Total Posts:9|Showing Posts:1-9
Jump to topic:

Infant mortality fell 12% despite GR

slo1
Posts: 4,309
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/2/2014 7:28:30 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
http://www.bloomberg.com...

Infant mortality in the U.S. fell 12 percent from 2005 to 2011, according to the Centers for Disease Control. This good news is startling given that inequality grew and unemployment skyrocketed over the same period. How did conditions improve for babies, when they were deteriorating for their parents?

One answer is the safety net. Medicaid pays for about 40 percent of births. Because almost all births are paid for by either public or private insurance, all infants have access to life-saving technologies.

A second strand of the safety net is the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children, known as WIC. The initial rollout of the program reduced low birth weight and prematurity among children born to less educated women and in counties with high poverty levels. Many studies have shown continuing benefits.

A third strand involves home-visit programs by nurses. Nurses drop in on high-risk, pregnant women before birth and for up to two years afterward. While there is no national initiative, 20 states have created their own programs.

Other trends have also been moving in the right direction. Starting with the Clean Air Act of 1970, the U.S. has reduced hazardous pollution. Pollution levels fell in the recession. From 2005 to 2010, carbon monoxide fell to 1.6 parts per million from 2.3 parts per million, which led to substantial improvements in health at birth.

The takeaway message is that conditions for babies have improved despite the economic dislocation of the recession because government successfully shielded them from the fallout and worked to improve their environment.

Susan Athey, professor of economics at Stanford University:
slo1
Posts: 4,309
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/2/2014 7:31:27 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Seemingly contradictory result for anyone who believes in the absolutes of free markets. Is it possible state intervention actually created better results than what a free market could?

But then again could be just another salty trying to turn us in a socialist nation.......right?
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/2/2014 9:08:46 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/2/2014 7:31:27 AM, slo1 wrote:
Seemingly contradictory result for anyone who believes in the absolutes of free markets. Is it possible state intervention actually created better results than what a free market could?

But then again could be just another salty trying to turn us in a socialist nation.......right?

The only time government intervention can be economically superior to a free market is when the demand is homogenous. That is to say, if there are no variations in the demand, uniformity of the supply would be beneficial.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
slo1
Posts: 4,309
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/2/2014 9:20:24 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/2/2014 9:08:46 AM, DanT wrote:
At 1/2/2014 7:31:27 AM, slo1 wrote:
Seemingly contradictory result for anyone who believes in the absolutes of free markets. Is it possible state intervention actually created better results than what a free market could?

But then again could be just another salty trying to turn us in a socialist nation.......right?

The only time government intervention can be economically superior to a free market is when the demand is homogenous. That is to say, if there are no variations in the demand, uniformity of the supply would be beneficial.

Isn't demand for food fairly homogenous? I would argue that food manufacturing and distribution is still more efficiently run in private hands.

I might classify it more as a lack of profitability. There isn't much profit in providing health care to people who can't pay for heath care, thus the need for a safety net.

It goes to show that capitalism is not always most efficient system, depending upon the results one is trying to achieve.
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/2/2014 1:11:45 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/2/2014 9:20:24 AM, slo1 wrote:
At 1/2/2014 9:08:46 AM, DanT wrote:
At 1/2/2014 7:31:27 AM, slo1 wrote:
Seemingly contradictory result for anyone who believes in the absolutes of free markets. Is it possible state intervention actually created better results than what a free market could?

But then again could be just another salty trying to turn us in a socialist nation.......right?

The only time government intervention can be economically superior to a free market is when the demand is homogenous. That is to say, if there are no variations in the demand, uniformity of the supply would be beneficial.

Isn't demand for food fairly homogenous?
Actually it is not. People have different food preferences, be it due to allergies or simply due to different tastes.
I would argue that food manufacturing and distribution is still more efficiently run in private hands.

I would too, because the demand for food is not homogenous. The demand depends on the marginal utility, and while the initial need for food to survive may be homogenous, in general the demand for food is heterogeneous.
I might classify it more as a lack of profitability. There isn't much profit in providing health care to people who can't pay for heath care, thus the need for a safety net.

Where there is a demand there is always a supply. Lack of profitability is the main cause of geographical monopolies such as General Stores.
It goes to show that capitalism is not always most efficient system, depending upon the results one is trying to achieve.
If there is no supply due to a lack of profitability, it is because the demand is too insignificant. If the demand is too insignificant to turn a profit, than it would be wasteful to allocate resources towards that market.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
slo1
Posts: 4,309
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/2/2014 4:40:50 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/2/2014 1:11:45 PM, DanT wrote:
At 1/2/2014 9:20:24 AM, slo1 wrote:
At 1/2/2014 9:08:46 AM, DanT wrote:
At 1/2/2014 7:31:27 AM, slo1 wrote:
Seemingly contradictory result for anyone who believes in the absolutes of free markets. Is it possible state intervention actually created better results than what a free market could?

But then again could be just another salty trying to turn us in a socialist nation.......right?

The only time government intervention can be economically superior to a free market is when the demand is homogenous. That is to say, if there are no variations in the demand, uniformity of the supply would be beneficial.

Isn't demand for food fairly homogenous?
Actually it is not. People have different food preferences, be it due to allergies or simply due to different tastes.
I would argue that food manufacturing and distribution is still more efficiently run in private hands.

I would too, because the demand for food is not homogenous. The demand depends on the marginal utility, and while the initial need for food to survive may be homogenous, in general the demand for food is heterogeneous.
I might classify it more as a lack of profitability. There isn't much profit in providing health care to people who can't pay for heath care, thus the need for a safety net.

Where there is a demand there is always a supply. Lack of profitability is the main cause of geographical monopolies such as General Stores.
It goes to show that capitalism is not always most efficient system, depending upon the results one is trying to achieve.
If there is no supply due to a lack of profitability, it is because the demand is too insignificant. If the demand is too insignificant to turn a profit, than it would be wasteful to allocate resources towards that market.

Let's try it this way. Since demand requires not only the desire for a good and service but the ability to pay, it is safe to say that the demand for the type of care needed to reduce infant mortality is lacking, especially in the lower economic classes. It requires government to provide funding to unleash the need as a demand, which the market can then supply.

That is where capitalism fails. Not only has it not reduced costs of medical care by creating more supply of it, which would also create demand, but it can't just give money away for free to those with a need.
Contra
Posts: 3,941
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/4/2014 12:53:19 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/2/2014 4:40:50 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 1/2/2014 1:11:45 PM, DanT wrote:
At 1/2/2014 9:20:24 AM, slo1 wrote:
At 1/2/2014 9:08:46 AM, DanT wrote:
At 1/2/2014 7:31:27 AM, slo1 wrote:
Seemingly contradictory result for anyone who believes in the absolutes of free markets. Is it possible state intervention actually created better results than what a free market could?

But then again could be just another salty trying to turn us in a socialist nation.......right?

The only time government intervention can be economically superior to a free market is when the demand is homogenous. That is to say, if there are no variations in the demand, uniformity of the supply would be beneficial.

Isn't demand for food fairly homogenous?
Actually it is not. People have different food preferences, be it due to allergies or simply due to different tastes.
I would argue that food manufacturing and distribution is still more efficiently run in private hands.

I would too, because the demand for food is not homogenous. The demand depends on the marginal utility, and while the initial need for food to survive may be homogenous, in general the demand for food is heterogeneous.
I might classify it more as a lack of profitability. There isn't much profit in providing health care to people who can't pay for heath care, thus the need for a safety net.

Where there is a demand there is always a supply. Lack of profitability is the main cause of geographical monopolies such as General Stores.
It goes to show that capitalism is not always most efficient system, depending upon the results one is trying to achieve.
If there is no supply due to a lack of profitability, it is because the demand is too insignificant. If the demand is too insignificant to turn a profit, than it would be wasteful to allocate resources towards that market.

Let's try it this way. Since demand requires not only the desire for a good and service but the ability to pay, it is safe to say that the demand for the type of care needed to reduce infant mortality is lacking, especially in the lower economic classes. It requires government to provide funding to unleash the need as a demand, which the market can then supply.

That is where capitalism fails. Not only has it not reduced costs of medical care by creating more supply of it, which would also create demand, but it can't just give money away for free to those with a need.

First, maybe if someone cannot afford the proper medical care for their kid, maybe they should wait to have a kid until they make more money.

Second, you cannot call America's health care system, where only 13% of costs are paid directly by the patient, a capitalist system. With heavy subsidies inherent in our current system, costs are bound to explode by causing demand to artificially rise.
"The solution [for Republicans] is to admit that Bush was a bad president, stop this racist homophobic stuff, stop trying to give most of the tax cuts to the rich, propose a real alternative to Obamacare that actually works, and propose smart free market solutions to our economic problems." - Distraff

"Americans are better off in a dynamic, free-enterprise-based economy that fosters economic growth, opportunity and upward mobility." - Paul Ryan
ClassicRobert
Posts: 2,487
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/4/2014 1:07:02 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/2/2014 7:31:27 AM, slo1 wrote:
Seemingly contradictory result for anyone who believes in the absolutes of free markets. Is it possible state intervention actually created better results than what a free market could?

But then again could be just another salty trying to turn us in a socialist nation.......right?

Do we have a free market to compare it to?
Debate me: Economic decision theory should be adjusted to include higher-order preferences for non-normative purposes http://www.debate.org...

Do you really believe that? Or not? If you believe it, you should man up and defend it in a debate. -RoyLatham

My Pet Fish is such a Douche- NiamC

It's an app to meet friends and stuff, sort of like an adult club penguin- Thett3, describing Tinder