Originally posted by WajomaWow. That's just totally comparing coconuts to urinal cakes. You might sucker a 6-year-old with that argument, though. Or maybe an adult wearing a tricorn hat festooned with tea bags.
Another comparison is the relatively unregulated market for private health care of animals versus state mandated health care. Wait 36 hours to get a few stitches in the top lip with blood trickling into your mouth at the 'human' hospital or call the vet up on a Sunday and he'll reset the cats broken tibia for a couple of hundred bucks.
Originally posted by KazetNagorra"Unfortunately, your argument fails through comparison with empirical data."
Unfortunately, your argument fails through comparison with empirical data. Private health care and education tend to be more, not less expensive than public versions.
It wouldn't surprise me if the market for laptops is more efficient than a government-run one, but this market cannot be compared well to e.g. health care. There are a number of reasons ...[text shortened]... ent-guaranteed access to education. Of course, empirical evidence validates the argumeA similnt.
No it doesn't. Sometimes proper comparative data isn't available or is polluted by less than free markets/data mislabled, for example US health care which hasn't been a free market for more than 60 years.
Private education runs the gamut, and is sometimes less, sometimes more expensive, but again the data is polluted, by non free market forces on private institutions.
"It wouldn't surprise me if the market for laptops is more efficient than a government-run one, but this market cannot be compared well to e.g. health care."
Not just laptops, but virtually any item that is relatively uninterferred with, via regulations and subsidies. And even some things that are.
"One, people can generally do without a laptop, but not without health care. This reduces the price elasticity of health care services,"
I have shown here that the elasticity argument is faulty. Compare food and basic paper goods commodities distributed in the relatively free and competitive US market, with distribution of the same goods in the old Soviet system. The amount, price and variety of commodities in the competitive market is overwhelmingly greater despite some distorting factors in the US, including subsidies of both producers and consumers.
"In the case of laptops, it doesn't matter much to me whether someone else can afford one. In other words: externalities don't play a strong role in the laptop market."
That argument doesn't hold water either, because there has been substantial subsidizing of laptops recently, with government buying lots of them for school kids, using the externalities argument.
Again, the data is always somewhat polluted by almost nobody trusting the actions of a free market, but when an item stays in a relatively free market environment, the consumer costs come down so that the producer can reach the lower income consumers who are far more numerous than the wealthy.
The amount, and ease of accessing subsidies amounts to huge distortions of any data, especially when the subsidies or mandates are in place over multiple generations and become the expected norm.
"A similar argument shows why it is more efficient to have government-guaranteed access to education. "
It is extremely difficult to make side by side comparisons of systems when one represents a supported system of government, and the other operates in the shadows, sometimes under punitive actions by government. Still, in the US the public system has fallen into such ugly malfunction it can hardly be recommended or compared to private institutions.
1 edit
Originally posted by WajomaThe comparison is apt, although not perfect.
Another comparison is the relatively unregulated market for private health care of animals versus state mandated health care. Wait 36 hours to get a few stitches in the top lip with blood trickling into your mouth at the 'human' hospital or call the vet up on a Sunday and he'll reset the cats broken tibia for a couple of hundred bucks.
I've seen it in houses directly opposite each other on the same street.
In one case the dedicated owner of a prize Great Dane spend around $1500 on an infected eye, which turned into a general infection, leading to the decision to euthanize the dog, which was nearing its expected longevity.
Across the street a 75 year old matron had a massive heart attack, with full Medicare and medicare supplement. She had open heart surgery, and a three week hospital stay. No idea of the costs. A month later, she is back with failing kidneys, dialysis three times weekly, and out of control diabetes. Again, no knowledge of the billing. Under government health care the decision would be the same as for the dog. Perhaps a decision that might be appropriate for the family if they had to pay for the billed care out of pocket.
The prognosis is lousy. But there are no forces in place to mitigate against the natural inclination to do everything possible to extend life. This is one of the reasons that US health care in total ends up more expensive, and not so productive as other systems. It is a combination of free market, and subsidized care which emphasizes the faults of both.
Originally posted by normbenignSo your defence of a free market system of healthcare is that it would allow an old lady to die as if she were a dog?
The comparison is apt, although not perfect.
I've seen it in houses directly opposite each other on the same street.
In one case the dedicated owner of a prize Great Dane spend around $1500 on an infected eye, which turned into a general infection, leading to the decision to euthanize the dog, which was nearing its expected longevity.
Across the ...[text shortened]... s. It is a combination of free market, and subsidized care which emphasizes the faults of both.
Maybe it's just me, but I'm not finding this absolutely the most convincing of arguments.
1 edit
Originally posted by normbenignI'm not interested in whether an action is charitable or compassionate. The issue is what mechanism best achieves a necessary goal. If it can be demonstrated that charity is more efficient than state intervention in alleviating poverty, then fine.
That is what makes it charity. If it is compulsory, it is no longer charitable, or compassionate.
Both Gates and Buffet are willingly charitable, I suspect because they know they can be more effective in using their money to do good than government can possibly be.
The State's safety net is no more comprehensive than private ones are. Ask the peopl ...[text shortened]... ho suffered storm damage from Katrina or Sandy about how comprehensive or timely FEMA relief is.
I admire Gates and Buffett on a personal level for their charity, but I'm interested in establishing mechanisms that mean we don't have to rely on personal benevolence which may or may not be forthcoming.
The incompetence of the US government in distributing relief is surely part and parcel of American suspicions of government as an institution, particularly those held by the Republican Party which was in power at the time of the New Orleans tragedy. It's hard to be govern competently when you are ideologically opposed to government intervention in the first place.
Originally posted by Teinosuke"I admire Gates and Buffett on a personal level for their charity, but I'm interested in establishing mechanisms that mean we don't have to rely on personal benevolence which may or may not be forthcoming."
I'm not interested in whether an action is charitable or compassionate. The issue is what mechanism best achieves a necessary goal. If it can be demonstrated that charity is more efficient than state intervention in alleviating poverty, then fine.
I admire Gates and Buffett on a personal level for their charity, but I'm interested in establishing mechan ...[text shortened]... rn competently when you are ideologically opposed to government intervention in the first place.
I think you are really off base if you feel that government spending is a
better way of helping others. Fraud and waste are major issues with
government spending, the way politicians use the tax code to acquire
power and benefits for friends and themselves. While there could be
some fraud and waste within charities, but never on the scale we see it
within government.
One of the few times I actually believe President Obama was when he
said that no one gets rich without government help, because in his
world all his friends get help getting rich abusing government power
and our tax money.
I'd also submit to you that if you make it easy for someone to abuse the
system and get a free ride you will get more and more people abusing the
system to get a free ride. Government can make that happen, it isn't so
easy when charity and compassion are being shown through family, friends,
and neighbors.
Government intervention for a safety net or to help with major tragedies
can be a good thing, and it isn't an issue with just Republicans or for that
matter Democrats both parties when in power were not that good at it.
Kelly
Originally posted by robbie carrobieIt's a combination of various factors. The most important one is spite - people don't want to reward freeloading, and would rather earn less money than have some of their own money go towards people who are deemed unworthy. Secondly, some of the people are worried that if they, one day, make a lot of money, they will have to pay a lot of taxes. They thus tend to overestimate how such taxes will hurt them, because they think they will value money the same way if they are very wealthy. Finally, people are under the impression that high nominal tax rates discourage "success" or hard work (despite the empirical evidence being contrary to this assumption).
the people here arguing against a re-distribution of wealth through taxation against what can only be described as their own interests is a strange phenomena indeed. Someone care to explain it to me?
2 edits
Originally posted by KazetNagorraok thanks, it seems to be based on essentially a kind of delusional. Never the less to argue against your own interests you must admit is strange. Perhaps if one happened to be part of the one percent of super rich and who stood to redistribute a lot of dollars yes, but for the other 99 percent to argue against their own interests is astonishing.
It's a combination of various factors. The most important one is spite - people don't want to reward freeloading, and would rather earn less money than have some of their own money go towards people who are deemed unworthy. Secondly, some of the people are worried that if they, one day, make a lot of money, they will have to pay a lot of taxes. They thu ...[text shortened]... urage "success" or hard work (despite the empirical evidence being contrary to this assumption).
Originally posted by TeinosukeMany of those who are against the ever expanding government believe that government tries to do too much and does an inefficient job doing so. If the government were smaller by definition it would do fewer jobs (poorly) and perhaps could do some of the remaining jobs more efficiently.
I'm not interested in whether an action is charitable or compassionate. The issue is what mechanism best achieves a necessary goal. If it can be demonstrated that charity is more efficient than state intervention in alleviating poverty, then fine.
I admire Gates and Buffett on a personal level for their charity, but I'm interested in establishing mechan ...[text shortened]... rn competently when you are ideologically opposed to government intervention in the first place.
Originally posted by quackquackNot only that, many people feel that if the government is helping out that
Many of those who are against the ever expanding government believe that government tries to do too much and does an inefficient job doing so. If the government were smaller by definition it would do fewer jobs (poorly) and perhaps could do some of the remaining jobs more efficiently.
means they pay taxes so they do not have to do anything more, they are
after all paying taxes.
Kelly
Originally posted by TeinosukeDid you really miss the part where I pointed out that both systems led to the same conclusion, one based on coersion, and the other by the choice of the parties involved?
So your defence of a free market system of healthcare is that it would allow an old lady to die as if she were a dog?
Maybe it's just me, but I'm not finding this absolutely the most convincing of arguments.