"Obamacare"
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
27-01-2014, 12:54 PM
RE: "Obamacare"
(27-01-2014 10:57 AM)cjlr Wrote:  
(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.

There probably aren't any markets that are idealized classical markets, or not many at least.

(27-01-2014 10:57 AM)cjlr Wrote:  Forced contribution to savings accounts and a means-dependent subsidy are by no means "they have an actual market".

Sure there is, for the things paid for by the savings accounts. It's still the consumer's money, even if they are only allowed to spend it on health care services, and they still have an incentive to find value in medical care.

There just aren't many, if any, 'pure' markets anywhere. Everything is regulated, affected by subsidies, etc., so I'm not sure why the obsessions with purity of markets.

Softly, softly, catchee monkey.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-01-2014, 12:58 PM
RE: "Obamacare"
(27-01-2014 10:58 AM)Cathym112 Wrote:  I disagree, Toadaly.

when the counterfeit drug industry tops 32 billion dollars, I am always hesitant about buying medications from foreign countries. When I got sick in Costa Rica while on vacation, I refused to buy any over the counter antibiotics. (no script needed there). Why? Because I had no way of knowing what the hell I was taking....

What's that got to do with insurance vs. savings accounts?

Softly, softly, catchee monkey.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-01-2014, 01:10 PM
RE: "Obamacare"
(27-01-2014 12:37 PM)frankksj Wrote:  
(27-01-2014 10:09 AM)Cathym112 Wrote:  Under Frank's government, there are no patents on this drug. So any company can take the information technology from me at gunpoint

ROFL. There you go. I have said a million times that libertarians believe the role of government is to BLOCK the initiation of force, to PREVENT anyone and everyone from forcing anybody to do anything at gunpoint. An effective strawman is a subtle variation on your opponent's position. But when you attribute the EXACT OPPOSITE position, that's the lamest and most useless strawman imaginable. Hello, Cathy, YOU are on the side of forcing people to do things at gunpoint. I'm on the opposite side.

Not literal force, Frank. You equate most government laws (taxes for instance), to be forcing someone to do something at gunpoint.

copying and replicating my drug would be applying the same concept. Taking the information at gunpoint since I would be powerless to stop them....no patents, remember?



(27-01-2014 10:09 AM)Cathym112 Wrote:  there is no government interference stopping me from joining forces with the other drug companies to fix the price.... companies when left to their own devices, do fix prices....
Quote:And how do they generally do that? Oh, yeah. Government regulation. Milton Friedman regularly challenged people to find monopolies among the thousands that have existed that did NOT come through government privilege. I've seen only one, DeBeers. The other 99% all got their monopoly by colluding with the government. So, your solution to the problem is, well, more of the problem.


interesting....so the government hasn't established Anti-Trust laws to break down these monopolies that were created in a free market? Consider

Quote:When companies collude to keep prices and profits artificially high, it is nearly always temporary because some scrappy new guy is always willing to offer the same product at a better price and get a piece of that pie.


interesting....Consider so the price-fixing scandal of ADM didn't last more than 10 years before it was only brought to light by an whistleblower? If the average time frame for price fixing is almost a decade...thats a long time for a cancer patient to wait. They will be dead by then.

Quote: The ONLY way to maintain the artificially high prices is to block new entrants from entering. I have a strong suspicion that the collusion in the ADM case you referenced ultimately involved using the government to block new entrants, through patents or some other means. Otherwise, if they were making billions in profit on lysine, new companies would have started making lysine and the price fixing would have quickly been broken up.

I guess you would think that if you were a conspiracy theorist. Whats the matter, Frank...I thought you were for regulations that protected against fraud violations. Surely you can't just let anyone manufacture and produce an additive for your food.


(27-01-2014 10:09 AM)Cathym112 Wrote:  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?
Quote:WTF? Can you make up your mind? In the same post you wrote: “Under Frank's government... any company can take the information technology from me at gunpoint” and then followed it up with “No one should be able to take that information away from me by gunpoint.... I mean, this is what you were saying, wasn't it?” Hello, Cathy, you've ascribed opposite positions to me WITHIN THE SAME POST!?

That isn't what that said at all. I should have the free will to set my prices of a product I designed based on my free will. If my competitors also set their prices according to their will, which may or may not lower the price do to the inelastic demand for the product (is this a concept you don't understand?). By setting any kind of regulation in the market to prevent price fixing, you are effectively forcing a company do to something "against their will at gunpoint"


Quote: You are the one defending a system that forces me to participate in it against my will.


for the umpteenth fucking time. You are not forced to participate in this system. You may pay the tax to be excused from it. Unless of course, paying taxes is also forcing you do so something at gunpoint 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, 01:11 PM
RE: "Obamacare"
(27-01-2014 11:04 AM)Cathym112 Wrote:  My point was that most people make decisions on healthcare not based on cost alone, but on a coalescence of other factors, including emotional comfort level of the doctors ability.

Most people could care less about cost, because a 3rd party is paying. But, is that still true when they do pay directly?

Maybe so in the case of emergency care, but what about non-emergency care, which represents the vast majority of medical services?

We don't have to play hypotheticals, because there are medical services which are paid for directly by consumers - cosmetic procedures in particular. You can get lasik done for around $2500. But cataract surgery, which isn't a lot different, is closer to $10,000. Cataract surgery is often fully or at least partially paid by third parties. That's the difference.

Softly, softly, catchee monkey.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-01-2014, 01:12 PM
RE: "Obamacare"
@Chas,

Here's a quick question for you. Imagine a scale measuring the concentration of power. On the one side, power is completely dispersed, so each individual makes his own decisions. On the opposite side, power is completely concentrated, so one individual makes all decisions for the world.

At this point, the US is obviously somewhere in between those 2 extremes. If you had to move the needle one notch one direction or the other, which would you choose? Say 'preserve the status quo' wasn't an option, and you had to choose between: (a) decentralizing power by returning decision making the 50 states, or (b) centralize it more by having one continental government for all the Americas. Which would you choose?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes frankksj's post
27-01-2014, 01:14 PM
RE: "Obamacare"
(27-01-2014 12:58 PM)toadaly Wrote:  
(27-01-2014 10:58 AM)Cathym112 Wrote:  I disagree, Toadaly.

when the counterfeit drug industry tops 32 billion dollars, I am always hesitant about buying medications from foreign countries. When I got sick in Costa Rica while on vacation, I refused to buy any over the counter antibiotics. (no script needed there). Why? Because I had no way of knowing what the hell I was taking....

What's that got to do with insurance vs. savings accounts?


It doesn't. This was in response to your comment that there isn't an emotional aspect to your medical decisions. I wasn't talking about insurance. I was talking about basing your medical decisions on who you *think* will give you the best care....not on the cheapest.

(27-01-2014 10:44 AM)toadaly Wrote:  
(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.

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, 01:20 PM
RE: "Obamacare"
(27-01-2014 01:11 PM)toadaly Wrote:  
(27-01-2014 11:04 AM)Cathym112 Wrote:  My point was that most people make decisions on healthcare not based on cost alone, but on a coalescence of other factors, including emotional comfort level of the doctors ability.

Most people could care less about cost, because a 3rd party is paying. But, is that still true when they do pay directly?

Maybe so in the case of emergency care, but what about non-emergency care, which represents the vast majority of medical services?

We don't have to play hypotheticals, because there are medical services which are paid for directly by consumers - cosmetic procedures in particular. You can get lasik done for around $2500. But cataract surgery, which isn't a lot different, is closer to $10,000. Cataract surgery is often fully or at least partially paid by third parties. That's the difference.

Correct. There is also lasik surgery you can get for $5,000. I will probably pay more money for the better doctor....since my eye sight is at stake.

You can get your boobs done for as little as $2,000. Or you can go to a top surgeon for $10,000. Its the same procedure...why would anyone choose the $10,000 procedure over the exact same thing at $2,000? Because people use emotions to determine who they want to be their doctor. I would go to the more reputable and higher demand doctor (and more expensive because he is a higher demand), to have a better chance of having better results.

You get what you pay for.

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, 01:27 PM
RE: "Obamacare"
(27-01-2014 01:10 PM)Cathym112 Wrote:  Not literal force, Frank. You equate most government laws (taxes for instance), to be forcing someone to do something at gunpoint. copying and replicating my drug would be applying the same concept. Taking the information at gunpoint since I would be powerless to stop them....no patents, remember?

Huh? I equate "telling someone to do something or else they will be forced to comply at gunpoint" to "forcing someone to do something at gunpoint." Chas and Cjlr understand what I'm saying, imo, and are just trying to avoid addressing the issue. But you seem totally dazed and confused. You can't even get your head around what 'gunpoint' is. How is having 'no patents' the same thing as 'at gunpoint'???? Lots of countries have no patent laws, but don't allow people to take stuff from you at gunpoint. They're 2 totally unrelated concepts.

(27-01-2014 01:10 PM)Cathym112 Wrote:  Interesting....so the government hasn't established Anti-Trust laws to break down these monopolies that were created in a free market? Consider

Correct. The government established Anti-Trust laws to take down monopolies that were created by the government. If you dispute this, name one example, besides DeBeers, where a natural monopoly lasted without government assistance.

(27-01-2014 01:10 PM)Cathym112 Wrote:  Interesting....Consider so the price-fixing scandal of ADM didn't last more than 10 years before it was only brought to light by an whistleblower?

Why didn't any other companies start producing lysine? How much do you want to bet it was because of the government?

(27-01-2014 01:10 PM)Cathym112 Wrote:  I thought you were for regulations that protected against fraud violations.

You're confused again. Fraud and regulation are not the same thing.

(27-01-2014 01:10 PM)Cathym112 Wrote:  Surely you can't just let anyone manufacture and produce an additive for your food.

And so what do you get when you "don't just let anyone manufacture a product"? A monopoly. Voila. Now you see how monopolies are formed. You are causing the problem you want to cure. I do believe we SHOULD let anyone manufacture and produce an additive for your food--however we must not allow them to defraud consumers by misrepresenting the product.

(27-01-2014 01:10 PM)Cathym112 Wrote:  By setting any kind of regulation in the market to prevent price fixing, you are effectively forcing a company do to something "against their will at gunpoint"

Fine. And your point is? I keep saying that all this regulation is CREATING the price fixing problem. I don't see how you're refuting that.

(27-01-2014 01:10 PM)Cathym112 Wrote:  You are not forced to participate in this system. You may pay the tax to be excused from it. Unless of course, paying taxes is also forcing you do so something at gunpoint as well.

Well, let me ask you... What happens if I refuse to comply? Say that I get a letter from the IRS saying 'pay taxes or else', but I refuse, and no matter what methods they try, I just keep refusing. And eventually they tell me to serve 5 years in prison. But I STILL refuse. What happens? Will a gun ever get pointed at my head?

Now, if I told you to give me all your money, and that if you didn't resist no harm would come to you and my gun would remain in my pocket, but that if you continually resisted I would point my gun at your head until you complied, would you characterize that as me forcing you to do something at gunpoint? Or would you continue to insist this wasn't the case since, as long you did what I told you to and didn't resist you wouldn't see the gun?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-01-2014, 01:29 PM
RE: "Obamacare"
(27-01-2014 12:45 PM)frankksj Wrote:  Q: Name one federal policy we disagree on that does not boil down to you wanting to force people to do things against their will.

(27-01-2014 12:31 PM)cjlr Wrote:  while agreement in principle is certainly possible, agreement on practical reality is more elusive?

YES, so state one practical, real world example.

Environmental regulations.

You may note that this is the response I originally gave you.

Months ago.

(27-01-2014 12:45 PM)frankksj Wrote:  It is NOT stupid nor tedious to state WHAT specifically you disagree with me on.

It is not hard to find agreement on trite boilerplate statements like "coercion is bad" and "free will is good".

That's why we don't disagree on such statements.

(27-01-2014 12:45 PM)frankksj Wrote:  All it takes is one sentence, like "I feel there should be federal drug laws".

"Drug laws".

That is an incredibly vague and meaningless statement. That would in no way suffice.

If that counts as 'specific' to you, then no wonder you can't hold an honest conversation.

(27-01-2014 12:45 PM)frankksj Wrote:  In one sentence we know what we're debating. But you go on and on and I still have no idea what it is you disagree with me on. THAT is stupid and tedious.

Guy.

You don't get it.

I asked you questions.

You threw up a forest of straw men and accused me of endorsing each of them.

In fact, you insisted you could cite where I had said things I had clearly not said. Indeed, you said that you could do this because you knew what I had "really" meant, never mind what my actual statements were.

That's outright delusional.

(27-01-2014 12:45 PM)frankksj Wrote:  Agreed, this is a dead-end ride and I'm getting off. I've asked the question a hundred times.

And I have said nearly every time that I find the parameters of the question insufficiently framed.

This utterly escapes you.

I cannot decide whether you are unable to understand the difference, or whether you simply are unwilling.

(27-01-2014 12:45 PM)frankksj Wrote:  You find it so uncomfortable to answer that all you can do is instead ask me more stupid, ludicrous questions, like "well is it force if someone points a laser gun to your head, since photons don't have matter, and therefore it's not physical force?"

Remember how you don't know anything about physics?

But no, that's a perfectly valid question. What about coercive measures by one actor against another that are not covered by your idiotic "lol dictionary" starting point?

You have not answered that.

(27-01-2014 12:45 PM)frankksj Wrote:  You seem to be able to come up with an endless array of stupid questions for my question, to stall having to answer the question. I'm done with this. We're going in circles. If there was ever any chance that you'd answer the question you'd have done it months ago.

And I was entirely correct in my evaluation.

You are manifestly incapable of leaving your box. You are utterly unable to engage with others on anything but purely your own short-sighted and self-absorbed terms.

And that is why attempting to discuss things with you always ends up in a dead end.

... 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, 01:35 PM
RE: "Obamacare"
*sigh* you just don't understand cause and effect, do you?

Don't pay taxes = get indicted on tax evasion charges

still refuse to pay taxes = get indicted again on tax evasion charge (probably sentenced to longer)

still refuse to pay taxes = process repeats

Refuse or resist arrest = forceful detainment

IS NOT the same thing as

refusing to pay taxes = gun to head.

you are failing, miserably, to make the connection that resisting arrest is what leads to the gun pointing. Not the evasion of taxes.

If you do not resist arrest, there will not be a gun pointed at you at all.

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
[+] 1 user Likes Cathym112's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: