Now on ScienceBlogs: The significance of 2/13
PZ Myers is a biologist and associate professor at the University of Minnesota, Morris.
…and this is a pharyngula stage embryo.
• a longer profile of yours truly
• my calendar
• Nature Network
• RichardDawkins Network
• facebook
• MySpace
• Twitter
• Atheist Nexus
• the Pharyngula chat room
(#pharyngula on irc.synirc.net)
The man who gets on his knees has not learned the right use of his legs.
[Lemuel K. Washburn, Is The Bible Worth Reading And Other Essays]
« I'm getting under Ken Ham's skin | Main | Good news about Daniel Hauser »
More articles by PZ Myers can be found on Freethoughtblogs at the new Pharyngula!
Category: Pointless polls
Posted on: June 24, 2009 9:07 AM, by PZ Myers
Even if he does try to clumsily word his polls to drive answers towards the one he wants — we're smart enough to see through that and boldly click where we want. Let's surprise Congressman Duncan Hunter with the vigor of our response.
Do you support a government imposed healthcare policy?
Yes, even if it requires tax increases. 54.2%
No, we can reform healthcare without a government-run plan that limits choice. 44.4%
Unsure 1.4%
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://scienceblogs.com/mt/pings/113199
HTML commands: <i>italic</i>, <b>bold</b>, <a href="url">link</a>, <blockquote>quote</blockquote>
Comments
Posted by: Mr_Rose | June 24, 2009 9:16 AM
It's amazing how much bias he can squeeze into so few words. Is there some sort of course you can take in the US that teaches this art?
Posted by: Rorschach | June 24, 2009 9:21 AM
I find it really funny how Americans seem to mistrust anything that comes from their government,while at the same time believing their government should fix any problem out there.
So Europeans have had public health care for 50 years,and they are still there,didnt bancrupt them.
Posted by: Victor
|
June 24, 2009 9:24 AM
I find it really funny how Americans seem to mistrust anything that comes from their government,while at the same time believing their government should fix any problem out there.
And since these naysayers are the government, are they saying that 'they' can't be trusted? It seems so. As long as the health plan is the same health plan the senators are on, I think it'll be policed pretty well.
Posted by: Kel | June 24, 2009 9:26 AM
I find it so funny when listening to conservatives complain about universal healthcare. They have no idea what it's like to be in a country with it, who'd have thought the bogeyman would have a stethoscope and a flu needle? :P
Posted by: Ryan F Stello | June 24, 2009 9:29 AM
Looks like this was his first poll, too.
I really hope he doesn't get discouraged from doing more;deflating grade-C or higher jerks is what keeps me going.
Posted by: TheBiologista | June 24, 2009 9:29 AM
I'm guessing this is one of those polls that the Congressman will cite as if meaningful if it reinforces his preconceptions but ignore as biased, broken or otherwise meaningless if it does not. It's pretty pointless but I guess denying him his little bit of evidence is better than ignoring it.
Posted by: Alverant | June 24, 2009 9:34 AM
65% Yes
33.9% No
I wonder how long it will be before he takes down the poll and calls the results invalid because he doesn't like the results or because a bunch of godless liberals voiced their opinion.
Posted by: Agoraphobic Kleptomaniac | June 24, 2009 9:34 AM
Do you support a government imposed healthcare policy?
Yes,
704 65.7%
No,
356 33.2%
Unsure
12 1.1%
Keep it up!
Posted by: Alyson Miers | June 24, 2009 9:37 AM
Wow, the Congressman can't even write an effective push poll. Maybe I'm just reeeeeeally liberal, but it still sounds just fine with the way he words it.
Posted by: catgirl | June 24, 2009 9:46 AM
It's funny that most people support government "imposed" health care even with all the loaded wording!
Posted by: Citizen of the Cosmos
|
June 24, 2009 9:47 AM
No matter what kind of healthcare system you support, surely the purpose of it should be to provide it to those who need it. We have rather high taxes in my country, but would I like to lower them in exchange for healthcare only for some people? No, never. To pay lower taxes can be nice, but only if the society can get enough tax money to maintain and develop itself.
If you are not well off, slightly lower taxes will not make much of a difference. You will still be unable to afford proper healthcare or education. The rich will benefit the most, the rifts between those who have and those who have not will increase, putting those lower on the ladder in a situation where they will have less influence and be more dependent on others, that is, the rich. The rich and powerful gladly exploit the others, simply because they can, in the quest for more profit. Does this mean more freedom? Yes, for those who have more. For those who have less, it means even less freedom. Universal healthcare is one way to level the playing field. Strong labour unions another.
Posted by: Bill Dauphin, OM | June 24, 2009 9:49 AM
Progressively Pharyngulated:
Yes, even if it requires tax increases: 66%
No, we can reform healthcare without a government-run plan that limits choice: 32.8%
Unsure: 1.2%
As for the biased language, it's actually unintentionally honest: Hunter's clearly trying to throw right-wing red meat to his wingnut fan base, but leaving the loadedness of the words aside, we really do need healthcare coverage that's imposed by government and run by government, and that limits choice. Specifically, it needs to limit the ability of the rich and healthy to choose opt out. That's the only way any insurance plan actually operates effectively: The whole point of insurance is to spread out — and thus mitigate — risk, and that can only happen if there are low-risk people in the pool. And the only way to ensure the largest possible pool, and one that includes the healthy and wealthy (i.e., the lower risks) along with the halt and lame and indigent (not to mention everyone in between) is through a legal mandate. And if insurance is to be universal and mandatory, there's clearly no free market at work, so there's no arguing that the advantage of competition will outweigh the extra burden of profit in this case.
In America's currently warped political culture, it's impossible to imagine us getting there in one swift leap, but the only ultimate solution that makes any sense is universal, mandatory, publicly funded and administered, not-for-profit, single-payer health coverage. Once we've got that, we can start working on meaningful unemployment and retirement coverage reform.
L-word-arians' hair on fire in 3... 2... 1....
Posted by: Nominal Egg | June 24, 2009 9:50 AM
Political Science.Posted by: Dahan | June 24, 2009 9:51 AM
Rep. Hunter and his family seem to be doing just fine while under their government run health care system, just like all the other representatives in Congress. If it's good enough for him, why isn't it good enough for me?
Posted by: Frank Lovell
|
June 24, 2009 9:53 AM
It's about 8:50 AM EDT, and the poll now stands at...
70.7% YES
28.3% NO
...with 1302 respondents thus far. That's a potent Pharyngularmy influence!
Posted by: Southern Comfort | June 24, 2009 9:57 AM
I hope we get universal health care. Too bad it won't include all those civilians we bombed in Iraq.
*please visit my blog
Posted by: Alyson Miers | June 24, 2009 10:02 AM
Dahan:
If you're a wealthy elected official, it isn't government-run health care, it's a perk of public service. If you're one of the non-rich masses, then it's socialism.
Posted by: Enkidu | June 24, 2009 10:03 AM
Ah, yes . . . Hunkin Dunter Junior . . . my representative. Dolt was coined to describe his dad. Little Hunkin is slower, dimmer, an altogether paler version of a slow, dim, pale original.
Posted by: JM Shep
|
June 24, 2009 10:04 AM
Do you support a government imposed healthcare policy?
Yes, even if it requires tax increases. (1144) 74.9%
No, we can reform healthcare without a government-run plan that limits choice. (371) 24.3%
Unsure (13) 0.9%
Great comments so far; I especially like #s 11 and 12. I think it's interesting that many Americans (and a majority of working-class Americans) want single-payer healthcare, but the Democrats are keeping proponents of single-payer out of the process. If the government tries to be 'competitive,' then yes, it will probably cost a lot of money, because they'll be trying to compete with insurance companies which are only after profit. The insurance companies won't let anything pass that doesn't involve them and end up benefiting them. One more example of how our 'two party' system is in the pocket of Corporate America...
Also, I find the statement “…that limits choice” very interesting. How many insured Americans have a choice in their healthcare? None. Our jobs (generally) dictate our insurance providers, and our insurance providers dictate which health care professionals we can see. I feel like under a government plan, we could go to any doctor we want, because they’d all be a part of a national plan. And then, like with car insurance, if you get sick out-of-state, it wouldn’t matter because all hospitals are under the same plan. (Unlike many plans that only cover you in the state you have insurance. I’m pretty sure Blue Cross Blue Shield only covers in MN, but correct me if I’m wrong.)
Posted by: Evolving Squid | June 24, 2009 10:07 AM
Although it may show bias, I live in a country where the majority of the inhabitants appear to think that the government pays for things through mental powers, magic conjuration, and sheer force of will.
People in Canada hoot and holler for (all levels) government to pay for this, that and the other thing, then bitch and moan about high taxes. This tends to be most prominent at the municipal level where not only do you see the services very directly, but the city also sends each home owner an annual bill. This creates a cycle of "Government should pay for this, and don't cancel that, and blah blah" followed by "Holy Mother of Fuck why are my taxes so high!" in the spring when the tax bills come out.
So it is a valid question. Lots of people want stuff as long as they don't have to pay for it.
That said, I can't imagine how having at least some level of socialized medicine is a bad thing. I can only see benefit to society when people aren't dying in the streets because they can't afford a doctor.
Posted by: Dahan | June 24, 2009 10:12 AM
Alyson Miers,
Well, that does explain it. Stupid non-rich masses...
Posted by: Laborum | June 24, 2009 10:20 AM
@ #15 That's not even close to "a potent Pharyngularmy influence". Check back in some of the previous polls that hit 20k+ positive votes with heavy opposition kicking and screaming their way to pointless poll failure.
Posted by: cervantes
|
June 24, 2009 10:22 AM
You seem to have killed the hamsters. But that's okay, I have a feeling ol' Duncan wasn't really looking for guidance anyway. . .
Posted by: peter | June 24, 2009 10:26 AM
I don't know where the the squid lives in Canada - maybe beyond the 300 mile limit? but as people complain about taxes, which seems a rather natural thing to do for the payer of such, everybody I know in my town agrees to his taxes being used for universal health care.
There is however a problem that has to be recognized - a discussion of what is funded through the government program and are there better ways of delivery of health care.
Is it for instance reasonable to ask for and receive any amount of life sustaining measures to a dying 80 year old citizen, just because the family demands it for religious reasons?
Any dollar spend there is a dollar that cannot be spent on more effective treatments for someone with vastly better prospects of medical success.
Universal health care as an insurance - fine, but why does the system that provides the insurance also has to run the hospitals?
Is it also possible to entertain add on insurance to fund measures that might be straining the public system beyond its limits, i.e. costly heart and other transplants.
This is one thing that also do other countries, i.e. Germany, where you can insure yourself for a higher level of post operative care, and where you fall outside the public health insurance beyond certain income limits.
Posted by: CGM3 | June 24, 2009 10:26 AM
"Database Error: Unable to connect to the database:Could not connect to MySQL"
I think we broke it...
Posted by: Mark Farmer | June 24, 2009 10:32 AM
the Survey is still up. As of 10:30 EDT the "Yes" vote is approaching 80%
As they do in Chicago, vote early and often!
Posted by: progressive homeschooler | June 24, 2009 10:41 AM
It took a while for the page to load; I'm guessing that's because of us. I find it interesting that many of the people who cry "socialism" when it comes to universal health care, happily send their kids off for some socialized education each day.
Yes, we homeschool but I'm not anti-public school. I'm just pointing out that they don't see the irony. Education for all is a good thing, but health care for all is not?
Posted by: Pablo | June 24, 2009 10:41 AM
Who was it that said, "Republicans claim that government is the problem, and then go get elected to try to prove it."?
I've heard it attributed to Al Franken, but I've also heard that it goes back before him.
Posted by: Newfie | June 24, 2009 10:43 AM
No Duncan, the US public wants to keep seeing their politicians getting kick backs and campaign donations from Pharma/Oil/Military Contractors/Religious groups... cause that's the only reason people like you go into politics right?
Posted by: bobxxxx | June 24, 2009 10:45 AM
I have a healthy lifestyle, and have no need for doctors and no need for health insurance. I don't much care for the idea of paying more taxes to subsidize people who smoke, drink, eat junk food, and never exercise. So I would vote against a government imposed healthcare policy.
Posted by: Dr.Woody
|
June 24, 2009 10:47 AM
Awesome Pharyngulates Crash Anosognosiac Congresscritter's DotGov site!
At least I couldn't get in there to vote.
Posted by: Lynna | June 24, 2009 10:52 AM
Tried to vote, but couldn't get there from here. Overwhelmed their server?
bobxxxx @30: You can do all the right things and still end up needing health care you can't afford. Still, I take your point that preventative measures should be given much more importance.
Health costs are harder to understand than a lot of people realize. I posted this before in a different thread:
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/06/01/090601fa_fact_gawande
"As the national debate about health care heats up, Gawande's article has become a must-read for President Obama's staff."
Posted by: Dr.Woody
|
June 24, 2009 10:52 AM
Were you born a weeping asshole, or did you have to study it?
Either way: Imbibe your excrement and expire, cully...
Posted by: JS Mill | June 24, 2009 10:52 AM
The hamsters are running slowly, but still running:
Yes, even if it requires tax increases.
1637 80.3%
No, we can reform healthcare without a government-run plan that limits choice.
388 19%
Unsure
14 0.7%
Oh, and bobxtrollx: here's all the response you deserve:
Posted by: Standard Curve
|
June 24, 2009 10:56 AM
Like Enkidu I also live in his district. Junior more or less inherited his dad's seat. The democrats won't put any real money or effort into a race in this district because it's so right leaning.
A great example of democracy inaction.
Posted by: Victor
|
June 24, 2009 10:57 AM
#30
I have a healthy lifestyle, and have no need for doctors and no need for health insurance. I don't much care for the idea of paying more taxes to subsidize people who smoke, drink, eat junk food, and never exercise. So I would vote against a government imposed healthcare policy.
I am sorry, but I cannot see positions such as this as anything more than selfishness. None of us knows what will befall any of us in the future. It only takes one car accident, one hereditary health condition, one fall down a stairs to put any of us into a seriously ill medical condition. "I'm healthy right now so screw everyone else" is just not humane. I'm about as healthy as I can get and am more than willing to pay my fair share to give proper health insurance to everyone. Start thinking of a world greater than your own self interest. The couple of extra bucks a paycheck you would be receiving can do more good than padding your wallet.
Posted by: Pablo | June 24, 2009 10:58 AM
Bullshit.
Do you drive a car? If so, you are at serious risk for injury. "Insurance" means just that - insurance against the RISK of health problems. It is not about sharing health costs, it is about sharing the RISK for health costs. And those risks are not just determined by you, but by everyone else, too.
Imagine you are sitting in your car at a stop light, and some uninsured drunk driver runs the light and smashes into the side of your car. Your "healthy lifestyle" doesn't do you any good at all. I'd like to say, "Let the asshole die," but my conscience won't do that.
Posted by: SC, OM | June 24, 2009 10:58 AM
http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=230688&title=heal-or-no-heal
Posted by: stogoe | June 24, 2009 11:02 AM
What happens when you get cancer, bobxxxx? Are we then supposed to pay for your treatment, when you would not pay for ours?
This isn't limited to a public plan, either. This is also how health unsurance works (in theory). Everyone pays in, so that the sick can get care. And when the healthy become the sick, they get care too*.
*Except when it's run by Blue Cross Blue Thieves or Unregulated HealthScam. They don't cover the sick, and they kick you out when you do get sick.
Posted by: ursa major | June 24, 2009 11:07 AM
@2
"I find it really funny how Americans seem to mistrust anything that comes from their government,while at the same time believing their government should fix any problem out there."
Unless the government is locking people up, starting wars or wiretapping - then it is COMPLETELY trustworthy. Or so say the Rethuglicans
Posted by: Alyson Miers | June 24, 2009 11:07 AM
@#30:
Try getting hit by a drunk driver and then see how much you don't need health insurance. Or have a kid with leukemia and get back to us.
I don't have health coverage, either, but that's not because I can more or less get away with it by virtue of youth, good health and childlessness (though all those conditions do apply), it's because I don't have a long-term job or the income to spare on an individual health plan. I risk bankruptcy by hospital bill every time I get into a car, which fortunately isn't often.
Posted by: Dr.Woody
|
June 24, 2009 11:10 AM
About the only thing about which most Murkins are sure their Government does right is convicting black and brown people of crimes--whether they are actually the perpetrators or not, and keep them confined.
Posted by: catgirl | June 24, 2009 11:12 AM
Then don't cry about it when some sick kid sneezes on you or a stray dog bites you. People are so cute when they think they can't get sick. I had a friend who college who always insisted, "I just don't get sick". One week he had a terrible flu and complained about it more than anyone else I know. Then the very next week he had completely forgotten about it, and went back to insisting that he just doesn't get sick.
Posted by: Ranson | June 24, 2009 11:17 AM
I sort of like the Netherlands model as described over at the denialism blog.
Posted by: Knockgoats | June 24, 2009 11:18 AM
Universal health care as an insurance - fine, but why does the system that provides the insurance also has to run the hospitals? - peter
It doesn't have to, but there are reasons for it to do so, which can be summed up as transaction costs and perverse incentives. If you separate the two, you unavoidably generate lots of paperwork to do with paying for services. If, in addition, you make either hospitals or health insurers into profit-driven enterprises, they will spend resources on advertising, and aim to maximise profit, not optimise patient care - e.g. hospitals will try to cherry-pick the most profitable patients, insurers to exclude high-risk clients. Sure, competition can sometimes improve performance, but in the case of health care, except at the top end of the market it leads to skimping on those aspects of the job less visible to "customers", a concentration on profitable procedures (even when unnecessary), and in practice to hospitals choosing patients rather than the other way round.
Posted by: AlgaeGirl
|
June 24, 2009 11:19 AM
Y'know, even though most of us are not this Congressman's constituent, we are still Americans (most of us here) and his vote still affects our healthcare! I know my Congresspeople support govt healthcare reform, it's the ones who don't that' we've got to focus on.
Posted by: SC, OM | June 24, 2009 11:21 AM
Aaaaaaaand away we go.
Whatever.
Posted by: Tom Woolf | June 24, 2009 11:26 AM
I am impressed by PZ's ability to sway these polls. Whether horridly worded ones like this, or the thumper/creationist BS ones, one entry from PZ, and the results change.
Keep up the good work, PZ! Don't let those idiots drum up false "evidence" claiming popular support for their unsupportable*** stances.
*** That's not to say that simply being against the health care bill is "unsupportable" - that is mostly a matter of your political viewpoint. But the poll PZ points out on Rep. Hunter's site is phrased in such an outlandish manner, *the poll* becomes unsupportable.
Posted by: BluesBassist | June 24, 2009 11:41 AM
This godless (classical) liberal voted "no." My reasons include both moral and utilitarian considerations.
Posted by: Knockgoats | June 24, 2009 11:42 AM
Ranson's link to the Netherlands model@44 is interesting: universal compulsory insurance, largely employer-paid but with the state paying a "basic package" rate for those out of work, and paying for children. Multiple, profit-making insurance companies which fund medical care, but are very strictly regulated to avoid some of the problems I noted. In fact, though, if you follow the further link to the wikipedia page, it turns out that the system is >60% general taxation-funded: long-term care for the elderly, dying, mentally ill etc. - that is, most of the really expensive stuff - is fully tax-funded.
Posted by: daveau
|
June 24, 2009 11:43 AM
What?!? And give up my for-profit private-run plan that limits choice?
Posted by: SimonC | June 24, 2009 11:46 AM
Bill @ 12:
Do you always go around making sense? Awesome comment, well made! If it weren't for your OM I would recommend an OM. Guess we're stuck with RESPECT. You've got mine.
Posted by: Scott from Oregon | June 24, 2009 11:48 AM
Oh lordy!
Here we go again.
Europe has health care SYSTEMS, not one mono-conglomerated hyper-dictated European-Unionized system like what y'all are trying to impose on Americans.
First off, the US is broke. Didn't anybody tell y'all? There is no money in the pot to pass the pot around. We're sending Hillary out to beg for us. It's unseemly!
Secondly, about half of Americans just plain don't want the Federal government "mandating, or dictating" more crap down the line. They've already helped blow up the economy, they rush off and kill brown people at a whim, they spend money running war ships up and down other people's coastlines...
It is absurd to grant more power to these types of individuals and agencies. You would have to be nuts to even think about it.
There is nothing wrong with public health services done collectively. Just not on that scale. Centrally locating health services like that means only the wealthy corporations can influence the way things get run. Grandma Cough Cough can't even begin to have influence in Congress, because she ain't got the money to go with her nagging complaints.
Better to let states run their own systems. Let individuals coalesce into groups and start health co-ops to compete with state services. Let the private sector try and compete with state run care.
This whole fixation with Washington as a place where good things happen is an odd one- considering the body count associated with Washington (was it 2 Million Vietnamese peasants, or 3?) and the amount of graft and corruption (can you spell AIG and Goldman Sachs?)- especially around a group who claim to be "progressives"...
My my my, there is nothing progressive about statism, or as Muss' O Leeny called it "fascism" (as in a merger between corporations and the state into one power).
I mean really boys and girls, why do you insist on shoveling away all your abilities to think and act and do for yourselves?
Why put the decision making power so far from your house that you can't get there without taking a bite out of your Christmas fund?
Why grant an other power over you to do what you have the ability to do for yourselves, namely organize and collect resources to provide yourself with health care insurance?
The mind boggles.
Posted by: Eric | June 24, 2009 11:49 AM
What restrictions come with government mandated healthcare? Like bobxxx said, I wouldn't want to help pay for people who don't take reasonable steps to take care of themselves. I don't think anyone is against helping those with diseases and injuries we're all susceptible to, but why help pay for a chronic smoker, drug abuser or serial risk-taker?
Posted by: Paco | June 24, 2009 11:51 AM
A friend of mine worked for Hunter for a number of years (yes, my friend, unfortunately, tends to side with the neocon loonies). Hunter's political beliefs make Attila the Hun look like Gandhi. CA's 52nd District is the Rightwingnuttia Homeland in So. Cal (outside of Orange County, of course).
The same friend also worked for Hunter's brother, who is/was a savant physicist and eventually left the employ of one of the world's preeminent physics R&D labs (over a decade ago) to try and make a fortune inventing toys after the last dribs of SDI money dried up. So far, he's been a failure in free market, AFAIK.
Both Hunters are batshit wacko Xtians. Duncan's brother's wife talked to me at length at a party some years back about how Jezub put the stars in the sky which were really unborn children ("star children," she called them) waiting to be brought to life on Earth.
No shit.
Posted by: Natalie | June 24, 2009 11:58 AM
Eric @ 54: If you have employer provided coverage like most Americans with insurance, you're already paying for the "chronic smoker, drug abuser or serial risk-taker".
Posted by: connecticut man1 | June 24, 2009 11:59 AM
You have angered the Free Republic:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2278370/posts
#GOPepicFAIL
lol
Posted by: Ranson | June 24, 2009 12:00 PM
@Knockgoats #55
What struck me about the system was best elaborated in the comments over there. The "bare minimum" package and price is regulated, but being businesses, the insurance companies are free to add more services to their base package in order to lure customers, generating the all-important "competition". Everyone gets a base level of care, everyone has catastrophic coverage, risk is spread around, the coverage is tightly regulated, but companies still get to compete for customers. I see a lot of advantages there. One person even noted that specialist MDs even have an average higher rate of income than the equivalent US practicioners.
Add to that the ability to make sCAM treatments part of the "optional" tiers of insurance, and you can choose to be part of a plan that doesn't even include that stuff as an option. That makes this science-based-medicine fan a happy monkey. Overall, I think it's a good model that could reduce out-of-pocket costs by a wide margin. The problem is actually regulating the industry as tightly as wuld be necessary. That's always hard to manage in the USA.
Posted by: Eric | June 24, 2009 12:01 PM
Natalie @56: I do have employer provided health care coverage. People in the same plan with such vices pay higher premiums. Would this be the case with state-run healthcare?
Posted by: STRONG "BIAS" TOWD SINGLE-PAYER | June 24, 2009 12:02 PM
83.4%YES/15.9%NO
Posted by: Pablo | June 24, 2009 12:04 PM
#57, hey at least one comment got it right!
"I simply do NOT believe this poll. The results are fraudulent."
Granted, that has nothing to do with the pharyngulation...
Posted by: Alyson Miers | June 24, 2009 12:08 PM
When I had health insurance through my employer, I *did* pay for health care for people with unhealthy habits and lifestyles. Anyone covered under MAMSI who smoked, drank too much, ate a lot of junk food, or didn't exercise, was using part of my insurance premiums to pay their doctor bills. I was already paying for a lot of healthcare that I wasn't using, and that was especially galling when I was spending more than half my take-home income on rent. After taxes and insurance premiums, I didn't have very much to spend on my own life. That is the nature of insurance: if you are relatively healthy, your premiums WILL subsidize the care of people with more medical issues than you, regardless of the extent to which those problems are their fault. As long as they're able-bodied enough to hold down full-time jobs, you are probably spending money that you earned on products and services that they are using.
The difference between that and a single-payer system is that private insurance companies also use your premiums to fund their investments, fill their coffers, and advertise themselves. Meanwhile, the insurance companies can STILL limit your choice of healthcare providers, AND restrict your range of care, AND there's no telling when they'll contest your claim or refuse coverage for care that you or your family desperately need. Your choice of insurance providers is non-existent: you take what your employer gives you, and when you lose your job, you also lose your coverage.
I'm just thankful that when I did have for-profit insurance, it never gave me any hassles. They paid for my doctor visits and prescription drugs (less a modest co-pay) without a peep, which is more than I can say for some people's insurance providers.
Posted by: Knockgoats | June 24, 2009 12:09 PM
Eric@59,
Depends on the system.
Posted by: Pablo | June 24, 2009 12:15 PM
#57, hey at least one comment got it right!
"I simply do NOT believe this poll. The results are fraudulent."
Granted, that has nothing to do with the pharyngulation...
Posted by: SimonC | June 24, 2009 12:15 PM
Scott @ 53:
You are a fucking idiot, right? Oh, you're a libertarian. Same deal.
Posted by: donna | June 24, 2009 12:23 PM
Unfortunately he's my representative, the little fuck. A fucker just like his dad was.
They really don't give a damn what you think.
Posted by: Pablo | June 24, 2009 12:23 PM
(sorry about the double post - I don't remember doing that?)
But to the point:
SimonC, meet Scott from Oregon.
Scott, this is SimonC.
Posted by: Eric | June 24, 2009 12:25 PM
SimonC @65: You're a helpless piece of shit who can't do anything for himself, right? Oh you're liberal, same thing.
Posted by: rob | June 24, 2009 12:26 PM
Yes, even if it requires tax increases.
2847 83.6%
No, we can reform healthcare without a government-run plan that limits choice.
540 15.8%
Unsure
20 0.6%
Number of Voters : 3407
First Vote : Friday, 19 June 2009 15:43
Last Vote : Wednesday, 24 June 2009 11:20
Posted by: Brownian, Most Vicious & Petty of Pharyngulites
|
June 24, 2009 12:26 PM
You keep saying that, Scott. If you're too fucking dumb to understand what the adults are talking about, feel free to fuck off.
Posted by: Knockgoats | June 24, 2009 12:27 PM
Ranson,
The "bare minimum" package and price is regulated, but being businesses, the insurance companies are free to add more services to their base package in order to lure customers, generating the all-important "competition".
You can't just assume this is all-important, or even that it is making a net positive contribution to the system's functioning: society is still paying for the company's advertising budgets and profits; and what happens when specialists working for different companies need to collaborate? Some of the comments from Dutch people suggest that insurance companies still refuse to pay for drugs people (believe they) need, that individuals don't in practice have a choice of company as their employer determines it, etc. I'd like to see how the UK system compared if we spent at the Dutch level and abandoned all the pseudo-market nonsense recent governments have insisted on.
One person even noted that specialist MDs even have an average higher rate of income than the equivalent US practicioners.
I don't see that as an advantage, considering that US practitioners look to be grossly overpaid.
Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | June 24, 2009 12:30 PM
First things first:
Now on to the details:
You are stupid beyond belief. You deny the very existence of infectious diseases, and you also believe you're Unbreakable. Oh, and, you'll never get old.
Have I got that right? :-)
And ignorance. Oodles of it.
Wow, Scott from Oregon says something that's actually true!
Too bad the rest of comment 53 isn't more like that. To wit:
What do you mean "another"? Public-run health insurance is us organizing and collecting resources to provide ourselves with healthcare insurance. A government is us organizing and collecting resources to do what should be done countrywide and what we can't do alone.
Haven't you understood what a democracy is?
Posted by: ThirtyFiveUp | June 24, 2009 12:34 PM
83.7% YES
Posted by: Eric | June 24, 2009 12:34 PM
@David Marjanović #72:
Warrantless wiretapping IS us ensuring security for our nation.
Prosecuting a war under false pretenses IS us ensuring our safety.
The Patriot Act IS us ensuring our freedom.
Idiot.
Posted by: Eric | June 24, 2009 12:34 PM
@David Marjanović #72:
Warrantless wiretapping IS us ensuring security for our nation.
Prosecuting a war under false pretenses IS us ensuring our safety.
The Patriot Act IS us ensuring our freedom.
Idiot.
Posted by: Eric | June 24, 2009 12:34 PM
@David Marjanović #72:
Warrantless wiretapping IS us ensuring security for our nation.
Prosecuting a war under false pretenses IS us ensuring our safety.
The Patriot Act IS us ensuring our freedom.
Idiot.
Posted by: Eric | June 24, 2009 12:34 PM
@David Marjanović #72:
Warrantless wiretapping IS us ensuring security for our nation.
Prosecuting a war under false pretenses IS us ensuring our safety.
The Patriot Act IS us ensuring our freedom.
Idiot.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | June 24, 2009 12:39 PM
you really should get that checked.
Posted by: Pablo | June 24, 2009 12:39 PM
Oh, Eric, the irony...
Posted by: Knockgoats | June 24, 2009 12:44 PM
No, Eric, it's you who are the idiot, to assume that because some things done by governments are bad, therefore all things done by governments are bad. In a democracy, we actually have some degree of choice over what governments do. In the case of health care, the empirical evidence is overwhelming: universal health care works better than the US system for most people. Simply, the US spends far more per capita than any other large rich country, but in terms of important objective measures (life expectancy, infant mortality), and in terms of patient satisfaction, comes near the bottom among rich countries.
Posted by: Knockgoats | June 24, 2009 12:48 PM
BTW, Eric, you might at least have noticed that the evils you listed were carried out by a government resolutely opposed to universal health care.
Posted by: BluesBassist | June 24, 2009 12:52 PM
SimonC @65:
Thanks for the brilliant refutation of classical liberalism. If you've ever read von Mises' Human Action or Hayek's The Road to Serfdom, it's obvious those works were written by "fucking idiots."
Posted by: Pablo | June 24, 2009 12:52 PM
Hey PZ, does a "4 post" satisfy the "three comment rule"?
Posted by: Bill Dauphin, OM | June 24, 2009 12:53 PM
bobxxx:
Plenty of folks have already explained how cosmically powerless you are to be certain this condition will continue beyond the next picosecond, so I'll take a slightly different tack: It's not about what you need!!
Society needs you to have healthcare coverage, whether you think you need it or not, and society needs everybody else to have healthcare coverage as well... because keeping the proportion of healthy people high and the proportion of the sick and injured low is good for all of us.
Sick and injured people don't go to work, or buy and sell stuff, or parent their children or partner their spouses, as effectively as healthy people do. They represent a social cost, where healthy people represent a social benefit. This being the case (not to mention the fact that a majority of us are just fundamentally humane), we as a society will pay for the cost of healthcare... or we'll pay for the partly hidden social and economic costs of poor health.
We pay in the higher prices of goods and services that result from lost labor, and from the inefficiencies of employer-provided, for-profit health insurance. We pay directly for emergency care provided to the indigent and uninsured. We pay the social and economic costs of medical bad debt, and of healthcare-related bankruptcies. Smugly healthy people who "don't much care for" the idea of paying for others' healthcare through their taxes are living in their own private Idaho if they don't think they're already paying for others' healthcare (or lack thereof), and doing so in the least efficient way imaginable.
Regardless of whether you actually deserve it, your neighbors won't simply let you die when you end up (unexpectedly, from your apparently imagination-free POV) needing more healthcare than you can afford. Society will absorb the cost. Others have correctly called you selfish for not wanting to pay for other's healthcare; I will call you stupid for not realizing that you already are, and for not wanting to do so more intelligently.
As for your and Eric's whingeing about the allegedly self-inflicted illnesses of the underserving, this is the point where I would normally allude to Alfred Doolittle's speech about the "undeserving poor" in Pygmalion (and also in My Fair Lady, in case you prefer your sociopolitical ruminations with tunes)... but of course, that was written by Shaw, and he was one o' them goldarned furrin' socialists, so why bother, eh?
PS to SimonC: Re "Do you always go around making sense?"... according to my wife, almost never! ;^)
Posted by: noodles | June 24, 2009 1:01 PM
As PZ chuckles with his DoctorChaos / MadScientist laugh... "BwaaaWaWa!"
Posted by: Walton | June 24, 2009 1:01 PM
First of all, please don't attack me for "hijacking" this thread - this is a thread about a political issue about which I feel very strongly, so I think it's legitimate for me to make partisan political comments.
I find it bizarre and dissonant that you people call yourselves "liberal" - etymologically, supporters of liberty - and yet see nothing wrong with a paternalistic, state-imposed healthcare system that limits individual free choice. The real problem with American political culture is how words can be twisted to mean their exact opposite. You are not "liberals". I am a liberal. You are authoritarian statists.
If I don't want to pay for healthcare - my own, or anyone else's - then why should I be compelled to do so via the coercive force of government? If I have worked, and invested my own mind and body in producing wealth, why should the government tell me how to expend that wealth?
And on a pragmatic level: what empirical evidence have you got which suggests that governments do a good job of deciding how to expend healthcare resources? Here in the UK, the NHS provides tax funding for so-called "alternative medicine"; we are all forced to fund homeopathy, acupuncture and other useless woo. Furthermore, many NHS trusts are incompetently run and waste millions of pounds on administration rather than treatment.
I am not suggesting that there should be no government involvement in healthcare. I would suggest that local communities should provide the poor, uninsurable and needy with cash subsidies to help them with the cost of healthcare. But the choice of health treatments should always come down to the individual consumer.
Individual consumers might not always make great choices, true. But if we trust each individual to choose their careers, their homes, their financial management, how to raise their children, and whether to have an abortion, why can we not trust him or her to decide how to medicate him- or herself? And why do you suggest that governments are necessarily better at making these decisions?
Posted by: Agoraphobic Kleptomaniac | June 24, 2009 1:06 PM
What do you call an anarchist who is over 20 years old?
A libertarian.
Posted by: hf | June 24, 2009 1:06 PM
@libertarian geniuses: America spends more government money on health care than some socialist countries, even as a fraction of GDP. We're now talking about bringing in more money through premiums for this public insurance option, which could be cheaper than many private companies' premiums and still have a chance of paying for the system by themselves. We can also put (some of) the existing taxes into this new system. Combine it all with an end to protectionist policies in the field of health care, and we can't help but lower costs even if you only look at taxes and ignore the cost of health care in general.
Posted by: Alverant | June 24, 2009 1:12 PM
84.5% vs 15% in favor. I have to wonder what this guy will make of the results, over 5:1 ratio in favor of the answer he doesn't want.
Posted by: Jadehawk, OM
|
June 24, 2009 1:12 PM
speaking of idiots, read the fucking error message, eric-troll
Posted by: Ranson | June 24, 2009 1:13 PM
Dangit, comment system ate my paragraphs in the preview. Anyway...
@ Knockgoats
I didn't mean to imply that I felt the issues of competition and physician compensation were particularly compelling arguments in favor of the system. Rather, I meant to emphasize them as counters to objections one is likely to see against comprehensive health reform in the USA. The private and competitive aspects help to assuage those who have fears of a totally socialized system, while another major interest group, physicians, will obviously be concerned about their personal economics. Given the daunting task of getting anything with teeth past the lobbyists, any apparent system has to at least seem to answer these fears. I apologize for the lack of clarity in my writing.
As to the point of employer/insurance relationships, one comment indicated that these had recently changed to favor the individual; here's the quote:
Posted by: Walton | June 24, 2009 1:13 PM
David, I think it's you who hasn't understood what a "democracy" really is. There is no "us". Human society is not an anthill or a beehive. We do not have a collective will. I have an individual will; you have an individual will; we may agree on some things and disagree on others. But we are each autonomous individuals.
The mere fact that a certain percentage of the people who happen to reside in a certain arbitrarily-defined geographical area think that policy X is good, does not mean that policy X has any particular moral legitimacy. It is never right to abdicate one's individual judgment to that of the majority. Read Robert Wolff's In Defence of Anarchism (the author, incidentally, is not a libertarian but a left-wing anarchist).
Yes, people may organise in collective enterprises - and if they do so voluntarily, and are free to leave at any time, then they are not abdicating their individual wills. But I do not choose to be a part of the enterprise that we call "Britain". I have no choice but to live under the rule of some nation-state or other; and as long as I reside in a state's territory, I am coerced into obeying its wishes. I cannot declare my personal independence; I cannot control my own destiny, except by attempting to persuade a majority of British voters to vote with me. The state, therefore, is not a legitimate collective enterprise. It is not an expression of a collective will. It is a coercive extortion racket.
A few other points. Firstly, I find it bizarre that you people call yourselves "liberals" in the same breath as advocating a coercive, paternalistic government-run health system in which free choice is overridden. This is a prime example of how political culture can twist the meaning of words so that they mean their exact opposites. You are not liberals. I am a liberal. You are authoritarian statists.
Secondly: Britain's NHS funds so-called "alternative medicine". We're all forced to pay for homeopathy, acupuncture and other woo. Enough said.
It's true that individual consumers don't always make fantastic decisions. But we trust every competent adult to manage his or her own financial affairs, choose a career, drive a car, control his or her sex life, choose whether to have an abortion, choose how to raise his or her children, and - of course - vote, thereby making choices which are imposed on everyone. Why, then, can we not trust a competent adult to decide how to medicate him- or herself? Yes, this entails complex decisions with technical aspects. But so do many of the decisions which the average person is expected to make in his or her life. And I, for one, would rather die a free man than live in comfort as a serf of the State. Wouldn't you?
Posted by: Walton | June 24, 2009 1:15 PM
Argh, technical problems. I thought my post at #85 had been eaten by the Scienceblogs gremlins, as it didn't show up at first. Accordingly, my longer post, which (with luck) should appear before this one does, repeats some of the content from my post at #85 (though is perhaps better worded). I apologise for this; my computer literacy occasionally deserts me.
Posted by: Agoraphobic Kleptomaniac | June 24, 2009 1:16 PM
@85 Walton:
You must be confused/misinformed. Nobody is advocating for the system you so strongly despise.
Ok, try this: Imagine american health care as it is, with an extra Insurer who is non-profit and has the consumerbase/power to control health care costs.. Voila, you have the idea being proposed by a government funded health care option. Because the so called "free market" hasn't stepped up to provide such an option, and it has become a societal RISK to not have people insured, the government must fill the gap to prevent a collapse of health/productivity/quality of life for it's people.
Now, would it be more cost effective to have the plan you propose? Probably. But Merkins are against such strong government interference.
C'est la vie.
Posted by: Jadehawk, OM
|
June 24, 2009 1:16 PM
and on a personal note to all the libertarians already infesting this thread:
fuck you and the horse you rode in on. I see you rather have people die or be bankrupted because they're too poor to buy insurance, or too risky and unprofitable for any private insurance to take them on.
Posted by: Alyson Miers | June 24, 2009 1:18 PM
First of all, please don't attack me for "hijacking" this thread
If you have to open your comment like that, the "hijacking" ship has sailed.
*grabs popcorn*
Posted by: Jadehawk, OM
|
June 24, 2009 1:18 PM
someone doesn't understand insects
Posted by: noodles | June 24, 2009 1:18 PM
Who you calling you people? I hate Utopianists; I especially hate Libertarian Upopianists.
That crap needs to be shoved back into the pages of Scifi novels where the inhabitants of moonbase Riza live in perfect harmony under the gentle tutelage of a pristine freemarket system. Either that, or you can move to Somalia. Same difference.
Posted by: Brownian, Most Vicious & Petty of Pharyngulites
|
June 24, 2009 1:19 PM
Well for one, as a surveillance analyst working for the government with access to peer-reviewed literature, disease statistics (hell, I produce 'em!), and a whackload of epi expertise, I am absolutely better equipped to analyse risk than the average joe-in-the-street.
Unless you'd rather have fifty different private organisations coding and analysing your medical charts?
Posted by: Jadehawk, OM
|
June 24, 2009 1:20 PM
as someone who, unlike you, might actually end up "dying a free woman" rather than living enslaved by socialist medicine, let me say: FUCK NO!your martyr-complex is fucking condescending, you spoiled brat.
Posted by: Knockgoats | June 24, 2009 1:23 PM
If you've ever read von Mises' Human Action or Hayek's The Road to Serfdom, it's obvious those works were written by "fucking idiots." - BluesBassist
Not fucking idiots, but deeply, profoundly, utterly wrong. Von Mises explicitly excludes actually paying any attention to whether the real world behaves as his axioms say it should. Hayek claimed that any state action beyond the absolute minimum would lead inevitably to "serfdom", and has been proved completely wrong.
If I don't want to pay for healthcare - my own, or anyone else's - then why should I be compelled to do so via the coercive force of government? If I have worked, and invested my own mind and body in producing wealth, why should the government tell me how to expend that wealth?
Because you're a member of a functioning society, on which you have been dependent all your life, and without which you would not be able to produce any wealth whatever, or stay alive for more than a few weeks. Moreover, it has been pointed out to you numerous times that the same argument applies to the armed forces, police and legal system, yet you are willing to coerce people into paying for those. And before you try the "indivisible public good" argument, how dare you support coercing me into paying for nuclear weapons and the enforcement of the drug laws, which are not "goods" but "bads"?
And on a pragmatic level: what empirical evidence have you got which suggests that governments do a good job of deciding how to expend healthcare resources? - Walton
Comparative performance of different health-care systems. The US, which is closest to a market system and involves least state involvement, does very badly among rich countries. That's just fact, Walton.
I would suggest that local communities should provide the poor, uninsurable and needy with cash subsidies to help them with the cost of healthcare.
Either you haven't thought this through at all, or you're just a selfish shit (or of course both). The worst health, and hence the greatest need for healthcare, is in poor areas, the least able to afford subsidies.
But if we trust each individual to choose their careers, their homes, their financial management, how to raise their children, and whether to have an abortion, why can we not trust him or her to decide how to medicate him- or herself? - Walton
Yes! Let's allow TB sufferers to decide whether to pay for the necessary treatment to cure them. What do we think we are doing, forcing taxpayers to fund innoculations against infectious disease? Let's allow people to spend all their "cash subsidies" on drink and cigarettes, rather than medical care for their children. Moron.
Posted by: Walton | June 24, 2009 1:24 PM
Jadehawk, I'm a little bit hurt by that. I thought you and I - despite our differences - had a certain amount of mutual respect. I'd say that apart from Bill, you're my favourite commenter here, and among the best people with whom to have an internet conversation. Indeed, I'd been planning to vote for you for the OM next month.
You and I have very different perspectives on life. I certainly don't assume that mine is entirely correct. (Indeed, given that I seem to change my mind about everything periodically, it's highly unlikely that I've got things all figured out.) But, for me, that's the whole point of political discussion; one has to make polemical statements, discuss them, test them in the waters of debate, and hopefully arrive at a more sophisticated and refined answer at the end of the process. It's a learning experience - for me, at least, and hopefully for other people. It certainly shouldn't be a cause of personal hostility.
Posted by: Evolving Squid | June 24, 2009 1:25 PM
I live in Ottawa... where government is more than just an annoyance in a far-away town.
Do they? Really? Or is it more like "they like to see universal health care, but would prefer the money be spent more efficiently and effectively"? It's not quite the same thing.
I think all Canadians want a universal health care system, and expect ot have to pay for it. The impression I get from the papers, from the kvetching, from all the bitching and moaning I hear is that healthcare dollars in Ontario and Quebec could be better spent - we're not getting value for the huge dollars we're spending. And it is *HUGE* dollars... the military would love to get its hand on even a small portion of the health-care budget.
Despite the ~$40 billion (about 42% of total taxation revenue last year) that Ontario spent last year on health care for its approximately 11 million citizens, people are still dying on waiting lists, and people who have the means are still heading to foreign countries to have a chance at life-saving treatments and tests.
If you don't see people complaining about that on a regular basis, then I envy the idyllic paradise in which you live.
Posted by: Agoraphobic Kleptomaniac | June 24, 2009 1:25 PM
@Walton:
HA! So move, if your Nation is so damn opressive. I'm sure Afghanistan or some other less-structured country has freedoms you haven't even dreamt of.
I'm fairly sure Britain isn't "Coercing" you to stay in their country. Living somewhere is a choice, and with that choice comes all associated benifits/costs.
Posted by: Knockgoats | June 24, 2009 1:29 PM
The state, therefore, is not a legitimate collective enterprise. It is not an expression of a collective will. It is a coercive extortion racket. - Walton
Walton,
Unless you've become an anarchist overnight, you're a hypocrite. You love to make these ringing declarations against the state, yet you support it having an army and police force, and coercing people into paying for them.
Posted by: a_ray_in_dilbert_space
|
June 24, 2009 1:30 PM
Walton, Ah, yes, rugged individualism. Stiff upper lip. All that crap.
Walton, the choices are as follows:
A. Healthcare provided by corporations who are motivated by maximizing profit AND who face absolutely no negative consequences if they deny you care, make you sick or even kill you. (This is because their lobbyists got Congress to take away our right to sue their greedy, fat corporate asses.)
B. Healthcare provided by a government where at least in principle we can vote the bastards out of office if the fuck up sufficiently badly.
C. No healthcare because it's too damned expensive.
Pick one.
Posted by: Jadehawk, OM
|
June 24, 2009 1:30 PM
Walton, I take the issue of lack of health insurance VERY personally, and as such will not dispassionately let you tell me that it's ok if I die tomorrow because you'd rather not have to pay for my health insurance.
I'm what's called an "uninsurable", i.e. such a high-risk person that no private insurance would take me even if I threw all the money I had on them; I can't get employer-insurance because I don't have the kind of jobs that provide insurance to part-time employees; and I'm not quite poor enough to qualify for medicaid.
And because of that, I will NOT be nice to you or any other arrogant selfish asshole with opinions on this subject.
on any other subject though, we can have a discussion.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
June 24, 2009 1:31 PM
I see the liberturds are showing us why their philosophy is morally bankrupt. Here's a hint guys, you are your own worst enemy when you try to defend your philosophy. The lack of public concern (selfishness) just oozes out of your prose, making anything else you say meaningless.
Posted by: Walton | June 24, 2009 1:33 PM
Living somewhere, yes... and if you ignore immigration restrictions, visa requirements etc., then it certainly is possible (in theoretical terms) for me to emigrate to another country.
But what I can't do is opt out of the control of nation-states altogether. I can't decide that all existing nations' policies are unsatisfactory, and that I want to set up my own competing nation.
In any case, why should I have to go to the inconvenience of moving elsewhere? Why do other people have an inalienable right to control a lump of territory, simply because they were lucky enough to be born there? "Nationality" and "citizenship" are inherently arbitrary and discriminatory concepts. For this reason, while democratic decision-making does legitimise the decisions of voluntary bodies, it cannot confer any legitimacy on the decisions of the state.
(Yes, before anyone points it out, it's true that the same problem applies by analogy to hereditary wealth and property. Which is why inheritance tax and land tax are, quite possibly, the only morally legitimate taxes; why should someone enjoy control of wealth and property merely because of the accident of birth? But I realise most libertarians would profoundly disagree with me on this.)
Posted by: Knockgoats | June 24, 2009 1:35 PM
But, for me, that's the whole point of political discussion; one has to make polemical statements, discuss them, test them in the waters of debate, and hopefully arrive at a more sophisticated and refined answer at the end of the process. - Walton
But when you make the same polemical statements time after time, despite being repeatedly shown how crassly stupid and/or immoral they are, adults who realise that if your ideas (to use the term loosely) were acted on it would mean immense, unnecessary human suffering - are likely to get impatient.
Posted by: Alyson Miers | June 24, 2009 1:37 PM
You are not liberals. I am a liberal. You are authoritarian statists.
The more I read from libertarians, the more I realize that what I define as "liberty" and "freedom" are not the same as what they define as "liberty" and "freedom." A libertarian's view of freedom is, "You can do and have as much as you want--IF and only if you can pay for it." And if the circumstances of your birth and youth leave you in a position in which you can barely pay for housing and food...well, then, you have the freedom to die, and your family has the freedom to be screwed.
Under the current system, insurance companies have the freedom to charge customers whatever they want, and limit coverage to whatever they want, regardless of their customers' needs. They have a strong and very real economic incentive to deny coverage whenever possible. Individuals like me, meanwhile, have the "freedom" to buy insurance from...the provider that their employer offers, and get...whatever coverage that provider offers, and visit...whatever care providers are on the network.
Since my COBRA insurance expired in January, I've been okay by virtue of the fact that I don't have any chronic issues in need of medication or therapy, haven't been in an accident, haven't been the victim of a violent crime, don't have a spouse with medical needs to consider, and don't have any children with whose health I can't afford to fuck around. The fact that I haven't found a long-term job since finishing my Peace Corps assignment leaves me free to go bankrupt if I suffer any disabling or life-threatening injuries. If that's your idea of "freedom," then I'll take the authoritarian statism, thanks.
Posted by: Walton | June 24, 2009 1:39 PM
I'm an individualist-anarchist in strictly philosophical terms, but a minarchist in practice. While I think police, courts and a basic infrastructure are necessary, I also think they should be drastically pared down; in particular, we should stop imprisoning people for non-violent offences, and the private use of marijuana and other soft drugs should be legalised.
Posted by: Zelazny7 | June 24, 2009 1:40 PM
@Nerd of Redhead, #108: Libertarians don't support being COERCED into caring for people. Most all Libertarians (gasp! like most people) are not unfeeling automatons - they just don't want someone else forcing them to care a certain way.
It seems, Nerd of Redhead, you would only support a mandated system. Is that because you wouldn't donate or care for the poor and indigent otherwise? Who is morally bankrupt now? Ass.
Posted by: a_ray_in_dilbert_space
|
June 24, 2009 1:40 PM
Walton, Do you know the reason why the British Health Service was formed? It was because a large proportion of recruits for the Army in WW I and WW II had to be rejected for health reasons. There was nothing altruistic in the motives of government. There never is. Rather, they realized they had a problem that threatened their military and economic viability.
One of the reasons GM went bankrupt is because healthcare costs add about $2K to the cost of every new car. That's also one of the reasons why they have to build gargantuan SUVs instead of fuel efficient compacts. Healthcare costs contribute to 68% of bankruptcies in the US. Doctors spend more time filling out forms to get reimbursements from insurance companies than they do practicing medicine!
Walton, this isn't some abstract, philosophical principle. This is about the lives and deaths of real people. Maybe you should think about that.
Posted by: Pablo | June 24, 2009 1:43 PM
Probably dismiss it as meaningless. As he should, but I say again, that has nothing to do with the activities of pharyngulates. If he does, I suspect PZ would say, "My work here is done."
Posted by: Knockgoats | June 24, 2009 1:44 PM
Is that because you wouldn't donate or care for the poor and indigent otherwise? Who is morally bankrupt now? Ass. - zelazny7
You are. If you actually gave a shit about others, you would support what has been shown to work - collective, mandated provision - over what has been shown not to - private charity. Scumbag.
Posted by: Agoraphobic Kleptomaniac | June 24, 2009 1:46 PM
I hear somalia is nice this time of year, and about as much as a non-state as exists.
Or, if you prefer coming over here to america, You could move into amish country: no taxes, no services. Sounds like your kinda place. However, i'd stop by every week to make sure you weren't using gov. subsidized internet lines, gov. subs. phone lines, powerlines, unless you ran lines all the way back to the hubs yourself on your own dime.
Ok, you aren't being a serious person here. Good to know that you are just being a contrarian troll here, and not really interested in presenting anything useful to the conversation. Good day.
Posted by: a_ray_in_dilbert_space
|
June 24, 2009 1:46 PM
Zelazny7 says, "Most all Libertarians (gasp! like most people) are not unfeeling automatons - they just don't want someone else forcing them to care a certain way."
Precisely. That's why there are all those libertarian charities and philanthropists. Oh,...wait, guess I was wrong. Mostly, they're just a bunch of irresponsible, anti-civilization greedheads. My bad.
Posted by: Zelazny7 | June 24, 2009 1:47 PM
@Knockgoats, #116: Look at how well the mandate worked in Massachusetts. I can't believe you're saying private charity doesn't work! How delusional can you get to prove a point? Twit.
Posted by: Knockgoats | June 24, 2009 1:48 PM
I'm an individualist-anarchist in strictly philosophical terms, but a minarchist in practice. - Walton
Hypocritical sophistry. You support a coercive state in practice, so you haven't a leg to stand on when you whine about being coerced yourself.
Posted by: STRONG "BIAS" TOWD SINGLE-PAYER | June 24, 2009 1:50 PM
83.4%YES/15.9%NO
Posted by: Agoraphobic Kleptomaniac | June 24, 2009 1:54 PM
@walton
Why just soft drugs? Some libertarian you are.. restricting my choices...
@Ray-dilbert
Really? there are some? Where? I thought they all just provided money to other libertarians who were trying to destroy all governments.
Posted by: Dr.Woody
|
June 24, 2009 1:55 PM
If we may draw an analog between "fucking idiots" and "full of shit," then yes, Mises and Hayek are/were fucking "idiotes."
Posted by: Knockgoats | June 24, 2009 1:58 PM
I can't believe you're saying private charity doesn't work! - zelazny7
Private charity has never, anywhere, come close to eliminating poverty, or (specifically), the inability to access medical care. That's simple fact. Collective, mandated provision has. That's simple fact. Of course, I know that as a "libertarian", you don't give a shit about the facts, any more than you do about other people.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
June 24, 2009 1:59 PM
The liberturd idea of charity never works. The donate one dollar when ten dollars is needed. And they never will be involuntarily terminated from a job, or have the company fold. Or get sick and have their insurance canceled. No, it will never happen to them...
Posted by: Zelazny7 | June 24, 2009 2:01 PM
@Knockgoats, #124:
I like how your "facts" are just blind assertions to support your idiotic statements. Fucking liberal wankers. The healthcare mandate worked really well in Massachusetts.
Posted by: a_ray_in_dilbert_space
|
June 24, 2009 2:03 PM
N of R says, "The liberturd idea of charity never works. The donate one dollar when ten dollars is needed. And they never will be involuntarily terminated from a job, or have the company fold. Or get sick and have their insurance canceled. No, it will never happen to them..."
You know, that's true. Such things never happen to libertarians--mainly because as soon as something like that happens, they stop being libertarians and start looking to be bailed out. AIG, Bank of America or Citigroup, anyone?
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
June 24, 2009 2:04 PM
Just like Somalia really is working for the liberturds. Until a single payer system is used, it won't work right.Posted by: Alyson Miers | June 24, 2009 2:06 PM
Zelazny:
Give us fucking liberal wankers an example of just ONE country in which private charity, independent of government action, lifted a large percentage of the population out of poverty for the long term. Then we'll talk about blind assertions and idiotic statements.
Posted by: a_ray_in_dilbert_space
|
June 24, 2009 2:07 PM
N of R: "Just like Somalia really is working for the liberturds. Until a single payer system is used, it won't work right. "
In Somalia (or the American South)? Wouldn't that be a "single-prayer" system?
Posted by: Paul | June 24, 2009 2:07 PM
But affluent English kids need emergency services, a military, and police, so scary people don't take their stuff. They don't need government subsidized healthcare, and how dare you imply they should pay for it.
Walton, I mentioned in the "They must be weak in Wisconsin" thread that the vast majority of the positions you take coincide with Libertarian talking points, even though you take vastly different approaches in justifying them. It's almost like you start with the beliefs and then do whatever you can to justify them. Does that not seem wrong to you? You like to talk about individualism, but it's not reflected in the least in your thinking or ideology.
Posted by: Mark Sletten | June 24, 2009 2:08 PM
While everyone is busy throwing around insults and arguing the relative merits of the US 'free market' healthcare system vs various 'socialist' healthcare systems, nobody is asking the right question. Why does healthcare in the US cost so much? Is it because of the greedy pharma co/hospital owners/doctors in the free market, or because of government intervention in the free market?
If anyone posting here is truly interested in how government-run healthcare might function, look no further than the military/VA run hospital system.
Posted by: Jadehawk, OM
|
June 24, 2009 2:09 PM
that's because it fucking doesn't. Charity is ther to make wealthy people feel less guilty about being wealthy; oh, and for tax-deductibles.
If charity worked, the Gilded Age would have been a worker's paradise, what with the likes of Carnegie being big into charity.
Posted by: Zelazny7 | June 24, 2009 2:10 PM
@Alyson Miers, #129: I didn't make the ridiculous claims! The proof of burden is on your camp. We're all supposed to be atheists... c'mon that argument should sound familiar.
Posted by: a_ray_in_dilbert_space
|
June 24, 2009 2:17 PM
Mark Sletten says, "If anyone posting here is truly interested in how government-run healthcare might function, look no further than the military/VA run hospital system."
Well, except that veterans are a minority that an ungrateful public has forgotten. Ever think that if we all had the same healthcare system, the VA might get reformed, too?
Posted by: Paul | June 24, 2009 2:18 PM
It couldn't be because private insurers run 20-30% more overhead than government systems. Or the millions of dollars they collect from premiums then throw at Congresscritters and marketers to prevent any sort of single payer system. Or dropping people from their insurance plan they've paid for years once they require care (I can't imagine how that would affect the health outcomes).
Posted by: Lynx | June 24, 2009 2:32 PM
Zelazny7 #119
Look at how well the mandate worked in Massachusetts.
It didn't. It looked like it might, but it is falling apart rapidly. Premiums are still skyrocketing and they're reducing the number of low income people that they'll cover. The mandate is crap, essentially forcing people to pay whatever the insurance companies want. Even if Single-Payer doesn't happen, the MA Mandate will be gone in 2 or 3 years as no-one will be able to afford the premiums.
Posted by: Jadehawk, OM
|
June 24, 2009 2:37 PM
lynx, yup. That's what happens when you get fucked up "compromises" that socialize risk, but privatize profits. Same thing that happened to the economy.
Certain things should stay all the way private; certain things should be all the way public; most things should be regulated for excess; nothing should be "compromised" according to what your corporate sponsors allow
Posted by: Mark Sletten | June 24, 2009 2:38 PM
Alyson Miers @129 said: "Give us fucking liberal wankers an example of just ONE country in which private charity, independent of government action, lifted a large percentage of the population out of poverty for the long term. Then we'll talk about blind assertions and idiotic statements."
Since when is 'charity' supposed to lift anyone out of poverty? Is that what you suppose your government is for? If so, please give an example of just ONE country where government action lifted a large percentage of its population out of poverty -- for ANY term.
Please show a system of government, a system of economics or a system of philosophy that has done more than FREE MARKETS to lift people out of poverty. We are seeing a decline of the potency in free markets here in the US in direct proportion to the level of government intervention. Free markets here in the US (such as they are) survive DESPITE government, not because of it.
People in this country have forgotten their roots. Government wasn't intended to keep people (or corporations) out of trouble, to protect them from themselves. Government provides an environment where people may succeed or fail ON THEIR OWN MERITS, not at the whim of a bureaucrat.
And people who call me selfish because I wish to retain more control of the fruits of my labor, who prejudge my willingness to help those in need should our beloved 'nanny state' not be there to pick up the slack, those who believe a government -- ANY government -- can better decide how to manage an individual's resources than the individual can shampoo my crotch.
For a group of the Godless, you people sure place a great deal of FAITH in an entity to provide for, protect and uplift you. While I certainly don't believe government is ALL bad, I choose to retain a healthy skepticism of its beneficence. This country was founded on a distrust of government -- there's a reason.
Posted by: a_ray_in_dilbert_space
|
June 24, 2009 2:44 PM
Mark Sletten,
OK, Mark, we're not talking about a government imposed health program here, but rather a government option. If government is so inferior, why should that be something to fear. It should fail of its own, shouldn't it? Why are health insurers quaking in their boots and spending millions to kill it?
Posted by: a_ray_in_dilbert_space
|
June 24, 2009 2:46 PM
Oh, and Mark, point of information, if someone shampoos your crotch, how will they tell your dick from the pubes?
Posted by: Walton | June 24, 2009 2:48 PM
I agree with what Mark Sletten has said above, and couldn't have said it better myself.
Posted by: Brownian, Most Vicious & Petty of Pharyngulites
|
June 24, 2009 2:49 PM
With a shampoo produced by the free market with no regulation on what chemicals it might contain or what effects it might have?
With fucking pleasure.
Just make sure you don't buy that brand again when your balls fall off, dipshit, 'cause that's how the market works. Enjoy your coercion- and testicle-free nutsack, dumbass.
Posted by: Pablo | June 24, 2009 2:53 PM
And as the country grew, we realized that it was not effective to just let our family, friends, and neighbors "fail," and that, as a compassionate citizenry, we felt it important to provide a minimum level of care for all.
It's funny you mention our "roots." You are referring to a time when slavery was an accepted practice. Perhaps you think we should return those roots? Oh will you make an exception there?
Lastly, I am trying to rationalize your assertions with those claiming our "nation was founded on Christian principles." (not claiming you do, but it's an interesting juxtaposition). The current trend to the welfare concern sounds a LOT more christian to me than the "I got mine, screw you" attitude that you are attributing to our roots. The whole, "Whatsoever you do to the least of my brothers, you do unto me" teaching of JC and all that...
Posted by: Jadehawk, OM
|
June 24, 2009 2:53 PM
are you really that stupid? have you not studied ANY history at all? or at least 19th century history?
labor laws, social welfare laws, and trade restriction laws are precisely what made the developed world the developed world. no amount of libertarian historical revisionism is going to change that.
Posted by: SaynaTheSpiffy
|
June 24, 2009 2:54 PM
I live in this district, and I agree with Enkidu and Standard curve: The man is an idiot and basically just inherited the seat from his father.
But this district leans ridiculously to the right in general, so I'm not surprised. There is some opposition, though, and you can see them (and Duncan/his supporters) here:
http://www.facebook.com/album.php?aid=2009974&id=1212863493&l=ee5e9de16a
The democrats did try, but... yeah, it does seem pretty hopeless out here.
Posted by: Walter Silveira | June 24, 2009 2:54 PM
oh man, we should do this sort of thing to congressmen more often =D
Posted by: Graham | June 24, 2009 2:58 PM
The Canadian Universal Health Care system has made me what I am today. A healthy godless socialist. I thank dog every day for it.
Posted by: Ompompanoosuc | June 24, 2009 3:00 PM
Genius!
Posted by: dotdotdot | June 24, 2009 3:01 PM
The more I read the comments from libertarian people complaining bitterly about the idea of government-run healthcare, the more I realise that libertarianism is just a dolled-up, grownup version of anarchism for narcissistic assholes. #116 said it best: a good healthcare system run by the government works, not sitting around and hoping people give handouts or letting hospitals compete and provide 'for profit' care thus forcing poorer individuals to get substandard care.
Posted by: Brownian, Most Vicious & Petty of Pharyngulites
|
June 24, 2009 3:03 PM
That's because neither of you have any clue as to what you're talking about. Notice whenever the Libertards start infecting threads they drop all the discussion of evidence (except for demands that the 'liberal wankers' produce it for them) and switch to sophistry?
There's a reason for this.
Search pubmed (I'll bill you for the link later, as I wouldn't want you to feel 'socialised' by the freebie) and use search terms like 'outcomes' 'for profit' 'non profit' and 'efficiency' and see what comes up. (I found two that contradict both of your claims right away: PMID 19414903 and PMID 19333838, but there are fucking tons).
You keep claiming the FREE MARKET (what are you, retarded? Use italics or bold for emphasis, not all caps, moron) does EVERYTHING BETTER, but THAT'S JUST NOT THE CASE. When you hold a belief contrary to evidence, that's called FAITH, Mark.
So stick to the first-year poli sci arguments and the whinging about coercion. Because when you actually start to look at the data, for-profit medicine falls flat.
And Walton: you've been here long enough. Start producing actual evidence for your bullshit, or shut the fuck up.
Posted by: SaynaTheSpiffy
|
June 24, 2009 3:03 PM
Like Enkidu and Standard curve, I live in this district and it sucks. This guy basically inherited his seat from his father, Duncan Hunter, and he's like a clone.
However, we do have some democrats out here working against him. You can see them (and some Hunter supporters) here:
http://www.facebook.com/album.php?aid=2009974&id=1212863493&l=ee5e9de16a
@ Mark Sletten #139:
You missed her point. She asked you to name one example of a country where private charities and NOT the government has helped its people out of poverty.
And yeah, I do have faith in my fellow human beings to help each other out. Not the blind faith of the religious, but a sense of trust based on experience. All we have is each other. We're social creatures and we'd never make it in this world without cooperation and caring for those in need.
But whatever. When your house is burning down I guess you'll put it out yourself instead of calling the fire department. No 911 when you're robbed, either. And your kids, if you have any, are homeschool or attend a private school, right? You've never used roads, either and you don't/won't collect social security.
Posted by: a_ray_in_dilbert_space
|
June 24, 2009 3:05 PM
Brownian says, "Enjoy your coercion- and testicle-free nutsack, dumbass."
Then again, he has so little to lose...
Posted by: Mark Sletten | June 24, 2009 3:12 PM
a_ray_in_dilbert_space: Nice ad hominem, care to respond to my challenge? Please ID the government that's done more to help the impoverished than a free market. As far as telling my dick from my pubes, I'm sorry if that's a problem for you. I just keep pulling on them until I find one that feels good ;)
Jadehawk: Labor organizations served a purpose once upon a time, now all they do is pull down major corporations. How does it feel subsidizing them with that bailout money?
Pablo: People have ALWAYS cared whether their family, friends and neighbors succeeded or failed, they just haven't always taken RESPONSIBILITY for them. How did not believing in government-subsidized healthcare make me an advocate for slavery? I would usually look to the more reality-challenged religious fanatics for such a leap in logic. Lastly, you make too many assumptions about my religious beliefs. Because I do not identify with your liberal ideal that 'the government will always save me' doesn't make me a religious wackjob.
Posted by: Alyson Miers | June 24, 2009 3:15 PM
The FREE MARKET as defined in libertarian fantasy does not exist in any developed country. Capitalism, as it is practiced in countries that actually have a healthy economy and humane quality of life, absolutely depends on government action. A corporation is an entity that only exists because a government says it does. Pharmaceutical companies are able to get rich because of government-enforced patents. Lawyers and doctors can command a certain level of compensation because licensing requirements and immigration restrictions are designed to limit the supply of such professionals. And so on, and so forth. Capitalism and free markets are not synonymous.
I didn't make the ridiculous claims! The proof of burden is on your camp.
In other words, you have no examples. Good to know.
Posted by: Lynx | June 24, 2009 3:16 PM
Please ID the government that's done more to help the impoverished than a free market.
Simple, the American Government. Heard of Social Security?
And that's just direct help, when you include indirect help, then it is most governments in the developed world.
Regulation to ensure safe food supply, medicine and environment. Provision of a military, police, fire department. Establishment of the highway system, rail system and airports. Establishment of a system in which business can operate and a legal system to hash out whatever problems arise in that system.
Take away all that and watch Capitalism fall to pieces. More regulation is better for both the population and for businesses in the medium and long run.
Posted by: Knockgoats | June 24, 2009 3:16 PM
I like how your "facts" are just blind assertions to support your idiotic statements. zelazny7
If so, please give an example of just ONE country where government action lifted a large percentage of its population out of poverty -- for ANY term. Mark Sletten
You really are fucking ignorant shitbags, aren't you? Sweden, Denmark, Norway, Finland, Austria, Switzerland, Netherlands, Federal Republic of Germany, New Zealand, Australia, Canada, even France, Japan and the UK. Of these, the first few have virtually abolished poverty, although this achievement is now under threat from selfish scum like you.
For a group of the Godless, you people sure place a great deal of FAITH in an entity to provide for, protect and uplift you. Mark Sletten
Says the worshipper of the great god Market. It's you "libertarians" who express blind faith in the face of abundant evidence.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | June 24, 2009 3:19 PM
sigh.
ad hominem
Posted by: Brownian, Most Vicious & Petty of Pharyngulites
|
June 24, 2009 3:19 PM
You know something, shithead? For somebody who has no problem with reductio ad absurdum and strawmen ("Because I do not identify with your liberal ideal that 'the government will always save me' doesn't make me a religious wackjob") you might want to re-consider your application to the Fallacy Police.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
June 24, 2009 3:20 PM
Mark Slettern, your selfishness just shines through your post. You have no interest in your fellow man, just what you can steal from a given situation. And, of course, nothing will ever happen to you or yours, like losing their jobs and/or benefits, that will cause them to need help from other people. That is why we have such a high opinion of the liberturd philosophy here.
Posted by: frog | June 24, 2009 3:21 PM
SOE: Better to let states run their own systems. Let individuals coalesce into groups and start health co-ops to compete with state services. Let the private sector try and compete with state run care.
Case 1: State run. It won't work unless states get to control who they consider residents, which requires a constitutional amendment. Otherwise, whenever someone gets sick in Alabama, they'll move to Minnesota to get care.
Case 2: Create co-ops. Where are you going to get the capital? Profit driven organizations have a massive advantage in getting capital -- it's why it's called capitalism, Scott.
So basically, you're suggesting two impossibilities, and then comparing it to the EU. Except that the US is nothing like the EU -- the EU is a confederation of fairly independent states, while the US is a centralized state with provinces/departments that are called "states" for historical reasons.
There's a good argument to be made that the US needs to decentralize. But it's an impossible argument -- how are you going to sell a breakdown of the US into independent states ala Articles of Confederacy? It goes against the civic religion that we've developed over two centuries -- it's like trying to convince the French that the state shouldn't mandate language. Regardless of some early interpretations of the Constitution -- that is practically irrelevant.
That's Libertarians for you -- living in a fantasy land of floating castles they create in their minds. They remind me so much of Christians and Marxists.
Posted by: lynx | June 24, 2009 3:21 PM
Knockgoats
Zelazny7 is going to claim victory now, you know. He asked for one example and you provided 14. Since 1 > 14, he'll (or she'll) think he's won, that's how the irrational mind works.
Posted by: a_ray_in_dilbert_space
|
June 24, 2009 3:22 PM
Mark Sletten says, "I just keep pulling on them until I find one that feels good ;)"
Yeah, I'm guessing you do that a lot.
Posted by: MrFire | June 24, 2009 3:24 PM
Ditto. Yeah, our current healthcare system is such great value if you don't get sick. Sorry about your situation, Jadehawk. I really hope things improve for you in some way.
Private health insurers are not driven by any sense of innovation, let alone a sense of responsibility to their clients. They are old-school casino managers, rigging the game constantly, exploiting your hopes and fears, and then giving you the run-around or kicking you out altogether if they don't like you.
Health providers have us by the proverbial balls: we have no choice but to deal with them. That is not a position from which I can negotiate for better service. And in any case, how can I trust an entity whose purpose is not to give me service, but is to capitalize on my unavoidable needs, while giving me as little as it possibly can?
Posted by: Bill Dauphin, OM | June 24, 2009 3:25 PM
Walton:
We're only "authoritarian statists" to you because you see "the state" as a foreign, external entity. Perhaps this is the echo of the European monarchies of days past ringing in your head (despite the fact that your actual government is as democratic as any other, figurehead monarch notwithstanding)? I, OTOH, see my government not as something external, but as an organic expression of the will of my fellow citizens and myself.
To which you predictably reply...
...but your analysis here is both blind to the history of humanity and falsely binary. Not only is there an "us"; there always has been an "us." Humans have, since their very earliest days, always formed into groups, and made decisions as groups, and created leadership structures for those groups, for the simple reason that there have always been things worth doing that neither lone individuals nor any number of people functioning as individuals can accomplish. A single singer is physically incapable of producing harmony, and even a horde of people singing according to their own lights without reference to their fellows will not produce harmony either: Harmony requires a choir... which is to say, a synthetic group that's more than the sum of its individual singers.1 The very existence of modern, technological human civilization is arguably the result of humans joining together in organized ways to develop food production, providing the resources necessary to support dense populations in fixed locations, and to support non-food-producing specialists... none of which could have occurred if our earliest ancestors had universally insisted on their individual "autonomy."
Functional groups larger than a literal handful of people require some structure (aka "rules") and some form of leadership. If you argue — as you often seem to be doing around here — that any such rules are "coercive" and all such leadership is "authoritarian" by definition, we're left with only black-and-white choices: We either chafe under what you see as dictatorship, or we splinter into a world full of disconnected hermits. This latter option, BTW, would be completely unsustainable, and would devolve into either neofeudalism (i.e., enforced "cooperation" with the strongest of the hermits) or simply human extinction (i.e., in the absence of any meaningful cooperation) in fairly short order.
Those of us, however, who have a somewhat more multichromatic view of life can see the difference between rules and leadership imposed from without by real or implied force (i.e., real authoritarianism) and rules and leadership that arise organically from the people. In practice, there are virtually infinitely many possible arrangements, some more organically democratic and some less; it's not really the all-or-nothing situation you portray (whether intentionally or not).
If a foreign king conquered the U.S. and arbitrary imposed upon us rules not of our choosing, I would oppose that with all of my being... even if the king provided universal healthcare as part of the deal. But my neighbors are not foreign kings: They are my neighbors; with them, I am happy to make common cause. YMMV.
PS: I was interrupted in the middle of writing this, and it's taken me some time to complete it. Forgive me if the conversation has moved on by the time this appears.
1 I chose this as an illustration; those of you gearing up to argue that singing harmony is a trivial activity can proceed directly to STFU without passing "Go!" or collecting $200.
Posted by: Mark Sletten | June 24, 2009 3:28 PM
Brownian, OM: You have a true mastery of verbal defecation, but seem not to understand people can often better understand one another if they don't have to wade through it.
You offer much evidence against a claim I never made. I didn't say FREE MARKETS (sorry, I am ignorant in the ways of the Jedi HTML masters -- teach me Obi Wan) are PERFECT, I said they are better than GOVERNMENT at raising the masses out of poverty. For proof, I offer India.
BTW, you accused me of 'sophistry.' Sophistry is defined by the Princeton online dictionary as 'a deliberately invalid argument displaying ingenuity in reasoning in the hope of deceiving someone.' On the contrary, I actually BELIEVE what I'm typing, and I make no more effort than you to 'convince' anyone of anything -- I merely express my opinion.
Posted by: Knockgoats | June 24, 2009 3:30 PM
Alyson Miers@155 is of course entirely right. "Libertarians" never can produce a single example of their "free market" utopia: that has never been how capitalism worked. When we came nearest to it, in the early 19th century, slavery flourished and children were forced into prostitution or 14-hour factory shifts. We stand at the end of three decades in which all the "free market" nostrums - privatization, deregulation, cutting taxes on the rich, weakening trades unions - were applied to an ever-increasing extent. Result: the biggest economic crisis in 70 years, in which complete collapse of the financial system and resultant mass starvation was prevented only by coordinated international government action.
Posted by: Brownian, Most Vicious & Petty of Pharyngulites
|
June 24, 2009 3:30 PM
I disagree. They may be selfish shits, but that doesn't make their arguments wrong. The fact that they tend to know nothing of history, sociology, anthropology, or psychology and are completely unaware that there is a vast body of published literature comparing the efficacy and cost of for-profit and non-profit healthcare systems that find the latter tend to outperform the former in nearly every measure (except the "I can afford private insurance, so it's not fair to me--wa-a-a-a-h!" Libertarian test) and so instead fall back on first-year sophistry (with a steaming shitload of untested assumptions) is what makes their arguments wrong.
However, both tendencies contribute to the fact that they're assholes.
Posted by: Jadehawk, OM
|
June 24, 2009 3:33 PM
for one, thanks for making my point for me. two, only a naive idiot would think that things wouldn't slip right back to the 16-hour work day with nonexistent worker safety if we let the market have its way.
it's not like most Americans aren't forced to work 2 or more jobs just to make ends meet, because companies were allowed to dump their wages waaaaaaaaay below a living wage.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
June 24, 2009 3:34 PM
Yawn, more weasels words Slettern. But then, you have nothing else.
Posted by: frog | June 24, 2009 3:35 PM
Mark: People have ALWAYS cared whether their family, friends and neighbors succeeded or failed, they just haven't always taken RESPONSIBILITY for them.
Lordy, you are a moron. No, a casual perusal of any history and anthropology shows that in almost every society people have always taken responsibility for their family, friends and neighbors. It's a completely new concept to be an atomic individual with no responsibility for others -- it's an incredibly radical idea in human history that folks don't take responsibility for family members and neighbors.
I can't think of a single pre-20th century society that functioned, even theoretically, as you suggest. I'm sure there must have been some tribe somewhere where folks acted that way -- but they weren't terribly successful.
And I sure as hell can't think of a single functional family where the members don't take responsibility for each other. It's funny, this idea is incredibly childish. Traditionally, people wanted to take responsibility for others -- it's part and parcel of being an adult, transitioning from those who are taken care of, to those who take responsibility for others.
This reduction of individuals to mere consumers, irresponsible, self-centered brats who only care about filling their mouths with candies is a phenomenon of interrupted maturation. Folks who are big whiny babies, and see that as the mark of adulthood rather than the natural switch from consumer to producer, from irresponsible to responsible, from self-centered to community oriented.
The ideal of some Libertarians is merely the reduction of the human race to a species of infants.
Posted by: XD | June 24, 2009 3:35 PM
#150
Quoted For Truth.
Posted by: Mark Sletten | June 24, 2009 3:38 PM
Lynx: Um... where did the US government get all the resources to do all those great things for everyone? The government PRODUCES nothing.
Posted by: Jadehawk, OM
|
June 24, 2009 3:40 PM
Bill, the problem is that when libertarians read about the social contract, they read about the "social contract" vs. the "natural state", sicne that's the terms in which this conversation was framed by Enlightenment philosophers.
This of course is a false dichotomy. social contracts ARE the natural state of humankind. we're a social animal, not some individualist species like cats. Being part of some form of society is the only way humans can exist for extended periods of time(sociopathic exceptions notwithstanding); as such, the real point is to find the most beneficial form of social contract, not to try to abolish it. doing that (especially by fiat) is about as healthy and likely to work out well as the Celibacy and Abstinence idiocy
Posted by: Mark Sletten | June 24, 2009 3:41 PM
a_ray_in_dilbert_space says: "Yeah, I'm guessing you do that a lot."
Hey, you're the one who brought it up!
Posted by: BluesBassist | June 24, 2009 3:42 PM
This comment thread has degraded into an orgy of strawmen, false dichotomies, ad hominems, and host of other logical fallacies. If I didn't know better, I would think I had stumbled onto a creationist blog.
It would be fascinating if some of the creationists here... er, I mean statists, would attempt to defend their advocacy of massive government enslavement at this forum:
2+2 Politics Forum
You'll laugh, but the waters there run deceptively deep.
Posted by: Bill Dauphin, OM | June 24, 2009 3:44 PM
Jadehawk:
You were my first choice for June OM in any case, but 138 sealed the deal.
Oh, BTW, thanks, too, for 169, which saved me the trouble of composing a similarly exasperated response to Mr. Sletten.
Posted by: Alyson Miers | June 24, 2009 3:45 PM
When we came nearest to it, in the early 19th century, slavery flourished and children were forced into prostitution or 14-hour factory shifts.
Oh, but Knockgoats, don't you understand. Children were free to work 14-hour factory shifts and rent out their private parts by the hour! And the market gave them the freedom to support their families that way! How dare we force them to go to school and spend the most energetic years of their lives being pampered and coddled in leisure and protection, when they could be out contributing to society on their own terms!
Posted by: Brownian, Most Vicious & Petty of Pharyngulites
|
June 24, 2009 3:46 PM
Oh, sorry. I didn't realise you were illiterate. I'll explain, using small words and ALL CAPS so you'll understand (and I'm still charging you for the lesson.) In the literature, which you obviously haven't read, 'for-profit' means FREE MARKET. Notice how the literature I gave you pointed out that they perform WORSE than their counterparts? That means the opposite of BETTER, which is what you're claiming.
Now, I am focussing on healthcare, and there's a reason for this: I want to make it abundantly clear that when discussing for-profit vs. not-for-profit, the literature overwhelmingly points to the superiority of not-for-profit systems in terms of efficiency and outcomes. I want this to be clear so that even the most Libertarian of you can finally fucking understand that you're wrong about the market. Argue 'unfair' all you want, but that's all you got.
Save it for the day you become non-stupid.
Posted by: Jadehawk, OM
|
June 24, 2009 3:51 PM
*blush*
thanks. I suspect that "in some way" will be either for this government option to come true and actually cover me affordably and sensibly, or me accumulating enough income to go back to that evil statist dictatorship commonly known as the Federal Republic of Germany
Posted by: Brownian, Most Vicious & Petty of Pharyngulites
|
June 24, 2009 3:53 PM
Posted by: Lynx | June 24, 2009 3:55 PM
Mark Sletten
Do you deny that they've done these things?
And where do you get the idea that the government produces nothing or that only production is of value? Do you think a trucking company that gets a product to market contributes nothing? Do you think the scientific research that went into a product is worthless?
I suppose you're looking for the answer of Taxes (and fees and tarrifs, etc...) and you'll have some "AHA!" moment. But where the resources comes from is irrelevant. The government is partially sustained by the market, the market is made possible by the government. The difference is that governments have existed without markets, markets don't exist without governments.
And you asked to identify a government that's done more than the free market to help the impoverished. It doesn't matter where the resources comes from, it matters who actually does something with them. That's the government, not the "free" market.
And markets have never been "free" or "pure", they're always slanted by the regulatory framework within which they exist.
Posted by: Knockgoats | June 24, 2009 3:56 PM
I didn't say FREE MARKETS (sorry, I am ignorant in the ways of the Jedi HTML masters -- teach me Obi Wan) are PERFECT, I said they are better than GOVERNMENT at raising the masses out of poverty. For proof, I offer India. - Mark Sletten
Which is proof you know fuck-all about India. First, where do you think India got the large number of educated people necessary development? State-provided education. How do you think its industries got going? Tariff walls and state investment in infrastructure. IOW, the Indian middle class owes its very existence to state action. It is true that the deregulation of the '90s benefited the better off, but 80% of the population still lives on less than $2/day, and there are more malnourished children in India than in Africa - what a triumph for the FREE MARKET. You might also like to compare India with China. The latter has actually done vastly better at poverty reduction - and while it has certainly introduced more market mechanisms since 1978, the core of the economy remains state-run.
Posted by: frog | June 24, 2009 3:58 PM
Brownian: They may be selfish shits, but that doesn't make their arguments wrong. The fact that they tend to know nothing of history, sociology, anthropology, or psychology and are completely unaware that there is a vast body of published literature comparing the efficacy and cost of for-profit and non-profit healthcare systems that find the latter tend to outperform the former in nearly every measure
I think you're wrong -- the ignorance goes hand-in-hand with being a selfish shit. It may not be absolutely linked, but once you are a selfish shit, you have a very strong incentive to remain ignorant of history.
It's like a fundamentalist and science -- sure, it's possible to be a fundamentalist and be technically proficient. But it's much simpler to simply remain ignorant of proper science to retain your world view.
Some weltanschauung are only really plausible with your eyes closed.
Posted by: Mark Sletten | June 24, 2009 4:05 PM
Jadehawk: In the same statement you complain that "most Americans work two jobs just to make ends meet," (where did you pull that stat out of?) yet fear a 16 hour workday. How about picking one? Either you want to work 16-hour days or you don't. How about addressing my POINT? The UAW is more directly responsible for the collapse of the auto industry in this country than any other single organization, and you and I get to pay to bail them out. How does that factor for you?
frog said: "Lordy, you are a moron."
Wow, some of you guys really like to toss around the insults...
Be that as it may, I didn't say people should TURN THEIR BACKS on those less fortunate, I merely say I don't feel responsible for their success. I would never turn my back on a hungry man, and I might even offer to help him find a job if he's interested. But I wouldn't take responsibility to feed him for the rest of his life, and I wouldn't take responsibility to ensure he gets an education and/or training to better himself and contribute to society, those responsibilities lie with the individual.
And now, alas, my abuse meter is pegged, and I must return to work so I can pay my taxes and support those less fortunate...
Posted by: BAllanJ | June 24, 2009 4:06 PM
Boy, there are sure are a lot of comments that fall into the tl;dr category. But I'll comment (again) on this shorter one:
2 comments.
The first one that comes to mind is how stupid this guys going to look, laying on his death bed dying of nothing.
The other comment is that many of the things he talks about aren't much of a drag on health care resources. Most people who have a heart attack die from their first one.. not many resources spent. Smokers often don't have terrible health until around retirement age, then they get cancer and die quite quickly. The big burden on health care are more those folks that keep on living and living into their 90s, long after they retire. That and those into extreme sports that break their spine.
Hope that isn't too long to read.
Posted by: Angel Kaida | June 24, 2009 4:09 PM
The current system of healthcare in the US is horrendously broken. All the theorizing in the world will not fix it. If you're convinced that private action will somehow fix it, you need to hurry the fuck up, organize your fellows, and take that action, or shut up and let the government fix it, because the longer we wait the more people die unnecessarily. I am disturbed by the refusal of my fellow libertarians to understand the depth and urgency of this problem.
But I disagree with the notion that since the US is a "democratic" system, we should not consider the government to be a coercive external entity. While there is an "us" and "we" are in control of the government, you can't deny the fact that ill-educated, stupid, bigoted assholes are kind of a large segment of that "us." To any given individual whose will happens to differ from that of the majority, a democratically elected government can be entirely external and coercive.
Posted by: Lynx | June 24, 2009 4:09 PM
Mark Sletten
and I must return to work so I can pay my taxes and support those less fortunate...
Don't kid yourself, paying your taxes allows you to support you and those better off than you as well as the less fortunate. Without those taxes, the environment that makes your job possible wouldn't exist. You wouldn't be able to get to work, there'd be security issues on the way there. There'd be no guarantee that your employer would pay you. You'd likely work in a company town at the mercy of the company.
Ever hear Sixteen Tons by Tennessee Ernie Ford? Give it a listen and see what you're wishing for.
Posted by: BluesBassist | June 24, 2009 4:10 PM
Fuck you, you piece of shit.
I'd settle for it being hugely less society-fucking-up if you I-got-miners could read some fucking peer-reviewed literature.
Is the preceding supposed to be English?
Posted by: Knockgoats | June 24, 2009 4:11 PM
The government PRODUCES nothing. - Mark Sletten
What a fucking moron. Roads? Bridges? Schools and the teachers who work in them? Scientific research the private sector won't fund because it's not immediately profitable?
Posted by: Jadehawk, OM
|
June 24, 2009 4:15 PM
reading comprehension not your forte, is it. I complain about both, because both the "one job, 16 hours" and the "two jobs, up to 16 hours" are the consequence of letting the market do as it wants. More civilized countries manage to sustain its population on a 40 hour week (or less). And strangely enough, those are the same countries where people are able to save up to 10% of their income despite high taxes, AND where the effects of the current crisis are least dramatic. strange, that.
Also, someone else already explained that dumping what should have been government responsibilities onto companies is what ruined GM. I didn't think I needed to repeat that; but that was before I knew you had reading comprehension issues.
Posted by: Stu
|
June 24, 2009 4:18 PM
in the same post as
BluesBassist, you are a moron. And no, that is not an ad hominem -- you've proven it.
Posted by: Brownian, Most Vicious & Petty of Pharyngulites
|
June 24, 2009 4:19 PM
Why? Are you as illiterate as Mark?
How's this: I'd settle for it being hugely less society-destroying if you "I-got-mine"-ers could read some fucking peer-reviewed literature.
Do you need some help with the pubmed literature too?
Posted by: Angel Kaida | June 24, 2009 4:23 PM
Well, I don't know about Bluesbassist, but those quotation marks certainly clarified things for me, Brownian *blush* I genuinely thought you meant they had a miner, they were miners of "I-gots," or they had a minor (in something). And I didn't get the joke. And now I feel stupid, but better.
Posted by: frog | June 24, 2009 4:26 PM
ms: Be that as it may, I didn't say people should TURN THEIR BACKS on those less fortunate, I merely say I don't feel responsible for their success. I would never turn my back on a hungry man, and I might even offer to help him find a job if he's interested. But I wouldn't take responsibility to feed him for the rest of his life, and I wouldn't take responsibility to ensure he gets an education and/or training to better himself and contribute to society, those responsibilities lie with the individual.
And I continue with my summary: moron. MS's argument was that taking responsibility, life-long if need be, was somehow a new position, a cultural innovation: "People have ALWAYS cared whether their family, friends and neighbors succeeded or failed, they just haven't always taken RESPONSIBILITY for them."
That's simply patently untrue -- and MS doesn't deny it, but merely mumbles about what he would personally do. Every successful society has, as a community, taken RESPONSIBILITY for the success and welfare of their members, from hunter-gatherer bands to empires. Every family that I know that actually functions as a family and not just a collection of common-descent individuals, takes RESPONSIBILITY for it's members -- otherwise, the family members simply lose interest in the group and join new families.
Ok, so I revise my summary of MS: he's not merely a moron. Such an ahistorical take on human societies requires a high-level of cretinage. A creeping hydrocephalia, perhaps?
Why do the Libertarians attract such simpletons? There are principled arguments for their ideology -- as long as you agree with their principles. But there are no practical and historical arguments for it -- it never existed, and it doesn't make us wealthier or better off.
Posted by: Knockgoats | June 24, 2009 4:28 PM
This comment thread has degraded into an orgy of strawmen, false dichotomies, ad hominems, and host of other logical fallacies. - Blues Bassist
Well that's because of all the "libertarian" fuckwads who've invaded it.
It would be fascinating if some of the creationists here... er, I mean statists, - Blues Bassist
It's the "libertarians" who believe in the magical powers of a non-existent entity, the FREE MARKET (upper-case apparently obligatory, as with "God", but at least the creationists only insist on it for the first letter).
would attempt to defend their advocacy of massive government enslavement - Blues Bassist
What was that you were saying about strawmen?
Bill Dauphin@165,
Good post, but I'd have to disagree that the UK is "as democratic as any other". Like the US, we have a ludicrously unfair electoral system; and in addition, we have non-elected legislators, and excessive executive power, vested in the "Crown" (not the same as the monarchy), meaning we are still "subjects" rather than "citizens". We might possibly get to change some of this as a result of the current scandal about MPs expenses (which probably hasn't aroused much comment across the pond).
Posted by: Brownian, Most Vicious & Petty of Pharyngulites
|
June 24, 2009 4:28 PM
Well, it was a badly constructed sentence. I stand by the sentiment: any time the free marketers want to buy an island where they and their markets can live free from the impediments of us statists, they're free to do so, and good fucking riddance.
Posted by: BluesBassist | June 24, 2009 4:30 PM
@Stu:
BluesBassist, you are a moron. And no, that is not an ad hominem -- you've proven it.
Yes, it's nevertheless an ad hominem. An ad hominem may very well be true. Here's another example: Suppose Sarah Palin says, "ID should be taught in public schools since it's an alternative scientific theory to evolution," and you subsequently call her a "moron," you would of course be correct. But it's still an ad hominem.
Posted by: Angel Kaida | June 24, 2009 4:33 PM
BluesBassist, NO, IT IS NOT. Please do NOT continue the plague of misusing that damned phrase. It would be an ad hominem if she made an argument, and we responded not by addressing the argument itself, but by saying that since she is an idiot, her argument is obviously wrong.
Posted by: Stu
|
June 24, 2009 4:35 PM
Which, interestingly, is not what we're fucking talking about. Is there a part of you that realizes what a selfish monster you'd look like if you added that you're A-ok with people dying from lack of health care?
Posted by: Jadehawk, OM
|
June 24, 2009 4:35 PM
no, it would be an insult. when "moron" is the conclusion, it's an insult; when it's the argument, it's an ad hominem. it's really not that hard to figure out, you know.
Posted by: Rev. bigDumbCHimp | June 24, 2009 4:36 PM
sigh
ad hominem
Posted by: Brownian, Most Vicious & Petty of Pharyngulites
|
June 24, 2009 4:36 PM
No BluesBassist, it's not. It's a conclusion.
Stu made the claim that because you complained about strawmen while making one yourself, you are a moron.
Perhaps you are illiterate after all.
Posted by: Social Democrat | June 24, 2009 4:38 PM
Speaking of "seeking the will of the people"
Looks like South Carolina Gov. Sanford wasn’t climbing the Appalachian Mountains, but instead, seeking the will of the women of Buenos Aires.
And, a new GOP hypocrisy watch phrase has entered the lexicon: “Recharging your batteries.”
It’s GOP Pants Watch time again!
Posted by: Sven DiMilo | June 24, 2009 4:40 PM
It's like the old joke:
Q: What's the (blues) bassist thinking?
A: EEEEAAEEBAEB...
Posted by: Stu
|
June 24, 2009 4:43 PM
Proven again. Complete moron. This is where you stop digging.
Posted by: Rev. bigDumbCHimp | June 24, 2009 4:43 PM
Wait Did i say I was dying to hike the Appalachian trail? I mean to say I'm flying to hit some Argentinian tail.
he was down there working on his own stimulus package
Posted by: Eyeoffaith | June 24, 2009 4:43 PM
Did you scare them into taking the poll down? I can't see it.
Posted by: Enkidu | June 24, 2009 4:44 PM
Awww . . . we must have hurt little Hunkin Dunter's feelings. The poll is gone.
Posted by: frog | June 24, 2009 4:46 PM
BlueBassist:
Mis-attribution of a fallacy is an automatic disqualifier. Call it frog's Law if you will -- what kills any interest in threads is the throwing around of fallacies incorrectly, the raising of rhetorical rules to logical rules, and whining about insults and tone.
Even if a fallacy occurs, focusing on it as a "contest winner" when it's fairly irrelevant to the substance of the argument is itself merely a diversionary tactic and a sign of a lack of evidence for one's own position. We end up arguing all day about arcane rules of Hellenic legal theory instead of arguing the current point --- a sure sign of trollage, of lacking good faith in the argument itself.
FAIL.
Posted by: Scott from Oregon | June 24, 2009 4:46 PM
""2.As this is a science blog, a greater proportion of the readers and commenters here well- educated, and, if not scientists, are reasonably well-versed in logic, observation, empiricism, debate, and rationality. As such, their responses will likely be pointed, eloquent, articulate, and highly opinionated.""
Oh Lordy!!
"We need single payer federally mandated health care because Walton is an idiot, you're a libertarian and because of Somalia"...
Oh my my...
Glad y'all got that all sorted out.
Whew!
Good thing this crowd is SMART!!!
Posted by: Al | June 24, 2009 4:50 PM
@28
I think I heard it first from P J O'Rourke
Posted by: LanceR, JSG
|
June 24, 2009 4:51 PM
And the prize for *completely* missing the point(1) goes to...
Scott from Oregon!! Everyone give him a big hand!
(1)and the actual arguments. And large chunks of reality. And apparently most of the last 20 years.
Posted by: BluesBassist | June 24, 2009 4:52 PM
How's this: I'd settle for it being hugely less society-destroying if you "I-got-mine"-ers could read some fucking peer-reviewed literature.
That's only slightly more intelligible, but your subsequent post cleared things up.
Do you need some help with the pubmed literature too?
I think I'm good, but thanks. I've used pubmed and similar to download references papers relating to some systems biology research I've done. If I need help reading any of those papers, you'll be the first I'll ask!
Posted by: Steve M | June 24, 2009 4:53 PM
Seems that Congressman Hunter ditched his pool when it was running close to 86% against his objective of bashing the idea of a single payer, government sponsored healthcare system.
I sent a message about the vanishing poll on Rep. Hunter's Facebook page (go figure, you have to become a supporter to write on his Wall) but even my question about the vanishing poll met with a similar fate, in an instant. He must have interns standing by to protect his image on FB. BTW- I chuckled at the staged shot of Hunter (in body armor) posing with the friendly Iraqi children dressed in tee-shirts. In the picture a headless Blackwater security guard still has his arms extended after herding the street kids into the frame for a brief moment (and probably a few coins or candy bars)
Not surprisingly, his page continued to list me as one of his conservative supporters after my critical question was posted. I checked and then removed myself from the list.
Posted by: Brownian, Most Vicious & Petty of Pharyngulites
|
June 24, 2009 4:54 PM
Scott from Oregon, if you've got nothing useful to add, at the very least be interesting or funny.
You're neither, and as much as you've clearly taken the lead, there's no prize here for Biggest Fucking Asshat.
Posted by: RHM | June 24, 2009 4:56 PM
Darn....it looks as though the poll is no longer available.
Missed my chance to participate in the Pharyngulation.
*sigh*
I'd check the links on the Gov. Sanford scandal, but after slogging through Congressman Hunter's website, I believe I've had my fill of Repugnancy for the day.
Now..... where is that corkscrew?
Posted by: Brownian, Most Vicious & Petty of Pharyngulites
|
June 24, 2009 5:03 PM
Excellent. I'm glad you're aware of the existence of peer-reviewed literature, and I'm just super-chuffed I was able to let you know that it can be used to inform one's opinions on things such as the efficacy of private vs. public healthcare systems.
Posted by: frog | June 24, 2009 5:11 PM
BB: I've used pubmed and similar to download references papers relating to some systems biology research I've done.
That's funny. I don't think you've understood systems biology if you continue with Libertarian ideological positions. But then, very few folks do understand systems biology, especially the big grant collecters in that field.
Posted by: daveau
|
June 24, 2009 5:11 PM
BluesBassist-
What do you call a bassist without a girlfriend?
Homeless. (ba-dum-tum)
That's not ad hominem, it's just a joke.
You should read Rev's link, which he has kindly posted twice just for you. People wouldn't think you're so stupid if you didn't continually go "yes it is" when it's obviously and provably not. Or maybe they will find another reason.
Posted by: daedalus2u | June 24, 2009 5:12 PM
The poll is still visible in the Google cache, but the links to the result don’t work and searching the site for words in the poll return nothing.
The results are still in the Google cache
http://www.hunter.house.gov/index.php?option=com_poll&id=15:do-you-support-a-government-imposed-healthcare-policy
Do you support a government imposed healthcare policy?
Yes, even if it requires tax increases.
4628 85.6%
No, we can reform healthcare without a government-run plan that limits choice.
757 14%
Unsure
24 0.4%
Number of Voters : 5409
First Vote : Friday, 19 June 2009 15:43
Last Vote : Wednesday, 24 June 2009 15:02
Posted by: BluesBassist | June 24, 2009 5:16 PM
Excellent. I'm glad you're aware of the existence of peer-reviewed literature, and I'm just super-chuffed I was able to let you know that it can be used to inform one's opinions on things such as the efficacy of private vs. public healthcare systems.
Yes, having spent much of my adult life in academia, I'm well aware of peer-reviewed literature. However, I came to the opposite conclusion as you did regarding the efficacy of public health care. Now what?
I know: Fuck off, retarded turd.
Hm. I think you say that better.
Posted by: Falyne, FCD | June 24, 2009 5:17 PM
*gets popcorn*
Seriously, Liberdudes, I'm pretty radically with you on social issues (drugs, reproductive choice, blue laws, other government restrictions on citizens' actions), but taxes are the price we pay for civilization.
In theory, the free market makes everything better.
In theory, theory should work.
But we have mountains of evidence staring us in the face. It's called the entire rest of the developed world. The fact that our state can and does let its citizens fall into poverty from medical bills and flat-out die from lack of care is fucking barbaric, and inconceivable to nearly everyone else. We spend more per capita on health care, and achieve so, so much less by any benchmark of public health. It's really time to grow up. This should NOT be a question anymore.
Posted by: Stu
|
June 24, 2009 5:19 PM
Wait, what? You don't like public health care because of peer-reviewed scientific literature?Oh, DO share.
Posted by: BluesBassist | June 24, 2009 5:24 PM
What do you call a bassist without a girlfriend?
Homeless. (ba-dum-tum)
That's not ad hominem, it's just a joke.
OUCH! Now that's low. I've only heard that joke used for drummers. And there is no greater insult than being (implicitly) compared to a drummer.
PZ is right, this forum is brutal. I'd rather be called a moron.
Posted by: LanceR, JSG
|
June 24, 2009 5:29 PM
Hey, now I *was* a bassist for several years. *I* tell that joke.
Q: What's the difference between a bass player and a large pizza?
A: A large pizza can feed a family of four.
A little boy tells his father "When I grow up, I want to play the bass!" His dad responds "You can't do both!"
Two drums and a cymbal fall off a cliff...
http://instantrimshot.com/
Posted by: Enkidu | June 24, 2009 5:31 PM
Email to my congressrat:
Posted by: Paul | June 24, 2009 5:32 PM
This would be the point where you cite the peer-reviewed papers that inform your position, and in which ways they are better than the plethora of peer-reviewed papers that disagree.
Posted by: frog | June 24, 2009 5:32 PM
Falyne: In theory, the free market makes everything better.
In what theory does the "free market" make everything better? 18th century economic theory before the development of any knowledge of cybernetics? Before the invention of games theory, before entropy was even defined, before thermodynamics was developed, before Shannon gave us his handy-dandy definition of information?
Smith didn't know anything about control loops in decentralized systems. He didn't know a damn thing about hysteresis, about initial condition sensitivity or the unlinkage between the structure of minimization systems and their input/output patterns. He did good work for someone in the 18th century.
But to call that a modern "theory" is really pushing it. To call what the Austrian Economists do a theory is really pushing it, since they publically disdain almost all forms of quantification. They're merely philosophers.
At least today we know that we can't know how a complex and not terribly coherent system will behave. We know that there's no reason, in general, to believe that such a system will "optimize", "maximize", or "minimize". We know that they generally have multiple meta-stable states, and so the stationary states are fairly arbitrary.
So no, in "theory" markets don't make everything better, in general. But there are specific cases, and specific conditions where markets are crucial elements of a productive economy, in specific ways. That's in theory and by evidence.
Posted by: BluesBassist | June 24, 2009 5:39 PM
Wait, what? You don't like public health care because of peer-reviewed scientific literature?
Oh, DO share.
Yes, I accept published fact that the current U.S. system (call it whatever you want, but it's not "private") spends more per capita on health care than other developed nations.
I do not, however, agree with the currently proposed reforms, or that emulating the European model, though better by some metrics, is optimal.
Posted by: frog | June 24, 2009 5:42 PM
BB: I know: Fuck off, retarded turd.
At least get it right, it's libertarded turd. See, it works both ways! Then you add some more obscure references, to see if your opponent recognizes the insults, such as "I bet you use cardinal numbers in your economic analyses", or "You're the kind of leftist Bakhunin was talking about".
Decent flamage is hard to come by with these folks.
Posted by: BluesBassist | June 24, 2009 5:44 PM
This would be the point where you cite the peer-reviewed papers that inform your position, and in which ways they are better than the plethora of peer-reviewed papers that disagree.
Can you point me to the plethora of peer-reviewed papers in the scientific literature which make health care policy recommendations?
Posted by: Sven DiMilo | June 24, 2009 5:51 PM
An explorer is trekking through the uncharted jungle with his native guide. There is a constant background sound of drumming, incessant drumming. He keeps asking his guide the meaning of the drums, and the answer is always the same: "Drums play: good. Drums stop: bad, very bad." [Repeat as necessary.]
Then one day, suddenly and without warning, the drumming just STOPS! The explorer turns to his guide, who is shaking his head in evident anguish: "What is it? What's bad? What does it mean that the drums have stopped?!"
The sad answer came:
"Bass solo."
Here's another one:
Three musicians and a drummer walk into a bar...
Posted by: Stu
|
June 24, 2009 5:58 PM
1. There is no "European model". Health care systems differ wildly between European nations.
2. What do you think is "optimal"?
Here's one system (that doesn't even have government insurance):
http://scienceblogs.com/denialism/2009/05/what_is_healthcare_like_Neth.php
Pay special attention to the survey numbers.
Posted by: BluesBassist | June 24, 2009 5:58 PM
frog:
That's funny. I don't think you've understood systems biology if you continue with Libertarian ideological positions.
I don't (no kidding) understand what you are trying to say. (Remember, I'm a moron.) Are you claiming that there is something incompatible between systems biology and libertarianism? Or that someone who advocates the latter is incapable of understanding the former? Or both? Or something completely different?
At least get it right, it's libertarded turd. See, it works both ways!
The person to whom the insult was intended isn't, as far as I know, a libertarian. So your suggestion makes little sense. Or is "libertarded" an insult that libertarians use rather than receive?
Posted by: Brownian, Most Vicious & Petty of Pharyngulites
|
June 24, 2009 6:00 PM
What? "For profit systems cost more and are less efficient than not-for-profit systems" isn't clear enough?
Sure, I'll grant it's no road map, but it's enough of a compass to point one away from increased privatisation and deregulation.
Nonetheless, asking us to provide papers isn't providing the evidence you claim to have read. For examle, I listed details of my search, a link to pubmed, and the PMIDs of the first two relevant papers I found, one examining hospitals, and another home care organisations.
Posted by: Agoraphobic Kleptomaniac | June 24, 2009 6:03 PM
Bassist:
How can you tell if a concert stage is Level?
The drool is coming out of both sides of the bassist's mouth.
Posted by: Cain | June 24, 2009 6:07 PM
Health Care should go the way of the dodo. Medical Insurance should be brought back.
Posted by: frog | June 24, 2009 6:09 PM
BB: Are you claiming that there is something incompatible between systems biology and libertarianism? Or that someone who advocates the latter is incapable of understanding the former? Or both? Or something completely different?
The tools for analyzing biology at a system levels should make it obvious that any kind of "free market" fundamentalism is downright stupid and that the Austrians are simply blowing hot air. I'd think it was fairly obvious... but I see you have to be explicit with some folks.
The person to whom the insult was intended isn't, as far as I know, a libertarian. So your suggestion makes little sense. Or is "libertarded" an insult that libertarians use rather than receive?Can't read, eh? Even when you quote it? "Goes both ways" -- see a "libertard" could be a "retarded liberal" or a "retarded libertarian". It should be obvious from context, doncha know.
Wow. You must be one of those Hayekian Libertarians who thought that 1984 was an instruction manual.
Posted by: Naked Bunny with a Whip
|
June 24, 2009 6:14 PM
Hey, that's my job! Except for the "interesting" and "funny" parts. Does that make me a libertarian? Damn.
Ahem. "I dug my own burrow with no help from the rest of the warren! Why should I subsidize lazy rabbits by being a slave to the colony?"
Posted by: Brownian, Most Vicious & Petty of Pharyngulites
|
June 24, 2009 6:15 PM
Assuming you meant me, you'd be hard-pressed to predict what I'm going to say. For instance, Poes work because creationists, having a tendency to repeat what they've heard rather than understand it, are easy to parody if you know their script.
Libertarians tend to follow a similar script (for example, see the evidence you haven't provided, above) and so are easy to parody (especially if they're Walton, and start every sentence on Libertarian ideals with "Why should I have to....").
Posted by: BluesBassist | June 24, 2009 6:20 PM
frog:
The tools for analyzing biology at a system levels should make it obvious that any kind of "free market" fundamentalism is downright stupid and that the Austrians are simply blowing hot air. I'd think it was fairly obvious... but I see you have to be explicit with some folks.
Really?! Some of the analytical tools used in systems biology can also be used to refute Austrian economics? What tools, specifically, are those? (Yes, you need to be explicit.) Can you provide a reference in the peer-reviewed literature? Forget health care policy, I'd be much more interested in this.
Posted by: Stu
|
June 24, 2009 6:21 PM
I'm sorry, what?
Posted by: Paul | June 24, 2009 6:22 PM
I did not ask for literature that makes recommendations. I asked for the literature you used to inform the conclusion that you implied was empirically derived. Nice attempt to obfuscate the issue, though. You sure are a True Libertarian.
Posted by: Brownian, Most Vicious & Petty of Pharyngulites
|
June 24, 2009 6:26 PM
Clearly, as you keep ignoring requests for evidence supporting your views on the former.
Posted by: Stu
|
June 24, 2009 6:27 PM
1. Say something dumb.
2. Get called on it.
3. Deny or reassert (flip coin to determine).
4. Get called on it again.
5. Grasp at straw, create straw to grasp at or change the subject (use rnd(d6/2,0) to determine)
6. Hope nobody notices.
7. Try being pedantic.
8. If not already achieved by 7., jump to 1. Else, jump to 2.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage
|
June 24, 2009 6:37 PM
Falyne, FCD #223
Most economic theory says that a regulated free market makes things better. Unregulated free markets lead to monopoly and oligarchy. Even Hayek (but not von Mises) agrees with this.
Posted by: Blind Squirrel FCD | June 24, 2009 6:38 PM
Social Democrat @204 re. sen Sanford: And he traveled at taxpayer expence and Fox News identified him as a democrat! Raw Story is promising love letters soon.
BS
Posted by: Voltaire | June 24, 2009 6:39 PM
Is the poll gone?
Posted by: Brownian, Most Vicious & Petty of Pharyngulites
|
June 24, 2009 6:43 PM
Do I still get to shampoo Mark's crotch with unregulated, free market-produced shampoo? I've got some right here, in this pail labelled "TSP"--hmm, lemme fix that--"Shampoo".
Posted by: BluesBassist | June 24, 2009 6:53 PM
Clearly, as you keep ignoring requests for evidence supporting your views on the former.
I meant that figuratively, not literally.
The references you cited from pubmed, as well as similar papers, don't support (or deny) a particular health care policy, or whether a free market in health care would overall produce worse (or better) outcomes than a government-mandated system. I agree with the papers as far as they go, but they are too narrow in scope (as they should be) to make that type of conclusion.
The paper you quoted, for example, discusses "efficiency" of home, for-profit hospices vs those which are government subsidized. It would be unfounded to conclude from that paper that a completely socialized system would therefore be better (or worse) than what would be produced on a free-market, which is NOT equivalent to comparing a for-profit business to government-subsidized business in the current highly regulated environment.
Also, many of you have been making a *moral* argument for universal health care, as well as criticizing libertarians on the same basis. I agree with this approach, though I come to opposite conclusions.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | June 24, 2009 6:54 PM
As a resident of South Carolina I'm experiencing an acute case of Schadenfreude.
Until I think about Lt. Gov. Andre "I can't Drive 55 and Let me Pay for the I believe license plates" Bauer.
Posted by: Blind Squirrel FCD | June 24, 2009 6:54 PM
How do you get the bassist off your porch?
Pay for the pizza.
BS
Posted by: Cain | June 24, 2009 6:54 PM
Does anyone know of any monopoly that has sustained itself without some sort of government support.
Posted by: Cain | June 24, 2009 6:58 PM
Does anyone know of any monopoly that has sustained itself without some sort of government support?
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | June 24, 2009 6:59 PM
My friend who is a bassist of ill repute tells me that all bassists are really just frustrated drummers.
Posted by: Jadehawk, OM
|
June 24, 2009 7:00 PM
yup. letting people die so you you don't have to feel suppressed because the government is giving them healthcare is very moral.
Posted by: Cain | June 24, 2009 7:00 PM
Does anyone know of any monopoly that has sustained itself without some sort of government support? Or a monopoly at of any kind?
Posted by: frog | June 24, 2009 7:01 PM
BB: Really?! Some of the analytical tools used in systems biology can also be used to refute Austrian economics? What tools, specifically, are those? (Yes, you need to be explicit.) Can you provide a reference in the peer-reviewed literature?
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/06/dont_you_appreciate_it_when_a.php#comment-1732714
Pick up a fuckin' text book, you imbecile. This shit is no longer in the peer reviewed literature, because it's almost a hundred years old now. The fact that Mises was too big of a cretin to keep up with the work back in his day, but instead attacked strawmen of pre-thermodynamic physics and the pathetic economics built on that is no damn excuse.
It's been almost 40 years since stochastic physics became a major field. 90 years since cybernetics have been developed. And you throw out "Austrian Economics" as if it were a serious discipline. It's a cranky complaint by a second-rate mind about the 3rd rate minds in economics.
Posted by: Angel Kaida | June 24, 2009 7:01 PM
Hey guys, I was just wondering, does anyone know of any monopoly that has sustained itself without some sort of government support? Because this guy Cain keeps asking.
Posted by: BluesBassist | June 24, 2009 7:04 PM
Paul:
I did not ask for literature that makes recommendations. I asked for the literature you used to inform the conclusion that you implied was empirically derived. Nice attempt to obfuscate the issue, though. You sure are a True Libertarian.
I'm not trying to obfuscate anything. I'm only saying I've read the same literature as what has already been cited here, but came to different policy conclusions.
Posted by: Paul | June 24, 2009 7:04 PM
I think you forgot a question mark.
Do you know of a moderately technological society that has sustained itself without some form of government support?
Posted by: BluesBassist | June 24, 2009 7:19 PM
frog:
Pick up a fuckin' text book, you imbecile.
Wow, you're unbelievably dumb. (I think I'm getting the hang of the style here.) Yes, I'm aware of feedback loops, nonlinear dynamics, and complex systems. Those analytical techniques don't "refute" Austrian economics any more than they refute, say, public choice theory. You are totally dropping the context.
Posted by: Cain | June 24, 2009 7:21 PM
I'm sorry for the multiple posts - it has been years since I've joined an internet discussion. Next time I'll read the directions. Actually, where are the directions?
Anyway, I'm not asking the question about monopolies for some sort of rhetorical force. I'm just curious as I have read of very few monopolies. At least monopolies that were not supported by some sort of framework of law. I'm sure there has to be a couple of examples.
"Do you know of a moderately technological society that has sustained itself without some form of government support?"
No. Well, what do you mean by "support?" I know of a lot of technology that has been created outside of government mandate. Or do you say "support" to mean a basic framework of law? (You know patents, property, reliability of courts . . .)
Posted by: Paul | June 24, 2009 7:23 PM
For profit health care systems cost more and provide poorer quality outcomes, ergo non-profit health care is a bad idea? How does that make sense?
Oh yeah, you're a Libertarian.
Posted by: Stu
|
June 24, 2009 7:28 PM
but came to different policy conclusions.
...meaning you're okay with people needlessly dying. It's okay, you can say it.
Posted by: Blind Squirrel FCD | June 24, 2009 7:29 PM
What, if anything, does this even mean?
BS
Posted by: frog | June 24, 2009 7:30 PM
BB: Those analytical techniques don't "refute" Austrian economics any more than they refute, say, public choice theory.
No, they don't "refute" it -- they make it completely insensible. It's as meaningful to have an economic theory that isn't built on modern mathematical techniques as having a biology built on philosophical musing. Which was the original point -- that once you've actually done a systems level analyses correctly, you would never accept arm-waving by third-rate philosophers -- you should be able to recognize the issues that must first be answered in any worthwhile analysis of complex, perturbation sensitive systems.
Wow, you're unbelievably dumb. (I think I'm getting the hang of the style here.)
No, you're not getting it (another signal of gamma style "thought"?). At least follow unbelievably with a simile, or parallel it with your argument, or a multi-level reference. Throwing it out a dumb insult, is, well, dumb. Your insults barely scratch the level of "Why did the chicken cross the road? Because it had no head!"
Posted by: BluesBassist | June 24, 2009 7:31 PM
@Paul:
For profit health care systems cost more and provide poorer quality outcomes, ergo non-profit health care is a bad idea? How does that make sense?
Oh yeah, you're a Libertarian.
I'm not aware of any paper which makes that broad of a claim, and in any case, that's not my argument at all. You aren't making the slightest bit of sense.
Oh yeah, you're a retarded fuck-wit.
Posted by: Paul | June 24, 2009 7:37 PM
Monopoly is not defined outside of some sort of framework of law, no? I am having trouble understanding your point. Outside of a framework of law, a monopoly would just be called a dictator.
Thanks for engaging directly. Your statement sounded like you were en route to being another Walton or BluesBassist, in context.
Actually, what I was referring to given the current flow of conversation is that no man is an island. Technological advances have occurred in societies that provide many things, among them patents, property, reliability of courts, but I was more thinking of public works. Roads, infrastructure, power distribution, that sort of thing. Libertarians around here argue about how government is bad and should not be funded, but ignore very basic things that underpin the very society that enables them to do business. And that is ignored so they can rail about how the government has no right to regulate business or behavior, because people rise or fall on their own abilities instead of recognizing they can only do what they do because they stand on the shoulders of giants.
But since you said it was not a rhetorical ploy, that meaning does not really apply to you. I hope others can provide a better answer for your question.
Posted by: Walter Silveira | June 24, 2009 7:38 PM
You may be amused to know they took down the poll after it was clear they had been 0wned. =p
Posted by: Cain | June 24, 2009 7:42 PM
...meaning you're okay with people needlessly dying. It's okay, you can say it.
It could mean he has done more research - or not. That is also sanctimonious. I doubt the person that you are arguing with is a soulless bastard. I think there is also a fallacy lingering in that statement. Your statement seems to assume that people don't needlessly die under all health care systems - but they in fact do. Here are some questions I have about health care systems (Not necessarily directed at anyone in particular):
1. How many people needlessly die in either system and for what reasons?
2. What are the "unseen" losses in either system (New drug developments, new technologies . . .)
3. What other government functions suffer as they take on or shed off certain functions?
Posted by: Rob | June 24, 2009 7:45 PM
Well, I wondered how long it would be before you people fornicated another poll. Couldn;t even resist temptation for a week eh? Good thing the site didn't commentary or I would have commented on your fornication again. MY last comments and more recent one on the elections meter creation vs. evolutio poll are still up. The results are skewed but not problem there. Everyone know evolution is a myth made up by a senile old man anyway. Iguess it takes senile old poll fornicators to beileve such silly superstions as evilution. (pun definitely intended).
So PZ, where is the next poll fornication event going to take place. be sure it has commentary. I wish to leave a fair warning to everyone. Afterall, we know just how "scientific" polls really are.
Remember the New York Slimes' poll on universal healthcare? The rsults were 72% in favor. What was not mentioned was that only 24 % of those polled were conservatives. I hate the liberal media. They are so biased and so socialist. Iran has a better and more honest media than we do at the moment. Our media is a joke. Notics that two of the networks do have BS as their name. They certainly earned it.
Until next time, happy poll fornicating!
Posted by: frog | June 24, 2009 7:45 PM
Cain: No. Well, what do you mean by "support?" I know of a lot of technology that has been created outside of government mandate. Or do you say "support" to mean a basic framework of law? (You know patents, property, reliability of courts . . .)
Not mandate -- outside of a system of government. For 10k years, almost every piece of technology created has been either government funded, or a spin off of government funded research, or created within a government supported institution. For the obvious reason that everything for 10k years has happened within the framework of the concept of government and government regulation.
You'd have to posit some kind of counter-history were high technology evolved in an anarchist culture to be able to discuss monopoly and technology without implicitly assuming government intervention.
Posted by: Jadehawk, OM
|
June 24, 2009 7:48 PM
Rob, some of us fornicate a lot more often than once a week. but on here, we do try to control our hedonistic urges.
or not.
Posted by: Cain | June 24, 2009 7:51 PM
"Monopoly is not defined outside of some sort of framework of law, no? I am having trouble understanding your point. Outside of a framework of law, a monopoly would just be called a dictator."
You're right I'm not being clear. I meant that when the government doesn't FAVOR a particular corporation or or industry with a SPECIAL set of laws. The only examples I can think of are certain types of utility companies (AT&T in the land line days) where competition cannot exist by itself.
Posted by: BluesBassist | June 24, 2009 7:57 PM
frog:
No, they don't "refute" it -- they make it completely insensible.
Your mom wears combat boots.
Yes, I know the primary criticism of Austrian economics is that it rejects the quantitative methods of neoclassical analysis. But you are just begging the question, since the Austrians fully admit they don't agree that type of analysis is applicable. Regardless of whether they are right, it's not that some particular analytical techniques render the Austrian approach incorrect.
That also doesn't imply that I don't understand how mathematical analysis can be applied to qualitatively completely different types of systems.
In fact, other than the literature, one person from whom I learned Austrian economics is through discussions with an academic astrophysicist.
Posted by: frog | June 24, 2009 8:03 PM
Cain: The only examples I can think of are certain types of utility companies (AT&T in the land line days) where competition cannot exist by itself.
Not a good example. AT&T owned a huge number of Congressman, had foreign officials assassinated, etc. It was a government in and of itself. It didn't "benefit" from the laws -- it wrote the laws, at least until the conditions changed enough with the development of new technologies which undermined it's economic primacy. You can't foresee everything, you know!
I doubt it's possible to distinguish a "special" set of laws, from "normal" laws and regulations. Inevitably the laws are going to be crafted with input from folks invested in currently running industries -- and therefore, even when not explicitly written to support one organization, you can be sure that it's been crafted with current organizations interests in mind.
I think you're trying to create an artificial distinction here that is meaningless. Anything a government does is nominally in the interest of the status quo, outside of marginal cases like revolutions.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | June 24, 2009 8:03 PM
blah blah blah
Posted by: Falyne, FCD | June 24, 2009 8:04 PM
frog, 'Tis Himself,
I was trying to be pithy. By "theory" I was responding to the general battle cry of "free market good! free market good!', which is admittedly perhaps a bit of a strawman of fiscal Libertarianism. The aim was to riff off of "in theory, theory is as good as practice, but in practice it isn't". It was poorly articulated, my apologies.
Also, I'd been thinking for a little while that I'd want to learn to play bass. Just throwing that out there.
And, Rob, you're a git. If the NYTimes poll was done in any scientific fashion, 24% of folks polled were conservative because that's how many conservatives there were in a statistically valid sample of the population. No bias required. What, did you expect 50% of the population to self-identify as conservative?
Posted by: Cain | June 24, 2009 8:06 PM
"For 10k years, almost every piece of technology created has been either government funded, or a spin off of government funded research, or created within a government supported institution."
That's a bit of an exaggeration - or I should say I don't even know how that could be quantified. Plus I'm not even sure what you think I'm arguing.
"You'd have to posit some kind of counter-history . . ." I would have to posit this for what purpose?
Posted by: Falyne, FCD | June 24, 2009 8:10 PM
In case it was made unclear by my leading attempt at humor, my basic point earlier was that a state letting its citizens die from lack of health care, or let citizens fall into poverty from medical costs, is fucking barbaric, especially when we can point to the entire rest of the developed world as evidence that there's a better way.
Posted by: Jadehawk, OM
|
June 24, 2009 8:11 PM
I like that. where did you get that from?
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage
|
June 24, 2009 8:12 PM
There are other criticisms of Austrian School economics. For instance, there's the Austrian Business Cycle Theory. Although the Austrian School was at the forefront of business cycle theory in the 1920s, it hasn't developed in any positive way since then. The central idea of the credit cycle is an important one, particularly as it applies to the business cycle in the presence of a largely unregulated financial system. But the Austrians balked at the interventionist implications of their own position, and failed to engage seriously with Keynesian ideas.
The result (like orthodox Marxism) is a research program that was active and progressive almost a century ago but has now become an ossified dogma. Like all such dogmatic orthodoxies, it provides believers with the illusion of a complete explanation but cease to respond in a progressive way to empirical violations of its predictions or to theoretical objections. To the extent that anything positive remains, it is likely to be developed by non-Austrians such as the post-Keynesian followers of Hyman Minsky.
Posted by: BluesBassist | June 24, 2009 8:19 PM
@Stu:
...meaning you're okay with people needlessly dying. It's okay, you can say it.
On noes, you got me. Yup, I'm not only "okay" with people needlessly dying, I'm a meanie and that's what I want. It's the same reason I'm pro-choice regarding abortion; I want to kill babies!
Posted by: frog | June 24, 2009 8:20 PM
Cain: That's a bit of an exaggeration - or I should say I don't even know how that could be quantified. Plus I'm not even sure what you think I'm arguing.
"You'd have to posit some kind of counter-history . . ." I would have to posit this for what purpose?
You'd have to posit it because there are no examples of high-technology societies without pervasive government. Not since Catal Huyuk.
What do you mean "quantify" in this case? It's just a historical fact -- almost all technology from the last 10k years have come from urban-centered societies, and all urban-centered societies have had intrusive governments. 100% doesn't require statistical analysis; 99% doesn't require statistical analysis.
If you want to make a meaningful statement, you have to at least have an imaginable counter-example. Please describe your counter-example -- if it's AT&T, that's very weak; you need a really distinct case so we can compare different real-world examples.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage
|
June 24, 2009 8:21 PM
Falyne,
I apologize. I didn't realize that you were trying to interject a little humor into the discussion. Unfortunately, I'm an economist and I sometimes try to teach basic economics to other people. This is especially true when libertarians are spouting their fantasies.
Posted by: Cain | June 24, 2009 8:21 PM
"It didn't "benefit" from the laws -- it wrote the laws . . ."
That's what I mean. And I guess it is a bad example, and a good one. AT&T had special legal protection.
"I think you're trying to create an artificial distinction here that is meaningless."
I don't think being relatively favored by the legal system is a meaningless distinction. It may be a fuzzy distinction and vary from time and place, but not meaningless surely. I mean it is possible to look at laws and say they unfairly protect some - isn't it?
Posted by: Falyne, FCD | June 24, 2009 8:21 PM
@Jadehawk, 283,
I wasn't actually sure, but Google says it looks like it was from a text in my CSE Senior Design class.
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Fact_and_theory
(I actually had the book that is cited, which makes it more likely than the Yogi Berra possibility)
Posted by: Jadehawk, OM
|
June 24, 2009 8:25 PM
thanks! I shall abuse the quote at various appropriate and inapropriate moments :-)
Posted by: frog | June 24, 2009 8:28 PM
Cain: I don't think being relatively favored by the legal system is a meaningless distinction. It may be a fuzzy distinction and vary from time and place, but not meaningless surely. I mean it is possible to look at laws and say they unfairly protect some - isn't it?
I'd say it's really really hard for the cases you want to consider, since the laws always protect those who have a preponderance of influence already. How can you tell whether the monopoly or the law came first, since they evolve together? How can you tell what the intent was, since most laws are usually written by large private organizations who then lobby the representative organizations to implement them?
I think you can compare two different cases, and through a long analysis show that in one case the law in question is more or less in the interest of a certain entity. But that's not the question you want to ask -- you want to know whether monopolies evolve independently of government help. That's a kind of absolute question -- you'd need some zero baseline to make that distinction, and it doesn't exist.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage
|
June 24, 2009 8:33 PM
Frog #291
Thank you for answering Cain's question about monopolies. I was trying to think of a way to respond without writing a couple of hundred words (or more) on monopolies and you managed to do it.
Posted by: Cain | June 24, 2009 8:35 PM
"That's a kind of absolute question -- you'd need some zero baseline to make that distinction, and it doesn't exist."
Every industry in the USSR maybe. Now you make me feel as if - WAIT!! What is a monopoly?
Posted by: frog | June 24, 2009 8:37 PM
Tis Himself: The result (like orthodox Marxism) is a research program that was active and progressive almost a century ago but has now become an ossified dogma.
Isn't that kind of inevitable in any semi-scientific discipline that is then captured by a political movement? Any active research program is going to inevitably undercut it's earlier developments -- so once the discipline becomes embedded in a committed organization, the science has to die. It becomes a threat to the organization.
It would seem to be a particular problem for economics, since so much of economics immediately becomes part of a government or political groups platform.
Posted by: Falyne, FCD | June 24, 2009 8:37 PM
@'Tis Himself
It's cool. It was interesting to read your response, actually. I just wanted to make my (muddled) attempt at Libertarian-mocking clearer. :-)
And, BluesBassist@285... y'know, I'm actually going to continue with the abortion analogy, because it can actually show the reverse of what you're trying to say. One prime utilitarian argument for being pro-choice is to say you value a woman's life over that of a fetus, because outlawing abortion causes women to die. Anti-choicers may not WANT to kill women, but it's a clear result.
On the other hand, opposing a (pretty clearly at this point) better health care system for the sake of ideology kiiiinda does say you value adherence that ideology over the lives of citizens, because non-universal medical care causes citizens to die. You may not WANT them to die, but it is, similarly, a clear result.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage
|
June 24, 2009 8:39 PM
The definition from wikipedia is pretty good:
If you need a more indepth explanation I'll be happy to give you one, but I warn you, it'll be rather technical (i.e., a lot of jargon).
Posted by: Cain | June 24, 2009 8:41 PM
". . .because non-universal medical care causes citizens to die."
Universal health or medical care causes people to die too.
Posted by: frog | June 24, 2009 8:42 PM
Cain: Every industry in the USSR maybe. Now you make me feel as if
Wrong side of the equation. We do know that government controlled monopolies exist -- the question is about "government-free" monopolies.
- WAIT!! What is a monopoly?
Good question. The extreme edge is easy -- but if we exclude that, it gets a bit tougher, doesn't it?
Posted by: Jadehawk, OM
|
June 24, 2009 8:46 PM
I want to know what part of universal health-care can even out the 22000 deaths a year attributed to lack of insurance/underinsurance to make that a fair statement...
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage
|
June 24, 2009 8:50 PM
frog #294
As soon as an academic school or movement becomes ideological, then all discussion within the school that might even potentially disagree with the ideology becomes at least suspect and, more often, taboo. However, the Austrian School is not a monolithic ideology. Peter Boettke writes: "It must be admitted that Austrian economics is plagued with many thorny issues of an epistemological, theoretical, empirical, and political nature. Disagreement within the ranks of Austrian economists still persists over [many] issues...." Perhaps the largest split is between the "narrow church" of Mises and the "broad church" of Hayek. The Miseans do not consider Hayek a "true" Austrian, and even refer to him privately as a "social democrat," because he did not subscribe to all the tenets of hard-core Austrianism.
Posted by: frog | June 24, 2009 8:51 PM
Tis Himself: Monopolies are thus characterized by a lack of economic competition for the good or service that they provide and a lack of viable substitute goods.
But what does that tell us? Outside of commodities markets, that's the case for almost everything, between patents, copyrights, barriers to entry... There's either a monopoly or oligopoly in charge of every industry; for legal purposes they're distinguishable, but I don't think they're very different for analytical purposes.
I can't buy a cheap dvd-backup device; there's a cartel that controls which dvd reading and writing devices go on the market. I'm extremely limited in what kinds of automobiles I can buy -- how do you draw the line between reasonable regulation, and cartel action there?
I'd think it's more useful to find cases which actually function as open markets, and identify their special features, rather than the reverse.
Posted by: Cain | June 24, 2009 8:53 PM
"The verb "monopolize" refers to the process by which a firm gains persistently greater market share than what is expected under perfect competition."
"But competition as a condition is precisely eliminates many competitors" - Thomas Sowell
I'm still not getting it. The thing is that people are always complaining about monopolies, but no one ever wants to give me good examples of one. The problem I have with the concept is encapsulated in Sowell quote above. If other businesses in a market fail and leave just one grocery store in a town, or one steel producer in a country how does one tell if that is because the other competitors sucked or because the monopolist was a throat-cutting maniac? How do you define a monopoly as bad? Are all monopolies bad? Just some?
The more I talk with you guys the less clear things get. I think I may not actually exist.
Posted by: Falyne, FCD | June 24, 2009 8:57 PM
Cain@297,
How? I mean, there's clear causality the other way (can't afford care => working while hoping symptoms just go away => spotting cancer too late to be treated, for just one of many, many, many examples), but why would universal care CAUSE deaths that would not occur under the current system?
Posted by: frog | June 24, 2009 9:01 PM
TH: As soon as an academic school or movement becomes ideological, then all discussion within the school that might even potentially disagree with the ideology becomes at least suspect and, more often, taboo. However, the Austrian School is not a monolithic ideology.
Marxism is also riven by sects. But they all hold faith in the same credo, the same epistemological bases.
The more that the business end of a discipline is in it's sales to those outside of the discipline, the more that the business is in the propagandistic use of the discipline, the more difficult it becomes to ask deep questions about assumptions rather than just application.
You can argue about whether Mary is theotokos or christotokos, but you can't discuss whether she's a virgin, can you? You actually should expect the sects to multiply just as the significant questions become unaskable.
So, you have the Mises and Hayek church, right? But they both subscribe to the nonsense of cardinal versus ordinal numbers, the incommensurability of quantitative data to economic activity, right? They're both committed to an 18th century style of analysis that takes nothing from more than two centuries of developments in mathematics and science.
Posted by: Cain | June 24, 2009 9:02 PM
"I can't buy a cheap dvd-backup device; there's a cartel that controls which dvd reading and writing devices go on the market."
There's a good example of why I don't get what people are talking about. The definable market isn't all the definable. So, this guy wants a cheap dvd-backup device which is only offered in a monopolized market. That is unless we define what this guy wants DONE. There are other ways to backup your computer or whatever that DVD's compete with. If I'm the only DVD producer am I really a monopoly when I have to compete with CD's and tape drives?
Posted by: frog | June 24, 2009 9:13 PM
Cain: There's a good example of why I don't get what people are talking about. The definable market isn't all the definable. So, this guy wants a cheap dvd-backup device which is only offered in a monopolized market. That is unless we define what this guy wants DONE. There are other ways to backup your computer or whatever that DVD's compete with. If I'm the only DVD producer am I really a monopoly when I have to compete with CD's and tape drives?
What, do you mean really in some kind of platonic way? I'm talking operationally -- there exists some technology and I can't buy it, not because someone can't make money selling it to me, but because it's part of a cartel that doesn't want the technology to exist at all.
I can build it quite cheaply -- but I can't sell it, even though I could make a lot of money doing so.
So is it "really" an oligopoly? Well, if by really you mean something definable, then yes. If you mean some kind of abstraction that exists in the pleroma -- well no. But then you're purely playing ideological games, trying to jam every case into some pre-existing logical framework, rather than building your logical framework so as to best capture the salient features of the world around you.
That's just propaganda or religion -- take your favored pick. but what's the point of that other than to rationalize what you've already decided? You learn nothing that way.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage
|
June 24, 2009 9:17 PM
Cain #302
Let's consider the Sowell quote. His statement is true, as far as it goes (that's what you get when you quote one sentence from a 300 page book). The marketplace is a zero-sum game. For every winner you have at least one loser. Over the long run, there'll be only a few, sometimes only one, winner. Microsoft (MS) is a prime example. Bill Gates started with someone else's idea and with good salesmanship, support from another near-monopoly, and a lot of luck, gained enough marketshare for Gates to become the richest man in the world.
That's where government regulation comes in. MS is skating very close to the edge of monopoly. The EU has de facto (but not quite de jure) pronounced MS a monopoly. Fortunately for MS, a rabidly anti-regulatory administration was in office when the US government considered whether MS was a monopoly. MS has dodged a couple of big bullets but that may not be true in the near future. The EU courts are looking very closely at MS. They might have a decision by the end of the year if not sooner.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage
|
June 24, 2009 9:26 PM
That's one of my major objections to the Austrians. Mainstream (neo-classical and other) economists use the scientific method; Austrians reject it, at least for the study of the economy. Instead, they use a pre-scientific method which deduces truths from a priori knowledge.
Some of my other objections:
• Mainstream economists make heavy use of statistics. Austrians claim statistics have very little value, because of their extreme limitations.
• Mainstream economists often use models that use perfect starting assumptions. Austrians claim not to.
• Mainstream economists believe that monopolies can arise from a number of causes. Austrians believe that only government causes monopolies.
• Mainstream economists believe in fiat money. Austrians believe in the gold standard.
• Mainstream economists assert that the mystery of the business cycle is deep and poorly understood. Austrians claim the government causes it.
Posted by: Cain | June 24, 2009 9:27 PM
"How? I mean, there's clear causality the other way (can't afford care => working while hoping symptoms just go away => spotting cancer too late to be treated, for just one of many, many, many examples), but why would universal care CAUSE deaths that would not occur under the current system?"
One way it kills people is by making them wait. What we are talking about here are different systems for allocating scarce resources - that is rationing. Prices are one way of allocating those resources and political mandates are another way. Both have to deal with the simple fact that there does not exist an infinite supply of anything. What happens quite often in socialized health care systems is that people tend to overuse the available services, which means more waiting periods as a result of people going to the doctor for any old reason. This, amongst other causes, gives incentives for black markets which are dangerous. Here is a paragraph from some propoganda that I recently read:
"When prices no longer ration, then something else has to ration, since the underlying scarcity does not go away just because the government controls prices or provides things free of charge to the users. While this is common whith price controls on many things, waiting for medical care is a more serious problem. IN 2001, more than 10,000 people in Britian had waited more than 15 months for surgery. IN Canada, a 2004 study showed the median waiting time from recieving an appointment with a specialist to actually being treated was 15 weeks for opthalmology and 24 weeks for orthopaedic surgery. This does not include the waiting time between being referred to a specilist by a general practioner and actually getting an appointment with that specialist, these additional waiting times varying by province form 7 weeks in Manitoba to 12 weeks in Prince Edward Island." - Thomas Sowell - screw the spelling.
He goes on to point out that often this can be more expensive than American health care with shorter waiting periods since often major illnesses prevent people from working.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage
|
June 24, 2009 9:35 PM
Incidentally, for those who might not be familiary with the Austrian School of economics, here's a short but admittedly biased description from a non-admirer:
The Austrian School is a tiny group of libertarians at war with mainstream economics. They reject even the scientific method that mainstream economists use, preferring to use instead a pre-scientific approach that shuns real-world data and is based purely on logical assumptions. But this is the very method that thousands of religions use when they argue their opposing beliefs, and the fact that the world has thousands of religions proves the fallibility of this approach. Academia has generally ignored the Austrian School, and the only reason it continues to exist is because it is financed by wealthy conservatives. The movement does not exist on its own scholarly merits.
Posted by: Cain | June 24, 2009 9:40 PM
Frog:". . . rather than building your logical framework so as to best capture the salient features of the world around you."
I love you.
Secondly, I mean REALLY to mean just that - do I get to prosecute these people - or even deride them given the larger picture.
Also, with your particular example do these companies merely own a patent to prevent you from selling their stuff? You surely aren't implying that I can't own and control (for an amount of time) what I create?
I know you probably don't think that I just need clarification.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage
|
June 24, 2009 9:44 PM
But what surgery were they waiting for? Bypass heart surgery? Appendectomies? Breast augmentation? Plus there may be other reasons for the wait. My brother waited six months for hip replacement surgery because his company didn't want him gone from work until the "slack time" in the annual cycle.
Posted by: frog | June 24, 2009 9:47 PM
TH: Instead, they use a pre-scientific method which deduces truths from a priori knowledge
Well, to be charitable, we can call it Scholasticism. But it was abandoned during the enlightenment for good reason, and the nail in it's coffin was forged by Riemann -> Russell -> Godel. It requires a faith in a unique formal system/mathematics that describes the world.
We know no such beast exists. Ergo, the whole thing is nonsense -- there are infinite self-consistent but mutually incompatible mathematical structures that describe the external reality to some degree or other of approximation. If there is a unique one, ala Max Tegmark, it's unknowable to us -- so worthless as an explicit basis to build any discipline.
Now, I actually agree with their fear of statistics. It may be my ignorance of economics, but what I've read of economics always uses statistics with very poor assumptions. I don't see the kind of work done in stochastic physics, for example. I see reduced models that don't seem to fit any known world.
As I said, I'm quite skeptical about most economics. But at least they're doing something wrong. The Austrians don't even seem to be wrong.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage
|
June 24, 2009 9:59 PM
Speaking as an economist, it's perfectly reasonable for you to be skeptical. We're almost like the witch doctors with rattles driving out evil spirits school of medicine. Ten years ago I had a major argument with Larry Summers about market regulation (an argument I lost, which is why I'm not in government any more). A couple of years ago I ran into Summers and he gloated that he was right and I was wrong. Now I'd like to see him again so I can do some gloating myself. However, I have no doubt that in a hundred years or so some economist will read about our argument and declare us both to be idiots.
Sorry, I have to call it a night. Like most people, I have to work tomorrow, so I should go to sleep. Good night.
Posted by: frog | June 24, 2009 10:03 PM
cain: Also, with your particular example do these companies merely own a patent to prevent you from selling their stuff? You surely aren't implying that I can't own and control (for an amount of time) what I create?
What is "mere" about owning a patent? It's a goverment-enforced monopoly, isn't it? Wasn't that your question in the first place?
I didn't make a judgment about ownership with my statement. I was just stating the facts of the matter; the value of monopolies/oligopolies is separate to whether they exist almost universally.
The DVD patents aren't owned by the "creator" of the products -- I'm not sure how you'd even ascertain who was the creator are in fact, as opposed to in law. I doubt there are many engineers who made billions off the patents. It's owned by folks who run large organization who in no way "created" DVDs themselves, and who own the patent because of their ability to collect capital, not because of their ability to "create" products. They're salesmen -- as long as they're not such complete idiots that they don't hire some good engineers, they'll own patents.
That may be good or bad. The oligopoly drives capital into the entertainment industries -- the oligopoly isn't primarily interested in controlling the patents for their royalties, but because of their secondary investments in entertainment (Sony, et. al.).
If you think that capitalization of cultural production via the stock market is good -- then the monopoly is good. They are one and the same. That's where Libertarianism falls apart -- it rarely faces the fact that social systems are complicated and nasty, with many compromises for them to actually function. They're like biological systems, and not Platonic systems of philosophy.
Posted by: Cain | June 24, 2009 10:04 PM
"But what surgery were they waiting for?"
Elective surgeries. The paper (Tackling Exessive Waiting Times for Elective Surgery: A Comparison of Policies in Twelve OECD Countries) defines elective as,
"Elective surgery - surgery is necessary but the patient can be sent home and the timing of the
procedure can be scheduled (e.g. stable coronary artery disease)."
It further places cataract, hip replacement, and coronary artery bypass as elective. And while it might be anecdotal, a John Stosel special interviewed a woman who had a blood clot in her stomach which Canadian health care decided was "elective" had she not come to the U.S. for surgery she would have died.
Other ways waiting is increased is that doctors will unnecessarily split treatments to receive more money from the government.
Posted by: John Morales | June 24, 2009 10:09 PM
Walter @271,
Well, that may not be the reason (yeah, right!).
But it sure seems like it was very cynical — had it gone as he hoped, it would've been trumpeted as the 'will of the people'. Now, it's probably "Poll? What poll? I have no recollection of that, perhaps one of my staffers [blah]. I'll look into it and get back to you".
--
PS Sorry to break in with the thread topic. Carry on.
Posted by: Cain | June 24, 2009 10:22 PM
"The DVD patents aren't owned by the "creator" of the products -- I'm not sure how you'd even ascertain who was the creator are in fact, as opposed to in law. I doubt there are many engineers who made billions off the patents."
The engineers or TRUE CREATORS most likely joined the company because it allowed them to operate in a way that they felt they couldn't operate by themselves. That is succesfully. The company provided resources and an environment that those engineers felt was better than their basement. The engineer in any specific industry isn't being forced to be there. If she thought is was better to work there - I believe her.
"What is "mere" about owning a patent? It's a goverment-enforced monopoly, isn't it?"
Well in a way yes, but it is for a limited amount of time and the reason is that certain types of monopolies are good for society as a whole. The thing I want to know is, what makes for a bad monopoly. You're complaining that for now you can't make and sell this product, but if the ownership of the design were not protected for some period of time, what incentive would those engineers or the companies at large have to produce your favored product?
"That's where Libertarianism falls apart -- it rarely faces the fact that social systems are complicated and nasty, with many compromises for them to actually function. They're like biological systems, and not Platonic systems of philosophy."
Politicians are ugly too. The question is which is uglier.
Posted by: Scott from Oregon | June 24, 2009 10:24 PM
""That's one of my major objections to the Austrians. Mainstream (neo-classical and other) economists use the scientific method; Austrians reject it, at least for the study of the economy. Instead, they use a pre-scientific method which deduces truths from a priori knowledge.""
EXCEPT that the Austrians rationally and almost perfectly predicted our current economic predicament, in writing, years ago.
I suppose it is like the farmer and the "meteorological model expert" arguing about the weather.
I tend to go with the guy who gets his forecasts right.
Most economists really should be hiding their useless selves in shamed exile right about now.
Paul Krugman's own words from 2005 and 2006 indict his weasily ass right up the flag pole of failed ideologies...
Posted by: John Morales | June 24, 2009 10:36 PM
SfO:
Really? Here in Oz (I live in a rural area), the farmers follow the weather forecasts* pretty closely, because it's very important to their livelihood.
Guess it's different in Oregon.
--
* Issued by the Australian Government Bureau of Meteorology, based on observations and meteorological modelling.
Posted by: frog | June 24, 2009 10:54 PM
cain: The engineers or TRUE CREATORS most likely joined the company because it allowed them to operate in a way that they felt they couldn't operate by themselves. That is succesfully. The company provided resources and an environment that those engineers felt was better than their basement. The engineer in any specific industry isn't being forced to be there. If she thought is was better to work there - I believe her.
And did I argue that it was an absolutely unjust system? Or even that it was unjust at all? Am I claiming to be an anarchist?
But we should be clear and honest with our words. There are compromises made in order to do anything -- and we are all constrained by history, the law, and talents. A salesman is needed -- and the salesmen will tend to dominate any organization, since their very talent is exactly in maninpulating others. Without manipulators (politicians), I doubt we can get groups to function very well -- but there's a price to be paid.
"What is "mere" about owning a patent? It's a goverment-enforced monopoly, isn't it?"
Well in a way yes, but it is for a limited amount of time and the reason is that certain types of monopolies are good for society as a whole. The thing I want to know is, what makes for a bad monopoly. You're complaining that for now you can't make and sell this product, but if the ownership of the design were not protected for some period of time, what incentive would those engineers or the companies at large have to produce your favored product?
That's arguable for many products. Some products take massive capitalization over long periods of time -- and those tend to be primarily developed by governments. Most of the important technologies for the DVD, the laser, the transistor, the programming languages, etc, were developed in government (or AT&T) research labs, not for profit, but as a larger program of technological domination.
So would the DVD have come together without patents? Well, not exactly the same. It would have lacked the copyright protection elements, it would have been a moving target over time with many more data and physical formats, and so forth. But many of the elements could be developed piecewise, demanding fairly little capital and solving immediate problems. You see this all the time in software -- but it's less efficacious the more hardware is involved.
So there's a price to be paid, and a value gained. In software, the price is highest, and the results are least. The same for "business processes" and similar forms of patents. On the other hand, you get to the opposite extreme with the development of large machinery, fairly unique machinery with small markets.
"That's where Libertarianism falls apart -- it rarely faces the fact that social systems are complicated and nasty, with many compromises for them to actually function. They're like biological systems, and not Platonic systems of philosophy."
Politicians are ugly too. The question is which is uglier.
No, the question is what is the least ugly combination of politicians, salesmen, soldiers and scientists. It's not one group or the other -- it's a complicated system. Parasites are bad, right? Except that in human beings, if you're worm-free, you end up developing asthma and allergies. So the question is not whether worms are worse or better than an allergy -- but what is the least worst combination of the two.
You want an easy answer. You want a simple code or algorithm. There is none -- it's a case-by-case basis, changing with time.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
June 24, 2009 10:55 PM
John, the NOAA and National Weather Service (guvmint run agencies) share their data with local and national media. They also put it out on the web. I can see NWS Doppler radar from the Mississippi river to central Michigan using a widgit on my computer (nothing of interest there at the moment).
Posted by: frog | June 24, 2009 10:59 PM
SFO: EXCEPT that the Austrians rationally and almost perfectly predicted our current economic predicament, in writing, years ago.
Except, in their non-quantitative tradition, they left me no way to know whether they were wrong or right. They didn't give us some narrow envelope, a set of equations describing the development of the recession, limits and probabilities.
They give us words like Nostradamus. Nostradamus is always right -- you just have to interpret him correctly.
Austrian predictions == Prophetic visions.
Posted by: Cain | June 24, 2009 11:12 PM
"You want an easy answer. You want a simple code or algorithm. There is none -- it's a case-by-case basis, changing with time"
I know that. This post by Tishimself motivated my question:
"Unregulated free markets lead to monopoly and oligarchy."
I'm just a truck driver. Not even a CDL truck driver. A non-CDL truck driver that reads Darwin, but a truck driver none the less. I am also a voter. I actually need something simple, and so do most people for the simple fact that we are not all economist. What I read and hear from most people on the subject of monopolies is that they are bad. And while I realize that from certain aproximations they are good or bad, I have to operate on the most general approximation of them all: the good of society. That being the case, I want to know, from economist in general, are anti-monopoly laws good or bad for society as a whole. I was motivated by a post from Tishimelf that said unregulated markets tend to result in monopolies amongst other things. So how do I - in general - vote? Do I go for the pathetic whiners or the personal responibility crowd? While I realize that politicians are there to do work that I can't do - when they start babbling about monopolies do I vote for them or not? I've asked for two things tonight;
1. What are the conditions that lead to monopolies?
2. How do I tell if they are good or bad?
I'm sorry if this post is sorry for itself, but I can't even get a straight answer from people like Tishimself - an economist. What's a guy to do?
This would be more fun over beer.
Posted by: Frank Lovell
|
June 24, 2009 11:14 PM
Originally Posted by: Frank Lovell, June 24, 2009 9:53 AM [#15]
It's about 8:50 AM EDT, and the poll already now stands at...
70.7% YES
28.3% NO
...with 1302 respondents thus far. That's a potent Pharyngularmy influence!
-----------------------------------------------------------
Reply by: Laborum, June 24, 2009 10:20 AM
@ #15 That's not even close to "a potent Pharyngularmy influence". Check back in some of the previous polls that hit 20k+ positive votes with heavy opposition kicking and screaming their way to pointless poll failure.
-----------------------------------------------------------
That's true, Laborum, but my comment was posted very early in the "day" -- it was only comment #15, posted less than an hour after PZ's original alert to this poll, presenting impressive Pharyngularmy influence of the poll's numbers before many Pharyngulites had even arisen, let alone gotten on-line yet. I had no doubt the train had hardly left the station yet there had already been a four-fold increase in the poll's percentage difference between YES and NO responses. I remain impressed!
Posted by: Cain | June 24, 2009 11:15 PM
What's the point in having economist if they can't tell you generalities?
Posted by: Jadehawk, OM
|
June 24, 2009 11:17 PM
it should also be noted that the far left also predicted this. basically, everyone who had an interest in economics as usual failing was somehow able to predict this, while those who had an interest in it succeeding, didn't predict it. strange coincidence, that.
it would be a lot more useful to look at predictive power over time, not for a singular event. and in such cases, libertarians tend to be more commonly wrong.
Posted by: Cain | June 24, 2009 11:22 PM
"libertarians tend to be more commonly wrong."
Really? I've found the opposite.
Posted by: frog | June 24, 2009 11:25 PM
cain: 1. What are the conditions that lead to monopolies?
2. How do I tell if they are good or bad?
1. Above my pay grade. I believe that is a constant field of research with no easy answers. I guess a coupla textbooks of reading should give you some idea.
2. I don't think there's a general answer. When a politician starts babbling about something abstract, I ignore them -- they're salesman, so abstraction isn't their forte; they're just bullshitting.
I like to look at the facts on the ground that they're really talking about. Who are their allies? Not, what are their ideologies?
So, who are the allies of the "personal responsibility" crowd? Hayek was in bed with Pinochet who was a killer. Lot's of those folks supported Bush, who was a destructive moron. Reagan's buddies built up Noriega, then ended up in an internecine battle with their central american protege. They funded a number of central and south american killers for no clear reason to me.
The "pathetic whiners" have their bad moments too -- but in general, they've been in bed with fewer dictatorial totalitarian 3rd world tin pot mobsters. So I jess pick the side of the guys who've had allies who've killed fewer people.
Posted by: Jadehawk, OM
|
June 24, 2009 11:33 PM
cain, I'm speaking globally and over extended periods of time; and as a rule, their version of extremist unregulated capitalism seems to have the exact opposite effect of what they keep predicting.
and this particular crisis wasn't horribly hard to predict, either. not like "housing bubble" was a foreign word before 2007. so, only those with a vested interest in it not happening didn't predict it would happen. and only a few of the cassandras were able to predict the time of it happening. which would only be impressive if both the far right and the far left didn't constantly predict imminent collapse anyway.
Posted by: bubbles | June 24, 2009 11:40 PM
My first post, behave. I am working tonight at a hospital which shall be nameless. My twenty bed unit has 5 pateints. My hospital wants to close more beds, may layoff workers, cut salaries. What does this mean? HEALTH CARE RATIONING. The health care industry is already controlled by the government. Ever heard of JACHO? They make our lives hell at least once a year. Medicare\medicaid cuts?
We just intensify our efforts in the areas that remain profitable and it sure isn't prevention and wellness. Lately we've been wondering where all the sick people went?
Does anyone know?
Posted by: bubbles | June 24, 2009 11:43 PM
My first post, behave. I am working tonight at a hospital which shall be nameless. My twenty bed unit has 5 pateints. My hospital wants to close more beds, may layoff workers, cut salaries. What does this mean? HEALTH CARE RATIONING. The health care industry is already controlled by the government. Ever heard of JACHO? They make our lives hell at least once a year. Medicare\medicaid cuts?
We just intensify our efforts in the areas that remain profitable and it sure isn't prevention and wellness. Lately we've been wondering where all the sick people went?
Does anyone know?
Posted by: Cain | June 24, 2009 11:43 PM
I actually do have a couple of economic textbooks and they tend to argue for less intervention by government. Good Fed policy yes, property rights yes, but in general less specific intervention - or I should say less narrow laws for small groups. As for the "whiners" and the "personal responibility" crowds, I don't think I can say that one group in terms of foreign policy was better as a whole. The "whiners" tended to be soft on commies and I think that has its own death toll. As far as Hayek goes, Pinochet may have been even worse without his influence - and I realize that goes for some leftist too in terms of their influence on other governments. Therefore I don't make much of body counts.
If economist can't as a whole serve the same function that all other specialist serve then they are completly useless.
Darwin - Organisms that are so structured that they survive to reproduce pass on their traits as opposed to organisms that are so structured that they don't survive.
Newton - (substitute his equations)
Kepler - Elliptical orbits
Mechanic - Your cam chain snapped
Economist - ?
If all an economist can tell me is, "It's complicated." Then he should die.
Hope to talk to you again. Night.
Posted by: Jadehawk, OM
|
June 24, 2009 11:44 PM
staying home, not able to pay doctor's bills. and praying for good health until after the economic crisis
Posted by: Bastard Sheep | June 24, 2009 11:48 PM
Libertarians aren't always that incorrect.
The most common thing I heard from them at the time the markets were deregulated was that through competition they would control themselves and sort themselves out. Well, they sure did, through a crash.
The most common thing I heard from them at the time of the housing market boom was that competition would be good, it would keep houses within reach due to competition. Well, they sure did, through a crash.
Shall I go on?
Posted by: John Morales | June 24, 2009 11:48 PM
Nerd @322, you guys probably have better coverage and accuracy than we do* :)
SoF's analogy kinda sucked, is what I was getting at. He must hate it Government does all this, and that it's paid for by taxes.
Probably figures if you want a forecast, you should damn well pay for it, or get your friendly farmer to tell you, not one of those eggheads in some big Guvmint palace.
--
* Similar size country, many more resources.
Posted by: John Morales | June 24, 2009 11:55 PM
Cain,
Just curious, do you consider regulation* is intervention?
--
* well, regulation with enforcement.
Note that laws are functionally a form of regulation.
Posted by: frog | June 24, 2009 11:55 PM
cain: As for the "whiners" and the "personal responibility" crowds, I don't think I can say that one group in terms of foreign policy was better as a whole. The "whiners" tended to be soft on commies and I think that has its own death toll. As far as Hayek goes, Pinochet may have been even worse without his influence - and I realize that goes for some leftist too in terms of their influence on other governments. Therefore I don't make much of body counts.
Soft on commies? There haven't been anyone in power in the US that was "soft on commies" since WWII. It's been the super-anti-communists, and the plain-old-anti-communists. The "whiners" are center-right -- the "personal responsibility crowd" are far right -- in terms of world-wide networks of alliances.
And that's what I see -- not ideologies, but who's in bed with who. No one in the US was in bed with China or the Russians -- the closest we ever came was Nixon!
Posted by: Cain | June 25, 2009 12:00 AM
"their version of extremist unregulated capitalism seems to have the exact opposite effect of what they keep predicting."
What those people keep predicting is not that is always going to be smooth ride but that in the long run we will be better off with a certain set of policies. Our economic crisis pales in comparison with what France deals with on a daily basis. The last time we had double digit unemployment was in something like 1982. In France that's almost the norm. And even given the "crisis" we took a smaller hit than most countries. We seem to regard any inconvenience as a crises. We are better off than previous generations. We are better off for certain reasons. And I doubt that is because that we have more regulation. Moreover the housing market is not unregulated. Everything from rent control, to lending policies, to land use and historic district policies has helped to inflate housing prices far beyond their real market value. Sure the behavior of certain investors was irrational - but so were the regulatory laws surrounding them. If anyone here thinks that I don't get that certain policies can actually work out are misreading me. Just don't confuse criticism of current policies and attitudes with some sort of blind Utopian vision in an anarchist world.
Posted by: Cain | June 25, 2009 12:16 AM
"There haven't been anyone in power in the US that was "soft on commies" since WWII."
Like so many things that depends on the time line. An unfortunate number of intellectuals including some on FDR's cabinet were sympathizers with Russia. In the fifties there were few sympathizers. By the sixties they were back. Seventies more so and by the eighties not so much. Even Carter was shocked that changed U.S. policies didn't affect Russian policy.
"the closest we ever came was Nixon!"
And Nixon's price controls policies were devastating, and so were Carters. JFK essentially got us engaged in the Vietnam war. Johnson escalated it and Nixon continued it. The body count is not as easy as you think. A staunch lefty in my family LOVES Nixon and a racist prick I know hates him. That is not the question. The question is; What can an economist give me as a general rule?
Posted by: Angel Kaida | June 25, 2009 12:40 AM
frog,
When you said "above my pay grade," I misread it as "above my gay parade." Which is actually way better.
...
Just thought I'd share...
Posted by: Scott from Oregon | June 25, 2009 1:04 AM
""SoF's analogy kinda sucked, is what I was getting at. He must hate it Government does all this, and that it's paid for by taxes.""
That's only if you assume I was talking about short term forecasts, which should have been bloody obvious I wasn't.
I was referring to three year, or five year, or twenty year cycles, and I never claimed a farmer could beat a model... just that IF he did, I would tend to listen to the bloody farmer.,..
As for the whole taxes thing... I object to giving money to an entity with a propensity to piss resources and pollution all over the planet maintaining a military empire, not ot mention the other unhealthy propensity of bombing and killing brown people.
Why give them money when I can give it to some local organization that functions (or can function) identical to the Federal Gubmint and isn't predisposed to doing things I am acutely opposed to.
I do my banking local for the same reason.
Posted by: Loc | June 25, 2009 1:50 AM
SfO
This illustrates the libertarians position pointedly. If a farmer beats the meteorologist once, they point to that example and say, "see, see, see, I told you they were right and the guvment was wrong."
You're a fucking idiot SfO. Though I imagine you always have been.
Posted by: Scott from Oregon | June 25, 2009 2:14 AM
""This illustrates the libertarians position pointedly. If a farmer beats the meteorologist once, they point to that example and say, "see, see, see, I told you they were right and the guvment was wrong." ""
Ummm, it does?
And they do?
It must really suck to have a bunch of people you don't agree with (the Austrian School) write books and stuff outlining why you're wrong and then have those book proven right by time and circumstance... All the while your guys are on record being complete idiots and shown to be fools by the very same time and circumstance...
So tell me, does it burn as it passes through your colon?
Posted by: John Morales | June 25, 2009 2:29 AM
SfO, I know stuff-all about economics, very little about metereology, and not that much about politics.
But I sure know a poor analogy when I see one.
Posted by: Jadehawk, OM
|
June 25, 2009 2:35 AM
where the fuck do you get your information? the only places hit worse where the ones even more extremely capitalistic
(at least in their finance sector), by force or choice.
also, who gives a fuck about unemployment, when a person in France has a better quality of life unemployed than an American with 2 jobs?
Keep in mind that the savings rate was highest in France (13% of income) and lowest in the U.S. (somewhere in the negative numbers). Cherry picking the bits of data that make the U.S. look better mean nothing, when the people are worse off.
Posted by: Citizen of the Cosmos
|
June 25, 2009 2:37 AM
I saw at least one comment suggesting that if you live a healthy lifestyle, you wont ever need healthcare. This is obviously not true. You can eat healthy and exercise all you want, and avoid skydiving and wrestling lions, and that helps to an extent. That's not a 100% sure way to never ever be in the need of healthcare, as surely everyone must understand.
I shouldn't have to point out that the main objective of a healthcare system is to provide that to anyone who needs it. Money, personal finances and health insurances should never be a factor for the doctors to consider when they do their job.
I believe it should be a service provided to everyone. Then there are those who really wish that healthcare is a luxury available only to those who are rich enough to afford it. Yes, that is exactly what some people wish for, why else would they support a system that has precisely that effect? If you are poor, they want you to suffer even more.
I always thought it was considered bad form to kick someone while they're already down. When you are down is when you need the help the most, and that is when you are denied it. Think about it. Some people think such a system is superior.
Really.
Posted by: windy | June 25, 2009 4:46 AM
"Do you support a government imposed healthcare policy?"
As long as gipsies get to jump the queue!
Posted by: Nominal Egg | June 25, 2009 5:18 AM
I'll say one thing for the Libertarians, they sure know how to move goal posts. The Austrian School? The Viet Nam War? Farmers can predict the weather 5 years from now better than meteorologists? WTF??
This has to be the stupidest comment on this entire thread. I don't have any children, so I shouldn't have to pay school taxes, right? Wrong! You see, I live in a community, which is part of a larger society. When most of the people in that society are well-educated, everyone (even the dropouts) are better off. Same goes for health care. When everyone has access, everyone benefits (even the healthy).Posted by: Nominal Egg | June 25, 2009 5:26 AM
But what about PYGMIES + DWARFS?And, since no one has mentioned it yet, bacon.
Posted by: Aquaria | June 25, 2009 5:38 AM
EXCEPT that the Austrians rationally and almost perfectly predicted our current economic predicament, in writing, years ago
So did Paul Krugman, who is far from Austrian.
We could play this game all day.
The Austrian economic model is brutal and, quite frankly, stupid. It sees government as always bad--like our L-tards.
Here's a few reminders for you morons:
In a government-run health care system, the taxpayers would be able to put at least some pressure on healthcare providers through their congress rats, and, best of all, there would be considerable control of the top salaries of Gov't healthcare "executives.' Think any of them will make more than about 200K/yr? Doubtful.
We have dick-all control over health insurance management now. Healthcare execs make tens of millions a year, and deny their "customers" things like organ transplants. Anyone remember how the pancreas guy was caught in a loophole with Humana, where he was covered for transplants, but a technicality in another part of his policy said he couldn't have the transplant? What does Humana do? Essentially tells a dying guy (a paying customer no less) to die. The go with the ruling that will save them money. Until a certain propagandist came onto the scene and humiliated them into doing what was right through endless (and loud) protests, which included a mock funeral held outside Humana's corporate headquarters.
It's ridiculous that such antics are one of the few ways to beat an insurance company determined to dick you over--if not kill you. And our government did nothing to help, because it's "bidness." Well, maybe if health care was the government's "bidness," they might take it more seriously.
Maybe if market-driven healthcare stopped taking money off the top to pay it's shiny-assed execs, we'd be able to fund a few kidneys and hearts for people who need them, dontcha think? Wouldn't it be nice, too, for hospitals and doctors to live in utter terror of the government coming in to investigate allegations about poor service, incompetent care, etc.--because the government could shut them down if they were discriminating, or providing poor care?
Makes me feel warm, all over.
The way I see it, I'm paying thousands a year for healthcare that is sub-par at best. And I'm a federal employee!
I'll pay the fucking taxes, if it means I can go to the doctor when I need to, if I can get surgeries when I need them, without paying thousands of out-of-pocket expenses on top of premiums and co-pays. For one surgery, approved in advance by my insurer, I was left holding the bag for over $8K. The insurer is refusing to pay for over 1/3 of the surgery itself, over 1/2 the anesthesia, and a substantial portion of the expenses for taking up hospital space for an out-patient surgery.
The surgery was five years ago, and I'm still fighting the insurance company over not paying that. And this was the second time I was shafted this way--and that one is still being argued, over "only" $6K beyond those premiums and co-pays I'd already paid.
Taxes can't be any more expensive than what I'm paying now!
Posted by: Matt Penfold | June 25, 2009 6:59 AM
This FREE MARKET people keep going on about. Is that the same FREE MARKET that banks operated under, before they had to ask Governments to provide money because they were broke from being free to lend money to people who could not pay it back ?
Only if it is, I am at a loss to work out just quite what is so good about it. Unless you happened to run a bank, and got paid lots for loosing your bank billions. Please tell me that no one is suggesting the sort of people who ran GM should be allowed to run for profit healthcare companies.
Posted by: Albigensian | June 25, 2009 8:59 AM
Pfft. Anaesthesia? What kind of weakling are you? You should be paying for the whole lot, it's not like it was needed. A real man could just grit his teeth and bear it. I don't want my tax dollars paying for pain relief for losers who can't handle a little surgery.Posted by: Knockgoats | June 25, 2009 8:59 AM
Our economic crisis pales in comparison with what France deals with on a daily basis. - Cain
This is either an astonishing display of ignorance, or a barefaced lie - in either case, exactly what one expects from a "libertarian". Currently, the French unemployment rate is 8.8%, the US unemployment rate is 9.4% - and that's not counting the well over 2 million in US jails - a vastly higher percentage than any other rich country. For some reason, France seems to be the current looneytarian whipping-boy. There must have been a memo round I suppose. While it is, like all countries, facing problems due to the great deregulation crash, it was actually the last of the G7, other than China, to enter recession.
Posted by: Knockgoats | June 25, 2009 9:01 AM
Sorry: "G7" in my #354 should have been "7 largest economies".
Posted by: Naked Bunny with a Whip
|
June 25, 2009 9:05 AM
@Albigensian: Very good summation.
Posted by: Knockgoats | June 25, 2009 9:17 AM
Other ways waiting is increased is that doctors will unnecessarily split treatments to receive more money from the government. - Cain
Of course if they're on a salary, rather than making a profit on each operation, they have no incentive to do that.
Posted by: Nominal Egg | June 25, 2009 10:34 AM
Effective oversight would also help minimize that.Posted by: Naked Bunny with a Whip
|
June 25, 2009 10:46 AM
@Knockgoats and Nominal Egg:
I think the assumption is that a government agency would be too sloppy to keep track of such transactions, while a private insurer would notice. Thinking that way is indicative of a libertarian's anti-government bias, yet I doubt they do a lot of cheating on their income taxes for fear of being caught.
Posted by: Knockgoats | June 25, 2009 10:59 AM
Nominal Egg@358,
Yes, but to spell it out a bit more, my point was that when doctors get more money if they perform more procedures - whether they are getting the money direct from patients, from a private employer, from insurance companies, or from the state, they have an incentive to do more procedures - and what's more, to concentrate on those procedures that give the best return per hour, not on those that do most for the patients. The same applies at a higher level if the state finances medical treatment, but contracts it out to profit-making businesses. This is a huge class of instances in which the profit motive cannot be expected to work well (from the patient's point of view) in health care. Works wonderfully if you're a doctor whose primary interest is money, or a health care providing business.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | June 25, 2009 11:08 AM
There are some instances when getting a for-profit company involved can make sense. An example I am aware of was in Worthing where they had a backlog of patients awaiting operations to remove cataracts. It is a simple procedure, and does not require complicated aftercare, or a long stay in hospital. To get rid of the backlog the NHS hired in doctors and other medical staff to perform the procedures, and a hotel for the patients to stay overnight.
Of course this was done for a very specific condition, which had already been diagnosed. There is only one procedure indicated when cataract is diagnosed.
Posted by: Knockgoats | June 25, 2009 11:12 AM
I think the assumption is that a government agency would be too sloppy to keep track of such transactions, while a private insurer would notice. - Naked Bunny with a Whip
There might possibly be something to that - but the problem disappears if you're not paying those responsible for deciding on procedures, per procedure. Of course you can get perverse incentives in other systems - e.g. NHS trusts in the UK have been set targets for waiting times, with the result in some cases that meeting the target had a higher priority than patient care. However, I think this is largely the result of shifts of power from medics to managers and accountants, a shift from seeing poor performance of a hospital from something to be remedied to seeing it as something to be punished by withholding resources, and loss of the local accountability there used to be (locally elected supervisory boards).
Posted by: Matt Penfold | June 25, 2009 11:18 AM
Does anyone want a bet that libertarians will think that you can tell how good a doctor is simply by comparing the number of patients who die under his/her care compared with other doctors ? I know that there was a argument made for making such information available to NHS patients so they could decide to whom they should be referred.
Posted by: frog | June 25, 2009 11:23 AM
Cain: The last time we had double digit unemployment was in something like 1982. In France that's almost the norm.
For someone so skeptical of economists, you sure have a lot of faith in government economic measures!
The fact is that France and other EU nations measure full unemployment. If you're unemployed one day in the week, you go into the unemployment number; in the US, if you're employed one hour a week, you go at least into M3.
We also have this nice little trick of "discouraged workers" which they don't have in the EU -- once you've been unemployed long enough, we stop counting you. Then we have "SS disability", many of which are folks who want jobs, can't find them, so they go on disability as a form of welfare. Hard to pin that number down -- while folks on welfare in the EU are called unemployed.
Then add in the "excess" prison population, the "excess" military population, and soon you've got a completely different idea about the relative unemployment between the US and France. Since accurate numbers aren't kept -- the best is M6 -- we can't tell what US unemployment is exactly. But it looks to be in the range of EU numbers, rather than the Soviet-style make-believe numbers we get in the press.
Posted by: Stu
|
June 25, 2009 12:19 PM
frog:
Please use the official euphemism: "under-employed".
Oh, and of course, if you listen to Dick Cheney, if you've resorted to selling your shit on eBay, you're also employed and part of the "new economy".
Posted by: frog | June 25, 2009 12:58 PM
Stu: Oh, and of course, if you listen to Dick Cheney, if you've resorted to selling your shit on eBay, you're also employed and part of the "new economy".
Oh, I didn't even bring up "contracting"! If you declare yourself a "contractor" you're not even "under-employed" -- you're fully employed whether or not you have any actual contracts or are just spending your time at Pharyngula while you wait for that call from your "client".
Posted by: Knockgoats | June 25, 2009 1:02 PM
Then we have "SS disability", many of which are folks who want jobs, can't find them, so they go on disability as a form of welfare. Hard to pin that number down -- while folks on welfare in the EU are called unemployed. - frog
Actually we have that in the UK, too, so the officially announced unemployment figures (the "claimant count") look better than they really should, but there is a more honest count available if you look for it, the "Labour Force Survey", based on ILO standards. The Thatcher government started the systematic lying-by-undercounting, but it's been enthusiastically continued, like so many of her policies, by "New Labour". The comparative figures for France and the USA I used earlier were from the OECD, incidentally.
Posted by: Nominal Egg | June 25, 2009 1:03 PM
Knockgoats @360:
Exactly right.
Posted by: Walton | June 25, 2009 3:26 PM
I am going on summer camp tomorrow with my OTC unit for two weeks, so will unfortunately miss the rest of this interesting debate. (This is possibly for the best, as there are other libertarians here who are far better at arguing these points than I am.) Farewell for now, all.
Aquaria: I'm genuinely sorry to hear about the way health insurance companies have treated you. All I can say is that there are no easy answers, and that Britain's NHS comes with problems of its own. If you lived in Britain, you wouldn't have to pay for your surgery, but you might well have to wait months and months for surgery to be scheduled (and, if you were unlucky enough to end up at one of the dodgier NHS hospitals, could end up being infected with MRSA).
You said:
This, unfortunately, bears no relation to what actually happens in the NHS. "Government accountability" means in practice that politicians interfere with the health system and set arbitrary targets and quotas, leading to NHS trusts spending more and more on administration rather than patient care.
Note: I'm fully aware that no one is talking about introducing an NHS-style system in the US (indeed, it would be virtually impossible); rather, the model advocated by most US healthcare reformers seems to be a more European-style system of single-payer insurance (or some variant thereof). But never having lived in a country with such a system, I can't bring any special insight into its workings, or predict whether it would be superior to the status quo. I can only point out that the NHS - apart from the moral problems with tax-funded healthcare - is not a fantastic system, in the experience of most people on this side of the pond.
Posted by: LanceR, JSG
|
June 25, 2009 3:46 PM
Now how can you argue with someone so twisted as to believe that? That's some weapons-grade crazy right there.
And that, my friends, is why I don't generally argue with libertarians. We have, at the core, a fundamental disconnect in our language. Obviously "moral" means something vastly different to Walton than it does to the other 96% of the world.
Posted by: Paul | June 25, 2009 3:54 PM
Do you even listen to yourself, Walton? Aquaria's case was good in that surgery only costed in the range of 5 figures. So let's imagine a relatively young someone with a condition that would cause 1 million dollars for a high cure rate. They don't have the money. You're going to say "I'm sorry, but at least you don't have to wait in line like us put-upon Brits with the NHS?"
Posted by: Cain | June 25, 2009 5:29 PM
"Effective oversight would also help minimize that."
And then the overseers would have to be overseen ad naseum.
"This is either an astonishing display of ignorance, or a barefaced lie"
No - just a mistake. France had double digit unemployment in the 90's. My books are a couple of years old. That's why I'm discussing them - to see if they are right. It should be said that France has had a loss over all of private sector jobs and has reduced unemployment by hiring people in government jobs. Or so my crazy magic books tell me.
"Of course if they're on a salary, rather than making a profit on each operation, they have no incentive to do that."
But then you would have to reuglate the work flow.
"But it looks to be in the range of EU numbers, rather than the Soviet-style make-believe numbers we get in the press."
So what are the real numbers? I've HEARD the opposite.
"Is that the same FREE MARKET that banks operated under, before they had to ask Governments to provide money because they were broke from being free to lend money to people who could not pay it back ?"
Banks are heavily regulated and were encouraged to lend out to more unrealiable people. Also to say free market is a bit misleading, as is the idea that "government" is screwing the economy or people over. It's really an arguement over the degree and type of regulations.
"Oh, and of course, if you listen to Dick Cheney, if you've resorted to selling your shit on eBay, you're also employed and part of the "new economy"."
I gotta go with Cheney on this one - I grew up in the middle of nowhere and knew people that made great money going to auctions and reselling things. And that was their only job - they weren't employed. Now you all have me thinking that even employment is a meaningless term!
"So let's imagine a relatively young someone with a condition that would cause 1 million dollars for a high cure rate."
Again there are a lot of organizations and hospitals that will not turn anyone away as part of their policy.
Posted by: Paul | June 25, 2009 5:41 PM
So instead of having a government policy ensuring equality of care, we're back to relying on charity. That wasn't the point I was making with Walton, though. He constantly talks about how horrible the NHS is while talking to people who have spent years of their lives in fear that they will have health issues because they would be lucky to only be bankrupted. Less lucky would be the ones that end up dead because they cannot afford preventative checkups and only find out they have serious health issues too late. But no, NHS is horrible because you might need to wait 3 months for an elective surgery. It's much better to have 20% of the population completely uninsured.
Posted by: Cain | June 25, 2009 7:37 PM
"But no, NHS is horrible because you might need to wait 3 months for an elective surgery. It's much better to have 20% of the population completely uninsured."
Well, elective surgeries aren't the only things delayed that was just a particular example, but anyway . . .
As for the 20% of the population that are uninsured 20% could afford it if they wanted it. Also another 25% are already elligable for public assistence. The number of people that can't afford insurance is actually much smaller. And of course were not even talking about insurance really - we are talking about health care. And health care sucks.
Posted by: frog | June 25, 2009 7:37 PM
Cain: So what are the real numbers? I've HEARD the opposite.
Did you even read Knockgoats response at http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/06/dont_you_appreciate_it_when_a.php#comment-1734301?
You responded to it -- but Knockgoats is giving you OECD, which means that even of their absolute values are "wrong" for your definition of unemployment, they're produced with the same methodology giving reasonably accurate relative values.
What you've heard is the concensus nonsense out of the media and the politically connected. Look into the various unemployment numbers yourself -- google how the different European countries measure unemployment, what the various US numbers are.
There can never be a correct number, since you can define unemployed numerous ways for numerous purposes. But if you're going to compare economic systems, you obviously need to use the same metric for them!
Everyone believes (in the US that is) that the European welfare states are less economically efficient, have higher unemployment, lower growth rates and lower social mobility.
It's just not true. France has been a close third to the US second place in developed country growth in the last decade; the outright socialist Finland, I believe, has beaten the US for several years.
Germany has much higher social mobility than the US. Western Europes unemployment is comparable when the same metric is used.
In short, the US is no more economically efficient than Europeans are; yes, it'll vary from year to year, place to place -- but they're all the same magnitude. But the US pays the price of massive inequality comparably.
The problems of lower growth rates and endemic unemployment is what you're going to get in a mature economy. It has little to do with the balance of a mixed economy, but just the maturity of that economy.
Posted by: Jadehawk, OM
|
June 25, 2009 7:51 PM
true. it could have been more like the $50000 bill that fluttered into my home after a ride in the ambulance and a night in the hospital. Luckily, this happened before I turned 21, so I managed to get Medicaid(!) to reduce my share of the bill to $700. But if this had happened a mere 3 months later, I'd be paying that bill for the rest of my life.
Posted by: Cain | June 25, 2009 8:22 PM
"There can never be a correct number, since you can define unemployed numerous ways for numerous purposes. But if you're going to compare economic systems, you obviously need to use the same metric for them!"
That is what I meant by "correct." The same metric across the board. Can you point me to a good lay level book that enplanes this stuff? Currently I'm reading "Basic Economics" by Thomas Sowell.
"Did you even read Knockgoats response"
Yes, but he didn't really clear things up for me.
Posted by: Cain | June 25, 2009 8:32 PM
http://video.yahoo.com/watch/5360790/14125501
Posted by: Paul | June 26, 2009 10:44 AM
So 20% would be a problem, but since 10% of them are lazy slackers it's ok for the other 10% to not have a safety net in case of health issues? Lovely.
Posted by: Cain | June 26, 2009 4:38 PM
"So 20% would be a problem, but since 10% of them are lazy slackers it's ok for the other 10% to not have a safety net in case of health issues? Lovely."
It isn't really for me to say whether or not it is "OK" but we do have to ask ourselves whether or not we should change so much for so little when the alternative has so many harmful side effects. And, again, those people are not likely to remain poor or uninsured. And I don't believe that these people are "lazy slackers." Stop trying to make a difference in opinion look like misanthropy on my part. It is sanctimonious to do so.
Oh, and the statistics are from John Hopkins U. - a study on the affordability of care.
Posted by: Jadehawk, OM
|
June 26, 2009 4:47 PM
bullshit. poverty is virtually a prtmanent condition in many places in the U.S. it's only the exceptions that make it out.
Posted by: Cain | June 26, 2009 5:03 PM
"bullshit. poverty is virtually a permanent condition in many places in the U.S. it's only the exceptions that make it out."
That's not true for the country as a whole. In some places like Cairo, Il poverty is an ongoing problem and will continue to be a problem for the forseeable future. When we're talking about the country as a whole, however, class levels are little more than a representation of a life span. In other words, people are poor when they are young and wealthiest in the last years of their working life and then their net worth usually slowly drops. And then they die.
Posted by: Cain | June 26, 2009 5:11 PM
For instance, 75% of Americans who were in the bottom 20 percent in income in 1975 were also in the top 40 percent at some point over the next 16 years. Also, most of the people in the top 5% are 45 or older. Wealth is accumulated over time.
A few years ago I had to wash laundry in my bath tub for want of money. Now I own a washer and dryer. My parents had nothing when I was young, and now they have the most beautiful house in town. And that's just from factory work. Give people time. They'll do well.
Posted by: Jadehawk, OM
|
June 26, 2009 5:14 PM
let me repeat myself: that's bullshit.
class mobility is rare in the U.S., and lumping the "starving student" in with people who really are poor is a fucked up statistical lie. (especially in terms of healthcare, since the starving student either has health services at school, or their parents are paying for it)
Posted by: Cain | June 26, 2009 5:17 PM
"Wealth is accumulated over time."
I should add that wealth and income are two separate things. Income does tend to increase over time.
Posted by: Cain | June 26, 2009 5:30 PM
"class mobility is rare in the U.S., and lumping the "starving student" in with people who really are poor is a fucked up statistical lie."
How so? I mean what are the real numbers? The numbers I gave are from a 1995 study by the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas. I know earlier I got sloppy with numbers by trying to go from memory, but as far as I know these are not controversial stats. What book or studies do you get your numbers from?
Posted by: Knockgoats | June 26, 2009 5:37 PM
"Government accountability" means in practice that politicians interfere with the health system and set arbitrary targets and quotas, leading to NHS trusts spending more and more on administration rather than patient care. - Walton
There is some truth in that, but it is very largely the result of both the previous Tory government, and the current "New Labour" one, insisting on introducing quasi-market mechanisms, forcing hospitals to compete with each other, removing the considerable democratic local accountability that used to exist, and hiving off whatever they can to the private sector in the cause of market dogma. Even Thatcher didn't dare try to privatise health care outright, because of the public outrage that would have generated - so both she and "New Labour", who have bought into the market dogma, have been engaged on a campaign to undermine its popularity and non-profit ethos, while channeling as much public health funding as possible into the hands of big business.
Banks are heavily regulated and were encouraged to lend out to more unrealiable people. - Cain
Another "libertarian" myth. It was precisely the deregulation of banking (the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act of 1999, the Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000 in the USA, and relaxation on the ratio of a bank's lending to its available funds in the USA; similar action in Europe and elsewhere; the orgy of financial takeover activity; WTO action to remove barriers to the flow of capital between countries) that made possible the vast growth in CDOs and CDSs in the decade before the crunch (if you don't know what these initials stand for, you don't have the first idea what was going on). These totalled tens of trillions of dollars at crunch time, dwarfing the amount of bad morgage debt - let alone the small proportion of that amount that was lent to poor people. This deregulation was always bound to lead to a boom-bust cycle - that's what deregulation does. Given the deregulation, no bank could afford to be left out of the party, and in the nature of things, some were bound to be in bad trouble whenever the US housing market - for whatever reason - stopped rising. Fortunately, governments stepped in to prevent a complete financial collapse, which would have led to trade grinding to a halt and mass starvation. Unfortunately, it is unlikely these governments will have the sense and courage to reregulate, and either nationalise or break up big banks, to the required degree, although Obama is looking a better bet for this than most European leaders.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
June 26, 2009 5:44 PM
Cain, many people are becoming unemployed these days due to no fault of their own. A couple of big companies in my area are firing a thousand or so workers each. The place I work for, and have for over 20 years, could go belly up or be sold to some other company who essentially shuts the place down for the equipment. Finding a new job in my field might be next to impossible, simply due to my age. And I'm not ready to retire. And if I find another job, it would probably mean at least a 20% pay cut. You appear to have a rosy and naive picture of the employment realities. Some of us don't.
Posted by: Knockgoats | June 26, 2009 5:53 PM
Cain@386,
Jadehawk already told you how so. A lot of the "low income" people in the survey you cite will be students or new graduates with well-off parents who will help them out if necessary, and from whom they can expect to inherit. As you said yourself, wealth and income are two different things. Are you really trying to pretend that a child born into a home in the slums has more than a tiny chance of ever ending up even in the mid-range for income, let alone rich? Or that the child of a rich family is likely to become poor, unless exceptionally irresponsible or unlucky? It's worth having a look at Intergenerational Social Mobility: The United States in Comparative Perspective. As you'd expect, international comparisons are complex, but overall there's little doubt the USA has rather low social mobility among rich countries, particularly compared with the most "socialistic" of capitalist countries, such as Sweden, Norway and Finland.
Posted by: Cain | June 26, 2009 5:54 PM
"Fortunately, governments stepped in to prevent a complete financial collapse, which would have led to trade grinding to a halt and mass starvation."
That I doubt.
"These totalled tens of trillions of dollars at crunch time, dwarfing the amount of bad morgage debt - let alone the small proportion of that amount that was lent to poor people."
All that - I know. I was just pointing out that that did happen. And if you read Bliley Act that you just posted you'll find it refers to an enourmous amount of regulation. I think the larger problem of government interference is that it constantly modifies the environment in which we make decisions. Now it is difficult to say what sort of actions one is supposed to take since, once again, the lessons people learned from those sorts of transactions will no longer apply.
Posted by: Knockgoats | June 26, 2009 6:12 PM
Cain,
Most businesses of any size, including those that trade in food, rely on constantly rolling over debt from banks, just in order to trade. After the crunch, no bank had any real idea whether it was solvent or not, so they threatened to stop (and in many cases did stop) lending to any business, however sound. Had this situation persisted, all trade, including that in food, would have largely ground to a halt.
Gramm-Leach-Bliley, and the CFMA, were deregulatory, as were the other measures I've listed. Of course they didn't remove all regulation, because no-one apart from "libertarians" is stupid enough to believe this would work - including the vast majority of business people. The controls they removed were implemented after the 1929 crash precisely in order to limit over-lending and enforce transparency. The fact that their removal was followed within a decade by the biggest crash since 1929 really ought to tell you something.
Financial markets are in fact inherently unstable, because the value of an asset depends heavily on what possible buyers think its value will be at the time they might want to sell it again, and that estimate depends on what they think everyone else thinks... and so on: hence bubbles and crashes. Good regulation acts to limit their instability. Of course continual, radical changes to regulation would cause problems - but the answer to that is not no regulation.
Posted by: Cain | June 26, 2009 6:22 PM
"Are you really trying to pretend that a child born into a home in the slums has more than a tiny chance of ever ending up even in the mid-range for income, let alone rich?"
No. The problem I have is that people often try to solve local problems with national "solutions." I just want to avoid the fallacy of composistion.
By "slums" I assume you mean largely black Americans. Ever since the 60's that part of the population has been hitting the skids. I've read plausible causes for that demise but consider it too early in my reading to reach a verdict as I haven't read criticism of the views espoused by the authors that I've read. I sincerely doubt, though, that the problem is that we aren't making special arrangements for some sections of the American population. That is if your implying that the problem is caused by our economic system. I also doubt that the problem is a racist one. I think that certain conditions have to apply before one can even properly engage in economic activity.
"Or that the child of a rich family is likely to become poor, unless exceptionally irresponsible or unlucky?"
No, mobility tends to go up. The rich, though, usually don't stay rich and do tend to move down. They just usually don't bottom out. Which is good isn't it?
Oh, and just a quick story. I work with redneck, vile diesel mechanics in Tennessee. One day, at lunch, I shit you not, they were all bitching and moaning about the "demise of the middle class" and, to them anyway, the "demise of the white male." The kick is we were all eating steaks! And these are guys with several vehicles, loads of guns and ATV's. And they are MECHANICS! But somehow they had been convinced that it was the darkest of times. It's funnier when I tell it in person and act it out.
Posted by: Cain | June 26, 2009 6:32 PM
"Of course continual, radical changes to regulation would cause problems - but the answer to that is not no regulation."
No regulation is just another word for lawlessness. I think of "regulation" as pushing or pulling. Both can topple over a large structure. It just seems to be that some people say, "Push! Push! Push!" I think screaming, "pull, or don't push!", is merited.
"Of course they didn't remove all regulation, because no-one apart from "libertarians" is stupid enough to believe this would work - including the vast majority of business people."
Trust me, I read their stuff, they don't think that. I actually appreciate everyone engaging me, by the way. It's helped to clear some things up.
Posted by: Cain | June 26, 2009 6:38 PM
"After the crunch, no bank had any real idea whether it was solvent or not, so they threatened to stop (and in many cases did stop) lending to any business, however sound."
Are you saying that they didn't let the banks run? I'm for that - to a degree. Although I have less sympathy for the big banks since I switched to a credit union. They pay ME.
Posted by: Knockgoats | June 26, 2009 6:40 PM
Cain,
Your #392 is completely devoid of useful content - evidence or rational argument. I, and others, keep pointing you to facts and figures, you come back with simple statements that you don't believe something, without saying why, or pointless anecdotes. People born into slums anywhere in the world, and of any ethnic background, have a hard time getting out of them - black Americans undoubtedly have a harder time than most because of long-term, systematic discrimination and stereotyping. If you can't acknowledge this simple fact, I can only conclude that you are a racist.
Posted by: Jadehawk, OM
|
June 26, 2009 6:50 PM
we really need a metric that measures one's social welfare in something other than how much money and stuff someone has. it's a pathetically inadequate measure of whether someone is "poor" or middle class
for example: my boyfriend's family is barely above "poor" in any sensible meaning of the word. but they eat steaks, too (and why not? they have at least half a cow, bought off a neighbor, in their freezer at any time); they have a whole fleet of cars (of which only 2-3 work at any given time). but they are not having the kind of security of livelyhood that would be required for an actual middle-class life. the "stuff" is irrelevant.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
June 26, 2009 7:00 PM
Knock, I don't think Cain is listening, at least not any more than Walton and his ilk. He is trying to preach his economic gospel.
Let me relate the realities Cain: The companies that both my grandfathers, and my father worked for, are torn down, and in the case of two of them, no longer exist. The cereal factory where my grandmother and mother worked is also torn down, and the company moved production to Mexico in order to reduce labor costs. A place I worked for two summers during college is also gone. The concept of working for a company for years and retiring from it is long gone. Present indications are that a typical worker will work for 5 or more employers during their careers. My present 21 years appears to be a shocker for many folks. But I still have a few years until I can properly retire. Needless to say I have worries.
Posted by: Cain | June 26, 2009 7:13 PM
Discrimination happens but it isn't a sufficient explanation for the state of black Americans. By several criteria that section of the population were better off even when there were discriminatory laws against them. Jews are a good example. As much as people hated them and passed laws against their freedom, thanks to an economic niche carved out for them, as a whole, they were able to do fairly well. And then, of course, people hated them even more because of that. Other populations like the Irish have also been successful despite discrimination.
"People born into slums anywhere in the world, and of any ethnic background, have a hard time getting out of them - black Americans"
Sorry, I just thought we were talking about America. Unfortunately, a lot of people tend to use the words, "slums" and "urban" to mean black. It's silly. But since you weren't talking about America, I made a false distinction.
I told the anecdote just because I thought it was funny and really illustrated how silly all of the complaining people do about income mobility. People doing really well thinking that they are not - funny right? Racist paranoids eating steak complaining about the disappearance of the middle class? Like I said have to tell it in person.
"No, mobility tends to go up. The rich, though, usually don't stay rich and do tend to move down. They just usually don't bottom out. Which is good isn't it?"
I meant people tend to move up through income strata. They go down also, just not as much.
And the fallacy of composition is an argument - right?
Posted by: Cain | June 26, 2009 7:27 PM
"we really need a metric that measures one's social welfare in something other than how much money and stuff someone has. it's a pathetically inadequate measure of whether someone is "poor" or middle class"
Every time I ask a question or put up stats, all I ever get is, "Oh gee, those criteria aren't the ones that really matter. And yeah it's more vague and nebulous than that." For Fuck Sake. I still don't know what a legal monopoly is, nobody seems to recognize that I don't think that it's just a regulation/noregulation problem that we have, *^%#\ I mean shit! Poor used to mean that a person didn't have anything! Not only that I'm a racist because I don't think that discrimination is the biggest obstical blacks have had placed in front of them. I also apparently don't care about "lazy slackers." Oh, and I have an economic gospel. I came here to see if I had learned much be reading books on economics. I see that I clearly haven't, but the evasion and sanctimonious tone is (*)(^%$*809)__)(
Posted by: Cain | June 26, 2009 7:39 PM
I've broke down into ranting. It must be time to go . Oh well, bye yall! Thanks for the Mobility Stats, whoever posted them . . .
Posted by: Jadehawk, OM
|
June 26, 2009 7:44 PM
well, I'm fucking sorry that the universe is refusing to play by neat, tidy little rules. fucking idiot. you've been given stats galore, you're just ignoring them. I merely pointed out that your anecdote sucks because "stuff" means shit.