debate on universal access to health care

[njs]

No, I'm for progressive taxation, not arbitrary prices on consumer goods. What's your point?

I'm grateful to the wealthier guy for his greater than average contribution to our schools, roads, and other services, but if he starts whining about carrying more than his share, I'm not gonna be terribly sympathetic. Maybe he works twice as hard and twice as smart as the guy grossing $150k, and maybe he doesn't, but either way he can sure as hell afford his 35% tax burden without terrible sacrifice.

Progressive taxation recognizes that financial reward is not necessarily commensurate with someone's work, or other contribution to society. How much benefit does a soldier give to society? Are we, as a society, hundreds of times better off from the effort of a basketball star than from the effort of a soldier?

Should a soldier have to pay the same number of dollars in taxes as a basketball star, or bank executive?

Do you even remotely understand that people with lots of money generally provide to those they get money from (exception being politicians, unless "hope" can be defined as providing someone with something)? Does the idea of voluntary trade completely escape you?

I doesn't matter how hard someone worked, or how smart they are. In a market someone can only get money and wealth by providing something to others.

Markets are the ultimate democracy. Votes (money) are doled out based upon how much you are able to help those around you.

This might be an interesting conversation in a world where all markets are perfectly free and all parties to every transaction have perfect and free access to all information relevant to every transaction. But such markets and transactions do not exist, money is always an imperfect measure of value, and this isn't an interesting conversation.

So you admit markets are a fair form of wealth distribution but would rather further dilute their effectiveness. You assume governments have any better information than people. Fascinating world view.

 

[julesa]

The gov has better info...? I didn't say that. If you don't understand what I mean when I talk about information imbalance, go take an Econ 101 class. Should be covered.

 

[njs]

The gov has better info...? I didn't say that. If you don't understand what I mean when I talk about information imbalance, go take an Econ 101 class. Should be covered.

How can an entity that has less information solve an information asymmetry?

Hayek discusses this at length.

 

[julesa]

Sometimes the asymmetry can't be resolved. In such situations the unwieldy and imprecise sledgehammer of regulation is the only practical solution. Bye now.

 

[njs]

Sometimes the asymmetry can't be resolved. In such situations the unwieldy and imprecise sledgehammer of regulation is the only practical solution. Bye now.

Sounds fascinatingly vague.

 

[julesa]

Sigh. How many products with government required labels are in your field of vision right this minute?

 

[njs]

Sigh. How many products with government required labels are in your field of vision right this minute?

Ever heard of UL?

 

[julesa]

Discussing economics with a LaRouchie or Randroid is like discussing evolution with a fundamentalist Christian. Nothing you say makes any difference, they don't even waste any energy considering the validity of your arguments, because they don't think they need to. They have such faith in their world view that they already 'know' you must be wrong. Even a shallow look at the objective data demolishes their arguments, but they don't bother to consider the possibility that they could be wrong. Yeah, I've heard of UL, but that was such a weak evasion of my point that I don't think there's any possibility of ever getting through to you.

 

[njs]

Discussing economics with a LaRouchie or Randroid is like discussing evolution with a fundamentalist Christian. Nothing you say makes any difference, they don't even waste any energy considering the validity of your arguments, because they don't think they need to. They have such faith in their world view that they already 'know' you must be wrong. Even a shallow look at the objective data demolishes their arguments, but they don't bother to consider the possibility that they could be wrong. Yeah, I've heard of UL, but that was such a weak evasion of my point that I don't think there's any possibility of ever getting through to you.

You claim without government, regulations would not exist, yet the largest regulatory entity in the world is a private company. Evasion is an interesting way to state it. I would call it outright demolishing it.

 

[julesa]

Explain how the simple existence of one large private testing lab proves that all government required product labeling is unnecessary. So, for instance I guess you think all packaged food manufacturers would just on their own decide to disclose their foods nutritional content and ingredients in a consistent way, and disclose whether their equipment was also used with peanuts or other allergens. Do you think all the household products that contain carcinogenic ingredients would continue labeling their products as such if they didn't have to? Your argument is very shallow.

 

[njs]

Explain how the simple existence of one large private testing lab proves that all government required product labeling is unnecessary. So, for instance I guess you think all packaged food manufacturers would just on their own decide to disclose their foods nutritional content and ingredients in a consistent way, and disclose whether their equipment was also used with peanuts or other allergens. Do you think all the household products that contain carcinogenic ingredients would continue labeling their products as such if they didn't have to? Your argument is very shallow.

Fortunately the burden of proof is not on me. The natural state is one free from government intervention. You must provide some proof that said regulations really accomplish what their proponents claim they do.

If we had less government intervention as the industrial food chain was growing it's extremely likely we would have private labs in that area too. Unfortunately the government has usurped that job and spent billions of wasted dollars and provided little if any protection to consumers.

Explain to me how it's possible for UL to exist, and for large retailers to only sell products certified by their labs. It is not a government construct, but a market one based on reputation and guaranteed quality. Why would any profitable firm ever test a product? It might hurt their shareholders... and so goes the circular argument.

 

[Jonathan in Hiram]

Eh, there is a country where the government doesn't interfere much at all with private business, virtually no bothersome and counterproductive regulations.

It's called Somalia.

I understand that it is paradise on Earth.

 

[Tom Tom]

The natural state is one free from government intervention. You must provide some proof that said regulations really accomplish what their proponents claim they do.

Thank you brotha, you have stated the obvious!

Those that think otherwise fall to heed the unintended consequences.

 

[Miles]

Government intervention is the root of all that's wrong... LOL!

 

[julesa]

Explain how the simple existence of one large private testing lab proves that all government required product labeling is unnecessary. So, for instance I guess you think all packaged food manufacturers would just on their own decide to disclose their foods nutritional content and ingredients in a consistent way, and disclose whether their equipment was also used with peanuts or other allergens. Do you think all the household products that contain carcinogenic ingredients would continue labeling their products as such if they didn't have to? Your argument is very shallow.

Fortunately the burden of proof is not on me. The natural state is one free from government intervention. You must provide some proof that said regulations really accomplish what their proponents claim they do.

Fortunately... because you can't answer the question? I'm simply asking you to support your argument. The burden of proof is on you -- you're the one proposing radical deregulation. The "natural state" is might makes right: those with the most power are free, and everyone else is a slave. I prefer civilizaton, thanks. Tell us how a UL type voluntary mark is going to work in a nonregulated environment to let end users know which products at the local Home Depot contain carcinogenic chemicals. That certainly is information I want to know when I'm shopping for chemical products. You think a slick "carcinogenic" logo would look good? Or maybe go the other way, somehow every single non-carcinogenic product is going to eagerly and voluntarily paste a "cancer-free" logo on their product, and so many will do so that we can tell which products are carcinogenic by the absence of that logo? It's ridiculous either way.

Yet another example of your impervousness to logic. I'm wasting my time.

 

[njs]

Explain how the simple existence of one large private testing lab proves that all government required product labeling is unnecessary. So, for instance I guess you think all packaged food manufacturers would just on their own decide to disclose their foods nutritional content and ingredients in a consistent way, and disclose whether their equipment was also used with peanuts or other allergens. Do you think all the household products that contain carcinogenic ingredients would continue labeling their products as such if they didn't have to? Your argument is very shallow.

Fortunately the burden of proof is not on me. The natural state is one free from government intervention. You must provide some proof that said regulations really accomplish what their proponents claim they do.

Fortunately... because you can't answer the question? I'm simply asking you to support your argument. The burden of proof is on you -- you're the one proposing radical deregulation. The "natural state" is might makes right: those with the most power are free, and everyone else is a slave. I prefer civilizaton, thanks. Tell us how a UL type voluntary mark is going to work in a nonregulated environment to let end users know which products at the local Home Depot contain carcinogenic chemicals. That certainly is information I want to know when I'm shopping for chemical products. You think a slick "carcinogenic" logo would look good? Or maybe go the other way, somehow every single non-carcinogenic product is going to eagerly and voluntarily paste a "cancer-free" logo on their product, and so many will do so that we can tell which products are carcinogenic by the absence of that logo? It's ridiculous either way.

Yet another example of your impervousness to logic. I'm wasting my time.

I don't know what food retailers would do. Because I can't construct the entire food chain in my head is not an argument for centralization. That is the very argument against centralization. It is impossible for any government construct to contain as much information as individuals acting upon their specialty.

UL worked long before government regulations, and it works for many areas free of any government regulations.

Do you really think a manufacturer of potentially deadly chemicals is going to just put a blank white label on their product and have anyone buy it?

 

[njs]

Eh, there is a country where the government doesn't interfere much at all with private business, virtually no bothersome and counterproductive regulations.

It's called Somalia.

I understand that it is paradise on Earth.

Well, for a long time it was called America. And those in Europe made similar arguments about the lawless US.

I suggest you do some research on Somalia since the collapse of it's government. One of the fastest developing nations in Africa.

 

[njs]

Consider the case of Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d. 1 (D.C. Ct. of Ap. 1981), for example. In this case three rape victims sued the Washington, D.C., government because of negligence on the part of the police. The case brought out the following facts (Evers 1994: 7): Two of the three female roommates were upstairs in their apartment when they heard men break in and attack the third. They made repeated calls to the police for help. After about thirty minutes, their roommate's screams had stopped and they assumed the police had arrived. They went downstairs where, for the next fourteen hours, they were help captive, raped, robbed, beaten, and forced to commit sexual acts upon one another and to submit to the sexual demands of the criminals. It seems that the police had lost track of the repeated calls for assistance. Yet, the District of Columbia's highest court absolved the police and the city of any liability, stating that the police do not have a legal responsibility to provide personal protection to individuals. This ruling is completely consistent with a number of court rulings and statute law from several states. But imagine what a jury would award to a plaintiff in a civil case for negligence on the part of a private security firm that resulted in harms such as this.

A private security firm cannot afford to be careless in the way it serves its customers. Public police can. Thus, public employees who provide law enforcement actually have the type of incentives that some critics have attributed to private security, but they are not regulated by the threat of competition at anything close to the level that exists in private markets, and they do not face the same liability rules that private firms face. Consequently public producers are for more likely to react to those incentives than are private producers.

-Bruce Benson "To Serve and Protect: Privatization and Community in Criminal Justice"

Once again, you would you rather get service from an entity that writes the law, or one subject to the law.

 

[julesa]

Do you really think a manufacturer of potentially deadly chemicals is going to just put a blank white label on their product and have anyone buy it?

No, they're going to put all kinds of claims about its effectiveness all over the label, without even bothering to research whether there are any long term health consequences. Like they mostly always did, until regulation forced them to do otherwise. You seem like a smart guy, just a bit too devoted to blind faith in your economic viewpoint. Too bad, really.

 

[Jonathan in Hiram]

Well, for a long time it was called America. And those in Europe made similar arguments about the lawless US.

I suggest you do some research on Somalia since the collapse of it's government. One of the fastest developing nations in Africa.

I suspect that people with an excess of melanin in their skin would disagree with you about America pre-1865 being such a paradise of free enterprise.

I grew up in the Jim Crow South and things were still pretty dicey even then for those of less than fair complexion, there is no doubt in my mind that my fellow melanin-challenged Southerners would have happily gone right back to keeping slaves had the federal government not kept them from it by threat of physical force. It's really quite an experience to hear a snot nosed young whippersnapper call a white haired grandfather "boy" and have none of the adults around you so much as blink an eye.

If Somalia is such a Mecca of free enterprise I'm sure that there is a rush on to emigrate there on the part of those who truly love freedom and capitalism.

Go Southeast young man.

 

[njs]

Do you really think a manufacturer of potentially deadly chemicals is going to just put a blank white label on their product and have anyone buy it?

No, they're going to put all kinds of claims about its effectiveness all over the label, without even bothering to research whether there are any long term health consequences. Like they mostly always did, until regulation forced them to do otherwise. You seem like a smart guy, just a bit too devoted to blind faith in your economic viewpoint. Too bad, really.

So how do the people on this forum ever buy batteries? I'm not well read on the law but I'm fairly certain there is not a battery czar yet. I can put some water inside a tin can and tell you it's 3.7 V 10,000 mAh with 30,000 + cycles to 80%. How ever will you cope?

 

[julesa]

I'm ignoring you from now on.

 

[njs]

Well, for a long time it was called America. And those in Europe made similar arguments about the lawless US.

I suggest you do some research on Somalia since the collapse of it's government. One of the fastest developing nations in Africa.

I suspect that people with an excess of melanin in their skin would disagree with you about America pre-1865 being such a paradise of free enterprise.

I grew up in the Jim Crow South and things were still pretty dicey even then for those of less than fair complexion, there is no doubt in my mind that my fellow melanin-challenged Southerners would have happily gone right back to keeping slaves had the federal government not kept them from it by threat of physical force. It's really quite an experience to hear a snot nosed young whippersnapper call a white haired grandfather "boy" and have none of the adults around you so much as blink an eye.

If Somalia is such a Mecca of free enterprise I'm sure that there is a rush on to emigrate there on the part of those who truly love freedom and capitalism.

Go Southeast young man.

You have to actually, you know, understand the history of slavery.

First of all, slavery was a big step up in human society. Before an invading army would simple kill all those they didn't like. This was largely because life was 0 sum. Land = wealth and power. Less people = more wealth and power for those who are left. Knowledge had little value. As economies developed it became apparent that land was mostly worthless without a way to convert resources into useful outputs, thus slavery became viable. It is unfortunate that America caught the tail end of this period. But as economies around the world developed, it became further apparent that the best way to gain from another was simple trade, that life was not 0 sum, free people were far more productive, and taking from others was not the only way to get ahead. This is how slavery died in most countries on earth. If the US government had simply bought out the slaves it would have cost an order of magnitude less and spared half a million lives.

Of course the populist progressive state doesn't like this story. It flies in the face of claims that all those who are wealthy got there through inheritance or some form of subjugation of the poor. When pressed for examples, there are very few. Trust fund babies tend to piss away their wealth in a generation and most of the billionaires today came from virtual starvation.

You've written a lovely little anecdote that has little relevance to anything discussed so far. It was governments that put people in prison or executed them for freeing slaves. It was governments that made rules like the 3/5 compromise. It is governments that have written absurd immigration laws creating virtual slaves out of immigrants today.

 

[njs]

I'm ignoring you from now on.

I'm sure everyone else was relieved to see you post that.

 

[julesa]

Here's an interesting perspective on a health care public option:
http://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2009/06/a-public-plan.html

A Public Plan

[I'm hoping this education example will give some insight into the public health care plan, or at least give you another way to think about it.]

Suppose that education is only available from private sector schools, and that education within this system is very expensive. Because of the expense, millions of people do not have access to education. Further suppose that due to the characteristics of the education market, there is reason to believe that the private institutions are bloated with excess costs (and, in addition to all the other excess costs, 30% of their expenditures came from competition for students rather than delivering education). To make matters worse, the already too high costs are expected to escalate rapidly in the future and further limit access to education. (And there's more. If costs aren't controlled, the government's Educare program for the very young will begin to eat up a huge share of the federal budget.)

Now suppose the government decides to solve both the access and cost problems by setting up a public plan for education. Here's how it works.

The government will build schools, staff them, purchase supplies, and so on, but there's a catch. The schools will have to run without any government subsidies, none at all, not a dime (so this is different than what we actually do since some or all of the education bill is subsidized, some for college, all for lower grades).

If these schools provide exactly the same education as the private sector schools but cost less to attend, then that would either force the private sector schools to find a way to compete by bringing costs down, and they ought to be able to match the government run institution, or they would go out of business. It's true that the public institutions might have an advantage in buying books in bulk, that sort of thing, and they could probably get books and other supplies for less than individual private schools could get them, but what's wrong with scale economies? And to the extent that it is the power that comes from their size as public institutions rather than actual efficiencies, it's important to remember that the publishers aren't without their own countervailing market power, so this makes the playing field more level.

As to access, one option is to do as we do with schools now and implicitly subsidize everyone who attends, rich and poor alike, by giving government subsidies to the schools (tuition falls by the amount of the subsidy, to zero for public elementary and high schools, part way to zero for colleges). But that would violate the no government help rule we imposed above. The other way to do this is to take the money that would have been used to subsidize the schools and instead give it out to individuals who couldn't attend school otherwise (perhaps graduated by income). That avoids giving subsidies to those who don't need them, and the subsidies can then be concentrated on those who do. The additional help available to those who need it would, in turn, allow more people access to education, a key goal of the policy.

So, the idea is to build government schools that must run without any help from taxpayers, and the public schools will compete side by side with the private schools. Rather than limiting choice, this adds one more choice, and it's a choice nobody has to make if the public schools turn out to be more expensive than than the competing private schools. Then, to increase access to education, give individuals the tuition subsidies they need to make it possible for them to attend the public school. Finally, for any conservatives opposed to the public plan, notice that if individuals can use the subsidy on either a public or a private sector school, this is basically a voucher system. However, in this case the goal of the voucher system is to reduce costs in the overly expensive private sector rather than to discipline the public institutions, something the private sector shouldn't fear if, in fact, it is the least cost provider of education.