Only Capitalists Create Jobs

[Monk Of Reason]

This comparison needs more info....
- People take Medicaid because they don't pay for it, & the only option is to take it or leave it.
This is similar to my becoming eligible for Social Security bennies this year. I'd rather not be in the program, but I had no choice but to pay into it. So now I plan to take money out as quickly as possible. This doesn't mean it's a great program...just that I want the money.
- Unemployment insurance is an example of a poor insurance deal imposed upon all employers.
- I buy a lot of different kinds of insurance from private companies. I shop for the best deal, & know what I'm getting. I'm not disappointed. But in my dealings with government, it'll impose things upon me without options, eg, the IRS, Selective Service, MESC, property taxes.

There are no private insurances that will get the same for less money than medicare. It simply doesn't exist. But you can deny medicare. You don't have to take the ins. Its just highly beneficial because it is so effective.

Medicare can offer better prices because of taxpayer subsidy. It isn't cheaper....it just makes someone other than the consumer foot the bill.

Not necessarily. The concept of a group payment as a social responsibility means that the cost will be cheaper per person. This is an effective way to give the same care at a lower cost. Also medicare has the single best contracted rates for most companies as it has by far the strongest negotiation capability. Negotiation capability is the biggest issue that cannot, and I repeat, cannot be overcome in a capitalistic health ins system. No company will be able to obtain the lower rates. Its why hospitals and other prividers are able to charge so much for things that don't really need to cost as much as they do. Competition, which is the primary driving force of keeping costs low in capitalism does not work in this situation. It has also become more difficult with the introduction of massive corporations but that is a task for another day.

The point I am rounding back to is that with a capitalistic system that we have now, healthcare is not a need, it is a priveladge. It is not a service for the public good but a money making gambit. I would rather live in a country where healthcare is taken seriously as a public need much as water, roads and to some extent, education is treated.

 

[Revoltingest]

There are no private insurances that will get the same for less money than medicare. It simply doesn't exist. But you can deny medicare. You don't have to take the ins. Its just highly beneficial because it is so effective.

I don't dispute this at all. But such claims often happen in the context of a discussion about whether private or government services are better (ie, more bang for the buck). When the price experienced by the consumer is less than the cost (because it's borne by others), it will certainly be a great deal for the consumer. But this does not justify it as good public policy.

Not necessarily. The concept of a group payment as a social responsibility means that the cost will be cheaper per person. This is an effective way to give the same care at a lower cost. Also medicare has the single best contracted rates for most companies as it has by far the strongest negotiation capability. Negotiation capability is the biggest issue that cannot, and I repeat, cannot be overcome in a capitalistic health ins system. No company will be able to obtain the lower rates. Its why hospitals and other prividers are able to charge so much for things that don't really need to cost as much as they do. Competition, which is the primary driving force of keeping costs low in capitalism does not work in this situation. It has also become more difficult with the introduction of massive corporations but that is a task for another day.

Regulation of health care has horribly distorted the market (eg, requiring free emergency care, reducing debt collection rights). Why is it that "capitalism" is always blamed when government throws a wrench in its mechanism?

The point I am rounding back to is that with a capitalistic system that we have now, healthcare is not a need, it is a priveladge. It is not a service for the public good but a money making gambit.

Wrongo pongo! It does serve a public good....just not in the way you want.

I would rather live in a country where healthcare is taken seriously as a public need much as water, roads and to some extent, education is treated.

The problem isn't a lack of taking health care seriously, but rather in failure to implement a well designed system.
Btw, if you've ever seen Michiganistanian roads, you wouldn't think they're taken seriously.

 

[Revoltingest]

It's now in the Judaism DIR.
So much for me....bye!

 

[Monk Of Reason]

I don't dispute this at all. But such claims often happen in the context of a discussion about whether private or government services are better (ie, more bang for the buck). When the price experienced by the consumer is less than the cost (because it's borne by others), it will certainly be a great deal for the consumer. But this does not justify it as good public policy.

The total cost is lower. Not just to the persons involved.

Regulation of health care has horribly distorted the market (eg, requiring free emergency care, reducing debt collection rights). Why is it that "capitalism" is always blamed when government throws a wrench in its mechanism?

I am not blaming capitalism. I am saying in an inelastic market we don't have the same function as an elastic market. Do you deny this?

Wrongo pongo! It does serve a public good....just not in the way you want.

Its primary function is not the public good. It is services for a fee. No differnet than a local auto shop is for the public good. A walmart and a Firehouse are not the same and neither is single payer systems like our current system. Same care but different function.

The problem isn't a lack of taking health care seriously, but rather in failure to implement a well designed system.
Btw, if you've ever seen Michiganistanian roads, you wouldn't think they're taken seriously.

Roads are part the infrastructure I think is under funded. It would be a good idea decrease the size of the military and for every soldier we let go we hire a construction worker for roads and bridges. I live next to a town that is currently undergoing road construction...for about three years now. The system fails because of incredible cost and no effective way to reduce said costs. Insurance is a totally unnecessary middle man. Imagine if we wanted to buy groceries but groceries were insanely expensive and the only people that could afford groceries had to go through brokers that pooled the money for grocers and helped you pay for it. However you paid that broker a monthly premium and you had to meet a certain pay limit before they only help you pay for a percentage of your groceries. Seems stupid to have a middle man in that scenario.

 

[Revoltingest]

The total cost is lower. Not just to the persons involved.

How is this known?

I am not blaming capitalism. I am saying in an inelastic market we don't have the same function as an elastic market. Do you deny this?

I'm not clear on what I would deny or agree to.

Its primary function is not the public good. It is services for a fee. No differnet than a local auto shop is for the public good. A walmart and a Firehouse are not the same and neither is single payer systems like our current system. Same care but different function.

Then net effect is public good though.
Whether you or the business owner call it "primary" or not matters not.

Roads are part the infrastructure I think is under funded. It would be a good idea decrease the size of the military and for every soldier we let go we hire a construction worker for roads and bridges. I live next to a town that is currently undergoing road construction...for about three years now. The system fails because of incredible cost and no effective way to reduce said costs. Insurance is a totally unnecessary middle man. Imagine if we wanted to buy groceries but groceries were insanely expensive and the only people that could afford groceries had to go through brokers that pooled the money for grocers and helped you pay for it. However you paid that broker a monthly premium and you had to meet a certain pay limit before they only help you pay for a percentage of your groceries. Seems stupid to have a middle man in that scenario.

Bear in mind that this ostensibly "for the public good" government is the same government which likes preemptive wars with massive death & destruction. I don't find their motives as positive as do you.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

How is this known?

Because of the contracted rates.

I'm not clear on what I would deny or agree to.

As someone that clearly has a handle on economics and buisiness in general you are aware that ineleastic and elastic markets are fundamentally and inherently different in terms of supply/demand and the balance of power of suppliers and consumers?

Then net effect is public good though.
Whether you or the business owner call it "primary" or not matters not.

It does. Because it affects that ability for it to work. Its inefective because of the cost and it is a huge drag on the economy. One out of every five dollars spent in the united states is spent trying to pay for healthcare in some form or another. A single payer system would cut that down by at least half. That leaves us an extra dollar out of every 10. Imagine if we could suddenly grow our economy by 10% in one year? Do you know how amazing that would be?

Bear in mind that this ostensibly "for the public good" government is the same government which likes preemptive wars with massive death & destruction. I don't find their motives as positive as do you.

That is because you have grown up in a country that is in the pocket of corporations and things are done not in the interest of the people but in the interest of money.

 

[Revoltingest]

Because of the contracted rates.

Rates paid to docs are indeed less than market, but this is by government fiat, & has consequences regarding care.

As someone that clearly has a handle on economics and buisiness in general you are aware that ineleastic and elastic markets are fundamentally and inherently different in terms of supply/demand and the balance of power of suppliers and consumers?

This market does have some elasticity. But I don't think the fundamental problems are with inelasticity.

It does. Because it affects that ability for it to work. Its inefective because of the cost and it is a huge drag on the economy. One out of every five dollars spent in the united states is spent trying to pay for healthcare in some form or another. A single payer system would cut that down by at least half. That leaves us an extra dollar out of every 10. Imagine if we could suddenly grow our economy by 10% in one year? Do you know how amazing that would be?

I'm not disputing the fact that our health care is too expensive.
But the single payer system has advantages not due to volume, but rather the potential for.....
- Simplicity
- Low bureaucracy overhead
- Tort reform

That is because you have grown up in a country that is in the pocket of corporations and things are done not in the interest of the people but in the interest of money.

No, it's because I've grown up in a country which does terrible things without regard to money...except for the lust to spend it. We didn't invade & stay in Iraq & Afghanistan because corporations said to....we (not I) elected politicians who did this, & we (not I) re-elected politicians who did this. Soon we (not I) will likely elect another hawk, knowing full well that he/she is a hawk.
I'd like to give private corporations more power....they're less dangerous than government.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Rates paid to docs are indeed less than market, but this is by government fiat, & has consequences regarding care.

Such as?

This market does have some elasticity. But I don't think the fundamental problems are with inelasticity.

In elasticity is one of the worst problems. The more inelastic the higher the prices will be. If nothing else changed but the elasticity of the market we could drastically reduce the price. But now I am cuirous. What is your thoughts on the primary cause of our skyrocketed rates over the past thirty years/

I'm not disputing the fact that our health care is too expensive.
But the single payer system has advantages not due to volume, but rather the potential for.....
- Simplicity
- Low bureaucracy overhead
- Tort reform

- Has been shown to work effectively in other countries.

No, it's because I've grown up in a country which does terrible things without regard to money...except for the lust to spend it. We didn't invade & stay in Iraq & Afghanistan because corporations said to....we (not I) elected politicians who did this, & we (not I) re-elected politicians who did this. Soon we (not I) will likely elect another hawk, knowing full well that he/she is a hawk.
I'd like to give private corporations more power....they're less dangerous than government.

The private corporations already have all the power. Government is something that can and has been bought.

 

[metis]

We can directly control government through our vote, but we cannot directly control corporations.

Let me just add that a successful model that includes both single payer and competition is the German model, and it has been so successful that Denmark has switched over to it as of last year. The information I saw several years ago on the German model has it that it involves 25 private insurance companies operating under some pretty heavy regulations while operating as non-profits. I would assume that advertising, which is terribly expensive here in the States, is probably at least somewhat restricted in Germany.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

I regularly deal with both government & private companies.
Both can be imperious & incompetent, but there are differences....
- Government is more likely to be so.
- If a private company is that way, then I can choose an alternative.

To make a profit is all about personal enrichment, which is not unique to business. Government also fervently pursues revenue, & its aparatchiks will pursue power.

Real world example:
Let's say I want advice about a tax situation.

I call the IRS:
There is only a 40% chance they would even answer my call.
If they do, I'd be speaking to someone with minimal training, & no accountability for accuracy of the information.
(My experience with the IRS has been that they're massively incompetent. Tis not due just to poorly trained workers, but also their poorly designed automated system.)

I call my CPA:
He will answer my call, & give me counsel based upon extensive training & experience.
He will bill me for this, but it's worth it because the consequences are large.

What he said. And, btw, the government takes the largest responsibility for the health care mess, largely because of it micromanagment. And you think it'll get better if they run everything. They're lying already: "You want to keep your doctor, you can". "You like your insurance company, you can keep it ("for now"). "Rates will go down dramatically", while they're actually going up astronomically. People who are just now finding out Obama's statements to be false are outraged, and the ones who aren't are the couch potatoes who didn't have to pay for health care to begin with, and kinda want to stick it to the wealthy (and middle class) anyway.

BTW,
About the OP theme. None of this disputes the fact that all jobs are paid for by capitalists.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

We can directly control government through our vote, but we cannot directly control corporations.

True, but what's your point? We can't and shouldn't control corporations directly any more than we should control other individuals directly. That's what the law is for with lawmakers and police that aren't corrupt, and with a system that doesn't establish a legal double standard. Remember, a moral/legal double standard is the root of all evil.

Let me just add that a successful model that includes both single payer and competition is the German model, and it has been so successful that Denmark has switched over to it as of last year. The information I saw several years ago on the German model has it that it involves 25 private insurance companies operating under some pretty heavy regulations while operating as non-profits. I would assume that advertising, which is terribly expensive here in the States, is probably at least somewhat restricted in Germany.

There may be some truth to that, but it's hard to know. After looking closer at the British, Canadian, French and Cuban!!! supposedly stellar systems and finding them full of holes, you'll understand my skepticism.

 

[Revoltingest]

Such as?

In elasticity is one of the worst problems. The more inelastic the higher the prices will be. If nothing else changed but the elasticity of the market we could drastically reduce the price. But now I am cuirous. What is your thoughts on the primary cause of our skyrocketed rates over the past thirty years/

- Has been shown to work effectively in other countries.


The private corporations already have all the power. Government is something that can and has been bought.

Sigh.....
It's "inelasticity", not "in elasticity"!
Anyway, I read of more docs dropping Medicare patients cuz the payments don't cover the cost. This will hurt availability.
High rate causes:
- Defensive medicine because of high tort costs.
- A culture of lavish spending & over-charging by the health industry.
- A reduced ability to collect debts (affecting all of us providing unsecured debt). Those who do pay covers those who don't pay.
- Advancing technology means more services are available.
- Administrative costs.
- Restraint of trade (educational restrictions upon pros entering the workforce).
- Drug costs.
- There's a disconnect between consumers & costs. I have insurance, so if I have some malady, I'll want the ultimate in care, regardless of cost. his puts insurance companies in charge of rationing care, unlike a single payer system, wherein gov would ration it by fiat.
- I don't know how much it's changed since I designed surgical tools, but in the 70s & 80s, doctors were technologically backward compared to industry.
- The industry has been slow to adopt a mass retail approach to health care.

I'm sure there are more reasons, but this is what I could think of.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Sigh.....
It's "inelasticity", not "in elasticity"!

HEY! My job is with n#mberz knot wurds.

Anyway, I read of more docs dropping Medicare patients cuz the payments don't cover the cost. This will hurt availability.

Most medicare patients don't have a hard time finding doctors. But yes they don't pay as much because of the contracted rates. Doctors have a limited amount of time and usually a limited number of patients that they will take on at any given time. For a doctor who wants to max out his profit he will choose to only take insurances that pay higher rates. However in a single payer system there is no choice. The doctors will still make more money in America than they will in many other parts of the world and you don't see a mass exodus of doctors from Canada to the United States. A single payer system would actually help with finding a doctor.

High rate causes:
- Defensive medicine because of high tort costs.
- A culture of lavish spending & over-charging by the health industry.
- A reduced ability to collect debts (affecting all of us providing unsecured debt). Those who do pay covers those who don't pay.
- Advancing technology means more services are available.
- Administrative costs.
- Restraint of trade (educational restrictions upon pros entering the workforce).
- Drug costs.
- There's a disconnect between consumers & costs. I have insurance, so if I have some malady, I'll want the ultimate in care, regardless of cost. his puts insurance companies in charge of rationing care, unlike a single payer system, wherein gov would ration it by fiat.
- I don't know how much it's changed since I designed surgical tools, but in the 70s & 80s, doctors were technologically backward compared to industry.
- The industry has been slow to adopt a mass retail approach to health care.

I'm sure there are more reasons, but this is what I could think of.

Indeed. High rates are terrible things on the economy. If only there were a way to cut down rates.....

 

[Monk Of Reason]

BTW,
About the OP theme. None of this disputes the fact that all jobs are paid for by capitalists.

It depends on what the OP meant by capitalists. The fact we live in a capitalistic economy means we are all capitalists regardless of what we want to be or not. Unless he meant people who are philosophically capitalistic. In which case they are not any more likely to be a job provider than a communist since we both live and work in the same system. If the OP meant "capitalism" creates all jobs I have already proven that false as have many others. I still agree that capitalism as a basis for the economy yields the best results so long as it is regulated and we have a strong sense of social responsibility that we fulfill with public services that are paid for by the public.

 

[Revoltingest]

HEY! My job is with n#mberz knot wurds.

Most medicare patients don't have a hard time finding doctors. But yes they don't pay as much because of the contracted rates. Doctors have a limited amount of time and usually a limited number of patients that they will take on at any given time. For a doctor who wants to max out his profit he will choose to only take insurances that pay higher rates. However in a single payer system there is no choice. The doctors will still make more money in America than they will in many other parts of the world and you don't see a mass exodus of doctors from Canada to the United States. A single payer system would actually help with finding a doctor.

Indeed. High rates are terrible things on the economy. If only there were a way to cut down rates.....

There are ways, but are there politicians willing to implement them.
A couple years ago Thomson Reuters (a health care division) put out a paper with a plan to save a few trillion dollars by cutting waste & fraud. I doubt anyone in government read it.
Make me dictator with iron fist type of power, & you'll see a solution which will please more than Obamacare does.
It would be a glorious success.....just before I'm assassinated.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

There are ways, but are there politicians willing to implement them.
A couple years ago Thomson Reuters (a health care division) put out a paper with a plan to save a few trillion dollars by cutting waste & fraud. I doubt anyone in government read it.
Make me dictator with iron fist type of power, & you'll see a solution which will please more than Obamacare does.
It would be a glorious success.....just before I'm assassinated.

Would you prefer to be shot, bombed or poisoned?

 

[Revoltingest]

Would you prefer to be shot, bombed or poisoned?

Shot.
Quicker than poisoning, & less deadly to my entourage than bombing.