News As Obamacare goes into effect, new criticisms leveled

[Al68]

Insurance regulations are similar to building codes. Some regulations might be more applicable to one region than an another - but everyone can build to the highest standard. If everyone agrees to the same (higher) standards, then all of the (qualified) insurance companies will be able to compete nationwide.

But unless they are free to offer a non-standard product, it's not really free competition in the sense that the product offered is tailored to consumers instead of government standards.

I have no interest in buying the type of medical insurance that would meet any standard likely to be "agreed on" by third parties. It's my place, not government's, to "agree on" the type of insurance I will buy.

 

[PhilKravitz]

Obamacare is a new tax on the healthy young to pay for medicaid that was bankrupt. It is just a new tax. Nothing more.

So, no freedom for you. You will buy the "insurance" that looks like medicaid for the poor and looks like tax to the working well.

 

[nismaratwork]

Obamacare is a new tax on the healthy young to pay for medicaid that was bankrupt. It is just a new tax. Nothing more.

So, no freedom for you. You will buy the "insurance" that looks like medicaid for the poor and looks like tax to the working well.

So... why would that be bad? If healthcare worked the way you described, it would be an amazing success; this isn't going to pay for medicaid. I could accept a tax to pay for those who are less fortunate, disguised for sale to the public or not. Getting taxed to NOT fix anything... that's what makes this such a seeming wreck.

I for one, like taxes... well... I hate paying them, but I love roads, and schools to keep children from forming roving bands of lovable cockney thieves... and so forth. The problem isn't taxes, or cutting, it's that for all of the arguing, in the end the R, and D s... well.. one cuts programs, the other spends more. It's a perfect synergy which allows for more predictable elections, but the reality is no one philosophy is enough:

We need to squeeze more money out of some people, but mostly we need to close corporate loopholes. (that 5% idea wasn't terrible). We also need to cut social programs that, in addition to killing our economy, retard development and offer poor service. No one will sell it this way, but we need a period of real upheaval before we can expect meaningful change.

I don't mean that fantasy of militias, or group-love chanting by hippies: I'm saying we have to accept that we've ALREADY failed, live amidst the consequences of that failure for a time while we build a new set of systems and standards. If it's done BEFORE we're bankrupt, then it doesn't have to be traumatic except for the hundreds of congressmen who won't get re-elected.

 

[nismaratwork]

If you google 202 trillion there are hundreds of references here is one

http://www.eutimes.net/2010/08/official-us-deficit-put-at-staggering-202-trillion/

But I am happy to use your 40 trillion still way past bankrupt. and what is your reference? please state or retract.

OK... you think I'm trying to play with you, but it's just holding you to the standards you accepted when you registered. Your link actually refutes your point, only citing it as the OPINION of a single professor!

But the situation is actually much, much worse, according to Boston University economics professor Laurence Kotlikoff.

“Forget the official debt,” he tells Aaron in this clip. The “real” deficit – including non-budgetary items like unfunded liabilities of Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security and the defense budget – is actually $202 trillion, the professor and author calculates; or 15 times the “official” numbers.

Bolding is mine... the statistics... you'd have to figure out how he came to those conclusions. As for asking me to cite or retract anything, I'm not making sweeping claims the way you are. As for WhoWee, you ask him if I've ever given him an inch he didn't fight for... he's not in the wrong here AT ALL vis a vis you and your claims.

To your last post, it's not personal; I don't know you. It's targeted in the sense that it seems you have both strong biases, and no real understanding of what you need to do just to get that done. I don't think you're being malicious, I just think you need to take a step back; I've only responded to those few threads where we both post... presumably you're doing this elsewhere (not my job thank you god), and I'm not reporting you, but if you keep it up the mentors WILL have a talk with you.

So... it's personal advice, not a personal grudge.

edit: I don't mind if this is deleted... I took a while typing it, and I didn't realize posts had already been deleted. My apologies.

 

[Al68]

Folks who (presently) benefit least from those rules are likely to opt for the less-inclusive, less-protected out-of-state plans, while those who need them have little choice but to stick with insurance companies licensed in that state and thus still subject to the state's regulations. This is called adverse selection and it's the bane of risk pools.

That's right. My purpose for buying medical insurance is to have insurance against the unexpected, not to "pool" my premiums with higher risk consumers. Contrary to what many claim, the purpose of insurance is not to shift one person's expected cost to another under the guise of insurance.

What you're envisioning ultimately creates pressure for one of two outcomes (assuming no one wants to see these insurers go bankrupt): 1) the state government relaxes the rules governing insurers licensed in-state, i.e. deregulation, or 2) insurers relocate to more loosely regulated states and sell from there (as credit card companies tended to do in the aftermath of the Marquette decision), i.e. deregulation again.

Yep, that's the point.

So yes, your ability to skirt your state's laws..

That would no more be "skirting my state's laws" than not buying any medical insurance.

..undermines and quite possibly ultimately eliminates them. Or at least renders them irrelevant as insurers pack up and move on. You may see that as a good thing but there are several reasons why I don't.

It's not that I see that as a "good thing", I see it as peaceful coexistence among free people instead of some using force against others to get their way. Liberty itself has immeasurable value, whether that value is recognized by all or not.

Making products more similar encourages competition. Allowing them to vary along a small number of dimensions helps consumers make sensible comparisons consistent with individual preference. Isn’t that the point?​

I have no problem with states defining specific standards of coverage. My problem is when they prohibit policies that don't meet those standards.

We're talking about a private transaction between private parties here. Neither the state or the federal government is a party. If someone wants third party interference from the state, they can choose that option via voluntary state standards, while allowing the rest of us to buy what we choose. Peaceful coexistence in other words.​

 

[mugaliens]

That's right. My purpose for buying medical insurance is to have insurance against the unexpected, not to "pool" my premiums with higher risk consumers.

BINGO! This is one of the main reasons I got out of the home-owner "investment" markets. Too many folks out there don't realize their insurance premiums are far higher than they need to be because a small portion of their insurance company's clients live in the paths of annual hurricanes, tornados, and on rampant flood plains. Yes, they may pay a slight premium for that "privelage," but what most people don't realize is that by U.S. law, those living in non-hurricane/tornado/flood areas foot the rest of the bill.

 

[BilPrestonEsq]

A good question to ask regarding the implementation of some form of nationalized healthcare is this: What significant improvements in the efficiency of dealing with patients will come from free market competition? To say it a better way: What significant healthcare price reductions are going to come from free market competition, that won't take away from the quality of care?

 

[nismaratwork]

In principle I agree with Mugaliens and Al, but in practice who's going to pay for people without insurance when they get smashed by a tornado? OK, they're homeless now, and eligible for all kinds of assistance from the pool of taxes, rather than a private venture.

The kind of reform based in grading risk pools depends on those who simply "opt out" NOT being saved when their house if flattened or flooded... again. I don't see the US as having the sand to do that in practice, anymore than someone with a gunshot would would be turned away at an ER.

 

[Al68]

In principle I agree with Mugaliens and Al, but in practice who's going to pay for people without insurance when they get smashed by a tornado? OK, they're homeless now, and eligible for all kinds of assistance from the pool of taxes, rather than a private venture.

That's a different issue, but you make a good point. Why would we expect private ventures to cure society's problems? Is a private venture "bad" because it doesn't achieve someone's political agenda?

And why is it that the politicians that say so never have any proposal to (fairly) compete with existing private companies? If they are so bad, they should be easy to compete with fairly, ie without the use of force.

And why is it that many politicians openly advocate a complete monopoly with the ability to use force (law-making power) against its customers? Do they think using the words "single payer" instead of "complete monopoly" is really going to fool people? And who in their right mind thinks a complete monopoly will improve health care?

 

[WhoWee]

That's a different issue, but you make a good point. Why would we expect private ventures to cure society's problems? Is a private venture "bad" because it doesn't achieve someone's political agenda?

And why is it that the politicians that say so never have any proposal to (fairly) compete with existing private companies? If they are so bad, they should be easy to compete with fairly, ie without the use of force.

And why is it that many politicians openly advocate a complete monopoly with the ability to use force (law-making power) against its customers? Do they think using the words "single payer" instead of "complete monopoly" is really going to fool people? And who in their right mind thinks a complete monopoly will improve health care?

Everyone who understands the single payer is the "taxpayer" - further described as the top 1 or 2 percent of income earners.

 

[mugaliens]

...who's going to pay for people without insurance when they get smashed by a tornado?

I have two friends who live in a fairly tornado-proof and very environmentally house. It's low, partially underground, strong, passively solar throughout the winter, and cool throughout the summer.

I have absolutely zero sympathy for anyone in tornado, hurricane, earthquake, or flood country that refuses to build to those standards while sucking my mutually pooled insurance dollars.

By the way, I've actually been in a tornado. It's breathtaking what it does to oak and pine trees 100 feet from you.

 

[nismaratwork]

I have two friends who live in a fairly tornado-proof and very environmentally house. It's low, partially underground, strong, passively solar throughout the winter, and cool throughout the summer.

I have absolutely zero sympathy for anyone in tornado, hurricane, earthquake, or flood country that refuses to build to those standards while sucking my mutually pooled insurance dollars.

By the way, I've actually been in a tornado. It's breathtaking what it does to oak and pine trees 100 feet from you.

I think you misunderstand... you and I might take a very rational view of people who live on floodplains and tornado ally substandard... many won't. That has to be part of any considerations involving public policy.

 

[Al68]

I think you misunderstand... you and I might take a very rational view of people who live on floodplains and tornado ally substandard... many won't. That has to be part of any considerations involving public policy.

Sorry, I have to comment on the phrase "public policy". The basis for most of the objections to Obamacare (and other regulations) is that it prohibits/interferes with private contracts, which are not part of any public or government program or system.

Private agreements between private parties are not part of public policy in a free society.

 

[nismaratwork]

Sorry, I have to comment on the phrase "public policy". The basis for most of the objections to Obamacare (and other regulations) is that it prohibits/interferes with private contracts, which are not part of any public or government program or system.

Private agreements between private parties are not part of public policy in a free society.

I understand, but those private contracts couldn't exist without government assurance and oversight, as we saw with AIG for example. Insurance, like vaccination, does hurt some people, but on the whole it's valuable to economic stability. Insurance is a matter of national security in the extreme I believe, because we end up paying for people one way or another if they're indigent.

You pay for medical, you pay in crime, you pay in a hundred other little ways. I'll say again, there needs to be oversight of private contracts which have such vast implications for a nation.

 

[BilPrestonEsq]

I understand, but those private contracts couldn't exist without government assurance and oversight, as we saw with AIG for example. Insurance, like vaccination, does hurt some people, but on the whole it's valuable to economic stability. Insurance is a matter of national security in the extreme I believe, because we end up paying for people one way or another if they're indigent. You pay for medical, you pay in crime, you pay in a hundred other little ways. I'll say again, there needs to be oversight of private contracts which have such vast implications for a nation.

Good point.

AL68:Private agreements between private parties are not part of public policy in a free society.

Is a 'free' society one that is ruled by the free market? What happens when corporations are more powerful than government? Are we still 'free' then? What I see a lot lately is this argument that government is too powerful and that the free market will 'naturally' solve are problems. This is incredibly naive. If you believe in limited government you should also believe in a more regulated free market or those same powers will take over in business rather than politics. Except then you will have no vote. People say you can vote with your dollars, right? Well what happens when the markets are cornered by large corporations and you have no choice but to buy there goods in order to survive?

 

[WhoWee]

Is a 'free' society one that is ruled by the free market? What happens when corporations are more powerful than government? Are we still 'free' then? What I see a lot lately is this argument that government is too powerful and that the free market will 'naturally' solve are problems. This is incredibly naive. If you believe in limited government you should also believe in a more regulated free market or those same powers will take over in business rather than politics. Except then you will have no vote. People say you can vote with your dollars, right? Well what happens when the markets are cornered by large corporations and you have no choice but to buy there goods in order to survive?

We all know that corporations seek profit for it's shareholders - employee compensation is typically designed to reward performance and increase retention. The deviation to this would be a union contract.

Given this, what is the goal of the Government? How are employees compensated? To what extent does the unionization of Government workers dictate policy? How does the Government reduce costs in a market - when it's primary tool is regulation?

 

[nismaratwork]

We all know that corporations seek profit for it's shareholders - employee compensation is typically designed to reward performance and increase retention. The deviation to this would be a union contract.

Given this, what is the goal of the Government? How are employees compensated? To what extent does the unionization of Government workers dictate policy? How does the Government reduce costs in a market - when it's primary tool is regulation?

re bold: In some cases, sure, in many others the strategy is to churn and burn, because there is no shortage of trainable labor. McDonalds is a perfect example of a MASSIVE corporation that really does its employees no favors as as a general rule.

Besides, everyone doesn't hold shares.

I'm reminded of the old 'Bit of Fry and Laurie' sketch in which the UK has been completely privatized (well ahead of Snow Crash ), much to the dismay of Hugh Laurie.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=<iframe title="YouTube video player" class="youtube-player" type="text/html" width="480" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/k6CkltzGAxY?rel=0" frameborder="0" allowFullScreen></iframe>

 

[WhoWee]

re bold: In some cases, sure, in many others the strategy is to churn and burn, because there is no shortage of trainable labor. McDonalds is a perfect example of a MASSIVE corporation that really does its employees no favors as as a general rule.

Besides, everyone doesn't hold shares.

I'm not aware of any company that engages in a strategy of "churn and burn" when it comes to employees. Time spent hiring and training is substantial - even employment tax credits are time specific. A high turnover can increase insurance costs - including unemployment contributions.

As for "no shortage of trainable labor" - are you certain? How many persons will sacrifice extended unemployment or welfare benefits to work part time at a fast food restaurant?

 

[nismaratwork]

I'm not aware of any company that engages in a strategy of "churn and burn" when it comes to employees. Time spent hiring and training is substantial - even employment tax credits are time specific. A high turnover can increase insurance costs - including unemployment contributions.

As for "no shortage of trainable labor" - are you certain? How many persons will sacrifice extended unemployment or welfare benefits to work part time at a fast food restaurant?

I gave you a perfect example: McDonalds... you just ignored it... and the evidence seems to indicate that fast-food isn't exactly paralyzed by a drought of employees. You see all of those old folks with their stunning upward mobility at the checkout counter of your grocery store too, right? You're truly acting as though the core of our labor force was not in fact, underpaid, and simply NOT insured.

Besides, training for a job of the type we're talking about is same-day-as-hire... hardly training a B-2 bomber pilot...

edit: Another factor in the lack of shortage: an endless supply of cheap young labor, and and work by those marginalized due to felony convictions, or whichever is the mark of caine du jour.

 

[WhoWee]

I gave you a perfect example: McDonalds... you just ignored it... and the evidence seems to indicate that fast-food isn't exactly paralyzed by a drought of employees. You see all of those old folks with their stunning upward mobility at the checkout counter of your grocery store too, right? You're truly acting as though the core of our labor force was not in fact, underpaid, and simply NOT insured.

Besides, training for a job of the type we're talking about is same-day-as-hire... hardly training a B-2 bomber pilot...

edit: Another factor in the lack of shortage: an endless supply of cheap young labor, and and work by those marginalized due to felony convictions, or whichever is the mark of caine du jour.

A REAL quick link - I can support further if necessary?
http://jpkc.szpt.edu.cn/english/article/Human%20Resource%20Management.htm

"Employee training at McDonald's is highly structured. Ends-level workers are first taken through the basic Crew Training System. The program consists of on-the job- training and is largely vocational. Each stage of advancement beyond the crew level then entails a new training program, with the skills becoming more complex and generalized.

Training begins immediately with a one-hour orientation on the company. Each restaurant has its own video player and training room. Step--by --step manuals and video tapes cover every detail of the operation, everything from how to make a Big Mao to a shake. Each restaurant has 25 stations from the grill area to the front counter, Trainers use a series of checklists as new crew members move through the restaurant. A level of competency is demonstrated and the activity is checked off on the SOC--Station Observation Checklist. There is a follow-up SOC to get certified on the station.

One a crew trainers has been promoted to swing manager and performed successfully, he or she is eligible for the Management Development Program. It provides technical and functional management skills for employees at the swing manager level and above. The first step is the Basic Operations Course, which takes several months to complete. It is a course Which covers fundamental restaurant opinions. The nab in the sequence is the Basic Management Course, Which teaches leaderships, time planning, and crew recognition. In the intermediate Operations Course, students are trained on crew recruitment and retention, store leadership and decision-making. The final course in this sequence is the Regional Equipment Course.

Once a front-line crew member has progressed to the position of assistant managed, he or she is eligible to attend Hamburger University , the Company's world wide training center for management personnel. Approximately 2,500 managers and potential franchisees take part in the Advanced Operations Course, or AOC. The Management training curriculum at Hamburger University has been altered in scope: almost 80% of the advanced operations Course is now devoted to enhancing communication, interpersonal, and human relations skills. Teaching methods have shifted from lecture format to include role playing with video feedback and small group exercises. All managers are required to receive training from hamburger University at least once every 5 years. New emphases include goal setting, diversity management, team building, and employee development.

The company has plans for a certification program which will govern how employees progress from the crew to the level of restaurant managers. Plans are also in place for a Workplace Skills Certificate. It would be given to crew members who have mastered a set of essential workplace skills, and thus provide a "walkable credential" to enable them to move onto another position within the consumer service industry. McDonald's is a quick service restaurant business committed to 100% satisfaction. Macdonald's independent Franchisees and Company-owned restaurants serve over 22 million customers every day around the world. Each and every one of these customers deserved great services from the moment they approach the counter or drive-thru window until they leave the restaurants. We depend on the employees in the restaurant, whether employed by an independent franchises or by McDonald's Corporation, to provide a fast friendly and courteous experience to all guests so they will visit us again and again. That's why McDonald's Independent Franchisees and McDonald's Corporation look for

individuals who like to have fun While delivering fast accurate and friendly service."

Fast food companies invest heavily in training programs and strive to retain workers - they promote from within to sustain growth.

 

[BilPrestonEsq]

A REAL quick link - I can support further if necessary?
http://jpkc.szpt.edu.cn/english/article/Human%20Resource%20Management.htm

"Employee training at McDonald's is highly structured. Ends-level workers are first taken through the basic Crew Training System. The program consists of on-the job- training and is largely vocational. Each stage of advancement beyond the crew level then entails a new training program, with the skills becoming more complex and generalized.

Training begins immediately with a one-hour orientation on the company. Each restaurant has its own video player and training room. Step--by --step manuals and video tapes cover every detail of the operation, everything from how to make a Big Mao to a shake. Each restaurant has 25 stations from the grill area to the front counter, Trainers use a series of checklists as new crew members move through the restaurant. A level of competency is demonstrated and the activity is checked off on the SOC--Station Observation Checklist. There is a follow-up SOC to get certified on the station.

One a crew trainers has been promoted to swing manager and performed successfully, he or she is eligible for the Management Development Program. It provides technical and functional management skills for employees at the swing manager level and above. The first step is the Basic Operations Course, which takes several months to complete. It is a course Which covers fundamental restaurant opinions. The nab in the sequence is the Basic Management Course, Which teaches leaderships, time planning, and crew recognition. In the intermediate Operations Course, students are trained on crew recruitment and retention, store leadership and decision-making. The final course in this sequence is the Regional Equipment Course.

Once a front-line crew member has progressed to the position of assistant managed, he or she is eligible to attend Hamburger University , the Company's world wide training center for management personnel. Approximately 2,500 managers and potential franchisees take part in the Advanced Operations Course, or AOC. The Management training curriculum at Hamburger University has been altered in scope: almost 80% of the advanced operations Course is now devoted to enhancing communication, interpersonal, and human relations skills. Teaching methods have shifted from lecture format to include role playing with video feedback and small group exercises. All managers are required to receive training from hamburger University at least once every 5 years. New emphases include goal setting, diversity management, team building, and employee development.

The company has plans for a certification program which will govern how employees progress from the crew to the level of restaurant managers. Plans are also in place for a Workplace Skills Certificate. It would be given to crew members who have mastered a set of essential workplace skills, and thus provide a "walkable credential" to enable them to move onto another position within the consumer service industry. McDonald's is a quick service restaurant business committed to 100% satisfaction. Macdonald's independent Franchisees and Company-owned restaurants serve over 22 million customers every day around the world. Each and every one of these customers deserved great services from the moment they approach the counter or drive-thru window until they leave the restaurants. We depend on the employees in the restaurant, whether employed by an independent franchises or by McDonald's Corporation, to provide a fast friendly and courteous experience to all guests so they will visit us again and again. That's why McDonald's Independent Franchisees and McDonald's Corporation look for

individuals who like to have fun While delivering fast accurate and friendly service."

Fast food companies invest heavily in training programs and strive to retain workers - they promote from within to sustain growth.

Wow! Where can I sign up? My career dreams have been answered...Sorry for the sarcasm but, come on...

 

[WhoWee]

Wow! Where can I sign up? My career dreams have been answered...Sorry for the sarcasm but, come on...

I posted this in response to a statement that McDonald's engages in a policy of "churn and burn" with respect to employees - what exactly are you challenging?

 

[Al68]

I understand, but those private contracts couldn't exist without government assurance and oversight

They always have, so obviously they can. And I would note that anti-fraud and similar laws are not "oversight", since they don't control the contents of private contracts.

You pay for medical, you pay in crime, you pay in a hundred other little ways. I'll say again, there needs to be oversight of private contracts which have such vast implications for a nation.

A contract with government "oversight" is not a private contract, by definition.

Is a 'free' society one that is ruled by the free market?

No. A free society is one that is not ruled.

What happens when corporations are more powerful than government? Are we still 'free' then?

No. But I'm not advocating any such thing. I think corporations should have zero political power.

What I see a lot lately is this argument that government is too powerful and that the free market will 'naturally' solve are problems. This is incredibly naive.

Who has suggested such a thing? Free market advocates aren't the ones suggesting that we should restrict liberty to "solve" society's problems or "better" society. We're not the Orwellians here.

If you believe in limited government you should also believe in a more regulated free market or those same powers will take over in business rather than politics.

Nonsense. Private businesses have no such power in a free market.

Well what happens when the markets are cornered by large corporations and you have no choice but to buy there goods in order to survive?

You're referring to the exact situation I am opposing: a monopoly. Which could only exist in a government regulated market, not in a free market. You seem to have it backward.

Many markets today are "cornered" by big businesses, oppressive regulations provide a very effective barrier to competition by smaller businesses.

 

[BilPrestonEsq]

They always have, so obviously they can.A contract with government "oversight" is not a private contract, by definition.No. A free society is one that is not ruled.No. But I'm not advocating any such thing. I think corporations should have zero political power. Who has suggested such a thing? Free market advocates aren't the ones suggesting that we should restrict liberty to "solve" society's problems or "better" society. We're not the Orwellians here.Nonsense. Private businesses have no such power in a free market.You're referring to the exact situation I am opposing: a monopoly. Which could only exist in a government regulated market, not in a free market. You seem to have it backward.

No, I don't have it backwards! Government intervention is what breaks up a monopoly!
If you believe in an unregulated free market than you must also want to eventually work and shop at WalMart for EVERYTHING. The larger a company grows the more power it has to undercut every other business in the market that is smaller than them. That is a FACT.


"If you believe in limited government you should also believe in a more regulated free market or those same powers will take over in business rather than politics."

Nonsense. Private businesses have no such power in a free market

Private businesses only supply you with everything you need to survive. Where do you get your food? Are you a hunter and gatherer? How do you get to work? I am guessing you use both oil and electricity. They have no power over you?? That is why the whole, "let the free market take care of everything" idea is such a joke. If you want control over your life than get control over what keeps you alive! Food, Water, Shelter. HHmmm... I bet a bank owns the house or building that you live in as well huh? If not, if you live someplace where you own your shelter and can be self sufficient than good for you. But realize that not all of us live in the boonies. You need to rethink your logic and attitude towards both government and business. Keep in mind that as long as the majority stays informed and stays vigil against corruption, government will work for you and not against you. Also as I pointed out the only way to give a government or business power is to let them provide the necessaties of survival because basically that is what it is all about survival.

 

[nismaratwork]

Well, a Federal judge in Florida made a similar ruling about central principles we've discussed here being unconstitutional.

Clearly the people, and the judiciary are split: this is going to be up to SCOTUS.

note: I have no link, but it's on the front page of cnn

 

[mheslep]

The larger a company grows the more power it has to undercut every other business in the market that is smaller than them. That is a FACT.

That is your assertion. See Amazon vs Barnes and Nobel, Google vs Microsoft, etc, etc.

 

[nismaratwork]

That is your assertion. See Amazon vs Barnes and Nobel, Google vs Microsoft, etc, etc.

And now Comcast has become a major content provider! Maybe the issue is that our laws and regulation have been systematically gouged During and since Reagan?

Citing rulings is useful, but then you have MS vs. Netscape... and so many others who never really got a chance. Frankly, the world you seem to want isn't one in which very many would live well.

 

[WhoWee]

As reported by MSNBC:

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/01/31/5961248-florida-judge-rules-health-care-law-unconstitutional-

"A federal judge has ruled that the health care reform bill signed into law by President Barack Obama in March is unconstitutional.

Judge Roger Vinson, a Reagan appointee serving in Pensacola, Florida, ruled that key components of the law are unconstitutional and that the entire law "must be declared void."

Today’s decision is the second ruling by a federal judge against the constitutionality of the health care legislation."

 

[BilPrestonEsq]

That is your assertion. See Amazon vs Barnes and Nobel, Google vs Microsoft, etc, etc.

I realize it is not always the case, but it remains a fact that: The larger a company grows the more power it has to undercut every other business in the market that is smaller than them.

Society would be better off if a larger investment capital had no bearing on market competition. Could you agree with that?

That may not be possible since there must be an incentive. I think it is worth some thought.

 

[WhoWee]

I realize it is not always the case, but it remains a fact that: The larger a company grows the more power it has to undercut every other business in the market that is smaller than them.

Society would be better off if a larger investment capital had no bearing on market competition. Could you agree with that?

That may not be possible since there must be an incentive. I think it is worth some thought.

As a consumer - why wouldn't you want lower prices for the same goods or services?

 

[BilPrestonEsq]

As a consumer - why wouldn't you want lower prices for the same goods or services?

Well if a company gets so big that they sell everything I need at one store cheaper than everyone else. Soon there would be only one store. That one store would then have power over every good they sell. They could charge whatever they want at that point and that doesn't sit well with me. Also how much would the CEO of that company make per year?
The executives would be gods. That scares me.

 

[WhoWee]

Well if a company gets so big that they sell everything I need at one store cheaper than everyone else. Soon there would be only one store. That one store would then have power over every good they sell. They could charge whatever they want at that point and that doesn't sit well with me. Also how much would the CEO of that company make per year?
The executives would be gods. That scares me.

Gee - that sounds like a good reason not to be in favor of a single payer healthcare system - doesn't it?

 

[Al68]

No, I don't have it backwards! Government intervention is what breaks up a monopoly!

LOL. I never said government intervention couldn't break up a monopoly. I said that a monopoly can't exist in a free market to begin with, since there are no barriers to competition. That should be pretty self-evident.

If you believe in an unregulated free market than you must also want to eventually work and shop at WalMart for EVERYTHING.

Nope. You guessed wrong. Backward again.

The larger a company grows the more power it has to undercut every other business in the market that is smaller than them. That is a FACT.

Yep, that's right. Free market competition prevents that. Government regulations encourage it by being a barrier to entry in the market. I have nothing against Walmart, but they don't need government's help putting all their competitors out of business and preventing new competitors by regulation.

Private businesses only supply you with everything you need to survive.

Not in the monolithic sense you imply. Obviously if you define a group as those who I buy food from, then it's true that I buy all my food from that group. But such a conclusion is logically meaningless.

They have no power over you??

They couldn't in a free market for self-evident reasons. We have discussed this topic many times in this forum, and I don't want to sidetrack this thread any further.

That is why the whole, "let the free market take care of everything" idea is such a joke. If you want control over your life than get control over what keeps you alive!

The fact that others engage in activity that helps me meet my needs is not a justification to try to control them by force.

You need to rethink your logic and attitude towards both government and business.

LOL. Well, so far no one has provided any reason for me to do so. Your points in this thread are no different from the nonsensical anti-freedom propaganda that has been rampant worldwide for over a century, from Marx to Stalin to Mao to countless others.

Perhaps you should rethink your ideology. Call it a joke all you want, but libertarian ideology, unlike Marxist ideology, is not only logically coherent, it's consistent with peaceful co-existence between people. It doesn't rely on the fact that most people are far too ignorant of basic economic principles to realize how destructive anti-free market policies are to everyone.

 

[CAC1001]

That is why the whole, "let the free market take care of everything" idea is such a joke. If you want control over your life than get control over what keeps you alive!

This is one of the classic socialist fallacies. Socialists, who assume that government can solve most every problem in society, tend to think that supporters of free-market capitalism thus think the 180 degree opposite, that the free-market and private sector can solve every problem in society.

Nothing could be further from the truth. Supporters of market capitalism very much understand that there are things the market either cannot do, or could do but which are better left to the government (this is where the big debate about healthcare lies, some believe that it is better done by government, others say that's nonsense, that the market can do it just fine).

Perhaps you should rethink your ideology. Call it a joke all you want, but libertarian ideology, unlike Marxist ideology, is not only logically coherent, it's consistent with peaceful co-existence between people. It doesn't rely on the fact that most people are far too ignorant of basic economic principles to realize how destructive anti-free market policies are to everyone.

This is also a fallacy that many fall prey to. Marxism is an ideology. It's really an atheist religion. I assume by "libertarian," you mean the classical definition of liberalism (as opposed to the modern American variant that now refers to those who tend to be economically authoritarian). Liberalism, in the classical sense, is not an ideology; it is not "upside-down socialism," so-to-speak. It's not a theory based on dogma or unprovable assumptions.

Liberalism is a set of conclusions based on many observations and hard facts. Unlike socialists, who often set out to build a utopia, liberals understand that there is no such thing as a perfect society. So they compare the various types of society that exist or have existed and seek to draw conclusions from the ones that have functioned the least badly.

Yes, there are free-market ideologues as well, the kind who are literally like inverted socialists, but too many confuse liberals with these.

 

[Al68]

This is also a fallacy that many fall prey to. Marxism is an ideology. It's really an atheist religion. I assume by "libertarian," you mean the classical definition of liberalism (as opposed to the modern American variant that now refers to those who tend to be economically authoritarian).

No, that's not what I meant by "libertarian", I was referring to the ideology of libertarianism. I'm both a libertarian and a classical liberal, as many are, but they aren't synonyms, even though I have used them almost synonymously myself. You're right that classical liberalism isn't an ideology the way libertarianism is.

Liberalism is a set of conclusions based on many observations and hard facts. Unlike socialists, who often set out to build a utopia, liberals understand that there is no such thing as a perfect society.

That's exactly right, assuming you're referring to classical liberals. We don't think individual liberty will cure all of society's problems. But at the same time we know government restrictions on liberty don't either.

 

[BilPrestonEsq]

LOL. I never said government intervention couldn't break up a monopoly. I said that a monopoly can't exist in a free market to begin with, since there are no barriers to competition. That should be pretty self-evident.Nope. You guessed wrong. Backward again.Yep, that's right. Free market competition prevents that. Government regulations encourage it by being a barrier to entry in the market. I have nothing against Walmart, but they don't need government's help putting all their competitors out of business and preventing new competitors by regulation.Not in the monolithic sense you imply. Obviously if you define a group as those who I buy food from, then it's true that I buy all my food from that group. But such a conclusion is logically meaningless.They couldn't in a free market for self-evident reasons. We have discussed this topic many times in this forum, and I don't want to sidetrack this thread any further.The fact that others engage in activity that helps me meet my needs is not a justification to try to control them by force.LOL. Well, so far no one has provided any reason for me to do so. Your points in this thread are no different from the nonsensical anti-freedom propaganda that has been rampant worldwide for over a century, from Marx to Stalin to Mao to countless others.

Perhaps you should rethink your ideology. Call it a joke all you want, but libertarian ideology, unlike Marxist ideology, is not only logically coherent, it's consistent with peaceful co-existence between people. It doesn't rely on the fact that most people are far too ignorant of basic economic principles to realize how destructive anti-free market policies are to everyone.

Well you are definitely right, that is not what you said at all(monopolies). So, my bad. Actually, you could be right, maybe I am not aware of all the regulations that make it difficult for small businesses to develop and easy for large ones. Could you list some? That does seem important to the thread, maybe you already got into that earlier? With healthcare I don't really see what market competition can do to bring the costs down. I could see more energy efficient hospital buildings possibly? That would help. But what is going to really help to bring the price down?
It is not like you can put patients on a conveyor belt and fire them through the hospital like a manufacturing plant can do to curb costs. Health care costs are going to keep rising anyways as long as inflation grows. If the population grows and the quality of care stays the same, the overall health care costs for the country will rise. If inflation is always rising then the price becomes even higher still. Companies like walmart or homedepot can really make dealing with this inflation pretty easy for us as they have compensated for inflation by lowering the price of all sorts of goods. But they are also relying on cheap labor from China. And efficient manufacturing techniques to lower costs of everyday goods. There is no 'Walmart like' solution for health care. So regardless, rising inflation is going to compound rising healthcare costs due to population increase. Making it one day unnaffordable no matter if it nationalized or not. That is a problem the mainstream fails to recognize. Even if that wasn't true, not everyone has health insurance, we are going to pay for them either way, since you can't be turned down at the emergency room. If those same people that haven't paid for insurance, or can't afford insurance did pay into the system it would mean lower costs for everyone. I am not sure how a counter argument on that can make any sense? Also if we all paid into a tax pool (maybe state managed rather that federal)the money could then be deducted through a electronic healthcare account to credit office or hospital accounts. Also there would have to be a co-pay for non emergency visits or else people would take advantage of the "free" care.

 

[mheslep]

LOL. I never said government intervention couldn't break up a monopoly. I said that a monopoly can't exist in a free market to begin with, since there are no barriers to competition. That should be pretty self-evident.

If you'll allow me jump in Al - sure they can, monopolies have existed in free markets. Company A finds away to make or distribute a product in either a less expensive way than the competition or makes a superior product. Very rarely such a company could, in the right type of market, before anti-trust laws, come to completely dominate a market, but never for very long. The evidence is that, left to themselves without government cronyism to support them, they eventually rot, form blind spots to small fry competition and fall apart. Government action to break up monopolies must inevitably be subject to cronyism, corruption from the would be competition to the monopoly.

 

[nismaratwork]

If you'll allow me jump in Al - sure they can, monopolies have existed in free markets. Company A finds away to make or distribute a product in either a less expensive way than the competition or makes a superior product. Very rarely such a company could, in the right type of market, before anti-trust laws, come to completely dominate a market, but never for very long. The evidence is that, left to themselves without government cronyism to support them, they eventually rot, form blind spots to small fry competition and fall apart. Government action to break up monopolies must inevitably be subject to cronyism, corruption from the would be competition to the monopoly.

Really? You must tell the Carnegies, DuPonts, Rockefellers and so forth, they'll be crushed to learn that the massive wealth accrued is now... oh wait, it's still just as good.

Ooooh, and Bill Gates... and Comcast shareholders! Yep... anti-trust has sure done its job... no vertical monopolies with content providers "merging" with the content. I think the point, as we've seen, is that a monopoly doesn't have to last very long to make a group wealthy for generations, and to do great harm to many. You can't simply ignore the history which led to creation of anti-trust laws in the first place, and the Robber-Baron era.

 

[Al68]

Well you are definitely right, that is not what you said at all(monopolies). So, my bad. Actually, you could be right, maybe I am not aware of all the regulations that make it difficult for small businesses to develop and easy for large ones. Could you list some? That does seem important to the thread, maybe you already got into that earlier?

It's been discussed in other threads, but most government regulations, I think have that effect. But that belongs in a different thread, and I don't want to further hijack this one.

Making it one day unnaffordable no matter if it nationalized or not. That is a problem the mainstream fails to recognize. Even if that wasn't true, not everyone has health insurance, we are going to pay for them either way, since you can't be turned down at the emergency room. If those same people that haven't paid for insurance, or can't afford insurance did pay into the system it would mean lower costs for everyone. I am not sure how a counter argument on that can make any sense?

Well, that's mixing up two different issues. But purposely hiding that cost in the premiums of others only drives prices even higher. Hiding the cost of something, in general, prevents that cost from being lowered by innovation and efficiency.

The market price of a good or service serves a very important purpose in capitalism: it provides valuable information about supply and demand, quality, efficiency, etc. to everyone. That information results in better efficiency, innovation, competition where it is lacking, etc. Hiding the cost of one thing in the price of another completely undermines the value of that info. And that information is far more valuable than most people realize as it affects future costs. There is a reason the most regulated industries in the U.S. (health care, insurance, banking, finance, etc) are the ones that have the most problems.

And certainly the use of government coercion to sell a product, with other costs purposely hidden in the price, does even more damage, for the same reason. Not to mention the obvious unconstitutionality, and authoritarian anti-liberty aspects of the issue.

 

[Al68]

If you'll allow me jump in Al - sure they can, monopolies have existed in free markets. Company A finds away to make or distribute a product in either a less expensive way than the competition or makes a superior product. Very rarely such a company could, in the right type of market, before anti-trust laws, come to completely dominate a market, but never for very long.

Sure, but large, or even almost complete, market share isn't automatically a monopoly. It's only a monopoly if potential competitors can't enter the market, not if a single company is so cheap and efficient that others choose not to compete for that reason.

And in a free market, you're right, such a company could only maintain its market share as long as they stayed cheaper and more efficient than potential competitors.

 

[Al68]

You can't simply ignore the history which led to creation of anti-trust laws in the first place, and the Robber-Baron era.

You mean the history of government interference helping create monopolies? You're right, we shouldn't ignore that history, or allow it to be re-written by anti-free market authoritarians.

 

[nismaratwork]

Sure, but large, or even almost complete, market share isn't automatically a monopoly. It's only a monopoly if potential competitors can't enter the market, not if a single company is so cheap and efficient that others choose not to compete for that reason.

And in a free market, you're right, such a company could only maintain its market share as long as they stayed cheaper and more efficient than potential competitors.

...Or through influence peddling, abusive practices, and sheer market power.

"Алты́нного во́ра ве́шают, а полти́нного че́ствуют."

 

[nismaratwork]

You mean the history of government interference helping create monopolies? You're right, we shouldn't ignore that history, or allow it to be re-written by anti-free market authoritarians.

See: Influence peddling, bribery, and other "abusive practices". Of course, the government is involved with any sufficiently large enterprise; that is clearly not the point I was making or the lesson of that history. You're a conservative battleaxe, I'll give you that, so I don't expect to convince you of anything. "Пле́тью о́буха не перешибёш." = "Can't break an axe with a whip."

 

[Al68]

See: Influence peddling, bribery, and other "abusive practices".

I specifically said "in a free market", where there is no one to bribe or influence, since no one has any coercive power. Obviously those things contribute to monopolies in a regulated market, such as the U.S. currently.

You're a conservative battleaxe, I'll give you that, so I don't expect to convince you of anything.

LOL. Well you don't have to convince me of things I already know, like how the things you mention are very relevant in a regulated market, and can lead to monopolies, or reduced competition at least.

But I'll repeat, I was referring to a free market, ie one in which no one has any coercive power.

 

[nismaratwork]

I specifically said "in a free market", where there is no one to bribe or influence, since no one has any coercive power. Obviously those things contribute to monopolies in a regulated market, such as the U.S. currently.LOL. Well you don't have to convince me of things I already know, like how the things you mention are very relevant in a regulated market, and can lead to monopolies, or reduced competition at least.

But I'll repeat, I was referring to a free market, ie one in which no one has any coercive power.

How does a free market immunize people against bribery and influence? Where people can find a reason to cooperate, they can find a reason to influence people to and improve their environment.

If you can show me free markets that actually exist and function in that fashion, I'd be thrilled, but I'm not buying that this economy is it. As for bribery, the SEC snorting drugs off strippers with the people they were supposed to regulate doesn't count? Wow.

 

[Al68]

How does a free market immunize people against bribery and influence?

In a free market, there is no one with any coercive power to be bribed or influenced. That's what "free market" means.

If you can show me free markets that actually exist and function in that fashion, I'd be thrilled, but I'm not buying that this economy is it.

Of course this economy isn't it. Who said that? This is a regulated market, not a free market. Did you misunderstand my posts?

As for bribery, the SEC snorting drugs off strippers with the people they were supposed to regulate doesn't count?

It not only counts as bribery, it counts as me suddenly desiring a career with the SEC.

Seriously, that's my point. We can find countless examples of corruption in government regulated markets. And your example is a perfect one to illustrate how a regulated market is biased toward big companies against their smaller competition, who can't afford as much drugs and strippers. Did I mention I'm considering a career with the SEC?

 

[nismaratwork]

In a free market, there is no one with any coercive power to be bribed or influenced. That's what "free market" means.Of course this economy isn't it. Who said that? This is a regulated market, not a free market. Did you misunderstand my posts?It not only counts as bribery, it counts as me suddenly desiring a career with the SEC.

I understand, but the kind of free market you're describing naturally gives rise to groups designed to protect mutual interests. Those groups then try to regulate and even the playing field, and bam... you're back at regulation, only now the inmates are running it. When you add the complete lack of attachment that many multinational corporations have with a given nation, the interests of a free market such as you decide would be unacceptably fluid.

In addition, without regulation of some kind, external or internally based... investors will be wary of fraud, Ponzi Schemes, and the other ills regulation REDUCES.

Seriously, that's my point. We can find countless examples of corruption in government regulated markets. And your example is a perfect one to illustrate how a regulated market is biased toward big companies against their smaller competition, who can't afford as much drugs and strippers. Did I mention I'm considering a career with the SEC?

No, I understand that the US is a regulated market, but by the same token... if not the SEC than an industry group. I don't see how your vision of a market can be, without cabals and internal forces which seek to change the nature of the market and exert influence.

I don't disagree that in the ideal model you propose, that what you said would be true... it's the existence or even POSSIBLE existence or practicality of such a market that I question.

 

[Al68]

I understand, but the kind of free market you're describing naturally gives rise to groups designed to protect mutual interests. Those groups then try to regulate and even the playing field, and bam... you're back at regulation

Not if no one has coercive power. And preventing that is the legitimate function of government in a free market.

only now the inmates are running it.

As opposed to what?

In addition, without regulation of some kind, external or internally based... investors will be wary of fraud, Ponzi Schemes, and the other ills regulation REDUCES.

The word "regulation" isn't typically used to mean anti-fraud laws. Anti-fraud laws, and law and order in general to protect liberty, is essential to a free market. Free doesn't mean free from laws, it means free to conduct honest business. I was using the word "regulation" to refer to restrictions on honest business, not laws against fraud, etc.

A free market isn't anarchy.

I don't disagree that in the ideal model you propose, that what you said would be true... it's the existence or even POSSIBLE existence or practicality of such a market that I question.

It, like many things, has never existed in an ideal sense, but the U.S. was fairly close prior to early last century. The same period of time that we went from literally nothing to the greatest economic power in history.

And people can decry "robber barons" all they want, the important point is the increased standard of living of poor and working people. That tremendous and fantastic result of (almost) free market capitalism was even acknowledged by Marx.

That is what raised the standard of living of most people from working hard and dying young just to get to eat on days they were lucky, to most people getting to eat every day, to a situation in which we use the word "poverty" to describe people with a higher standard of living than 99.999% of humans who ever lived.

That's what's at stake here. Far too many people just don't understand the dynamics at work that result in orders of magnitude differences in the standard of living of people over time. That's the kind of progress that government regulation stands in the way of.

Some have said that if the world had always been free (economically), our current standard of living would have been common thousands of years ago, and our standard of living today would be beyond our imagination. I don't think that's much of an exaggeration.

 

[CAC1001]

My personal philosophy is that a market economy needs, overall, light and efficient regulation. Regulation is not any panecea and too much of it just hamstrings the economy and let's big corporations dominate the economy. But a total complete lack of regulation I wouldn't want either. I look at regulation like government, both necessary evils that you want in a limited manner, as in excessive amounts they are bad.

Some have said that if the world had always been free (economically), our current standard of living would have been common thousands of years ago, and our standard of living today would be beyond our imagination. I don't think that's much of an exaggeration.

I think it's a little more complex than that though. I would modify the statement to be more along the lines of: "If modern liberal democracy and market capitalism had been known as the best means to organize society thousands of years ago, than our current standard of living would have existed back then and our standard of living today would be beyond our imagination."

Remember also, we have WAR to thank for a lot of stuff we have today: a lot of the technologies that modern consumer electronics and computers are based off of, were developed with funding from DARPA. The Internet was originally started by the military. The Global Positioning System, also was started by the military (and the space program to launch the satellites into space was government too).

With a lack of the money from defense, one could probably expect that these would all eventually have been developed by the private-sector, but it likely would have taken a lot longer.

In general though, I agree fully that if a society has a market economy and liberal democracy for government, and the government keeps a fairly hands-off policy regarding the economy, then the collective imagination of the people will result in phenomenal levels of creativity that lead to a very high standard of living for the people.

 

[WhoWee]

Presidential hopeful, Mitch Daniels, weighed in on healthcare:
http://www.theindychannel.com/news/26774576/detail.html

""Unless you're in favor of a fully nationalized health-care system, the president's health-care reform law is a massive mistake," Daniels wrote. "It will amplify all the big drivers of overconsumption and excessive pricing."


In the column, Daniels claims the health care law "will add trillions to the federal deficit," and will amount to a government takeover of health care."

He went on to discuss the mandated cost to his state.