One thing that bugged me about Idiocracy

[sabs]

In america, if you're not a Libertarian douchebag who believes that people who work hard get good things, and people who have bad things are lazy losers, than you're a socialist.

Americans have no idea what Socialism looks like, because they call anything that doesn't fuck those who are already fucked Socialism.

[tzor]

Health care should be mandatory, unless you like letting poor people die.

It works relatively well in switzerland, and I haven't seen anyone claim we're socialist or poor.

No, but you are kind of small. Population 7,639,961 (July 2011 est.) There are more people in New York city than there are in your entire nation. Population Of NYC 2011: 8,175,133 (8.1 million).

Of course you are larger than NYC, 15,940 square miles compared to 303 square miles. Think about that when you contemplate thins for the poor in the United States, or elsewhere. Government really has a problem with diseconomies of scale.

[Count Arioch the 28th]

In america, if you're not a Libertarian douchebag who believes that people who work hard get good things, and people who have bad things are lazy losers, than you're a socialist.

Americans have no idea what Socialism looks like, because they call anything that doesn't fuck those who are already fucked Socialism.

As an American, the very idea of a classless society where workers have access to their own means of production makes me want to puke.

[Psychic Robot]

I'll be honest I'm bored now but I don't believe that anyone has a right to health care.

[Gnosticism Is A Hoot]

I'll be honest I'm bored now but I don't believe that anyone has a right to health care.

Meh. You need to put more venom into it. Try -

'Those pinko communazis who're too lazy to afford Real American Healthcare should die quickly, and decrease the surplus population!'

[Psychic Robot]

no see 'cause I ain't even trolling. you have a right to your life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness, and that's about it (aside from the stuff in the bill of rights).

although I feel that voluntary democratic capitalism (workers don't own the company but have a say in its direction) is a superior system to the current mess we have in america. voluntary small-scale socialism (no central government planning but workers own a share of the company just like the business owner) also is a system that I consider acceptable.

[Fuchs]

Health care is a part of having a right to your life.

[Psychic Robot]

no

[tzor]

I'll be honest I'm bored now but I don't believe that anyone has a right to health care.

Human rights are "rights and freedoms to which all humans are entitled." Proponents of the concept usually assert that everyone is endowed with certain entitlements merely by reason of being human. Human rights are thus conceived in a universalist and egalitarian fashion. Such entitlements can exist as shared norms of actual human moralities, as justified moral norms or natural rights supported by strong reasons, or as legal rights either at a national level or within international law. However, there is no consensus as to the precise nature of what in particular should or should not be regarded as a human right in any of the preceding senses, and the abstract concept of human rights has been a subject of intense philosophical debate and criticism.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

...recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world

Whereas it is essential, if man is not to be compelled to have recourse, as a last resort, to rebellion against tyranny and oppression, that human rights should be protected by the rule of law.

Thus in a nutshell, rights are inheritant and inalienable. They do not depend on government but government should "protect" them against tyranny that might seek to oppress them.

Since health is neither inheritant nor inalienable and requires the government to actively enforce, it cannot be considered a "right" per se.

[Count Arioch the 28th]

My econ 202 teacher told us that the demand curve for health care is almost completely vertical. That means that demand for health care will stay almost the same no matter what the price is. She said that is one example where supply and demand didn't actually control the prices because people will pay anything they are told to pay for life-saving procedures.

[DSMatticus]

Yeah, the free market will never fucking work for healthcare in a million years. The free market is bad in a lot of ways, but there are areas where it completely breaks down and it should be obvious to everyone, conservative and liberal.

Healthcare is one, because you tell me how supply and demand is supposed to work when what you're supplying to people is being able to continue living. Most people will pay pretty much whatever your prices are when what you're offering them is not dying. As a result, the behavior of rising healthcare prices brings in more profit (generated by charging people higher prices) than losses (caused by turning away customers). I doubt it's completely vertical, and there is an upper limit on how high it can go before it starts to level off, but it's steep enough that you make more money by charging higher prices than the money you lose by turning away customers. So prices continue to go up, higher than the inflation rate, year after year.

I've yet to see any conservative plan for fixing this. Even providing health insurance does not fix this problem - it just offsets the cost to health insurance providers who will raise their prices. This pretty much has to be tackled in a regulatory fashion - you have to step in and stop the prices from going up. And that's socialism and it will destroy America.

[tzor]

I don't see the connection between demand for health care being almost vertical and the free market cannot work. Clearly people will always want the latest and greatest way to extend their lives no matter what the cost. But that doesn't mean that given one person selling that procedure for X and another selling that procedure for less than X they won't choose the later.

There is clearly an argument that prices should go up as bleeding edge technology saves more and more lives (ironically, the older we get the more we will need healthcare), but that doesn't mean profits will likewise rise. In a really free market, higher profit only encourages greater supply and that supply will work toards lowering the profit margins.

Eventually, and I think this is coming sooner than we realize, we will hit the wall. Technology won't push us over the wall, significant changes in lifestyle may be the only way to increase the average life expenctency into the 110's and 120's and beyond. Those who do choose that lifestyle (more than likely smoke free and vegan although there may be other requirements) will not want to foot the bill for the meat eating, sun worshiping, smokers who are filling up the hospital wards. Then you will see hospital costs start to go down for the first time in history. (Until they hit the next wall at 150. P.S. they don't get to reture until 100!)

[Count Arioch the 28th]

Why would I want to live to see 120? There is nothing on the planet that would keep me entertained that long.

[DSMatticus]

that procedure for X and another selling that procedure for less than X they won't choose the later.

This is historically not what happens. Competing with big name companies is hard. As a matter of fact, it's damn near impossible. No upstart medical company is going to show up and throw your prices out of whack. It's called capitalism. Capital is power. The person with more capital has an advantage, and they can and will run the little guy out of business. This happens all the time. Why do you think Wal-Mart eats mom and pop stores alive? Because being big is being more powerful.

Furthermore, the free market cannot depend on competition. This is a lesson we can learn from the expansion of broadband technologies. Here's how broadband communications have expanded into suburban and rural areas: one company sets up a service in the area, and then no one else shows up for a decade. And here's why: which would you rather do, go to a completely empty town, with no broadband service, and establish a monopoly... or try and wrest control from someone in a town that already has a competitor and home court advantage? The answer is, of course, that you should go for an untapped market instead of competing with an already cornered market.

As a result, infrastructural services like broadband, telecommunications, T.V., etc, etc, tend to develop regional monopolies. There are a handful of really big companies whose services only overlap in areas with incredibly dense population centers. Ergo, the infrastructure of communities will not be protected by free market competition (roads, water, electricity, phone lines, cable lines, etc, etc).

This even applies to a lesser extent to all goods and services: whenever you can, you go for the untapped market first. Meaning until all markets are tapped, you see very little overlap, and everything's just a collection of regional monopolies. Very few sectors have these 'untapped markets,' but infrastructural services like broadband are currently one, because the technology is new.

[Maj]

The free market doesn't apply to the current health care system because the insurance model doesn't allow price transparency.

[Psychic Robot]

The person with more capital has an advantage, and they can and will run the little guy out of business. This happens all the time. Why do you think Wal-Mart eats mom and pop stores alive? Because being big is being more powerful.

obviously if you're competing with walmart in terms of price you will lose. you have to adapt and grow your business in other ways. then again would walmart be so big without government subsidies? the world may never know.

Furthermore, the free market cannot depend on competition. This is a lesson we can learn from the expansion of broadband technologies. Here's how broadband communications have expanded into suburban and rural areas: one company sets up a service in the area, and then no one else shows up for a decade. And here's why: which would you rather do, go to a completely empty town, with no broadband service, and establish a monopoly... or try and wrest control from someone in a town that already has a competitor and home court advantage? The answer is, of course, that you should go for an untapped market instead of competing with an already cornered market.

the solution is to provide alternative services. since this is a gaming forum, we'll go with D&D here. D&D owns the fantasy murder hobo genre. trying to directly compete with D&D is a terrible solution, which is why games with loyal followings (such as fantasycraft) are smalltime. you can't directly compete with D&D because if you're making D&D, why not just play D&D?

so you need to create a superior product or a different product or a superior, different product that can compete. and we've actually seen this happen with 4e, where wotc is self-destructing in a hilarious manner as their greed and incompetence implodes on itself.

you live in a defeatist universe where david never overcomes goliath.

obviously if a state wants to enact universal health care I'm all for it. just don't force the federal government to do that shit.

[DSMatticus]

you have to adapt and grow your business in other ways.

the solution is to provide alternative services.

so you need to create a superior product or a different product or a superior, different product that can compete

These are all things a big business can do better than its smaller competitors, too. They choose not to, because it turns out there's less profit in doing them. Which means by doing these things you will never be able to 'beat' the bigger competitor, you will merely be able to subsist (in Goliath's shadow, to borrow your chosen metaphor). Your excellence will go unrewarded.

[Swordslinger]

Furthermore, the free market cannot depend on competition. This is a lesson we can learn from the expansion of broadband technologies. Here's how broadband communications have expanded into suburban and rural areas: one company sets up a service in the area, and then no one else shows up for a decade. And here's why: which would you rather do, go to a completely empty town, with no broadband service, and establish a monopoly... or try and wrest control from someone in a town that already has a competitor and home court advantage? The answer is, of course, that you should go for an untapped market instead of competing with an already cornered market.

Yeah, the free market is in most cases a joke. It really works only in the area of manufactured goods that can be shipped over a wide area. Apply it to anything else, and the model just falls apart.

Anything that exists in a regional area is vulnerable to monopolies, collusion and any number of other problems that nullify the free market.

[Psychic Robot]

so your complaint is that walmart's always going to be bigger? ffs that's stupid. first off, you can make a decent living by being #2. second of all that's not even true. GM is huge and they almost went bankrupt, only the wisdom of the corporatist federal government saved them from total destruction.

Yeah, the free market is in most cases a joke.

this coming from a 4rry warms the cockles my heart

if only plebian were here to tell us that socialism were the best economic system I bet we could convert half the forum to ron paul's cause

[DSMatticus]

this coming from a 4rry warms the cockles my heart

Ad hominen. You're welcome to explain why the analysis is wrong.

[Juton]

The libertarian ideal of the free market relies on consumers being informed and making rational choices. Does anyone see a problem with this?

[Psychic Robot]

Ad hominen.

rofl that's cute you thought I was going to engage you in an actual debate.

[DSMatticus]

The libertarian ideal of the free market relies on consumers being informed and making rational choices. Does anyone see a problem with this?

There is a lot more to it than that, but the main problem is strikingly equivalent to the prisoner's dilemma. Even if you assume people are making rational, informed, intelligent decisions, making decisions in your own self-interest is not always in the interest of the collective. In the prisoner's dilemma, you can minimize the overall jailtime by both staying silent. However, you can minimize your personal jailtime by ratting out your friend. Unfortunately, when both of you are trying to rat eachother out, you both lose massively.

So the problem with libertarianism isn't that people are incapable of being informed and making rational choices. That's one problem, but there's an entirely separate problem that when people start making informed, rational choices in their own self-interest, they may still end up causing more harm to society overall.

Pollution is an example of this: it's clearly in my self-interest to pollute if I own a factory. It makes me money (cheaper waste disposal), and I don't even live anywhere near my factory. The odds of my own factories pollution harming me in anyway are negligible. Unfortunately, everyone makes that same informed, rational decision and you end up with shit tons of pollution.

Rational self-interest is almost as bad for libertarianism as irrationality.

[Psychic Robot]

libertarian solutions involve privatizing property and not making it public because of the tragedy of the commons

[tzor]

Why would I want to live to see 120? There is nothing on the planet that would keep me entertained that long.

But it's worth the wait!