EPTOn August 17 2009 09:28 IntoTheWow wrote:
Your one question was a straw man by itself.
Your one question was a straw man by itself.
Please elaborate.
Healthcare Reform in the US - Page 17
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
Eniram
Sudan3166 Posts
Please elaborate. | ||
IntoTheWow
is awesome32277 Posts
| ||
|
Eniram
Sudan3166 Posts
On August 17 2009 09:34 IntoTheWow wrote: Well you talk to him, questioning his knowledge on America because he said he watched the daily show, as if his only info from America came from it, when in fact, he used the daily show to prove that even though he's not an American, he heard about that tiny news they were discussing. Even though thats not exactly what happened, thats still not a strawman.. | ||
|
IntoTheWow
is awesome32277 Posts
| ||
|
IntoTheWow
is awesome32277 Posts
| ||
|
MoltkeWarding
5195 Posts
On August 16 2009 21:53 floor exercise wrote: In Aegraen's defense I would say most of America wouldn''t initially be able to explain progress taxation and the difference between marginal and average tax rates. But they probably wouldn't attempt to write a convincing argument against it based on their made up assumptions and then cap it off with some Ayn Rand. That's classic Aegraen To be honest, having never paid income taxes, I myself had no precise notion of how progressive taxation worked until well into my life. Also further in his defense I would say that he's demonstrated considerable awareness of the paradoxial consequences of democratic societies, including its dual-tendency to atomize individuals yet centralize power, a paradox and a problem with enormous potential for abuse. As for our youthful compulsions to presumption, it's probably as beneficial as it is harmful. Goethe: "A public which hears only the judgement of old men becomes over-wise too soon; and nothing is more unsatisfactory than a mature judgement adopted by an immature mind." Happily I am in that stage of life which neither pays income taxes nor frequents the hospital. I think I'll restrain myself to only two dogmatic statements: 1) An increase in taxation should be exercised through precisely that. The costs should not be hidden by increased deficit spending. Mortgaging the future for present gain is the definition of bad ethics. 2) As an enthusiastic traveller, I enjoy going somewhere and experiencing different ways of doing things. It occurs me that the whole world under one model of anything must tax my enjoyments. I am further convinced that such comparisons are unnatural. Some societies live on average better lifestyles than others. Some societies have a greater psychological need for security/liberty than others. Some societies are demographically top-heavy. Some have barely any retirees. Some people are rabid savers. Some rabid spendthrifts. I agree in principle that the contentions are both economic and ethical, but neither economics nor ethics are independent realities. They are determined by the attitudes and opinions of human beings. | ||
|
Eniram
Sudan3166 Posts
On August 17 2009 09:43 IntoTheWow wrote: And yes it's a straw man, you are twisting what he said, into something else, you are just setting it up to burn it in the next post. Again, thanks for the free soul-read. | ||
|
IntoTheWow
is awesome32277 Posts
| ||
KwarK
United States43460 Posts
On August 17 2009 10:11 MoltkeWarding wrote: To be honest, having never paid income taxes, I myself had no precise notion of how progressive taxation worked until well into my life. Also further in his defense I would say that he's demonstrated considerable awareness of the paradoxial consequences of democratic societies, including its dual-tendency to atomize individuals yet centralize power, a paradox and a problem with enormous potential for abuse. As for our youthful compulsions to presumption, it's probably as beneficial as it is harmful. Goethe: "A public which hears only the judgement of old men becomes over-wise too soon; and nothing is more unsatisfactory than a mature judgement adopted by an immature mind." Happily I am in that stage of life which neither pays income taxes nor frequents the hospital. I think I'll restrain myself to only two dogmatic statements: 1) An increase in taxation should be exercised through precisely that. The costs should not be hidden by increased deficit spending. Mortgaging the future for present gain is the definition of bad ethics. 2) As an enthusiastic traveller, I enjoy going somewhere and experiencing different ways of doing things. It occurs me that the whole world under one model of anything must tax my enjoyments. I am further convinced that such comparisons are unnatural. Some societies live on average better lifestyles than others. Some societies have a greater psychological need for security/liberty than others. Some societies are demographically top-heavy. Some have barely any retirees. Some people are rabid savers. Some rabid spendthrifts. I agree in principle that the contentions are both economic and ethical, but neither economics nor ethics are independent realities. They are determined by the attitudes and opinions of human beings. There are some things which are simply better than others. It's all very well to say that everything is subjective and variety is good but when you're spending three times as much as comparable countries for a worse service you're just doing it wrong. While I don't claim to have any great objective truths about the way a society should be run you cannot defend gross inefficiency and wastage with cliches like a bit of variety is a good thing. I'd say the same of a country that devoted 20% of it's GDP to trying to drain the Atlantic by pumping all the water into the Pacific. It'd be a unique model, a society based around the insanely futile, but still a really stupid one. | ||
|
MoltkeWarding
5195 Posts
I'm certain analysts can cook up intriguing theories behind Hungary's suicide rate. | ||
|
rAize
Germany135 Posts
| ||
|
Aegraen
United States1225 Posts
USPS Amtrak Military Contracts All overpriced, underfunded, losing equity and capital / money. Example. In my shop the Dell computer monitors that on the free-market cost ~ 200-300$ at most. Do you know what we paid for them? 800-900$. There is example after example of everything in our shop that is extremely overpriced, but because the Government has the "keys" to the printing press they have no incentive to be frugal like the individual. This is on a micro scale. Macro scale, large military contracts even with bidding competition are massively overpriced and have huge inefficiencies. The idea that because the Government will essentially own a Monopoly that prices will decrease has no statistical fact. Indeed, the fact lay on the opposite end as the evidence is easy to find and abundant. Where as, in the open and free-market there is abundance of evidence to see how when left to their devices prices are extremely cheap and quality increases. Example, Las Vegas. The competition among the competing Casino's increases quality, accessibility, and every other factor while also reducing prices. You can stay in one of the hotels for 30-45$ a night in which the quality provided would cost 100-180$ anywhere else. This is merely one of thousands of examples. Those who then are proponents say that the Government while owning the Monopoly must also then force and compel the private market into price control, intrusive regulation, and infringement of civil liberty to be able to afford such a system. This by any other name is Tyranny is it not? This is why many people philosophically are opposed to such a system no matter the economic factors (even though the body of evidence shows that such a system is not cost saving). http://mises.org/books/Too_Much_Government_Too_Much_Taxation_Fay.pdf THIS book is, written to convince others, as I myself am convinced, quietly and without hysteria, that already, after but 146 years of national life, we Americans must face the same old fight with Too Much Government and Too Much Taxation that has scarred the history of every nation ever since history,itself began. As it is with autocracy, so it is with democracy. There is no magic in mere form of government to change human love of power and wealth, or to make politics unselfish. Our contemporary, William J. Bryan, sometimes called the "Great Commoner," in his palmy day was plainly as willing to rule as was William of Hohenzollern, or Julius Cresar; while no tyrant in history, I imagine, actually governed more, or taxed more, than Bryan's fellow democrat, Woodrow Wilson. Further he goes on to say: That is to say, not only could the state or national governments have fought the Trusts perfectly well under the old Common Law, without any Sherman Law or Clayton Act whatever-but the actual history of all the big Trusts, as long ago as 1912, showed Government Meddling with Big Business conclusively that it was perfectly unnecessary to fight them at all; because of their complete failure to monopolize or to fix prices above or below those determined ,by the law of supply and demand, even for a short time. In fact, only a little patience, a very few years' pressure of the natural forces of trade, were needed to force all these great combines, without exception, either to suicide, dying of their own acts, or else 'to utter change of their ways, to vigorous and legitimate competition, in order to remain alive at all. As prefaced before, this illustrates how the markets regulate themselves. Supply and Demand demands the law of prices. In the course of time the Supply and Demand laws are immutable. There requires no Government intervention. Competition is a native bi-product of the market. Even within Cartels. In fact, Sherman, Clayton, and Anti-trust laws do the exact opposite of what they prepose to fix. Just as the other industries of the world, healthcare is no different. http://mises.org/etexts/Modig.pdf During the depths of the Great Depression, 1,028 economists signed a letter and sent it to President Herbert Hoover, counselling him against signing into law the Smoot-Hawley tariff. In the modern era, 562 practitioners of the dismal science sent an open letter to President William Clinton, warning him of the perils of price controls embodied in his health-care plan (Armen et al., 1994). Both of these events are readily understandable, in view of the strong consensus among economists on these issues. For example, Frey et al. (1984) compiled American economists’ responses to 27 different public policy issues, and found the second greatest agreement with regard to the destructive effects of tariffs and import quotas, and the fourth greatest agreement as to the harmfulness of price controls. Block and Walker (1988) replicated this survey for Canadian economists, and found the greatest agreement with regard to the destructive effects of tariffs and import quotas, and the second greatest agreement as to the harmfulness of price controls. In the Frey et al. (1984) study, the highest consensus was achieved in opposition to rent control; for Block and Walker (1988), the same statement: “A ceiling on rents reduces the quantity and quality of housing available” achieved the third highest consensus of all 27 statements. As you can see by Economists by and large, not only American share the common consensus of the destructive nature of price controls. This is also seen in such institutions in socialist and communistic states that imploded on themselves. While it may seem that price controls help society, the "small" people, and the poor it does the exact opposite. "Price controls, by their very nature, prohibit some trades from occurring which would otherwise have taken place. Thus, they reduce the welfare of those who would have benefited from them. In addition, free market prices prevent shortages and surpluses (e.g. housing shortages under rent controls and labour surpluses or unemployment with minimum wage laws) and provide valuable information as to relative scarcities. In the words of Armen et al. (1994): “In the 1970s, government tried to regulate the price of a simple homogeneous product, gasoline. The result was a social and economic disaster. People were forced to waste hours waiting in lines to purchase gasoline. Long waits for surgery and other medical care will have far more serious consequences.” By cloaking the price of Government programs and institutions within taxation, the political elite secure to themselves sole knowledge of actual price costs. Rather than basing costs and prices on the foundation of scarcity and supply and demand; both readily available data in free-markets, Politicians can at their whim and behest raise the prices much higher for what they otherwise would be and there would be no one to challenge such accusations. In a free-market system there exists no attribute of such malice. Voluntary transactions are the driving body of the economy. Both parties must be satisified for transactions to occur, therefore both parties continue to improve their welfare. He further asserts: Why resort to the utility industry – a mad burst of analogy-mongering? This is the reddest of red herrings. Instead, had Modigliani looked at the medical labour market itself, he would have seen an industry that even he might be sorely tempted to label “perfectly competitive”. After all, there are thousands and thousands of doctors, all of whom, apart from sub-specialties, provide services which are reasonably interchangeable. Of course, there is that little matter of the monopoly powers wielded by the American Medical Association. However, as shown by yet another winner of the Nobel Prize in economics (Friedman, 1962; Hamowy, 1984), this is the result, not of market competition, but of a government grant of exclusive licensing privileges. It could best be dealt with by substituting a system of market certification. As you can clearly see, the market is not devoid of solutions to current woes. Most of these woes, which was constituted by the so-called benevolent Government are indicative of the current trend of thinking. People then trust these same people to try and fix the previous problems they caused. They reason that by a coordinated effort, enough knowledge can be accrued to sufficiently bring about efficiency and lower costs. There exists no person, or persons who can accurately predict or have the feasibility of predicting future random events. You cannot predict future demands accurately and precisely. Now, to those who say that other countries have lower spending, and better care: http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/1019/p04s01-woeu.html Health Secretary Alan Johnson was forced to apologize in Parliament this week after it emerged that at least 90 patients in southeast England died as a result of infections picked up in the hospital. The Healthcare Commission, a national watchdog, blamed safety lapses and overcrowding. It painted a bleak picture of teeming wards where overworked nurses didn't even help patients to the bathroom Dr. Lister says government-imposed targets have instilled a commercial culture, resulting in "perverse" imperatives like cost-control and "productivity" driving decisionmaking in hospitals. "It's the burger-bar style of efficiency – the more you can do with fewer staff the better," he says. "But patient safety seems to come at the bottom of the list.... The Hippocratic oath has gone out of the window." http://www.bio-medicine.org/medicine-news/Waiting-list-in-British-healthcare-causing-them-to-shell-out-a-fortune-21-11027-1/ Due to long and endless waiting lists for patients in Britain, they are forced into taking treatment elsewhere and that causes them a fortune //. For example citing an arthritis case of an Ulster man, who had to pay thousands of pounds so that he can be cured fast, could have done free if by NHS. But the waiting list was too long to wait for. He had to spend ￡3,500 on two drugs - Humira and Enbrel - for rheumatoid arthritis. The bad part is none of them has been successful. The condition is really bad as can be seen form this example. Last August his position was 235th in the queue today has moved just 27 places. The government had taken a stand by way of Health Minister last march, Shaun Woodward who promised to clear waiting lists with a ￡6m funding package over the next two years. His statement in March was, 'Too many people are waiting to begin treatment with anti-TNF drugs for severe arthritis. I have had too many letters from patients telling their stories of huge anxiety. These patients are in pain and today I want to help alleviate their difficulty. ' Nothing has been done till date. Every year some 800 newly diagnosed rheumatoid arthritis patients go through a daily pain barrier in homes right across Northern Ireland. So some concrete steps have to be taken to keep the situation under control. This is exactly what I meant earlier that politicians, nor anyone has the capacity of knowledge to accurate and precisely predict future demands. The free-market is the only solution to such problems. Bureaucratic processes further slow down Government "assistance" and "help" in such enivatable times; malaise of the politburo's. Where as, in a free-market sector companies will jump at the opportunity and provide access and quality in volunteery exchanges of service and goods. Is this no more evident than in the body of economy today? Everywhere you look this occurs. Where one place shows a demand for a product businesses rush in to fill the void. The Government has no incentive to do this. Especially for bureaucrats who are immune from the voting bloc. The solution, I repeat, is not a Government system. It neither follows the paradigms of American philosophy and foundation; invidividualism, free-markets, and personal accountability, nor does it fix the problems that Government intervention created in the first place. Government's sole role is to ensure fair practices and that contracts are abided by, not to ensure monopoly and coercion of power. A quick read here: http://www.findingdulcinea.com/news/health/2008/December/British-Health-Care-Likely-to-Approve-Sutent.html According to a report in The Observer, NICE will approve coverage of the drug Sutent and at least one of Avastin, Nexavar and Torisel when it meets on Jan. 14. The decision would represent a major victory for cancer patients and advocacy groups, who were outraged in August when NICE rejected coverage of the drugs. Is this the path you want to go down? Pleading to your representatives to agree to provide and approve drugs that save lives, but otherwise do not fit into the cost effective model? I wish I could link you to many other works of Economists, sadly there are hardly any of the main works; Mises, Hayak, Friedman, Smith, etc. available on the web. There are many Economic Institutes and Free-Market institutes however that you can peruse. There are also countless news articles documenting the current situations in many socialized healthcare countries. Free-markets guarantee a minimum level of quality of care that far surpasses that provided by any socialized system. P.S. Yes, I characterized the taxation structure incorrectly, but can you blame me? No one can get through the 75,000 page IRS regulations, systems, and institutions. Our tax system is not that simple, not even close. In any event, it creates the same incentive system. Also, in effect, with higher tax burdens you are essentially placing an economic cap on individuals saying; ok you can earn this much, but all after that is the Governments money. The money we earn is our own; not the Governments. | ||
|
KwarK
United States43460 Posts
Please don't get back to me about what that taught you, I know it'll be nothing at all. | ||
|
KwarK
United States43460 Posts
| ||
|
EvilTeletubby
Baltimore, USA22258 Posts
On August 17 2009 15:56 Aegraen wrote: The idea that because the Government will essentially own a Monopoly that prices will decrease has no statistical fact. Indeed, the fact lay on the opposite end as the evidence is easy to find and abundant. Where as, in the open and free-market there is abundance of evidence to see how when left to their devices prices are extremely cheap and quality increases. Example, Las Vegas. The competition among the competing Casino's increases quality, accessibility, and every other factor while also reducing prices. You can stay in one of the hotels for 30-45$ a night in which the quality provided would cost 100-180$ anywhere else. This is merely one of thousands of examples. Skimming through, I have to nitpick that this is a terrible example. A standard hotel makes their money on room fares themselves. A Vegas hotel makes their money by you visiting their casinos downstairs. That has nothing to do with free-market, it has to do with a different business model... everything else is pretty obvious. | ||
|
KwarK
United States43460 Posts
On August 17 2009 15:56 Aegraen wrote: P.S. Yes, I characterized the taxation structure incorrectly, but can you blame me? No one can get through the 75,000 page IRS regulations, systems, and institutions. Our tax system is not that simple, not even close. This is the part that absolutely amazes me. When caught out being entirely wrong you don't change your mind. You actually use the excuse "yeah, but I don't know what I'm talking about". How does that add up in your mind? I mean really, seriously, how?!?! Your defence for your arguments being wrong is that you don't understand the subject you're arguing? Because that strengthens your arguments?!?! Nobody else in this topic misunderstood about how progressive taxation works. Whereas you misunderstood it in your reply to a post clearly explaining how it works. The "I'm a retard" defence will stop me blaming you for your mistakes but pleading general ignorance doesn't add to your authority in a debate. | ||
|
Hans-Titan
Denmark1711 Posts
On August 17 2009 15:56 Aegraen wrote: P.S. Yes, I characterized the taxation structure incorrectly, but can you blame me? No one can get through the 75,000 page IRS regulations, systems, and institutions. Our tax system is not that simple, not even close. In any event, it creates the same incentive system. Also, in effect, with higher tax burdens you are essentially placing an economic cap on individuals saying; ok you can earn this much, but all after that is the Governments money. The money we earn is our own; not the Governments. I cannot get over this - it's progressive taxation, not the entire US tax code you got wrong. It took me 5 minutes in a freshman highschool social studies class for me to learn it and Kwark pointed it out to you pretty clearly, in 5 lines, not 75.000 pages. It's this thing that absolutely pisses me off: you were wrong, just fucking admit it and without some lame-ass excuse. Progressive taxation is not a hard concept to grasp, especially not if you've red as much as you have. Also it's not unheard for people to actually start working less if they receive a tax cut. This whole 'lower-taxes-bigger-incentive-more-work-done-equation' has always been the part of free-market economics that has boggled me the most: a select few might work more, but just as many might easily cut down on office hours, in order to spend more time with family, friends etc. | ||
|
Savio
United States1850 Posts
On August 16 2009 17:15 Chezinu wrote: Fox is the number one news channel currently in the US. I think they have about 3 times more viewers than any other station. Just a quick correction. Foxnews is NOT the largest news station in America. It is the largest CABLE new station. The broadcast news stations all dwarf the cable news stations in viewership. | ||
|
Chezinu
United States7463 Posts
On August 17 2009 17:46 Savio wrote: Just a quick correction. Foxnews is NOT the largest news station in America. It is the largest CABLE new station. The broadcast news stations all dwarf the cable news stations in viewership. oh ok. I just remember reading it somewhere but I couldn't find the article. So I think it should have been: Fox is the number one cable news channel currently in the US. I think they have about 3 times more viewers than any other cable news station. | ||
|
Savio
United States1850 Posts
On August 17 2009 09:27 KaasZerg wrote: Getting healthcare when you need it without getting bankrupt from the bills. What is bad about that? It is a sad fact goverment can run industries more efficiently then private owned ones, Somebody call the dumb police. (maybe that is too harsh but I am leaving it in) First of all, where did you hear that Obamacare would lower costs? That was the initial "dream" and then reality crushed it like a bug. It was called the CBO report. Second of all..."goverment can run industries more efficiently then private owned ones,". What in the world are you thinking? I say the 'free market' works poorly in field of healthcare in the U.S. No again. Health care is not a "free market" in the US. Health care costs began to rise and become burdensome as government got further and further involved in it. Before WW2 (before medicare, medicaid, and the employer based insurance model created by the governent policy), health care costs were not out of control in the USA. You cannot look at our current system and say "see free markets fail" when the real reason we have a problem is government intervention. Some markets get out of control. Like products with a natural tendency to monopolism or the forming of cartels. Those are not good conditions for competition and free market (no real choice for buyers). Then it should be nationalised. Again, a big NO. First of all, the tendency toward monopoly is fixed not by nationalizing the industry, but by breaking it up and in general prohibiting collusion. The US actually does a great job at this in the last 4 decades or so. Our antitrust laws are pretty good. Is anybody here old enough to remember when AT&T was essentially a monopoly, and distance calls were 33 cents a minute, then we broke it up and prices dropped to practically nothing? How glad are we that we did it that way instead of "nationalizing" the industry? We could have royally screwed ourselves over if we just had a government takeover of AT&T. Holy cow, virtually everything you wrote in this post was wrong. | ||
| ||
![[image loading]](http://slackmac.files.wordpress.com/2009/04/facepalm.jpg)
