Universal Healthcare?

[manifold]

Because in this world of opinions and assholes, Bern, there is something to be said for evidence. You know, like the S&L evidence that Im using to indicate that deregulation is no mana from heaven.

I don't disagree with your opinion that deregulation is no panacea, I just think you're missing the big picture when you blame it entirely for the s&l crisis. Sure an argument can be made that it wouldn't have happened if they were not deregulated. But I'm saying that mistake was exponentially compounded by ignoring common knowledge about supply and demand and mandating they liquidate.

 

[Shogun]

Whatever you like I suppose. But I assume you're intelligent enough to realize that actual investment losses don't materialize out of thin air because of deregulation. You have to actually invest in a security and then have it either default or sell it for a loss. Virtually all the investment losses that led to the s&l crisis were from junk bonds. Bonds that ended up paying off and making the rock bottom buyers an ass load of money. I don't need a "source" to confirm what I already know as a matter of fact.

Out of thin air? of course not. But, According to your opinion of a cause that you suggest as "fact"? Im afraid so. Also, you've stated that time has acted to vindicate specific actors in the S&L scandal... I'm afraid your word is not much of a reflective standard.

 

[Shogun]

I don't disagree with your opinion that deregulation is no panacea, I just think you're missing the big picture when you blame it entirely for the s&l crisis. Sure an argument can be made that it wouldn't have happened if they were not deregulated. But I'm saying that mistake was exponentially compounded by ignoring common knowledge about supply and demand and mandating they liquidate.

I guess it depends on what big picture you choose to look at. how would those second stage exponential mistakes have happened were it not for the very deregulation that I've provided evidence for? Are they still not, as noted above, the DIRECT result of deregulation? I guess i'm going to have to side with the FDIC on this one instead of your personal expertise.

 

[Bern80]

Who is ignoring human nature, Bern? Those of us who understand to role that greed plays in capitolism or those of us who are insisting that monopolies are the exception?

Okay, given the wide variety of good and services out there, prove your point, where are all the monopolies?

Work is not the prerequisite for living a human life. We don't value our health care just because some of us have it while others have to work their ass off for it while still others just don't apply. Health care is not the reason we work either. I have no problem with a blended mix of capitolism and socialism. Indeed, your acceptance of govt. roads indicates that you don't either. The question becomes not a matter of how to we achieve any pure form of either but rather how can we create an American standard of living that is worth the effort involved in participating in this nation. This might just be the time and place where we the people add UHC to our short list of roads, clean water and fire protection.

What exactley do you think my problem with UHC is? Again, considering the fact it would be less expensive for everyone, don't you think someone would probably have a pretty good reason to not want to be treated under a UHC system?

did those fairs stay down? no? Is the design of deregulation a guarantee that it's application is as beneficial as you claim? no? You origianlly said "Deregulation" as if that one word was supposed to explain everything. I specifically asked you for actual examples and THIS is why. I told you, im willing to discuss deregulation but im not willing to burn the entire forrest down just because Deregulation is a talking point that sells. There have been clear detriments in the aftermath of deregulation which deflates using it as a cure for anything besides a lack of excuses.

I know you'd like to make this dergulation thing complex, but it isn't. It's fairly simple concept: less governement regulation in private business.

I guess you'd have to tell me what your company markets in order to see if your statement is a matter of fact or opinoin. After all, is it REALLY shocking when bill gates, or any given robber barron, rationalized their monopolies?

trolling motors.

 

[manifold]

I guess it depends on what big picture you choose to look at. how would those second stage exponential mistakes have happened were it not for the very deregulation that I've provided evidence for? Are they still not, as noted above, the DIRECT result of deregulation? I guess i'm going to have to side with the FDIC on this one instead of your personal expertise.

Nice spin.

The impact of the deregulation "mistake" would have only been a fraction of what it ended up being when the congressional bailout mandated selling the junk bonds.

 

[manifold]

Shogun,

A couple snippets from old articles since your google must not be working today.

"The Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery, and Enforcement Act (FIRREA) of 1989, requires, among other things, that S&Ls' existing holdings of corporate debt securities not of investment grade ("junk" bonds) be divested by July 1, 1994."


"The junk bond market is preparing for the fallout from a requirement that savings and loans sell their holdings in these high-yield, high risk investments as part of the congressional thrift bailout bill."

 

[Shogun]

Okay, given the wide variety of good and services out there, prove your point, where are all the monopolies?

Thats the point, Bern.. in THIS country monopolies are dealt with or regulated if it falls into the natural monopoly catagory. But, if you are looking for a list of facts, as they say.. (i;ll even provide a source)

# U.S. Steel; anti-trust prosecution failed in 1911.
# Standard Oil; broken up in 1911.
# National Football League; survived anti-trust lawsuit in the 1960s, convicted of being an illegal monopoly in the 1980s.
# Major League Baseball; survived U.S. anti-trust litigation in 1922, though its special status is still in dispute as of 2008.
# United Aircraft and Transport Corporation; aircraft manufacturer holding company forced to divest itself of airlines in 1934.
# American Telephone & Telegraph; telecommunications giant broken up in 1982.
# Microsoft; settled anti-trust litigation in the U.S. in 2001; fined by the European Commission in 2004, which was upheld for the most part by the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in 2007.
# De Beers; settled charges of price fixing in the diamond trade in the 2000s.
# Apple Inc., Accused of forming a Vertical Monopoly, with iPod, iTunes, iTunes Music Store, and the FairPlay DRM System.
# Joint Commission; has a monopoly over whether or not US hospitals are able to participate in the Medicare and Medicaid programs.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly#Historical_monopolies

These are ALL products of capitolism, Bern. Say what you want about social programs that are easily labeled socialism and the chicken dance that follows but there are enough examples in history to indicate that praying for a free market is no solution for everyone.






What exactly do you think my problem with UHC is? Again, considering the fact it would be less expensive for everyone, don't you think someone would probably have a pretty good reason to not be treated under a UHC system?

I think that your problem with UHC is sort of a knee jerk reaction to anything that you perceive as socialist. Despite the semi-socialist opinion that the state should tax for the creation of roads. This is where we are at this point where im defending socialism and you are defending capitolism.

a good reason to not be treated? eh? I'm afraid you lost me there.




I know you'd like to make this dergulation thing complex, but it isn't. It's fairly simple concept: less governement regulation in private business.

Its not a matter of obfuscation, dude. I've posted MY evidence.. where is yours? You may not want to consider the aftermath of nixing malpractice insurance but, again, I guess we see what happened in the 80s when those who were also a big fan of deregulation didn't give a fuck about their aftermath. Airliners, in YOUR source above no less, narrowed competition and the next thing you know the fed is bailing out failing airliners since no COMPETITION was around to step up.

It's not a matter of resorting to the pre-packaged talking point, dude. I'm asking for specifics that you want to deregulate and replying with actual history instead of rhetoric when the same blind deregulation bandwagon passed by. If thats too complicated to masticate then.. well.. I don't know what to tell you.




trolling motors.

awesome. i'll tip my hat to that.

Now, would you say that this is something that enough people buy as to require market competition? While I love fishing Im not sure it is true that the American population relies on your products in order to maintain a standard of living. roads? railroads? phones? operating systems? Your market base is probably not as wide, and has as much of a social impact, than the above list.

 

[Shogun]

Nice spin.

The impact of the deregulation "mistake" would have only been a fraction of what it ended up being when the congressional bailout mandated selling the junk bonds.

SPIN?


you admit that the error was deregulation yet can't fathom how the exponential fuckups were a DIRECT result of said deregulation?

ooooook.

and it wouldn't have even BEEN a fraction had the initial caps not been busted off by those waving the deregulation banner, eh?

 

[Shogun]

Shogun,

A couple snippets from old articles since your google must not be working today.

"The Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery, and Enforcement Act (FIRREA) of 1989, requires, among other things, that S&Ls' existing holdings of corporate debt securities not of investment grade ("junk" bonds) be divested by July 1, 1994."


"The junk bond market is preparing for the fallout from a requirement that savings and loans sell their holdings in these high-yield, high risk investments as part of the congressional thrift bailout bill."

um, would you like to explain how a federal BAILOUT in 1989 is in any way, shape or form a viable cause of the S&L moreso than the original deregulation that opened the pandoras box?

You see, this is why evidence is golden while opinions are, well, as common as assholes.

 

[manifold]

um, would you like to explain how a federal BAILOUT in 1989 is in any way, shape or form a viable cause of the S&L moreso than the original deregulation that opened the pandoras box?

You see, this is why evidence is golden while opinions are, well, as common as assholes.

LOL!

I think we're in a bit of violent agreement here. I more or less agree with you that deregulation was the cause, so settle down beavis. It's the ultimate COST that I'm talking about. If instead of forcing them to sell the junk bonds, the government just funded the solvency (liquidity) gap, the overall cost to taxpayers would have been waaaaaaaaay less. And of course that's an opinion on my part, but an opinion that is strongly supported by the fact that very few of these bonds defaulted.

I get the feeling that the stick up your ass has a stick up it's ass.

 

[Shogun]

LOL!

I think we're in a bit of violent agreement here. I more or less agree with you that deregulation was the cause, so settle down beavis. It's the ultimate COST that I'm talking about. If instead of forcing them to sell the junk bonds, the government just funded the solvency (liquidity) gap, the overall cost to taxpayers would have been waaaaaaaaay less. And of course that's an opinion on my part, but an opinion that is strongly supported by the fact that very few of these bonds defaulted.

I get the feeling that the stick up your ass has a stick up it's ass.

Hey, i'm just a big fan of evidence while posting in this thunderdome of a forum chock full of people who are absolutely convinced that their opinion is fact. We can suppose many things in the monday morning quarterback huddle but, at the end of the day, the hand that opened the lid was blind deregulation. Like I've told Bern, Im open to discuss specific regulations and the problems thereof. However, my pint in this little tangent is that deregulation is not a miracle cure... even fi we all have opinions about the aftermath of the S&L scandal.

Good day to you, sir, and have a great weekend.


You too, Bern.

 

[Bern80]

Thats the point, Bern.. in THIS country monopolies are dealt with or regulated if it falls into the natural monopoly catagory. But, if you are looking for a list of facts, as they say.. (i;ll even provide a source)

# U.S. Steel; anti-trust prosecution failed in 1911.
# Standard Oil; broken up in 1911.
# National Football League; survived anti-trust lawsuit in the 1960s, convicted of being an illegal monopoly in the 1980s.
# Major League Baseball; survived U.S. anti-trust litigation in 1922, though its special status is still in dispute as of 2008.
# United Aircraft and Transport Corporation; aircraft manufacturer holding company forced to divest itself of airlines in 1934.
# American Telephone & Telegraph; telecommunications giant broken up in 1982.
# Microsoft; settled anti-trust litigation in the U.S. in 2001; fined by the European Commission in 2004, which was upheld for the most part by the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in 2007.
# De Beers; settled charges of price fixing in the diamond trade in the 2000s.
# Apple Inc., Accused of forming a Vertical Monopoly, with iPod, iTunes, iTunes Music Store, and the FairPlay DRM System.
# Joint Commission; has a monopoly over whether or not US hospitals are able to participate in the Medicare and Medicaid programs.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly#Historical_monopolies

These are ALL products of capitolism, Bern. Say what you want about social programs that are easily labeled socialism and the chicken dance that follows but there are enough examples in history to indicate that praying for a free market is no solution for everyone.

But again what you are lacking is persepctive. I'm not saying monopilies wont' happen under capitalism. But your list is a fraction of a fraction of the millions of goods and services businesses in our country that are essentially participating in a capitlistic economy. Capitlim is not the solution for everything but by and large it does work. We're not gonna get anywhere if you're gonna be content with the notion that pointing pointing out the abnormalities of a system somehow proves the whole system doesn't work.

I think that your problem with UHC is sort of a knee jerk reaction to anything that you perceive as socialist. Despite the semi-socialist opinion that the state should tax for the creation of roads. This is where we are at this point where im defending socialism and you are defending capitolism.

a good reason to not WANT (important word I missed, sorry be treated? eh? I'm afraid you lost me there.

Wrong of course. i am worried about two things where UHC is concerned 1) Government telling me how to live my life (which they would be justified in doing as they're now footing the bill) and 2) a degradation in quality of care.

The point that is getting missed is that this whole UHC debate only addresses one aspect of healthcare; the cost. No one seems to have thought about what impact tinkering with that will have on all of the other components that make up the healthcare industry.

Its not a matter of obfuscation, dude. I've posted MY evidence.. where is yours? You may not want to consider the aftermath of nixing malpractice insurance but, again, I guess we see what happened in the 80s when those who were also a big fan of deregulation didn't give a fuck about their aftermath. Airliners, in YOUR source above no less, narrowed competition and the next thing you know the fed is bailing out failing airliners since no COMPETITION was around to step up.

I wouldn't consider getting rid of malpractice insureance at the same time though is it any wonder that a doctors service fees are through the roof when their malpractice insureance is the 5 and sometime 6 figure a year category?

It's not a matter of resorting to the pre-packaged talking point, dude. I'm asking for specifics that you want to deregulate and replying with actual history instead of rhetoric when the same blind deregulation bandwagon passed by. If thats too complicated to masticate then.. well.. I don't know what to tell you.

Here we go again. I gave you specifics. Again I don't where you got the quotes from the citation I provided, only that they look very different from what was in there. Like I said there are links all over in there as to how regulation and/or deregulation has affected various industries.

awesome. i'll tip my hat to that.

Now, would you say that this is something that enough people buy as to require market competition? While I love fishing Im not sure it is true that the American population relies on your products in order to maintain a standard of living. roads? railroads? phones? operating systems? Your market base is probably not as wide, and has as much of a social impact, than the above list.

social impact is not a factor of a monopply. A monoply is simply where a business is the sole provider of a good or service. Yes narrowing the term to products that we are more dependant on certainly helps your argument, unfortunately the actuial definition of the term doesn't make that differentiation.

 

[jreeves]

Them's some pretty subjective rights. How about all the money spent in Iraq? I bet more people consider that a failed program than not. Of course when you keep redefining the definition of success, I guess that's a bit tricky to prove (but that's an entirely different discussion). Regardless, you've failed to convince me of anything and didn't really even attempt to answer the question asked, no offense.

It's a failed notion here's why, concentrate on II.11, that spefically tells you why a socialistic nation (with programs such universal healthcare,welfare,foodstamps etc...) is doomed to fail.

 

[jreeves]

It's a failed notion here's why, concentrate on II.11, that spefically tells you why a socialistic nation (with programs such universal healthcare,welfare,foodstamps etc...) is doomed to fail.

http://www.econlib.org/library/Mises/msSContents.html

 

[Diuretic]

It's a failed notion here's why, concentrate on II.11, that spefically tells you why a socialistic nation (with programs such universal healthcare,welfare,foodstamps etc...) is doomed to fail.

Since a nation can have universal healthcare and welfare and not be a socialistic nation can you explain what a real socialistic nation's economy is like?

 

[jreeves]

http://www.econlib.org/library/Mises/msSContents.html

I'm not saying we are a 100% pure socialistic country but these socialistic agendas, rot the core of capitalism in this country. So to answer your first question using my orginial posting, it is not a "Right" to have governmental ran healthcare. Because you violate other's rights and it contributes to a failed system. As is laid out in the following;

Socialism does not work because it is not consistent with fundamental principles of human behavior. The failure of socialism in countries around the world can be traced to one critical defect: it is a system that ignores incentives.
Under socialism, incentives either play a minimal role or are ignored totally. A centrally planned economy without market prices or profits, where property is owned by the state, is a system without an effective incentive mechanism to direct economic activity. By failing to emphasize incentives, socialism is a theory inconsistent with human nature and is therefore doomed to fail. Socialism is based on the theory that incentives don't matter!
The strength of capitalism can be attributed to an incentive structure based upon the three Ps: (1) prices determined by market forces, (2) a profit-and-loss system of accounting and (3) private property rights. The failure of socialism can be traced to its neglect of these three incentive-enhancing components.

Prices

The price system in a market economy guides economic activity so flawlessly that most people don't appreciate its importance. Market prices transmit information about relative scarcity and then efficiently coordinate economic activity. The economic content of prices provides incentives that promote economic efficiency.

For example, when the OPEC cartel restricted the supply of oil in the 1970s, oil prices rose dramatically. The higher prices for oil and gasoline transmitted valuable information to both buyers and sellers. Consumers received a strong, clear message about the scarcity of oil by the higher prices at the pump and were forced to change their behavior dramatically. People reacted to the scarcity by driving less, carpooling more, taking public transportation, and buying smaller cars. Producers reacted to the higher price by increasing their efforts at exploration for more oil. In addition, higher oil prices gave producers an incentive to explore and develop alternative fuel and energy sources.

The information transmitted by higher oil prices provided the appropriate incentive structure to both buyers and sellers. Buyers increased their effort to conserve a now more precious resource and sellers increased their effort to find more of this now scarcer resource.

The only alternative to a market price is a controlled or fixed price which always transmits misleading information about relative scarcity. Inappropriate behavior results from a controlled price because false information has been transmitted by an artificial, non-market price.

Look at what happened during the 1970s when U.S. gas prices were controlled. Long lines developed at service stations all over the country because the price for gasoline was kept artificially low by government fiat. The full impact of scarcity was not accurately conveyed. As Milton Friedman pointed out at the time, we could have eliminated the lines at the pump in one day by allowing the price to rise to clear the market.

From our experience with price controls on gasoline and the long lines at the pump and general inconvenience, we get an insight into what happens under socialism where every price in the economy is controlled. The collapse of socialism is due in part to the chaos and inefficiency that result from artificial prices. The information content of a controlled price is always distorted. This in turn distorts the incentives mechanism of prices under socialism. Administered prices are always either too high or too low, which then creates constant shortages and surpluses. Market prices are the only way to transmit information that will create the incentives to ensure economic efficiency.

Profits and Losses

Socialism also collapsed because of its failure to operate under a competitive, profit-and-loss system of accounting. A profit system is an effective monitoring mechanism which continually evaluates the economic performance of every business enterprise. The firms that are the most efficient and most successful at serving the public interest are rewarded with profits. Firms that operate inefficiently and fail to serve the public interest are penalized with losses.

By rewarding success and penalizing failure, the profit system provides a strong disciplinary mechanism which continually redirects resources away from weak, failing, and inefficient firms toward those firms which are the most efficient and successful at serving the public. A competitive profit system ensures a constant reoptimization of resources and moves the economy toward greater levels of efficiency. Unsuccessful firms cannot escape the strong discipline of the marketplace under a profit/loss system. Competition forces companies to serve the public interest or suffer the consequences.

Under central planning, there is no profit-and-loss system of accounting to accurately measure the success or failure of various programs. Without profits, there is no way to discipline firms that fail to serve the public interest and no way to reward firms that do. There is no efficient way to determine which programs should be expanded and which ones should be contracted or terminated.

Without competition, centrally planned economies do not have an effective incentive structure to coordinate economic activity. Without incentives the results are a spiraling cycle of poverty and misery. Instead of continually reallocating resources towards greater efficiency, socialism falls into a vortex of inefficiency and failure.

Private Property Rights

A third fatal defect of socialism is its blatant disregard for the role of private property rights in creating incentives that foster economic growth and development. The failure of socialism around the world is a "tragedy of commons" on a global scale.

The "tragedy of the commons" refers to the British experience of the sixteenth century when certain grazing lands were communally owned by villages and were made available for public use. The land was quickly overgrazed and eventually became worthless as villagers exploited the communally owned resource.

When assets are publicly owned, there are no incentives in place to encourage wise stewardship. While private property creates incentives for conservation and the responsible use of property, public property encourages irresponsibility and waste. If everyone owns an asset, people act as if no one owns it. And when no one owns it, no one really takes care of it. Public ownership encourages neglect and mismanagement.

Since socialism, by definition, is a system marked by the "common ownership of the means of production," the failure of socialism is a "tragedy of the commons" on a national scale. Much of the economic stagnation of socialism can be traced to the failure to establish and promote private property rights.

As Peruvian economist Hernando de Soto remarked, you can travel in rural communities around the world and you will hear dogs barking, because even dogs understand property rights. It is only statist governments that have failed to understand property rights. Socialist countries are just now starting to recognize the importance of private property as they privatize assets and property in Eastern Europe.

 

[jreeves]

Since a nation can have universal healthcare and welfare and not be a socialistic nation can you explain what a real socialistic nation's economy is like?

I don't understand your question can you rephrase it?

 

[Diuretic]

I don't understand your question can you rephrase it?

Certainly. I'll enlarge on it a bit. It's my contention that the abstract economic notions of the free market economy and the total command economy are both unworkable in practice. Any economy has to contain mixed elements to work effectively. That means that in reality nations which like to say they have free market economies or totally planned economies don't have them at all, it's a bit of self-delusion. You mentioned that "socialistic" economies will fail. I tend to agree that the total social ownership of the means of production has, where it's been tried to date, failed. But a socialist economy isn't identified by universal healthcare or social security, plenty of countries have those programmes but they're not socialist states.

Now, in your view, what's a socialist economy?

 

[jreeves]

Certainly. I'll enlarge on it a bit. It's my contention that the abstract economic notions of the free market economy and the total command economy are both unworkable in practice. Any economy has to contain mixed elements to work effectively. That means that in reality nations which like to say they have free market economies or totally planned economies don't have them at all, it's a bit of self-delusion. You mentioned that "socialistic" economies will fail. I tend to agree that the total social ownership of the means of production has, where it's been tried to date, failed. But a socialist economy isn't identified by universal healthcare or social security, plenty of countries have those programmes but they're not socialist states.

Now, in your view, what's a socialist economy?

Where 97% of the taxes in a country are paid by only 50% of the citizens.

 

[jreeves]

Where 97% of the taxes in a country are paid by only 50% of the citizens.

The largest exipenditure by government is social spending...