Quote: Original post by HostileExpanse

Quote: Original post by Dreddnafious Maelstrom
It's rather simple really. If the government required a million dollar bond to be on hand prior to opening a lemonade stand there would be less competition among lemonade stands.

You originally used the term "non-competitive" ... but here you've merely stated there'd be "less competition."


Also, there's little in your simple example that describes how the required bond necessarily creates any sort of lemonade monopoly/oligopoly.

Non-competitive is a relative term, I use it in this instance to describe a situation where the existing bonded lemonade stand is not required to compete for customers with the non-existant lemonade stand that can not afford the bond.


How this creates monopolies one would think could be reasonably inferred. If the only way to open a lemonade stand was to be a sitting president then that artificial barrier to entry creates a monopoly.

Of course that example is absurd, but I guess it must be to make the point explicit.

So now the bond is 30 million dollars and there are only 4 companies that can afford to pay for it and thus sell lemonade. A child drinks lemonade made with a spoiled lemon and gets a tummy-ache. The mom writes her congressman, the congressman speaks on the floor, and the lemonade stands send their lobbyists to meet with congress.

Congress passes the No tummy-ache bill to protect the children. Henceforth all lemons used in lemonade stands must pass through a stringent testing program and be inspected by the FDA. As a result, lemon costs go up. 2 of the 4 companies can not turn a profit at the new prices and thus go under.

Any new entrant into the "lemonade stand sector" must post a 30 million dollar bond and somehow achieve profitability with artificially high material costs.

Contrast this with the unregulated lemonade stand market today. Which is more competitive?

Quote: Original post by HelplessFool
It's intrinsic to the nature of many people never to admit being wrong. Hell, look at how people banded about the term "flip-flop" during the '04 elections. As if showing you can learn things is a crime!

I would think that is more indicative of peoples ability to attach random meanings to catchy phrases during an election to try and illicit a desired reaction every time someone hears it. Or people using catchy phrases they heard because they think it makes them sound educated and respectable on a subject during a campaign. Need I say Maverick? I don't think that "flip-flop" has any real roots in peoples need to be right. Though I do think people sure like to be right.

Quote: Original post by Goober King

Quote: Original post by HelplessFool
It's intrinsic to the nature of many people never to admit being wrong. Hell, look at how people banded about the term "flip-flop" during the '04 elections. As if showing you can learn things is a crime!

I would think that is more indicative of peoples ability to attach random meanings to catchy phrases during an election to try and illicit a desired reaction every time someone hears it. Or people using catchy phrases they heard because they think it makes them sound educated and respectable on a subject during a campaign. Need I say Maverick? I don't think that "flip-flop" has any real roots in peoples need to be right. Though I do think people sure like to be right.

I understand where you're coming from, there's always a slogan. But at the same time, how often do you see a politician being given any credit for learning from his past mistakes, as opposed to the sheer amount of mudslinging generated based on the very same mistake long after its been fixed?

They use these slogans because they resonate with people. People wanted change, so they threw about the term maverick in an attempt to position themselves as change-makers. If a politician liked wearing purple suits, they could call him eccentric, but they really won't waste their time because its not an issue (most) people care about.

I can't profess to know everything about the '04 election, I was only recently turned 18 and didn't have the time to understand everything that went on, but you don't spend millions on mudslinging ads without some idea of whether or not they'll work. Its marketing, something I think we are all very well exposed to, but most people will never stop and think about.

edit: broke up wall-o-text for readability

Quote: Original post by Mithrandir
The worst part is that all the while I was sitting there, at least a half dozen drug reps entered the office and were able to have a meeting with the doctor almost immediately each time.

... Wow.

If this part is even remotely true, it ought to be far more evidence than any of you doubters need.

I have never, in my entire life, knowingly seen a drug rep.

Quote: It constantly amazes me that people actually think that a company that has no obligation to anything but profit would be more beneficial to your health than a government that you elect.

Exactly what I was going to say.

Quote: Original post by Oluseyi
I think WazzatMan described an interesting approach in Malta, where out-of-pocket expenditure covers simple medical issues for which you want immediate care (the cheap or genuinely indigent can seek state care for these, too, I gather, but then they have to wait until the system can accommodate them), while state care is provided for significant conditions. I presume those who wish can still elect for private care in these cases and pay out of pocket?

As far as I can tell, there's nothing "interesting" about this approach: it describes my experience of how things work in Canada, and I would be surprised to hear that anyone else successful is doing it significantly differently.

It seems to me that the people arguing against public health care are putting up huge numbers of strawmen about what that actually means - i.e. what's actually covered by a public system. Dentistry, for example, is not, over here; you need to be paying into an employee health plan or have your own insurance that covers it, or pay the 3-figure bill yourself.

Quote: Original post by Dreddnafious Maelstrom

Quote: Original post by Mithrandir
It constantly amazes me that people actually think that a company that has no obligation to anything but profit would be more beneficial to your health than a government that you elect.

How is it exactly that any business is relieved of their need to have paying customers and still be a viable model? I see this idea thrown around constantly. Obviously in cases when artificial barriers to entry are created by federal or state governments to create a monopoly or pseudo-monopoly the responsiveness to the client is mitigated, but even then the "obligation to anything but profit" requires paying customers does it not?

I might be able to accept your argument if there were anything really elastic about the nature of demand for health care. As it is, "customers" will "pay" private health care whether they like it or not, because the option is premature death. And even if private health care fails to save the patient, new "customers" immigrate and are born constantly.

A business providing health care is actually in an ideal position to gouge people; they can hardly do anything about it, and they can also hardly plead their case in court. Especially not as long as government drug "regulation" is complicit in maintaining the situation.

Quote: Original post by Dreddnafious Maelstrom
I've seen this argument as well. I believe the beef is that everyone will be required to pay for government provided health care whether it meets their standards or not. Similar to public schools in that whether you have children or not, whether your children attend public schools or not, you are still required to fund public schools.

Umm... as far as I can tell, practically everyone else in the rest of the developed world thinks this is a great idea, and it's working out pretty damn well IMO.

Quote: Original post by Zahlman

Quote: Original post by Oluseyi
I think WazzatMan described an interesting approach in Malta, where out-of-pocket expenditure covers simple medical issues for which you want immediate care (the cheap or genuinely indigent can seek state care for these, too, I gather, but then they have to wait until the system can accommodate them), while state care is provided for significant conditions. I presume those who wish can still elect for private care in these cases and pay out of pocket?

As far as I can tell, there's nothing "interesting" about this approach: it describes my experience of how things work in Canada, and I would be surprised to hear that anyone else successful is doing it significantly differently.

Quite similar in Nordic Countries, probably elsewhere in the western Europe too. Not without their associated problems, of course. (Though dentists are included in the system here as dental health is argued to be important not just because of mouth but preventing more complex problems like migraine.)

Quote: Original post by Zahlman
I might be able to accept your argument if there were anything really elastic about the nature of demand for health care. As it is, "customers" will "pay" private health care whether they like it or not, because the option is premature death. And even if private health care fails to save the patient, new "customers" immigrate and are born constantly.

But what makes that market inelastic? I'd argue that the artificial barriers to entry limit the number of providers. If being a healthcare provider is the goose that laid the golden egg then why is there not a glut of providers as there is in any other competitive system? Why don't the number of suppliers outgrow the number of consumers and both force prices down and attrit the poor providers?

Quote:
A business providing health care is actually in an ideal position to gouge people; they can hardly do anything about it, and they can also hardly plead their case in court. Especially not as long as government drug "regulation" is complicit in maintaining the situation.

You don't have to sell me against "drug regulation", the entire system is as corrupt as Washington.

Quote:
Umm... as far as I can tell, practically everyone else in the rest of the developed world thinks this is a great idea, and it's working out pretty damn well IMO.

Forgive me, but that's a meaningless appeal to authority. I'm not going to dredge up the variety of horror stories regarding this our that countries shortcomings in medical care. If their populace is happy with what they have then I'm happy for them. That doesn't de facto make it right for us.

Quote: Original post by jakem3s90

Quote: Original post by Mithrandir
And the fact that I pay for insurance for years and then get rejected for coverage the minute anything serious to me, and the money gets funneled into some executives pocket as profit, isn't taking it out of someone elses pocket?

This is what bothers me the most. Even if the gov't insurance costs the same, and we have some silly bureaucracy, at least we won't have to worry about getting blatantly cheated.

I have a friend whose husband worked at the same place for 20 years, paying private insurance for their family. He lost his job, and couldn't afford COBRA. While laid off, she was diagnosed with cancer. Her husband got another job after some time, and his new insurance wouldn't cover her cancer treatments, because it was a "pre-existing condition". They're now hundreds of thousands in debt, and are going to have to sell their house, and change their retirement plans. It doesn't seem fair (legal?), since they paid in for all those years, and basically got nothing in return.

You are confusing an insurance with a savings plan.

Why would you want to couple either your insurance or savings to your employer? Thats a recipe for disaster (no wonder the government encourages it).

Quote:
But what makes that market inelastic? I'd argue that the artificial barriers to entry limit the number of providers. If being a healthcare provider is the goose that laid the golden egg then why is there not a glut of providers as there is in any other competitive system? Why don't the number of suppliers outgrow the number of consumers and both force prices down and attrit the poor providers?

Sorry, but that argument is just silly. Banks are extremely lucrative, and can be competitive, but I don't see John Smith opening up a bank anytime soon. Those things require a lot of capital, and a lot of consumers before they gain momentum. Insurance brokers are the same thing. What you have is a lot of big players who can easily dismantle and devour the small ones before they gain momentum and start making viable offers to consumers.

I think you'll find also that in a market with so many few suppliers, especially with a necessity like health insurance, the suppliers tend to gang up and scratch each others back to keep the status quo going. It's lovely that so many have such faith in free market economy, too bad those feelings aren't shared by the actual players in a free market economy.