Author Topic: More Main Stream Media...The American Dream Is Too Expensive  (Read 116047 times)

Eric

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4057
  • Location: On my bike
Re: More Main Stream Media...The American Dream Is Too Expensive
« Reply #100 on: April 29, 2016, 01:08:11 AM »
There is a reason why people from all over the world pay cash for healthcare in the US.
There is a reason why Canadians drive over the border and willing to pay cash to get American healthcare.

You seriously believe that?  I have some land for sale in Florida that you might be interested in.  Although you'll have to act fast because I have a lot of foreign investors interested in it.

I used to work in a hospital in upstate New York and we constantly had Canadians showing up.  We moved, and now my wife works in a hospital center where they have a whole floor dedicated to high income cash paying people.  Many come from all over the world for medical care.

I talk from experience and knowledge of the medical system.  Where are your facts Eric?

I would bet you literally all of my money that more people leave the US for medical care then travel to the US for medical care.  Probably by a factor of 10.  What do your anecdotes facts say about that?

EnjoyIt

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1386
Re: More Main Stream Media...The American Dream Is Too Expensive
« Reply #101 on: April 29, 2016, 01:35:31 AM »
There is a reason why people from all over the world pay cash for healthcare in the US.
There is a reason why Canadians drive over the border and willing to pay cash to get American healthcare.

You seriously believe that?  I have some land for sale in Florida that you might be interested in.  Although you'll have to act fast because I have a lot of foreign investors interested in it.

I don't know that answer, but I do agree, plenty of people go south for elective surgery.  I have seen many complications from this process.  I will admit that I do not see the ones without complications since they have no reason to seek medical attention.

My point still stands that very rich people come to the US for medical care.
Also, Canadians go to the US for elective surgeries that they have been placed on a long wait list for and would like to get the procedure done sooner.

My Canadian anecdote was based on my experience 7-10 years ago.  This may have changed since, but I doubt it.

Eric, I can clearly see how passionate you get about this topic.  It brings up lots of anger which is reflected in the tone of your posts. There is no need for that. 

At the end of the day healthcare in America has a poor rating not because of the quality of the care, but because of it's cost.  Here is a link for American medical tourism

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/reverse-medical-tourism-points-up-pluses-and-minuses-of-us-healthcare/

I used to work in a hospital in upstate New York and we constantly had Canadians showing up.  We moved, and now my wife works in a hospital center where they have a whole floor dedicated to high income cash paying people.  Many come from all over the world for medical care.

I talk from experience and knowledge of the medical system.  Where are your facts Eric?

I would bet you literally all of my money that more people leave the US for medical care then travel to the US for medical care.  Probably by a factor of 10.  What do your anecdotes facts say about that?

Tyson

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3025
  • Age: 52
  • Location: Denver, Colorado
Re: More Main Stream Media...The American Dream Is Too Expensive
« Reply #102 on: April 29, 2016, 02:10:22 AM »
Yeager, the reality is that companies would love it if they could make all their money without any employees at all.  Every employee is a cost and a drain on their bottom line.  So they want as few as possible, for as cheap as possible.

Within this paradigm, it's possible to understand why companies start offshoring jobs as fast as possible once Free Trade Agreements are signed knocking down the barriers between the US and other countries.  Hell, it's their responsibility to their share holders to do this.  Because labor in America is more expensive than India or Costa Rica. 

Messing around with taxes on corporations to "stimulate jobs" isn't going to change a thing.  That's just the corporations trying to get a lower tax rate AND keep their super cheap offshore labor.  Which gives them even more of that magical wet-dream of conservatives - PROFIT!

Do you realize that corporations without profit do not have growth in stock prices and your 4% safe withdrawal rate is thrown out the window.  This "wet dream" is also yours.  It is the entire premise of FIRE.

I have no problem with profit, I am merely pointing out the actual nature of businesses, especially if left unregulated.  If you don't think it's true, just look at history, when there was generally less regulation - companies chewed up people and spit them out en masse.  They did shitty things, in masse.  All to procure a bit more profit.  Most of the regulations that popped up over time didn't happen in a vacuum.  They happened because businesses were acting like sh!theads on a large enough scale to cause real problems. 

So you can just cast aside that whole 'invisible hand' BS of businesses working for the common good.  If less regulation meant more success, then we'd have to say that the world as a whole was better off in the 1800's and 1900's than it is today.  After all, we have WAY more regulations nowadays than we did back then.  So things must be way worse now, right?  Oh wait, except the actual facts contradict that fantasy. 

ooeei

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1142
Re: More Main Stream Media...The American Dream Is Too Expensive
« Reply #103 on: April 29, 2016, 07:16:54 AM »
I'm still confused how the free market will help with something that you often have no choice whether or not to buy.  I understand how it works with buying something like a television or head of cabbage that you can shop around for, but how does it control costs of emergency care, cancer meds, ambulance rides, etc?

Also, can someone explain the benefits of a private industry fire department compared to the government model?
« Last Edit: April 29, 2016, 07:19:54 AM by ooeei »

Jack

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4725
  • Location: Atlanta, GA
Re: More Main Stream Media...The American Dream Is Too Expensive
« Reply #104 on: April 29, 2016, 08:34:00 AM »
Okay, so you are dense! I can tell because I wasn't talking about the poor either.

Here's the impact on me, the non-poor taxpayer:

+$1000/month tax for welfare funding
-$2000/month tax for prison funding
Net result: $1000/month REDUCTION in my (non-poor-person) taxes.

(Of course, both your numbers and mine are illustrative, not realistic.)

IF YOU CLAIM TO BE FISCALLY CONSERVATIVE, WHY DO YOU WANT TO WASTE SO MUCH MONEY ON PRISONS?!

I want to cut prison funding as well. I don't want a large prison system and want to reduce sentences for white collar crimes, drug penalties, allow felons to vote, and other non-conservative things.

However, I don't understand the comparison. Welfare funding is an order of magnitude higher than prison funding. It's not a 1 for 1, or even a 1 for 2 ratio you show above. We spend around $39 billion on federal and state prisons, which is pennies compared to federal, state, and local welfare spending.

If you abolish welfare without doing something to help to help all those people survive -- which the private sector will not do -- they will turn to crime out of necessity and force a massive increase on prison spending (dwarfing the current federal, state and local welfare spending). And all these new criminals will have committed property crimes, not victimless vice crimes (e.g. pot possession), so we can't just decriminalize their offenses.

Supply and demand. If you have a lot of low-skilled workers available, and no demand, it's going to keep wages low. If you increase demand for labor, it places upward pressure on wages and workers will compete with each other for higher paying jobs. Stop focusing on welfare and give them opportunity! That's where you get a living wage, that's how you eliminate poverty. Not by focusing on the needs of the worker, but the motives of the employer.

Bullshit, yet again. If labor supply were that out of balance, companies wouldn't be whining that there aren't enough workers and they need H1-Bs.

Besides, your "solution" really amounts to letting the poor starve to death while waiting for the corporate-handout pixie dust to magically increase entrepreneurship, because even if the "encourage more businesses" strategy worked (hint: it would not, because the US is already the most business-friendly place in the world), it certainly wouldn't happen quickly enough for those currently on welfare to weather the transition.

Furthermore, nothing you've said has been concrete. How, specifically, would you achieve this magical increase in entrepreneurship? Trickle-down handouts to the rich (which have been proven not to work)?

EnjoyIt

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1386
Re: More Main Stream Media...The American Dream Is Too Expensive
« Reply #105 on: April 29, 2016, 09:25:25 AM »
H1-B visas are used for skilled workers such as scientist and engineers. Not for blue collar work.  I do agree with Yeager that having more blue collar work would decrease poverty by the fact of having more job opportunities. Simple supply and demand can explain that.

Back 20 years ago, fast food employees and other jobs like that were mainly taken up by kids who wanted extra cash for gas money and such. Today we have more and more grown adults working in these jobs because they have nowhere else to find employment. I think it is pretty clear that there is less work to go around.

I guess my questions for everyone is?
Are we spending enough on poverty today and if not, should we spend more? How much more? What is the goal exactly?

I ask the above question because I honestly don't think we have poverty in the US. Every poor person can get free housing, free food, and free medical care. What more do we need to add? Actually the poor get enough funding for the 3 basic necessities plus items like cell phones, TVs and other toys.

People who don't have the above 3 necessities of survival created their own problems through drug and alcohol abuse. The other subset of poverty is the mentally ill which is a whole other topic I would prefer not to get into.

stoaX

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1008
  • Location: South Carolina
  • 'tis nothing good nor bad but thinking makes it so
Re: More Main Stream Media...The American Dream Is Too Expensive
« Reply #106 on: April 29, 2016, 09:56:45 AM »
Good points - if we could cure mental illness and drug and alcohol abuse that would go along way to eliminating poverty, but that's a tall order.  I think the mentally ill / substance abuse subset of the poor is quite a large subset of the poor.  It's certainly true among the poor people I know.

doggyfizzle

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 380
Re: More Main Stream Media...The American Dream Is Too Expensive
« Reply #107 on: April 29, 2016, 09:59:06 AM »
Also, can someone explain the benefits of a private industry fire department compared to the government model?

You get to have fun haggling over the price of the saving your house from burning down while it's in fire, or hopefully you are conscious so you can agree to the price for the jaws of life if you need to get removed from your car after a bad accident.

stoaX

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1008
  • Location: South Carolina
  • 'tis nothing good nor bad but thinking makes it so
Re: More Main Stream Media...The American Dream Is Too Expensive
« Reply #108 on: April 29, 2016, 10:05:07 AM »
The private fire departments that I am familiar with work on an annual dues arrangement so there is no haggling or price issues in the unfortunate event that a person needs their services.

BigHaus89

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 212
  • Age: 35
  • Location: NW
  • Ride the Spiral to the End
Re: More Main Stream Media...The American Dream Is Too Expensive
« Reply #109 on: April 29, 2016, 10:18:47 AM »
There is a reason why people from all over the world pay cash for healthcare in the US.
There is a reason why Canadians drive over the border and willing to pay cash to get American healthcare.

You seriously believe that?  I have some land for sale in Florida that you might be interested in.  Although you'll have to act fast because I have a lot of foreign investors interested in it.

I had a friend from the Czech Republic that had dual citizenship and owned a successful biz here in the U.S. He was also a T1 diabetic with an insulin pump and he would fly back to Czech to get his meds because prices in the U.S. were ridiculous.
I used to work in a hospital in upstate New York and we constantly had Canadians showing up.  We moved, and now my wife works in a hospital center where they have a whole floor dedicated to high income cash paying people.  Many come from all over the world for medical care.

I talk from experience and knowledge of the medical system.  Where are your facts Eric?

I would bet you literally all of my money that more people leave the US for medical care then travel to the US for medical care.  Probably by a factor of 10.  What do your anecdotes facts say about that?

EnjoyIt

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1386
Re: More Main Stream Media...The American Dream Is Too Expensive
« Reply #110 on: April 29, 2016, 10:29:02 AM »
If you abolish welfare without doing something to help to help all those people survive -- which the private sector will not do -- they will turn to crime out of necessity and force a massive increase on prison spending (dwarfing the current federal, state and local welfare spending). And all these new criminals will have committed property crimes, not victimless vice crimes (e.g. pot possession), so we can't just decriminalize their offenses.

I completely agree with you, if people lose everything and have no way of sustaining themselves, they will turn to crime. I think the answer isn't pulling them off welfare, but have an incentive to pull themselves off welfare.  Here is my recommendation.

1)  Stop the all or none welfare model.  Today if you make a certain amount of money, you are cut off from assistance.  It should be as income grows, welfare decreases by a smaller amount.  For example, make an extra $10K a year, decrease welfare by $5K or something appropriate (I honestly don't know the exact figures to give a detailed answer.)  Basically making more money gives you a better life.

2)  For those with the ability to work, welfare payments should decrease over time. It should still fund the basic necessities of survival.  Cheap housing, cheap food, free medical care.  Again, if you can work, you should be incentivized to find a job even a low paying part time one.

People who work have increased self worth, increased disposable income and are less likely to turn to crime.

Jack

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4725
  • Location: Atlanta, GA
Re: More Main Stream Media...The American Dream Is Too Expensive
« Reply #111 on: April 29, 2016, 10:58:25 AM »
H1-B visas are used for skilled workers such as scientist and engineers. Not for blue collar work.  I do agree with Yeager that having more blue collar work would decrease poverty by the fact of having more job opportunities. Simple supply and demand can explain that.

Back 20 years ago, fast food employees and other jobs like that were mainly taken up by kids who wanted extra cash for gas money and such. Today we have more and more grown adults working in these jobs because they have nowhere else to find employment. I think it is pretty clear that there is less work to go around.


Right, so how do you propose to increase blue-collage jobs to fix that? (That question is addressed to either you or Yeager, by the way.)

It's abundantly clear that all the different conservative polices (corporate welfare, cutting taxes, free trade agreements, etc.) tried over the last few decades have utterly failed to accomplish that goal, so what specifically do you think would actually work?

I ask the above question because I honestly don't think we have poverty in the US. Every poor person can get free housing, free food, and free medical care. What more do we need to add? Actually the poor get enough funding for the 3 basic necessities plus items like cell phones, TVs and other toys.

They get that funding until they get a job, at which point it's cut off. Unless the job pays significantly better than the handouts, it's not worth it for them to work.

Maybe the attached graph will help illustrate my point, because words clearly aren't working...


Edit: Well, shit, you do get it! Oh well, I already made the chart so I'm posting it anyway. Maybe it'll help Yaeger get the concept through his thick head.

1)  Stop the all or none welfare model.  Today if you make a certain amount of money, you are cut off from assistance.  It should be as income grows, welfare decreases by a smaller amount.  For example, make an extra $10K a year, decrease welfare by $5K or something appropriate (I honestly don't know the exact figures to give a detailed answer.)  Basically making more money gives you a better life.

randymarsh

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1369
  • Location: Denver
Re: More Main Stream Media...The American Dream Is Too Expensive
« Reply #112 on: April 29, 2016, 11:02:13 AM »
Does anyone know why our welfare programs have the steep cliffs that they do? It probably makes admin a bit easier (Assets over $3000? No food stamps for you!) but we have all sorts of sliding scale tax credits. Just an oversight when they were set up?

From what I've read and heard, it seems like it's a very small population that is on welfare for years and years and years. It's more like you lose your job (or have a low paying one), so you get assistance. Then you get off assistance for whatever reason. Then 6 months later you go back on. Repeat.

Jack

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4725
  • Location: Atlanta, GA
Re: More Main Stream Media...The American Dream Is Too Expensive
« Reply #113 on: April 29, 2016, 11:09:30 AM »
Does anyone know why our welfare programs have the steep cliffs that they do? It probably makes admin a bit easier (Assets over $3000? No food stamps for you!) but we have all sorts of sliding scale tax credits. Just an oversight when they were set up?

Because by Puritan work-ethic "logic," only the truly helpless deserve assistance. Therefore, if you manage to get any job at all, even the shittiest one ever, you are no longer "deserving" and continuing to ask for help makes you some sort of goddamned heathen.

Yaeger

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 758
  • Age: 41
Re: More Main Stream Media...The American Dream Is Too Expensive
« Reply #114 on: April 29, 2016, 11:13:45 AM »
I'm still confused how the free market will help with something that you often have no choice whether or not to buy.  I understand how it works with buying something like a television or head of cabbage that you can shop around for, but how does it control costs of emergency care, cancer meds, ambulance rides, etc?

Also, can someone explain the benefits of a private industry fire department compared to the government model?

Sure, let's assume everyone is mandated by law to purchase fire insurance. Instead of government you have a private individual and his cronies knocking on doors and collecting cash for 'protection' in case of fire. If they refuse, the cronies beat them up and place them in a cell until they pay in addition to a fine. That's the government model recreated for a private individual. There's nothing keeping prices down, no reason for the company to lower prices, no reason to improve services or innovate.

Now let's say a competitor starts up the runs a better business and charges less for the same level of protection. Customers shift to his business because his company provides the best value to the customer while still being protected from fire.

You supply more of it. You enable growth of competitors and eliminate barriers to entry. You remove incentives for waste and introduce incentives for productive behavior. You give people a personal stake and bargaining power in an expanded market.

Government model has done the opposite of all that.

doggyfizzle

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 380
Re: More Main Stream Media...The American Dream Is Too Expensive
« Reply #115 on: April 29, 2016, 11:14:04 AM »
The private fire departments that I am familiar with work on an annual dues arrangement so there is no haggling or price issues in the unfortunate event that a person needs their services.

That seems decidedly inefficient as a profit maximization strategy right?  Think of all the profit they're missing out on given that they near universally operate from a position of strength relative to the consumer of their services right?

"Miss, you look to be in pretty bad shape....I think that it's going to cost you 10K for us to help you from your vehicle."
"Is that a bunch of blood I see?  First aid will be another 10k"
"Oh I'm sorry, we don't take credit card, cash or check only.  Who wants to deal with those pesky interchange fees, that'd be like $600 bucks off the top of our response revenue for your car accident."

doggyfizzle

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 380
Re: More Main Stream Media...The American Dream Is Too Expensive
« Reply #116 on: April 29, 2016, 11:20:26 AM »
f you can work, you should be incentivized to find a job even a low paying part time one.

People who work have increased self worth, increased disposable income and are less likely to turn to crime.

I 100% agree with this (completely serious).  I think nearly all welfare should come in the form of an expansion of the EITC, perhaps paid quarterly to encourage work.  Maybe rent for low-income households could also be deductible up to a certain AGI or multiple of the Federal poverty threshold.  The only rub is with single parent households with kids (which I know can be due to poor life choices, but since many of these households start at young ages it's hard for me to fault them too much because I remember what a f*cking idiot I was as a 16 year-old).  Maybe there could also be some sort of tax deduction based on high school grade advancement as well, to encourage kids (and parents) to value education?

Jack

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4725
  • Location: Atlanta, GA
Re: More Main Stream Media...The American Dream Is Too Expensive
« Reply #117 on: April 29, 2016, 11:29:11 AM »
Sure, let's assume everyone is mandated by law to purchase fire insurance. Instead of government you have a private individual and his cronies knocking on doors and collecting cash for 'protection' in case of fire. If they refuse, the cronies beat them up and place them in a cell until they pay in addition to a fine. That's the government model recreated for a private individual. There's nothing keeping prices down, no reason for the company to lower prices, no reason to improve services or innovate.

You're missing the fact that the "cronies" and "everyone" are the same people. The customers are, in fact, also the shareholders of the company. They vote for the board! The thing keeping the prices down is the fact that, since the shareholders are also the customers, any board member that wants to charge needlessly high prices gets kicked out.

ooeei

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1142
Re: More Main Stream Media...The American Dream Is Too Expensive
« Reply #118 on: April 29, 2016, 11:35:27 AM »
I'm still confused how the free market will help with something that you often have no choice whether or not to buy.  I understand how it works with buying something like a television or head of cabbage that you can shop around for, but how does it control costs of emergency care, cancer meds, ambulance rides, etc?

Also, can someone explain the benefits of a private industry fire department compared to the government model?

Sure, let's assume everyone is mandated by law to purchase fire insurance. Instead of government you have a private individual and his cronies knocking on doors and collecting cash for 'protection' in case of fire. If they refuse, the cronies beat them up and place them in a cell until they pay in addition to a fine. That's the government model recreated for a private individual. There's nothing keeping prices down, no reason for the company to lower prices, no reason to improve services or innovate.

Now let's say a competitor starts up the runs a better business and charges less for the same level of protection. Customers shift to his business because his company provides the best value to the customer while still being protected from fire.

You supply more of it. You enable growth of competitors and eliminate barriers to entry. You remove incentives for waste and introduce incentives for productive behavior. You give people a personal stake and bargaining power in an expanded market.

Government model has done the opposite of all that.

So what happens if the fire department near you doesn't take the insurance you have? What if one of the firemen takes your insurance, but another doesn't and they both come to your house and put out the fire?  Do you pay the one who doesn't take your insurance out of pocket?  I guess you have to call them weekly to make sure their arrangement hasn't changed.  What happens if you can't afford the insurance and a fire happens?  Do they put it out and then bill you the $150k or whatever the "non insurance negotiated" rate is?  Or do they just watch it burn with your kids inside?  How about if the premium hose they use is considered a non-necessary expenditure by insurance, so insurance won't cover the cost of it, is that something you pay out of pocket for?  This is all starting to sound pretty complicated for an emergency service.

And what about police?  I guess private police forces are the way to go too.  As long as the people who took you hostage are negotiating with police, you can just ask for the phone and start negotiating yourself (and calling around if you don't like the pricing).  If two people are in a traffic accident and have different police forces, whose gets the final say on the at fault party? Rock paper scissors?  Shootout?



stoaX

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1008
  • Location: South Carolina
  • 'tis nothing good nor bad but thinking makes it so
Re: More Main Stream Media...The American Dream Is Too Expensive
« Reply #119 on: April 29, 2016, 11:46:50 AM »
The private fire departments that I am familiar with work on an annual dues arrangement so there is no haggling or price issues in the unfortunate event that a person needs their services.

That seems decidedly inefficient as a profit maximization strategy right?  Think of all the profit they're missing out on given that they near universally operate from a position of strength relative to the consumer of their services right?

"Miss, you look to be in pretty bad shape....I think that it's going to cost you 10K for us to help you from your vehicle."
"Is that a bunch of blood I see?  First aid will be another 10k"
"Oh I'm sorry, we don't take credit card, cash or check only.  Who wants to deal with those pesky interchange fees, that'd be like $600 bucks off the top of our response revenue for your car accident."

I think you misunderstood my post - the private fire departments I am familiar with charge you, the homeowner, something like $200 per year for their services, whether you need them or not.  If you are one of the very few that need them there is no additional charge.  They are also non-profits so perhaps they don't put as much effort into revenue maximization as they could.  And they don't respond to accidents, just fires.

doggyfizzle

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 380
Re: More Main Stream Media...The American Dream Is Too Expensive
« Reply #120 on: April 29, 2016, 12:02:22 PM »
The private fire departments that I am familiar with work on an annual dues arrangement so there is no haggling or price issues in the unfortunate event that a person needs their services.

That seems decidedly inefficient as a profit maximization strategy right?  Think of all the profit they're missing out on given that they near universally operate from a position of strength relative to the consumer of their services right?

"Miss, you look to be in pretty bad shape....I think that it's going to cost you 10K for us to help you from your vehicle."
"Is that a bunch of blood I see?  First aid will be another 10k"
"Oh I'm sorry, we don't take credit card, cash or check only.  Who wants to deal with those pesky interchange fees, that'd be like $600 bucks off the top of our response revenue for your car accident."

I think you misunderstood my post - the private fire departments I am familiar with charge you, the homeowner, something like $200 per year for their services, whether you need them or not.  If you are one of the very few that need them there is no additional charge.  They are also non-profits so perhaps they don't put as much effort into revenue maximization as they could.  And they don't respond to accidents, just fires.

I understood you just fine; I was being facetious.  I'm thinking that if a fire department were to be a truly privatized entity, it could have some absolutely insane profit margins due to the necessity of services provided (in almost all cases).  What's with a company trying to be a non-profit anyways?  Seems to run anathema to this capitalist system of ours.

stoaX

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1008
  • Location: South Carolina
  • 'tis nothing good nor bad but thinking makes it so
Re: More Main Stream Media...The American Dream Is Too Expensive
« Reply #121 on: April 29, 2016, 12:09:05 PM »
I work for a non-profit and we make wicked good non-profits!

Yaeger

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 758
  • Age: 41
Re: More Main Stream Media...The American Dream Is Too Expensive
« Reply #122 on: April 29, 2016, 01:25:56 PM »
So what happens if the fire department near you doesn't take the insurance you have? What if one of the firemen takes your insurance, but another doesn't and they both come to your house and put out the fire?  Do you pay the one who doesn't take your insurance out of pocket?  I guess you have to call them weekly to make sure their arrangement hasn't changed.  What happens if you can't afford the insurance and a fire happens?  Do they put it out and then bill you the $150k or whatever the "non insurance negotiated" rate is?  Or do they just watch it burn with your kids inside?  How about if the premium hose they use is considered a non-necessary expenditure by insurance, so insurance won't cover the cost of it, is that something you pay out of pocket for?  This is all starting to sound pretty complicated for an emergency service.

And what about police?  I guess private police forces are the way to go too.  As long as the people who took you hostage are negotiating with police, you can just ask for the phone and start negotiating yourself (and calling around if you don't like the pricing).  If two people are in a traffic accident and have different police forces, whose gets the final say on the at fault party? Rock paper scissors?  Shootout?

Sure, isn't that what essentially happens now, do police officers have jurisdiction everywhere? I feel like your analogy is confusing police, law enforcement, with laws. Remember, this is already well underway. Private security outnumbers public security forces by 5-1.

If the local taxpayers stopped paying for a police department, they couldn't run their cruisers on good intentions. Happy thoughts wouldn't keep the lights on. Benevolent deeds don't put food in the bellies of their children. That's the entire idea behind a public good, you sacrifice innovation, efficiency, prosperity for something you consider to be good. It's a net loss to society to provide that safety net because there's nothing pushing costs (taxes) down like competition and a profit motive does for private industry. And the public argues about that loss, which is why government agencies have been attempting to emulate private industry for decades to deliver better service at less cost to the taxpayers.

Jack

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4725
  • Location: Atlanta, GA
Re: More Main Stream Media...The American Dream Is Too Expensive
« Reply #123 on: April 29, 2016, 01:36:24 PM »
That's the entire idea behind a public good, you sacrifice innovation, efficiency, prosperity for something you consider to be good. It's a net loss to society...

There you have it, folks: Yaeger comes up with these dumbass ideas because he doesn't know WTF "public goods" actually are, and can't seem to fathom why private enterprise isn't a good mechanism for delivering them.

Cassie

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7946
Re: More Main Stream Media...The American Dream Is Too Expensive
« Reply #124 on: April 29, 2016, 01:45:01 PM »
Poor people do not get free rent. There is low income apartments where you  pay 30% of your income to live there and the waiting lists can be years long. Or section 8 housing where you find your own apartment and the government pays your rent which is not full market value so the landlord has to agree to it. Often the food stamps will not cover a month's worth of food.  The welfare queen is a myth. First of all last I read you must work once your child turns 1 and single parents end up on it when they lose their job, etc.  It is a safety net mostly for moms and their children although men can use it if they are the parent raising the kids.  In our state if you are single with no kids and have no $ you can get general assistance of a whooping big 200/month for 3 months only.

Yaeger

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 758
  • Age: 41
Re: More Main Stream Media...The American Dream Is Too Expensive
« Reply #125 on: April 29, 2016, 01:51:25 PM »
Sure, let's assume everyone is mandated by law to purchase fire insurance. Instead of government you have a private individual and his cronies knocking on doors and collecting cash for 'protection' in case of fire. If they refuse, the cronies beat them up and place them in a cell until they pay in addition to a fine. That's the government model recreated for a private individual. There's nothing keeping prices down, no reason for the company to lower prices, no reason to improve services or innovate.

You're missing the fact that the "cronies" and "everyone" are the same people. The customers are, in fact, also the shareholders of the company. They vote for the board! The thing keeping the prices down is the fact that, since the shareholders are also the customers, any board member that wants to charge needlessly high prices gets kicked out.

If you raise prices you force people out of the market. Raising prices in a competitive market doesn't raise revenue, it usually has the opposite effect. If you want more revenue, you offer a product at a price below that offered by your competitors, which is why things get cheaper over time (computers, phones, cars, etc). Raising the price of your goods can also shift customers to alternatives. This is called the substitution effect in consumer choice theory. I can tell you have no experience with how businesses actually works. No, there's much more keeping prices down than the whims of the corporate pigs.

This changes if you give someone a government-sponsored monopoly. There's less of an incentive to innovate, to take risks to increase efficiency and deliver better service to your customers. This is also the case if regulations and barriers to entry are high. Which is why in our system of crony capitalism you often see big businesses like Google and Apple supporting increases in regulations or 'consumer protections' because it impacts fragile competitors more so than them. Competition is their only threat to profit, they'll willingly take a hit if it hurts their competition more.

randymarsh

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1369
  • Location: Denver
Re: More Main Stream Media...The American Dream Is Too Expensive
« Reply #126 on: April 29, 2016, 01:55:01 PM »
Often the food stamps will not cover a month's worth of food.

Well they're not supposed to. Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program.

The max benefits:





We have numerous families of 4 in this forum spending less than $649. That gets into the argument about cooking and shopping skill level of the poor, but the amounts themselves aren't necessarily terrible.

The problem to me is that as soon as you have "$2,250 in countable resources", you get nothing. Have a bad month or two, and you'll regain eligibility.
« Last Edit: April 29, 2016, 02:02:50 PM by thefinancialstudent »

Yaeger

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 758
  • Age: 41
Re: More Main Stream Media...The American Dream Is Too Expensive
« Reply #127 on: April 29, 2016, 02:06:36 PM »
That's the entire idea behind a public good, you sacrifice innovation, efficiency, prosperity for something you consider to be good. It's a net loss to society...

There you have it, folks: Yaeger comes up with these dumbass ideas because he doesn't know WTF "public goods" actually are, and can't seem to fathom why private enterprise isn't a good mechanism for delivering them.

You criticize others and you have no idea what you're talking about. I wish you'd speak with a basic understanding of the issues before you spew insults at other posters. Talk to us about the free-rider problem in relation to public goods and please answer as to whether that's a loss or a gain? Then tell us about the positives and negatives of providing law enforcement as a public good with private vs public funded policing.

Here, click on this and read something to educate yourself before you embarrass yourself more: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_good

Jack

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4725
  • Location: Atlanta, GA
Re: More Main Stream Media...The American Dream Is Too Expensive
« Reply #128 on: April 29, 2016, 02:14:59 PM »
Talk to us about the free-rider problem in relation to public goods and please answer as to whether that's a loss or a gain?

Having the public good provided, even considering free riders, is a gain compared to preventing free riders by not having the public good provided at all (i.e., the necessary consequence of your Libertarian utopia).

I suspect we fundamentally disagree on this point, but that's because you're wrong.

By the way: I started to reply to your previous post, but your missed the point so thoroughly that I decided it was useless. I mean, if your post had even obliquely addressed the comparison I was making (that the fact that the customers are also the shareholders is what makes a government work better than a normal monopoly) then I might have some faith in your reading comprehension skills... but it didn't, so I don't.
« Last Edit: April 29, 2016, 02:21:40 PM by Jack »

ooeei

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1142
Re: More Main Stream Media...The American Dream Is Too Expensive
« Reply #129 on: April 29, 2016, 02:19:56 PM »
So what happens if the fire department near you doesn't take the insurance you have? What if one of the firemen takes your insurance, but another doesn't and they both come to your house and put out the fire?  Do you pay the one who doesn't take your insurance out of pocket?  I guess you have to call them weekly to make sure their arrangement hasn't changed.  What happens if you can't afford the insurance and a fire happens?  Do they put it out and then bill you the $150k or whatever the "non insurance negotiated" rate is?  Or do they just watch it burn with your kids inside?  How about if the premium hose they use is considered a non-necessary expenditure by insurance, so insurance won't cover the cost of it, is that something you pay out of pocket for?  This is all starting to sound pretty complicated for an emergency service.

And what about police?  I guess private police forces are the way to go too.  As long as the people who took you hostage are negotiating with police, you can just ask for the phone and start negotiating yourself (and calling around if you don't like the pricing).  If two people are in a traffic accident and have different police forces, whose gets the final say on the at fault party? Rock paper scissors?  Shootout?

Sure, isn't that what essentially happens now, do police officers have jurisdiction everywhere? I feel like your analogy is confusing police, law enforcement, with laws. Remember, this is already well underway. Private security outnumbers public security forces by 5-1.

If the local taxpayers stopped paying for a police department, they couldn't run their cruisers on good intentions. Happy thoughts wouldn't keep the lights on. Benevolent deeds don't put food in the bellies of their children. That's the entire idea behind a public good, you sacrifice innovation, efficiency, prosperity for something you consider to be good. It's a net loss to society to provide that safety net because there's nothing pushing costs (taxes) down like competition and a profit motive does for private industry. And the public argues about that loss, which is why government agencies have been attempting to emulate private industry for decades to deliver better service at less cost to the taxpayers.

Of course they couldn't run them on good intentions.  Public goods do not necessarily require a sacrifice of any of those things to be good.  Where did that come from? 

Say I'm traveling in Chicago and get mugged.  What police department do I call?  Do I pay them cash or do they bill me after the fact?  If my wallet got stolen does that mean I'm screwed?  If I get in a car wreck whose police department do we call?  Mine or the other driver's?  Both?  That doesn't seem very efficient now does it?  Double the resources for the same situation.

I understand where you're coming from with government inefficiencies, but to pretend that private enterprise only drives prices down is absurd.  Internet is a great example.  TWC, AT&T, Comcast, etc are all supposedly "competing", yet just divvy up areas and charge whatever they feel like.  That's even something you can shop around for! 

There are numerous articles around about how expensive things like aspirin or IV bags are in some hospitals.  I worked at a place that made saline IV bags, we sold them for <$1 apiece to distributors.  I remember it was a huge deal when we raised the price by $.05, we actually were threatened to lose some customers.  I read an article while working there about someone who was charged $700 for one at a hospital.  Not a government run clinic, a free market American hospital that should be innovating and driving down prices.  Who in their right mind would go to a hospital when an IV bag costs $700?  Someone who's dying and has to go.  I wonder what Medicare pays for a saline IV bag?  Or what the Canadian system pays?  I bet it's not $700, yet plenty of facilities accept those prices.  Then there are ibuprofen that cost $2-3 each.  The list goes on and on.

Emergency healthcare cannot be an effective free market, because there is not an ability to take your time and shop around for a low price.  The ability to pick and choose who you purchase from is ESSENTIAL to the free market cost control that we're all so fond of that works great on computers and oranges.

« Last Edit: April 29, 2016, 02:22:20 PM by ooeei »

Jack

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4725
  • Location: Atlanta, GA
Re: More Main Stream Media...The American Dream Is Too Expensive
« Reply #130 on: April 29, 2016, 02:28:30 PM »
I understand where you're coming from with government inefficiencies, but to pretend that private enterprise only drives prices down is absurd.  Internet is a great example.  TWC, AT&T, Comcast, etc are all supposedly "competing", yet just divvy up areas and charge whatever they feel like.  That's even something you can shop around for! 

Yaegar will, of course, blame that on things like the old Ma Bell government-regulated monopoly and franchise agreements, and completely refuse to acknowledge either the fact that (a) even with no regulations, the non-zero barriers to entry would inevitably lead to consolidation and monopoly anyway, or the fact that (b) the network infrastructure never could have existed in the first place without government intervention because negotiating easements with every single property owner individually is a practical impossibility.

Yaeger

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 758
  • Age: 41
Re: More Main Stream Media...The American Dream Is Too Expensive
« Reply #131 on: April 29, 2016, 02:37:17 PM »
Talk to us about the free-rider problem in relation to public goods and please answer as to whether that's a loss or a gain?

Having the public good provided, even considering free riders, is a gain compared to preventing free riders by not having the public good provided at all (i.e., the necessary consequence of your Libertarian utopia).

I suspect we fundamentally disagree on this point, but that's because you're wrong.

Again... you don't seem to pick up on this, police AREN'T a public good. The general protection that the police services provide in deterring crime and investigating criminal acts serves as a public good. The resources used, publicly funded policing vs private funded, is not a public good.

A good is an economic item or service, like receiving news. It's not something that's necessarily favorable. Maybe the different definitions of 'good' is confusing you.

If a private policing force was able to enforce public laws, deter crime, investigate criminal activity and fund itself while doing so, what would be the issue? We're talking about the effectiveness of utilizing resources in achieving the goal of a public resource. This is like how street lighting is a public good, but the electric company is a private supplier for that good. Or how roads are a public good, but private companies build and maintain them.

Yaeger

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 758
  • Age: 41
Re: More Main Stream Media...The American Dream Is Too Expensive
« Reply #132 on: April 29, 2016, 02:48:54 PM »
I understand where you're coming from with government inefficiencies, but to pretend that private enterprise only drives prices down is absurd.  Internet is a great example.  TWC, AT&T, Comcast, etc are all supposedly "competing", yet just divvy up areas and charge whatever they feel like.  That's even something you can shop around for! 

Sure, imagine how much worse it'd be if government controlled access to the internet and was responsible for investing in infrastructure and technology. We'd still be using dialup AND paying higher prices.

Look at your local municipalities. If they have a monopoly in your area it's because of government. Likely zoning requirements keeping competition from running their own lines, offering services, and pressures from interests. When you complain about high prices, ask yourself what's putting downward pressure on the price. What's putting upward pressure? How do various subsidies and taxes on telecommunication services create large price distortions and impact the price you see?

Allen Farlow

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 44
  • Age: 68
  • Location: USA
Re: More Main Stream Media...The American Dream Is Too Expensive
« Reply #133 on: April 29, 2016, 03:07:16 PM »
I like fire protection for my home and I honestly don't care who pays for it, long as it works when it's needed. If there is no fire protection available in the area I would opt for creating my own for my property rather than be caught unprepared. You'd be surprised what a person could do to limit the danger of fire in their home when they put their mind to it.

A Definite Beta Guy

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 570
Re: More Main Stream Media...The American Dream Is Too Expensive
« Reply #134 on: April 29, 2016, 03:10:39 PM »
So what happens if the fire department near you doesn't take the insurance you have? What if one of the firemen takes your insurance, but another doesn't and they both come to your house and put out the fire?  Do you pay the one who doesn't take your insurance out of pocket?  I guess you have to call them weekly to make sure their arrangement hasn't changed.  What happens if you can't afford the insurance and a fire happens?  Do they put it out and then bill you the $150k or whatever the "non insurance negotiated" rate is?  Or do they just watch it burn with your kids inside?  How about if the premium hose they use is considered a non-necessary expenditure by insurance, so insurance won't cover the cost of it, is that something you pay out of pocket for?  This is all starting to sound pretty complicated for an emergency service.

And what about police?  I guess private police forces are the way to go too.  As long as the people who took you hostage are negotiating with police, you can just ask for the phone and start negotiating yourself (and calling around if you don't like the pricing).  If two people are in a traffic accident and have different police forces, whose gets the final say on the at fault party? Rock paper scissors?  Shootout?

Sure, isn't that what essentially happens now, do police officers have jurisdiction everywhere? I feel like your analogy is confusing police, law enforcement, with laws. Remember, this is already well underway. Private security outnumbers public security forces by 5-1.

If the local taxpayers stopped paying for a police department, they couldn't run their cruisers on good intentions. Happy thoughts wouldn't keep the lights on. Benevolent deeds don't put food in the bellies of their children. That's the entire idea behind a public good, you sacrifice innovation, efficiency, prosperity for something you consider to be good. It's a net loss to society to provide that safety net because there's nothing pushing costs (taxes) down like competition and a profit motive does for private industry. And the public argues about that loss, which is why government agencies have been attempting to emulate private industry for decades to deliver better service at less cost to the taxpayers.

Of course they couldn't run them on good intentions.  Public goods do not necessarily require a sacrifice of any of those things to be good.  Where did that come from? 

Say I'm traveling in Chicago and get mugged.  What police department do I call?  Do I pay them cash or do they bill me after the fact?  If my wallet got stolen does that mean I'm screwed?  If I get in a car wreck whose police department do we call?  Mine or the other driver's?  Both?  That doesn't seem very efficient now does it?  Double the resources for the same situation.

I understand where you're coming from with government inefficiencies, but to pretend that private enterprise only drives prices down is absurd.  Internet is a great example.  TWC, AT&T, Comcast, etc are all supposedly "competing", yet just divvy up areas and charge whatever they feel like.  That's even something you can shop around for! 

There are numerous articles around about how expensive things like aspirin or IV bags are in some hospitals.  I worked at a place that made saline IV bags, we sold them for <$1 apiece to distributors.  I remember it was a huge deal when we raised the price by $.05, we actually were threatened to lose some customers.  I read an article while working there about someone who was charged $700 for one at a hospital.  Not a government run clinic, a free market American hospital that should be innovating and driving down prices.  Who in their right mind would go to a hospital when an IV bag costs $700?  Someone who's dying and has to go.  I wonder what Medicare pays for a saline IV bag?  Or what the Canadian system pays?  I bet it's not $700, yet plenty of facilities accept those prices.  Then there are ibuprofen that cost $2-3 each.  The list goes on and on.

Emergency healthcare cannot be an effective free market, because there is not an ability to take your time and shop around for a low price.  The ability to pick and choose who you purchase from is ESSENTIAL to the free market cost control that we're all so fond of that works great on computers and oranges.
I feel uncomfortable wading into this emotional thread. It does not really match the Topic title at all.

Two quick points:
1. If you get mugged NOW who do you call? The police. Okay. What do you expect them to DO? What are the actual chances of getting your money back or catching the guy?
How many muggings actually get solved? My coworker was mugged, in Chicago no less, 2 years ago. Chicago never caught the guy, and never got his money back.

Government can't make life perfect anymore than the private sector can. And you can't solve "poverty" because poverty is a subjective target. And a moving target, too!

2. Emergency care is not the bulk of healthcare expenses. Prices are typically bargained down by insurance companies. There are feed-back mechanisms in place to mitigate these types of practices.
Also, the majority of hospitals in the US are actually non-profit, so who cares? Except that a lot of medical care doesn't even occur at hospitals, and even if it is in a hospital setting, the relevant price-setter is the doctor, who is operating OUT of the hospital.


More broadly speaking, the US system is overpriced, but it is still a great healthcare system. You need to compare it to the 190+ competing national health care systems. Also, the US system has a lot of variation. I prefer my local hospitals to whatever they got out in North Dakota.
Also, you can't just import a healthcare system from another nation. Like, look at how long it took JUST to implement ICD-10. And you want to change the whole healthcare system? Overnight?
If you can, go ahead and do it. At all levels combined, the US government already spends more on healthcare than most European nations. You already have all the money you need.



Northwestie

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1224
Re: More Main Stream Media...The American Dream Is Too Expensive
« Reply #135 on: April 29, 2016, 03:21:28 PM »
The public sector can and does provide services that are just not fit for the private sector. 

Jack

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4725
  • Location: Atlanta, GA
Re: More Main Stream Media...The American Dream Is Too Expensive
« Reply #136 on: April 29, 2016, 03:42:08 PM »
Again... you don't seem to pick up on this, police AREN'T a public good. The general protection that the police services provide in deterring crime and investigating criminal acts serves as a public good. The resources used, publicly funded policing vs private funded, is not a public good.

A good is an economic item or service, like receiving news. It's not something that's necessarily favorable. Maybe the different definitions of 'good' is confusing you.

If a private policing force was able to enforce public laws, deter crime, investigate criminal activity and fund itself while doing so, what would be the issue? We're talking about the effectiveness of utilizing resources in achieving the goal of a public resource. This is like how street lighting is a public good, but the electric company is a private supplier for that good. Or how roads are a public good, but private companies build and maintain them.

Holy shit, every new post you make is stupider than the last!

First of all, it doesn't even make any goddamn sense to consider the good itself and the provider of the good separately like you're attempting to do. Who provides the good is an unimportant detail; what matters is what causes the good to get provided or not.

Second, every single one of those examples proves my points and disproves yours:

If a private policing force was able to enforce public laws, deter crime, investigate criminal activity and fund itself while doing so, what would be the issue?

The issue is that it can't do those things adequately with only voluntary contribution by definition, because of the free rider problem. Whether the police force is part of the government or a private security contractor is irrelevant; government force is required to get the public to pay in to it or else it'll be underfunded.

This is like how street lighting is a public good, but the electric company is a private supplier for that good.

But the government hires the electric company to provide that electricity (or requires the electric company to eat the cost as a condition of serving customers in the area -- either way, government fiat is causing it to happen). Without government, the electric company wouldn't power the lights.

Or how roads are a public good, but private companies build and maintain them.

But the government funds them from tax revenue (or if it doesn't, then the road in question isn't a public good). Without government, the private companies wouldn't build or maintain the public roads.

Here's what you seem to fail to understand: even a government that outsources everything to private contractors is still a government!

Northwestie

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1224
Re: More Main Stream Media...The American Dream Is Too Expensive
« Reply #137 on: April 29, 2016, 03:48:59 PM »
That last note - public funding of roads - what the heck?  So what if private contractors are hired to actually construct them - it is still a government action.  To suggest otherwise is silly.

Yaeger

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 758
  • Age: 41
Re: More Main Stream Media...The American Dream Is Too Expensive
« Reply #138 on: April 29, 2016, 05:44:54 PM »
Again... you don't seem to pick up on this, police AREN'T a public good. The general protection that the police services provide in deterring crime and investigating criminal acts serves as a public good. The resources used, publicly funded policing vs private funded, is not a public good.

A good is an economic item or service, like receiving news. It's not something that's necessarily favorable. Maybe the different definitions of 'good' is confusing you.

If a private policing force was able to enforce public laws, deter crime, investigate criminal activity and fund itself while doing so, what would be the issue? We're talking about the effectiveness of utilizing resources in achieving the goal of a public resource. This is like how street lighting is a public good, but the electric company is a private supplier for that good. Or how roads are a public good, but private companies build and maintain them.

Holy shit, every new post you make is stupider than the last!

First of all, it doesn't even make any goddamn sense to consider the good itself and the provider of the good separately like you're attempting to do. Who provides the good is an unimportant detail; what matters is what causes the good to get provided or not.

Unimportant? No, it's not unimportant. A public good needs to be non-excludable and non-rivalrous in character. The benefit obtained from having a police resource (public safety) is a public good. Since the police force uses resources it's not a public good as someone's usage of police resources would reduce that availability to others. It's important to understand the limited capacity of the resources and how that applies to a limitless thing like a public good and underlies the importance of process improvements.

Second, every single one of those examples proves my points and disproves yours:

The issue is that it can't do those things adequately with only voluntary contribution by definition, because of the free rider problem. Whether the police force is part of the government or a private security contractor is irrelevant; government force is required to get the public to pay in to it or else it'll be underfunded.

Is that under an assumption that the government won't give private enterprise the authority to enforce a law requiring input? Also, there's the false assumption that private industry is somehow less effective than the government at collecting owed money vs the free rider problem. A profit-oriented organization would be much more incentivized to reduce the number of free-riders.

This is like how street lighting is a public good, but the electric company is a private supplier for that good.

But the government hires the electric company to provide that electricity (or requires the electric company to eat the cost as a condition of serving customers in the area -- either way, government fiat is causing it to happen). Without government, the electric company wouldn't power the lights.

The company charges the government at the market rate, not differently than how it handles the rest of its clients. Even without the government fiat, there would need to be an exchange of some sort for the government to purchase electricity. You're right, without government paying it, it wouldn't power the lights. But private citizens can pay to power, or install, street lights without the use of government. There's nothing, besides the will of government through local codes, stopping them.

Or how roads are a public good, but private companies build and maintain them.

But the government funds them from tax revenue (or if it doesn't, then the road in question isn't a public good). Without government, the private companies wouldn't build or maintain the public roads.

Here's what you seem to fail to understand: even a government that outsources everything to private contractors is still a government!

Yes, it's still a government. A government that enables private companies to charge citizens for public goods still remains a government. There are tons of private roads and highways in the US. Private highways are very common in Europe and Asia. There are 2,200 privately owed bridges in the US. To say that there would be no public roads is ridiculous. If there was a need, and government stepped out of the way, private companies would fill in and charge for usage on roads. Heck, they already do a better job with toll roads.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_highways_in_the_United_States

Again, why would you be against something like a private police force? It's already widespread. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_police_in_the_United_States
Why are you arguing against me again?

Cassie

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7946
Re: More Main Stream Media...The American Dream Is Too Expensive
« Reply #139 on: April 30, 2016, 12:49:40 PM »
FS: food stamp amounts vary by state. Some states are much more generous then others.

MoneyCat

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1752
  • Location: New Jersey
Re: More Main Stream Media...The American Dream Is Too Expensive
« Reply #140 on: April 30, 2016, 06:00:01 PM »
Considering the tiny income people need to suffer through to qualify for ANY kind of public assistance, I don't begrudge them some government cheese. God, their lives suck.

Jack

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4725
  • Location: Atlanta, GA
Re: More Main Stream Media...The American Dream Is Too Expensive
« Reply #141 on: May 02, 2016, 09:37:45 AM »
Yaegar, you have an incredible talent for missing the point! I don't have time to go through your response line-by-line, so I'll pick one specific example:

But private citizens can pay to power, or install, street lights without the use of government. There's nothing, besides the will of government through local codes, stopping them.

There are two possibilities to "solve" the problem of providing street lights without a government:

(A) Some individual citizen decides to pay for the street lights entirely on his own. Since the vast majority of people aren't this altruistic, this is a non-solution because in the vast majority of cases the street lighting simply won't get provided.

(B) Private citizens get together and form an association to fund the street lights. Without solving the free-rider problem, their effort fails. To prevent that failure, they obtain authority to bill everyone in the area to be lit for their share of the cost. Guess what? They've just become a government!

TL;DR: only government can solve the free-rider problem because doing so requires the authority to extract payment by force. Because of that, any entity capable of providing a public good (other than very-limited-in-practice examples of charity) is, by definition, a government.

Yes, it's still a government. A government that enables private companies to charge citizens for public goods still remains a government. There are tons of private roads and highways in the US. Private highways are very common in Europe and Asia. There are 2,200 privately owed bridges in the US. To say that there would be no public roads is ridiculous. If there was a need, and government stepped out of the way, private companies would fill in and charge for usage on roads. Heck, they already do a better job with toll roads.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_highways_in_the_United_States

Toll roads, by definition, are not public goods. You might say "well just privatize everything then," but that ignores the fact that SOME THINGS ARE PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE TO PRIVATIZE.

ooeei

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1142
Re: More Main Stream Media...The American Dream Is Too Expensive
« Reply #142 on: May 02, 2016, 10:18:18 AM »
So what happens if the fire department near you doesn't take the insurance you have? What if one of the firemen takes your insurance, but another doesn't and they both come to your house and put out the fire?  Do you pay the one who doesn't take your insurance out of pocket?  I guess you have to call them weekly to make sure their arrangement hasn't changed.  What happens if you can't afford the insurance and a fire happens?  Do they put it out and then bill you the $150k or whatever the "non insurance negotiated" rate is?  Or do they just watch it burn with your kids inside?  How about if the premium hose they use is considered a non-necessary expenditure by insurance, so insurance won't cover the cost of it, is that something you pay out of pocket for?  This is all starting to sound pretty complicated for an emergency service.

And what about police?  I guess private police forces are the way to go too.  As long as the people who took you hostage are negotiating with police, you can just ask for the phone and start negotiating yourself (and calling around if you don't like the pricing).  If two people are in a traffic accident and have different police forces, whose gets the final say on the at fault party? Rock paper scissors?  Shootout?

Sure, isn't that what essentially happens now, do police officers have jurisdiction everywhere? I feel like your analogy is confusing police, law enforcement, with laws. Remember, this is already well underway. Private security outnumbers public security forces by 5-1.

If the local taxpayers stopped paying for a police department, they couldn't run their cruisers on good intentions. Happy thoughts wouldn't keep the lights on. Benevolent deeds don't put food in the bellies of their children. That's the entire idea behind a public good, you sacrifice innovation, efficiency, prosperity for something you consider to be good. It's a net loss to society to provide that safety net because there's nothing pushing costs (taxes) down like competition and a profit motive does for private industry. And the public argues about that loss, which is why government agencies have been attempting to emulate private industry for decades to deliver better service at less cost to the taxpayers.

Of course they couldn't run them on good intentions.  Public goods do not necessarily require a sacrifice of any of those things to be good.  Where did that come from? 

Say I'm traveling in Chicago and get mugged.  What police department do I call?  Do I pay them cash or do they bill me after the fact?  If my wallet got stolen does that mean I'm screwed?  If I get in a car wreck whose police department do we call?  Mine or the other driver's?  Both?  That doesn't seem very efficient now does it?  Double the resources for the same situation.

I understand where you're coming from with government inefficiencies, but to pretend that private enterprise only drives prices down is absurd.  Internet is a great example.  TWC, AT&T, Comcast, etc are all supposedly "competing", yet just divvy up areas and charge whatever they feel like.  That's even something you can shop around for! 

There are numerous articles around about how expensive things like aspirin or IV bags are in some hospitals.  I worked at a place that made saline IV bags, we sold them for <$1 apiece to distributors.  I remember it was a huge deal when we raised the price by $.05, we actually were threatened to lose some customers.  I read an article while working there about someone who was charged $700 for one at a hospital.  Not a government run clinic, a free market American hospital that should be innovating and driving down prices.  Who in their right mind would go to a hospital when an IV bag costs $700?  Someone who's dying and has to go.  I wonder what Medicare pays for a saline IV bag?  Or what the Canadian system pays?  I bet it's not $700, yet plenty of facilities accept those prices.  Then there are ibuprofen that cost $2-3 each.  The list goes on and on.

Emergency healthcare cannot be an effective free market, because there is not an ability to take your time and shop around for a low price.  The ability to pick and choose who you purchase from is ESSENTIAL to the free market cost control that we're all so fond of that works great on computers and oranges.
I feel uncomfortable wading into this emotional thread. It does not really match the Topic title at all.

Two quick points:
1. If you get mugged NOW who do you call? The police. Okay. What do you expect them to DO? What are the actual chances of getting your money back or catching the guy?
How many muggings actually get solved? My coworker was mugged, in Chicago no less, 2 years ago. Chicago never caught the guy, and never got his money back.

Okay, my car's stolen, whatever.  I'm just curious if there are multiple competing PD's, who do I call?  If I'm visiting in another city, do I pay in cash or what? It's really just to point out the weirdness of paying for private police forces.

Quote
Government can't make life perfect anymore than the private sector can. And you can't solve "poverty" because poverty is a subjective target. And a moving target, too!

Agreed. 

Quote
2. Emergency care is not the bulk of healthcare expenses. Prices are typically bargained down by insurance companies. There are feed-back mechanisms in place to mitigate these types of practices.
Also, the majority of hospitals in the US are actually non-profit, so who cares? Except that a lot of medical care doesn't even occur at hospitals, and even if it is in a hospital setting, the relevant price-setter is the doctor, who is operating OUT of the hospital.

They're "non-profit" in that they don't have shareholders, that's about the extent of it.  SOMEBODY is making a profit on a $700 IV bag that comes from the manufacturer at $1.  Maybe it's a distributor, or the hospital, or some other middle man.  That's the thing I want targeted.

Quote
More broadly speaking, the US system is overpriced, but it is still a great healthcare system. You need to compare it to the 190+ competing national health care systems. Also, the US system has a lot of variation. I prefer my local hospitals to whatever they got out in North Dakota.
Also, you can't just import a healthcare system from another nation. Like, look at how long it took JUST to implement ICD-10. And you want to change the whole healthcare system? Overnight?
If you can, go ahead and do it. At all levels combined, the US government already spends more on healthcare than most European nations. You already have all the money you need.

Of course you can't import something else overnight.  My point is that healthcare can never be a free market because it is absolutely necessary, and often on a tight timeline in a life or death situation.  To simply leave it to the whims of capitalism saying it works the same as laptop computers is ridiculous.  Our current system is even worse, because the insurance companies pay the bills, not the people who use the services.  There's no incentive to shop around when there is an option except on HDHP (which I'm a big fan of for that exact reason).

We're living in the worst of both worlds.  We have very little incentive to shop around during non-emergency times because insurance companies pay the bills, and during actual emergency services if your insurance doesn't cover the place you went/were taken, or you don't have insurance, you're potentially bankrupted for life. 

There are two ways to approach the problem.  One way is to get the government out and let the free market decide.  The benefits are potentially less bureaucracy and cost reductions on certain services (but I bet not on emergency ones!).  The risks are during emergency care you can be charged literally anything with no justification and have to pay it, even if you didn't want the care to begin with (maybe you passed out).  The other risk is people with pre-existing conditions being denied coverage because they are unlikely to be profitable.

The other way is to move toward a national system.  Benefits are the ability to control costs similar to Medicare or the numerous other countries listed earlier in the thread, and overall coverage.  The risks are more bureaucracy and some middle men and exorbitantly priced employees/services are paid less.  If you want privately run care I'm sure someone will be happy to open up a private facility to let you pay for it.

 

Wow, a phone plan for fifteen bucks!