My wife does the same thing. You said this:

I, for one, don't want people driving around high on Oxycontin.


Then I said:

I feel sure you don't want people driving around drunk either. Stupid people will do stupid things and no government regulation will stop them.


Laissez-faire means one is free to do as he pleases as long as it doesn't interfere with another's right to do the same. Drunk drivers often infringe on other's rights so it is a legitimate function of the police to try and stop it based on laws enacted by a limited government. The point is that alcohol is regulated and we have laws against drunk driving, but people still drive drunk. It's a safe bet to say that there are also people driving around on Oxycontin even though it is more heavily regulated. Whether regulated or unregulated, people are still going to do it.


One point, I do have to pick on TREMENDOUSLY as it is one of the stupidest things I have read is this statement

Do you know what gas taxes are used for? BUILDING AND MAINTAINING ROADS. Those nifty strips of concrete and asphalt, they aren't natural formations. We would not have anywhere to drive our cars if it wasn't for the government building roads. I'm pretty sure the tanker that delivered the gas had to use those government made roads. I'm also pretty sure each and every customer relied on those roads to get to the gas pump. Yet you have the audacity to say that the government collects gas taxes and contributes nothing.

The Federal Highway Trust Fund goes into the general fund as does the Social Security Trust Fund. This is exactly how Clinton was able to claim a surplus for a year or so when the reality is that there was no surplus, but that's :offtopic-929432:. Real accounting in government is non-existent because there are no profit/loss statements, only budgets. In an accounting sense, it is impossible to determine if government adds or destroys value. The only thing we know for sure is that the budget grows yearly for some ostensible purpose. Keep in mind the government is quite proficient at lying about where tax money is being spent and on what. The highway fund is no different.

Ain't you glad you asked? :p


I'd be interested to here your explanation as to how the free market would replicate the federal highways system and each and every road we use on a daily basis, as well as how they would maintain them.

Will an example do? Ever hear of the Dulles Greenway toll road? The road was privately conceived, funded, and operated. It is the first modern highway underwritten solely by private venture capital. It is also the first private toll road built in Virginia since 1816. The road was sorely needed but since the political priority of the state was on welfare, the money for the road didn't exist.

A new corporation called TRIP was formed and they offered to build the road if they could reap the profits. The road was built despite huge bureaucratic obstacles and government barriers. Today, government simply refuses to let TRIP run like a business. Price structure is the main problem. Before the road was finished, Virginia formed the State Corporate Commission to regulate road prices just as they regulate utilities. TRIP is forced to ask for permission to raise or lower prices instead of prices reflecting demand, ie. higher tolls at peak periods and lower for off-periods or commuter discounts.
Thanks to government intervention, TRIP lacks the ability to respond to changing market conditions and reduce shortages and surpluses of drivers on its own road. It proves that private enterprise can indeed provide roads---major roads---without taxpayer money. Running it profitably is another story altogether because government just can't keep it's grubby hands off of anything.


My argument is simply devoted profit will serve the best interest of shareholders (particularly wealth shareholders), which frequent are not the best interests of customers. This is particularly the case in the medical industry, where it is only profitable to provide medial services to people who are likely to stay healthy the majority of their lives, and thus profitable to provide no service to those with chronic health problems. Good medical care is something everyone should have affordable access to, but I don't see that happening in a completely free medical market.

So I guess we have to agree to disagree.

It's hard to fathom how well the free market can work since the USA hasn't been run under a free market in quite a while. Capitalism and the free market are constantly blamed for damn near every problem but the blame can't stand up to serious scrutiny. The bottom line is that our government is out of control and it must be reigned in, if it's not already too late. How anyone can conclude that we need more of it escapes me.


Oh, the article I was referring you is just one example of what every consumer advice columnist I have ever seen has said. Without the legal protections of the Fair Credit Billing Act, debit cards can be dangerous. I was not referring to the article you posted, which forgot that one of the reasons you can do a credit card chargeback is because THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT THE FAIR CREDIT BILLING ACT REQUIRES THEM TO DO.

http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/Banking/CreditCardSmarts/DebitCardsTooRiskyForBigPurchases.aspx

Well that explains it. You were citing a different source but failed to mention it. You trying to baffle me with BS? :05: :)

[froggigger]

[quote=froggigger;5702]

:bravo-009::bravo-009::hatsoff::thumbup: The whole post. Great work.. I chose only this one paragraph because of brevity for the quote but foremost, although its the easiest, its also the essence of free market capitalism. Its irrefutable in logic and in historical context. One small correction I would add is the cost of the Great Society has been 11 trillion and sadly the single most destructive and devastating force to the American black population since slavery and the citizenry in general . Arguably in some ways re enslaving them and us all.. It has set us back probably forever if the policies continue. If expanded we will be The Last Great Society.

Thanks for the correction. You are of course correct. :thumbup:

[Derwin0]

Then I must delusional... I may be the only one here to ever leave poverty. Go from lower to middle to upper middle class. I never got rich by some's standards because I wasn't willing to work hard enough to get there. I settled for upper. My choice all the way.
You're not the only one.
I grew up in a poor household. But I worked for good grades in school, went to college on a mixture of grants/loans/scholarships, and worked a part time job on campus to pay expenses.

No one magically leaves college and becomes a CEO. Typically they spend years working their way up.

The reason the rich get richer and the poor get poorer, is because both keep doing what got them there in the first place.

[fallout2600]

The reason the rich get richer and the poor get poorer, is because both keep doing what got them there in the first place.

:thumbup: