Why ObamaCare Can't Work

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

But these practices aren't "crimes" in the strictest sense, are they...

That's what I'm asking.

Aggressions against individuals are crimes. Non-coerced, voluntarily agreements to mutually-beneficial contracts are not crimes, much to your disappointment.

But this surely raises the ethics question - if all that's required is that a corporation adhere to the local laws of a country, questions of "coercion", "voluntary" and "mutually-beneficial" become rather nebulous.

One reason that drug trials are conducted in developing countries is because the pharma companies aren't bound by the same legal and ethical standards that are expected in this country.

[ready4ONE 5,400]

The free market argument makes no sense at all and the reality - which is that the US, having the most private enterprise and market players in this game, is paying by far the most per capita, as a share of GDP, hell, by any measure on health care with the least in overall quality of health care to show for it. All the governments of all the other industrialized nations are faring far better in overall results at a fraction of the cost. This being the reality, the free market fetishists have to ignore a lot of facts and evidence to maintain the conviction that free market is the only answer to the problem we have.

Ignore what facts?

That we have the most private enterprise and market players in the game? You conveniently omit the fact that it is foreshadowed and supported by the massive Leviathan that is government intervention, and that the market system of voluntary exchange has been effectively neutered through subsidized intermediaries, government-granted monopolization, and massive bureaucracy (which is explained quite well in this article, if you'd give it a chance).

That somehow because we pay more, and are not receiving the quality to show for it, that it is somehow a market-failure? These gross market distortions reflect one thing--Monopoly. The only form of which is the government-granted one. If forced to compete, the politically-favored healthcare industry would be forced to operate at lower expenses, and higher quality, or else a successful medical agency would.

High prices aren't justifiable due to the life-necessitating value or their service, as is the obvious case with the food industry, they are only justifiable and sustainable when barricaded behind a monopolistic government grant.

You seem very passionate about the state of our healthcare system, Big Dog... Dump that "free-market fetishist" mindset (although it's cute, in a Marxy kinda-way). The government doesn't give a sh!t about your healthcare, but those who seek to voluntarily exchange their medical service for your dollars most certainly do. But this government-created monopoly won't stand for such consumer-driven exchanges taking place. For that would threaten the cartel's profits, which would in turn, lighten the politician's pockets.

Let's encapsulate the current system with the example of my wife, who has not been here quite three years.

When she first arrived, she was quite quick to find work, unfortunately, the two employers she worked for at the same time offered no insurance coverage. No big deal right? She is young.

Well during her first year, about 8 months in the USA she gets extremely sick. An extremely powerful ear infection brought is within 2 days of showing itself to the local walk in clinic run by a Nurse Practitioner. She is immediately referred to an ear specialist for dramatic hearing loss.

Remember she is in America now, no insurance. That episode cost us in the neighborhood of $3000. So we decide to have her get individual insurance, same insurance as my company's but an individual policy. For her to go on my insurance at work would have meant paying $750 month for the premium. Buying the individual plan ran $170 somewhat more affordable, but not quite as good of coverage.

Wife finds a new job that comes with health insurance coverage. Yay! Right? It costs her about $200 a month out of her wages, the company covers about $650 a month for the premium.

Wife gets pregnant. Insurance company has raked in better than $10,000, forget about the $2000 or so paid to the individual insurer. Write off the roughly $3000 in just over a year spent on her medical care while not insured.

The insurance company pays out approximately $5000 throughout the pregnancy. Wife and I get a $3000 bill for what they won't pay. Wife's employer is out to the tune of $8000 or so for covering her for the year.

Winners: Insurance company that received about $2000 for nothing. Second insurance company which cleared a cool $3000 to $4000 via premium profits.

Losers: Our family. Paying out of pocket nearly $3000 for uninsured medical costs. Paying out of pocket another $2000 hoping to avoid that fate again. And paying or owing another $3000 for alleged coverage period for giving birth. [Absolutely zero complications, in and out of the hospital in less than 24 hours.]

That my good people is a calculation that does not work. Had all the money we paid and her employer paid in insurance premiums been put into an account, we would not have had a negative balance at the end of 2008, but instead she would have some money to cover any health issue that cropped up this year requiring a basic doctor visit.

PS- She was offered the fantastic opportunity of COBRA since she elected to stay home this year, generous offer? $850 per month to the company that made out like bandits in 2008. Thanks but no thanks

PPs- We have not even mentioned our dental expenses...

[mawilson 2,133]

When it comes to health care, the "free market" doesn't work the way most people would

expect it to.

For example, most people would agree that if a child is born with a genetic disease, insurance

companies should not be allowed to deny coverage outright or raise premiums to a level that

makes them unaffordable - and that's exactly what a profit driven company would do.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

When it comes to health care, the "free market" doesn't work the way most people would

expect it to.

For example, most people would agree that if a child is born with a genetic disease, insurance

companies should not be allowed to deny coverage outright or raise premiums to a level that

makes them unaffordable - and that's exactly what a profit driven company would do.

That's one of the things that amazing about the current system - if I understand correctly there are certain proscribed conditions where treatments are flat out not covered by the insurance plan, which begs the question as to how a person knows when they take up a plan that they may need coverage for say, Hodgkins.

Its not like you can change plans to one that covers that condition - as by then you'll be preconditioned.

[ready4ONE 5,400]

I was amazed at the absolute lack of disclosure regarding what was paid for, what was not paid for, and how the calculations were made beyond making sure the insurance company came out ahead in the game. Seemed pretty arbitrary to me.

Despite asking, we were never given anything more specific than her insurance company paid x amount. Not towards what items. We got a listing of items only by asking, after getting a simple statement from the hospital saying insurance company paid x, here is your amount owed y. Even this accounting didn't show what had been paid specifically, just noted total amount paid x.

I shutter to think, had there been complications, what we might have been dinged for.

Edited July 31, 2009 by ready4ONE

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I was amazed at the absolute lack of disclosure regarding what was paid for, what was not paid for, and how the calculations were made beyond making sure the insurance company came out ahead in the game. Seemed pretty arbitrary to me.

Despite asking, we were never given anything more specific than her insurance company paid x amount. Not towards what items. We got a listing of items only by asking, after getting a simple statement from the hospital saying insurance company paid x, here is your amount owed y. Even this accounting didn't show what had been paid specifically, just noted total amount paid x.

I shutter to think, had there been complications, what we might have been dinged for.

Yeah that bugs me as well - you're never entirely sure of what you're paying for, or if you're supposed to pay for it - and if you have a hospital admission you get nickel and dimed for months afterwards - by which time you have no idea whatsoever if you actually received a "service" for that particular bill or if someone just turned up to initial your chart and billed you $400 into the bargain.

Doesn't help also that the submitted charges don't match up exactly with the providers bills.

You're essentially left to fend for yourself in shark infested waters!

[mRx 16]

But these practices aren't "crimes" in the strictest sense, are they...

That's what I'm asking.

Aggressions against individuals are crimes. Non-coerced, voluntarily agreements to mutually-beneficial contracts are not crimes, much to your disappointment.

But this surely raises the ethics question - if all that's required is that a corporation adhere to the local laws of a country, questions of "coercion", "voluntary" and "mutually-beneficial" become rather nebulous.

One reason that drug trials are conducted in developing countries is because the pharma companies aren't bound by the same legal and ethical standards that are expected in this country.

Drug trials are conducted in the US, also. They mostly operate under the guise of "clinical studies". I suppose that in Africa, the subjects are paid less, but the determination of a fair price is between the buyer and seller, no one else.

I'm not sure why everything must divert to the debate of business ethics.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

But these practices aren't "crimes" in the strictest sense, are they...

That's what I'm asking.

Aggressions against individuals are crimes. Non-coerced, voluntarily agreements to mutually-beneficial contracts are not crimes, much to your disappointment.

But this surely raises the ethics question - if all that's required is that a corporation adhere to the local laws of a country, questions of "coercion", "voluntary" and "mutually-beneficial" become rather nebulous.

One reason that drug trials are conducted in developing countries is because the pharma companies aren't bound by the same legal and ethical standards that are expected in this country.

Drug trials are conducted in the US, also. They mostly operate under the guise of "clinical studies". I suppose that in Africa, the subjects are paid less, but the determination of a fair price is between the buyer and seller, no one else.

I'm not sure why everything must divert to the debate of business ethics.

Its not that they are paid less (the question is more about whether they are paid at all) - its that research companies aren't bound by the same ethical constraints as are demanded in this country so they can, do and have exploited poor peoples for direct monetary gain (there are very many examples of this). So you get the situations where:

1) People aren't informed at all that they're are being used as guinea pigs (this has happened in India recently)

2) Information about potential side-effects drawbacks is kept from participants to ensure their consent

3) Dictatorial governments essentially forcing people to give consent to drug trials by threats of financial of legal penalties.

4) Lawsuits against the conduct of pharma companies being blocked from hearings inside the US, so that they are held in host countries with corrupt judicial systems (happened in Nigeria a few years ago).

As I said to you before in other threads - this is one big criticism of free market theory, that it has the potential to create unparalleled tyranny. Whether that is true or not is hard to say as we have no real example of a purely free market economy, but we can certainly find many examples in contexts like this one where the interests of private business have lead to gross abuses of poor and otherwise disadvantaged populations.

Ethics are important in relation to contexts such as healthcare, because if you don't address that aspect of things - then you can only really discuss the subject in high-level theoretical terms.

Case in point - the continuing furore over Nestle's aggressive marketing of powdered baby milk formula.

Edited August 1, 2009 by Private Pike

[Pinocchio Liberal 268]

But these practices aren't "crimes" in the strictest sense, are they...

That's what I'm asking.

Aggressions against individuals are crimes. Non-coerced, voluntarily agreements to mutually-beneficial contracts are not crimes, much to your disappointment.

But this surely raises the ethics question - if all that's required is that a corporation adhere to the local laws of a country, questions of "coercion", "voluntary" and "mutually-beneficial" become rather nebulous.

One reason that drug trials are conducted in developing countries is because the pharma companies aren't bound by the same legal and ethical standards that are expected in this country.

Drug trials are conducted in the US, also. They mostly operate under the guise of "clinical studies". I suppose that in Africa, the subjects are paid less, but the determination of a fair price is between the buyer and seller, no one else.

I'm not sure why everything must divert to the debate of business ethics.

Its not that they are paid less (the question is more about whether they are paid at all) - its that research companies aren't bound by the same ethical constraints as are demanded in this country so they can, do and have exploited poor peoples for direct monetary gain (there are very many examples of this). So you get the situations where:

1) People aren't informed at all that they're are being used as guinea pigs (this has happened in India recently)

2) Information about potential side-effects drawbacks is kept from participants to ensure their consent

3) Dictatorial governments essentially forcing people to give consent to drug trials by threats of financial of legal penalties.

4) Lawsuits against the conduct of pharma companies being blocked from hearings inside the US, so that they are held in host countries with corrupt judicial systems (happened in Nigeria a few years ago).

As I said to you before in other threads - this is one big criticism of free market theory, that it has the potential to create unparalleled tyranny. Whether that is true or not is hard to say as we have no real example of a purely free market economy, but we can certainly find many examples in contexts like this one where the interests of private business have lead to gross abuses of poor and otherwise disadvantaged populations.

Ethics are important in relation to contexts such as healthcare, because if you don't address that aspect of things - then you can only really discuss the subject in high-level theoretical terms.

Case in point - the continuing furore over Nestle's aggressive marketing of powdered baby milk formula.

Speakin of used.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Next.

[natty bumppo 297]

Next.

you want it again?

[Pinocchio Liberal 268]

Next.

He be takin a number!

[mRx 16]

But these practices aren't "crimes" in the strictest sense, are they...

That's what I'm asking.

Aggressions against individuals are crimes. Non-coerced, voluntarily agreements to mutually-beneficial contracts are not crimes, much to your disappointment.

But this surely raises the ethics question - if all that's required is that a corporation adhere to the local laws of a country, questions of "coercion", "voluntary" and "mutually-beneficial" become rather nebulous.

One reason that drug trials are conducted in developing countries is because the pharma companies aren't bound by the same legal and ethical standards that are expected in this country.

Drug trials are conducted in the US, also. They mostly operate under the guise of "clinical studies". I suppose that in Africa, the subjects are paid less, but the determination of a fair price is between the buyer and seller, no one else.

I'm not sure why everything must divert to the debate of business ethics.

Its not that they are paid less (the question is more about whether they are paid at all) - its that research companies aren't bound by the same ethical constraints as are demanded in this country so they can, do and have exploited poor peoples for direct monetary gain (there are very many examples of this). So you get the situations where:

1) People aren't informed at all that they're are being used as guinea pigs (this has happened in India recently)

2) Information about potential side-effects drawbacks is kept from participants to ensure their consent

3) Dictatorial governments essentially forcing people to give consent to drug trials by threats of financial of legal penalties.

4) Lawsuits against the conduct of pharma companies being blocked from hearings inside the US, so that they are held in host countries with corrupt judicial systems (happened in Nigeria a few years ago).

As I said to you before in other threads - this is one big criticism of free market theory, that it has the potential to create unparalleled tyranny. Whether that is true or not is hard to say as we have no real example of a purely free market economy, but we can certainly find many examples in contexts like this one where the interests of private business have lead to gross abuses of poor and otherwise disadvantaged populations.

Ethics are important in relation to contexts such as healthcare, because if you don't address that aspect of things - then you can only really discuss the subject in high-level theoretical terms.

Case in point - the continuing furore over Nestle's aggressive marketing of powdered baby milk formula.

Ah, we are again hung up on that word--Exploitation. Let me try to briefly and minimalistically explain my point.

1. Humans act in the intention of improving one's individual satisfaction.

2. Humans value "things" and the source of that value is not in the physical "thing" itself, but in the improved satisfaction it brings to the human, either directly or indirectly.

3. There are many "things" in this world to value.

4. Humans order or arrange these "things" on a value scale.

It's always under these basic criteria that exchange may take place.

Suppose for example, you have a television set, and I have an acoustic guitar. Suppose our individual value scales are as followings (the italicized being the good you own):

Private Pike's Value Scale

1. Acoustic Guitar

2. Television Set

Matt's Value Scale

1. Television Set

2. Acoustic Guitar

Notice that if we make an exchange, we will each have reached a higher level on our individual value scale, and hence a higher level of satisfaction will be attained. This is how voluntary exchange is always mutually beneficial. Notice how our value scales are inverted. If they were not, and we each valued one item more than other, or opposite items, then an exchange would not take place. This holds true universally. It's not an unsubstantiated theory, but an axiom. In this example, the market of Private Pike and Matt would be considered a "free" market. The "price" of 1 Acoustic Guitar would be 1 Television Set, and the "price" of 1 Television Set would be 1 Acoustic Guitar. And each of us would voluntarily pay this price for our own individual valuations.

Were either of us exploited in this situation? Perhaps, in the vernacular that we each "used one another for our own betterment". But, a more proper definition would be "mutually-beneficial".

Now, to address your points:

1) People aren't informed at all that they're are being used as guinea pigs (this has happened in India recently)

2) Information about potential side-effects drawbacks is kept from participants to ensure their consent

If an individual doesn't voluntarily agree to make an exchange, or is deceptively believed he is exchanging for something that he is not, then it's fraud. A parellel would be if in exchange for your Television Set, I give you the guitar box, but no Acoustic Guitar inside. In this instance, I have deceptively gained from your loss, as I had agreed to exchange an Acoustic Guitar for a Television Set, but I breached our agreement and delivered only a guitar box as I took possession of your Television Set.

Fraud is not absent from any society. But, epistemologically, individuals learn by past mistakes, and fraudsters quickly find themselves without people to exchange with. This is true especially when you introduce more individuals into our 2-person Television Set/Acoustic Guitar market. If Bob also had an Electric Guitar, and desired a Television Set, he would face every incentive to point out the deception in my product.

3) Dictatorial governments essentially forcing people to give consent to drug trials by threats of financial of legal penalties.

4) Lawsuits against the conduct of pharma companies being blocked from hearings inside the US, so that they are held in host countries with corrupt judicial systems (happened in Nigeria a few years ago).

These two really have nothing to do with the free-market, but more to do with violent and coercive government.

So, suppose the following:

PharmaX

1. Perform Labor As Clinical Test Subject For DrugX

2. $5

Poor-Guy Joe

1. $5

2. Perform Labor As Clinical Test Subject For DrugX

As much as this may disagree with your own personal ethical valuations (as does mine), can you really argue that exploitation has occured, and not mutual-betterment?

Note: I'm really tired and if this isn't coherent, I apologize.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Well if we're talking about axiomatic values, then surely it bears pointing out a similar one about corruption - not merely that it exists, but that it will always rise in direct proportion to the level at which society at large will accept it.

That's the reason why the Monsantos, Pfizers and Nestles of the world can operate as they do in deprived areas of the world. The people who "matter", in the sense of who owns the shares and buys and makes use of their products don't care about this (for the most part) - so it falls to charities and human rights action groups to raise awareness of these issues.

[mRx 16]

Well if we're talking about axiomatic values, then surely it bears pointing out a similar one about corruption - not merely that it exists, but that it will always rise in direct proportion to the level at which society at large will accept it.

That's the reason why the Monsantos, Pfizers and Nestles of the world can operate as they do in deprived areas of the world. The people who "matter", in the sense of who owns the shares and buys and makes use of their products don't care about this (for the most part) - so it falls to charities and human rights action groups to raise awareness of these issues.

You're really preaching to the choir about government-granted monopolies, and rampant corruption. As I've shown, human's value things. I should specify that only individuals may value things. When someone is put into a authoritarian position above everyone else, it must be pointed out that he indeed has a value scale as well. And his values will most certainly not be in unison with everyone elses. In fact, no two value scales are the same.

Monsanto, while a private corporation, is very good at aligning itself with those in positions to grant anti-market favors. One may look and see these huge multi-national corporations, with billions in revenue, and wrongly assume that they can control the population at mercy. In an economy where individuals are free to exchange, these corporations would crumble in a short time if the consumers wish it to. They recieve their revenue, not from some magical piggy bank in the sky, but from the little guy, with the change in his pocket.

If faced with a free-market, roles would reverse, and Monsanto would be literally enslaved by the consumers. These market powers they recieve would never fly on a free-market. So it's false to point the blame to the market system. Although of course, no one is absolving Monsanto of their government pandering. Just realize, this wouldn't fly on a free-market, where individuals were allowed to voluntarily exchange with each other, instead of coercively via govenment granted patents. If Monsanto was such a wonderful company, and their services were voluntarily sought, then their would be no need for them to align with government. They want to smash their competition, like any company, but cannot do it through influencing voluntary consumers to stay faithful to their product, so they must do it through government power.

You may think it's incredibly naive to assume that anyone could change the current system of government corruption. But, this position fails to take into account that governments are enslaved by their constituents. When Bush pushed for those damaging steel tariffs, the public outcry was immense. They were forced to create another "Mission Accomplished" Banner in order to end the tariff while saving political face. As Obama's public support dwindles, I hope the same fate befalls the C&T and HC Bills.