How to Handle North Korea?

[Rockstar44]

Originally Posted by Cupcake

If you punch me in the nose, chances are I'd make an effort to break your arm, but that has nothing at all to do with military conflicts where thousands of lives are at stake.

And, I submit that it has EVERYTHING to do with it.

Many of those "thousands of lives" are ours.

Self defense is a duty, not a choice!

[Inquartata]

Originally Posted by Philistine

What about the "life" portion of it?

What about it?

If you read that as making everything and anything which preserves life a right as well, then abortion goes out the window. So does assisted suicide. And probably the government owes everyone free smoke and fire alarms, free food and drink, free shelter, free heat in winter and air-conditioning in summer, free---but you get the idea, I'm sure.

You have the right to free speech. This does not mean that government must furnish you lessons in voice and rhetoric.

Or rather, I will still be able to choose none, but I will still have to pay for it.

To all intents and purposes, that means you will be paying for someone else's.

I don't see that obligation anywhere in the Declaration of Independence...

[Inquartata]

Originally Posted by jeff

Friedman supported a social safety net.

Ah, you'll have to back that one up with a quote from him. I am highly dubious that you are going to find any.

Originally Posted by I_luv_saber

Yes, but what we currently have is a scenario of a man selling water in the desert (regardless of supply) at $50 a glass.

And why? Largely because there's a big thug behind him who forces him to pay "protection", another who makes him use particular types of well and filtration systems, another who makes him carry it into the desert a certain way ( avoiding, of course, any damage to the sand ) and another who insists that the glass be made according to yet another set of detailed ( and expensive ) standards...

I think we could accomplish the same goals with less direct government involvment, and more indirect involvment. At least it should be tried first... jumping in with both feet, especially when it comes to government, is not usually a good idea.

Did anyone see Obama's press conference earlier this week?

He said much the same thing: Moving to a complete national health care system would be too big an endeavor and would cause too much disruption.

Which struck me as odd, inasmuch as most other Western democracies did just that at some point in the past...

But what really puzzled me was his apparent inability---or feigned inability, perhaps---to realize the basic idea that even a reporter in the audience understood: If you have an industry consisting of firms which must make a profit in order to stay in business, and then you create a competitor which does NOT have to earn a profit to survive---this will give that competitor a cost advantage in the marketplace. Consumers will tend to gravitate toward the lower-price option. It will thrive, and the others will languish and eventually perish.

He's a smart guy. Yet he refused even to address that point not just once, but twice. I know that he's eager to get his plan through, but really, that's a pretty basic objection. You can't just pretend that the laws of economics don't exist in this one instance...

[I_luv_saber]

Originally Posted by Inquartata

And why? Largely because there's a big thug behind him who forces him to pay "protection", another who makes him use particular types of well and filtration systems, another who makes him carry it into the desert a certain way ( avoiding, of course, any damage to the sand ) and another who insists that the glass be made according to yet another set of detailed ( and expensive ) standards...

No, because he's figured out that he has a resource people must have, and there aren't a whole lot of options. There are a few other people out there selling water... but they're a 20 mile walk and also selling for about $50 a glass. Insurance companies can and will continue to profit after regs... they just won't be allowed to rape people anymore.

It's the same with utilities. If PG&E could go around charging whatever they wanted, I guarantee you our rates would be higher. Every time we relax regs on PG&E, rates go up.

Yet, they still seem to be making a decent profit and doing just fine despite government regulation capping how much they can charge people. If we follow this model for utilities, a resource deemed necessary by society for basic function of life, why not health care?

He said much the same thing: Moving to a complete national health care system would be too big an endeavor and would cause too much disruption.

Which struck me as odd, inasmuch as most other Western democracies did just that at some point in the past...

Yes but, AFAIK, he is for a public option, which at this point I am not. I am in favor of a safety net system, but I am not in favor of a system anyone can opt into.

Also, practically speaking, something is going to happen to reform health care, and I would much rather see such a system as I've proposed implemented and tried before a costly public option is made available.

But what really puzzled me was his apparent inability---or feigned inability, perhaps---to realize the basic idea that even a reporter in the audience understood: If you have an industry consisting of firms which must make a profit in order to stay in business, and then you create a competitor which does NOT have to earn a profit to survive---this will give that competitor a cost advantage in the marketplace. Consumers will tend to gravitate toward the lower-price option. It will thrive, and the others will languish and eventually perish.

Which is a major reason I am NOT for a public option.

That said, to play the devil's advocate, it was noted earlier that UPS and FedEx do still seem to do good business regardles of the USPS.

That said I don't have the optimism this situation would turn out the same.

[Philistine]

Originally Posted by Inquartata

What about it?
{snip}

I'm just pointing out that your argument that medical care is "not a legitimate function of government" seems belied by the Declaration of Independence's recitation that one of the foremost purposes of the institution of government is to secure the right to a person's life.

--Philistine

[jeff]

Originally Posted by Inquartata

Ah, you'll have to back that one up with a quote from him. I am highly dubious that you are going to find any

This came as a surprise to me when reading one of the quotes I put up for you in the past few days - see http://www.robert-h-frank.com/PDFs/ES.11.23.06.pdf

I know these are wikipedia - sorry - but have a look at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_income_tax

"It was developed by Juliet Rhys-Williams in the 1940s and later by United States economist Milton Friedman in 1962 in Capitalism and Freedom. Negative income taxes can implement a basic income or supplement a guaranteed minimum income system."


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milton_Friedman

"Friedman made headlines by proposing a negative income tax to replace the existing welfare system and then opposing the bill to implement it because it merely supplemented the existing system rather than replace it."


See also for non wikipedia
http://ideas.repec.org/p/jhu/papers/486.html and http://econpapers.repec.org/paper/jhupapers/486.htm (references to same paper)

http://www.taxfoundation.org/blog/show/1728.html
http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc1/...IncomeTax.html

[Hauptman]

Originally Posted by Inquartata

What about it?

If you read that as making everything and anything which preserves life a right as well, then abortion goes out the window. So does assisted suicide. And probably the government owes everyone free smoke and fire alarms, free food and drink, free shelter, free heat in winter and air-conditioning in summer, free---but you get the idea, I'm sure.

You have the right to free speech. This does not mean that government must furnish you lessons in voice and rhetoric.

Abortion? Irrelevant; society at this time does not recognize an unborn child as a citizen.

Assisted suicide? Also irrelevant; the right to life does not exclude a person from relinquishing that right.

Smoke alarms? If the people didn't already have adequate access to them then, yes it's possible the gov't would supply them. The only reason that health care is an issue is because we have so many people without adequate access.

There is more than enough vague language from the founding fathers to support gov't involvement in health care, but I concede that the language is vague enough to be interpreted most anyway you'd like.

[Inquartata]

Originally Posted by I_luv_saber

No, because he's figured out that he has a resource people must have, and there aren't a whole lot of options.

And you know this for a fact---how? Because you can read his mind?

Or is it because you just don't trust that awful Big Business on anything?

Wouldn't be because every media organization on earth tells you that HMO's are wicked greedy Scrooges, would it?

Think for yourself, man!

It's the same with utilities.

It's not the same, because utilities are what we call natural monopolies. Health care is not an inherently monopolistic industry. It operates under a different set of constraints.

If we follow this model for utilities, a resource deemed necessary by society for basic function of life, why not health care?

Because---and I'm going to have to keep saying this---health care is neither a monopoly nor a public good.

That said, to play the devil's advocate, it was noted earlier that UPS and FedEx do still seem to do good business regardless of the USPS.

Different businesses. The USPS has been granted a legal monopoly on the delivery of first-class mail.

[Inquartata]

Originally Posted by Philistine

I'm just pointing out that your argument that medical care is "not a legitimate function of government" seems belied by the Declaration of Independence's recitation that one of the foremost purposes of the institution of government is to secure the right to a person's life.

--Philistine

Firstly, that the Declaration says something is a right does not imply that everything necessary to it is also a right.

Secondly, the Declaration was not designed along economic lines, alas. Health care is not a public good, hence not a legitimate function of government.

Thirdly, it's odd that a country which stipulates that life is a right permits abortion, capital punishment, war, boxing and in some cases assisted suicide, don't you think? If the "right" can be overridden by other concerns, why not economics?

[Inquartata]

Originally Posted by jeff

This came as a surprise to me when reading one of the quotes I put up for you in the past few days

In vain I looked for any quote by Friedman himself saying anything about supporting a "social safety net". ( Other people saying that he believed in such just will not suffice. )

And the NIT is not a "safety net" program, much less a statement in support of universal health care coverage. The man must be spinning in his grave every time President Obama gives a speech...

[jeff]

The references I cited said which book he suggested it. Sorry, he is not in my library, so I can't quote page numbers! (though we do have some Ayn Rand)

What would a negative income tax be other than income redistribution and a bureaucrat-free welfare program?

Anyhow, it was a surprise to me as well.

[I_luv_saber]

Originally Posted by Inquartata

And you know this for a fact---how? Because you can read his mind?

Here is a (biased) source that insurance companies are doing purty well now in terms of profit:

http://www.pnhp.org/news/2003/april/..._of_califo.php

and here's one somewhat less biased:

http://www.wral.com/news/local/wral_...story/4678913/

This was about 1 minute of Googling.

They can be capped and still retain strong profits. Regulation doesn't seem to be weighing them down too much yet.

Or is it because you just don't trust that awful Big Business on anything?

No, then I would be in favor of a public option. I simply realize that regulation is not an all or nothing prospect... generally when ANYTHING is made out to be all or nothing, both extremes are not desirable.

Wouldn't be because every media organization on earth tells you that HMO's are wicked greedy Scrooges, would it?

Think for yourself, man!

Do you realize who you're speaking to? Do I really need to fish out all the old posts of my mistrust and distaste for the media to the point that some have called it paranoia? That one doesn't work on me, effendi .

EDIT: And, actually, you can count me in the very odd camp that actually basically likes the way HMO's work, at least on the consumer level.

Because---and I'm going to have to keep saying this---health care is neither a monopoly nor a public good.

It is a public good, in that it is in our best interest, as a society, to see that our populace is in good health. Now, this does not have to be a direct government responsibility, but government needs to be sure the private market is tending that need. If not, you have a greater spread of disease and contagious illnesses that will decimate said populace.

I would say it's in a country's best interest to see that doesn't happen, no?

Different businesses. The USPS has been granted a legal monopoly on the delivery of first-class mail.

I do agree that it would not turn out the same in the realm of health care.

[erik_blank]

to get back to the idea of ho to handle NK, what do people think about this little bit that the current admin did, and whether or not it was in response to NK's missile testing...

http://www.cbs8.com/Global/story.asp?S=10610182

[treehugginfencer]

Violence is NEVER the answer! Don't hurt Kim Jong Il! He is a person, just like you and me.

[Inquartata]

Originally Posted by I_luv_saber

This was about 1 minute of Googling.

Sometimes taking one's time yields better results:

http://biz.yahoo.com/ic/ll/522qpm.html

I don't know about the various Blue Crosses, but there can always be outliers. I just wouldn't want to base policy on them.

It is a public good, in that it is in our best interest, as a society, to see that our populace is in good health.

1) That is a somewhat circular argument...

2) No, health care is still not a public good ( a concept which has a fairly specific meaning in economics ).

3) That is NOT a sufficient reason for mandating provision of something. I mean, many, many things are "in our best interest", but even you would be horrified at the idea of government legislating them into ubiquity, I suspect. Why should health be singled out for elevation to "right"?

[I_luv_saber]

Originally Posted by Inquartata

Sometimes taking one's time yields better results:

http://biz.yahoo.com/ic/ll/522qpm.html

I don't know about the various Blue Crosses, but there can always be outliers. I just wouldn't want to base policy on them.

Sometimes.... unfortunately, this is not one of those cases

As you'll note in the article I linked to, the profit margins when looked at by themselves can be misleading...

The size of their business then equates with 13.8% of the risk pool. But the 7.3% profit is not the profit on the size of their business but it is a "profit" expressed as a percentage of the entire risk pool, 78.9% of which is not their funds. That 7.3% profit, when expressed as a percent of their administrative revenues (13.8% of the pool), is actually a return of 52.9% on their net administrative revenues (which is 34.4% of their gross revenues, administrative costs and profits combined).

1) That is a somewhat circular argument...

Aren't they always?

2) No, health care is still not a public good ( a concept which has a fairly specific meaning in economics ).

I don't know exactly how the term is supposed to be applied when specific to economics... could you enlighten me, please?

While it may not be a "public good" in the economic sense of the word (I trust you to that), it is certainly in the public's best interest to see that everyone is relatively healthy. Now, obviously, you reach a point that you spend so much per person that the con of cost starts to outweigh the pros of a healthy populace to the individual... but I think there are reasonably less costly ways of ensuring the populace stays relatively healthy.

3) That is NOT a sufficient reason for mandating provision of something. I mean, many, many things are "in our best interest", but even you would be horrified at the idea of government legislating them into ubiquity, I suspect.

Absolutely. This is not an all-or-nothing proposition. This is about society deciding if something is "enough" in it's best interest to warrant legislation or other government involvement protecting it. There's always a line drawn somewhere... the argument is just over where it's drawn.

Why should health be singled out for elevation to "right"?

Except on a very basic level, I don't see health care as a "right" either. I simply think it is in my best interest as an individual - and our best interest as a society - to see that as few people as possible "slip through the cracks" of health coverage.

[Inquartata]

Originally Posted by I_luv_saber

As you'll note in the article I linked to, the profit margins when looked at by themselves can be misleading...

Or so that one fellow claims. Perhaps it's his analysis which is misleading?

Personally I would rather use the standard statistics than massage them to get the answer I wanted...

I don't know exactly how the term is supposed to be applied when specific to economics... could you enlighten me, please?

This definition ( from "The Economist" ) is about as good as any:

"Things that can be consumed by everybody in a society, or nobody at all. They have three characteristics. They are:

• non-rival – one person consuming them does not stop another person consuming them;

• non-excludable – if one person can consume them, it is impossible to stop another person consuming them;

• non-rejectable – people cannot choose not to consume them even if they want to.

Examples include clean air, a national defence system and the judiciary. The combination of non-rivalry and non-excludability means that it can be hard to get people to pay to consume them, so they might not be provided at all if left to MARKET FORCES. Thus public goods are regarded as an example of MARKET FAILURE, and in most countries they are provided at least in part by GOVERNMENT and paid for through compulsory TAXATION. (See also global public goods.)"

Here's a longer discussion of the concept:

http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/PublicGoods.html

it is certainly in the public's best interest to see that everyone is relatively healthy.

Is it?

It may be in it's interest to see that diseases are not communicated. But that EVERYONE be healthy?

What about members of terrorist cells?

What about serial killers?

What about rapists?

What about child molestors?

What about meth cookers?

What about whole prison populations?

Absent humanitarian arguments, society would very likely be much better off if these people were sick IMO...too sick to carry out their malefactions...maybe sick unto death, even. No?

This is about society deciding if something is "enough" in it's best interest to warrant legislation or other government involvement protecting it.

And here's where we return again to that saying about democracy surviving only until its citizens realize that they can vote themselves benefits from the public coffers...

I am also not convinced that "society" is really "deciding" these things. More likely IMO it is being led by the nose ( and the media ) to certain conclusions by self-elected "opinion leaders" and by elected officials and bureaucrats...

There's always a line drawn somewhere... the argument is just over where it's drawn.

Only in politics. In economics, the line is usually fairly stationary and indelible.

[I_luv_saber]

Originally Posted by Inquartata

Or so that one fellow claims. Perhaps it's his analysis which is misleading?

Personally I would rather use the standard statistics than massage them to get the answer I wanted...

An oxymoron if I ever heard one!

Seriously though... what if the "standard statistics" you are looking at aren't truly representative of the situation (i.e., doesn't show what return those companies are getting on their investment, which is the real question)?

This definition ( from "The Economist" ) is about as good as any:
{snip}

Thank you.

Is it?

It may be in it's interest to see that diseases are not communicated. But that EVERYONE be healthy?

What about members of terrorist cells?

What about serial killers?

What about rapists?

What about child molestors?

What about meth cookers?

What about whole prison populations?

Absent humanitarian arguments, society would very likely be much better off if these people were sick IMO...too sick to carry out their malefactions...maybe sick unto death, even. No?

Well, firstly, just to make sure we're clear, I'm talking about a basic level of healthcare.

Secondly, when poor health begins to spread through the populace (not just disease, mind you), the society as a whole suffers. You start to see deaths from easily prevented infection and other ailments, and disease thrives and spreads. This is true whether it's Joe Schmo spreading it or a murderer.

And here's where we return again to that saying about democracy surviving only until its citizens realize that they can vote themselves benefits from the public coffers...

Perhaps... but that's how the system works.

I am also not convinced that "society" is really "deciding" these things. More likely IMO it is being led by the nose ( and the media ) to certain conclusions by self-elected "opinion leaders" and by elected officials and bureaucrats...

Well, society IS deciding it. I accept that the media and politicians are influencing decisions... but ultimately the people decide if they are for or against reform.

My fear is that we will indeed see the public option plan passed because people are so exasperated with our current system that they are desperate for any reform, whether or not it's good. And, I don't see other plans being pushed very hard so far, so that will be the one that garners support, IMO.

Only in politics. In economics, the line is usually fairly stationary and indelible.

Fortunately, this is not a question of pure economics. I've no doubt you'd like it to be... but the fact is it is not. Economics plays a role in helping to decide the cost/benefits of reform... but it's not the sole deciding factor.

MOST (not all, I give you) people agree that a healthy populace with access to basic health care is good for the entire society and the benefits will usually outweigh the costs. Working from that basic belief, it is in our best interest to see that health care remains stable if we are to keep it in the private market.

If you don't believe that, I think it becomes more of a matter of belief and not which idea is "better" or "worse". It all becomes relative.

[Inquartata]

Originally Posted by I_luv_saber

Seriously though... what if the "standard statistics" you are looking at aren't truly representative of the situation (i.e., doesn't show what return those companies are getting on their investment, which is the real question)?

The standard statistics are the result of long-accepted accounting principles and investment analyses. They have been tested and tested and tested. That they have come into general use by a wide variety of users is IMO an indicator of their usefulness and accuracy. I am not inclined to discard them in favor of the juggling exercise of one fellow who wants to show that "Hey, this company is really much more profitable than anyone thinks! Even more than the company itself thinks!" Particularly when there is an agenda behind the juggling...

Well, firstly, just to make sure we're clear, I'm talking about a basic level of healthcare.

So, to be clear, you are saying that indeed we should extend "basic health care" services at taxpayer expense to all of those I mentioned? And that that does not violate your assertion that it would "make society better off"?

Perhaps... but that's how the system works.

This sounds suspiciously like "Whatever is...is right".

In which case, since our current absence of universal public health care provision is...

I mean, that's how the ( health care ) system works. I see no reason to change it.

Well, society IS deciding it. I accept that the media and politicians are influencing decisions... but ultimately the people decide if they are for or against reform.

I suspect that few of them even understand the issues involved. Have you ever watched those man-on-the-street interviews? Much less Jay Leno's "Jaywalking" features? These are the people who are "deciding"...or rather being duped into being drawn along by their noses. A more sophisticated version of the Roman bread and circuses, designed to keep the mob fat and happy---and quiet.

Fortunately, this is not a question of pure economics.

Oh, it's anything but fortunate. Especially for those who will be paying for those who can't or won't pay for their own...

Economics plays a role in helping to decide the cost/benefits of reform... but it's not the sole deciding factor.

Now THAT'S unfortunate.

MOST (not all, I give you) people agree that a healthy populace with access to basic health care is good for the entire society and the benefits will usually outweigh the costs.

Again, "most "of them also believe in "a magic carpenter who lived 2000 years ago".

But practically speaking, that people want something does not mean either that they deserve it or that they should have it, much less that it will make all of them collectively better off ( as opposed to making some of them potentially better off and some definitely worse off ).

That "people agree" that health care "benefits will outweigh the costs" does not make it true. ( I spare you the naming of the fallacy, just this once! ) In fact it takes the allocation of scarce resources out of the costless and unbiased hands of the market and puts it into those of fallible, biased human beings---and those in government, at that. This in itself is not something likely to result in "good for the entire society", IMO.

Belief is a very poor guide for the design of beneficial policies.

[jeff]

I would have stronger sympathy for that line of reasoning if there were not "proof of existence" of other countries enjoying better healthcare systems at lower cost. If anything is certain, it is that we should investigate ways of doing better than we currently do. Before the mandatory remarks about rationing and delays: our system already rations and delays care, decisions are in the hands of individuals that are compensated for denying care (so not only are interests not aligned, they are diametrically opposed) and is haphazard at preventive care which saves money.

I also have to say that it's only a normative statement to say that economic should be the "sole deciding factor". Says who? Economics is a tool for evaluating how much something costs - not at all useful for deciding if that price is worth it. That itself is a normative statement too - but one that hopefully is a reflection of the will of the people, whether or not their decisions are flawed. That is why discussions of whether healthcare is a "public good" or a "right" by textbook definition are irrelevant. The first has technical meaning which evaporates if the people decide some good should be provided. The latter - "right" is just too loaded a word. The questions are "should there be universal health coverage?" and if so "what role should government have in ensuring that?". Discussing whether it's a right or a public good is a distraction from policy making.