Four-Step Healthcare Solution

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

No, it doesn't. A rating agency that would have properly rated junk securities as such would not survive since the issuers would not take their securities to that agency to have them affixed with a poor rating. The issuer will go to whoever offers the best rating.

If an agency gives anyone and their dog a AAA rating as long as they pay for it, who would trust such a rating?

No sane investor would. And if their ratings are useless to investors, the agency won't stay in business for very long.

They're still in business, no?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

The assumption you continue to make (as I said) is that private enterprise will act in an ethical manner. You're making just as many assumptions about the practical aspects human nature as the communists did. Different assumptions to be sure - but assumptions nonetheless.

And... no such thing as society? If you truly believe that - I'd be curious to know your position on the founding values and the rule of law.

I made no reference at all to business ethics. You wrote that the free-market relies on a *lot* of assumptions. I showed you how it absolutely did not.

This has nothing to do intangible and subjective ideas such as society. Because, yes, arguing such is an act of futility, just as saying forest's are green. A tree may or may not be green. A tree may be dying, and may have turned brown.

With the axiom that each rational individual acts in the belief that they will make their condition better than it previously was, there is no need to bring collectivist goals into this, because such a thing doesn't exist.

You showed no such thing. All you said was "its untrue" because human nature is such that people will do what they can to better their position. That of course applies to any and everyone from a used car dealer, to a street rapist and Bernie Madoff.

But that isn't what I was disputing.

OK then, so you were disputing something that I didn't write?

Your views aren't encapsulated solely in this thread.

I'm just wondering what position you take on business ethics in this theoretical completely de-regulated free market economy you keep promoting.

OK, you win. Here's my position. For the sake of simplicity, a business can be seen as a supplier of a specific good or service. A consumer can also be seen as a supplier of a specific good (money). The only way an exchange will be made is if each party values the other's good more than their own (again, back to the principle that each individual will only act if he believes he will better himself). If they do not, an exchange will not be made. The rate of exchange, or price, determines the cost to both supplier and consumer. Ethics would fall under the cost.

If, as an individual, I believe that a particular supplier is someone whom I would not prefer to do business with (for whichever reason) then the cost of doing business with that supplier will rise. If the cost is higher than the benefit that I would receive, I will not make an exchange (again, back to the principle that each individual will only act if he believes he will better himself).

As an aggregate, individuals can therefore be seen as regulators; as each economic exchange we make, or don't make is the driving force behind what business exists and which does not.

Right - but when we get into huge multinational corporations for instance (like Microsoft), having bad customer service and producing poorly designed products doesn't translate into poorer sales. Microsoft is as big as its ever been - and Apple, its only commercial competitor maintains a fairly steady market share.

You have things like Linux of course - but when software is designed by Microsoft affiliates specifically for their operating system its something of a captive market.

We don't need to put this on the huge multinational level, as it all boils down to the same bones.

As an individual, if the cost of purchasing a computer w/ a Microsoft operating system, is greater than the benefit, then I will not make the exchange.

I can tell you that "bad customer service" and "poorly designed products" are subjective terms and validity of these statements is up to the discretion of the individual.

Right - but practically you don't really have a choice do you.

You either go MS, Apple or Linux. Those are the only choices you have.

[JimandChristy 1,689]

Medicaid is a state/federal program that pays for medical and long-term care services for:

1. Low-income pregnant women
2. Children
3. Certain people on Medicare
4. Disabled individuals
5. Nursing home residents

So a hard working man/woman, who isn't in the above categories, who is in a low paying job, has no health insurance coverage because their employer can't afford to and they can't afford to has to pay hundreds of dollars just to see a doctor to get access to basic care? That's just screwed up.

Edited June 5, 2009 by JimandChristy

[mRx 16]

The assumption you continue to make (as I said) is that private enterprise will act in an ethical manner. You're making just as many assumptions about the practical aspects human nature as the communists did. Different assumptions to be sure - but assumptions nonetheless.

And... no such thing as society? If you truly believe that - I'd be curious to know your position on the founding values and the rule of law.

I made no reference at all to business ethics. You wrote that the free-market relies on a *lot* of assumptions. I showed you how it absolutely did not.

This has nothing to do intangible and subjective ideas such as society. Because, yes, arguing such is an act of futility, just as saying forest's are green. A tree may or may not be green. A tree may be dying, and may have turned brown.

With the axiom that each rational individual acts in the belief that they will make their condition better than it previously was, there is no need to bring collectivist goals into this, because such a thing doesn't exist.

You showed no such thing. All you said was "its untrue" because human nature is such that people will do what they can to better their position. That of course applies to any and everyone from a used car dealer, to a street rapist and Bernie Madoff.

But that isn't what I was disputing.

OK then, so you were disputing something that I didn't write?

Your views aren't encapsulated solely in this thread.

I'm just wondering what position you take on business ethics in this theoretical completely de-regulated free market economy you keep promoting.

OK, you win. Here's my position. For the sake of simplicity, a business can be seen as a supplier of a specific good or service. A consumer can also be seen as a supplier of a specific good (money). The only way an exchange will be made is if each party values the other's good more than their own (again, back to the principle that each individual will only act if he believes he will better himself). If they do not, an exchange will not be made. The rate of exchange, or price, determines the cost to both supplier and consumer. Ethics would fall under the cost.

If, as an individual, I believe that a particular supplier is someone whom I would not prefer to do business with (for whichever reason) then the cost of doing business with that supplier will rise. If the cost is higher than the benefit that I would receive, I will not make an exchange (again, back to the principle that each individual will only act if he believes he will better himself).

As an aggregate, individuals can therefore be seen as regulators; as each economic exchange we make, or don't make is the driving force behind what business exists and which does not.

Right - but when we get into huge multinational corporations for instance (like Microsoft), having bad customer service and producing poorly designed products doesn't translate into poorer sales. Microsoft is as big as its ever been - and Apple, its only commercial competitor maintains a fairly steady market share.

You have things like Linux of course - but when software is designed by Microsoft affiliates specifically for their operating system its something of a captive market.

We don't need to put this on the huge multinational level, as it all boils down to the same bones.

As an individual, if the cost of purchasing a computer w/ a Microsoft operating system, is greater than the benefit, then I will not make the exchange.

I can tell you that "bad customer service" and "poorly designed products" are subjective terms and validity of these statements is up to the discretion of the individual.

Right - but practically you don't really have a choice do you.

You either go MS, Apple or Linux. Those are the only choices you have.

So, basically MS, Apple, and Linux could make garbage products, answer telephones with "How may I ** you?", throw babies off cliffs, smash puppies, and set fire to homosexuals and we would have no choice but to purchase their products?

[mawilson 2,133]

No, it doesn't. A rating agency that would have properly rated junk securities as such would not survive since the issuers would not take their securities to that agency to have them affixed with a poor rating. The issuer will go to whoever offers the best rating.

If an agency gives anyone and their dog a AAA rating as long as they pay for it, who would trust such a rating?

No sane investor would. And if their ratings are useless to investors, the agency won't stay in business for very long.

They're still in business, no?

Because it takes more than just $$$ to get a AAA rating.

Come on, there's a one in three chance that S&P will downgrade Britain's AAA credit rating.

Even Britain can't buy it.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

So, basically MS, Apple, and Linux could make garbage products, answer telephones with "How may I ** you?", throw babies off cliffs, smash puppies, and set fire to homosexuals and we would have no choice but to purchase their products?

What you're saying relies to some degree on the assumption of choice; that if a consumer isn't happy with one service or product there are numerous competitors in line for his/her businss. If that choice is constrained by a monopoly (as is the case here) what are my options as a consumer if I don't like what's on offer?

Edited June 5, 2009 by Private Pike

[mRx 16]

So, basically MS, Apple, and Linux could make garbage products, answer telephones with "How may I ** you?", throw babies off cliffs, smash puppies, and set fire to homosexuals and we would have no choice but to purchase their products?

What you're saying relies to some degree on the assumption of choice; that if a consumer isn't happy with one service or product there are numerous competitors in line for his/her businss. If that choice is constrained by a monopoly (as is the case here) what are my options as a consumer if I don't like what's on offer?

If you don't like what's on offer, that's considered unsatisfied demand. Entrepreneurers are queued onto this as an unexploited profit.

Government could not offer a better solution. They can break down monopolies, and increase costs across the board for consumers. Or entrepreneurers can be allowed to enter the industry in order to satisfy the demand. Which can, miraculously, tie back into the topic of healthcare. Individuals cannot freely enter the HC industry. It's a government cartelization, which ensures prices stay high. If you are upset out about the high costs, then "you can f--- off, for all they care", because barriers prevent entry into the industry, which prevents free competition.

Edited June 5, 2009 by -Matt-

[Peikko 1,575]

It also assumes easy access to reliable information and inordinate amount of time to consume that information.

[mRx 16]

It also assumes easy access to reliable information and inordinate amount of time to consume that information.

Sigh.

I made no such assumption.

People have incentive to ensure that when they make a decision, they make their condition better than it was before. Otherwise they would experience a loss. If their judgement is in error, then they experience a loss.

Like when I foolishly did one of those "answer an easy survey, win an XBOX 360" ads. I had to delete my entire e-mail account because of the spam bombardment, and I never got a damn 360.

My judgement was in error, and I experienced a loss.

Haven't we been through this already, MC?

[Peikko 1,575]

Probably. The assumption may not be enunciated but it is implied. For some things, it really is ok to allow the consumer to make mistakes. For others not so much. Regulations prevent humans from being unknowing guineapigs. People don't make things that are dangerous knowingly all of the time. sometimes they do so without meaning to. How many people is it ok to lose or damage because of these 'mistakes' while those that follow have the opportunity to learn?

Take that air France crash for example. Without FAA regulation, how much effort do you think would go into finding out what went wrong in order to prevent it in the future? How many Thalidomide situations are acceptable in the pursuit of effective drugs?

Edited June 5, 2009 by Madame Cleo

[mRx 16]

Probably. The assumption may not be enunciated but it is implied. For some things, it really is ok to allow the consumer to make mistakes. For others not so much. Regulations prevent humans from being unknowing guineapigs. People don't make things that are dangerous knowingly all of the time. sometimes they do so without meaning to. How many people is it ok to lose or damage because of these 'mistakes' while those that follow have the opportunity to learn?

Individuals regulate better than governments, because they have incentive to.

You keep asking the same questions--which I answer, only for you to ask them again later in another thread.

But, whatever.... I'm burned out.

[mawilson 2,133]

Like when I foolishly did one of those "answer an easy survey, win an XBOX 360" ads. I had to delete my entire e-mail account because of the spam bombardment, and I never got a damn 360.

[Peikko 1,575]

Probably. The assumption may not be enunciated but it is implied. For some things, it really is ok to allow the consumer to make mistakes. For others not so much. Regulations prevent humans from being unknowing guineapigs. People don't make things that are dangerous knowingly all of the time. sometimes they do so without meaning to. How many people is it ok to lose or damage because of these 'mistakes' while those that follow have the opportunity to learn?

Individuals regulate better than governments, because they have incentive to.

You keep asking the same questions--which I answer, only for you to ask them again later in another thread.

But, whatever.... I'm burned out.

No, they don't. You keep saying it, but it doesn't make it true, but yeah, whatever.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

So, basically MS, Apple, and Linux could make garbage products, answer telephones with "How may I ** you?", throw babies off cliffs, smash puppies, and set fire to homosexuals and we would have no choice but to purchase their products?

What you're saying relies to some degree on the assumption of choice; that if a consumer isn't happy with one service or product there are numerous competitors in line for his/her businss. If that choice is constrained by a monopoly (as is the case here) what are my options as a consumer if I don't like what's on offer?

If you don't like what's on offer, that's considered unsatisfied demand. Entrepreneurers are queued onto this as an unexploited profit.

Government could not offer a better solution. They can break down monopolies, and increase costs across the board for consumers. Or entrepreneurers can be allowed to enter the industry in order to satisfy the demand. Which can, miraculously, tie back into the topic of healthcare. Individuals cannot freely enter the HC industry. It's a government cartelization, which ensures prices stay high. If you are upset out about the high costs, then "you can f--- off, for all they care", because barriers prevent entry into the industry, which prevents free competition.

But that's the point isn't it. Its shouldn't be a case of "the government couldn't do better", your theoretical free market system doesn't offer any concrete advantages over what we already.

I don't know if monolithic corporations are an efficient way to do business in a world where cloud computing allows for more decentralised operations.

I'm not understanding perhaps how the existence of Microsoft helps innovation and enterprise when all they do is buy out fledgling IT ventures than show promise.

Quite simply, by giving carte blanche power to massive corporations you simply cannot guarantee a situation that's better than what we currently have.

[mRx 16]

With all the talk of public health insurance, this particular remains pertinent.

3. Deregulate the health insurance industry. Private enterprise can offer insurance against events over whose outcome the insured possesses no control. One cannot insure oneself against suicide or bankruptcy, for example, because it is in one's own hands to bring these events about.

Because a person's health, or lack of it, lies increasingly within his own control, many, if not most health risks, are actually uninsurable. "Insurance" against risks whose likelihood an individual can systematically influence falls within that person's own responsibility.

All insurance, moreover, involves the pooling of individual risks. It implies that insurers pay more to some and less to others. But no one knows in advance, and with certainty, who the "winners" and "losers" will be. "Winners" and "losers" are distributed randomly, and the resulting income redistribution is unsystematic. If "winners" or "losers" could be systematically predicted, "losers" would not want to pool their risk with "winners," but with other "losers," because this would lower their insurance costs. I would not want to pool my personal accident risks with those of professional football players, for instance, but exclusively with those of people in circumstances similar to my own, at lower costs.

Because of legal restrictions on the health insurers' right of refusal--to exclude any individual risk as uninsurable--the present health-insurance system is only partly concerned with insurance. The industry cannot discriminate freely among different groups' risks.

As a result, health insurers cover a multitude of uninnsurable risks, alongside, and pooled with, genuine insurance risks. They do not discriminate among various groups of people which pose significantly different insurance risks. The industry thus runs a system of income redistribution--benefiting irresponsible actors and high-risk groups at the expense of responsible individuals and low risk groups. Accordingly the industry's prices are high and ballooning.

To deregulate the industry means to restore it to unrestricted freedom of contract: to allow a health insurer to offer any contract whatsoever, to include or exclude any risk, and to discriminate among any groups of individuals. Uninsurable risks would lose coverage, the variety of insurance policies for the remaining coverage would increase, and price differentials would reflect genuine insurance risks. On average, prices would drastically fall. And the reform would restore individual responsibility in health care.