[Evil Sylvain]

Sure read it.

Then you can tell me if his supposed premise is sound or the pitfalls he discovers stem from faulty implementation.

The existence of a book on amazon still doesn't mean complete and totally unhindered free market dominance is a good thing ya know.

Of course not. But from memory the author was able to show that when people cried monopoly (the classic cases you referred to) prices were still going down, and not up, despite those corporations being huge and that those who benefited from the antitrust regulation were smaller or less efficient competitors (the self-interest groups) who wanted a law that would come down on bigger ones, not the population at large.

 

[kidwoo]

Of course not. But from memory the author was able to show that when people cried monopoly (the classic cases you referred to) prices were still going down, and not up, despite those corporations being huge and that those who benefited from the antitrust regulation were smaller or less efficient competitors (the self-interest groups) who wanted a law that would come down on bigger ones, not the population at large.

So then what do you think about the current private health insurance industry that benefits from antitrust exemption?

Are you paying less for health insurance these days? I sure as hell am not. And every time I get hurt I'm chasing down more and more phone numbers to get shlt paid. A few years ago the ONLY insurance I could get without just buying my own policy was Kaiser. The nearest Kaiser facility is 3 hours away from me. Thanks to the deal Kaiser had with my employer. That's business. Not customer service.

Besides. What's he say about the influence of those companies on the government itself? I'm guessing not much.

That guy's a shill. I looked up a few articles he's written and he's one of the dolts praising W earlier in this decade for tax cuts saving the economy from the recession started in the 90s. You know the story of the deficit from there......... I'm sure he's writing on the evils of big government spending these days.

 

[BurlyShirley]

Recently my boss, whom I have zero respect for, has taken to making a bit of political commentary. He doesn't really discuss any issues, he just calls Obama a Cocksucker, Asshole or any other names that are not even close to being appropriate for use in a work environment. These outbursts are done in front of large groups of people, not just his 'buds'. I guess he just thinks everyone feels the same way he does, he does only say it in front of white people.

I work with a guy (fellow biologist who I like very much as a person) who doesn't believe in evolution. I asked him once about dinosaurs and the bible.... he said the bible mentions something about a "leviathan," and something about the inaccuracy of carbon dating... to which I replied, "even if it's off by 500,000 years, we're still easily outside of anything on a biblical time scale"
He just sort of shrugged.
He says he doesn't really buy into evolution, but that he understands the theory. Im not sure he does.
What are ya gonna do?

 

[Evil Sylvain]

So then what do you think about the current private health insurance industry that benefits from antitrust exemption?

Are you paying less for health insurance these days? I sure as hell am not. And every time I get hurt I'm chasing down more and more phone numbers to get shlt paid. A few years ago the ONLY insurance I could get without just buying my own policy was Kaiser. The nearest Kaiser facility is 3 hours away from me. Thanks to the deal Kaiser had with my employer. That's business. Not customer service.

Besides that you get hurt often apparently (I assume that if a person is a higher risk his insurance will cost him more), do you think that legislation can affect your health insurance costs? Correct me if I am wrong:
-A physician needs a medical license to practice in each state.
-You cannot get a health insurance from a company in another state.
-If you have a health insurance plan at work it is tied to your job and your employer can deduct the benefits he gives *you* on *his* income taxes.
-If you are self-employed you can get a private health insurance and it is tax deductible.
-If you work for a company that does not offer a health insurance plan and you want to get a private health insurance for yourself it won't be tax deductible for you.

Besides. What's he say about the influence of those companies on the government itself? I'm guessing not much.

I don't know about him but you should know my answer. Decentralization and smaller governments would help cure this. Otherwise, unsurprisingly, they smell the near infinite money supply of the federal gvt:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/09/12/AR2009091202932.html

That guy's a shill. I looked up a few articles he's written and he's one of the dolts praising W earlier in this decade for tax cuts saving the economy from the recession started in the 90s. You know the story of the deficit from there.........

He's clearly wrong. The Clinton tax cuts of 1997 actually accelerated the growth started earlier when the economy was recovering from the previous recession.

I'm sure he's writing on the evils of big government spending these days.

I hope he does.

 

[kidwoo]

Besides that you get hurt often apparently (I assume that if a person is a higher risk his insurance will cost him more), do you think that legislation can affect your health insurance costs?

I don't get hurt often. Nice assumption And I never seek medical attention for anything other than physical injuries. It has nothing to do with my insurance 'use' and everything to do with contracts made by my employer.

Legislation absolutely can affect the runaway, negligent bait and switch tactics of insurance companies finding new ways to fvck people for profit. The benevolent hand of the free market doesn't exist.

sorry

Decentralization and smaller governments would help cure this.

Not really. A smaller more effective government perhaps.

I know that's your answer to everything but you seem to always forget the examples staring you in the face.

Over time, with no regulation, how many insurance companies do you think would exist in this country in 20 years? What normally happens when huge companies want to get hugererer?




also.......you live in canada right?

 

[Evil Sylvain]

Legislation absolutely can affect the runaway, negligent bait and switch tactics of insurance companies finding new ways to fvck people for profit.

It's the purpose of any businesses to make profits from the veggie producer selling at the market to Yeti Cycles to Exxon. It's the only way they can reward themselves if self-employed, their investors who have taken risks and to re-invest in order to grow. In all likelihood you would be no different if you were to start your own. Why do you think making profit is to "fvck" people?

The benevolent hand of the free market doesn't exist.

sorry

You are right. Smith mentioned "invisible hand" - not "benevolent". And it does exist just because you do exist as a consumer along with millions of others. And the voluntary action of all those people dealing together combined and its results is the invisible hand at work. That's only what it means. And it is something that cannot be defeated. Any interferences will be worked around eventually, legally or not (black market), as long as there is consumer demand. (There was a black market even in the USSR for jeans for example.)

Not really. A smaller more effective government perhaps.

How do you measure the "effectiveness" of a government?

I know that's your answer to everything but you seem to always forget the examples staring you in the face.

What is staring at me and you is that corporations will agglutinate where money is plentiful and where they can influence regulations to have access to that stash of taxpayers' money. You think more government (who print more money for bailouts if we talk about the federal one) regulation is the answer. I think the opposite.

Over time, with no regulation, how many insurance companies do you think would exist in this country in 20 years? What normally happens when huge companies want to get hugererer?

In this day and age they open an office in Washington DC for lobbying and contribute to both party political campaigns.

BTW, I did not say "no regulation". If you remove the barriers I asked you to confirm in my previous post I am certain that it would result in better rates as it would give the consumer the choice to choose any insurances companies from any states. And it does not matter if a few get huge as long as the rates either go down or stay low.

For example, if my understanding was correct, why does the gvt does not let you get the tax deduction instead of your employer for health insurance? That would give you the choice to choose your own insurance company and even better if you could choose from companies wherever they are in the US. And an employee would have no fear of losing his job or changing job because his insurance coverage is tied to this particular employer.

also.......you live in canada right?

Yes in Québec more precisely.

 

[Silver]

Can you pull up some of Adam Smith's thoughts on monopolists, please?

 

[kidwoo]

It's the purpose of any businesses to make profits from the veggie producer selling at the market to Yeti Cycles to Exxon. It's the only way they can reward themselves if self-employed, their investors who have taken risks and to re-invest in order to grow. In all likelihood you would be no different if you were to start your own. Why do you think making profit is to "fvck" people?

Don't be so dense. We're talking about the business of keeping people alive. At one point there was an inkling of humanity in the industry that didn't so voraciously pursue its own growth as it does now.

And it does not matter if a few get huge as long as the rates either go down or stay low.

Seriously man. You're adorable. You really do believe in magic. What the hell is the incentive to provide low rates if two companies buy up the competition (we're at about 4-5 right now, moving between states doesn't mean shlt), and mutually maintain a standard? Because that's pretty much what happens in EVERY INDUSTRY.

And I wasn't misquoting adam smith. I meant benevolent because we're talking about keeping people from dying. Health care should have a benevolent component. If that can't be done privately than get it out their hands.

Some industries should not be run by the same standards of balls out profit as others when people die as the by product. Sorry you don't see the difference.

For example, if my understanding was correct, why does the gvt does not let you get the tax deduction instead of your employer for health insurance? That would give you the choice to choose your own insurance company and even better if you could choose from companies wherever they are in the US. And an employee would have no fear of losing his job or changing job because his insurance coverage is tied to this particular employer.

What the hell does a few thousand dollars in tax deductions in your ideal private plan have to do with the inherently flawed system of denying people medical treatment for profit? It doesn't matter who buys the damn policy. They pretty much all suck unless you've got enough money that it's a moot point anyway. That's what you can't seem to understand. Because they are all owned by the same damn people.

 

[stevew]

Dante, when it comes to Dubya, the appropriate question would be "who would you want to share your crayons with?"

fixed.

 

[Inclag]

It's the purpose of any businesses to make profits from the veggie producer selling at the market to Yeti Cycles to Exxon. It's the only way they can reward themselves if self-employed, their investors who have taken risks and to re-invest in order to grow. In all likelihood you would be no different if you were to start your own. Why do you think making profit is to "fvck" people?



You are right. Smith mentioned "invisible hand" - not "benevolent". And it does exist just because you do exist as a consumer along with millions of others. And the voluntary action of all those people dealing together combined and its results is the invisible hand at work. That's only what it means. And it is something that cannot be defeated. Any interferences will be worked around eventually, legally or not (black market), as long as there is consumer demand. (There was a black market even in the USSR for jeans for example.)


How do you measure the "effectiveness" of a government?


What is staring at me and you is that corporations will agglutinate where money is plentiful and where they can influence regulations to have access to that stash of taxpayers' money. You think more government (who print more money for bailouts if we talk about the federal one) regulation is the answer. I think the opposite.



In this day and age they open an office in Washington DC for lobbying and contribute to both party political campaigns.

BTW, I did not say "no regulation". If you remove the barriers I asked you to confirm in my previous post I am certain that it would result in better rates as it would give the consumer the choice to choose any insurances companies from any states. And it does not matter if a few get huge as long as the rates either go down or stay low.

For example, if my understanding was correct, why does the gvt does not let you get the tax deduction instead of your employer for health insurance? That would give you the choice to choose your own insurance company and even better if you could choose from companies wherever they are in the US. And an employee would have no fear of losing his job or changing job because his insurance coverage is tied to this particular employer.


Yes in Québec more precisely.

Evil Sylvain needs to buy a new car. He chooses to purchase a $20K vehicle. He does not buy a $200K supercar.

Evil Sylvain has cancer. Does he go for the $5K drugs to make himself comfortable until he dies, or does he opt for the $200K treatment that will likely cure him?

Rational

 

[J-Dubs]

The gov't does let you deduct medical expenses if they reach more than 7% of your adjusted income.

So what happens when companies get huge and the prices don't go or stay low? What's the Libertarian to do then? Do they turn to the gov't against their principles?

 

[jonKranked]

Sylvain, Kidwoo makes a very good point. The practice of medicine has been around for thousands of years, in some way shape or form. Familiar with the Hippocratic Oath? Medicine is about saving people. Making money is secondary. It's only been within the last few decades that the insurance industry has made a marked shift from doing what's right, to doing what's profitable.

 

[ire]

Decentralization and smaller governments would help cure this. Otherwise, unsurprisingly, they smell the near infinite money supply of the federal gvt:

This will not lower insurance costs. We have been moving towards a model of centralization of insurance regulation through the NAIC/NIPR. Before the Federal government will regulate the insurance industry rather than the states. What happens is that each state creates their own rules and this means that an insurance company has to build different products, and do business differently, in each state. In this model you cannot gain the efficiencies from volumes. Instead of producing one product that will sell in all 50 states you end up with 20 or 30 products to accomplish the same goal.

I know all of this from experience, I worked on the regulation side in Oregon for several years.

 

[Pesqueeb]

Sylvain, Kidwoo makes a very good point. The practice of medicine has been around for thousands of years, in some way shape or form. Familiar with the Hippocratic Oath? Medicine is about saving people. Making money is secondary. It's only been within the last few decades that the insurance industry has made a marked shift from doing what's right, to doing what's profitable.

linky

How about this for a New Rule: Not everything in America has to make a profit. It used to be that there were some services and institutions so vital to our nation that they were exempt from market pressures. Some things we just didn't do for money. The United States always defined capitalism, but it didn't used to define us. But now it's becoming all that we are.

Did you know, for example, that there was a time when being called a "war profiteer" was a bad thing? But now our war zones are dominated by private contractors and mercenaries who work for corporations. There are more private contractors in Iraq than American troops, and we pay them generous salaries to do jobs the troops used to do for themselves *-- like laundry. War is not supposed to turn a profit, but our wars have become boondoggles for weapons manufacturers and connected civilian contractors.

Prisons used to be a non-profit business, too. And for good reason --* who the hell wants to own a prison? By definition you're going to have trouble with the tenants. But now prisons are big business. A company called the Corrections Corporation of America is on the New York Stock Exchange, which is convenient since that's where all the real crime is happening anyway. The CCA and similar corporations actually lobby Congress for stiffer sentencing laws so they can lock more people up and make more money. That's why America has the world;s largest prison population *-- because actually rehabilitating people would have a negative impact on the bottom line.

Television news is another area that used to be roped off from the profit motive. When Walter Cronkite died last week, it was odd to see news anchor after news anchor talking about how much better the news coverage was back in Cronkite's day. I thought, "Gee, if only you were in a position to do something about it."

But maybe they aren't. Because unlike in Cronkite's day, today's news has to make a profit like all the other divisions in a media conglomerate. That's why it wasn't surprising to see the CBS Evening News broadcast live from the Staples Center for two nights this month, just in case Michael Jackson came back to life and sold Iran nuclear weapons. In Uncle Walter's time, the news division was a loss leader. Making money was the job of The Beverly Hillbillies. And now that we have reporters moving to Alaska to hang out with the Palin family, the news is The Beverly Hillbillies.

And finally, there's health care. It wasn't that long ago that when a kid broke his leg playing stickball, his parents took him to the local Catholic hospital, the nun put a thermometer in his mouth, the doctor slapped some plaster on his ankle and you were done. The bill was $1.50, plus you got to keep the thermometer.

But like everything else that's good and noble in life, some Wall Street wizard decided that hospitals could be big business, so now they're run by some bean counters in a corporate plaza in Charlotte. In the U.S. today, three giant for-profit conglomerates own close to 600 hospitals and other health care facilities. They're not hospitals anymore; they're Jiffy Lubes with bedpans. America's largest hospital chain, HCA, was founded by the family of Bill Frist, who perfectly represents the Republican attitude toward health care: it's not a right, it's a racket. The more people who get sick and need medicine, the higher their profit margins. Which is why they're always pushing the Jell-O.

Because medicine is now for-profit we have things like "recision," where insurance companies hire people to figure out ways to deny you coverage when you get sick, even though you've been paying into your plan for years.

When did the profit motive become the only reason to do anything? When did that become the new patriotism? Ask not what you could do for your country, ask what's in it for Blue Cross/Blue Shield.

If conservatives get to call universal health care "socialized medicine," I get to call private health care "soulless vampires making money off human pain." The problem with President Obama's health care plan isn't socialism, it's capitalism.

And if medicine is for profit, and war, and the news, and the penal system, my question is: what's wrong with firemen? Why don't they charge? They must be commies. Oh my God! That explains the red trucks!

 

[jonKranked]

linky

Good find. Must spread rep.

 

[dante]

Interestingly enough, we don't require our fire departments, police departments, USCG, the military, etc to turn a profit since their main job is keeping us safe. However, doctors/insurance companies/hospitals (whose job is also to keep us safe) for some reason must turn a profit.

I'm not advocating single-payer healthcare (any more than forbidding you from getting additional private security for your residence), but a base layer of care that anyone and everyone can fall back on should be a constitutional right. And no, the Emergency Room doesn't count, since the last I checked you couldn't show up for weekly chemo treatments at your local ER.

 

[Pesqueeb]

Alan Grayson FTW!