How much should health care cost? Should it cost anything?

[syrenn]

I've never understood why health insurance is set up to pay for the small stuff, like doctor's visits or lower cost tests and such. If my car insurance covered oil changes, tire rotations, and yearly inspections the cost of my premium would go way up. Why don't they change how insurance is structured so that the smaller stuff isn't covered and has to be paid for out of pocket. Wouldn't that reduce costs?

Have the rates of plastic surgery gone out of control? That's rarely covered by insurance and people pay out of pocket.

That is where the unions go bat shit crazy!

What?? you want us to pay a higher co pay? You mean i will have to pay $35 dollars for a Dr. visit?

What?? My deductible is going to go up to?


And even with a higher deductible and a larger copay...its still not near what you would be paying if you footed the entire bill.

 

[Big Fitz]

Yeah, you're right, alot of ER patients shouldn't be there, but they have nowhere else to go because they have no insurance. That's why if they had insurance from the beginning they can seek care with their personal doctor and avoid the ER all-together. That improves the quality of their life, while reducing the costs for the rest of us.

Wait . . . you mean if someone without insurance were to go to the doctor (instead of the ER) because they had the flu, they couldn't just pay the doctor directly the cost of the visit?

And there is the bottom line. The do not want to pay.

Again. That's why it's a Deadbeat Crisis.

I should copywrite that phrase.

 

[Zoom-boing]

I've never understood why health insurance is set up to pay for the small stuff, like doctor's visits or lower cost tests and such. If my car insurance covered oil changes, tire rotations, and yearly inspections the cost of my premium would go way up. Why don't they change how insurance is structured so that the smaller stuff isn't covered and has to be paid for out of pocket. Wouldn't that reduce costs?

Have the rates of plastic surgery gone out of control? That's rarely covered by insurance and people pay out of pocket.

That is where the unions go bat shit crazy!

What?? you want us to pay a higher co pay? You mean i will have to pay $35 dollars for a Dr. visit?

What?? My deductible is going to go up to?


And even with a higher deductible and a larger copay...its still not near what you would be paying if you footed the entire bill.

No, no 'copay'. Right now a doctor's visit in my area is $65. If insurance didn't cover that at all and people paid it out-of-pocket, doctors would have to compete with other doctors and their fees would come down.

I can shop around for my car insurance and with all plans, the lower the deductible the higher the premium and visa versa. Why isn't health insurance set up similarly?

 

[Skull Pilot]

The biggest problem with our current health care model is that no one knows what anything costs. Do you know what a doctor charges for an office visit. a blood panel, an x ray, an EKG, an appendectomy etc?

The answer in all cases is "No" for the vast majority of people.

How can market forces be applied to put pressure on providers to lower prices when no one knows what anything actually costs?

I read this recently

Worried About Cholesterol? Order Your Own Tests - WSJ.com and it made a lot of sense to me.

I could skip paying for a doctors office visit (however much that costs) and just pay for a blood panel. it's easy enough to tell if the results warrant a call to a doctor or if everything is OK.

Just think if we could shop around for other services in a more a la carte fashion we could very well see a huge drop in prices for medical care and people would have to take a more active and responsible role in their own lives.

 

[syrenn]

I've never understood why health insurance is set up to pay for the small stuff, like doctor's visits or lower cost tests and such. If my car insurance covered oil changes, tire rotations, and yearly inspections the cost of my premium would go way up. Why don't they change how insurance is structured so that the smaller stuff isn't covered and has to be paid for out of pocket. Wouldn't that reduce costs?

Have the rates of plastic surgery gone out of control? That's rarely covered by insurance and people pay out of pocket.

That is where the unions go bat shit crazy!

What?? you want us to pay a higher co pay? You mean i will have to pay $35 dollars for a Dr. visit?

What?? My deductible is going to go up to?


And even with a higher deductible and a larger copay...its still not near what you would be paying if you footed the entire bill.

No, no 'copay'. Right now a doctor's visit in my area is $65. If insurance didn't cover that at all and people paid it out-of-pocket, doctors would have to compete with other doctors and their fees would come down.

I can shop around for my car insurance and with all plans, the lower the deductible the higher the premium and visa versa. Why isn't health insurance set up similarly?

That is rather what i was saying. It is something that the unions fight tooth and nail when it comes up in contracts.

So how does shopping around work into obamacare? Oh that right...it doesn't.

 

[Big Fitz]

The biggest problem with our current health care model is that no one knows what anything costs.

DING! This is a massive point. When I had to get some medical tests they made me call an unlisted number, with my 'case ID' before anyone would tell me prices.

They should be forced to have public pricing for every service so people can do comparison shopping. This would break the back of a LOT of hidden costs, fees and bloat.

 

[SmarterThanHick]

That's what I would like to know. Because the more liberal support and arguments you read for Obamacare or single payer or UHC, it seems that the left doesnt' really want health care to cost less, they want it to cost nothing to the consumer. That concept needs to be addresssed. Tackling the cost to the consumer and lowering it has one set of possible solutions. Making it cost nothing or something government funded through taxes requires another set of solutions.

So out with it libs. Is health care something you should pay directly for? Or is it something government should provide through taxes?

It seems like you have a poor understanding of what is actually desired for healthcare.

It would be more efficient for the government to open low cost hospitals and clinics. Require doctors that are still paying off their loans to man them for free.

Requiring every upcoming doctor in the country to work for free is not an option.

No, giving free insurance for life does not decrease the cost to the rest of us. It increases it. [/COLOR]

That's not necessarily true. Who do you think pays for the indigent when they don't? You think hospitals and doctors just eat the cost? Lose money? It's foolish. No, they just pass on the cost to you. This is known as price discrimination, a well established and popular economic concept in America. Do you really think movie theaters just discount prices for seniors out of the kindness of their hearts? Do you think supermarket coupons are produced for your benefit? Do you REALLY think that hospitals around the country can care for the poor without charging you more?

Think about that one. You're already paying for them if you have insurance.

So we would be better of paying a few hundred a month to insure people took care of themselves at a much cheaper rate as opposed to still paying for their care but letting them get that care in the expensive and bare minimum ER.

To add to that good point: we tend to hold zero value to human lives in these scenarios. So yes, it would be drastically more expensive in the ER, but think about how much more horrible a life that person will have, and how it might even be shortened because of it!

So in a nutshell I'm being fined for a exercising a choice I ought to be able to make freely without penalty and my fine is going to pay for those that in some form or other made choices that prevented them from affording health care.

That's just it: you don't have a choice. Not when it matters. If you're unconscious and bleeding in the street, you have ZERO choice at that moment to make medical decisions. Even if you were awake, is that really the time you want to start comparing the relative rates of local ambulance companies, and googling the reputation of the trauma surgeons at each hospital? You have no choice, and doctors do not need your choice or even CONSENT in the matter to treat you.

So sure, robbing rights is a bad thing, but we're not talking about which store you want to shop at for a new sweater. We're talking about moment by moment decision making that determines life or death, where the luxury of choice is not available. Or did you think the majority of hospital patients are there electively?

 

[urdrwho]

RDD ----- do you ever have any financial thoughts on the matter other than what you've heard? In my life I have gone without health insurance and had to pay for things out of my pocket. You aren't going to die without health insurance. There are many things that will or can kill you but not having health insurance isn't one of them. In this country you show up at the hospital and they will treat you.

Your points are straight off of the Huffington Post or the Daily Koz. You have no financial thought at all and just like an arrested adolescent, you just want something and don't care about cost. Sadly this life on earth has and always will resolve around paying for something. Utopia on this earth just won't happen.

Yes it does say we the people and general welfare etc. but you left out the part of "blessings of Liberty to ourselves and Posterity." What part of posterity are you leaving when you have a government that is bankrupt. The founders were farmers and knew about commerce. They were not part of a tribal system with a community food pot. The WE is the people and not the government.

Stop talking insurance and give me an example of what you would like to see to lower health care. Do you want to see doctors and nurses earn less; maybe tort reform; maybe do away with semi-private rooms? What are some of your ideas?

RDD would you like the German model of a two tiered system? From Deutsche Welle "Anecdotal evidence abounds about difference in service between those insured under private health care plans in Germany and those with the state system. The newspaper Bild conducted a test of 100 doctor's offices around Germany, calling each to set up appointments.

"Private patients are preferred, publicly insured patients are brazenly turned away, just gotten rid of," Heinz Windisch, president of VKVD, an interest group for both privately and publicly insured individuals, told the newspaper.

All this has led to accusations that patients in the public system are second-class citizens, having to wait months for non-emergency doctor's appointments or procedures and paying ever more out of their own pockets as the list of covered treatments and medicines shrinks, all the while watching as their monthly health insurance contributions continue to rise.

People who earn less than 46,800 euros ($54,850) per year are obligated to enroll in one of Germany's public health plans. Their contributions are determined by their income and range from 12.7 to 15.5 percent, half of which their employer pays.

In addition, patients must pay a 10 euro quarterly office fee, five to 10 euros for medicines, pay for shared rooms in hospitals and generally cover 50 percent of the cost of dental prostheses.

Private patients, on the other hand, generally have much more choice regarding doctors, have long lists of services covered, are not required to pay a quarterly office fee, and can receive medicines or eyeglasses without additional charges.

"Those who pay more in Germany get better service," said Kai A. Konrad, a professor specializing in health system economics at the Institute of Public Finance and Social Policy at Berlin's Free University. "They are like two different products." "

In Japan they have a problem with " More than 14,000 emergency patients were rejected from hospitals three or more times in 2007. The record is a woman in her 70s who was having trouble breathing. She was denied entry by 49 hospitals. One pregnant woman died in 2006 from a brain hemorrhage during childbirth because she was rejected by 19 hospitals."

In Taiwan it is normal to give a doctor money under the table to move up in the que.

Personally from your writing you are living in a dream world and haven't done much research. You only know what you have been told. You crave a USA system where all get the same health care but if you research, many government public options have a two tiered system.

I've debated this topic and did my research. Is the USA system perfect? No but neither is any other world system. The main problem with all of the schemes is that the patient is shielded from the true cost of health care.

I'm waiting for you to drop some religious card about what would Jesus do. But hey, Jesus needed money and one of his disciples was the treasure of the group. So even that group knew you needed money to live in this world, to help people. John 13:29. I don't think Jesus said, go ask rome to give you money to buy for the feast.

Time for you to leave the Matrix and enter the real world.

 

[SmarterThanHick]

Universal insurance is nothing more then charging some people more, to give more to the ones who cant pay.

Actually that's exactly what our current system is. You pay more for insurance and healthcare because others aren't paying, regardless of whether they can't, or just don't want to. You're scared of something that's already happening, but don't understand the economic concept.

Giving health insurance for free is socialist.

Then so are roads and mail and firehouses, not to mention police, and street lights and the public schools. It's quite immature to boil down any necessary shared commodity as this nation-changing concept of socialism. Healthcare, much like all the other things are just mentioned, is a necessary social commodity to allow for a productive society. There is no mystery to the concept that healthier people are more productive people.

It has thrown nature all out of balance and one thing Darwin was correct about was survival of the fittest.

Lucky for us we have established civilization so that our young are not picked off by wild hyenas at every opportunity. If you really want survival of the fittest, why have healthcare at all? Why should doctors even treat people like you instead of hording health knowledge on their families exclusively? The concept is absurd.

People that aren't producing DO NOT deserve the same life style as the guy 5 feet down in that ditch, muddy boots and sweat on his brow.

You think the guy in the city slums is getting the same healthcare as a millionaire in a yuppy upper class town? That's delusional.

The biggest problem with our current health care model is that no one knows what anything costs.

EXACTLY right. The current healthcare system setup has robbed America of one of its underlying fundamentals: free market capitalism and competition.

 

[Sallow]

Should health care "cost" something? Yeah. It should be a collective cost. No young person should have to die for want of health care.

And yeah..I said "young". We all gotta die sometime.

 

[urdrwho]

Twenty five years ago I wrote a paper on this matter. Union contract bartering is what started the entire mess of divesting people from the true cost. During each contract negotiation the UAW bartered for less and less out of pocket health care costs. That idea floated into the regular work place and we are now at a place in time that people don't even know what their own doctor charges.

Most companies that have over 500 employees are either fully or partially self insured. You may have a blue shield card but they are the ones that administer the claims, the network and pay above the shock claims. So when you have large employers complain about health costs, they mean HEALTH COSTS. Since those employers are the insurer they know the difference between insurance costs and health care.

I pay my doctor and know what he charges. When he prescribes a high cost antibiotic, I'll call from the pharmacy. Hey doc isn't there anything that will do the same job? 100% of the time there is another generic that will do the job and at 1/4 of the price. Doctors are always prescribing the latest meds and a lot of people have no idea of the real cost.

That is where the unions go bat shit crazy!

What?? you want us to pay a higher co pay? You mean i will have to pay $35 dollars for a Dr. visit?

What?? My deductible is going to go up to?


And even with a higher deductible and a larger copay...its still not near what you would be paying if you footed the entire bill.

No, no 'copay'. Right now a doctor's visit in my area is $65. If insurance didn't cover that at all and people paid it out-of-pocket, doctors would have to compete with other doctors and their fees would come down.

I can shop around for my car insurance and with all plans, the lower the deductible the higher the premium and visa versa. Why isn't health insurance set up similarly?

That is rather what i was saying. It is something that the unions fight tooth and nail when it comes up in contracts.

So how does shopping around work into obamacare? Oh that right...it doesn't.

 

[Wry Catcher]

That's what I would like to know. Because the more liberal support and arguments you read for Obamacare or single payer or UHC, it seems that the left doesnt' really want health care to cost less, they want it to cost nothing to the consumer. That concept needs to be addresssed. Tackling the cost to the consumer and lowering it has one set of possible solutions. Making it cost nothing or something government funded through taxes requires another set of solutions.

So out with it libs. Is health care something you should pay directly for? Or is it something government should provide through taxes?

Both.
All employed in the United States should pay a tax which directly funds universal preventative healthcare, and an actual and immediate need for emergency treatment. Employers should not be required to contribute to this fund, other than their own personal obligations as an employee/owner (as should all self employed individuals).

The Federal Government and Each willing State Government should provide the money to build and maintain brick and mortar regional health centers; centers staffed by either government employees or private contractors - TBD by each state.

Preventative services should include free conraceptives for all woman (and sexually active girls) pre-natal and post-natal care, and well baby checks for the first two years of life; regualar and free physical educations at appropriate intervals for all children up to age 18, including treatment for chronic disease; and, education in concert with the schoools on the dangers of STD's, Drug, alcohol and tobacco use/abuse and the benefits of proper nutrition and exercise.

 

[urdrwho]

Using your theory of health people, why was America the most productive country in the world? We didn't have the NHS like the UK. The UK with their NHS should have been the big producer, the IBM, the Apple the Microsoft, etc..

Firehouses are not always free nor are they owned by the governments. In many areas they are volunteer fire departments. Why didn't you mention the army or navy. You want to muddy the waters you ole D Koz boy with this idea that protection against a robber is the same as a health insurance policy. Sorry I don't bite on that worm because it is not the same.

If we take your assumption of community, why own anything, or do anything on our won, just let the community provide for it? Since everything is community, why mow my lawn...let the community do it. Why upgrade the dangerous wiring in that apartment, let the community do it. Hey in the 70's I lived in a commune and it was really cool...except for the lazy people. I even lived in a tee pee. Yep those were the days of social experiment and guess what, in the end it sucked. The worst people in the group were the devout communists. For some odd reason they felt they were above hard physical work.

The "it takes a village" speech sounds fine except to people who tried the village communal life. It is a dream and propaganda.

You want the community and government health care, fine. Just leave me out of it. Since Medicare is the biggest denier of health claims among all insurance companies, you can just have it.

For me I will pay my doc, my scripts and use my insurance for the big claims.

Giving health insurance for free is socialist.

Then so are roads and mail and firehouses, not to mention police, and street lights and the public schools. It's quite immature to boil down any necessary shared commodity as this nation-changing concept of socialism. Healthcare, much like all the other things are just mentioned, is a necessary social commodity to allow for a productive society. There is no mystery to the concept that healthier people are more productive people.

 

[Valerie]

The biggest problem with our current health care model is that no one knows what anything costs.

DING! This is a massive point. When I had to get some medical tests they made me call an unlisted number, with my 'case ID' before anyone would tell me prices.

They should be forced to have public pricing for every service so people can do comparison shopping. This would break the back of a LOT of hidden costs, fees and bloat.

That's the amazing thing, when you really think about it...

INSURANCE...supposedly to insure against potential health care cost.........?





At what point does that "insurance" become greater than ACTUAL COST............?


Why should the government require citizens to pay such a cost, as if citizens could not still otherwise be held responsible for ACTUAL health care costs incurred...?

 

[SmarterThanHick]

100% of the time there is another generic that will do the job and at 1/4 of the price. Doctors are always prescribing the latest meds and a lot of people have no idea of the real cost.

Well no, that's not actually true. 100% of the time there is not a generic, and it is important to realize that older meds can address the same thing with a higher likelihood of side effects. Some of these are to a negligible degree, certainly, but putting others at risk just because you have yet to experience such a side effect is negligent, and thankfully not practiced by physicians.

Using your theory of health people, why was America the most productive country in the world? We didn't have the NHS like the UK. The UK with their NHS should have been the big producer, the IBM, the Apple the Microsoft, etc..

This really shouldn't be too hard of a concept. Please try to stay with me here. Healthier people are more productive than sicker counterparts, and that has nothing to do with non-counterpart comparisons as you just made. This should be common sense. Sick people call out to work more, cannot perform their jobs as well, etc. That's not to say that any nation with healthcare by default is more productive. It's saying that any given population can decrease their productivity by decreasing their health, and vice versa. Do you actually disagree with this?

Firehouses are not always free nor are they owned by the governments. In many areas they are volunteer fire departments. Why didn't you mention the army or navy. You want to muddy the waters you ole D Koz boy with this idea that protection against a robber is the same as a health insurance policy. Sorry I don't bite on that worm because it is not the same.

That's great that you can reference non-government entities, but it's not what we're actually discussing. You claim one shared commodity is somehow different than another, yet don't actually support it. Why do you think protection against being robbed is different than protection against being killed, or driving on shared roads for that matter? Do certain people in this country not mind being robbed or getting sick? You tell me why they aren't the same with regard to necessary shared commodities.

If we take your assumption of community, why own anything, or do anything on our won, just let the community provide for it? Since everything is community, why mow my lawn...let the community do it. Why upgrade the dangerous wiring in that apartment, let the community do it.

As I mentioned earlier, it's incredibly immature to be unable to differentiate between necessary shared commodities, and all commodities. We're not talking about the community purchasing an HDTV for you and everyone else. This is not a necessity for the community. Streets are. Public schools are. TVs are not. Getting your lawn mowed is not.

Let me know if you're still having trouble understanding the difference, or if you desire to continue taking everything to slipper slope extremes.

 

[Big Fitz]

Then so are roads and mail and firehouses, not to mention police, and street lights and the public schools.

Every last one of these could be effectively privatized and would probably function better.

There is no mystery to the concept that healthier people are more productive people.

All for the collective, eh? Keep the body politik healthy. Works great till you're the one denied healthcare because some beancounter has decided you're obsolete and not worth the society's dollars to keep healthy, because they're better spent elsewhere. Then the panic begins for you.

It is up to the individual, not the state, to keep themselves productive.

Lucky for us we have established civilization so that our young are not picked off by wild hyenas at every opportunity.

Really? And all those embryos we get while still in the womb? Did they have rights to healthcare too?

If you really want survival of the fittest, why have healthcare at all? Why should doctors even treat people like you instead of hording health knowledge on their families exclusively? The concept is absurd.

Strawman. It's all or nothing, eh? Before the government started interfering with wage and price controls in the 1930's forcing businesses to shoulder healthcare costs because they were forbidden to increase wages, paying for healthcare was much more reasonable. It's always been expensive, but it was at least possible to afford with catastrophic health insurance. This is no longer health insurance we're talking about. We've had the discussion moved to be that over deserving free whole life care. This is impossible to sustain and anyone not an economic ignoramus can see it.

EXACTLY right. The current healthcare system setup has robbed America of one of its underlying fundamentals: free market capitalism and competition.

Soooo... now you WANT free markets? Gonna give yourself whiplash changing directions like that. Or is this an example of doublethink in action?

 

[Big Fitz]

Should health care "cost" something? Yeah. It should be a collective cost. No young person should have to die for want of health care.

And yeah..I said "young". We all gotta die sometime.

All employed in the United States should pay a tax which directly funds universal preventative healthcare, and an actual and immediate need for emergency treatment. Employers should not be required to contribute to this fund, other than their own personal obligations as an employee/owner (as should all self employed individuals).

And what should that tax be? 10%? 20? 40? 80? When a commodity like health care is free, it will be overused, and the access will drop. The only way then to control costs is rationing. Back to your death panels deciding who gets treatment and who doesn't and when and what is the best value for the government healthcare dollar.

Congratulations. You're no longer a citizen, you're cattle, and Farmer Sam will keep you around till you are of no more use to him. Then off to the glue factory.

That is what you are really advocating but don't want to admit is the truth of it.

 

[Big Fitz]

This really shouldn't be too hard of a concept. Please try to stay with me here. Healthier people are more productive than sicker counterparts, and that has nothing to do with non-counterpart comparisons as you just made. This should be common sense. Sick people call out to work more, cannot perform their jobs as well, etc. That's not to say that any nation with healthcare by default is more productive. It's saying that any given population can decrease their productivity by decreasing their health, and vice versa. Do you actually disagree with this?

You're trying to blend incompatible arguments. You want to believe that economics give a shit about 'nice'. Nice has no cash value. We are talking about costs, not ethical or moral desires for a perfect world here. If you want to debate social engineering to create a utopia, start a thread. Otherwise, deal with the topic at hand and quit trying to add invalid aspects to the discussion.

Life's a *****, then you die, then they throw dirt in your face, then the worms eat you. Be grateful it happens in that order.

And now, you can do a ***** negrep as you always do when you can't stick to the discussion or someone disagrees with you.

 

[urdrwho]

Now it is clear, you just like to argue. It doesn't matter if you have your head up your you-know-where, you'll just argue for the hell of it. The statement below shows you have no idea what you are talking about. One hundred percent of the time there is no generic. You just showed me I am wasting my time discussing with an idiot! Many more of the new drugs have black box warnings, they have not had the years of experience.

A generic of the drug is chemically identical to the active ingredient of the corresponding branded medication.

"FDA's Office of Generic Drugs:

A generic drug is identical, or bioequivalent to a brand name drug in dosage form, safety, strength, route of administration, quality, performance characteristics and intended use. Although generic drugs are chemically identical to their branded counterparts, they are typically sold at substantial discounts from the branded price.According to the Congressional Budget Office, generic drugs save consumers an estimated $8 to $10 billion a year at retail pharmacies. Even more billions are saved when hospitals use generics.
"

Now this is the last time I will respond to any of your posts. I enjoy debating but get really tired when an someone tries to debate things they know nothing about and argue just to argue. I'm too old to waste time arguing with people that make pointless observations. Keep trolling and maybe you'll find someone else to play games with but I left the sand box behind me a long, long time ago.

Have a good life.

100% of the time there is another generic that will do the job and at 1/4 of the price. Doctors are always prescribing the latest meds and a lot of people have no idea of the real cost.

Well no, that's not actually true. 100% of the time there is not a generic, and it is important to realize that older meds can address the same thing with a higher likelihood of side effects. Some of these are to a negligible degree, certainly, but putting others at risk just because you have yet to experience such a side effect is negligent, and thankfully not practiced by physicians.

 

[urdrwho]

Exactly and it is the reason I will no longer debate with people that can't understand the economics in life. They are in a dream world with Utopian thoughts but it isn't real life. SO they make obtuse arguments about the good of society and fireman and policeman, etc. They muddy the water with such inane debating ideas.

They always sound like the weak people that want to have the same stuff that the strong productive have in a society. We have grown a rather large group of people that whine about life and point to what other people have as though they to deserve the bigger house.

My neighbor two doors away has a big, big house, elevator and all in it. He travels the world but when he works, he works all the time. I don't care to work as much therefore I don't have as much. So what, why should I care what he has...I don't.

There are a lot of people that do care what their neighbor owns. They want the same but aren't willing to sacrifice for it. It is a society of people with a false sense of entitlement. It is also the part of the welfare mentality that is rampant in the USA and a lot of western society. It is why we are becoming the lower economic power and China is becoming the strong economic power. People got addicted to cheaper goods and didn't look at the long term event. Now we are weak and that isn't going to change. The USA and a lot of the western world are in the waning days and China, India, Hong Kong and Asia are the growing economies.

What the USA is left with are people that want to debate how moral it is for everyone to have food, housing, health care, etc. but don't want to talk about the economics of it. They are in a dream land. They are the people that played childhood games where they didn't keep score. They wanted their world to be nice and don't like the real world.

So yep..........I agree with you. Economics don't care about nice.

[/quote]

You're trying to blend incompatible arguments. You want to believe that economics give a shit about 'nice'. Nice has no cash value. We are talking about costs, not ethical or moral desires for a perfect world here. If you want to debate social engineering to create a utopia, start a thread. Otherwise, deal with the topic at hand and quit trying to add invalid aspects to the discussion.

Life's a *****, then you die, then they throw dirt in your face, then the worms eat you. Be grateful it happens in that order.

And now, you can do a ***** negrep as you always do when you can't stick to the discussion or someone disagrees with you.[/QUOTE]