"Obamacare"
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
26-01-2014, 06:40 PM
RE: "Obamacare"
(26-01-2014 04:46 PM)frankksj Wrote:  
(26-01-2014 03:39 PM)Chas Wrote:  Health care is one of those things that I believe is better mandated nationally.
My view on this is that there should be a baseline, or framework, established for all residents of the country and the states can be as different as they want to beyond that.

Please clarify. In the first sentence you use the word 'mandate', implying the stated are forced to comply. However in the second sentence you says 'the states can be as different as they want beyond that'.

I said a baseline. I mean minimum coverage, availability, and so on. Much like Switzerland federally mandated a minimum level.

Quote:<silliness deleted>

Chances are you and I both share the same social objectives, and both would be equally horrified if that Palin-scenario played out. But, to me, a good political system is not one that only works when your side wins, it's one that works even when those who are polar opposite of you win, and accommodates everyone, letting us all peacefully co-exist and not fighting constantly trying to get the club and force the other side to do it our way.

Laws that are just and fair are not dependent on the level at which they're enacted. A good political system encourages good solutions to problems.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-01-2014, 07:16 PM
RE: "Obamacare"
(26-01-2014 06:40 PM)Chas Wrote:  I said a baseline. I mean minimum coverage, availability, and so on. Much like Switzerland federally mandated a minimum level.

You don't see that what you consider a "minimum" "baseline" is subjective, and many feel the federal government should play no role?

(26-01-2014 06:40 PM)Chas Wrote:  Laws that are just and fair are not dependent on the level at which they're enacted.

This is the key issue. You don't seem accept that "just and fair" are subjective. No two people agree what that means. So, saying we need "just and fair" laws at the national level means we laws that Chas thinks are just and fair. In Mississippi, "just and fair" may mean a ban on abortion, mandatory teaching of creationism in school, school prayer, etc. And those people are fighting just as hard as you are to get their agenda passed at the national level. Thus it's a just a numbers game, who can get the # of Congressmen needed to get their laws passed.

(26-01-2014 06:40 PM)Chas Wrote:  A good political system encourages good solutions to problems.

Are you seriously defending the current system, where both the Democrats and Republicans fight to the death to get a clear majority so they can beat the other into submission? The system where neither one can get the clear majority needed to get past a veto, so they end up in deadlock, battling each other and not getting anything done?

I've lived in Switzerland for many years where, with only a few exceptions, all subjective issues are left up to the local level. To me there's simply no comparison between the efficacy of the two systems. The Swiss pay relatively low taxes, and get the best government services of any country I've seen--and I've been to over 50 so far. You're seriously telling me you favor the US system where the 2 parties fight to have national laws? If so, why is it that in the US taxes are just as high, yet the education is terrible, roads and bridges are falling apart, there's no decent public transit system, the streets are full of homeless people, addicts can't get treatment, life expectancy is lower, infant mortality is higher, the crime rate is exponentially higher, etc., etc. You really think the US has a "good political system"?

If not, then what do you think is wrong with the US system?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-01-2014, 07:31 PM
RE: "Obamacare"
(26-01-2014 07:16 PM)frankksj Wrote:  
(26-01-2014 06:40 PM)Chas Wrote:  I said a baseline. I mean minimum coverage, availability, and so on. Much like Switzerland federally mandated a minimum level.

You don't see that what you consider a "minimum" "baseline" is subjective, and many feel the federal government should play no role?

Subjective? No, negotiated. Like Switzerland.

Quote:
(26-01-2014 06:40 PM)Chas Wrote:  Laws that are just and fair are not dependent on the level at which they're enacted.

This is the key issue. You don't seem accept that "just and fair" are subjective. No two people agree what that means. So, saying we need "just and fair" laws at the national level means we laws that Chas thinks are just and fair. In Mississippi, "just and fair" may mean a ban on abortion, mandatory teaching of creationism in school, school prayer, etc. And those people are fighting just as hard as you are to get their agenda passed at the national level. Thus it's a just a numbers game, who can get the # of Congressmen needed to get their laws passed.

Laws are the result of need, negotiation, and compromise among many people. And that means not everyone gets exactly what he wants, sometimes no one does.

And my objection to the argument about doing it at the state level is what you've just said about Mississippi.

What about the right of people to live anywhere in their own country without restriction? That is the argument for some measure of national laws guaranteeing basic rights to everyone. Mississippi is not allowed to break those laws because they apply to all Americans.

Quote:
(26-01-2014 06:40 PM)Chas Wrote:  A good political system encourages good solutions to problems.

Are you seriously defending the current system, where both the Democrats and Republicans fight to the death to get a clear majority so they can beat the other into submission? The system where neither one can get the clear majority needed to get past a veto, so they end up in deadlock, battling each other and not getting anything done?

There you go again. Where did I say I was defending the current system?

Quote:I've lived in Switzerland for many years where, with only a few exceptions, all subjective issues are left up to the local level. To me there's simply no comparison between the efficacy of the two systems. The Swiss pay relatively low taxes, and get the best government services of any country I've seen--and I've been to over 50 so far. You're seriously telling me you favor the US system where the 2 parties fight to have national laws? If so, why is it that in the US taxes are just as high, yet the education is terrible, roads and bridges are falling apart, there's no decent public transit system, the streets are full of homeless people, addicts can't get treatment, life expectancy is lower, infant mortality is higher, the crime rate is exponentially higher, etc., etc. You really think the US has a "good political system"?

If not, then what do you think is wrong with the US system?

And again. Did I say that? No.
There is no law that mandates a two-party system. The fact that there are two large ones is problematic, and the fact that they cooperate to maintain that is shameful.

Education in the U.S. is not terrible. It is terrible in some places and wonderful in others.

Addicts can get treatment in Massachusetts under RomneyCare. Yes
New Hampshire has methadone clinics.
And so on.

My suggestion to people is to clean house. Re-elect no Representatives and no Senators. Start over. Ignore parties.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-01-2014, 08:26 PM
RE: "Obamacare"
(26-01-2014 07:31 PM)Chas Wrote:  Subjective? No, negotiated. Like Switzerland.

See, I disagree. I don't think that if you're an unpopular minority you should have to negotiate away basic rights to get the majority to graciously allow you to exist. The system you're advocating is the one that was tried for 7,000 years of human history where the powers-that-be negotiate where they'll let people exercise free will and where they'll force them to do something.

I don't think, for example, that Galileo should have had to 'negotiate' and recant his scientific discoveries to get the majority to agree not to execute him.

So we fundamentally disagree on the role of government, like I said all along. To me, it's to defend the minority against the will of the majority so everyone can exercise free will. To you, it's the opposite, to force minorities to comply with the "negotiated" will of the majority. The difference is that in my system, where these subjective decisions are made at the state level, you and I can both live under a system that works the way we want. We can peacefully co-exist, and agree to disagree. Under your system, where there's just one set of laws nationwide, then we have to duke it out and last one standing wins. If I decided, for example, I wanted to do something that was banned nationally and that the majority would never agree to, I can't just move to a libertarian-friendly state. The only possible way an unpopular minority can live his life as he sees fit is with bloody violence. He needs to much overwhelming firepower that he can outgun the government and overpower any law enforcement agents like the Branch Davidians attempted, or, assuming that's not possible, take pot shots, like Timothy McVeigh. I think a better solution is if we just agree to disagree and peacefully co-exist in separate communities.

(26-01-2014 07:31 PM)Chas Wrote:  Laws are the result of need, negotiation, and compromise among many people. And that means not everyone gets exactly what he wants, sometimes no one does.

If laws are done at the local level then YES everybody can, as a general rule, get what they want.

(26-01-2014 07:31 PM)Chas Wrote:  And my objection to the argument about doing it at the state level is what you've just said about Mississippi. What about the right of people to live anywhere in their own country without restriction? That is the argument for some measure of national laws guaranteeing basic rights to everyone. Mississippi is not allowed to break those laws because they apply to all Americans.

This is a red-herring. I said, all along, that I favored the system outlined in the US Constitution where the Federal Government's role is to limit state's ability to initiate force so it doesn't infringe on the basic human right of freedom of mobility. I've said many, many times the states should be able to do almost anything they want, so long as they don't prevent people from leaving if they find them too oppressive.

(26-01-2014 07:31 PM)Chas Wrote:  There is no law that mandates a two-party system. The fact that there are two large ones is problematic, and the fact that they cooperate to maintain that is shameful. My suggestion to people is to clean house. Re-elect no Representatives and no Senators. Start over. Ignore parties.

Now that's something we can agree on. One of the few mistakes I think the US Founders made was a winner-takes-all vote since the spoiler effect inevitably leads to a duopoly system where you can only have 2 viable parties, and they collude. There was another thread on the use of alternative voting strategies. Sadly, I fear it's never going to change because the Republicrats are NEVER going to relinquish control. The last Presidential election showed that. Ron Paul tried to work within the framework of the duopoly by running as a Republican instead of a Libertarian, and the Republicrats simply engaged in blatant election rigging, barring his delegates from entering the convention, forcing them on a bus out of town, and then changing the election rules during the convention just to bar him. And somehow they got the media to turn off their cameras when it happened. Only RT (Russia's state-run TV) and a handful of activists published video of what happened during the convention. With that backdrop, it's never going to change.

Similarly, the Federal government is never going to give control back to the states either. So I admit that my libertarian arguments are purely hypothetical, and will likely never return again to the US unless things get so bad that it leads to another violent revolution. That's why I sadly resigned myself to simply expatriating.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-01-2014, 09:39 PM
RE: "Obamacare"
Chas, P.S. your 'let them negotiate their rights' sounds to me like Marie Antoinette's 'let them eat cake'. It's easy to advocate that position when you share beliefs with one of the major groups that has the power to negotiate. What about, say, fundamental mormons who want the right to practice polygamy? What about libertarians who want to be able to exercise free will? What about gays circa the 80's who wanted the right to have families and get access to hiv medicine at a time when your peeps in the majority were throwing them in jail just for being gay or for trying to stay alive with the only effective drugs to treat aids. Through decades of hard work the latter group convinced you, the majority, that they posed no threat, so you finally admitted them to the club. What about all the other unpopular minorities who will never get enough support to negotiate respect for their rights, and lack the media saavy to win over the hearts and minds of the majority? Your answer seems to be 'fuck em, it's not my problem since I belong to a major group'.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-01-2014, 10:26 PM
RE: "Obamacare"
(26-01-2014 05:39 PM)frankksj Wrote:  Cjlr,

OK, fine I'll provide a citation. Here are direct quotes from the political ideology thread:

Not gonna use the 'quote' tags for us? Uh... right, then. I mean, it's not direct quotes, therefore, but let's see what you got.

(26-01-2014 05:39 PM)frankksj Wrote:  1) my first post #29: "All creatures on earth are born with the natural instinct to use force to get what we want, whether it be to make someone do something we want, to stop doing something we don't want, or to give us something we want.... Libertarian [means] free to do what you want with your life without being coerced through the threat of force and violence....

Funnily enough that is how nearly anyone would define their ideals. So that's a little insufficient...

(26-01-2014 05:39 PM)frankksj Wrote:  [later post] the ONLY thing I'm complaining about is when those laws get passed at the national level so that nobody can escape. Every time I disagree with someone about some law, it's always because it's a national law.... the libertarian rule is simple: Are people being forced to do something against their will? If yes, the law must be struck down at the national level, and left up to the local jurisdictions to sort out." Thus I have provided a citation backing up my claim #1 above.

Sure.

(26-01-2014 05:39 PM)frankksj Wrote:  2) At first you disputed this by insisting you couldn't get your head the concept of 'force'. See your post #30. Then you couldn't understand what 'initiation' meant.

Your definitions were, and remain, woefully inadequate.

You appear fanatically unwilling to address this. Why my request for clarification to your original shallow and sweeping pronouncements should have developed into a ludicrous parade of lurching straw men, I can't grasp. I initially made very few statements as to my own opinions; I merely questioned you.

Said questioning in your mind was to be construed as vehement disagreement, by all indication, and the trollercoaster was set to full steam ahead.

(26-01-2014 05:39 PM)frankksj Wrote:  Then you kept ascribing false positions to me.

No. In the thread you refer to, I repeatedly asked you questions and answered yours. You repeatedly mischaracterised me so thoroughly I find it almost impossible to grant you an innocence of intent.

(26-01-2014 05:39 PM)frankksj Wrote:  In your post #124 you correctly quoted me as saying "I oppose ALL violence, the initiating of force by ANYBODY. It's irrelevant if he works for the government or not", but you couldn't accept that I actually believed what I said I did and made up this false position for me: "You oppose initiation of force unless it is necessary." It was untrue, since I oppose initiating force COMPLETELY at the federal level.

You, right now, in this very post, equivocate between your initial statement (All violence by ANYBODY) and your final statement (COMPLETELY at the federal level). Such statements are not equivalent.

This, I guess, is as close to honest as you are capable of.

In recognizing guarantees of integrity you are necessarily acknowledging the role of force as a last resort in maintaining such integrity from other actors (eg criminals).

As, indeed, I said to you at the time.

(26-01-2014 05:39 PM)frankksj Wrote:  Saying it's ok "when necessary" is meaningless since, of course, the one initiating force always thinks it's necessary.

This is disingenuous evasion.

(26-01-2014 05:39 PM)frankksj Wrote:  That's like saying "only beat your wife when it's necessary".

Loaded appeal to emotion.

Which boils down to "people do things for reasons". So thanks for that insight.

(26-01-2014 05:39 PM)frankksj Wrote:  Then you again made up a false premise, saying "A policy [of the majority] enforcing its will on [the minority] is consequence of democracy... as you have several times acknowledged!"

So... you've given up on the citations? Right, then.

(26-01-2014 05:39 PM)frankksj Wrote:  That (a) was false since I do not believe it's inevitable at the national, and (b) makes it clear that you DO believe that it IS inevitable that the majority would initiate force against minority.

This is once again not true.

My contention was that complete and perpetual unanimity in decision-making was an unattainable. Therefore - bear with me, frankksj - in abiding by the decisions of a decision-making body (such as, perhaps, a government) one cannot always have one's way. Such is the definition of society.

This is in no way equivalent to the fabrications you ascribe to me.

(26-01-2014 05:39 PM)frankksj Wrote:  However when I later restated this position saying I was "pointing out to you the cold hard facts that you are on the side of initiating force...", you clearly did dispute this replying "Citation needed" even though I already copied/pasted your prior statement.

Because I, indeed, did not say the things you imagine in your head.

(26-01-2014 05:39 PM)frankksj Wrote:  Then you AGAIN refused to accept that the issue I disagreed with you on was if the use of force should be permitted, saying "The disagreement is in when force is justified" (post #147).

Yes. Between you and any random other person there will be disagreement as to when force is justified.

Do you deny this?

(26-01-2014 05:39 PM)frankksj Wrote:  That is, just I said in my claim #2 today "That you refused to acknowledge that our disagreement boiled down to the 1 issue [of whether initiation of force should be allowed at the national level]". You kept insisting that this wasn't what I was saying, and that this wasn't the sole issue separating us, and that I must somehow really, like you, advocate initiating force at the national level.

The citation you never provided, incidentally, being the one wherein I advocate initiating force at the national level.

Notwithstanding another perennial dodge from you, whereat you appear blind to the notion that both the nature of borders and the powers of different levels of government are social creations.

(26-01-2014 05:39 PM)frankksj Wrote:  The idea of NOT forcing people to do things against their will was SOOOO foreign and incomprehensible to you, you just couldn't accept that I could possibly think like that.

Citation needed.

Look, friendo. You can't just assert false claims about other people.

Far be it from me to sway you from your firm delusions, but you have almost never been discussing things with me. You hold discussions with straw men who live in your head.

(26-01-2014 05:39 PM)frankksj Wrote:  Next I challenged you to "find examples where libertarians are 'breaking their rules'" of not forcing people to do things against their will (post #169). You never provided an example.

I can't believe I'm wasting my time with this. If you didn't get it five months ago, I fail to see why you'd get it now.

One word for you: criminals.

(26-01-2014 05:39 PM)frankksj Wrote:  And in post #222 I again challenged you: "@cjlr, let's settle this with a real world example. Why don't you pick one national policy which you disagree with libertarians on, and tell me what your view is." Again, you never provided even one example.

Are libertarians a hive mind? Apparently. Funny, that. Everyone who agrees with you shares one hive mind, and everyone who disagrees shares another. What a fascinating worldview!

(26-01-2014 05:39 PM)frankksj Wrote:  There are citations proving my claim #2.

Yeah, they do no such thing.

(26-01-2014 05:39 PM)frankksj Wrote:  3) As I mentioned re: my claim #3, it's impossible to prove a negative. So if you're disputing my claim that you never responded to those challenges I just mentioned, it's up to you to copy/paste where you actually did.

My responses to your inanity are contained in the thread in question.

I was rather patient with you, despite the persistent mischaracterisation you love to engage in.

(26-01-2014 05:39 PM)frankksj Wrote:  I don't know why I'm even wasting my time, cjlr, since you're unwilling to engage in a productive debate.

Well, if that ain't the biggest load of hypocritical projection I've seen in a long while.

(26-01-2014 05:39 PM)frankksj Wrote:  A productive debate would mean that you acknowledge the sole issue I disagree with you on is having the federal government initiate force to make people do things against their will.

No, a productive discussion would involve you being willing to explore definitions beyond the hopelessly dilettantesque "lol dictionary" when asked about such words as 'federal', 'initiate', and 'force'.

(26-01-2014 05:39 PM)frankksj Wrote:  Then you could explain why you think it's necessary, I could explain why it's not, and we could debate the pros and cons. But this is just useless bickering because you will NEVER accept that the only thing I disagree with you on is forcing people to do things against their will and not providing them a means of escape.

I do not agree with forcing people to do things against their will.

I am not sure how many times my explicit and literal statements can be so cartoonishly misinterpreted.

(26-01-2014 05:39 PM)frankksj Wrote:  I can safely predict you will STILL refuse to post even one example where you disagree with libertarians on ANY position at all that doesn't boil down to that issue, yet you STILL will not admit that this is the sole issue dividing us. I'm done re-hashing this issue.

You have built a box. It is framed by your definitions and filled by your preconceptions. You only permit discussion within this box. Asking you about the size and shape of the box confuse and anger you. I, for example, have acknowledged and explained in some detail how I find your definitions inadequate (not to mention your bizarre groupthink). You refuse to leave the confines of your dreary box, and you refuse to countenance so much as an examination of the box's structure.

That is why you are unable to hold a reasonable discussion.

(the rampant mischaracterisation and flagrant dishonesty are just bonuses)

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes cjlr's post
27-01-2014, 09:25 AM
RE: "Obamacare"
(26-01-2014 08:26 PM)frankksj Wrote:  
(26-01-2014 07:31 PM)Chas Wrote:  Subjective? No, negotiated. Like Switzerland.

See, I disagree. I don't think that if you're an unpopular minority you should have to negotiate away basic rights to get the majority to graciously allow you to exist. The system you're advocating is the one that was tried for 7,000 years of human history where the powers-that-be negotiate where they'll let people exercise free will and where they'll force them to do something.

I don't think, for example, that Galileo should have had to 'negotiate' and recant his scientific discoveries to get the majority to agree not to execute him.

So we fundamentally disagree on the role of government, like I said all along. To me, it's to defend the minority against the will of the majority so everyone can exercise free will. To you, it's the opposite, to force minorities to comply with the "negotiated" will of the majority. The difference is that in my system, where these subjective decisions are made at the state level, you and I can both live under a system that works the way we want. We can peacefully co-exist, and agree to disagree. Under your system, where there's just one set of laws nationwide, then we have to duke it out and last one standing wins. If I decided, for example, I wanted to do something that was banned nationally and that the majority would never agree to, I can't just move to a libertarian-friendly state. The only possible way an unpopular minority can live his life as he sees fit is with bloody violence. He needs to much overwhelming firepower that he can outgun the government and overpower any law enforcement agents like the Branch Davidians attempted, or, assuming that's not possible, take pot shots, like Timothy McVeigh. I think a better solution is if we just agree to disagree and peacefully co-exist in separate communities.

The system in the U.S. was created to protect the minority from the majority. That is why there are checks and balances.

There can be libertarian friendly states - there is no federal law that prevents that.

Quote:
(26-01-2014 07:31 PM)Chas Wrote:  Laws are the result of need, negotiation, and compromise among many people. And that means not everyone gets exactly what he wants, sometimes no one does.

If laws are done at the local level then YES everybody can, as a general rule, get what they want.

Now you are just dreaming, spouting ideological cant. Have you ever actually witnessed local government?
The results are often far more unfair and even repressive than at the federal level.
Why? Because there are fewer effective checks and balances.

Quote:
(26-01-2014 07:31 PM)Chas Wrote:  And my objection to the argument about doing it at the state level is what you've just said about Mississippi. What about the right of people to live anywhere in their own country without restriction? That is the argument for some measure of national laws guaranteeing basic rights to everyone. Mississippi is not allowed to break those laws because they apply to all Americans.

This is a red-herring. I said, all along, that I favored the system outlined in the US Constitution where the Federal Government's role is to limit state's ability to initiate force so it doesn't infringe on the basic human right of freedom of mobility. I've said many, many times the states should be able to do almost anything they want, so long as they don't prevent people from leaving if they find them too oppressive.

Leaving is simply not a practical answer. You seem to have little understanding of most people's economic limitations and emotional needs.

Quote:
(26-01-2014 07:31 PM)Chas Wrote:  There is no law that mandates a two-party system. The fact that there are two large ones is problematic, and the fact that they cooperate to maintain that is shameful. My suggestion to people is to clean house. Re-elect no Representatives and no Senators. Start over. Ignore parties.

Now that's something we can agree on. One of the few mistakes I think the US Founders made was a winner-takes-all vote since the spoiler effect inevitably leads to a duopoly system where you can only have 2 viable parties, and they collude. There was another thread on the use of alternative voting strategies. Sadly, I fear it's never going to change because the Republicrats are NEVER going to relinquish control. The last Presidential election showed that. Ron Paul tried to work within the framework of the duopoly by running as a Republican instead of a Libertarian, and the Republicrats simply engaged in blatant election rigging, barring his delegates from entering the convention, forcing them on a bus out of town, and then changing the election rules during the convention just to bar him. And somehow they got the media to turn off their cameras when it happened. Only RT (Russia's state-run TV) and a handful of activists published video of what happened during the convention. With that backdrop, it's never going to change.

Similarly, the Federal government is never going to give control back to the states either. So I admit that my libertarian arguments are purely hypothetical, and will likely never return again to the US unless things get so bad that it leads to another violent revolution. That's why I sadly resigned myself to simply expatriating.

I don't agree that the U.S. system leads inevitably to a two-party system.

And there really isn't a winner take all outcome assured when there is a House, a Senate, and an Administration that can be composed of different factions.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-01-2014, 10:09 AM (This post was last modified: 27-01-2014 10:39 AM by Cathym112.)
RE: "Obamacare"
A fun little thought experiment for Frank.


CJ - Tune in and watch Frank hang himself with his own leash.


Imagine for a second that I have invented a drug that will cure every single kind of cancer. And do it with one shot, with no side effects. One injection and the cancer disappears without tearing your body down to the studs. (Anyone who has had chemo or watched a love one on chemo understands that this is exactly what happens when you go through Chemo. Half the time, the Chemo kills you, not the cancer)


Now, since Frank is allllllll about free market, and I understand as the inventor of this drug, that the demand for it is highly inelastic (meaning that no matter the price, you will buy it to save your life). So I jack the price up to $100,000 for the treatment....ya know, because everyone has society's best interests at heart.

Under Frank's government, there are no patents on this drug. So any company can take the information technology from me at gunpoint

And because there is no FDA, there is absolutely no way to be certain that the drug you are purchasing elsewhere for cheaper, is in fact the same drug. That whole adage of "You get what you pay for" comes to mind.

Now, So in reality, even if the drug is stolen from me at gunpoint, I still hold the monopoly.

Even if, for argument's sake, other drug companies in other countries are able to successfully copy and manufacture the drug, there is no government interference stopping me from joining forces with the other drug companies to fix the price. That would be in all the best interest of competing drug companies in other countries to keep the price of the drug extremely high since it is an inelastic demand. Ahh yes, companies when left to their own devices, do fix prices....Case in Point

Since he is so hot on Milton Friedman, Friedman used free market polices to establish that it will do the greatest good for the greatest amount of people. Therefore, taking my drug and replicating it will do the greatest good for the greatest amount of people.

Since there are proportionally less drug companies than there are people with some form of cancer, the drug company is the minority in this scenario.

(26-01-2014 08:26 PM)frankksj Wrote:  So we fundamentally disagree on the role of government, like I said all along. To me, it's to defend the minority against the will of the majority so everyone can exercise free will.

I should have the free will to set the prices that I deem fit. It was my hard work, startup money, etc., that led to the discovery of the drug. No one should be able to take that information away from me by gunpoint. Further, it is my competitors right to also set a price that they deem fit, which may or may not be to lower the price due to the inelasticity of the demand. I mean, this is what you were saying, wasn't it?

Frank - you seem to think government interference (Keynesian) is the devil and that free market (Friedman) is god. I am not saying that sometimes government interference is not without its flaws. It most certainly is with its flaws. And consequences from their effects...

but so is a free market .

You also assume in every damn scenario you detail (in your 5,000 word essays), that all healthcare is created equal. This is not the case. To use an extreme example (you LOVE those)

Your child is born with a severe case of VACTERL Association. Which means, in addition to a kidney transplant, he also needs heart, anal, rectal, esophageal and other various surgeries.

Now, from a purely practical standpoint, the best option is to transfer him (IF and thats a big IF) he can survive the flight since he is on a ventilator and dialysis to the cheapest facility to render his care. But this is the point I've been trying to drive home to you since the beginning. Healthcare quality is not universal, and healthcare is not a practical decision. You will choose your hospital based on proximity to your current location that can give him the best care based on DOCTOR's SKILL, not on cost. If your child's life hangs in the balance....you will damn the cost. You will find him the best doctor money can buy and you will sell all your assets and submerse yourself into staggering debt to get it. You aren't going to let some Doctor who graduated from a so-so medical school, with so-so experience in pediatric cardiothoracic surgery, in so-so medical facilities come ANYWHERE near your child with a 10 blade. You are going to go for the highest rated, best education, best facilities, and highest experienced surgeon even if it means signing away all claims to your life. At least, thats what most parents I know would do...maybe you wouldn't give everything you have even on the smallest percentage of your kid living...who knows.

Healthcare is an emotional decision 90% of the time, for 90% of people. Sorry, but there is no free market for healthcare...even more so since healthcare is not universal in quality.


As an aside - Even things that are purely cosmetic will have you picking the best doctor. If your face gets mangled in a car crash - you will try to get yourself the best plastic surgeon in the US - to fix it.

Further, most people keep their healthcare in the US, not because they can't travel, but because they do not trust other systems if something goes wrong. In the US, we know we have legal recourse if a doctor amputates your arm when you went in for an appendectomy. Maybe Mexico has a good civil court system, I dunno, but when I'm faced with a medical decision, I am not about to also go and investigate the legal decisions as well.

A little rudeness and disrespect can elevate a meaningless interaction to a battle of wills and add drama to an otherwise dull day - Bill Watterson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-01-2014, 10:44 AM
RE: "Obamacare"
(27-01-2014 10:09 AM)Cathym112 Wrote:  Healthcare is an emotional decision 90% of the time, for 90% of people. Sorry, but there is no free market for healthcare...even more so since healthcare is not universal in quality.

...that seems doubtful. The vast vast vast majority of health care has nothing to do with a child born needing an anus transplant. The situations where it's life or death, are relatively rare (although most of us will face it at least once or twice).

If you need a physical, or immunizations, or treatment for some ailment not deemed life threatening, then there isn't a lot of emotion involved, and it's possible for the market to work.

If we're going to force compulsory health financing, we should follow a model more like Singapore, which forces people to put money aside in health savings accounts (which they own in their own name), rather than forcing them to buy insurance. The consumer then directly pays for their own health care using those accounts. If your account is drained and you end up in the emergency room, then public funding kicks in.

Singapore's health care is rated 2nd most cost effective in the world, because they have an actual market, and their health outcomes are better than the US as well.

Softly, softly, catchee monkey.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-01-2014, 10:57 AM (This post was last modified: 27-01-2014 11:00 AM by cjlr.)
RE: "Obamacare"
(27-01-2014 10:44 AM)toadaly Wrote:  ...that seems doubtful. The vast vast vast majority of health care has nothing to do with a child born needing an anus transplant. The situations where it's life or death, are relatively rare (although most of us will face it at least once or twice).

But those are the highest-cost situations, and so that's more relevant to a discussion of insurance. In theory everyone can accomodate regular, predictable expenditure. Insurance is protection against the literally unforseeable.

(27-01-2014 10:44 AM)toadaly Wrote:  If you need a physical, or immunizations, or treatment for some ailment not deemed life threatening, then there isn't a lot of emotion involved, and it's possible for the market to work.

It isn't an idealised classical market because you have very little control over what you need to buy.

(27-01-2014 10:44 AM)toadaly Wrote:  If we're going to force compulsory health financing, we should follow a model more like Singapore, which forces people to put money aside in health savings accounts (which they own in their own name), rather than forcing them to buy insurance. The consumer then directly pays for their own health care using those accounts. If your account is drained and you end up in the emergency room, then public funding kicks in.

Singapore's health care is rated 2nd most cost effective in the world, because they have an actual market, and their health outcomes are better than the US as well.

Wikipedia Wrote:Singapore has a non-modified universal healthcare system where the government ensures affordability of healthcare within the public health system, largely through a system of compulsory savings, subsidies, and price controls. Singapore's system uses a combination of compulsory savings from payroll deductions to provide subsidies within a nationalized health insurance plan known as Medisave. Within Medisave, each citizen accumulates funds that are individually tracked, and such funds can be pooled within and across an entire extended family. The vast majority of Singapore citizens have substantial savings in this scheme. One of three levels of subsidy is chosen by the patient at the time of the healthcare episode.

Forced contribution to savings accounts and a means-dependent subsidy are by no means "they have an actual market".

The system in Singapore seems to work quite well for them (although if your comparison is to the USA, every developed state looks pretty good), but your (admittedly very glib) one-liner seems a bit of a mischaracterisation.

And also the Bloomberg data appears based purely on life expectancy, per-capita expenditure, and percent-gdp expenditure. Which is fine so far as it goes but is ludicrously reductive in so many ways...

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: