Atlas Shrugged

[joe blowe]

Just watched 'Atlas Shrugged', the movie.
Wonderful. So timely.

[xor eax, eax]

I watched it and laughed my ass off. Do you think a bunch of overpaid executives striking would have negative impact on the economy? High level executives who do nothing more than attend meetings and blather on are not the people who make the world turn.

[Joe McCarthy]

I watched it and laughed my ass off. Do you think a bunch of overpaid executives striking would have negative impact on the economy? High level executives who do nothing more than attend meetings and blather on are not the people who make the world turn.

Hierarchical organization makes societies function economically. Even if one believes that alternative systems are workable, suddenly removing 'bosses' would create chaos, no doubt.

Just look what happened when Zimbabwe left the farms without proper direction.

[xor eax, eax]

Hierarchical organization makes societies function economically. Even if one believes that alternative systems are workable, suddenly removing 'bosses' would create chaos, no doubt.

Just look what happened when Zimbabwe left the farms without proper direction.
Hierarchy is natural and necessary, no doubt. As someone who is an adherent of elite theory I fully realize that fact. My problem with this movie is that it failed to acknowledge the necessity anything but the top of the pyramid; just as the masses need leadership, leadership needs the masses. A society comprising of nothing but leadership ("Atlantis" in this case) would not be functional, and anyone claiming otherwise is absolutely oblivious.

[Joe McCarthy]

Hierarchy is natural and necessary, no doubt. As someone who is an adherent of elite theory I fully realize that fact. My problem with this movie is that it failed to acknowledge the necessity anything but the top of the pyramid; just as the masses need leadership, leadership needs the masses. A society comprising of nothing but leadership ("Atlantis" in this case) would not be functional, and anyone claiming otherwise is absolutely oblivious.

I don't disagree with that, but Rand was mounting a counter-attack against socialists who constantly berated 'the wealthy' as parasites and good for nothings, and she was doing us a service in reminding us they're nothing of the kind.

[xor eax, eax]

I don't disagree with that, but Rand was mounting a counter-attack against socialists who constantly berated 'the wealthy' as parasites and good for nothings, and she was doing us a service in reminding us they're nothing of the kind.
Rand was from a different era--the threat of socialism is now virtually nonexistent in America, and as such her writings are not as relevant. This is especially true when considering one of the greatest threats to our quality of life: the financial elite. If you don't consider them parasitic, we disagree.

[Joe McCarthy]

Rand was from a different era--the threat of socialism is now virtually nonexistent in America, and as such her writings are not as relevant. This is especially true when considering one of the greatest threats to our quality of life: the financial elite. If you don't consider them parasitic, we disagree.

Rand published Atlas Shrugged in 1957. Is the socialist threat less relevant under Barack Obama than Dwight Eisenhower?

[xor eax, eax]

Rand published Atlas Shrugged in 1957. Is the socialist threat less relevant under Barack Obama than Dwight Eisenhower?
Considering that every major socialist/communist government has collapsed, I'd say the threat of socialism is less present than ever before. Obama definitely isn't going to usher in a socialist regime with his center-right policies.

[joe blowe]

Considering that every major socialist/communist government has collapsed, I'd say the threat of socialism is less present than ever before. Obama definitely isn't going to usher in a socialist regime with his center-right policies.
----------------------------------------------

a lot of people today live in a parallel universe.
the USA is being socialized at great speed right now. All the necessary components have been put in place for Communist America.
Let's hope for a miracle.

[xor eax, eax]

----------------------------------------------

a lot of people today live in a parallel universe.
the USA is being socialized at great speed right now. All the necessary components have been put in place for Communist America.
Let's hope for a miracle.
Care to elaborate? How is it being socialized? What are these components?

[joe blowe]

http://www.rense.com/general80/cpn.htm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=niJAkR_6tKQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f6xELjQPsuw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yREOUxo6Qdc
I can go on for a long time, but it is getting late.

[Joe McCarthy]

Considering that every major socialist/communist government has collapsed, I'd say the threat of socialism is less present than ever before. Obama definitely isn't going to usher in a socialist regime with his center-right policies.

The threat of socialism, if anything, was lessened in 1957 due to the odious example set by the Communist bloc. The threat then was mass war not a fall to revolutionary Marxism from within. Today though Obama has done what Ike never could have, or even wanted to - imposed a form of socialized medicine on the US.

[Oreka Bailoak]

I had no idea a movie was recently made about this book. Thanks for the heads up. :thumb001:

[xor eax, eax]

http://www.rense.com/general80/cpn.htm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=niJAkR_6tKQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f6xELjQPsuw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yREOUxo6Qdc
I can go on for a long time, but it is getting late.
You could go on, you say? Funny, because you didn't really "go on" at all--you posted a few links.

Here's my responses to them:

1) This page is absolute shit; I'll address the claim that congress is seizing control of all water if you can find a more reputable source. It's worth noting that the "article" is from 2/7/8. They're moving rather slow, eh?

2) Nothing more than a powerless politician resting on the fringe. Oil companies aren't getting nationalized. If anything, incidents like the deep water horizon explosion have shown us that their influence on our government is tremendous.

3) Yet another politician pandering to the masses. Native Americans will remain a marginalized minority, don't worry.

4) TARP, the stimulus package, financial bailouts, etc aren't socialism, but rather massive wealth transfers to the elite. They're actually great examples of the potential for parasitic behavior amongst the wealthy.


The threat of socialism, if anything, was lessened in 1957 due to the odious example set by the Communist bloc. The threat then was mass war not a fall to revolutionary Marxism from within. Today though Obama has done what Ike never could have, or even wanted to - imposed a form of socialized medicine on the US.
Healthcare reform (or rather insurance reform) was a windfall to the insurance industry. The mandate requires us to purchase private insurance; it's essentially a private tax. That is not socialization in any capacity.

[Turkey]

That was the most zionist and leftist (at the same time) twisted shit I've ever witnessed

[xor eax, eax]

That was the most zionist and leftist (at the same time) twisted shit I've ever witnessed
What was?

[Turkey]

What was?
I got my movies mixed up lol.

I was thinking about another about a railway company. Jew infested shit.

haven't seen atlas shrugged yet.

[Odoacer]

Healthcare reform (or rather insurance reform) was a windfall to the insurance industry. The mandate requires us to purchase private insurance; it's essentially a private tax. That is not socialization in any capacity.

That's why the insurance industry opposed Obamacare (http://voices.washingtonpost.com/health-care-reform/2009/11/health_insurance_companies_urg.html), I guess. :rolleyes:

[Joe McCarthy]

Healthcare reform (or rather insurance reform) was a windfall to the insurance industry. The mandate requires us to purchase private insurance; it's essentially a private tax. That is not socialization in any capacity.

Obamacare meets the definition of socialized medicine. It is government regulation of health services and subsidies derived from taxation.

[xor eax, eax]

edit: double post

[xor eax, eax]

That's why the insurance industry opposed Obamacare (http://voices.washingtonpost.com/health-care-reform/2009/11/health_insurance_companies_urg.html), I guess. :rolleyes:
Because popular support was overwhelming, they made the best out of it by lobbying for an individual mandate. It was their idea, afterall. (http://www.ahip.org/content/pressrelease.aspx?docid=25126)


Obamacare meets the definition of socialized medicine. It is government regulation of health services and subsidies derived from taxation.
Maybe if you're working with an extremely loose definition of socialism. Do you view all government regulations of private industry as socialism? The insurance companies are still private and the subsidies are going to private companies. Once again it is an example of wealth being transferred from the government to the wealthy. Not exactly socialism, in my opinion.

[Joe McCarthy]

Maybe if you're working with an extremely loose definition of socialism. Do you view all government regulations of private industry as socialism? The insurance companies are still private and the subsidies are going to private companies. Once again it is an example of wealth being transferred from the government to the wealthy. Not exactly socialism, in my opinion.

I don't view all government regulation of private industry as socialism. I was just using a definition of socialized medicine as found in the American Heritage Medical Dictionary.

[xor eax, eax]

I don't view all government regulation of private industry as socialism. I was just using a definition of socialized medicine as found in the American Heritage Medical Dictionary.
Interesting, I didn't know it was defined in a medical dictionary.


socialized medicine so·cial·ized medicine (sō'shə-līzd')
n.
A system for providing medical and hospital care for all at a nominal cost by means of government regulation of health services and subsidies derived from taxation.
The current plan is expected to decrease the number of uninsured, not insure everyone, so it doesn't fit this definition. And that's not even touching on the murky issue of whether being insured actually means you'll receive healthcare. Don't forget that insured individuals go into bankruptcy due to medical costs every day.

http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2010/03/health_care_for_all_minus_23_m.html

[Odoacer]

Because popular support was overwhelming, they made the best out of it by lobbying for an individual mandate. It was their idea, afterall. (http://www.ahip.org/content/pressrelease.aspx?docid=25126)

"Making the best out of it" does not translate to "windfall." Obamacare is not a "windfall" for private health insurers. It means more regulation & greater centralization of that regulation - which is very, very bad news for anyone who wants to raise premiums.

[xor eax, eax]

"Making the best out of it" does not translate to "windfall." Obamacare is not a "windfall" for private health insurers. It means more regulation & greater centralization of that regulation - which is very, very bad news for anyone who wants to raise premiums.
Insurance providers are jacking premiums up and making record profits. If the mandate stands everyone must either purchase insurance, or face penalties. The poor are now going to be subsidized, and that money is going right to the insurance companies. That's a pretty damn good deal for them.

[Odoacer]

Insurance providers are jacking premiums up and making record profits.

They're "making the best of it" right now because once the laws kick in they won't have an easy go of raising rates.


If the mandate stands everyone must either purchase insurance, or face penalties. The poor are now going to be subsidized, and that money is going right to the insurance companies. That's a pretty damn good deal for them.

No, it damned well isn't. Those are the people that are going to cost the most to insure. I work in the insurance industry (though not healthcare); no one wants to insure people who are subsidized by the state. They are bad risks.

[xor eax, eax]

They're "making the best of it" right now because once the laws kick in they won't have an easy go of raising rates.
Unless the law gets dismantled in court. And of course premiums won't drop if it does.


No, it damned well isn't. Those are the people that are going to cost the most to insure. I work in the insurance industry (though not healthcare); no one wants to insure people who are subsidized by the state. They are bad risks.
The health insurance industry has made an art out of denying coverage to the insured. Rest assured they'll find a way to take your money without covering you. That is, after all, why 60% of those who carry medical debt are insured. (http://www.reuters.com/article/2008/08/20/us-medicaldebt-idUSN1932186920080820)

[Odoacer]

Unless the law gets dismantled in court. And of course premiums won't drop if it does.

So, tell me again why Obamacare is a boon for private insurers?


The health insurance industry has made an art out of denying coverage to the insured. Rest assured they'll find a way to take your money without covering you. That is, after all, why 60% of those who carry medical debt are insured. (http://www.reuters.com/article/2008/08/20/us-medicaldebt-idUSN1932186920080820)

Irrelevant to the question of whether Obamacare is a good thing for private insurers.

[xor eax, eax]

So, tell me again why Obamacare is a boon for private insurers?
If the whole thing gets struck down, at a minimum it gave them a reason to hike premiums, while also eliminating our chances of getting true health care reform in the near future.


Irrelevant to the question of whether Obamacare is a good thing for private insurers.
You said they wouldn't want to insure the subsidized, and I cited a statistic related to their tactical avoidance of covering the costs of the insured. I see no reason why they wouldn't do the same with the poor. It's quite relevant.

[xor eax, eax]

Also, if health insurance companies don't want the government to foot the bill for the poor, why did they lobby for a tax credit? (http://www.ahip.org/content/pressrelease.aspx?docid=25126)


The proposal also calls for protecting low-income individuals and working families from medical bankruptcy by making available tax credits to those who spend a set percentage of their income on out-of-pocket health care expenses, including premiums and cost-sharing.

[Breedingvariety]

That's why the insurance industry opposed Obamacare (http://voices.washingtonpost.com/health-care-reform/2009/11/health_insurance_companies_urg.html), I guess. :rolleyes:
Bankers also "opposed" the establishment of Federal Reserve.

Insurance is a bet something bad will happen to you.

Not all bets are honored. But in insurance industry, insurance buyer automatically honors it's side of bet. Only insurance seller has the possibility to dishonor it's side of bet.

As all betting houses, insurance companies calculate odds to their favor.

If, after paying salaries there is no money to pay out customers, insurance companies either go bankrupt and leave the "insured" without their winnings or get bailed out by government.

That is called privatized gains and socialized losses.

[Stars Down To Earth]

Haven't seen the film of "Atlas Shrugged", and won't bother to. The trailer was mostly about greasy corporate executives talking about railways.

That said, I have nothing but contempt for Ayn Rand and her sociopathic "philosophy".

[Odoacer]

If the whole thing gets struck down, at a minimum it gave them a reason to hike premiums, while also eliminating our chances of getting true health care reform in the near future.

That's if it gets struck down. If it stays in place? Not a windfall, not a boon, not good for private insurers. Frankly I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if the individual mandate was thought of as a kind of Trojan horse on the part of insurers. Likely they wanted its constitutionality to be challenged in hopes of getting Obamacare dismantled.


You said they wouldn't want to insure the subsidized, and I cited a statistic related to their tactical avoidance of covering the costs of the insured. I see no reason why they wouldn't do the same with the poor. It's quite relevant.

The practice of denying coverage is not relevant to the question whether Obamacare is good for the insurers. In fact Obamacare makes denying coverage more difficult, so if anything this is more evidence against your claims. :rolleyes2:


Also, if health insurance companies don't want the government to foot the bill for the poor, why did they lobby for a tax credit? (http://www.ahip.org/content/pressrelease.aspx?docid=25126)

You misunderstand. Health insurance companies don't want to foot the bill for bad risks. Obamacare will force private insurers to provide coverage for bad risks. The more they can get the state to subsidize these bad risks, the less negative impact it will have on their financial outlook. It is a way to make the best of a bad thing.

[xor eax, eax]

That's if it gets struck down. If it stays in place? Not a windfall, not a boon, not good for private insurers. Frankly I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if the individual mandate was thought of as a kind of Trojan horse on the part of insurers. Likely they wanted its constitutionality to be challenged in hopes of getting Obamacare dismantled.
Their client base greatly expands when the individual mandate goes into effect and they'll get subsidized by the government, as I've said repeatedly. Further, much of this reform was essentially written by the insurance companies, so I have no doubt that it works within their interests.

And even if you're right about their reasoning behind the mandate, that just goes to show that this "reform" was an complete sham.


The practice of denying coverage is not relevant to the question whether Obamacare is good for the insurers. In fact Obamacare makes denying coverage more difficult, so if anything this is more evidence against your claims. :rolleyes2:
It is extremely relevant in the context of whether covering the high risk is a good thing, something you brought up. You said the insurers don't want that and health care reform will force them to do it, and I showed evidence that they'll just pocket the money and deny claims. Stop moving the goalposts.


You misunderstand. Health insurance companies don't want to foot the bill for bad risks. Obamacare will force private insurers to provide coverage for bad risks. The more they can get the state to subsidize these bad risks, the less negative impact it will have on their financial outlook. It is a way to make the best of a bad thing.
They don't want to foot the bill, and they won't, just like they frequently don't for those who aren't high risk, all while pocketing money from the government. I could post more links about them masterfully denying claims (shit, they employ people who specialize in this), but you'd hand wave them away as irrelevant.

Let's just see what happens in time. My money is on health insurance profits rising, just as they're projected to. (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ethan-rome/republicans-protect-billi_b_831446.html)

[Oreka Bailoak]

It's impossible to change peoples economic views over a few internet forum posts.

I might as well throw out a few institutions that research economics if anybody is interested in learning more from our side of the argument, (but I doubt anyone would be).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=czcUmnsprQI
http://mises.org/
http://paul.house.gov/
http://cato.org
http://www.amazon.com/End-Fed-Ron-Paul/dp/B004IEA4DM/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1321549133&sr=8-1
http://www.amazon.com/13-Bankers-Takeover-Financial-Meltdown/dp/030747660X/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1321549147&sr=1-1

If the other-side of the argument wants to throw out some of their institutions that influence their economic views feel free to do so. (though I have a feeling they base their opinions on an uninformed populist social zeitgeist.)

[Odoacer]

Their client base greatly expands when the individual mandate goes into effect and they'll get subsidized by the government, as I've said repeatedly.

No one wants bad risk clients, as I've also said repeatedly. This is why they want to make sure the bad risks are as highly subsidized as possible when the law goes into effect, because that makes them less risky to insure.


And even if you're right about their reasoning behind the mandate, that just goes to show that this "reform" was an complete sham.

What it goes to show rather is that Obama was forced into a potentially fatal compromise.


It is extremely relevant in the context of whether covering the high risk is a good thing, something you brought up. You said the insurers don't want that and health care reform will force them to do it, and I showed evidence that they'll just pocket the money and deny claims. Stop moving the goalposts.

Actually, you haven't shown any evidence of actual coverage denials. You linked to an article about underinsured persons who have healthcare debt. This isn't the same as denying coverage. Even so, you're still talking about what the insurers have been doing before Obamacare goes into effect. With Obamacare in effect, denying coverage will be much more difficult. Why would the insurers want that?


Let's just see what happens in time. My money is on health insurance profits rising, just as they're projected to. (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ethan-rome/republicans-protect-billi_b_831446.html)

Did you actually read that article?


In fact, they continued their relentless effort to undermine the Affordable Care Act, which will eliminate the worst of insurance company abuses (like arbitrary denials of our care) and put a check on out-of-control profits that fuel rising premiums that are crushing families and small businesses.

...

Yesterday Health Care for America Now released a report that shows that the big five insurers earned $11.7 billion in 2010 - a 51% increase since 2008 - as they cut the number of people insured by millions and reduced the share of premiums they spend on actual medical care.

Yeah, really looks like they want MORE clients, especially bad risk ones! Private health insurers <3 Obamacare! :lmao

[xor eax, eax]

No one wants bad risk clients, as I've also said repeatedly. This is why they want to make sure the bad risks are as highly subsidized as possible when the law goes into effect, because that makes them less risky to insure.
So they're maximizing the profit potential of said bad clients


What it goes to show rather is that Obama was forced into a potentially fatal compromise.
It shows the massive influence health insurance companies had over the legislation.


Actually, you haven't shown any evidence of actual coverage denials. You linked to an article about underinsured persons who have healthcare debt. This isn't the same as denying coverage. Even so, you're still talking about what the insurers have been doing before Obamacare goes into effect. With Obamacare in effect, denying coverage will be much more difficult. Why would the insurers want that?



Did you actually read that article?



Yeah, really looks like they want MORE clients, especially bad risk ones! Private health insurers <3 Obamacare! :lmao:
Alright, here's a more relevant article for you: http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-268


The available data indicated variation in application denial rates, and there are several issues to consider in interpreting those rates. Nationwide data collected by HHS from insurers showed that the aggregate application denial rate for the first quarter of 2010 was 19 percent, but that denial rates varied significantly across insurers. For example, just over a quarter of insurers had application denial rates from 0 percent to 15 percent while another quarter of insurers had rates of 40 percent or higher.
A quarter of insurers had 40%+ denial rates. Tell me it isn't a science.

And they do love it, it's their legislation after all.

[Odoacer]

So they're maximizing the profit potential of said bad clients


It shows the massive influence health insurance companies had over the legislation.

No kidding. :coffee: But note the insurers weren't able to halt the legislation altogether - so they've been seeking to undermine it instead.


Alright, here's a more relevant article for you: http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-268


A quarter of insurers had 40%+ denial rates. Tell me it isn't a science.

Yes, that is more relevant as far as denials go. But it certainly doesn't prove that Obamacare is something the insurers want.


And they do love it, it's their legislation after all.

:rolleyes:

[xor eax, eax]

Haven't seen the film of "Atlas Shrugged", and won't bother to. The trailer was mostly about greasy corporate executives talking about railways.

That said, I have nothing but contempt for Ayn Rand and her sociopathic "philosophy".
I watched the movie to humor myself, but this is where I stand on the matter. The idea of the elite going on strike is absolutely laughable. The elite building their own autonomous society even more so (stupid anarchists). Without the mass, leadership is absolutely useless; they literally cannot function without workers to carry out their orders. At least workers can achieve autonomy, even if it naturally leads to the rise of new leadership. Both leaders and the mass are dependent upon each other, and Ayn Rand completely disregards that fact.


Yes, that is more relevant as far as denials go. But it certainly doesn't prove that Obamacare is something the insurers want.
It proves that they're artful in denying coverage, and will likely find a way to deny the high risk who are subsidized.

If you're looking for a study that explicitly says "insurers wanted Obamacare" you won't find it, regardless of the truth. That said, we can just wait and see how the insurance industry fares, assuming the law holds up. And if it doesn't, that's effectively a victory for them anyway.

[Breedingvariety]

How can forced insurance be bad for insurance companies? It relieves form the pressure to dupe idiots to buy it.

[Odoacer]

How can forced insurance be bad for insurance companies? It relieves form the pressure to dupe idiots to buy it.

This just shows your complete ignorance of risk management. :coffee:

[2DREZQ]

Can anyone think of a time when the US government has started taxing and subsidizing that has led to efficiency and a decrease in costs? I haven't been able to find one.

I'll keep looking.

Healthcare reform was needed. Congress and the White House fluffed on it and hammered out a botch-o-matic fukkasekkond health insurance reform attempt. A total waste of time, and a titanic waste of billions yet uncounted dollars.

[xor eax, eax]

Healthcare reform was needed. Congress and the White House fluffed on it and hammered out a botch-o-matic fukkasekkond health insurance reform attempt. A total waste of time, and a titanic waste of billions yet uncounted dollars.
This is what matters the most. The health insurance industry is a blight upon the US and does nothing more than siphon money in order to generate profits. Insurance companies contribute literally nothing to health care, and in many cases their businesses practices are actually detrimental to it.

Further, lack of insurance kills ~45k yearly, and many of those are undoubtedly of European descent. You'd think more people would be up in arms about it on an ethnic European preservation forum.

http://prescriptions.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/09/17/harvard-medical-study-links-lack-of-insurance-to-45000-us-deaths-a-year/

[Oreka Bailoak]

arguing about econimcs reminds me of this scene...
RS3afqAJkxg

[xor eax, eax]

arguing about econimcs reminds me of this scene...
RS3afqAJkxg
what the fuck is this

[Oreka Bailoak]

what the fuck is this

Quantum physics is a bit like economics.

Experts write tons of books, spend their whole life studying and still can't agree on the best solutions. Long term vs. short term. high tax vs. low tax. large vs. small govt. more private than public health vs. more public than private.

Then on top of that most people have no idea what they're talking about because they haven't read any economics books and only taken the introductory course so they base their views off a social zietgiest.

I would leave all the arguing up to the experts.

http://www.amazon.com/Taking-Sides-Clashing-Economic-Issues/dp/0073527300/ref=sr_1_sc_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1321588896&sr=8-1-spell
^ that's a great book that covers the topic of healthcare with experts from both sides. required book for an upper level undergraduate economics course.

[Joe McCarthy]

Quantum physics is a bit like economics.

Experts write tons of books, spend their whole life studying and still can't agree on the best solutions. Long term vs. short term. high tax vs. low tax. large vs. small govt. more private than public health vs. more public than private.

Then on top of that most people have no idea what they're talking about because they haven't read any economics books and only taken the introductory course so they base their views off a social zietgiest.

True, to a person who's well versed in these fields the conundrum that once faced Carl Jung arises: in order for people to understand the argument, the man presenting the argument must first teach the people the background info they need to know to even understand the argument.

[Turkey]

Then on top of that most people have no idea what they're talking about because they haven't read any economics books and only taken the introductory course so they base their views off a social zietgiest.


That's me!:D

[Raskolnikov]

Can anyone think of a time when the US government has started taxing and subsidizing that has led to efficiency and a decrease in costs? I haven't been able to find one.
I think the military, transportation, and communications.

[Joe McCarthy]

I think the military, transportation, and communications.

Those qualify as commons that the state probably has to be involved in - at least to some extent - but does anyone think the defense establishment is cost effective?

[2DREZQ]

This is what matters the most. The health insurance industry is a blight upon the US and does nothing more than siphon money in order to generate profits. Insurance companies contribute literally nothing to health care, and in many cases their businesses practices are actually detrimental to it.

Further, lack of insurance kills ~45k yearly, and many of those are undoubtedly of European descent. You'd think more people would be up in arms about it on an ethnic European preservation forum.

http://prescriptions.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/09/17/harvard-medical-study-links-lack-of-insurance-to-45000-us-deaths-a-year/

Insurance companies provide a valuable service, allowing individuals to mitigate the risk of future costs, regardless of what ever future event or circumstances are being anticipated.

This info is slightly dated, but indicative, nonetheless.

http://biz.yahoo.com/p/522qpmd.html


So, if the health insurance companies profits rank 86th, am I to presume that all the industry sectors above them on the list are also a blight upon the U.S.?

Not that I like the bastards one little bit, but who created the tightly controlled and regulated market that severely limits competition, thus pushing premiums higher? I'll give you a hint: It's the same bunch of 12% approval rated slime toads that punted on evidence-based medicine (which would have given us genuine health care reform and significantly limited cost increases at the provider level, not the premium level.) The same bought and paid for hacks who write the regulations that let their owners and masters control profit margins with greater accuracy than an actual actuarial table. (nice, eh?)
The same boobus-giganticus flock that liberals somehow expect, year after year, will suddenly write a law that makes the system they screwed up work right!

You'll have better luck wishing for angels to fly out of your ass.

[2DREZQ]

I think the military, transportation, and communications.


Transportation and communications are cheaper and more efficient because the government taxes and subsidizes them?

Had to leave out the military as it is, by definition, paid for by taxes and subsidized 100% by the government.

[Joe McCarthy]

Had to leave out the military as it is, by definition, paid for by taxes and subsidized 100% by the government.

While that's true there are things the defense establishment could contract out that would be done cheaper if they did so. The point, overall, is that government, given that it's typically not subject to the usual competitive pressures of the private market, has less incentive to control costs. The military is no exception to this.

[xor eax, eax]

Insurance companies provide a valuable service, allowing individuals to mitigate the risk of future costs, regardless of what ever future event or circumstances are being anticipated.
That makes sense in terms of protecting physical assets such as a house or car, but when it comes to healthcare I don't find it acceptable. Unless you die a sudden death, you're likely going to accrue substantial medical costs. It's hardly a matter of whether it happens, but rather when. And when that time comes, the health insurance companies will fight tooth and nail to deny your claims in order to protect their profits. It's in their best interest to let you die, and it always will be as long as their ultimate goal is increasing profit margins.


This info is slightly dated, but indicative, nonetheless.

http://biz.yahoo.com/p/522qpmd.html


So, if the health insurance companies profits rank 86th, am I to presume that all the industry sectors above them on the list are also a blight upon the U.S.?
Either I'm reading this table wrong or your link didn't work. Regardless, profits are not the sole metric by which I judge a company. What's more important is how they acquire said profits--when a company creates a quality product and successfully builds an empire out of it, I view that as a success of our (sort of) free enterprise system. When a company amasses a fortune by providing a service, I am more skeptical; when the service itself is in question, I quickly become resentful.


Not that I like the bastards one little bit, but who created the tightly controlled and regulated market that severely limits competition, thus pushing premiums higher? I'll give you a hint: It's the same bunch of 12% approval rated slime toads that punted on evidence-based medicine (which would have given us genuine health care reform and significantly limited cost increases at the provider level, not the premium level.) The same bought and paid for hacks who write the regulations that let their owners and masters control profit margins with greater accuracy than an actual actuarial table. (nice, eh?)
The same boobus-giganticus flock that liberals somehow expect, year after year, will suddenly write a law that makes the system they screwed up work right!

You'll have better luck wishing for angels to fly out of your ass.
Are you suggesting that regulations are the reason for rising premiums? If so, what specific regulations do you see as hindering competition among insurance companies? What sort of reforms would you support?


While that's true there are things the defense establishment could contract out that would be done cheaper if they did so. The point, overall, is that government, given that it's typically not subject to the usual competitive pressures of the private market, has less incentive to control costs. The military is no exception to this.
Do you think private military companies like Halliburton operate more efficiently than the US military?

[Joe McCarthy]

Do you think private military companies like Halliburton operate more efficiently than the US military?

In terms of cost control, unquestionably. The Pentagon is notorious for waste.

[SwordoftheVistula]

The insurance industry is inefficient, but it's mainly because of regulations.

The tax structure basically forces most people to get insurance through their employer. How crappy would our cars be if we had to buy them through our employer? Solution: take away the tax advantage which only benefits corporate employers, so people can buy insurance on the open market.

Also the rates and packages are heavily regulated. For example, they recently passed a law mandating that everyone who purchases health insurance must purchase birth control and 'domestic violence counseling' in that insurance. There's tons of other regulations like this. Young people, males, and bad drivers have to pay more for car insurance because they are higher risks. But young people makes, and people with good life habits can't get lower rates for health insurance because of regulations.

Obamacare is more of the same, only worse. Forcing young, healthy people to purchase insurance in order to subsidize older, unhealthy people. And of course subsidies for the underclass, illegal aliens, etc.

[Turkey]

I stopped watching this movie early into it because its infested with blacks, jews and women.

It has an anti-white male attitude to it.

[2DREZQ]

That makes sense in terms of protecting physical assets such as a house or car, but when it comes to healthcare I don't find it acceptable. Unless you die a sudden death, you're likely going to accrue substantial medical costs. It's hardly a matter of whether it happens, but rather when. And when that time comes, the health insurance companies will fight tooth and nail to deny your claims in order to protect their profits. It's in their best interest to let you die, and it always will be as long as their ultimate goal is increasing profit margins.

All corporations have the goal of increasing profits, that is what they exist for. Your health and productivity are an asset. I agree that they cannot be replaced like a physical piece of property. Your finding of unacceptability will have to be explained further. Anybody who expects a corporation of any kind to care about you personally would probably also buy into the concept that a government run healthcare system would only exist to serve the best interests of the patient.

A healthcare insurance policy is a contract-and MUST be strictly enforced as such; that is one of the preeminent required functions of government, hence the need for regulations. It must then be accepted that regulation DOES NOT come without cost. Taxes must be paid to support the government that formulates and enforces regulation, costs will be higher than otherwise as a result of "raising the bar", thus limiting competition. This does not strongly argue for much de-regulation, healthcare being so complex and emotional an issue that a very lightly regulated market would likely bring other hazards into play that we as a society DO NOT want to deal with. We must, therefor accept those costs as a nessesary evil.


Either I'm reading this table wrong or your link didn't work. Regardless, profits are not the sole metric by which I judge a company. What's more important is how they acquire said profits--when a company creates a quality product and successfully builds an empire out of it, I view that as a success of our (sort of) free enterprise system. When a company amasses a fortune by providing a service, I am more skeptical; when the service itself is in question, I quickly become resentful.

What is your proposed alternative? Are you advocating for "free" government healthcare?

Not being nasty, But have you spent much time in hospitals or emergency rooms? I've got an insiders view of the working end of the industry, as well as mid-level management experience, and I've dealt with government regulation my whole 30+ year career. So, I do know the subject pretty well.


Are you suggesting that regulations are the reason for rising premiums? If so, what specific regulations do you see as hindering competition among insurance companies? What sort of reforms would you support?
I think I answered your first question fairly well above, please let me know if I should expand upon that.

I completely agree that health insurance regulations need a re-write, but this time lets hold the hearings slowly and deliberately and keep the insurance lobbyists at arms length. (a systemic problem in D.C. which needs to be addressed separately.) Obamacare was a botch. I don't have the time to research specific regs, and they vary from state to state enormously. I'm not sure that a great deal can be done about the competition. Something, I am sure. My argument isn't so much that we need less regulation (though we probably do), but that we need to acknowledge that it is a major source of our costs. Costs have risen in part because of the increase in the quality of the drugs, therapies and technologies-all of which cost a lot. Wages have risen as demands upon healthcare personnel have shot skyward. Our care is better in concept and execution than ever, and that is not cheap.

Cost control, then must come not from a decrease in regulation, at least not more than a few percentage points. It cannot come from decreases in Medicare and medicaid fraud; Yes billions annually go down this rathole, but I ran the numbers a few years ago, and it amounts to something like 3% of the costs, or less. I have a hard time imagining a system that is more than 96.5% "efficient" (using this one metric). It can be helped along by tort reform-though the savings will be only a few percent.

Cost control can be achieved by rationing (offered without comment as to the morality of same), and by limiting the physicians choices in testing and treatment to those that have proven to give the most benefit for the cost. Look up the work that has been done at Dartmouth-Hitchcock. Neither of these solutions is particularly palatable for most Americans, but that is where we are at. Pinning the tail on any other donkey is a useless exercise, and delays but a little the day of reckoning.

I'll be away from the board for a few days, so my next response will be delayed.

[xor eax, eax]

All corporations have the goal of increasing profits, that is what they exist for. Your health and productivity are an asset. I agree that they cannot be replaced like a physical piece of property. Your finding of unacceptability will have to be explained further. Anybody who expects a corporation of any kind to care about you personally would probably also buy into the concept that a government run healthcare system would only exist to serve the best interests of the patient.
Actually, this isn't true--nonprofit corporations do not exist to increase profits. Health insurance companies profiting from their services is what I find unacceptable; profits incentivize the denial of care, it's as simple as that. And while I'm not naive enough to think any corporation cares about me as an individual, I believe that forcing them to become nonprofits will clamp down on rapidly rising costs. This model works beautifully for Germany.

http://i.imgur.com/UwSul.png

Of course I'd be all for a public option too. Government health care can and does work, provided it is adequately funded. I have absolutely no issue with paying more taxes (and before anyone says anything I'm quite sure I pay more than almost all the Americans here) provided that part of the deal is receiving healthcare. Medicare works and I would love to see coverage extended to everyone even if it meant cutting costs in other areas (hello "defense" budget) and raising taxes.


A healthcare insurance policy is a contract-and MUST be strictly enforced as such; that is one of the preeminent required functions of government, hence the need for regulations. It must then be accepted that regulation DOES NOT come without cost. Taxes must be paid to support the government that formulates and enforces regulation, costs will be higher than otherwise as a result of "raising the bar", thus limiting competition. This does not strongly argue for much de-regulation, healthcare being so complex and emotional an issue that a very lightly regulated market would likely bring other hazards into play that we as a society DO NOT want to deal with. We must, therefor accept those costs as a nessesary evil.
Their ability to lobby would vanish overnight if they were all forced to become non-profits. Of course this is a catch-22 as the lobbyists would be out in full force should such a thing be considered. Taking it a bit further, why do health insurance companies exist at all? It makes sense with physical property, but point me to one person that knows for a fact they will not need health care. Even the young need it from time to time. It is a basic necessity, much like police, firefighters, military, etc. Everyone needs to have access to healthcare from birth until death, no exceptions. The cost of healthcare is a necessary "evil", and that is why it should be a service provided by the government (that is what the government is for, afterall). Healthcare profits, on the other hand, are not necessary in any way. They are detrimental to health care, as all that money should be going to the people providing it i.e. not the insurance companies.


What is your proposed alternative? Are you advocating for "free" government healthcare?

Not being nasty, But have you spent much time in hospitals or emergency rooms? I've got an insiders view of the working end of the industry, as well as mid-level management experience, and I've dealt with government regulation my whole 30+ year career. So, I do know the subject pretty well.
I realize that no service is free, but even the most denseof capitalists should realize that they best way to purchase something is in bulk. We all need healthcare, so it makes the most sense to purchase it for everyone at once. In other words, I would rather the government provide coverage. Second to that, I'd like insurance companies to be non-profits. A public option would also be nice.


I completely agree that health insurance regulations need a re-write, but this time lets hold the hearings slowly and deliberately and keep the insurance lobbyists at arms length. (a systemic problem in D.C. which needs to be addressed separately.) Obamacare was a botch. I don't have the time to research specific regs, and they vary from state to state enormously. I'm not sure that a great deal can be done about the competition. Something, I am sure. My argument isn't so much that we need less regulation (though we probably do), but that we need to acknowledge that it is a major source of our costs. Costs have risen in part because of the increase in the quality of the drugs, therapies and technologies-all of which cost a lot. Wages have risen as demands upon healthcare personnel have shot skyward. Our care is better in concept and execution than ever, and that is not cheap.
The lobbyist issue is major, and I have no idea how to solve that. As for cost, news technologies and drugs are definitely a part of it but that's not the only factor. The pharma industry frequently engages in anti-competitive practices, fighting to suppress companies producing generics. This is treading into intellectual property terrain, but something is clearly broken here. I'd like to see the government investing more in R&D. And before anyone says they can't do anything right, consider for a moment that you're posting on a forum on the Internet, largely a product of the US government.

And technology aside, something along the line is failing in a serious way. We have the most advanced medical system in the world, yet our infant mortality rates and life expectancy are both absolutely abysmal. Something is very wrong here.


Cost control, then must come not from a decrease in regulation, at least not more than a few percentage points. It cannot come from decreases in Medicare and medicaid fraud; Yes billions annually go down this rathole, but I ran the numbers a few years ago, and it amounts to something like 3% of the costs, or less. I have a hard time imagining a system that is more than 96.5% "efficient" (using this one metric). It can be helped along by tort reform-though the savings will be only a few percent.
I agree that fraud is a red herring. And I think the efficiency of medicare is worth noting. It operates with very little overhead, and among those who receive it satisfaction is quite high.


Cost control can be achieved by rationing (offered without comment as to the morality of same), and by limiting the physicians choices in testing and treatment to those that have proven to give the most benefit for the cost. Look up the work that has been done at Dartmouth-Hitchcock. Neither of these solutions is particularly palatable for most Americans, but that is where we are at. Pinning the tail on any other donkey is a useless exercise, and delays but a little the day of reckoning.
One fact that may make it easier to swallow is that rationing is already taking place; the insurance companies are doing it by denying coverage, and they're quite draconion. Removing the profit incentive won't completely eliminate the problem, but it would be an effective remedy.

[joe blowe]

Does anyone know what the rate of profit is for most companies ?
I know for most engineering companies (I own one) it is ~12%.
Walmart & Safeway I read it declared to be 3 to 4 %.

The banks and insurance companies which are insulated from competition by substantial regulation is around 35%. Amazing.

[joe blowe]

Just learned - the current profit margin of GM is 10% and it is considered to be doing quite well.

Once your profit margin rises, competion sets their sights on undercutting you. It is the power of the free market. (If it is allowed to be free)

[2DREZQ]

Does anyone know what the rate of profit is for most companies ?
I know for most engineering companies (I own one) it is ~12%.
Walmart & Safeway I read it declared to be 3 to 4 %.

The banks and insurance companies which are insulated from competition by substantial regulation is around 35%. Amazing.

The progit margin overall is about 3.3%, ranking them 86th

see here:

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_otfwl2zc6Qc/SoMLoWBKM4I/AAAAAAAAK4g/wKdZyg5LxQ0/s1600/profits.bmp

Sorry, the other link above was a mistake.

What my learned opponent is apparently objecting to the concept of anybody making a profit off healthcare. Should all hospitals be non-profit? How about all physicians clinics? Where does the moral indignation at profits end?

All people need to eat. Should farms and grocery stores be non-profit? All people need housing. Should the real-estate market and rents be non-profit?
I don't think that just because a need is inevitable in a persons life that the government should provide it.

I am not going to disagree with him on a number of points, just don't have the time.

What I am going to ask is this: Is your moral ambiguity about the seemliness of "profits" on healthcare a valid position, simply because that is how YOU feel?
Honestly, I'll come back to this when I've got more time.

[Anthropologique]

Anarchy is just around the corner...the Western social organism is diseased in a serious way. Watch the legions of well-educated poor grow and grow. Incredibly sad.

[joe blowe]

Free-Market is a self control mechanism for profit.

The moment the profit exceeds 10% by a few points, the competition comes in or is set up to take advantage of the bonanza in the particular sector. It does not last long. (in the absence of regulation which adds to setup costs and prevents competition from setting up shop)

Profit has a twin-half-brother called 'loss'. You either have profit to cover the uncertainties and the cost of future-money * or you will have loss and eventually go out of business.
*(money in the future has to be more valuable than today - anti-usury laws notwithstanding - because of alternative uses and to account for risks)

The rate of profit also sets the 'natural' interest rates to be charged for money lending, these should be a couple of points below the profit line.

[Jake Featherston]

Obamacare meets the definition of socialized medicine. It is government regulation of health services and subsidies derived from taxation.

What subsidies? I'm not a supporter of "Obamacare," but as I recall, the Republicans (and a few Democrats) were able to keep out the so-called "public option," and anything else along the lines of a public subsidy for health care. Its basically just a health insurance regulatory statute. It certainly doesn't usher in anything like the systems they have in place in Canada, the UK, Western Europe, etc.

And of course, the so-called "individual mandate," wherein it becomes effectively illegal not to purchase health insurance from one of the people who funded Hillary Clinton's 2008 presidential campaign, is blatantly unconstitutional, irrespective of what the Supreme Court eventually rules on the matter.

[xor eax, eax]

What my learned opponent is apparently objecting to the concept of anybody making a profit off healthcare. Should all hospitals be non-profit? How about all physicians clinics? Where does the moral indignation at profits end?

All people need to eat. Should farms and grocery stores be non-profit? All people need housing. Should the real-estate market and rents be non-profit?
I don't think that just because a need is inevitable in a persons life that the government should provide it.

I am not going to disagree with him on a number of points, just don't have the time.

What I am going to ask is this: Is your moral ambiguity about the seemliness of "profits" on healthcare a valid position, simply because that is how YOU feel?
Honestly, I'll come back to this when I've got more time.

Firstly, as I've said before I'm not objecting to all healthcare profits. My biggest issue is with the insurance companies.

Quantifying the damage done by an industry is difficult, but not impossible. If capitalism fails to feed the masses, something must be done. If capitalism fails to house the masses, as it seems to be doing with foreclosures on the rise and ~11% of houses vacant and falling into disrepair, something must be done. The logic behind my reasoning is quite simple: if capitalism fails to provide a necessity, the burden falls on government. While I value free enterprise and entrepeneurship (I owned a business before becoming employed with a company I respect quite a bit), I remain highly skeptical with good reason; capitalism is a double-edged sword. Observe any industry that profits from providing a necessity, and if you see them deny said necessity to an inordinate amount of people, I find them reprehensible. There is no moral ambiguity in this.

Just for fun I'm going to throw out an interesting statistic: 73% of doctors support a public option. 10% want single-payer.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=112839232



Free-Market is a self control mechanism for profit.

The moment the profit exceeds 10% by a few points, the competition comes in or is set up to take advantage of the bonanza in the particular sector. It does not last long. (in the absence of regulation which adds to setup costs and prevents competition from setting up shop)

Profit has a twin-half-brother called 'loss'. You either have profit to cover the uncertainties and the cost of future-money * or you will have loss and eventually go out of business.
*(money in the future has to be more valuable than today - anti-usury laws notwithstanding - because of alternative uses and to account for risks)

The rate of profit also sets the 'natural' interest rates to be charged for money lending, these should be a couple of points below the profit line.
This sounds great when you competely ignore the human factor, but the problem is with the damaging techniques companies employ to get an edge on their competition. Off the top of my head, here's a list of things a deregulated market would get us:

Monopolies and oligopolies
Child labor
More outsourcing
More dangerous products (cadmium and lead in eating utensils, contaminated food, etc)
More foreign temp workers
Unsafe work conditions
No minimum wage or overtime
No limit to the work week length


I could go on but I think I've made my point: the free market is not a silver bullet, and government regulation is necessary.

I'd also like to add that those who champion laissez-faire and claim our current system isn't "true" capitalism sound a lot like the people who claim every communist regime failed because it wasn't "true" communism.



What subsidies? I'm not a supporter of "Obamacare," but as I recall, the Republicans (and a few Democrats) were able to keep out the so-called "public option," and anything else along the lines of a public subsidy for health care. Its basically just a health insurance regulatory statute. It certainly doesn't usher in anything like the systems they have in place in Canada, the UK, Western Europe, etc.
The public option was killed, but subsidies are still there, although shitty subsidized insurance doesn't help much.

[Joe McCarthy]

What subsidies?

These subsidies:

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patient_Protection_and_Affordable_Care_Act


Low income persons and families above the Medicaid level and up to 400% of the federal poverty level will receive federal subsidies[21] on a sliding scale if they choose to purchase insurance via an exchange (persons at 150% of the poverty level would be subsidized such that their premium cost would be of 2% of income or $50 a month for a family of 4).

[SwordoftheVistula]

profits incentivize the denial of care, it's as simple as that.

Look, you're going to get denial of care due to lack of money at some point. The only question is whether it comes via private companies, individualized based on what insurance the person chose to buy, and enforced by contract vs in socialized medicine where certain treatments are declared off limits entirely to everyone because they cost the government too much.


I believe that forcing them to become nonprofits will clamp down on rapidly rising costs.

Most educational institutions are nonprofits, and educational costs are rising even faster than health care costs.


Medicare works and I would love to see coverage extended to everyone

Medicare 'works' because the health care of old people is payed for by all the younger working age people. Once there are more old people and less working people, that won't work anymore. It also would not work to triple the number of recipients while not adding any more people who pay into the system.



Their ability to lobby would vanish overnight if they were all forced to become non-profits.

Again, the educational system proves that this doesn't happen. Most large nonprofits have lobbyists, especially ones like La Raza which receive lots of money directly from the government, since they have to lobby to get more funding.


It is a basic necessity, much like police, firefighters, military, etc. Everyone needs to have access to healthcare from birth until death, no exceptions. The cost of healthcare is a necessary "evil", and that is why it should be a service provided by the government (that is what the government is for, afterall). Healthcare profits, on the other hand, are not necessary in any way. They are detrimental to health care, as all that money should be going to the people providing it i.e. not the insurance companies.


I realize that no service is free, but even the most denseof capitalists should realize that they best way to purchase something is in bulk. We all need healthcare, so it makes the most sense to purchase it for everyone at once.

We all need food too. Maybe the government could provide this too, and purchase it in bulk for everyone at once. Everyone will be issued a Big Mac and a Diet Coke three times a day.



The lobbyist issue is major, and I have no idea how to solve that.

There's only one solution to that: return to the original intent of the Constitution and remove the ability of the federal government to fund and regulate all these different parts of the economy. Without the ability to get funding and regulations they want, the lobbyists will be rendered powerless.



The pharma industry frequently engages in anti-competitive practices, fighting to suppress companies producing generics. This is treading into intellectual property terrain, but something is clearly broken here.

Not really, the drugs become generic and almost free other than the cost of having to go to a doctor and get a prescription after about 20 years. So the people who pay for the R&D get the results first, and then everyone else gets them for free a few years later, pretty good deal all around.



And before anyone says they can't do anything right, consider for a moment that you're posting on a forum on the Internet, largely a product of the US government.

The initial idea of connecting computers long distance came from large universities and the military, because they were the only ones who had computers. All the developments since were due to private industry.

Computer manufacturers are constantly competing with eachother to make more powerful computers for less cost.

Cable companies and other high speed providers have replaced the old dial-up systems and greatly increased the speed and capacity of the internet.

Most of the content providers, from game manufacturers to news sites to porn sites, are private entities.



We have the most advanced medical system in the world, yet our infant mortality rates and life expectancy are both absolutely abysmal. Something is very wrong here.

What's going on is you have the most advanced people in the world (white & asian Americans) living in the same statistical entity as a third world people (african & hispanic Americans). Check out the counties & cities with the highest infant mortality rates sometime and you'll see this is true.



It operates with very little overhead, and among those who receive it satisfaction is quite high.

I'm not entirely sure about Medicare, but Medicaid is a total mess. Many doctors won't take it. I used to work at a medical clinic, and MassHealth (Medicaid) paid about $15-$20 less per hour than the private insurers and was a lot more hassle to deal with.




One fact that may make it easier to swallow is that rationing is already taking place; the insurance companies are doing it by denying coverage, and they're quite draconion. Removing the profit incentive won't completely eliminate the problem, but it would be an effective remedy.

Well you have your choice of selective rationing, whereby people who pay for coverage get it and those who don't, don't...or a one size fits all policy where the government just denies certain treatments to everyone because they cost too much. One advantage especially of the former is that new/high cost treatments over time become less expensive and more available. Without those initial people willing to pay the cost for them, they might never get off the drawing board. Also, with the government in charge, you will have politics determining which treatments get covered. Politically correct illnesses like AIDS and breast cancer will get tons of money, more mundane illnesses like lung cancer and heart disease won't.



What subsidies?

Mainly in the tax system. Since most people get health insurance as an untaxed benefit from their employer, people save on income & payroll taxes, plus the employer saves on payroll taxes. Even for lower income people exempt from federal income taxes, payroll taxes+state & local income taxes comes to about 15% of income. For lower middle class people ($25-30k/yr), the figure is around 25%. For high income people, you are looking at a figure approaching 50%. Then add onto this the 10%+ that the employer saves in federal & state payroll taxes.

One big fix to the whole system would be to either take away this tax benefit, or make it available to people who purchase health insurance on the open market. The people wouldn't be stuck with whatever insurance their employer picks, and there'd be a lot more free market effects on it.

[xor eax, eax]

Look, you're going to get denial of care due to lack of money at some point. The only question is whether it comes via private companies, individualized based on what insurance the person chose to buy, and enforced by contract vs in socialized medicine where certain treatments are declared off limits entirely to everyone because they cost the government too much.
You're conveniently forgetting a group that contains millions of people: the uninsured. They don't even get the chance for insurance companies to deny them. All treatments are denied to them, short of what's available via the ER. And before you say it, not everyone is uninsured because of personal responsibility; some people are in shitty positions economically. Unless you live under a rock, I'm sure you know a few, and they might even be people you care about.


Most educational institutions are nonprofits, and educational costs are rising even faster than health care costs.
Tuition is rising for a variety of reasons that aren't applicable to non-profit health insurance companies, so the comparison is spurious. But while we're on the subject, would you say that regulations are needed to control rising tuition?


Medicare 'works' because the health care of old people is payed for by all the younger working age people. Once there are more old people and less working people, that won't work anymore. It also would not work to triple the number of recipients while not adding any more people who pay into the system.
This is very simplistic thinking--senior citizens by far carry the brunt of medical costs. Tripling the number of people covered will not triple the cost. And you ignored the rest of what I wrote: raise taxes, cut costs in other areas such as "defense".


Again, the educational system proves that this doesn't happen. Most large nonprofits have lobbyists, especially ones like La Raza which receive lots of money directly from the government, since they have to lobby to get more funding.
Non-profit insurance companies don't necessarily necessarily need to receive funding from the government, so they wouldn't have the same incentive to lobby. I was exaggerating when I said it would vanish, but it would most certainly be a shadow of its former titantic self.


We all need food too. Maybe the government could provide this too, and purchase it in bulk for everyone at once. Everyone will be issued a Big Mac and a Diet Coke three times a day.
I addressed this in a prior post. In short, if capitalism fails to provide food, then yes, the government should step in and provide assistance.



There's only one solution to that: return to the original intent of the Constitution and remove the ability of the federal government to fund and regulate all these different parts of the economy. Without the ability to get funding and regulations they want, the lobbyists will be rendered powerless.
So removing regulations will put an end to lobbying, huh? I guess you're partially right since the goal of a lot of lobbying is deregulation.



Not really, the drugs become generic and almost free other than the cost of having to go to a doctor and get a prescription after about 20 years. So the people who pay for the R&D get the results first, and then everyone else gets them for free a few years later, pretty good deal all around.
Not really? You might want to look into a little trick called evergreening--it's a strategy that lets them prevent generic manufacturers from producing drugs after the initial exclusivity period is up. Beyond that, pharma companies are actively fighting to extend the exclusivity period.


The initial idea of connecting computers long distance came from large universities and the military, because they were the only ones who had computers. All the developments since were due to private industry.
Downplay it all you want, but the government helped get the Internet revolution going--they were one of the catalysts. And good point, they were the only ones who had computers, which means private industry simply wasn't capable of such innovation at the time. I'm happy the government got this party going for us, waiting for private industry to catch up would have sucked.


Cable companies and other high speed providers have replaced the old dial-up systems and greatly increased the speed and capacity of the internet.
Funny you mention telecommunication companies--we're falling behind in speed and connectivity at an alarming rate because of anticompetitive practices. We're not even in the top 10 for either. I don't care enough to look because it's outright depressing, but I'm pretty sure we're not even in the top 20 anymore. You should really read up on this shit before you spout off.


What's going on is you have the most advanced people in the world (white & asian Americans) living in the same statistical entity as a third world people (african & hispanic Americans). Check out the counties & cities with the highest infant mortality rates sometime and you'll see this is true.
And yet we still spend more per capita than all these other countries. It seems that would offset things just a bit, doesn't it? And most of those countries you're talking about have what you would likely deem "socialized" medicine.



I'm not entirely sure about Medicare, but Medicaid is a total mess. Many doctors won't take it. I used to work at a medical clinic, and MassHealth (Medicaid) paid about $15-$20 less per hour than the private insurers and was a lot more hassle to deal with.
Medicaid is a failure for the most part and nothing at all like medicare.




Well you have your choice of selective rationing, whereby people who pay for coverage get it and those who don't, don't...or a one size fits all policy where the government just denies certain treatments to everyone because they cost too much. One advantage especially of the former is that new/high cost treatments over time become less expensive and more available. Without those initial people willing to pay the cost for them, they might never get off the drawing board. Also, with the government in charge, you will have politics determining which treatments get covered. Politically correct illnesses like AIDS and breast cancer will get tons of money, more mundane illnesses like lung cancer and heart disease won't.
Having health insurance tied to my job is quite bleak--I'd rather my chances of receiving health care not be so contingent upon economic conditions. At least during an economic downturn and periods of unemployment I would have the satisfaction of knowing I remain covered. And don't think we aren't subject to what are essentially private politics under our current system. People who are covered go into medical debt daily, and then there are those who aren't covered at all. Among those who aren't covered, how many do you think are in that situation by choice? Think long and hard, you could very well end up among the uninsured yourself one day, assuming you're insured right now, of course.

And your comment about politically correct illnesses is assinine. The government already puts quite a bit of money into researching a wide array of diseases to great effect. And if you're so worried about political correctness affecting medical research, what makes you think private companies aren't subject to the same influence?

[joe blowe]

What is being called Capitalism here is not really capitalism. It is a 'Command Economy' or 'Crony Capitalism' as it is sometimes called.

When someone can control the cost of money, this is not capitalism.
When someone can control the value of money, this is not capitalism.

The FED in the US and other central banks throughout the world control the cost of money by manipulating the interest rates. Proper interest rates lead to proper investments - cheap money leads to recklessness in investment. Also knows as boom and bust cycles.

The FED and other central banks have been printing inordinate amounts of money. About 27 Trillion dollars in the US and about 100 Trillion worldwide. This IS inflation of the money supply, it will eventually and soon lead to price inflation which is a tax on the people. With this printed money they pay for the entitlements of the unproductive which in turn vote for them - it is democracy at its most grotesque and most common.

Third world countries have done this for over a century with printing and inflation as a mechanism of manipulation of power and influence outside the control of the productive classes which are milked for all they can get. It constitutes a mechanism of taxation.

Today in the US (and proportionately the world over) there are about 200 million people who are 'takers' and not givers in society. 47% do not pay taxes at all, about 100 million and another 100 million pay too little to offset the benefits they accrue from living in the richest place on earth.

[joe blowe]

Quoting from above:
"This sounds great when you competely ignore the human factor, but the problem is with the damaging techniques companies employ to get an edge on their competition. Off the top of my head, here's a list of things a deregulated market would get us:

Monopolies and oligopolies
Child labor
More outsourcing
More dangerous products (cadmium and lead in eating utensils, contaminated food, etc)
More foreign temp workers
Unsafe work conditions
No minimum wage or overtime
No limit to the work week length

I could go on but I think I've made my point: the free market is not a silver bullet, and government regulation is necessary.

I'd also like to add that those who champion laissez-faire and claim our current system isn't "true" capitalism sound a lot like the people who claim every communist regime failed because it wasn't "true" communism."
end of quote.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Let's look at this list. Looks like it came right out of 'The Daily Kos' or 'MoveOn.Org'...

Monopolies and oligopolies
- These are promoted by excessive regulation making the price of start up very steep and keeping other people from entering the market and competing.
Some monopolies are actually fostered by the requirement by the government to obtain 'licenses', usually very expensive, all in the name of protecting the public. See taxi licenses in most big cities.

Child labor
-Child Labor a has a complex history. Most societies up till the 20th century used child labor - kids would start working when they were 7 years of age. In many third world countries today this is still true.
The question for the case of the third world countries is 'where do they work?'. Mostly work in the fields or in prostitution (big centers) Working in a factory where they are valued for what they produce and are kept warm and fed, is much better than the alternatives , that is why they flock there in the first place, it is their best shot. There are articles on this reporting on what the 'do-gooders' have done in places like Pakistan where the factories went away and the children starve. There is nothing wrong with work - I started at 16 full time 8-5 work and put myself through engineering school.

More outsourcing
-Outsorcing happens due to excessive regulation of all activities driving the cost unnecessarily. Common sense should be allowed to be part of the process.
Let's put the 'monkey bars' back in the playgrounds.
I was a plant engineer for 10 years, the crap that goes on in the name of safety is astounding. We cannot legislate stupidity out of the workplace. Shit will happen...

More dangerous products (cadmium and lead in eating utensils, contaminated food, etc)
-Some regulation is definitely warranted and welcome.

More foreign temp workers
-Same reasoning for outsorcing. The cost of the 'undocumented' labor force to the country is much greater than the benefit they bring to some farmers or industries. This cost is borne by the productive taxpayes. I am talking about medical care and the burden in the justice system. The governments actually promote the acceptance of migrant works under the 'influence' of the people that use the workers.

Unsafe work conditions
-subjectivity, subjectivity. Shit will always happen, how far do we go ? Regulate ourselves out of business. I ride motorcycles, I know the danger - should they be outlawed ? Fatality stats are staggering... Put the monkey bars back...

No minimum wage or overtime
-Minimum wage is evil, it keeps the young and inexperienced or untrained people out of work.
If your work is not worth 8 bucks an hour, no one is going to hire you, they will extend the hours of the existing crew (and pay them).
This keeps the young from jobs where they could spend time learning a trade - instead, they choose to learn to become criminals.

No limit to the work week length
-Fridays off, so common today, were not mandated by regulation, they came out spontaneously out of competition for labor in the free market.
Again, in the past, 19 century and first part of 20th century, people worked 6 or 7 days a week to be able to support themselves - that was the reality of life in the good old days. A shorter work week should be credited directly to the wealth producing capitalism.

[Jake Featherston]

These subsidies:

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patient_Protection_and_Affordable_Care_Act

OK, fair enough. I hadn't heard about that aspect of the bill.

[Jake Featherston]

Today in the US (and proportionately the world over) there are about 200 million people who are 'takers' and not givers in society. 47% do not pay taxes at all, about 100 million and another 100 million pay too little to offset the benefits they accrue from living in the richest place on earth.

Taxes are not the only benefits which derive from a person, however. A productive worker is still contributing to society, even if his taxes are less than some flatly proportionate ideal.

[joe blowe]

If the workers cost more than they produce in whatever metrics are used to accrue that, it is a matter of simple math, we end up with Italy or Greece...

[Jake Featherston]

If the workers cost more than they produce in whatever metrics are used to accrue that, it is a matter of simple math, we end up with Italy or Greece...

Well, I support progressive taxation. The guy pulling in half a million dollars per year should pay a greater percentage of his income in taxes than the guy pulling in $17K. That can help even things out, as it were.

[joe blowe]

Percentage takes care of the differential income.
Paying a still lower percentage makes the lower income person less a participant in the government of the nation. This is the reason the left loves progressive taxation, not because of fairness, but because of having control over the masses that will faithfully vote for them.
If the cocktail waitress sees that the government is screwing up with her tax money, she will be just as outraged, probably even more, than the millionaire.
Wealth brings diminishing returns, there is only 24 hours in a day..., Steve Jobs would have loved to trade places with any of us schleps, in exchange for good health. He derived most of his pleasure from his creative work, I am sure.
You need a minimum amount of money to live well, above that, you make your own happiness with the things you have inside your head, your work, your hobbies, your family, etc. ( my 2c) Many cheers.

[xor eax, eax]

Let's look at this list. Looks like it came right out of 'The Daily Kos' or 'MoveOn.Org'...
That might be the case, but it came from my fingertips.


Monopolies and oligopolies
- These are promoted by excessive regulation making the price of start up very steep and keeping other people from entering the market and competing.
Some monopolies are actually fostered by the requirement by the government to obtain 'licenses', usually very expensive, all in the name of protecting the public. See taxi licenses in most big cities.
Some might be a result of licensing issues, but what about those that aren't? Microsoft is a good example--anyone with a compiler and the money to register an LLC has what it takes to "compete" with them. The problem is, however, that doing so is absolutely infeasible. Microsoft is far too monilithic. You won't create a commercial desktop OS that will seize any sizeable market share, if any at all. And in case you're wondering, linux is a nice for servers, but it will never compete as a desktop OS, and one of its biggest draws is that it's free.

Now onto oligopolies, let's take a look at processor manufacturers. If you want to compete, first you're probably going to need to license x86. But this license doesn't come from the government, it comes from Intel. Even without that hurdle, the price of entering that industry would be phenomenally high because, well, CPUs are complicated. Joe entrepeneur would not be gaining a foothold in the industry from his garage.


Child labor
-Child Labor a has a complex history. Most societies up till the 20th century used child labor - kids would start working when they were 7 years of age. In many third world countries today this is still true.
The question for the case of the third world countries is 'where do they work?'. Mostly work in the fields or in prostitution (big centers) Working in a factory where they are valued for what they produce and are kept warm and fed, is much better than the alternatives , that is why they flock there in the first place, it is their best shot. There are articles on this reporting on what the 'do-gooders' have done in places like Pakistan where the factories went away and the children starve. There is nothing wrong with work - I started at 16 full time 8-5 work and put myself through engineering school.
And what about our own history of child labor? The laws didn't spring forth from the aether for no reason. I'm happy that you got to start work at 16 and worked a nice 40 hour week. What if you had started at 7 and worked 60 hour weeks? Do you think your life would have turned out the same? What about if you had worked in unsafe conditions due to lack of regulations? Sorry, but you wouldn't be the same. You got 16 years to be a "child", and then when you began working you still had free time. These formative years are quite important, and these kids

http://i.imgur.com/4xcto.jpg

were not allowed to have them. Many of them were not given a chance to become engineers as you have, because instead of receiving the most basic of educations they were busy working. Many of them were also indentured servants (essentially slaves), another byproduct of a lack of regulation.


More outsourcing
-Outsorcing happens due to excessive regulation of all activities driving the cost unnecessarily. Common sense should be allowed to be part of the process.
Let's put the 'monkey bars' back in the playgrounds.
I was a plant engineer for 10 years, the crap that goes on in the name of safety is astounding. We cannot legislate stupidity out of the workplace. Shit will happen...
Let's assume your bleak scenario plays out and all factories around the world operate under the exact same conditions. Here in the US, let's say we pay the workers around $7 an hour. Offshores, they'll work for less than a dollar an hour. Where do you think the factories will move?

And beyond factories, what about the IT industry? Safety regulations are quite loose, and the cost of starting up an operation is quite cheap. Still, plenty of it is being outsourced. Is that because of regulation? If so, what regulations?


More dangerous products (cadmium and lead in eating utensils, contaminated food, etc)
-Some regulation is definitely warranted and welcome.
I'm glad we agree here. Unfortunately the examples I cited are instances of what is happening now, so clearly we are not doing enough.


More foreign temp workers
-Same reasoning for outsorcing. The cost of the 'undocumented' labor force to the country is much greater than the benefit they bring to some farmers or industries. This cost is borne by the productive taxpayes. I am talking about medical care and the burden in the justice system. The governments actually promote the acceptance of migrant works under the 'influence' of the people that use the workers.
I actually wasn't even talking about undocumented labor, but rather people coming in on work Visas like H-1Bs. Bringing someone here with an H-1B isn't cheap, and supposedly can only be done when no workers here can accomplish the task, yet each year H-1Bs flood in, and I can tell you for a fact many of the jobs they fill can easily be filled by Americans. But H-1Bs work longer hours for less pay and they pay taxes. If restrictions were lifted this problem would balloon at an extraordinary rate.


Unsafe work conditions
-subjectivity, subjectivity. Shit will always happen, how far do we go ? Regulate ourselves out of business. I ride motorcycles, I know the danger - should they be outlawed ? Fatality stats are staggering... Put the monkey bars back...
It's not subjective--when regulations were put in place work place deaths and injuries declined. I'm not saying we need to childproof everything, but clearly something must be done to ensure we don't have an inordinate amount of deaths in the workplace.

http://eh.net/encyclopedia/article/aldrich.safety.workplace.us


No minimum wage or overtime
-Minimum wage is evil, it keeps the young and inexperienced or untrained people out of work.
If your work is not worth 8 bucks an hour, no one is going to hire you, they will extend the hours of the existing crew (and pay them).
This keeps the young from jobs where they could spend time learning a trade - instead, they choose to learn to become criminals.
The young can already learn a trade while getting paid below minimum wage, or not not getting paid at all, by interning. And living off of minimum wage is already hard enough; eliminating it would lead to a lot of hungry, angry people.



No limit to the work week length
-Fridays off, so common today, were not mandated by regulation, they came out spontaneously out of competition for labor in the free market.
Again, in the past, 19 century and first part of 20th century, people worked 6 or 7 days a week to be able to support themselves - that was the reality of life in the good old days. A shorter work week should be credited directly to the wealth producing capitalism.
Fridays off are not common. In fact, a lot of people don't even get the weekend off. And the 40 hour work week is actually rooted in the Fair Labor Standards Act, but if you believe it arose naturally from the free market, it shouldn't be an issue if it's codeified in law, right?

[joe blowe]

Fist of all, I appreciate the opportunity of this exchange, thank you for your thoughts. I believe we all can learn from it. I am not trying to 'win' the argument, but explore ideas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
see comments throughout the quote........




Some might be a result of licensing issues, but what about those that aren't? Microsoft is a good example--anyone with a compiler and the money to register an LLC has what it takes to "compete" with them. The problem is, however, that doing so is absolutely infeasible. Microsoft is far too monilithic. You won't create a commercial desktop OS that will seize any sizeable market share, if any at all. And in case you're wondering, linux is a nice for servers, but it will never compete as a desktop OS, and one of its biggest draws is that it's free.
..........
Microsoft is the prime example of free competition. My father worked for IBM in the fifties. They were indeed the only game in town. Microsoft was a mere startup, not a blip on the radar screen.
What about Apple ? They still compete with MS and are quite sucessful.
It is indeed true that some technologies lend themselves to being monolithic, like VHS vs. Betamax - but only for a period of time. I have a couple of tiny little memory usb sticks in my pocket, with four full lenght movies in each.
Monopolies will occur for a short while and then some new technology changes everything. That is, provided regulation does not make it mandatory the use of one over the other...
..........
Now onto oligopolies, let's take a look at processor manufacturers. If you want to compete, first you're probably going to need to license x86. But this license doesn't come from the government, it comes from Intel. Even without that hurdle, the price of entering that industry would be phenomenally high because, well, CPUs are complicated. Joe entrepeneur would not be gaining a foothold in the industry from his garage.
............
I've been looking at computers to buy at the Source, and have seen a few different processors advertised. Same thought applies, monopolies are fleeting.
............
And what about our own history of child labor? The laws didn't spring forth from the aether for no reason. I'm happy that you got to start work at 16 and worked a nice 40 hour week. What if you had started at 7 and worked 60 hour weeks?
..........
Again, the timing is very important. As I mention at the end of this exchange, up until the beginning of the 20 century for the Western World and much later for the Third World (never..), life was very, very hard. It was the history of the world as it was or is for a lot of people. To judge it by our marvelous standards does not give it a true perspective.
If your family homesteaded in Alberta Canada at the turn of the century, everybody worked from sunup to sundown. It was very cold most nights, -40F and life was tough. It was nice just to have something to eat.

..............
Do you think your life would have turned out the same? What about if you had worked in unsafe conditions due to lack of regulations? Sorry, but you wouldn't be the same. You got 16 years to be a "child", and then when you began working you still had free time. These formative years are quite important, and these kids were not allowed to have them. Many of them were not given a chance to become engineers as you have, because instead of receiving the most basic of educations they were busy working. Many of them were also indentured servants (essentially slaves), another byproduct of a lack of regulation.
...........
I firmly believe that my life turned out the way it did BECAUSE I was forced to work early (death of my parents). Up until then, I was a lazy bum, did not like school. After the first year as a schlep office boy, I hated it so much that I started setting my sights higher, towards a trade or carreer. I went to night school and worked like a maniac to get into engineering school. I was not 'given' the chance, not in so clear terms. Thanks to living in the free world, I could choose and 'pursue' a career path.


http://i.imgur.com/4xcto.jpg
...............
Let's assume your bleak scenario plays out and all factories around the world operate under the exact same conditions. Here in the US, let's say we pay the workers around $7 an hour. Offshores, they'll work for less than a dollar an hour. Where do you think the factories will move?
.........
I have posted a couple of articles in this blog on China and the troubles they are facing, not the least of which is that their workers want higher pay. Much higher pay. China is being outbid by Singapore and Japan.
Also, when productivity is factored in, due to the training, education and quality of most american workers, it has been shown that it is cheaper to produce most things in the US. Regulatory regimes make things much more expensive.
..........
And beyond factories, what about the IT industry? Safety regulations are quite loose, and the cost of starting up an operation is quite cheap. Still, plenty of it is being outsourced. Is that because of regulation? If so, what regulations?
.........
I have an office in the US, with two engineers that work for me. I cannot grow the business there because I was told by my accountant and my lawyer that I will have to hire minorities and that will be subjected to all kinds of penalties if I fail to have some quotas.
In some countries like Portugal, it is almost impossible to fire someone. Most of the EU is the same. It is immensely stiffling for the businesses. You are concentrating in your business, but in the regulatory crap around you.
I would never consider opening shop in the EU...
.........
I'm glad we agree here. Unfortunately the examples I cited are instances of what is happening now, so clearly we are not doing enough.
...............
I actually wasn't even talking about undocumented labor, but rather people coming in on work Visas like H-1Bs. Bringing someone here with an H-1B isn't cheap, and supposedly can only be done when no workers here can accomplish the task, yet each year H-1Bs flood in, and I can tell you for a fact many of the jobs they fill can easily be filled by Americans. But H-1Bs work longer hours for less pay and they pay taxes. If restrictions were lifted this problem would balloon at an extraordinary rate.
............
Again, when money costs a little more (10% interest rates) people are more careful in what they do.
Read: 'The power of productivity' or 'Doing business in 2006' - these books investigate how hard it is to - start a business (register), - hire someone - fire someone - built a 40,000 sqft warehouse, in several different countries in the world. You will be amazed.
...........
It's not subjective--when regulations were put in place work place deaths and injuries declined. I'm not saying we need to childproof everything, but clearly something must be done to ensure we don't have an inordinate amount of deaths in the workplace.

http://eh.net/encyclopedia/article/aldrich.safety.workplace.us
...........
I read the paper, very interesting. Salient was the time periods related therein.
We need to keep in mind that life expectancy in the latter part of the 19 century and the first part of the 20 century was about 37 years of age.

Technology advances played a huge role in decreasing fatalities & injuries.

Labor force education also played a major role. The level of actual knowledge a 1970 factory worker brings to the shop floor on his first day at work is enormous compared with a worker from the 1910 or 1920's.

Maturity of the work force. As longevity and wealth acquisition increased, so did 'love of life'. The prospect of falling in love with a sweetheart and having your kids leads to a worker treasuring his own safety and life a lot more. I younger worker would see an older worker with his wife and kids, and yearn for the same thing.

In conclusion to this part, I would say the majority of the improvements in work safety were accomplished by the above factors and perhaps little or even hindered by regulation.

There is a whole narrative of carelessness in the part of the industries and business towards people that is put forward tipically by the left. This narrative hides the fact that life 100 years ago was tough, period.
There is an interesting presentation on violence over the ages I saw a few days ago that gives a glimpse on part of the violence problem, prevalent throughout human history and only that lately has come to manageable levels - a naturally violent person will probably be an unsafe worker. Link below.
http://edge.org/conversation/mc2011-history-violence-pinker
............
The young can already learn a trade while getting paid below minimum wage, or not not getting paid at all, by interning. And living off of minimum wage is already hard enough; eliminating it would lead to a lot of hungry, angry people.
........
The idea of 'living wage' or that a grown adult should be able to support him or herself on minimum wage is a fallacy. He or she, should not.
Minimum wage, or in the absence of mandated wages, 'starting wages' are for trainees, young kids starting in the workforce, etc.
I is a learning and training wage.
.........
Fridays off are not common. In fact, a lot of people don't even get the weekend off. And the 40 hour work week is actually rooted in the Fair Labor Standards Act, but if you believe it arose naturally from the free market, it shouldn't be an issue if it's codeified in law, right?
........
Engineers tipically do not get paid overtime. Bummer.
I have noticed that people in the US tend to work much longer hours than people in Canada, it appears to be just the nature of how the countries developed. People in the US will work long hours without getting paid inspite of regulations.

[2DREZQ]

Tuition is rising for a variety of reasons that aren't applicable to non-profit health insurance companies, so the comparison is spurious. But while we're on the subject, would you say that regulations are needed to control rising tuition?

One reason is the drive to squirrel away ever larger "endowments" , rather than hold down the cost of tuition. A lot like a for-profit would do with the analog: profits.



raise taxes, cut costs in other areas such as "defense".

That's a whole 'nother issue. Maybe can we get back to it later.



I addressed this in a prior post. In short, if capitalism fails to provide food, then yes, the government should step in and provide assistance.

This goes back to ones basic understanding of the concept of "need". The things that we as individuals perceive as a need, we prioritize for and work into our budget. The free market senses the money in the pocket, and provides the need at a price that provides a profit.

Nobody (hardly) can afford a house. I certainly don't have $135,000 lying around. The market came to the rescue and "provided a roof over my head" in the form of a bank that was willing to provide the service of a mortgage. For a profit drawn out over decades, they loaned me the money to pay for a necessity now that I cannot provide for myself. They didn't make anything, just provided a service. Without that service, I would have been homeless.

Insurance companies (bastard that they are) are no more morally repugnant than a bank.

The uninsured? How do they differ from the homeless in their right to have shelter provided for them if they cannot provide it themselves?


Not really? You might want to look into a little trick called evergreening--it's a strategy that lets them prevent generic manufacturers from producing drugs after the initial exclusivity period is up. Beyond that, pharma companies are actively fighting to extend the exclusivity period.

Sure they are. They are in business to make money. The purpose of government is, in part, to balance the needs of the people with the profit motive of the market. This includes regulations that protect the people from the worst abuses



Funny you mention telecommunication companies--we're falling behind in speed and connectivity at an alarming rate because of anticompetitive practices. We're not even in the top 10 for either.


How many countries have as vast an infrastructure to update as we do? We are suffering, in part, from being ahead of everybody else. It's cheaper to build from scratch with new stuff than it is to update old stuff.





Having health insurance tied to my job is quite bleak

Healthcare Insurance as a benefit originally came about as a response to taxes: high individual federal income tax. It had the unfortunate effect of making the insurance seem "free" when it wasn't.


-I'd rather my chances of receiving health care not be so contingent upon economic conditions

That is your preference, not a right. I'd prefer that I didn't have to worry about anything financial, the best way to do that is to get rich :)



At least during an economic downturn and periods of unemployment I would have the satisfaction of knowing I remain covered.

It still isn't the job of the government to provide that kind of security. Brutally speaking, anything that decreases the incentive to get out and get another job is, economically speaking, a bad idea.


And don't think we aren't subject to what are essentially private politics under our current system.

????



People who are covered go into medical debt daily, and then there are those who aren't covered at all. Among those who aren't covered, how many do you think are in that situation by choice?

You may want to set economic policy based on how we "feel" for the less fortunate, but where does that end?


you could very well end up among the uninsured yourself one day, assuming you're insured right now, of course.

I am insured. I pay for it myself because I am an independent contract employee. I've had "free" insurance provided by an employer, when I struck out on my own I made sure I got a job that paid a high enough wage to more than make up the difference. That's a real-life choice. I've also been uninsured. Did I mention that I have decades of experience inside the healthcare industry?

[2DREZQ]

Firstly, as I've said before I'm not objecting to all healthcare profits. My biggest issue is with the insurance companies.

If you don't mind the profit, then it must just be the "denial" of benefits, which is a form of rationing, as it were. We will face rationing of healthcare in some form regardless of what you desire. There is not enough money in our economy to provide 100% of the healthcare everyone would like to have.

So:

1. People who havent got insurance won't get all they want.

2. Insurance companies, in an effort to protect their 3.3% profit margin, will limit their payout as much as possible.

3. The government will either ration care when they have to pay for it, or tax the bejesus out of everyone in order to provide a decent 'minimium' of care-those on such a system will still be S.O.L. when it come to getting everything they want, and the richer members of society will get everything they can afford.

I'm no big friend of insurance companies, but they aren't the demons they are made out to be.


If capitalism fails to feed the masses, something must be done.
Capitalism has done such a superlative job of feeding the masses that we have as a species forgotten how bad things can be.


If capitalism fails to house the masses, as it seems to be doing with foreclosures on the rise and ~11% of houses vacant and falling into disrepair, something must be done. The logic behind my reasoning is quite simple: if capitalism fails to provide a necessity...

Capitalism has done a better job of housing the masses than any other system in history. The problem with the housing bubble is not a failure of capitalism. It would take pages to explain why, but without the warpage caused by imperfect regulation, it would have been a minor problem.

I presume that the something must be done void should, in your opinion, be filled by government action.

You do realize that the government that you expect to fix everything not only had a major hand in causing the problem, but that same government will NEED the capitalist system to PAY the freight on all the things that you think they should fix. This is a fallacy that presumes that sucking the profit out of a gigantic system will decrease the cost of providing anything. Government operating more efficiently that the free-market? The loss of efficiency alone renders that impossible. Not to mention the fact that as soon as something seems to be "free" demand for that thing will skyrocket, thus making meeting that demand level unfeasible.

All this dancing around boils done to a basic question of what we as a society feel is morally imperative to provide to our fellow humans at a real cost to ourselves. When we decide that healthcare should be provided, rationing, which strikes us at present as immoral or unfair, WILL eventually follow. The system needs a tune up, that is a certainty, but demonizing corporations that provide a service under strict government regulation doesn't further the dialog. If it is lobbying that is objectionable, it still isn't the companies fault, as they are still operating under the rule the government set up. The answer is to reform the government, not blame the companies. Until we do that, we are operating at the most inefficient level imaginable.

[Jake Featherston]

This is the reason the left loves progressive taxation, not because of fairness, but because of having control over the masses that will faithfully vote for them.
If the cocktail waitress sees that the government is screwing up with her tax money, she will be just as outraged, probably even more, than the millionaire.

You haven't convinced me progressive taxation is a bad idea, but you've made a far more interesting case for such a notion than most of its critics are able.

[SwordoftheVistula]

In the current regulated state, health insurance is a waste of money for young people.

In my mid 20s, I got offered insurance through work, but turned it down, because it would have cost an extra $130/month or something. That would have been $130/month down the drain, that I instead spent on other stuff I wanted.

In my late 20s, living in Massachusetts under Romneycare, I was forced to buy health insurance for a little under $3k/year in order to attend graduate school there. Twice in these three years, I saved a whole $14 off of a prescription ($10 co-pay instead of the $24 it would normally have cost at WalMart). Waste of money. The prescriptions I got via the school clinic, but if prescriptions were not required for drugs, then there wouldn't be this huge extra cost to the health care system.

Looking through the different stuff that is covered, 99% of it I had absolutely no chance of needing at that time period, especially being under age 30. Most/all of this stuff was covered because of mandates by the government, which adds to the cost enormously.

[xor eax, eax]

Unfortunately due to time constraints I'm going to have to bow out of this thread. It was certainly engaging--I'd like to say thanks to everyone who shared their perspective.

[2DREZQ]

Unfortunately due to time constraints I'm going to have to bow out of this thread. It was certainly engaging--I'd like to say thanks to everyone who shared their perspective.

It was fun.

Be safe, until we meet again.:thumb001:

[Der Steinadler]

I don't disagree with that, but Rand was mounting a counter-attack against socialists who constantly berated 'the wealthy' as parasites and good for nothings, and she was doing us a service in reminding us they're nothing of the kind.

I thinks Rand's thesis is that its the men of Genius who make the world turn.

Quite a distinction from the wealthy.

[2DREZQ]

I thinks Rand's thesis is that its the men of Genius who make the world turn.

Quite a distinction from the wealthy.

Men of action. Those who dare to take risks should be allowed to reap the rewards.

[SwordoftheVistula]

I think her thesis was that men of genius and action make the world turn, and barring artificial constraints, they will become the wealthy. She didn't seem to have much sympathy for those who became wealthy by trickery or political machinations or who squandered inheritances.

[CelticViking]

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/6/66/Atlas_Shrugged_film_poster.jpg



Taylor Schilling as Dagny Taggart
Grant Bowler as Henry "Hank" Rearden
Matthew Marsden as James Taggart
Graham Beckel as Ellis Wyatt
Edi Gathegi as Edwin "Eddie" Willers
Jsu Garcia as Francisco Domingo Carlos Andres Sebastian d'Anconia
Michael Lerner as Wesley Mouch
Jack Milo as Richard McNamara
Ethan Cohn as Owen Kellogg
Rebecca Wisocky as Lillian Rearden
Christina Pickles as Mother Rearden
Neill Barry as Philip Rearden
Patrick Fischler as Paul Larkin
Sylva Kelegian as Ivy Starnes
Jon Polito as Orren Boyle
Michael O'Keefe as Hugh Akston
Geoff Pierson as Midas Mulligan
Armin Shimerman as Dr. Potter
Paul Johansson as John Galt (only in Part 1 as silhouetted figure wearing a trenchcoat and fedora)



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlas_Shrugged:_Part_I

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlas_Shrugged:_Part_2

[finþaų]

Ayn Rand did have a couple of interesting ideas, but the mentally deranged Jewishness shone through.

The film doesn't look that interesting unfortunately.

[rhiannon]

Merged CV's thread with an older version:)

[CelticViking]

Merged CV's thread with an older version:)

Okay, thanks as I didn't really know what was about :)