A commenter at 4&20 (Ingemar Johansson, about 4/5 down the page) remarked that the standard right wing solution to our health care cost problem, crossing state lines to buy health insurance, would work because we all buy our property and casualty insurance from companies that cross state borders.
That does work. It’s a common thought, but misguided. It starts with a perceptual mistake – to name property and casualty and health care both “insurance.” It may be a useful name in terms of catastrophic events, like auto accidents and building fires where people and property are harmed.
But property insurance is based on the premise that events that require claim payments are rare. People who buy homeowners’ insurance do so because coverage is cheap and prudent, and not because they know they are going to have a fire someday. Auto accidents seem common, but in terms of the number of drivers and miles driven, are rare.
Companies who sell that insurance compete less on price and more on quality of service. It’s a good deal for everyone, and the market does a good job for us.
Health “insurance” is different. It is a virtual certainty that we will all make claims on the insurers, and also that we will avoid seeking out needed services that are not covered. Young people are so healthy that they don’t want to buy into the system and pay for other people’s costs. But these are the very clients the insurers want. Older people are a certainty to file claims, and so insurers avoid them. They even dumped those 65 and older on government.
So health insurers write elaborate contracts that sound good but disappoint when a claim is filed. States stepped in and required that they cover certain events, like maternity or the first day or two of a baby’s life. Insurers avoid those states that do that, and flock to states like Arizona, that don’t regulate them.
Because they are paying fewer claims in Arizona (medical costs are not lower there – only the percentage that insurance companies pay), if we allowed cross-state insurance, people would flock there for coverage, and we would all be under-insured. That is bad public policy.
The simple answer, the bonehead answer that every other industrial country already knows about, is to quit calling health care an “insurance” product, and simply build its cost into the national budget and spread it over the whole population. After that, we are no longer playing the hide-and-seek insurance game, which itself is a large driver behind our skyrocketing costs.
Instead we would play a game called “retail/wholesale.”
That is the essential difference between us and other countries – we pay retail. Other countries cover their entire populations, and even the worst performers, like Canada, pay only two-thirds as much per capita as us. Most countries pay around one-half of our per capita cost, and everyone is covered. Life is better in those places than it is here.
All we need to do is expand the covered pool of clients to “us” and change the enrollment period to “anytime.” We can allow insurers to practice their trade, but instead of profit-seekers, they become utility plant managers. They can’t refuse service to anyone, are guaranteed a reasonable rate of return, and are heavily regulated.
The downside? There aren’t many.
Some claim that profit-seeking drives innovation. That is a valid point in the sense that private companies innovate. That would not change, as they would be selling their products to us via government instead of private companies.
Some say there is a moral hazard as people would use medical services unnecessarily. That’s not been the case elsewhere, as evidenced by per capital costs.
Some say, in the face of all evidence, that it will cause costs to spiral. But we are the spiral. Our cost increases far outpace inflation. Costs are going up everywhere, but the U.S. leads the pack by several lengths.
And finally, some say that our system is lawsuit-driven, and that we must have tort reform before anything else can happen. False. Lawsuit settlements and malpractice insurance are a very small part of our cost spiral. Maybe we should address that matter, but it is being used as a lever – corporations simply don’t like being sued, and are using medical malpractice as a device by which they can avoid lawsuits in all areas. That is nothing more than clever PR.
Piece of Mindful 
American lifestyles are not helping. Our food industry refuses proper labels, our schools serve unhealthy diets, and chemicals known to cause cancer run rampant in our environment. Watching digital screens for 8 hours a day or more isn’t helping either. We are not a healthy country and it’s getting worse. It seems like nothing is being done in the private or public sector to reward healthy behavior. Even in auto insurance, safe drivers pay less. A comprehensive overhaul is warranted.
LikeLike
Mark
Exactly!
Exactly!
The laws of economics are immutable. You cannot have something of high value for a very low price.
If you try to enforce that low price with coercion of government, the suppliers will avoid the situation or completely withdraw the service.
No one is willing to losing wealth on providing goods.
The “bad” policy is believing that by some government force, the laws of economics will be repealed.
The reason you offer here is NOT the driver behind skyrocketing costs.
When you by force lower the cost of a high valued good, the good will be consumed to total exhaustion. Since the price does not deter consumption, consumption continues unabated.
Since the goods are being exhausted, more money must be spent in finding the resources. But since price of sale does not go up to the consumer, their demand is never satiated.
Thus, costs continue to go up because the price mechanism has been destroyed and cannot offer any brakes.
But even worse – you can’t do math
If the cost of a good is “X”, and -as you pointed you correctly above-everyone will need it, everyone will eventually pay their own costs.
In a population of two, Mark and BF:
Mark-citizen pays $10 to health care, and BF pays $10 to health care under the “Mark’s Health Care Plane”.
But
Mark-citizen is sick, and needs $100. BF is sick, and needs $100.
So the Government of King Mark decrees either by an increase in taxes or by borrowing the funds or by printing money. But no matter what the government does, the missing $180 is extracted from the People.
So, trying to avoid paying for himself,
Mark-citizen still pays for himself but by the slight of hand, doesn’t think he is.
Of course, I haven’t accounted for the government costs of salaries and bribes – which must increase the cost to the People, because King Mark also needs to eat and gets sick too.
It is foolish for the People to believe they -as a population- are getting something for nothing.
The game really is: Mark is getting something more at the cost applied to someone else who gets nothing for their money.
In a society where such a program exists, the People -knowing that if they do not gorge the system the system will gorge them,, they push the system into massive consumption without any brakes to total exhaustion and financial collapse.
Based on what? Your subjective outlook?
Yes, life for you may be better as you live on stolen loot. But eventually the stolen loot will end. Your victims will avoid you.
Then, your life -or more likely, your children and their children will be far, far, worse.
But that’s the rub.
It is the Self-centered Ego at work.
You do not care about your children’s future. You will be fine – and that is all that is important to you.
….to you.
But LOTS on your children.
This is blatantly false.
In every instance, costs of exploded.
And your program will accelerate them.
LikeLike
Um, I’m going to debunk your whole argument. There is no such things as “laws of economics.” Economics is a soft science, and as such there exist no “laws” in the way we know the laws of physics or mathematics or chemistry. What exists are statistical phenomenon that zealots like you try to miscast as “laws.”
The only “economic law” is that which exists in the figments of your ideological imagination.
LikeLike
JC,
Economics is not a physical science like Chemistry of Physics.
It is a Human Science – the Science of Human Action.
It is NOT statistical, it is axiomatic – principles derived by reason from a axiom.
The axiom:
“Humans act with a purpose”
From that axiom, we can deduce such things as:
If an economic good is being exhausted, the price of that good will rise, barring coercion
Do you agree or disagree?
LikeLike
If it is not a physical science, then any attempts to label your ideology as “laws” is patently false.
And axioms ≠ laws.
And much of economic theory is built on statistical analysis. Do you agree or disagree?
LikeLike
JC,
Geometry is based on an axiom, called a “point”.
From that axiom, I can derive all sorts of physical laws, such as the Pythagorean theorem.
Economics is precisely the same.
From the axiom of Human Action for a purpose, I can derive economic law – that is, cause/effect of human action.
Thus, I can say this:
Humans avoid coercion
Re: Stats
I would say yes and no, depending on which economic theory you advocate
LikeLike
Um, no it is not. You can prove a theorem in geometry. There is no way to prove economic theories.
Your example proves the point:
JC,
Yes we can – in the same way.
We can measure the consequences.
So, if my theory says that a reduction of supply will increase the price.
We see a reduction of supply.
We see an increase in price.
Ergo, theory is correct.
This is the basis of deduction, JC.
Reread my statement:
Humans avoid coercion.
In your example of S&M, the humans engaging it do so voluntarily – thus, by definition is not coercion
It would be a wholly different thing if one is forced to engage in torture, true?
There are no exceptions to natural law.
As shown in your example, it is your value of understanding and definition that is in error
Further, if an exception is found, it is not a failure of natural law, but a ignorance of it
The laws of motion are a law “Netwon’s Law”.
There were exceptions. This does not mean the laws of motion are wrong.
It means we remained ignorant of parts of those laws. Thus, we revise our laws of motion to explain the exceptions because those exceptions always existed in nature and we merely did not account for them or see them.
This is called progress and understanding of our Universe.
Economics is not different.
LikeLike
Call it what you want. It is anything but a law.
And all of the conclusions and ideology derived from your notions of economic “law” are bogus rationalizations.
ry and have a debate with somebody without resorting to your fantasy “laws” and you might get someplace without all the fallacious (il)logical doublespeak.
LikeLike
JC
]
I call it a law. Most of us call it a law.
You, of course, do not have to call it anything.
That’s freedom, in case you forgot.
So I take you do not agree with these:
A decrease in supply of goods raises the price of the goods.
Humans avoid coercion
And therefore, must believe:
Supply and price have no correlation
People seek punishment
LikeLike
Prove it.
LikeLike
Not if the good is not in demand. A decrease in supply could just as easily be explained by an alternative reason.
This is why your “laws” are nothing more than opinions. here is always another way to explain whatever ideology it is you are trying to push on the gullible.
NOw your being an absolutist. Supply and price may correlate. But a correlation does not a law make.
I could give you umpteen examples. But of course you’d just resort to the logical fallacy of “if they seek it it isn’t punishment.”
You’re just playing semantics and trying to use pseudo-logic to foist your ideology on the unsuspecting.
Intelligent people can see right through all this foo-fa-raw you’re putting up as an argument.
There are no economic “laws.” Using the same methods as used to prove physical laws, prove your point (you said their were precisely the same–remember?).
But I know you can’t and won’t. So you’ll chuck some more faux-logic and semantics out to cover your ass.
LikeLike
JC,
I call it “Economic Law”.
There you go. Proof.
If the good is not in demand, then there can not be a decrease of supply.
If a good is not in demand, the supply will not reduce, true?
JC, the problem you have is your arguments all contain some sort of contradiction.
You attempted S&M example, but You were confused and contradicted the voluntary aspect.
You attempt to dissect supply and demand – Econ 101 theory – by a contradiction that there was no demand – hence, no shortage of supply.
You are a babe in the woods of Economics, thus your prescriptions for economic relief are terribly destructive
Like?
But that is irrelevant. A decrease in supply will increase its price. Don’t care if it was destroyed by a hurricane or massively consumed by the masses.
You say it may correlate.
Very good.
Please provide your theory on the basis of the correlation.
Which, of course, shows you demonstrated zippo.
Instead of rhetoric try argument.
So your irrational argument is this:
Use physical proof to demonstrate non-physical law.
You would be correct.
I cannot prove non-physical law in the realm of physics. I explained that at the top of these posts.
You suddenly reaffirming my stated position does not refute my stated position, just because you claim it too!
Indeed, something called “reasoning” – which is all but vacant with you.
LikeLike
“It is law because I say it is so”
Hahahahahaha…!!!
You are so delusional. I don’t know why people even try to debate you, or reason with you. The very core of your belief system is a hollow self-proclamation of authority and authenticity.
My dad taught me a word for people like you: crackpot.
And you are one. Because I say so, it must be true.
Hahahahahahaha
LikeLike
JC,
See below, and smirk.
LikeLike
Black Flag, you say:
“The game really is: Mark is getting something more at the cost applied to someone else who gets nothing for their money.”
However that is false by what Mark is arguing. With something like healthcare there is a guarantee that everyone will need the service at some point in their lives. So while someone might be paying taxes into the system and simultaneously not receiving any healthcare service in return at that moment, there will come a time when everyone draws upon the system as Mark imagines it. Making everyone involved a freeloader or “someone who gets nothing for their money” at some point along the spectrum of their lifespan.
Think of it like how Social Security works, everyone pays in, but current workers pay for the current batch of retirees. I pay in to the system while getting nothing in return at the moment, but there is a promise that once I retire I will be drawing a SS check funded by the current crop of workers.
Or think of it as an investment, I pay a little into the system now, so that I am guaranteed a return on my money invested later.
You also say:
“of course, I haven’t accounted for the cost of salaries and bribes”
How would those costs be any different from the administrative costs that are already part of insurance companies now? The only difference I can imagine is that administrative costs at insurance companies are mainly geared toward denial of claims against policies whereas govt administrative costs would go mainly to actually administering services.
As for the bribes, insurance companies already have such costs, they are called lobbyists.
LikeLike
CFS,
This is a scam.
Example:
If 2 needed it today, and there are 4 paying.
In the future, those 4 will need it, and 9 paying.
In the future, those 9 will need it … and so on.
No matter how you cut the cake, someone has to be holding the cost – that is, the plan is a PONZI scheme.
You require more and more “investors” to cover the cost of the current investors.
One day, there will be insufficient new investors and the game will end disastrously.
And that is my point, Mark is merely passing the costs and destruction onto his children
And SS is bankrupt.
LikeLike
Mark… You are right, the profit motive does inspire innovation in the health insurance industry, it’s called “how to creatively get out of paying claims while not looking like a bunch of assholes.”. Could there be greater challenge to be tackled by innovative minds?
LikeLike
Current costs are also borne by businesses and institutions that contribute to employee premium expenses and a portion of medicare tax payments. This is a real job killer, and hugely negative incentive to drop employees from the payroll. Automation and mechanization with cheap machines is tax-deductible, vs. the growing overhead and red tape of human labor. This really needs to be reconsidered.
LikeLike
http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~db=all~content=a739451916
Natural Law and Economics: Reflections on Desan, Rahmer and Shumpeter
LikeLike
The Natural Laws of Economics
By Fred Foldvary
A natural law is a proposition that is universal to a subject matter. In science, a natural law consists of propositions describing and explaining observed regularities. There are in economics some basic regularities which have been designated as natural laws of economics. These include:
1. The law of demand. When the price of a good falls, the quantity demanded does not fall. Usually, the quantity demanded rises with a fall in price. Strictly, the law of demand applies to the substitution of cheaper goods for more expensive goods due to a relative change in price. The law of demand also applies to the whole economy: when the whole price level falls, with the amount of money remaining constant, a greater amount of goods will be purchased.
2. The law of supply. When the price of a good rises, the quantity produced does not fall. Usually, a higher price for a produced good results in a greater quantity produced.
3. The law of diminishing returns (law of decreasing marginal productivity). Given a fixed amount of some input, when ever more amounts of the variable input are added, eventually, the marginal product (the last unit’s contribution to output) declines.
4. The law of one price. In an efficient market, a financial asset will tend to have one equilibrium price, because of arbitrage.
5. Gresham’s law. Bad money drives out good money when the bad money is legal tender.
6. The law of reflux. In competitive free-market banking, there cannot be a permanent over issue of banknotes, since any issued in excess of the quantity demanded will be redeemed.
7. Law of supply and demand. In a free market, the equilibrium price of a good is that at which the quantity supplied equals the quantity demanded.
8. The law of diminishing marginal utility. As one obtains more and more of a particular good, eventually the marginal utility (value from one more unit) declines.
9. The law of unintended consequences. Human actions, and especially governmental acts, have consequences which were not intended and not anticipated by the actors.
10. The law of iterated expectations. One cannot use the limited information at some previous time in order to predict the forecast error one would make if one had better information later.
11. Engel’s law. The proportion of income spent on food in an economy is inversely proportional to the general welfare of the society in that economy.
12. Wagner’s law. As an economy grows, government spending has increased by a greater proportion.
13. Foldvary’s law of inequality. Inequality equals the concentration of a distribution times the number of units (I=CN).
14. Say’s law of markets. The supply of goods will pay the factors of production such that the payments are equal to the value of the product, and therefore aggregate quantity supplied equals aggregate quantity demanded.
15. Law of time preference. People tend to prefer to obtain goods sooner rather than later, and will pay a premium (i.e. interest) to shift buying from the future to the present.
16. Law of the market. Statements made by market participants are assumed to be truthful, and products are presumed to be safe and effective unless stated otherwise.
17. Pareto’s law of distribution. There is a general tendency for 80 percent of the consequences to result from 20 percent of the causes, which often applies to property, 80 percent of the wealth owned by 20 percent of the population.
18. Law of cost. All costs are opportunity costs, the true cost being what is given up to get something.
19. Law of comparative advantage. Trade takes place because parties specialize in the products which have a lower opportunity cost, rather than merely a lower physical cost.
20. The law of wages. The wage level of an economy, where labor is mobile and competitive, is determined by the marginal productivity of labor at the margin of production, i.e. the least productive land in use.
21. The law of rent. The economic rent of a plot of land equals the difference between its output and the output at the margin of production, i.e. the least productive land in use, using the same quality of labor and capital goods.
22. The law of capital goods. Investment in capital goods and human capital expand until the expected return on investment, adjusted for risk, equals that of the long-term real interest rate.
23. Walras’ law. If there is an excess quantity supplied in one market, there must be a matching excess quantity demanded in another market.
24. The law of economizing. People tend to economize, maximizing gains for a given cost, and minimizing costs for a given gain.
25. The law of economic rationality. Human action is economically rational if one’s preferences are consistent and if one economizes.
26. The Gaffney effect. The public collection of rent equalizes the discount rate for land usage, since otherwise people would have different credit costs for purchasing land.
This article first appeared in the Progress Report, http://www.progress.org.
Dr. Fred Foldvary teaches economics at Santa Clara University and is the author of several books: The Soul of Liberty, Public Goods and Private Communities, and the Dictionary of Free-Market Economics.
LikeLike
http://books.google.ca/books?id=255vBFLisxkC&printsec=frontcover&dq=natural+law+economics&source=bl&ots=3Vf5EnDE7c&sig=JK3jtORPMKsoMYFQrwAHZ2BQGCo&hl=en&ei=fzWqTOn7CpO4sAPc8dCaAw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=6&ved=0CCkQ6AEwBTgK#v=onepage&q=natural%20law%20economics&f=false
Natural Law and the Foundations of Orderly Economic Systems
LikeLike
The Natural Law of Money
http://www.econlib.org/library/YPDBooks/Brough/brghNLM.html
LikeLike
JC,
But I do myself find you funny that with all your protests, you are unable to articulate one bit of economic theory that explains your position, though throughout numerous posts, such requests have been made.
LikeLike
It would help if you could point to some reality that advances your point. Rand and Marx, after all, wrote volumes on theories that never proved useful. Again, all I know of about your theory in practice is Somalia.
LikeLike
Mark,
What about Somalia that makes it a root of your discourse?
LikeLike
No functioning government, ergo, no violence.
LikeLike
Mark,
Nope, never said that.
No government, no legitimate violence.
LikeLike
Now here is where you go haywire – you rattled off a long list of immutable laws up there, but in point of fact,
everyno country with centralized health care or highly regulated insurance comes close to our per capita costs – even as we don’t cover millions of citizens!That’s reality, and since it doesn’t jive with your immutable laws, you say it is blatantly false. It is patently true.
LikeLike
Mark,
It maybe true that the US has higher costs then most others.
But that does not mean others do not have exploding costs too.
It is merely a reverse beauty contest of who is less bad.
If you argue that the current system is corrupt and dysfunctional, I agree – because government has made it so.
But if you argue the “fix” is more government is utterly perverse.
LikeLike
Nonsense. Their basic costs are growing for the same reason ours are – better care is available but new procedures usually cost more than old ones. But it is not government that causes that rise. See below why the US, with its unique system, has huge cost pressure built into it:
One, incredibly high administrative costs, as high as 33%, and caused by private insurance (Medicare, 3% + private fraud);
Cost push caused by insurance company refusal to pay claims, or pay claims in full, which causes providers to pad their bills;
ER costs for people excluded from the system;
And, as LB mentioned above, the fact that Americans are less healthy and have worse habits than other places.
I sense something here – a man of theory who is not grounded in reality. When the world doesn’t conform to you theory, you deny it, ignore it, or try to change the world to your liking.
LikeLike
Mark
But that is not true. The costs are outpacing such innovations.
#1 nation with the most of all these procedures and machines is the US – but you agree that this is not the cause of the explosion of costs.
So, let’s see. You argue government is not the cause, then point to government regulation as a cause.
*blink*
I cannot imagine how costs go up if they do not pay…..
Since the costs are subsidized by government, the price in many things goes up.
It is a similar issue as the “Tragedy of the Commons” – because no one sees the consumer as the payee, and some faceless entity makes the payment, the attitude is that “no one is being hurt” by this cost.
They are as short sighted as you are.
How does costs go up for people who do not partake?
That is nonsense.
Americans live in the 95% of longevity vs. all people on earth.
No, that is your work, Mark.
It is you who wishes to force yourself upon me. I am not forcing anything of me on you.
The road you walk is a one-way street, Mark.
Goods for you, the cost for me
LikeLike
Read carefully – it is private insurance red tape that induces the 33% overhead – the efforts of all of them, and the hospitals and doctors to dump their costs on others. Medicare: 3%.
Again, comprehension. I am a doctor and charge $100 for a service, and the insurance company says $50 is better. So next time, I charge $150, and get $75, closer to what I want. Bill-padding is a large driver behind our cost structure, so much so that it is institutionalized now in the $30 aspirin.
I had knee surgery earlier this year, and the total bill came out to be around … I forget … like $4,600, of which I paid $2,200, and my insurance the balance. However, the bills put out by the clinic for the surgery were $15,000 – funny money, for sure. But had I no insurance, I would have to have paid that $15,000, or more realistically, forgo the surgery.
My surgery elsewhere would cost as low as $1,700 in Norway, as high as $6,600 in Spain. Nowhere in the world do they come close to our $15,000.
Typical of you, a non sequitur. Longevity is driven by infant survival. We live as long now as always if we live beyond early childhood. And anyway, that’s not even the point – it is how healthy we are versus the rest of the world. Our obesity and diabetes are at crisis stage.
LikeLike
Mark
I found the article that holds your claim in the New England Journal of Medicine
It is the bureaucracy of the insurance having to deal with the government, Mark!
My gawd!
You complain that the costs are huge in dealing with all the levels government – so your complain is …it is the fault of private insurance companies!!!
My gawd, man!
The article states that because there are so many different levels of government; local, State and Federal, the complying with all these requirements is costly.
This is used as an excuse to centralize health care federally.
So you confirm my analysis that your solution to a problem with GOVERNMENT red tape is MORE GOVERNMENT!
LikeLike
Mark,
The question you have to answer is this:
If the costs of a fragmented insurance market of private providers is too costly, and therefore you argue a single-payer format is best, why does this not apply to other insurance like life, auto, fire, etc.
LikeLike
Nonsense! Insurance company overhead all by itself runs from 15% (not-for-profits) to 30% for for-profits. It has nothing to do with government – it is a sales force that has to sift through the population and eliminate undesirable clients, green-eyeshaders that have to examine every claim to see if they can devise a reason not to pay it, executive salaries and profit margin.
Yes, they like to blame government. I would too, if I were them.
LikeLike
Mark,
“Healthy” has no measure – it is subjective.
Longevity cannot be driven by infant mortality rates. Those who do not survive at birth do not live long to count.
Longevity is measured by the average adult death age.
A man can be fat and “healthy” or skinny and “sick”.
I am not worried about the false “crisis” of obesity.
Diabetes is a probably a diet issue due to the large consumption of sugar.
LikeLike
Mark,
…bill padding….
So why is this such an issue in health whereas you do not raise this issue with life/fire/accident/auto insurance?
LikeLike
It is not, to my knowledge, an issue in life/fire/auto. Go back and read again why “insurance” is not a conceptual kin of l/f/a/a insurance. I think that’s where your problems begin.
LikeLike
Mark,
No, it is not my problem since I pointed this out to you many times before.
So, perhaps you should stop calling it insurance, and called it a “subsidy”.
That would frame it much more accurately and also provide much established documentation, knowledge and understanding of the economics of subsidy and avoid the confusion of insurance all together.
LikeLike
Whatever. Personal problem on your end. Welcome to the world of health insurance, where we share expenses to prevent personal disasters.
May you never be struck ill. If costs are beyond your means, you’ll be taken care of, and won’t object, and will perhaps have a change of heart.
Until that day, you are an outlier. Enuf!!
LikeLike
Mark,
You get very strange when you get emotional.
So, a complaint about my argument which you make up in your mind, but does not exist becomes my problem.
Note to self: Must stop arguing with irrational people.
But you just said it was not insurance.
Now you say it is insurance.
Let me know when you settle down.
Thank you, and the same to you.
However, if I do, I have saved up some of my resources to deal with it.
And further, if the health issue is within a set that I have purchased insurance, and it is severe enough financially, I am covered.
I found such action to be prudent.
But thanks, nonetheless.
,
I will be and it will be with no thanks to you.
I chose a prudent path for myself, and do not have to depend you for it.
I don’t think so. I believe one must be prudent and take care of themselves, and I doubt I will change my mind about that. I’ve found that works the best for everyone.
Until that day, you are an outlier. Enuf!!
LikeLike
You are the one who said that your “economic laws” are precisely similar to physical laws. I challenged you to prove that, and you were, and still are, unable to.
Were you wrong then?
And why would I even begin going down the rabbit hole with you discussing economic theory when you have a mistaken presumption that what you are debating is “law” in the same sense that there are laws of physics, like speed of light, and gravity, and all of that stuff.
You want to create an illusion that there is only one way to look at an event (pick your economic topic of the day) and apply your “laws” to it, so you can argue your mark into a little box that is only bounded by your “laws.”
That is the most narrow-minded thinking I think I have ever come across in a blog debate. I challenge your assumptions, and all you can do is fall back on the old “it’s this way because I say it is” tactic. And the evidence you presented above in Foldvary’s article mean nothing to me. Just because they uses the word “law” over and over again doesn’t make any of the things laws, in the same sense that their are physical laws.
You make the mistake of equating observations of human behavior–and attempts to understand and quantify them–with physical events in the natural world (physics, chemistry, and the math to describe them).
Economics is a soft science built around observations of human behavior. The “laws” referred to above are nothing more than an attempt to make sense of them. But they are not “laws.” They may be principles, or tendencies, or opinions, or… what have you. But they do not have the force of immutability that physical laws have.
So don’t ever try to equate the two. It really makes you look foolish. And when you try and debate your “laws” all I can do is laugh.
LikeLike
JC, down here.
Are you daft?
Is English a foreign language to you?
From above:
Economics is not a physical science like Chemistry of Physics.
Your comprehension problem is not my error.
LikeLike
Did you not say this above? I would say the the problem with the english language is yours. Actually, I think it is more a problem of human cognition and memory that is your problem.
So again, I ask. You were you wrong then? Or are you wrong now?
LikeLike
JC,
I did indeed say such.
Not like physics, but more like geometry.
Geometry is axiomatic.
You understand this, right?
Economics is axiomatic, like Geometry is axiomatic.
You understand that, right?
By application of the axiom, plus reason – we can derive geometric theories, and use apply them in our world as Universal laws, like Pythagoras.
By application of the axiom, plus reason – we can derive economic theories and use them as Universal laws as they apply to human action.
This is what I said before, and say now.
So where are you confused?
LikeLike
You’re arguing a non sequiter here. Just because you can apply an axiom to something (i.e. geometry) does not mean you can apply an axiom to something else (economics) and use reason to derive “universal laws.”
And just what are these axioms by which you build your theory of axiomatic economics? I think that if you are going to use this as a tool of argumentation, that you may as well list your axioms, and explain them to your tortured marks.
LikeLike
JC,
You do not understand non sequiter.
I did not argue Geometry was the same as Economics
What I used as analogy – i a cognitive process of transferring information or meaning from a particular subject (the analogue or source) to another particular subject (the target), and a linguistic expression corresponding to such a process. In a narrower sense, analogy is an inference or an argument from one particular to another particular.
But as the definition said, that is a cognitive process which you have amply demonstrated is not in your power.
I explained it is the same cognitive process;
that is axiom plus reason= theory -> applied as law.
This is not the hard part, JC – why are you struggling here?
Do you have a hard time reading?
From above, the axiom
Humans act with a purpose
LikeLike
Humans act with a purpose
Sometimes. My purpose here is to not let you define the parameters of the debate.
You have no special knowledge about your “laws” derived from your unspoken axioms.
You talk about “beliefs” as if all human action and motivation arises out of belief systems that can be quantified by a soft science like economics.
You raise “beliefs” to the level of laws, built upon a charlatan’s web of deception, and expect people to play your game.
Actually, I find it all quite humorous that you would play along this far.
LikeLike
JC
JC,
Let’s try another tact.
Since you propose or support a certain economic outcome I’d like to root out your reasoning for it.
So, some basic questions (and Mark, please pipe in if you wish).
(1) Do you believe health care is valuable?
(2) Do you believe health care is an economic good?
(3) What do you believe is the consequence on consumption if a highly valued good is priced artificially lower than its value? Do you believe it will be consumed more or less?
LikeLike
1) Health care is only valuable if you have access to it. If you are denied access, it has no value, thus is worthless.
2) Health care is only an economic good to those who are allowed access to it. To those denied access, it is not an economic good.
3) Hypotheticals about consumption of a good to which many people are denied access are worthless. It matters not what the price of “a highly valued good” is, if the use of the good is denied to certain people. The good will not be consumed at all, no matter what its price, if the potential consumer is locked out of the market.
You have just outlined why, structurally, health insurance is the wrong way to construct a health care system.
LikeLike
JC
So, you do not believe Ferraris are valuable because you do not have access to them, true?
So, you do not believe Ferrars are an economic good if you do not have access to it?
So in your understanding of economics, a man who builds a Ferrari is not doing an economic task or doing an economic action?
But that is not the question.
The question is
You have just outlined why, structurally, health insurance is the wrong way to construct a health care system.
LikeLike
Ferraris are goods, health care is a service. Apples and oranges (or massages, so to say). I have no need for “access to them” but I do have a need for access to health care.
As to the rest of your comment, I don’t find any reason to discuss your “beliefs” about ferraris.
LikeLike
JC,
But that is not the question, JC.
Please do try to pay attention.
Are Ferrari’s valuable?
LikeLike
That may not have been the question, but that is my answer.
Are ferraris valuable?
I don’t care. They have no value to me. I’ll never desire to purchase one. The utility of a volkswagon is equal to that of a ferrari. Thus any attempt of yours to apply greater value to a ferrari is merely a function of your limbic reward system.
LikeLike
JC
Good.
And your health has no value to me.
So you take your grubby little paws off of my wallet.
LikeLike
And a rock feels no pain. And an island never cries.
LikeLike
Mark,
Your pain does give you right to steal my money.
LikeLike
Mark,
…and every man has his own cross to bear.
LikeLike
Opps, too early submit button
But that was not the question.
You obviously value health care highly. If you did not, you would not care – such as the price of apples – you do not care, thus, you do not value apples as high as health care – true?
The question asked that if a high valued good, say a Ferrari, is subsidized to the price of Lada, do you believe more people will buy a Ferrari than a Lada?
LikeLike
Again, this isn’t about goods. It is about a service. All people need health care. No person needs a ferrari or an apple. SO your analogies are worthless here.
You attempt to use the word “value” in a way that only ascribes to monetary worth. Most people value health care, in that it may be a necessary service for survival–to live. MOst people value their life, and whatever it takes to keep them alive–clean air and water, safe food.
Agan, I refer back to my point: “hypotheticals about consumption of a good to which people are denied access are worthless.”
INsurance companies act as gatekeepers to the marketplace. They screen out people who may incur large costs. And they protect the service providers from excessive losses.
Think of insurance companies, and the receptionist at the provider desk as “gatekeepers.” NOt so different from the armed guard watching the gated community built to keep the riffraff out.
Our system of insurance-style health care has created a gated community of who has access, and who does not. I could have twice or three times the income I have now, and still be denied access. And I have been denied access to services that I was willing to pay cash for because I did not have insurance. “Do you have insurance?” No. “Sorry, we can’t help you.” But I will pay cash, or make arrangements. “We’re sorry, our policy is to not accept new clients who do not have insurance.”
So, again, your analogies, and logic, and rationalizations about economic law all fall apart when dealing with the system we have.
The medical system,as a whole, is of no use, or value to me, becasue I am denied access to it. It is no difference than the fact that the swimming pool and tennis court, and riding rink in the gated community is of no use to me, because I am similarly denied access.
Health care distributed via a system of health insurance has become a playing field for the elite. An elite that consists of healthy, young, elderly, disabled, the poor, those whose employers provide it, and veterans. Everybody else can just go suck rotten eggs. It is a system that is structural, and corrupt, and evil. And no matter how many people move from one category to another, somebody will always be falling into the uninsured category.
We talk about structural poverty in America–the fact that not everybody can have a job with a wage that allows them to live outside of poverty. And that is acceptable, because a certain level of poverty is ok, so that others can be rich. And we all want to be rich, right…??? Well, we have a structural problem with health care, where it is acceptable that some people are denied access to the system, because, well, there’s only so much health care to go around, and if some people consume too much, somehow it’s going to affect me–raise my rates and make it harder for me to find a service? Right? So it’s ok if our system of insurance cartel-gated health care is exclusive. Just don’t focus on the little people who are suffering, because you know, they don’t understand economic law and the need to rip our economy apart and instal a truly enlightened system of free market based health care.
This is such rubbish, BF. Hundreds of people die each day because of lack of access to health insurance (notice I said insurance, not health care). Not all of those people are poor. Or lead morally repugnant (to the moralists) lives. We’re talking about abstract issues while people die.
That’s some crazy shit.
LikeLike
JC,
So, further:
If this is your belief for any economic good or service why do you NOT wish to apply your belief system to all goods and services?
Do you believe food should be subsidized and allocated by committee? Why or why not?
Do you believe automobiles should be subsidized and allocated by committee? Why or why not?
Do you believe houses should be subsidized and allocated by committee? Why or why not?
Do you believe any and all goods and services should be subsidized and allocated by committee? Why or why not?
LikeLike
Quit trying to ascertain or divine some belief system. Quit trying to pigeon hole me into your little shoe box.
We’re talking about life and death. And all you want to talk about are laws, axioms, beliefs and economics.
Health care is not just an economic problem. It is a political problem. A moral problem. An ethical problem. A spiritual problem.
Your attempts to reduce everything to a singular economic argument revolving around some nebulous concept of “economc law” is truly ridiculous. And sad.
You’re a sad little man, BF.
LikeLike
JC,
So you do not understand anything about the issue – yet you believe you can create an economic answer.
You cannot dispel death, so if that is your measure, you have lost the game before you even started.
Agreed.
Agreed.
Morals are subjective and hence it is irrational to an argument here.
Ethics are subjective.
Irrational.
This is not true – but you do not understand truth.
You offer justification for your program by offering economic arguments – that is, you use terms of “cost”, “price”, “value”, “want”, “need”.
You however cannot provide a shred of economic knowledge or understanding to see if your economic justification works.
It does not – your economic understanding is horrific flawed. Thus your justification is as equally flawed.
However, if you offer a political justification and avoid your poor economic understanding – you may be more successful … or not. But until you offer such, we won’t know that.
But your economic justification is horrific. You will destroy health care in this country completely, and with it bankrupt the nation.
The collapse of the economy of the US is a sad state, indeed.
LikeLike
Why should I kowtow to your demands and irrational arguments? I’m not trying to prove anything to you. I’m not providing economic justifications–you are.
You really have no idea of my economic understanding, because mostly have refused to debate you on your own grounds. I’ve just been softening you up, because your style of logic and demand that others validate your notion of axiomatic economics and economic “law” leads me to some clues on how to deal with real people in the real world. People who care about their neighbors and their families, and shake their heads at the state of our insurance cartel driven health care “system.”
Pretty much everything you have related to me, and the ideas and ideology for which you stand are the impediments standing in the way of constructing an effective health care system based on mutual aid.
LikeLike
JC
You don’t, but otherwise you simply look childish.
I know you are not proving anything. Your platform is nonsense and irrational and therefore, by definition, unprovable.
You have a flawed understanding of economics and refuse to shift from it.
Thus, you will get quite a few wrong answers.
The truth does not need your validation
You are not asking people to care. That is a request for charity.
You are demanding they fork over their money to you because you believe you are more important than they are, your desires are more important then theirs, and your needs are more important then theirs.
It is not mutual aid.
It your to your benefit with the cost applied to someone else who will not benefit.
It is theft and it is evil.
LikeLike
JC,
Another question:
If value only exists once someone can buy it – that is, it is only valuable if the price is low – how does a person value one purchase vs. another purchase before they buy?.
So I don’t value anything because I am not buying.
I have a choice between Item A, which will take a number of years of saving to purchase and Item B, which I can buy now.
Are you saying the Item A has no value because I cannot buy it right now?
LikeLike
BF, I live in a world that is full of intrinsic values. Values that will never fit into any of your economic models, no matter how esoteric they are.
I do not construct my value system according to any of your models, or “laws.” So don’t try to understand them. Human behavior is not as rational or understandable as you need it to be to apply your style of debate and economic theories to.
LikeLike
JC,
How can any good/service have an intrinsic value?
I do not value things the same as you value things. Therefore value is wholly subjective to the person, and by definition cannot be intrinsic.
Values are core to all economics. It is the difference of value on goods that makes all trade happen.
You value the thing you produce lower than money. Thus, you trade your production FOR money – a trade of a low value for a high value.
You then value another good higher then money. So you trade your money for that good.
It is the difference of value that everyone places on goods that makes trade.
Economics does not judge motives.
I do not care whether you value apples more than oranges.
Economics tells me, however, if you trade apples for oranges, you value oranges more than apples. It does not tell me why you value oranges – nor does it care.
LikeLike
Duh, they don’t, genius.
WHo said we were talking about human values? I asked you about the intrinsic value of wilderness. I didn’t ask you about the human value of wilderness. Or how humans value clean air and water from wilderness.
I asked you about values of a natural system outside of a human value system–values intrinsic to the system itself, and not born out of human utility.
I don’t expect you to understand any of that. It doesn’t fit your notion of axiomatic economics.
Values are core to all economics.
Well, not all values are core to economics. Economics does not own the value system. And I would say that the notion of value as it pertains to a system of trades is not the same as a system of values that I employ in my everyday life.
This is where you get confused BF. You try and co-opt ideas and make them entirely the province of economics. There is no unified field theory of economics. Never has been, never will.
The values that I place on most things, and the way that I value them cannot be placed into an economic equation and then traded.
Barter, on the other hand tells me that if I trade an apple for an orange, I believe that they have the same value.
You and I are radically different. So don’t try and impose your system of economic thought upon me, because in my world, you and your “laws” are irrational. You have a value system that is skewed. You cannot see that there is intrinsic value in wilderness. You think that because people will eventually die, we have no moral imperative as a civilized country to create a system of health care wherein all get to share in the benefits equally, and share in its costs, again equally.
You are fire, and I am water.
LikeLike
JC
Yet, you said:
BF, I live in a world that is full of intrinsic values
I am sure you have utterly confused yourself.
(shrug) I’m talking about economic value.
You are utterly confused.
None, for me.
I know, but you are the one raising it.
You are utterly confused.
Some humans but I do not value air, hence I do not pay for it.
There is no value unless a human places it on something.
Without a human, nothing has value.
Nothing has a value without a human valuing it.
Nothing in the system onto itself has value, unless a human gives it value.
We are talking about economics, not your preferences or subjectives.
In fact, they are – 100% of them.
If a human does not value “a thing”, then it has no value. Period.
People determine the value of things subjectively.
They are, however, one part provides a system of price to help you make your measures, and another requires you to set a price.
Not one bit.
As they are all aspects of human action, it is in economics.
I disagree.
But they can.
I can offer a price for a good you value, and you will either accept or refuse.
If you refuse, my price was less than your value.
If you accept, my price was higher than your value.
You do not trade for things of the same value – you trade for things of HIGHER value while giving things of LOWER value –to you
Your trade partner is the same. He trades what he values LOWER for your good which he values HIGHER – to him.
Both end up with the good the value higher, and both trade away what the valued lower.
Perhaps.
,
It is you imposing upon me.
You are using a bizarre irrational argument to justify stealing my money.
I hold no such argument.
My argument says if you are successful, you will eventually fail economic and bankrupt the nation.
Nope, they are derived from an axiom plus reason.
I am not the one trying to justify stealing. That is you.
It cannot exist on its own. All value comes from a human.
If a human does not value it, it has no value.
Your bizarre concept of “equal” is you stealing the money and property of other people for your unearned benefit.
This is opposite of civilized behavior.
Yours is the behavior of savages.
“Goods for me, cost for you”
I see a lot of steam.
LikeLike
JC,
Another question.
If health care is not valuable, why do you want it?
LikeLike
I do not want it because it is valuable. I want it because it is a necessity for survival. I do not equate necessities for survival with any economic model of “value.”
LikeLike
JC,
Health care is not necessary for survival.
Things like food and air are necessary for survival.
However, why is air not an economic good?
LikeLike
That’s right up there in your top 10 list of idiotic statements. Take a dive out of a car at 65 mph, and lay there in a pool of blood and die, for all I care. I’d rather the Life Flight picked that person up and took them to the ER, and then to the ICU so that they could survive.
You’re nuts.
Duh.
What, you never bought a can of compressed air? Of course it can be an economic good.
Here’s a better question. What’s the intrinsic value of clean air?
LikeLike
JC,
You are quite irrational.
You argue that a hammer is a necessary thing for all humans by saying “Well, if you need to hit a nail, you need a hammer”.
The artificial creation of some bizarre situation does not create a rational justification.
So would I, but I would not steal money from someone to pay for it, unlike you.
To a savage as yourself, civilized behavior may appear “nuts”.
You breath air every second or so.
How much did you pay?
And totally correct, it can be an economic good.
So why do you pay nothing for the air you breath every second or so, but you pay “something” for air in a can or scuba tank?
Hint: The economic concept of “scarcity” is helpful here….
Zero.
Nothing has an “intrinsic” value.
All value is subjective to a person.
For some people, they do not value “clean” air as they do not pay for it.
For others they do value “clean” air because they pay “Something” for it.
LikeLike
I relate a true situation that recently happened to a member of my family. And similar scenarios happen to tens of thousands of people every year.
But judging by the things that you have written, you will challenge the accuracy of my statement, and come up with some cute non sequitur to ignore it.
You are an antisocial moron whose only consideration is his own bottom line. You are amoral, unethical, and uncaring. You are filled with self importance and arrogance.
“Better to die, than have a system whereby we share costs and benefits.”
You are no better than Idi Amin, except that your dictatorship would revolve around your economic “law.” And an economic dictatorship is exactly what you are trying to foist upon me and anybody else you can get to listen.
I pity you.
LikeLike
JC,
….and millions of others to whom it did not.
But you will try to make it happen to them, too, nonetheless by forcing them to pay for what they did not do to you.
A man who argues for grand theft sees those that resist him as anti-social, indeed!
Unethical?
From a man who believe theft is his right?
I laugh loudly!
How about this one:
“Better I pay my own way then steal!”
No, he was a communist/socialist – quite close to your neck of the woods politically. He got rich stealing from others.
You must believe you live under a Gravity dictatorship, too.
Nah, you’re jealous.
LikeLike
JC,
So you do not agree with this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_value_%28economics%29
“Theory of value” is a generic term which encompasses all the theories within economics that attempt to explain the exchange value or price of goods and services.
Key questions in economic theory include why goods and services are priced as they are, how the value of goods and services comes about, and for normative value theories how to calculate the correct price of goods and services (if such a value exists).
LikeLike
You’re economic “Theory of value” is exactly what is wrong with modern commerce. It does not account for a vast amount of human experience.
Let me ask you a question:
WHat is the intrinsic value of wilderness?
Answer that correctly, and I may play your game some more. ANd you need to do it without entering into your “theory of value” realm.
LikeLike
JC,
Nothing to me.
But to you, I would guess “greater than nothing”.
Therefore, you will pay something for it and I will NOT pay something for it.
LikeLike
Thought so.
Intrinsic value cannot be calculated along a scale that goes something like: “greater than nothing”.
And your conclusion is equally fallacious. One cannot pay for intrinsic value, because it has no worth in your economic system. Not because one does not want to pay for it.
Intrinsic values far outweigh any economic values that your system may provide. Because without intrinsic value, we are left with a cold, lifeless, uninhabitable planet.
LikeLike
JC,
It cannot be calculated because no such thing exists.
All value is subjective and thus the concept of “intrinsic” – that is, value onto itself – cannot exist.
All value comes from a desire of man. If a man holds no value on something – no value exists. Period.
Thus, you value trees. Thus, they are valuable to you and there is a price greater than zero that you will pay for them.
I do not value trees. Thus, they have no value to ME and I will pay nothing for them.
But a tree -in of itself – holds no value on itself.
You do not understand the concept of value.
I may not value something, thus it has no value to me.
You may value it, thus it has a price to you.
If you can find someone other than me, you may be able to trade with it.
But you will not be trading with me.
Value is subjective to the individual, thus by definition cannot be intrinsic to the goods.
…to you. So you will pay for it.
…but not to me. So I will not pay for it.
No, we are still here.
LikeLike
It cannot be calculated because no such thing exists.
All value is subjective and thus the concept of “intrinsic” – that is, value onto itself – cannot exist.
All value comes from a desire of man. If a man holds no value on something – no value exists. Period.
There you go being all anthropocentric again.
Here’s an easy one for you:
Does not a dog value its companionship with its person and its pack?
Your unwillingness to allow that their may be other value systems both within, and outside of the human community is very telling. Indeed it places you right smack in the middle of the cold hearted bastard realm.
JC,
Comes from being a human.
I don’t know, Dr. Dolittle.
I haven’t had such a conversation with a dog to know such a thing.
There is NO value system outside of a human subjective view.
Dogs can figure out dog-nomincs to their hearts content.
I’m interested in human action, not dog action.
Your subject evaluation makes me (shrug).
At least I don’t try to justify stealing your money – as you try to justify you stealing other people’s money.
How much is a tree worth then, if it has a value that is independent of human subjective measure?
It has no desire, as it is not human.
How do you measure it?
“We” are civilized men who do not try to justify stealing money from other people for our benefit.
Want to join us? The condition is easy.
Don’t steal or inflict violence on non-violent people
But you can’t imagine how few people can meet that requirement….
LikeLike
The basic difference between us is that you define humans as a species driven by what you call immutable laws of economics. As such, you imagine that we provide services to one another based solely on the exchange of value for value. When you project this on health care, it is reduced to a commodity, and we therefore have to be able to afford it before we can get it.
That’s your basic problem – your outlook is asocial.
Humans evolved in tribes, and did not barter among ourselves for services. We simply took care of one another. This is foreign to you, but humans are empathetic and mutually supportive in the main.
Agriculture took the tribal human out of his element, but evolution has not had time to being about fundamental change. Agriculture required ownership of property, wars to fight off others, subjugation of women (men had to be certain of paternity in an environment where property was now owned and passed down). Our numbers swelled, and now threaten the viability of the planet to support us.
But we are still that mutually supportive species, and this is where you just don’t get us. You cannot reduce health care to your economic model because most of us don’t think of it like that, are troubled that so many don’t have access, and that so many others are financially pressed to pay for anything that is not routine.
So our instinct is to simply cast our lot with everyone, lower individual costs by spreading them out, eliminating the profit motive (an aberration, from an evolutionary standpoint), and simply do what we do best – foster mutual care.
It’s our nature. You are the outlier here, and it is something basic with you that you project on us via your outlandish economic outlook – extreme isolation. You don’t want to be part of us.
Is it, as JC speculated, the Cayman Island syndrome?
LikeLike
Mark
Wrong!
Precisely the other way around
Humans drive economics.
Review -again- the axiom.
Humans act with a purpose
The CONSEQUENCES of human action CREATES economic outcomes.
The LAWS of ECONOMICS allows us to derive THOSE OUTCOMES from HUMAN ACTION.
Again, wrong. Nowhere have I stated such.
Your complaints so far require you to “make up stories” about me.
Health care is an economic good – a commodity, if you wish – like any thing else, such as apples and cars.
You do have to afford apples before you get it.
You do have to afford cars before you get it.
The economics of health care as a commodity operates in the same way.
Mark, that is your problem, not mine.
You want something for nothing, and want to force me to pay for it.
That is anti-social
Absolutely we did!
Trade is natural between humans. No one taught you!
We took care of our family and it obeyed economic law as well.
Humans act with a purpose
You are a hypocrite.
You are not giving your money to the starving masses in Africa.
You are not surrendering your house to the multitude of homeless.
You do not let anyone drive your car if they want.
You demand others, however, must do that for you.
You are a hypocrite.
LikeLike
JC,
Not every human act has a purpose
Of course it does, or there would be no action!
You are judging this action in your own mind.
Whether you BELIEVE the action has a purpose or not is irrelevant. The person acting has determined a purpose, and acts to achieve it.
This is fundamental.
LikeLike
Let’s try that again:
Not every human act has a purpose.
Thus your axiom, and the reason that you derive from it are wrong.
LikeLike
JC,
Every human action has a purpose, or they would not act.
LikeLike
Bullshit. People are capable of random acts. Just because you say that isn’t true, doesn’t make it not true.
I have have acted randomly, and without purpose. Therefore your axiom is wrong. And all of the reason and conclusions you derive also are inaccurate.
LikeLike
JC,
…and they do so for a purpose.
You are judging their action to be random, but you do not really know that, since you are not them
It is that you do not know and are JUDGING them.
Your ignorance does not make you right.
You acted that way to be random – which is a purpose.
No, its not.
But you don’t have to accept it and continue down your destructive path.
No, they are not.
But you can act in that way.
LikeLike
YOu know, you shouldn’t confuse human psychology with economics. It really makes you look like you’re overreaching and stupid.
LikeLike
JC,
It you who is confused, not I.
Your confusion is purposeful, for you use it as an attempt to justify your theft of other people’s money.
LikeLike
And you use your so-called economic “law” to explain human behavior that is not the province of economics. It is you that have a single hammer and attempt to explain every nuance of human interaction as if it were a nail.
And it is your notion of “theft” that has turned you into an anti-social deviate.
If you don’t like american society, then I suggest you move further away than wherever it is you’re currently holed up. Because with an approach like yours, you sure as hell ain’t going to change it.
LikeLike
JC,
You do have comprehension issues.
I am not explaining “human behavior”, that would be “Psychology” and I am not a psychologist.
Economics derives the consequences of Human Action
But, as I said, you have comprehension issues so that will go right through you like a neutrino.
Not even a little bit.
Explain the consequences of Human Action.
Coming from a man who justifies theft, I would expect you to complain about someone who resists you.
Why don’t you go away!
You’re the one destroying society by justifying thievery on the grandest of scales!
Perhaps.
The People have been well brainwashed into believing they can vote themselves rich, and that someone else will pay their bills.
But in the end, the law of economics will overwhelm them and they will suffer harshly either by massive recession or economic collapse.
There is no other way out but economic suffering, and the longer it takes, the worse it will become.
LikeLike
The “family” is an agricultural structure. Pre-agriculture families were the tribe, usually 150 or so. Evidence indicates that sex was communitarian, children were community raised, food and labor were shared. There’s good research on this.
LikeLike
Mark,
All very interesting.
But economics still existed.
Humans act with a purpose
LikeLike
Mark,
And, just to let you know.
You are not part of my 150, so get your paws out of my wallet.
LikeLike
Mark,
Well, I read the article and that is its conclusion as I presented it – so unless you are referring to some other document to support yourself – you have no leg to stand on.
Explain why this is not a problem with life/auto/fire/etc. insurance.
LikeLike
I have read long and plenty over the years on the nature of health insurance, going back to my campaign for office in 1996. One article does not a treatise make, especially considering the source. People are honest, but conflict of interest skews outlook.
And again, read what I wrote about the basic difference between health insurance, a utility we all need, and homeowners insurance, where losses are rare and various providers compete by offering superior service. Adverse selection is a very small problem in those areas, and in autos, has been largely negated by UM coverage and laws to mandate coverage (violence, I think you call it.)
LikeLike
JC
What is the difference – to you?
I don’t need health care.
I don’t need health care, but I do need food.
I provided my definition above, but it appears you did not read it – as typical.
Great! I agree.
So, most people place a price on that value, correct?
And each has a price that they place on it, correct.
Huh?
I can buy health care without an insurance company, so how can they be “gate keeping”??
So I question:
If you do not believe “Insurance” companies are providing you a service, why do you still buy it???
If you offered a cleaning service, and you did no cleaning, I would not pay you.
I can’t say whether this happens or not regularly.
I pay cash and I get health services, so in my experience I have not found this issue.
No, JC – in fact it supports it.
You live inside a government-created cartel. It is not free market, nor does it support free market competition.
With no surprise, it is perverted – because of government.
Without government, the cartel would collapse.
However your answer is to tighten the cartel even more.
I agree with you.
By grant of government, only certain companies can participate in this market.
You want even more government – creating even fewer choices (one, in fact) – believing that even a tighter cartel will solve your problem of cartels.
Labor is another economic good just like all other economic goods, and obeys the same Laws of Economics.
By demand or force you establish a too-high a price for labor, it will not be bought, and supply will rise.
This is called unemployment.
By your program, you trade employment for some for unemployment of many.
Min. wage exists to protect incumbent workers from the competition of new workers, and it works.
The consequence: high unemployment for the young.
No, because the cost maybe too high.
If the price of health care is artifically low, it will be consumed to exhaustion as price is the mechanism of access-control to any good or service.
As a good/service is overly-consumed, its price rises – thus limiting the good/service to those who hold it at a higher value.
When the price rises to a point where consumption is relieved, the price will fall.
A high price for a good/service – in a free market – attracts more suppliers eager for a profit. This increases supply – which naturally lowers the price.
JC, you wish to interfere in this process in many ways at the same time.
You want to hold down price – you want to limit suppliers – you want to manage consumers by your definition of want/need.
And you argue it is a total mess. You do not see that it is your demands that make it so.
You will die one day, JC, and nothing can stop that, including me and all the wealth in the world,
…therefore it is a futile goal to organize a social policy around.
…to believe that if health care was free, no one would die.
LikeLike
If you don’t know the difference between a good and a service, then anything I may say about it would be useless.
Maybe not today. But tomorrow you could get run over by drunk.
Actually, I take that back. I think today you need some [mental] health care. You just don’t realize it.
JC,
So you don’t know the difference or the relevance or the irrelevance as a matter to economics.
Maybe.
But I don’t need health care now. This determines its value to me – and thus its price to me.
Indeed. As irrational man, you are immune to reason.
It is not infinite, I can assure you.
Since I will die one day, no amount of money – even if it was infinite – could be spent to save it.
Thus, we use the term “priceless” to evaluate such things – but that does not mean it does not have a price
A “priceless” work of art is sold for $X millions. It means “one of a kind, cannot be duplicated” – and the same for me and you.
But there is a price.
Well, how do I know what you say about yourself?
You can agree or disagree, but it irrelevant.
Whether you experience said thing or I a different thing does not change the fact that health can be bought without insurance or with insurance.
Are you daft?
People who try to get fire insurance after a fire are denied too. So?
I do not have to trade with you if I do not want to no matter how much you jump up and down.
If you force me to trade when I don’t want to is called theft.
So are you advocating theft?
Perhaps – and that is their right to choose whether or not to sell their goods or services – because they own that.
Just like I don’t have to buy it when they offer it because I own my own money and can choose when to spend or not.
But when you get involved, you steal my money to buy something I do not want, and force a company to sell when they do not want to sell.
Quite a mess you cause.
I feel for you. Perhaps you can go to Mexico – I understand they will do very good work at a very good price.
AH!
The root of your irrationality.
One side of a trade does not want to trade and you are angry at them.
You demand that they pay for your illness but you only want to pay a tiny portion of it. You want them to pay for most of it.
And they won’t do that.
Darn.
I understand your need.
But demand compensation from the God or the Universe.
But, it is not my fault.
But, it is not the insurance companies fault.
Demanding that we repair what is not our fault is not your right.
Unfortunately, you do live in a government cartel health care system – which by its design makes health care incredibly expensive.
Eliminating government out of the picture would drop the price dramatically.
As you point out, health care is a common desire of many people. It is a popular product.
As such, like the price of food, it should be so plentiful and dirt cheap.
The cartel does not allow this. It wants to maintain a very high cost – and limit availability. This way, a doctor can charge $10,000 and work an hour.
In a free market, he would have to work more hours for less money – and he doesn’t want to do that.
A cartel works very well for him (and others in the system).
Me too!
So let’s get government out, and let free market in!
Health care costs will drop like the price of computer!
Good for you!
So work for NO Government Health care and enjoy the abundance of goods/services.
PS:Would I be right in assuming you believe the Nobel Prize for Economics is bunk?
Yeah, about the size of a family sounds about right.
Whether or not you want to see it, it is still there too.
The term “good” is an economic term used to describe something of value and trade – to distinguish from something like “air” which is not tradeable.
It is such a good, and obeys exactly the same laws of economics.
When you understand that, you can offer viable solutions to problems of unemployment, for example.
Thus your errors.
You believe the “system” owes you something that you did not earn.
You believe the “system” is at fault for your condition.
You believe the “system” is not a cartel.
I am very ok that people can choose or deny a trade for whatever reason they wish. The act of voluntary includes the right to say “No, thanks!”.
As soon as you wish to prevent the word “No”, voluntary system ends and tyranny begins.
I am also saddened that you suffer.
…which means you will push the costs of your care onto someone else who does not deserve it.
They will not accept this willingly.
Thus, you will force it on them.
Thus, they will avoid it as much as possible, and eventually resist it.
The system will collapse for everyone.
And, you will continue to suffer – but you will have more company then when you started.
If that is your goal – equal suffering and company – you will get it.
It is very easy to square.
My suffering does not give me right to place it on people who do not deserve it.
LikeLike
Wow, did I cause this?
Anyway, here’s a point and counter point worth considering.
*AGAINST CROSSING*
Today, I asked Sandy Praeger to share her perspective on the issue. Praeger is insurance commissioner for Kansas and president of the National Association of Insurance Commissioners.
Praeger told me she was against lifting restrictions on the sale of insurance across state lines.
If the change was implemented, here’s what she predicts will happen: Insurers will set up shop in states with few regulations and market low-cost policies to people across the country. These policies will offer minimal coverage and appeal primarily to younger consumers.
“It will be a race to the bottom,” Praeger said, and there will be “very few consumer protections. … You’ll have plans that don’t cover the benefits that people need. … And healthy people are going to buy those less costly plans, because they don’t think they need [the protection].”
That may be a good deal for young people who don’t have health problems, but it would probably become a bad deal for everyone else, Praeger said. The policies that sell comprehensive coverage would draw a sicker, older customer base, becoming more and more expensive.
*FOR CROSSING*
Commissioner Praeger is doing nothing more than protecting her bureaucratic turf. State Health Commissioners have been the primary obstacle to the Health Care Choice Act in Washington. They have a vested interest in protecting their bureaucracy and their jobs.
Moreover, ERISA all ready governs a national health insurance marketplace and state regulations only impact the individual insurance marketplace. And there is no reason why Illinois can’t enforce the rules and regulations of other states. It’s all ready done in other areas of corporate law.
Has a national market in computer sales led to a race to the bottom? What about automobile sales; or food sales or just about any other service of product we buy? Markets while not perfect have provided lower costs and better quality across the board. There is no reason why health insurance would be any different.
And there is the question of the young and healthy buying insurance in these markets leaving the old and infirm in the old pool. The invincibles, the young and healthy, who comprise nearly 60% of the uninsured are going to buy these cheap policies that will lead to a shrinking pools of the old and infirm leaving them to their own devices. Newsflash: by not having insurance now the invincibles are all ready doing that very thing.
Funny thing Mark, I never thought you and the National Association of Insurance Commissioners would agree on anything.
LikeLike
I hadn’t thought of it in terms of younger consumers, but he’s right – they would seek out coverage that costs less and covers less. As I view health care as a universal public utility, I think that the nationwide pool of insured should consist of “us.”
The answer would be a definition of basic coverage and a mandate that all states regulate at or above that standard. That would eliminate the Arizona problem.
Sidenote: Switzerland does the private insurance system, but unlike us, the companies are heavily regulated and must provide “basic coverage.” What they call basic coverage is what we in this country call “Cadillac policies.”
LikeLike
Mark,
Too bad.
Switzerland can’t avoid the laws of economics either.
The costs have increased in the last 10 years by 50 to 60 percent,” says Roland Brunner, a banker from Baden.
Indeed, while individuals feel that pain, so do Switzerland’s politicians.
“They see it in their budget,” says Peter Zweifel, a professor of health economics at the University of Zurich. “It’s very visible because it’s that budget chunk that needs to be reserved for the subsidization of premiums.”
A valued good, artificially forced to a low price, will be consumed to exhaustion
LikeLike
Perspective please. Please compare this to other countries. By itself, means nothing. You do the legwork.
LikeLike
Mark,
Your reverse beauty contest only fools Blackbirds.
You are debating difference between “just a little cancer on the lung” vs. “oops, sorry, it has completely metastasized”.
Unless something big changes, Swiss will face precisely the same problem the US/Finland/Sweden/Russia, etc. are all facing.
Economic collapse
They may be late while others are sooner.
All, eventually, are overwhelmed.
The Law says so….
LikeLike
Ain’t no such thing. You live in a fantasy world.
LikeLike
JC,
They fantasy is yours to believe you can consume and make other people pay for it and for this not to create far worse consequences than you would justify for such theft.
LikeLike
Have we set a record for you yet MArk?
LikeLike
Easily, long ago. “Black Flag” is actually a computer in Langley.
LikeLike