Brad Wardell's views about technology, politics, religion, world affairs, and all sorts of politically incorrect topics.

The current system has its flaws but it does something profoundly right:

Most people who have health insurance are paying for their own individual health insurance either directly or indirectly through their employer. They are paying into the system for what they get back.

Obama supporters dream of a different system where taxes pay for health insurance instead. The problem with that is that nearly half the population pay no net federal income taxes. 

People get this and they’re pissed off about being saddled with paying for yet another thing for the nearly half of the population who pay no net taxes.

A big reason I have such disdain for the federal government is that the people who don’t pay have not just a lot of control over how money is spent but have an incentive to get ever increasing goodies given to them. Health insurance is just the latest.

According to the 2008 exit polls, over 60% of the people who pay no net federal income taxes voted for Obama. Zip.

So yea, I’m sure they’d love to see the idea of health insurance paid for by tax payers, because it’s free for them.

But the remaining near half the population are stuck with the bill.

And that’s just one reason. Loss of freedom, rationed care, the unintended consequences of moving away from the free market are just a handful of other reasons.

But for me, one of my big frustrations is just getting sick of being stuck with the tab of paying for people who hide their parasitic demands behind the illusion of “compassion”.


Comments (Page 8)
10 PagesFirst 6 7 8 9 10 
on Oct 28, 2009

Health insurance does NOT increase supplies. In fact public health insurance creates a monopsony and monopsonies lower prices. And lower prices lead to less supply.

Nope. Health insurance of this nature DOES increase supplies. If you offer a group of people a service for $100, fewer people are likely to take it up than if you offer it for free. So if the government provides insurance to everyone for certain healthcare problems, that means if those people suffer those problems they can claim on their government insurance and get the government to provide them with that healthcare. How does the government do that? They have to pay the healthcare providers to provide the service to the people. That means they pay the level they need to to ensure that the helahtcare providers supply enough to meet the demand. What you seem to be suggesting would happen is that they'd refuse to pay the healthcare providers the market rate, and as a result would only provide healthcare insurance to some people, not everyone.

That's unlikely.

Most African countries do not have education systems remotely comparable even with American play schools.

There are plenty of jobs that don't require a highly educated person. If you really believed what you said though, what's your problem with having an open borders policy (and restricting benefits)? If they are so poorly educated that they couldn't get a job, then they wouldn't want to come.

The African who managed to become as qualified as an American will likely not work for $2 an hour. He will realise that he can earn $10.

No, the simple law of supply and demand means that the wage rate will be driven down, not remain constant - there aren't an infinite number of jobs available (as evidenced by unemployment rates well above the level suggested by frictional unemployment). Worker B is prepared to work for less than A, which means that he [B] will get the job, and A will only get it if he will work for less, up to the point where the amount they're offering to work is low enough to allow a company to offer another job for them. Easier then for A to just seek to ban B from working so they can enjoy their higher wages. You even mention this [wages being driven down] later in your response so I'm a bit puzzled with what you're trying to disagree with.

Trade unions are trusts that attempt to monopolise a market by fixing prices (for labour)

And how do they do that? It's by insisting the company hires a small group of them at a high price rather than getting in more people for a lower amount (usually via blackmail/strikes). Heavily unionised industries will usually have plenty of people wanting to do a particular job, but who can't because of the trade union. Just the same as a country which bans people from coming into it and working so that the people already in the country can enjoy their higher wages. Both are selfish attitudes that also run contrary to the principles of capitalism.

A truely capitalist economy wouldn't have trade unions, and would allow people to come into it and work if they wanted to (i.e. an open borders policy). Meanwhile the existence of a welfare system coupled with an immigration policy means that country is saying the lives of people born in it/living in it are more valuable than those of people from other countries.

on Oct 28, 2009

What you seem to be suggesting would happen is that they'd refuse to pay the healthcare providers the market rate, and as a result would only provide healthcare insurance to some people, not everyone.

No. I am suggesting that they will pay the market rate but the market rate will go down.

And that will impact supply.

Hence there might not be enough supply for the demand.

Prices should go up at this point, but they won't if there is a monopsony.

 

There are plenty of jobs that don't require a highly educated person.

You and I are talking about different levels of education.

The problem is not that Africa doesn't have enough "highly educated people". I wouldn't be surprised to learn that it does.

The problem is that the base level of education in most African is much much lower than even in America.

Even for the dumbest jobs you need someone who can at least distinguish different letters and who doesn't believe that handicapped customers are people who were punished by G-d.

 

If you really believed what you said though, what's your problem with having an open borders policy (and restricting benefits)?

Who said I would have a problem with that?

 

A truely capitalist economy wouldn't have trade unions

Of course it would. And it would have trusts, too.

 

 

 

on Oct 28, 2009

No. I am suggesting that they will pay the market rate but the market rate will go down.

And that will impact supply.

If they pay the market rate, and there's an increase in demand, that means the market rate will go up, not down. It's simple supply and demand again - an increase in demand causes prices to increase which causes supply to increase until the market is back in equilibrium. If the government tries to drive prices down to the point where supply decreases, there will be insufficient supply to meet the insurance they've promised everyone, so they'll have to pay more to get that insurance back again. The governments only real power will be to ensure they get a competitive rate - that is, they can force suppliers margins down where possible because they'll be a big buyer, but ultimately they can't do this to the point where it's no longer worthwhile for the supplier to supply their service because the government needs it to satisfy their insurance holders.

This is of course if you assume that the government will provide the insurance to everyone, not just some people. The alternative is they drive the prices down, and as a result have insufficient supply to provide people, hence meaning they only provide to some not everyone (most likely using a waiting list system).

Even for the dumbest jobs you need someone who can at least distinguish different letters and who doesn't believe that handicapped customers are people who were punished by G-d

Why do you need the latter? (I can see how it would be helpful for a customer service orientated role, but what about manual labor somewhere where you'd never come into contact with a customer that you'd offend with such views?)

 

Who said I would have a problem with that?

As far as I can tell you haven't specifically said if you do or don't have a problem at the moment, although I'm leaning towards the first slightly since that's been the focus of some of the key points from the last few posts of mine which you've been disagreeing with. Are you in favour of an open borders policy?

on Oct 28, 2009

If they pay the market rate, and there's an increase in demand, that means the market rate will go up, not down.

Where do you get that increase in demand? People do not get sicker just because there is health insurance.

Universal health insurance creates a monopsony and monopsonies make prices go down, not up.

It's a bogus argument against universal health insurance that it will make medical care more expensive. It won't. It will make it cheaper.

 

This is of course if you assume that the government will provide the insurance to everyone, not just some people.

If they provide it only to some people it will still have monopsony power, and more so the more people it insures.

 

Why do you need the latter? (I can see how it would be helpful for a customer service orientated role, but what about manual labor somewhere where you'd never come into contact with a customer that you'd offend with such views?)

Those examples were not exclusive. There are a lot of details that are part of a normal bad western education that are simply not taught in many African countries.

 

As far as I can tell you haven't specifically said if you do or don't have a problem at the moment, although I'm leaning towards the first slightly since that's been the focus of some of the key points from the last few posts of mine which you've been disagreeing with. Are you in favour of an open borders policy?

In general, yes.

But specifically I still want immigrants to be registered and to pay taxes. I also favour assimilation programmes and prefer immigrants that are willing to assimilate over those who bring their own violent culture with them.

 

 

on Oct 28, 2009

Where do you get that increase in demand? People do not get sicker just because there is health insurance.

So you're seriously saying that if receiving treatment/care for something previously cost $10,000 and now costs $0, that there would be no change in the number of people wanting the treatment?!! Afterall if the government provides insurance for you that covers certain healthcare and you have need for that healthcare, you can now just claim on your government insurance  (which is paid for via taxes) to receive that healthcare.

on Oct 28, 2009

Nope. Health insurance of this nature DOES increase supplies. If you offer a group of people a service for $100, fewer people are likely to take it up than if you offer it for free. So if the government provides insurance to everyone for certain healthcare problems, that means if those people suffer those problems they can claim on their government insurance and get the government to provide them with that healthcare.

That is the very definition of increasing DEMAND.

It does not in any way shape or form increase SUPPLY. In fact, since you are forcing the price to be lower than it should be then you are decreasing supply.

on Oct 28, 2009

That is the very definition of increasing DEMAND.

It does not in any way shape or form increase SUPPLY

again,

Nope. Health insurance of this nature DOES increase supplies. If you offer a group of people a service for $100, fewer people are likely to take it up than if you offer it for free. So if the government provides insurance to everyone for certain healthcare problems, that means if those people suffer those problems they can claim on their government insurance and get the government to provide them with that healthcare.

The increase in demand directly leads to the increase in supply, on the assumption that the government makes sure the people are provided with the healthcare they're insured for (to do that, the government pays the rate required to get supply to increase to the point that it meets the increased demand).

 

since you are forcing the price to be lower than it should be then you are decreasing supply

Supply and demand simply doesn't work like that. If you want an increase in the supply, it means increasing the price, not decreasing it.

on Oct 29, 2009

So you're seriously saying that if receiving treatment/care for something previously cost $10,000 and now costs $0, that there would be no change in the number of people wanting the treatment?!!

And how exactly do we make the service cost $0???

I don't know how much of the US' current supply of healthcare is currently wasting away with nobody buying it, but I can imagine that if it were a lot, prices would go down.

You seem to be thinking that there is a lot of healthcare available which is not currently sold but which will be sold once prices go down. Can you please apply that logic to other products and see if it still makes sense to you?

Do you think chicken farmers hold back half the eggs while waiting for prices to go down?

Do you think that many people will want to become chicken farmers once you have found a method to lower egg prices?

Do you think egg quality will be better once each egg costs only half as much as it does today?

I assume you believe that demand for eggs will go up once everybody can afford them via the egg insurance system. But unless chicken farmers are currently holding back eggs which they will start selling once prices have fallen, I don't see where supplies can meet that extra demand.

Nor do I believe that this demand is really there. There will be demand for the egg insurance, but whether that translates into demand for eggs is really up to the insurance.

 

The increase in demand directly leads to the increase in supply, on the assumption that the government makes sure the people are provided with the healthcare they're insured for (to do that, the government pays the rate required to get supply to increase to the point that it meets the increased demand).

I thought the universal health insurance was also meant to keep prices down? If this is just a way to pay more horrendous fees, I would assume all the healthcare providers are in favour of it. Are they?

 

"since you are forcing the price to be lower than it should be then you are decreasing supply"

Supply and demand simply doesn't work like that. If you want an increase in the supply, it means increasing the price, not decreasing it.

I'm not sure what you are on about.

You _quoted_ a statement that said that lower prices decrease supply. Then you say that that is wrong and that increasing the price would lead to increased supply. So what was wrong about it?

A universal health insurance will lower prices, hence supply will decrease.

If you somehow manage to use a universal health insurance system to increase prices (which it will have to do because current supplies are apparently not covering enough people), you will end up with a healthcare provider monopoly (i.e. all healthcare providers represented by the one health insurance system they all want to work for exlusively because it pays more than the open market).

 

on Oct 29, 2009

Do you think chicken farmers hold back half the eggs while waiting for prices to go down?

You want it in terms of eggs/chicken farmers? Here it is then:

If the price of eggs falls, people will want more of them. If the price of eggs rises, farmers will want more chickens (to produce more eggs).

If the government buys eggs off the farmers and makes them available to people for free (funded via taxes), then people will want more eggs. More eggs will need to be supplied, meaning the market price for eggs will rise.

 

I don't see where supplies can meet that extra demand.

Because the price will increase so people will supply more. In the case of eggs, it'll be farmers wanting more chickens (so they breed more). In the case of healthcare it'll be a greater demand for doctors+nurses causing wages to increase causing more people to want to study to become one causing an increase in supply.

Maybe you're not following what I'm saying because you're equating the price the consumer pays as being equal to the price charged by the supplier? In a normal market that would be a reasonable assumption, but in this case it isn't, since the suppliers charge one price to the government which charges a different price to the consumer.

If this is just a way to pay more horrendous fees, I would assume all the healthcare providers are in favour of it. Are they?

Not necessarily, depending on how (in)effectively the scheme would be implimented. It would certainly be a reason for them to support it though.

You _quoted_ a statement that said that lower prices decrease supply. Then you say that that is wrong and that increasing the price would lead to increased supply. So what was wrong about it?

The price (that is relevant for suppliers) would be expected to increase not decrease. That was what was wrong about it.

f you somehow manage to use a universal health insurance system to increase prices (which it will have to do because current supplies are apparently not covering enough people), you will end up with a healthcare provider monopoly (i.e. all healthcare providers represented by the one health insurance system they all want to work for exlusively because it pays more than the open market).

Why would the health insurance pay more than the open market? The market rate will have gone up, not remained constant.

on Oct 29, 2009

o yea, I’m sure they’d love to see the idea of health insurance paid for by tax payers, because it’s free for them.

This is precisely the point of the so-called reform to get the freeloaders to at least pay something, in lieu of flooding Emergemcy.

on Oct 30, 2009

Why would the health insurance pay more than the open market?

If it doesn't, supplies will remain at current levels.

 

on Oct 30, 2009

Why would the health insurance pay more than the open market?

If it doesn't, supplies will remain at current levels.

Again,

Why would the health insurance pay more than the open market? The market rate will have gone up, not remained constant.

on Oct 30, 2009

If the government buys eggs off the farmers and makes them available to people for free (funded via taxes), then people will want more eggs. More eggs will need to be supplied, meaning the market price for eggs will rise.

Except, the government in this case decides to "buy" (aka, take against the farmer's will while giving him a few bucks for it) it off the farmers for LESS MONEY than people have previously paid for it; and in fact, the government is "buying" it for such a low price that the farmer is LOSING MONEY per sale...

Look at current systems like medicare and medicaid. Doctors get paid a fraction of the price, to the point that they actually take a LOSS.

on Oct 30, 2009

Except, the government in this case decides to "buy"...it off the farmers for LESS MONEY than people have previously paid for it; and in fact, the government is "buying" it for such a low price that the farmer is LOSING MONEY per sale

If they do that then they won't be able to get enough eggs to meet people's demand, hence they won't (if they're looking to ensure no shortage of supply).

I feel like I'm having to repeat myself about 10 times here to get the point across - this is basic economics, so I'd suggest if you still don't understand, google concepts such as supply and demand and equilibrium and read a brief overview of the topics which ought to help cover the underlying mechanisms here.

Essentially it's decreased (consumer) price-> increased demand

Increased demand -> increased (supplier) price

increased (supplier) price -> Increased supply

Until supply = demand (which is equilibrium).

on Oct 31, 2009

If they do that then they won't be able to get enough eggs to meet people's demand, hence they won't (if they're looking to ensure no shortage of supply).

If they were SMART they wouldn't, but they ARE doing exactly that.

I feel like I'm having to repeat myself about 10 times here to get the point across - this is basic economics, so I'd suggest if you still don't understand, google concepts such as supply and demand and equilibrium and read a brief overview of the topics which ought to help cover the underlying mechanisms here.

I understand, you just pretend that I don't to attack strawman arguments.

Essentially it's decreased (consumer) price-> increased demand

Increased demand -> increased (supplier) price

increased (supplier) price -> Increased supply

Until supply = demand (which is equilibrium).

All true (if I am interpreting what you are saying correctly), so are their inverses...

For example, you make that point that : increased price -> Increased supply

But its inverse is also true: decreased price -> decreased supply

Oh look, the bill decreases price. therefore DEMAND goes up (as you said), and SUPPLY goes down... what a novel idea...

10 PagesFirst 6 7 8 9 10