How to Handle North Korea?

[I_luv_saber]

Originally Posted by Inquartata

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...

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

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"?

Yes, that is what I am saying, and no it does not.

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

You propose a different system than Democracy? Be my guest, I'm just saying that this is how our current system works. If you've a better idea, by all means....

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.

The difference being, I've complained about the health care system and proposed an alternative. You've complained about our political system of Democracy and proposed..?

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.

Luckily we have a low voter turnout. And when we DO have a big turnout... well, you see the result .

Joking aside, again, what is the alternative? That we have a council of experts in every field make the decisions for us because we are too stupid? Again, I'm sorry, but that's the system we have and we are working under the constraints of that system.

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...

I'm simply saying it is not an economic issue alone. Take fortunate or unfortunate as you will.

Now THAT'S unfortunate.

Hey! Where's the IMO?

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! )

Is it really so hard to see that a healthy population is better than an unhealthy one?

[Phaeton]

Those sick and injured are usually more likely to pick up a communicable disease and spread it to the rest of the population. Those who do not treat a disease early on are more likely to be incapacitated or die. A severely ill family member effects the productivity of an entire family. This effect may be less pronounced than it is in cultures with tighter familiar ties, but it is true all the same.

If our goal is to maintain a healthy population then we should target those individuals most at risk for becoming ill and mitigate that risk. Rather than quarantine or execute all the meth dealers and injured individuals, we could offer them treatment. This is the same logic many areas use when handing out clean needles to combat Hepatitis C.

The cost of healthcare has created a culture where people are reluctant to go to their doctor, and primary care has become part of the obligation of ERs. We need a cultural shift. We can educate everyone in the costs of not detecting things early and spending the money up front, but unless that amount of money decreases, that cultural shift isn't going to hold, and people are going to continue skipping check ups, continue getting getting ill, and continue helping spread disease among the population


For some reason this reminiscent to me of the parable of the broken window.

[CMiner]

So, back on the subject of North Korea:

Not big news, NKorea launched several more missiles today, which fell harmlessly into the sea of Japan.

But what if the missiles weren't intended to be harmless? What if NKorea has actually been trying to attack someone this whole time, but just puts out a "We're testing some stuff" warning just in case, and when the missiles do fail they just continue with that line to save face?

I don't actually think this is the case.. but I would find it terribly amusing.

[Inquartata]

[quote=I_luv_saber;808326]"This sounds suspiciously like "Whatever is...is right". "[/uote]

More like "tried and true".

Yes, that is what I am saying, and no it does not.

OK. So explain to me how keeping terrorists, serial killers, meth dealers and assorted other career criminals healthier makes society better off.

This should be good.

this is how our current system works.

Our current system empowers a small political class and its pet media organs to lead the people by their noses to whatever policies it---the political class---wants. That's not democracy. You can still cheer that "current system" if you want, though...

If you've a better idea, by all means....

Replace all legislators with economists.

You've complained about our political system of Democracy and proposed..?

Getting the government's fingers out of health care. Or at worst leaving it alone henceforth.

Remember now?

Beyond that, pruning the size and scope of government back to its real legitimate functions. Because what we have now is leaning farther and farther toward socialism than capitalism.

Democracy can co-exist with either political system, but it's a much happier marriage with the latter ( IMO ).

Joking aside, again, what is the alternative? That we have a council of experts in every field make the decisions for us because we are too stupid?

Unfortunately, we already have that---but the council members are chosen by the politicians. Fruit of the poisonous tree, to adopt a legal metaphor...

I'm simply saying it is not an economic issue alone.

Nothing is "an economic issue alone". That does NOT mean that letting people's greed for "free stuff" or the public's sheep-like preference for security over liberty run rampant over economic efficiency. Unless you'd like us to lose our productivity edge to the Chinese all the faster, that is.

Hey, maybe we could become an economic powerhouse like France or Canada!

Hey! Where's the IMO?

I felt that it would have spoiled the mordancy of the remark.

Is it really so hard to see that a healthy population is better than an unhealthy one?

No. It's just hard for me to leap to the conclusion that universal health care= healthy population. Why is it that people are so quick to fall for the idea that the latest political scheme out of Washington will be some sort of panacea?

[Hauptman]

Originally Posted by Inquartata

Replace all legislators with economists.

Good lord!!!! You mean like Greenspan, Bernacke, and all the other geniuses that helped us with our current economy?!?!?!

....I'm feeling faint.....

[I_luv_saber]

Originally Posted by Inquartata

More like "tried and true".

Were we not discussing "Double Standards" in another thread..?

OK. So explain to me how keeping terrorists, serial killers, meth dealers and assorted other career criminals healthier makes society better off.

This should be good.

I already explained it, but Phaeton did a much better job of elaborating on what I basically said: A drug dealer can spread disease just as easily (if not better) than Joe Schmo. Phaeton's elaboration (and expansion of the original tangent, even) was what I was driving at.

Our current system empowers a small political class and its pet media organs to lead the people by their noses to whatever policies it---the political class---wants. That's not democracy. You can still cheer that "current system" if you want, though...

I'm not necessarily "cheering it on". Simply stating that it is what we are working under. That said, I think the old saying is true: "Democracy is the worst form of government... except for everything else that's been tried". It may not be perfect, but it does seem to strike a very good balance between order and law, and freedom and liberties.

Replace all legislators with economists.

So only economists can run for seats? Or are they appointed? Must they be accredited? If not, can I claim myself an economist and run? If so, who's in charge of the accredidation process and how do you ensure no corruption happens there?

Getting the government's fingers out of health care. Or at worst leaving it alone henceforth.

Not what I was addressing. You were criticizing our system of Democracy for dealing with issues. My answer was "what do you propose then?", which was an honest question. How do you intend to "get the government's fingers out" if not via Democracy? The old "if I were king for just one day..."?

Beyond that, pruning the size and scope of government back to its real legitimate functions. Because what we have now is leaning farther and farther toward socialism than capitalism.

I agree that government should not only be an expansionist entity, but one that reevaluates it's goals and sometimes prunes back.

As an aside, and an honest question again, any ideas on an efficient, fair, free way of doing this? Congressional reevaluation periods?

Democracy can co-exist with either political system, but it's a much happier marriage with the latter ( IMO ).

I'm a firm believer in the fact that things should not be an "all or nothing" subject. Rarely is either extreme in such arguments of policy EVER a good thing (good in terms of good of the public and in terms of freedom and liberties). In most things, we do what Democracy does best... we compromise, and try our best to find the best of both worlds. I, personally (and I suspect the majority of Americans) would no more wish to live in a complete capitalist, "free for all market", decentralized society than they would want to live in a Big Brother socialist society. Proof of this being that we have not yet voted ourselves into a complete socialist or capitalist society.

Unfortunately, we already have that---but the council members are chosen by the politicians. Fruit of the poisonous tree, to adopt a legal metaphor...

Again, what do you propose in it's stead?

Nothing is "an economic issue alone". That does NOT mean that letting people's greed for "free stuff" or the public's sheep-like preference for security over liberty run rampant over economic efficiency. Unless you'd like us to lose our productivity edge to the Chinese all the faster, that is.

Absolutely. The economic concerns are indeed important ones, and should be considered (though, I would point out it's in our best interest economically speaking as well to see that our populace stays in decent health.).

I don't understand, however, why you are assuming people, consumers, have a greed for free stuff, but refuse to accept that companies' greed for more money can also get out of hand?

No. It's just hard for me to leap to the conclusion that universal health care= healthy population. Why is it that people are so quick to fall for the idea that the latest political scheme out of Washington will be some sort of panacea?

*I* do not like the current plan that's up to bat. Also, I am not for universal healthcare in the meaning of the government supplying all healthcare. Nor do I expect a hunky dory world with healthcare for all. But I do see all around me people who are falling victim to unfair and dirty business practices, and people who are well off having a hard time affording healthcare.

When these problems appear, we, as a society and Democracy, correct them. The free market will not always do that. If it did, we wouldn't be where we are now. Insurance companies are already making tidy profits, so I don't see how lowering regulations would help that situation...

Again, this is not about mitigating insurance companies' profits as much as it is about providing firm, clear-cut consumer's rights regulations.

[Inquartata]

Originally Posted by Hauptman

Good lord!!!! You mean like Greenspan, Bernacke, and all the other geniuses that helped us with our current economy?!?!?!

Yes, exactly like that.

The prospect of balancing those with lefty economists like Krugman, Geithner, Orszag, Romer, Reich and Thurow should steady you. Economists come in all partisan stripes, you know. At least however they tend to agree on certain baseline principles, unlike our current politicians...

Originally Posted by I_luv_saber

Were we not discussing "Double Standards" in another thread..?

I don't recall.

However, I assure you that you are not going to win the argument about whether HMOs are so profitable that they can "afford" to compete with a public option that doesn't have to make ANY profit ( and indeed can survive indefinitely while actually losing money ) by forwarding a novel accounting method used by one guy with an agenda as superior to GAAP...

A drug dealer can spread disease just as easily (if not better) than Joe Schmo. Phaeton's elaboration (and expansion of the original tangent, even) was what I was driving at.

And it's a rather unconvincing rationale. I mean, what are the odds that the criminal element is going to be a big disease vector? What are the chances that having access to health care is going to reduce the probabilities of disease transmission? Very tiny, IMO. More likely is the transmission by vectors like insects, and by things like drug-resistant TB brought in by illegal immigrants from the third world. ( It might however improve the access of criminals to yet more drugs. Great. )

What is much more quantifiable is the amount of economic and personal damage created by their criminal behaviors. By making them healthier and extending their lives we will only increase their abilities to carry out their depredations. How is THAT good for society?

Simply stating that it is what we are working under.

Don't make me go to the fallacy list, man.

So only economists can run for seats? Or are they appointed? Must they be accredited?

If we want to retain a democratic structure, it would have to be by election...



Drat, I'm out of time. Later...

[I_luv_saber]

Originally Posted by Inquartata

I don't recall.

However, I assure you that you are not going to win the argument about whether HMOs are so profitable that they can "afford" to compete with a public option... {snip}

*ahem*

For the last time:

I AM NOT IN FAVOR OF A PUBLIC OPTION!!!



My contention was that they make enough profit that they could sustain high profits even through steady regulation. Thoe are two, very very different things.

And it's a rather unconvincing rationale. I mean, what are the odds that the criminal element is going to be a big disease vector? What are the chances that having access to health care is going to reduce the probabilities of disease transmission? Very tiny, IMO. More likely is the transmission by vectors like insects, and by things like drug-resistant TB brought in by illegal immigrants from the third world. ( It might however improve the access of criminals to yet more drugs. Great. )

This was explained very well by Phaeton, referring to "clean needles" programs.

Untreated wounds and illness spread infection and disease. This is true no matter who is the one spreading it.

IYO maybe the chances are small, but you can ask any health professional... a population with access to basic health care will be far less likely to spread infectious illnesses and disease than an unhealthy population.

At any rate, the reform is not designed to help criminals, it's designed to close the gap of those who are not covered (mostly middle class). The criminal tangent just came from me explaining that a healthy populace is good all around, regardless of who the people are.

What is much more quantifiable is the amount of economic and personal damage created by their criminal behaviors. By making them healthier and extending their lives we will only increase their abilities to carry out their depredations. How is THAT good for society?

Again, IYO. IMO, the likelyhood of the extension of their lives extending the time they can do their illegal acts is extremely small. Firstly, most criminals tend to be younger, and secondly most are dealt with by the justice system long before they die. My opinion is the damage caused by a sick population is worse. Not to mention the fact that insurance regulation would likely do little to affect the criminal population anyway.

As such, it's probably not a good idea to set a policy that is worse for the entire population because it might benefit a relatively small group who are trying to harm us. Perhaps we should stop running airplanes because it might benefit a terrorist network trying to harm us?

Also, unless you are an advocate of giving every one of these people the death penalty anyway (which is the attitude put forth), it's all a moot argument.

Don't make me go to the fallacy list, man.

There's no fallacy because there is no argument!

I said: "We decide as a society via Democracy", you brought up issues with that system. I noted that that's the system we're working under and asked you if you had a better idea. You gave one which I'm assuming was a joke due to no elaboration, and put forth no better idea.

I wasn't making an argument that Democracy is "better" (but I do think it is), I was just noting it's the system that we use. You were the one who started the argument that brought up issues in it... you never actually punched a hole in any "argument".

If we want to retain a democratic structure, it would have to be by election...

So we can only elect economists? Again, who's in charge of accrediting? Or may I simply dub myself an economist and run?

[Inquartata]

OK, having arrived in Grapevine too late to go watch the Div 1 MS, I might as well finish this reply where I left off...

Originally Posted by I_luv_saber

A drug dealer can spread disease just as easily (if not better) than Joe Schmo.

Forgot to mention that the presence of "universal health care" does not seem to have retarded in spread of communicable diseases recently. Witness the "swine flu" in Mexico, which has, I believe, a number of "public options" to provide at least limited care to the poor ( which may or may not include criminals---successful criminals can afford private care, just as they can in the US ).

I am also dubious whether criminals would bother to seek out health care even were it available free or at low cots. A lot of them do not seem very concerned with their own health in any event, and actively avoid it in certain cases ( eg gunshot wounds, due to their aversion to drawing the attention of law enforcement ).

As an aside, and an honest question again, any ideas on an efficient, fair, free way of doing this?

Alas, none which could be accomplished without the aid of those with vested interests in continuing the present system, eg politicians and bureaucrats, lobbyists, etc.

About the only thing I can envision is getting the stupid Republican Party back to its old "less government, less taxes" emphasis. Unfortunately, I think that is very unlikely. It's gotten a taste of the nectar of buying votes with government spending increases, and it's too deeply under the control of social conservatives with "higher priorities", anyway.

I'm a firm believer in the fact that things should not be an "all or nothing" subject.

In EVERYthing?

I, personally (and I suspect the majority of Americans) would no more wish to live in a complete capitalist, "free for all market", decentralized society than they would want to live in a Big Brother socialist society. Proof of this being that we have not yet voted ourselves into a complete socialist or capitalist society.

All that really proves is that people are stupid, ignorant, uneducated or indifferent.

Again, what do you propose in it's stead?

I don't. My forte is pointing out that the emperor has no clothes, not imperial fashion design.

I don't understand, however, why you are assuming people, consumers, have a greed for free stuff, but refuse to accept that companies' greed for more money can also get out of hand?

No, I meant in terms of the political system: Greed in the sense of expecting the government to give them more and more services regardless of the consequences, not mere consumerism.

I do see all around me people who are falling victim to unfair and dirty business practices, and people who are well off having a hard time affording healthcare.

"All around you"?

Where ARE you, anyway?

Seriously, even if that's so, it does not follow that "someone has to DO something"!

When these problems appear, we, as a society and Democracy, correct them. The free market will not always do that.

Democracy shouldn't, either. Democracy is supposed to be about freedom, not coercion. It's supposed to be about choice, not letting the government force or foreclose options. Otherwise, we could "make people better off" by outlawing smoking, rationing food to combat obesity, instituting mandatory public exercise programs, putting governors in all cars so none could go over 35 mph, making the oil companies sell gas at 50 cents a gallon, capping incomes and guaranteeing a permanent minimum, etc, etc, etc. Any number of things could be estimated to improve general social welfare, and estimated to "be worth more than they cost". But they would involve forcing people to do things against their will. This is not liberty, it's oppression.

Insurance companies are already making tidy profits,

Eh. The numbers still say that you are wrong on that point.

Again, this is not about mitigating insurance companies' profits as much as it is about providing firm, clear-cut consumer's rights regulations.

The two are not independent, unfortunately. Economic efficiency is inversely proportionate to the amount of deadweight costs things like regulation impose.

I don't say that in all cases the costs are not justified. Regulation of monopoly, for example, spreads the excess profits that monopoly generates from owners to people generally, in theory ( in practice it just tends to move it from the owners to the government, which can then spend it as it pleases ). This is probably a Pareto improvement, one which the private market will never make on its own. There is solid economic theory and history to support this. I have yet to see comparable work showing that regulating health care---with its very different industry structure---would produce the same sort of Pareto improvement relative to cost...

[Inquartata]

Originally Posted by I_luv_saber

I AM NOT IN FAVOR OF A PUBLIC OPTION!!!
My contention was that they make enough profit that they could sustain high profits even through steady regulation.

So, you're "only" advocating another "soak the rich to rescue the poor" wealth redistribution scheme? They can "afford" to make less so that we can give part of what they earned to those who did not?

Untreated wounds and illness spread infection and disease. This is true no matter who is the one spreading it.

Again, this is I suspect a very, very tiny "gain", because it affects a small part of the overall population.

And in any case this is an answer to question I did not ask. Recall that I did not include IV drug users in my list of dysfunctional members of society whose damage to that society "helping" with health care would increase...

you can ask any health professional... a population with access to basic health care will be far less likely to spread infectious illnesses and disease than an unhealthy population.

Well then you should be able to find statements to that effect by some, instead of expecting me to go "ask one". ( And I am feeling an almost irresistible urge to play Name the Fallacy, too! )

The criminal tangent just came from me explaining that a healthy populace is good all around, regardless of who the people are.

And the upshot of that tangent was---that you aver that giving health care to criminals would actually improve social welfare!

Care to modify that position?

IMO, the likelyhood of the extension of their lives extending the time they can do their illegal acts is extremely small.

If so, then where is the gain from giving them free or low-cost health care? Big cost, low return, no?

most are dealt with by the justice system long before they die.

Care to demonstrate the accuracy of that assessment?

As such, it's probably not a good idea to set a policy that is worse for the entire population because it might benefit a relatively small group who are trying to harm us.

That is a separate discussion. Your original position was that universal health coverage would unequivocally "make society better off". Demonstrably, there is a segment of society for whom improved health and lifespan would actually result in the entire society being made worse off. No?

Also, unless you are an advocate of giving every one of these people the death penalty anyway (which is the attitude put forth), it's all a moot argument.

Why?

There's no fallacy because there is no argument!

I said: "We decide as a society via Democracy"

You really think that's not an argument?

It's just an argument with a suppressed premise...

I wasn't making an argument that Democracy is "better" (but I do think it is), I was just noting it's the system that we use.

And therefore, that we must, or should, accept whatever solutions it gives us.

Otherwise there's no point in mentioning it. Might as well write that health care for all is good, and the sky is blue. If it has no bearing on the discussion, it's irrelevant...

You were the one who started the argument that brought up issues in it... you never actually punched a hole in any "argument".

Perhaps you now see where that's not quite so?

Again, who's in charge of accrediting?

Colleges and universities?

Or may I simply dub myself an economist and run?

Um...no?

In fact, I would advocate a PhD. as a minimum qualification. If nothing else it might increase the numbers of economics students in the country, which alone would have a salutary effect on the voting sense of the populace! I have long thought that to Heinlein's qualification for full voting citizenship---military service---should be added a requirement for a minimum education in and understanding of economics...

[I_luv_saber]

Originally Posted by Inquartata

Forgot to mention that the presence of "universal health care" does not seem to have retarded in spread of communicable diseases recently. Witness the "swine flu" in Mexico, which has, I believe, a number of "public options" to provide at least limited care to the poor ( which may or may not include criminals---successful criminals can afford private care, just as they can in the US ).

A big difference being Mexico's standard of health care and standard of living is far lower than the US. Apples and oranges...

That and the fact we're talking about public options again... which I'm not supporting .

I am also dubious whether criminals would bother to seek out health care even were it available free or at low cots. A lot of them do not seem very concerned with their own health in any event, and actively avoid it in certain cases ( eg gunshot wounds, due to their aversion to drawing the attention of law enforcement ).

Well, the question was not whether or not the system would benefit criminals. Your question was "Is it really good for society that ALL people are healthy".

If indeed criminals would not use health care than your own argument is moot. Really, it's such a small fraction it's not prudent to base a national health policy on it anyway...

Alas, none which could be accomplished without the aid of those with vested interests in continuing the present system, eg politicians and bureaucrats, lobbyists, etc.

Unfortunately, that's how it generally is...

About the only thing I can envision is getting the stupid Republican Party back to its old "less government, less taxes" emphasis. Unfortunately, I think that is very unlikely. It's gotten a taste of the nectar of buying votes with government spending increases, and it's too deeply under the control of social conservatives with "higher priorities", anyway.

Yes... it is sad there is no "true" conservative parties anymore. At least no serious ones. Seemingly we're doomed to spend what we don't have until eternity. Sheesh, you're getting me all deppressed!

In EVERYthing?

Admittedly, no. There are some things which I hold a very firm stance. But for the most part, especially in policy decisions, all or nothing is not generally good. Compromise brings the best of both worlds.

All that really proves is that people are stupid, ignorant, uneducated or indifferent

Or that people are willing to compromise for a relative amount of peace...

I don't. My forte is pointing out that the emperor has no clothes, not imperial fashion design.

Um... OK? I guess this tangent stops then, as I was not arguing for Democracy, simply pointing out it's the current method we are using, and any change would have to fall under the constraints of that system.

No, I meant in terms of the political system: Greed in the sense of expecting the government to give them more and more services regardless of the consequences, not mere consumerism.

Regardless, you're pointing out individual's greed, regardless of what form it comes in. Why are companies not guilty of the same, even if it is in a different form?

"All around you"?

Where ARE you, anyway?

<----

Seriously, even if that's so, it does not follow that "someone has to DO something"!

It was meant to show justification for my personal opinion, nothing more. My experiences have been that insurance companies are able to get away with many things other businesses dream that they could get away with, and that needs to change.

Democracy shouldn't, either. Democracy is supposed to be about freedom, not coercion. It's supposed to be about choice, not letting the government force or foreclose options. Otherwise, we could "make people better off" by outlawing smoking, rationing food to combat obesity, instituting mandatory public exercise programs, putting governors in all cars so none could go over 35 mph, making the oil companies sell gas at 50 cents a gallon, capping incomes and guaranteeing a permanent minimum, etc, etc, etc.

Allow me to approach your second point, first. A big difference here is that you are still arguing very similar to me advocating a public option. There is still freedom of choice. Also, this again comes to the "all or nothing" argument. Slippery slope only takes you so far before you become a total extremist, compromising nothing for fear of "slipping".

To your first point, Democracy is not in and of itself basically about freedom. It's about freedom to vote and express your beliefs... but past that guarantees nothing (except what the Constitution outlines). For example, I don't have the freedom to drive 90 MPH down the highway without getting slammed with a ticket. Why? Because we, as a society, have "drawn the line" that speeds must be regulated for relative safety. It's all about compromise.

Any number of things could be estimated to improve general social welfare, and estimated to "be worth more than they cost". But they would involve forcing people to do things against their will. This is not liberty, it's oppression.

Regulation, in and of itself, is not oppression. Regulation is merely a way of making sure everyone stays honest.

The regulation I am advocating would be more along the lines of consumer rights. I have shown some interest in capping profits... but I would be willing to compromise on that if strong consumer rights were instituted.

Truthfully, I'm pretty interested in the idea of simple "full disclosure" regs. I think a minimum amount of standard regulation would still be needed... but perhaps it could be kept to a bare minimum. What are some good examples of such a system?

Eh. The numbers still say that you are wrong on that point.

I don't know what else to do then but drop the tangent. If we don't accept each others evidence, there's not much point in moving on in this direction...

The two are not independent, unfortunately. Economic efficiency is inversely proportionate to the amount of deadweight costs things like regulation impose.

Well yes, it is no doubt that it wouldn't help an insurance company. However, the purpose of the theoretical regs is not to mitigate their profits, and as such should not have a HUGE detrimental effect. All it would do is bring down the inflated profits they get now from said practices.

I don't say that in all cases the costs are not justified. Regulation of monopoly, for example, spreads the excess profits that monopoly generates from owners to people generally, in theory ( in practice it just tends to move it from the owners to the government, which can then spend it as it pleases ). This is probably a Pareto improvement, one which the private market will never make on its own. There is solid economic theory and history to support this. I have yet to see comparable work showing that regulating health care---with its very different industry structure---would produce the same sort of Pareto improvement relative to cost...

It isn't about cost, it's about consumer protection. The cost saved would be on people, directly. Basically, what I'm asking for, is consumer rights and protection laws similar to what we've seen develop in the credit industry (in truth, the situation in insurance needed it worse, but...). None of the regs I've yet seen in the new credit bills have been outrageous. Simply stopped companies from doing pratices like sending your bill with a due date of less than a week. The only profits that are strangled in such regs are profits companies receive by dishonest means.

[I_luv_saber]

Originally Posted by Inquartata

So, you're "only" advocating another "soak the rich to rescue the poor" wealth redistribution scheme? They can "afford" to make less so that we can give part of what they earned to those who did not?

How is it a redistribution of wealth to insist a company does not lie and cheat?

What, they can't make honest profits?

Again, this is I suspect a very, very tiny "gain", because it affects a small part of the overall population.

If we are talking about health care for criminals again, I don't see how it matters anyway, since as you pointed out, they are not likely to use it (hence an even smaller percentage of the population) so it's not likely to affect them much anyway. The contention was not whether or not it will help criminals, but whether (if it did) it would be for the good of society that ALL IT'S MEMBERS were healthy. If such changes will affect such a small portion of criminals, why are we even arguing the point? It's affect will be pretty much neutral, since most criminals will not use it (as they don't now).

Let's focus on what it IS intended to help: covering middle class Americans (or rather, making it more possible for them to cover themselves).

Well then you should be able to find statements to that effect by some, instead of expecting me to go "ask one". ( And I am feeling an almost irresistible urge to play Name the Fallacy, too! )

I'm at work right now, but I'll do some digging when I get home (or later tonight if I have more time)...

And the upshot of that tangent was---that you aver that giving health care to criminals would actually improve social welfare!

Care to modify that position?

Not really... I think it's been sufficiently pointed out why it would be good.

Regardless, didn't we agree that this is going to affect such a small portion of an already small portion of the populace (i.e. not many criminals will make use of any regs instituted)? Isn't this whole tangent then a moot one?

If so, then where is the gain from giving them free or low-cost health care? Big cost, low return, no?

Not really ANY cost to government directly, as I'm not in favor of a public option. They would only be covered if they went an purchased their own (which as you pointed out, is not common anyway).

Care to demonstrate the accuracy of that assessment?

I'll withdraw the statement as I don't think I can prove it. I've made the point elsewhere that the tangent is moot besides.

That is a separate discussion. Your original position was that universal health coverage would unequivocally "make society better off". Demonstrably, there is a segment of society for whom improved health and lifespan would actually result in the entire society being made worse off. No?

My position was that regulation of the insurance companies, giving consumers more rights, would result in more coverage and thereby increase the health of the population. As such, we would all see benefits.

I am not arguing in favor of socialized medicine, hence the only way criminals could get insurance, is if they paid for it.

But again, directly on your question, I believe it was pointed out well enough already why it's a good thing. If you don't feel so, fine... but I can't see how much better you could be convinced.

Why?

Because if you are NOT advocating the death penalty for all listed criminals, why is it any more right to leave them to die of illness? If society has deemed the person has the right to live, and not be subject to the death penalty, then they have as much right as the next man to live.

You really think that's not an argument?

It's just an argument with a suppressed premise...

So you are saying we are.... not... working under the constraints of Democracy?

And therefore, that we must, or should, accept whatever solutions it gives us.

Depends what you mean by accept it. As a citizen of a Democracy, yes, you must accept that which you are not in favor of sometimes. You express your position against it, you have your say and your vote, and you fight against it... but if it ultimately prevails, you must accept it if you wish to continue to live in the Democracy (lawfully anyway).

Colleges and universities?

So the corruption simply shifts there?

In fact, I would advocate a PhD. as a minimum qualification.

You can't see how this would be ripe for corruption? Being NO ONE CAN RUN until they have been given a PhD? Basically, giving one group the ability to choose who may and who may not become our leaders?

That's effectively making a whole new branch of government with no balances or checks.

If nothing else it might increase the numbers of economics students in the country, which alone would have a salutary effect on the voting sense of the populace!

Agreed. basic economics should be taught on the High School level.

Personally, I think it's more important for kids to grow up with a firm education in how government and economics work rather than calculus. Don't get me wrong, some high level math is very important. But I put forth that most people would "use" their education in economics and knowledge of government much more than high level math. I think the overall benefit to society would be greater, too...

Oh well...

[Inquartata]

Originally Posted by I_luv_saber

A big difference being Mexico's standard of health care and standard of living is far lower than the US. Apples and oranges...

What?! You aver that access to health care alone does NOT reduce disease transmission?!

The Devil you say!

Well, the question was not whether or not the system would benefit criminals. Your question was "Is it really good for society that ALL people are healthy".

And some of those "all" are individuals who impose great costs on society and wreak much harm. If they are strengthened and sustained it enables their further depredations. Health care will strengthen and sustain such of them who use it---or so you seem to believe. Ergo, one of the effects of universal health care will be the enabling of the criminal element's destructive activities and the imposition of additional damage to society. Sorry, but that conclusion cannot be escaped just by reframing the question...

Really, it's such a small fraction it's not prudent to base a national health policy on it anyway...

Yet it's large enough to make for an argument that their having access to health care will make them less likely to "spread disease"?

You cannot have it both ways, my young friend!

Unfortunately, that's how it generally is...

And why fighting the system is generally a lost cause, no matter how many good ideas one might have.

On the other hand, using the system is generally quite productive, no matter how many BAD ideas you have. Which is why I fully expect that indeed some sort of universal health care will emerge from the current rash of bad ideas...alas.

it is sad there is no "true" conservative parties anymore. At least no serious ones.

Yes. There are of course the Libertarians, but they have too many distressing ideas outside the realm of economics for my taste...

Compromise brings the best of both worlds.

Heh. That is not the definition I would use.

But remember it when you have to buy a car or a house or something some day!

Or that people are willing to compromise for a relative amount of peace...

"Those who are willing to trade essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety..."

Regardless, you're pointing out individual's greed, regardless of what form it comes in. Why are companies not guilty of the same, even if it is in a different form?

Companies....can't vote.

My experiences have been that insurance companies are able to get away with many things other businesses dream that they could get away with, and that needs to change.

Again---what experiences? And why do you believe that, out of the, what? billions of medical transactions these companies conduct every year, whatever few you may have experienced personally comprise enough of a percentage to warrant the opinion that they form a general modus operandi?

There is still freedom of choice.

So, I will have the choice NOT to buy health insurance? I will have the choice to keep that portion of the income I and I alone have earned which the government will "have to" tax away from me to pay for extending health care to those who "can't afford it"?

That's not the wind I'm feeling...

And now the wind is blowing toward breakfast and the venue. Anon.

[I_luv_saber]

Originally Posted by Inquartata

What?! You aver that access to health care alone does NOT reduce disease transmission?!

The Devil you say!

No. There are lots of factors. I never denied that. Health care access is a major point as well, though. Obviously if your quality of care is far lower, then access to it has less effect...

And some of those "all" are individuals who impose great costs on society and wreak much harm. If they are strengthened and sustained it enables their further depredations. Health care will strengthen and sustain such of them who use it---or so you seem to believe. Ergo, one of the effects of universal health care will be the enabling of the criminal element's destructive activities and the imposition of additional damage to society. Sorry, but that conclusion cannot be escaped just by reframing the question...

Which would make sense if I were arguing for "true" universal health care, such as a socialized system.

I am simply saying insurance and tort reform are needed in order to close the gap of Americans who have no coverage.

Yet it's large enough to make for an argument that their having access to health care will make them less likely to "spread disease"?

You cannot have it both ways, my young friend!

My argument was not that criminal health care programs will benefit us so greatly! You must go back and reread...

What I said was that access to health care, no matter who it is, is in the end beneficial to society. NOT that criminal health care programs are necessary. Two different things.

As you yourself pointed out, they would still be unlikely to go buy their own insurance and pursue health care... as such, I'm rather doubtful of this supposed negative affect it will have on society.

Basically, how can criminals lives be extended to commit more crimes if they still aren't buying health care?

On the other hand, using the system is generally quite productive, no matter how many BAD ideas you have. Which is why I fully expect that indeed some sort of universal health care will emerge from the current rash of bad ideas...alas.

Unfortunately, I think you're right

Yes. There are of course the Libertarians, but they have too many distressing ideas outside the realm of economics for my taste...

But they sound like liberty! LIBERTY!!!

Heh. That is not the definition I would use.

But remember it when you have to buy a car or a house or something some day!

To be fair I will include that while it does indeed give the best of both worlds, the bad comes with the good...

"Those who are willing to trade essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety..."

"Essential" being the key word there...

Companies....can't vote.

Sure they can. Last time I checked, companies were run by individuals. Not even to mention the lobbying power...

Again---what experiences? And why do you believe that, out of the, what? billions of medical transactions these companies conduct every year, whatever few you may have experienced personally comprise enough of a percentage to warrant the opinion that they form a general modus operandi?

These stories come from EVERYWHERE though. Pages after pages after pages. I've already posted some here even, which I don't believe you have replied to, hence I don't know why you are asking for more already! If you want to turn a blind eye to it, be my guest. There are enough situations occurring that I believe it warrants attention. There is no excuse for the acts being committed at times.

Another fun one: Lady signs up for a new health insurance plan. She goes to the doctor a few weeks later and finds out she is pregnant... as of just before she signed up for insurance. The insurance company promptly revoked ALL of her insurance coverage stating that she has misrepresented herself (even though, as with most forms, it clearly says "is true to the best of your knowledge". She claims she did not know she was pregnant. There is nothing to prove otherwise.

Of course, for insurance companies this does not matter.

So, I will have the choice NOT to buy health insurance? I will have the choice to keep that portion of the income I and I alone have earned which the government will "have to" tax away from me to pay for extending health care to those who "can't afford it"?

*I* don't think you should have to buy insurance, no. I'm against forced insurance laws (seems too mafia-esque to me... protection money anyone?). I think that it will probably be passed anyway... but I surely don't advocate it.

And now the wind is blowing toward breakfast and the venue. Anon.

Enjoy!

(They really don't design that smiley limit around those of us who post walls of text, do they?)

[I_luv_saber]

Originally Posted by Inquartata

Well then you should be able to find statements to that effect by some, instead of expecting me to go "ask one". ( And I am feeling an almost irresistible urge to play Name the Fallacy, too! )

I found a few links, but this article discussing the amount of money spent and life expectancy relation appeared the most promising.

One reason for the discrepancy between spending and longevity is that these numbers are average life expectancies and per-capita spending rates, which mask inequalities. For example, the US Health and Human Services department found that people with lower incomes and less education tended to die younger. Life expectancy also varied by ethnicity. In 1998 life expectancy among white Americans was 76.8 years, while African Americans lived an average of 70.2 years. (See Intracountry Inequality). Another reason some countries achieve high life expectancy with low health spending is that clean drinking water and preventive health care can be provided with little spending. If there is near universal clean water and preventive care, life expectancy rates can be high. In the US, however, nearly 40 million Americans lack basic health insurance, and are therefore less likely to receive preventive care. In contrast, Cuba has universal health care and one of the highest doctor-to-patient ratios in the world (See Physicians). Although Cuba has limited resources and many economic problems, it has made health care a priority. It is not alone. Sri Lanka, China and the Indian State of Kerala are considered "low-income, high well-being" countries, which have adopted policies that not only reduce inequality but also increase overall health and well-being. The results of these policy priorities are significant, and can be measured in survival indicators, such as average life expectancy.

[Sins of the Fleche]

As someone who wants to go into the medical profession and with friends and family already in that field, bringing up Cuba, China, or Sri Lanka as paradigms of healthcare quality isn't something you want to do.

True Cuba has a great patient-to-doctor ratio, but the quality of the healthcare those physicians provide is....not so great. Quantity without quality isn't necessarily a win.

[I_luv_saber]

The question was of life expectancy. Cuba ranks near the US while spending far less. Also, it goes to show the importance of basic, preventive care, which was the point. While Cuba may not match us otherwise, it seemingly surpasses us in this aspect, and it shows.

Don't get me wrong, I by no means wish to emulate their system... but perhaps it's an indicator that we certainly have room for improvement.

[jeff]

Right. And we should be ashamed to not have far superior health figures on infant mortality and life expectancy compared to such countries, and we should be at the head on those stats for first world nations that we more normally are compared to.

Economists to run the world? What a horrid idea, and a sign of how decadent we've become In the Golden Age there was talk about philosopher-kings, and now we talk about crowning people based on money instead. Feh!

Besides: "Economists suffer from a deep psychological disorder that I call 'physics envy,'" Lo says. "We wish that 99 percent of economic behavior could be captured by three simple laws of nature. In fact, economists have 99 laws that capture 3 percent of behavior." - Andrew Lo, MIT Professor of Finance, in "The Science of Economic Bubbles and Busts", Scientific American, July 2009.

[http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...nomic-bubbles]