Printable View
I would consider myself left-minded, but I hate communism, sozialism and anarchy. I just think they're stupid unfullfilable ideals that eventually lead to dictatorship, but so can any socio-political "ism". Ism just means that it's the extreme form.
People wearing shirts of Ch
Those are revolutionary communist leaders.
[QUOTE=Derka]Those are revolutionary communist leaders.[/QUOTE]
They are socialist leaders. And why does every socialist revolution lead to massive death counts the likes of which history has never seen?
[QUOTE=Nick Young]Mao Zedong:49-78 million
Jozef Stalin: 23 million
Pol Pot: 1.7 million
Kim Il Sung: 1.6 million
Ho Chi Minh: 200,000
Fidel Castro and Che Guevera: 50,000
A kid in my uni was wearing a Che beret and a Mao Zedong shirt. Got into a huge argument with him by telling him wearing a Mao shirt was worse than wearing a Hitler shirt, he denied all of the deaths Mao is responsible for saying it is lies and CIA propaganda, which is basically the same thing as denying the holocaust. Turned out he was just an ignorant dumbass who didn't understand what he was talking about. But still it's pretty disgusting, a man kills 70 million of his own people and there are idiots out there who prop him up as a hero they look up to.[/QUOTE]
Japan, Korea, Singapore, and Taiwan also had socialist style governments (not communist like the ones you posted) that helped bring their countries from poverty to being some of the richest on the planet in 2 generations.
Direct government intervention in the business sector and government owned monopolies spurred their unparalleled growth.
Why do you only focus on extreme communist examples who lead by force and propped themselves up with massive cult of personalities
Agenda?
[QUOTE=Nick Young]They are socialist leaders. And why does every socialist revolution lead to massive death counts the likes of which history has never seen?[/QUOTE]
Has a lot less to do with socialism and more to do with the personalities you're talking about. You're on some "post hoc ergo propter hoc" shit right now. I'm no fan of socialism by any means, but focusing on a selection of mass murderers and painting all socialists in that light is a non-starter for me.
[QUOTE=Derka]Has a lot less to do with socialism and more to do with the personalities you're talking about. You're on some "post hoc ergo propter hoc" shit right now. I'm no fan of socialism by any means, but focusing on a selection of mass murderers and painting all socialists in that light is a non-starter for me.[/QUOTE]
Why are socialist leaders responsible for the biggest crimes against humanity in human history? Is it just a coincidence that in these socialist revolutions a mass murdering psychopath always winds up at the top of it? How come that same thing keeps happening over and over? It's just a big coincidence right?
I'm just looking at history and finding things that correlate.
[QUOTE=miller-time]I just find the black and white logic annoying. People don't realize that some things are socialist driven systems - such as the public school system and healthcare systems (depending where you live). Being a capitalist country doesn't mean every institution is a capitalist driven venture.
And why are you doing a death poll? [B]Do you really think oil companies are not destroying peoples homes and contaminating their water sources?[/B] Saying all attempts at socialism is bad is the same as saying all attempts of capitalism are good. Do you really think the privatization of prisons and the overabundance of contracts going towards private weapons contractors are good things? They're capitalist, so they must be right?[/QUOTE]
Yet there is zero proof of this (in regards to fracing).
[QUOTE=MavsSuperFan]
Its not that I think big pharma is evil, just that they are self interested as are all humans. The seek to maximize profits, which often equates cost cutting, which equals minimizing healthcare provided.
[/QUOTE]
You say that all humans are self-interested, and only look to maximize profits. Fine. But isn't the government also made up of humans? Wouldn't the regulators themselves be self-interested, only looking to maximize profits? The people who work for government are not higher forms of life, they are humans just like us.
But yet, there's a stark difference between a government and a private business. While both may be self-interested and greedy, only government can force you to do what it wants. Only government can write a law, and have you arrested if you don't follow it. The private business in a free market has no such power.
A private businessman may be greedy, but in order to become rich, he needs to become a selfless little angel. He needs to figure out what people want, figure out a way to deliver it to them at an affordable price, and be efficient enough to make a profit for himself. His intentions may be dark and greedy, but his actions can never match those intentions. His actions must be directed at satisfying consumers on the market. In essence, the private businessman is a slave to the demands of complete strangers.
But the same greedy person, in government, has no need to think of others. He can pass a law, extract tax money to pay for it, and stack the deck in his own favor with the stroke of a pen. As Paul Begala once said, "Stroke of the pen, law of the land. Kinda cool." No Paul Begala, it's not very cool.
You mentioned prices rising due to corporations lobbying the government. I agree, but what do they lobby for? They lobby for regulators to pass even more regulations. This seems ass-backwards compared to most peoples imaginations about government- that regulations are always meant to clamp down on corporate greed. The truth is, the regulations actually HELP big pharma, and screw the little guy. But we're meant to believe the FDA is there to protect us. Maybe at some time, or in some areas it is.. but if you could get into the mind of the President of the biggest pill company, I guarantee you he'd crap his pants at the thought of the FDA being dismembered. The big guys LOVE regulation agencies. They use it to their advantage, they use the power of government, to screw over the rest of us. These guys don't want a free-market, they are doing fine in the government market. The thought of having to actually compete in a free market scares them to death. Ironic, because most Dems think the free market is what allows these companies to screw us over. It's the opposite.
Anyway, got off the track there a bit. But to me, health care is no different than anything else. In the free market, there would be fierce competition to serve the will of consumers, and in the government market you get.... this. Wicked high prices, weird rules, millions of people who can't afford insurance. Notice that there's not many people who want shoes, but can't get shoes. Not many people who want a chess set, but can't get a chess set. But in the places where government interferes the most- health care, education, banking- we have all this distress. Not a coincidence as far as I'm concerned!
Or put it another way. If tomorrow the government started handing out insurance to buy pencils, three days from now pencils would become super expensive and hard to find. Then the government would be saying, we need to pass Pencil reform to solve this crisis! The government creates problems by intervening, then presents itself as the cure. That's Obamacare in a nutshell.
I'm just not sure how a free market healthcare system would deal with the free-rider problem. I know private charity could provide some with healthcare but at some point society would just have to come to terms with the fact that some people can't afford it and basically just allow them to die.
After all, social security came about because the poverty rate for the elderly in the US was insanely high and welfare was insanely low for the elderly population. People wanted to do something about it and social security was created. Poverty is a social cost afterall and people are negatively affected by it but it is an externality type issue.
But I've made it clear before that I don't believe all markets operate efficiently so there is a clear difference between me and joe even if I do agree with his basic philosophical principals.
[QUOTE=joe]You say that all humans are self-interested, and only look to maximize profits. Fine. But isn't the government also made up of humans? Wouldn't the regulators themselves be self-interested, only looking to maximize profits? The people who work for government are not higher forms of life, they are humans just like us.
But yet, there's a stark difference between a government and a private business. While both may be self-interested and greedy, only government can force you to do what it wants. Only government can write a law, and have you arrested if you don't follow it. The private business in a free market has no such power.
A private businessman may be greedy, but in order to become rich, he needs to become a selfless little angel. He needs to figure out what people want, figure out a way to deliver it to them at an affordable price, and be efficient enough to make a profit for himself. His intentions may be dark and greedy, but his actions can never match those intentions. His actions must be directed at satisfying consumers on the market. In essence, the private businessman is a slave to the demands of complete strangers.
But the same greedy person, in government, has no need to think of others. He can pass a law, extract tax money to pay for it, and stack the deck in his own favor with the stroke of a pen. As Paul Begala once said, "Stroke of the pen, law of the land. Kinda cool." No Paul Begala, it's not very cool.
You mentioned prices rising due to corporations lobbying the government. I agree, but what do they lobby for? They lobby for regulators to pass even more regulations. This seems ass-backwards compared to most peoples imaginations about government- that regulations are always meant to clamp down on corporate greed. The truth is, the regulations actually HELP big pharma, and screw the little guy. But we're meant to believe the FDA is there to protect us. Maybe at some time, or in some areas it is.. but if you could get into the mind of the President of the biggest pill company, I guarantee you he'd crap his pants at the thought of the FDA being dismembered. The big guys LOVE regulation agencies. They use it to their advantage, they use the power of government, to screw over the rest of us. These guys don't want a free-market, they are doing fine in the government market. The thought of having to actually compete in a free market scares them to death. Ironic, because most Dems think the free market is what allows these companies to screw us over. It's the opposite.
Anyway, got off the track there a bit. But to me, health care is no different than anything else. In the free market, there would be fierce competition to serve the will of consumers, and in the government market you get.... this. Wicked high prices, weird rules, millions of people who can't afford insurance. Notice that there's not many people who want shoes, but can't get shoes. Not many people who want a chess set, but can't get a chess set. But in the places where government interferes the most- health care, education, banking- we have all this distress. Not a coincidence as far as I'm concerned!
Or put it another way. If tomorrow the government started handing out insurance to buy pencils, three days from now pencils would become super expensive and hard to find. Then the government would be saying, we need to pass Pencil reform to solve this crisis! The government creates problems by intervening, then presents itself as the cure. That's Obamacare in a nutshell.[/QUOTE]
I think the free market works for 99.9% of industries, almost everyone in the world believes in some form of free markets, only countries like north korea have planned economies nowadays. On the other hand I think history has shown that regulations are needed, the debate is to the extent. Since we both accept that the final goal of all humans is utility maximization, I just want to point out that in a lot of cases bring the best/safest version of an item to market isnt always in a companies economic best interest. Government regulation is sometimes needed to force these companies to make improvements, when market incentives fail to do so. (Eg. Airbags in cars)
When it comes to healthcare, the market pricing mechanism will result in prohibitively high prices for most people. For stuff like shoes and soda there is a price at which you wouldn't buy, and for big luxury items like sports cars, no one is going to die without a sports car. There is almost no limit i would pay for a drug that saved my life or prolonged it.
Regulations have made this country great imo, cars are safer, food is safer, etc. I understand sometimes regulations increase cost, but thats when we do a cost benefit analysis to determine if the increased benefit of the regulation is worth the additional cost. I'm not going to say regulations are always good, but I dont accept that they are always a negative.
I think you are overestimating how competitive firms are with each other. Often the theory works out and the free market results in the best product at the lowest price, but in a lot of cases independent competitors will realize they are better off colluding and earning duopoly profits instead of perfectly competitive profits. In an industry like the healthcare industry with its high barriers to entry, and high minimally efficient scale I think a perfectly competitive industry is unlikely. We don't need more regulation in the healthcare industry we need better regulation. There are many countries in the world that achieve better health outcomes than the US with better regulation, but I can't think of any nation that achieves good health care results through no regulation.
[QUOTE=MavsSuperFan]I think the free market works for 99.9% of industries, almost everyone in the world believes in some form of free markets, only countries like north korea have planned economies nowadays. On the other hand I think history has shown that regulations are needed, the debate is to the extent. Since we both accept that the final goal of all humans is utility maximization, I just want to point out that in a lot of cases bring the best/safest version of an item to market isnt always in a companies economic best interest. Government regulation is sometimes needed to force these companies to make improvements, when market incentives fail to do so. (Eg. Airbags in cars)
When it comes to healthcare, the market pricing mechanism will result in prohibitively high prices for most people. For stuff like shoes and soda there is a price at which you wouldn't buy, and for big luxury items like sports cars, no one is going to die without a sports car. There is almost no limit i would pay for a drug that saved my life or prolonged it.
Regulations have made this country great imo, cars are safer, food is safer, etc. I understand sometimes regulations increase cost, but thats when we do a cost benefit analysis to determine if the increased benefit of the regulation is worth the additional cost. I'm not going to say regulations are always good, but I dont accept that they are always a negative.
I think you are overestimating how competitive firms are with each other. Often the theory works out and the free market results in the best product at the lowest price, but in a lot of cases independent competitors will realize they are better off colluding and earning duopoly profits instead of perfectly competitive profits. In an industry like the healthcare industry with its high barriers to entry, and high minimally efficient scale I think a perfectly competitive industry is unlikely. We don't need more regulation in the healthcare industry we need better regulation. There are many countries in the world that achieve better health outcomes than the US with better regulation, but I can't think of any nation that achieves good health care results through no regulation.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE]When it comes to healthcare, the market pricing mechanism will result in prohibitively high prices for most people. For stuff like shoes and soda there is a price at which you wouldn't buy, and for big luxury items like sports cars, no one is going to die without a sports car. There is almost no limit i would pay for a drug that saved my life or prolonged it.
[/QUOTE]
So what you're saying is, the health care industry is special in that customers need their services. Without health care they would die, therefore businesses have too much leverage and will raise prices to gauge consumers. Therefore, we need regulation to level the playing field.
I have a few objections to this. The first is, health care is not the only industry that provides a life-or-death service. People need to eat, or else they'll die- but agriculture prices aren't skyrocketing like they are in health care. And according to my quick google search, we spend far more on health care (2.6 trillion in 2010) than we do on agriculture subsidies (150 billion in 2012).
Gasoline may not seem as important as health care, but it's not hyperbole to say our entire society is built on gasoline. It would seem Exxon could really be gouging us at the pump, since without gasoline, entire cities would be shut down. Yet the price of gasoline has not risen much faster than inflation, if at all. And emerging markets would certainly account for some of any rise we've seen.
There actually is a limit on how much you'd be willing to pay for a drug that could save your life. The limit is, how much money is in your bank account. Health companies couldn't just charge 1million dollars for aspirin under a free market; at a certain point, the prices would simply be too high. People cannot pay what they can not afford. To make a profit, businesses would have to keep prices down. The guy who can provide surgery for $1,000 is going to get more business than the guy who charges $2,000.
To me, I have no fear of companies colluding to raise prices. The idea of it happening in a free market seems pretty far fetched. If two companies colluded and raised prices, they are just leaving the door open for a competitor. If it's truly possible to charge lower prices-which it clearly is or else colluding would be unnecessary- than a competitor should be able to carve his way into the market. At this point we're told the duopolists would engage in predatory pricing, but in fact, predatory pricing theory has actually been disregarded by many economists. If you look at the history it has almost never happened, and when it has, its rarely successful- if ever. Apparently, the losses accrued during the predatory pricing phase outweigh the gains you make once you raise them back up. This is also why I have no fear of monopolies and think anti-trust law should be taken off the books. In practice, monopolies have no ability to strangle a market and anti-trust law ends up just interfering in perfectly health markets.
You mention the high barrier to entry in health care, but the biggest barrier to entry there is government! Licensing requirements, regulation costs, drug testing costs, taxes, zoning restrictions, copyright restrictions, tort lawsuits, college subsidies driving up the cost of medical school tuition. If all of those government roadblocks weren't in place, it'd be much easier (and cheaper) to open a health care facility.
I bet you'd see more specialists. Just imagine without all of those roadblocks, I could spend all my free time learning about arm fractures, save up some money for an X-ray machine, and VOILA- I have my own broken arm business! Just imagine how low my prices would be- I'd only need to charge enough to pay for the cast material, and some for profit. But could you fathom trying that today? I couldn't legally operate such a business without 8+ years of expensive college. I would have to own an approved hospital/office instead of just working out of my home. How is that good for the health care industry?
But in that case, couldn't any whack-o just open a business and claim to be a doctor? Sure, but would they be successful? Maybe they'd sucker in a few people at the start, but over time quality will win out. And just because there's no government around to certify people, don't think nobody else will step up to the plate. Just like we have private movie review companies, there would be private doctor review companies. Just like there's private companies that rate cars, there would be private companies to rate doctors. I can already see "Doctorreview.com" being a popular google search.
Anyway, it's really interesting to think about both sides of the argument. I'm definitely not trying to say the free market is perfect, just that my mind has anointed it the best idea its heard yet economically speaking ;). And I'm not sure what it says about me that debates like this are one of my favorite activities, but hey, nothing wrong with a good internet tussle o:).
^^ In the case of healthcare, the cost of mistake becomes the cost of life. Would you be OK with your relatives dying because somebody ran a half-assed surgery procedure? Just don't leave him a tip that time, right?
For a free market model to be successful the instant and correct feedback is mandatory. Yet, there are not many things that show the results instantly and clearly. For example, eating unhealthy food will result in you being ill way after the food chained has packed and moved elsewhere.
What you saying functions under the operational conditioning rationale: the feedback mediates the action. Yet, you should know, that in real life the instant and correct feedback is rarely possible. That's why I call BS on a free market healthcare or any other shenenigans of sort.
[QUOTE=kNIOKAS]^^ In the case of healthcare, the cost of mistake becomes the cost of life. Would you be OK with your relatives dying because somebody ran a half-assed surgery procedure? Just don't leave him a tip that time, right?
For a free market model to be successful the instant and correct feedback is mandatory. Yet, there are not many things that show the results instantly and clearly. For example, eating unhealthy food will result in you being ill way after the food chained has packed and moved elsewhere.
What you saying functions under the operational conditioning rationale: the feedback mediates the action. Yet, you should know, that in real life the instant and correct feedback is rarely possible. That's why I call BS on a free market healthcare or any other shenenigans of sort.[/QUOTE]
First of all, people should be allowed to have their own risk tolerance. If someone wants to get surgery from a less-proven doctor to save some money, to me that is their business. Just like some people are willing to skydive or jump across the [URL="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iNN5rbpgO0c"]tops of tall buildings[/URL] (Seriously, these people are nuts!). I would never do that. But some people are willing to take that risk. The rest of us shouldn't have to pay for it when one of them breaks their leg.
Second of all, how does government do anything to fix this "correct and instant feedback" problem you describe? Can the government magically tell which doctors are perfect, and weed out the rest? Can the regulators look deep into the soul of potential doctors, George Bush style, and see that they will never accidentally kill someone during surgery? No. They are only people, just like us. They are not gifted with some special ability. Poisonous pills still make it to the market. People still die due to doctor error.
There is no way, under any system, to get perfect and instant feedback. But the market is a much more thorough regulator than government. Just ask yourself this: If you knew the government wasn't regulating health care, and you needed life-or-death surgery, what would you do? Would you just walk up to any schmo offering $5 heart surgery and lay down under his rusty knife? Of course not. You would shop around and find a doctor you trusted, because it's your life on the line. I expect you to be more thorough in providing for your own health and safety than the government could ever be.
[QUOTE=joe] Just ask yourself this: If you knew the government wasn't regulating health care, and you needed life-or-death surgery, what would you do? Would you just walk up to any schmo offering $5 heart surgery and lay down under his rusty knife? Of course not. You would shop around and find a doctor you trusted, because it's your life on the line. I expect you to be more thorough in providing for your own health and safety than the government could ever be.[/QUOTE]
just ask yourself this: how did you make decisions u needed life or death surgery. i dont have my own resources or knowledge to make that decision. do u? this isnt buying a car. i want somethin better than testimony from my neighbor and uncle when i need a doctor. how do u tackle the problem of emergency medicine in the free market? i dont have a choice...location tells me where i go for treatment. the hell u gonna find doctors to work in this country?
[QUOTE=Charlie Sheen]just ask yourself this: how did you make decisions u needed life or death surgery. i dont have my own resources or knowledge to make that decision. do u? this isnt buying a car. [B]i want somethin better than testimony from my neighbor and uncle when i need a doctor.[/B] how do u tackle the problem of emergency medicine in the free market? i dont have a choice...location tells me where i go for treatment. the hell u gonna find doctors to work in this country?[/QUOTE]
So, being the greedy human I am, I will open a doctor accreditation company. I'm sure many others will too. We will give degrees that guarantee the doctor is good at his job. Doctors will pay US to inspect them, because there is a market for doctors that are accredited by prestigious rating firms. As your post has proven.
Sadly I have to go to work. Wish I could get to the rest!
Moreover, how'd you get your current doctor? Did you select him because he has a degree on his wall and is regulated? Maybe at first, but in time you learned to trust him just based on your interactions with him. The ratings of your friends and family. Your experiences with him versus other doctors. The government may certify doctors, but after that their reputation is up to them. The free market just removes all the barriers to entry and gets right to the "market judging them" part.