Total Posts:36|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

The Public Option May Come After All

FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/16/2013 11:37:18 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
The public option is being reintroduced as a deficit reduction measure.

http://www.addictinginfo.org...

What practical reasons would one have to vote against this?
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
jimtimmy
Posts: 3,953
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/17/2013 12:04:51 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
There are a lot of reasons to be against this.

The real question is what purpose would this serve. If it is competition one wants, we simply need to deregulate the market along with well enforced anti trust laws.

There is plenty of competition in many markets without any sort of "public option". In fact, if you step back and look at it, the whole idea of the government creating an "option" to somehow increase competition is pretty ridiculous.

The real purpose the PO would serve would be to undercut private insurers to such low prices that they can't compete. It is a sneaky way of implementing single payer, which is truly a disaster.
President of DDO
malcolmxy
Posts: 2,855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/17/2013 12:11:10 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/17/2013 12:04:51 AM, jimtimmy wrote:
There are a lot of reasons to be against this.

The real question is what purpose would this serve. If it is competition one wants, we simply need to deregulate the market along with well enforced anti trust laws.

There is plenty of competition in many markets without any sort of "public option". In fact, if you step back and look at it, the whole idea of the government creating an "option" to somehow increase competition is pretty ridiculous.

The real purpose the PO would serve would be to undercut private insurers to such low prices that they can't compete. It is a sneaky way of implementing single payer, which is truly a disaster.

seriously...SERIOUSLY?!?!?

When has complete deregulation of a financial industry EVER been a good idea. Unless you enjoy anal rape sans lubrication, it's about the dumbest proposal you could possibly put forth.
War is over, if you want it.

Meet Dr. Stupid and his assistants - http://www.debate.org...
malcolmxy
Posts: 2,855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/17/2013 12:15:45 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Oh no...private insurers can't compete...GOOD. Put those crooks out of business for good by muscling them out of the racket. The implications of this disturb me not at all.

Do you have any idea how much manufacturing this will attract back to America? Toyota shut down their plants in Tennessee and blew right past the plants they had already built in CA so they could build new plants in Canada simply because our health costs as compared to a comparable Canadian worker were such that it was advantageous to scrap facilities they already had in favor of building new ones.

If you oppose this, you are stupid on a level which eludes comprehension..
War is over, if you want it.

Meet Dr. Stupid and his assistants - http://www.debate.org...
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,322
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/17/2013 12:23:08 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Obama should just issue an executive order nominating himself as CEO in chief and just tell us what to buy and make. All this pussyfooting is just ridiculous.
malcolmxy
Posts: 2,855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/17/2013 1:18:49 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/17/2013 12:23:08 AM, Greyparrot wrote:
Obama should just issue an executive order nominating himself as CEO in chief and just tell us what to buy and make. All this pussyfooting is just ridiculous.

What's the goal of health care?
War is over, if you want it.

Meet Dr. Stupid and his assistants - http://www.debate.org...
1Percenter
Posts: 782
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/17/2013 12:56:17 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/17/2013 12:11:10 AM, malcolmxy wrote:
At 1/17/2013 12:04:51 AM, jimtimmy wrote:
There are a lot of reasons to be against this.

The real question is what purpose would this serve. If it is competition one wants, we simply need to deregulate the market along with well enforced anti trust laws.

There is plenty of competition in many markets without any sort of "public option". In fact, if you step back and look at it, the whole idea of the government creating an "option" to somehow increase competition is pretty ridiculous.

The real purpose the PO would serve would be to undercut private insurers to such low prices that they can't compete. It is a sneaky way of implementing single payer, which is truly a disaster.



seriously...SERIOUSLY?!?!?

When has complete deregulation of a financial industry EVER been a good idea. Unless you enjoy anal rape sans lubrication, it's about the dumbest proposal you could possibly put forth.

When has government intervention into the economy ever been a good thing? And your anal rape comment only made me think of routine TSA procedures.
malcolmxy
Posts: 2,855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/17/2013 1:57:16 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/17/2013 12:56:17 PM, 1Percenter wrote:
At 1/17/2013 12:11:10 AM, malcolmxy wrote:
At 1/17/2013 12:04:51 AM, jimtimmy wrote:
There are a lot of reasons to be against this.

The real question is what purpose would this serve. If it is competition one wants, we simply need to deregulate the market along with well enforced anti trust laws.

There is plenty of competition in many markets without any sort of "public option". In fact, if you step back and look at it, the whole idea of the government creating an "option" to somehow increase competition is pretty ridiculous.

The real purpose the PO would serve would be to undercut private insurers to such low prices that they can't compete. It is a sneaky way of implementing single payer, which is truly a disaster.



seriously...SERIOUSLY?!?!?

When has complete deregulation of a financial industry EVER been a good idea. Unless you enjoy anal rape sans lubrication, it's about the dumbest proposal you could possibly put forth.

When has government intervention into the economy ever been a good thing? And your anal rape comment only made me think of routine TSA procedures.

Just off the top of my head?

Anti-trust regulations
Insider trading laws
Student loans
Unemployment insurance
The WPA
Financial Accounting Standards and Practices

I'm sure there's more, but that was all I could come up with in 15 seconds
War is over, if you want it.

Meet Dr. Stupid and his assistants - http://www.debate.org...
malcolmxy
Posts: 2,855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/17/2013 2:02:33 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
EVERY western industrial country with public, universal healthcare has 2 things:

1. Lower per capita health care costs (both from the government and the individual consumer) than The United States

2. A better average standard of care than The United States

I mean, since it's EVERY SINGLE COUNTRY, I'm sure it's a fluke and everyone who thinks it's a bad, but can make no competent argument as to why they think this, is correct, but ponder this -

Cuba has better healthcare than The United States does.
War is over, if you want it.

Meet Dr. Stupid and his assistants - http://www.debate.org...
Contra
Posts: 3,941
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/17/2013 2:29:41 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/17/2013 1:57:16 PM, malcolmxy wrote:
At 1/17/2013 12:56:17 PM, 1Percenter wrote:
At 1/17/2013 12:11:10 AM, malcolmxy wrote:
At 1/17/2013 12:04:51 AM, jimtimmy wrote:
There are a lot of reasons to be against this.

The real question is what purpose would this serve. If it is competition one wants, we simply need to deregulate the market along with well enforced anti trust laws.

There is plenty of competition in many markets without any sort of "public option". In fact, if you step back and look at it, the whole idea of the government creating an "option" to somehow increase competition is pretty ridiculous.

The real purpose the PO would serve would be to undercut private insurers to such low prices that they can't compete. It is a sneaky way of implementing single payer, which is truly a disaster.



seriously...SERIOUSLY?!?!?

When has complete deregulation of a financial industry EVER been a good idea. Unless you enjoy anal rape sans lubrication, it's about the dumbest proposal you could possibly put forth.

When has government intervention into the economy ever been a good thing? And your anal rape comment only made me think of routine TSA procedures.

Just off the top of my head?

Anti-trust regulations

Regulatory capture that inhibits competition, raises prices, limits choice, and creates artificial monopolies.

Insider trading laws

Eliminating these laws would reveal the true value of the stock market, if an insider made a big investment in one area, it would signal to others where growth is expected. Ipso facto, greater transparency and clearer market signals.

Student loans

Could be performed effectively via the private sector. Gov't right now does it, which means:

1. Moral hazard -- artificially low cost of loans raises demand for college, making the gov't costs explode which are passed onto the taxpayer

2. Gov't cost shifting. The poor are literally subsidizing the rich.

Leave loaning to the free market. Better yet, remove all subsidies, and competition would better emerge, demand would go down, as would prices. There are plenty of people who would benefit greater from community college instead.

Unemployment insurance

Not bad, but could be replaced via individual savings accounts. It's not that bad though.

The WPA

Public works projects suck up capital from the private market, killing jobs.

Financial Accounting Standards and Practices

True. Though the private market could also do this. But I'm perfectly fine with government doing this.

I'm sure there's more, but that was all I could come up with in 15 seconds
"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
malcolmxy
Posts: 2,855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/17/2013 2:58:13 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/17/2013 2:29:41 PM, Contra wrote:

When has complete deregulation of a financial industry EVER been a good idea. Unless you enjoy anal rape sans lubrication, it's about the dumbest proposal you could possibly put forth.

When has government intervention into the economy ever been a good thing? And your anal rape comment only made me think of routine TSA procedures.

Just off the top of my head?

Anti-trust regulations

Regulatory capture that inhibits competition, raises prices, limits choice, and creates artificial monopolies.

Please to name one monopoly that monopoly busting laws have created.


Insider trading laws

Eliminating these laws would reveal the true value of the stock market, if an insider made a big investment in one area, it would signal to others where growth is expected. Ipso facto, greater transparency and clearer market signals.

Eliminating these laws would legitimize criminal behavior and make the varous stock markets meaningless. Do you have any idea how easy it would be for me to manipulate the stock market, get fabulously wealthy and destroy millions in wealth in the process without these laws in place?

I would rather legalize armed robbery than eliminate these laws, because that would do less damage to the economy.


Student loans

Could be performed effectively via the private sector. Gov't right now does it, which means:

private sector is involved, first off, and the government protects the private sector in this instance because one cannot default on gov't debt. They can only delay payment if they are insolvent. (just like IRS debt)


1. Moral hazard -- artificially low cost of loans raises demand for college, making the gov't costs explode which are passed onto the taxpayer

The demand for US college education stems from the fact that we have the finest University system in the world, bar none. Many of these universities are public institutions (personally, I went to the University of Washington, which has both one of the finest Medical Schools in the world, as well as one of the top 10 Engineering Schools in the world, and the Computer Science and Physics departments ain't too shabby either. Yes, this is a partially, privately funded endeavor, but the vast majority of the funding comes from the government...and football.)

Look into how much of your tax bill goes to fund either student loans or university education and then come back and tell me how this has "exploded".

You're completely talking out your @ss here.


2. Gov't cost shifting. The poor are literally subsidizing the rich.

You just made that up. Did you know that they don't give either academic nor athletic scholarships at Ivy League Schools? Every person admitted who needs financial aid is granted a package of grants, scholarships and loans such that attendance is possible so that they can attract the finest minds in the world.

Please explain to me how shifting the best education to the smartest people, regardless of income, is a public negative. This, I gotta hear.


Leave loaning to the free market. Better yet, remove all subsidies, and competition would better emerge, demand would go down, as would prices. There are plenty of people who would benefit greater from community college instead.

Did you happen to see what took place after we deregulated the mortgage industry? If not, it's quite a story. Ask me about it sometime.

Deregulation leads to profit grabbing and destruction of the market. This was true of the tulip market 500 years ago, and it is true today and it will be true every time it happens.


Unemployment insurance

Not bad, but could be replaced via individual savings accounts. It's not that bad though.

You want to rely on individuals when it comes to ensuring income is flowing through the economy during a recession. Exhibit #1 - the Snuggie (meaning, people spend their money on some stupid sh!t, and will consume as opposed to save when given the opportunity)


The WPA

Public works projects suck up capital from the private market, killing jobs.

Hmmm...I think the freeway system has created more jobs that it ever thought about destroying.

You like indoor plumbing? You think the water and sewer systems in your city/town have destroyed jobs? Phone lines (in a time before the proliferation of cell phones) - communication kills jobs?

So, you believe that walking to your job, yelling out the window to communicate and transact business, and sh!tting in an outhouse would make for a more healthy economy.

Good to know.


Financial Accounting Standards and Practices

True. Though the private market could also do this. But I'm perfectly fine with government doing this.

Enron - no they couldn't, and they wouldn't, because it is the ethical duty of EVERY corporate officer in a corporation to do whatever they can to increase profit, including cooking the books.


I'm sure there's more, but that was all I could come up with in 15 seconds

Seriously...I swear, you libertarians do not think sh!t through before you spout your useless dogma.
War is over, if you want it.

Meet Dr. Stupid and his assistants - http://www.debate.org...
malcolmxy
Posts: 2,855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/17/2013 3:59:51 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Also, I find it interesting that other than Accounting Standards, the one thing you didn't balk at from my list of examples was unemployment insurance.

Unemployment insurance works (which has got to be an extremely difficult admission for a libertarian), but there is NO WAY that a single payer healthcare system could work.

Percolate on that for a while and someone tell me why that makes sense, because I'm coming up short as I try to logically get from A to B.
War is over, if you want it.

Meet Dr. Stupid and his assistants - http://www.debate.org...
Contra
Posts: 3,941
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/18/2013 9:37:31 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/17/2013 2:02:33 PM, malcolmxy wrote:

Healthcare? My favorite debating passion, as well as defending economic freedom.

EVERY western industrial country with public, universal healthcare has 2 things:

1. Lower per capita health care costs (both from the government and the individual consumer) than The United States

Of course. If gov't controls health care, they could cut funding by $100 per capita and the health care costs would go down.

As Jimtimmy said, we have a cronyist mess that nobody likes. Introduce private sector competition, and individual responsibility would limit the usage of health care.

Health care costs would dramatically fall, and choice would be expanded.

Competition is the most effective measure to lower costs and improve quality. There are two fundamental options on how to fund health care.

1. Have gov't bureaucrats set the prices. But how can a few unelected bureaucrats set prices for the whole economy? They cannot. It simply doesn't work that way, like if they decided the gov't would pay $X for an MRI, it would either be excessive (and cause waste and abuse), or be limited, meaning not enough supply is delivered.

Government cannot set prices. Simple as that.

2. Supply and demand. Millions of individuals rationally pursuing what is best for them causes supply to increase when profits are high and to relocate their resources when profits fall, so that supply and demand eventually balance out. Prices efficiently allocate resources.

2. A better average standard of care than The United States

By having government deliver services, it has zero incentive to treat their "customers" well.

From a former Soviet citizen who was part of Gorbachev's administrative team:

"In order to receive minimal attention by doctors and nursing personnel, patients had to pay bribes. I even witnessed a case of a "nonpaying" patient who died trying to reach a lavatory at the end of the long corridor after brain surgery. Anesthesia was usually "not available" for abortions or minor ear, nose, throat, and skin surgeries."

"In the depths of the socialist experiment, healthcare institutions in Russia were at least a hundred years behind the average US level. Moreover, the filth, odors, cats roaming the halls, drunken medical personnel, and absence of soap and cleaning supplies added to an overall impression of hopelessness and frustration that paralyzed the system. According to official Russian estimates, 78 percent of all AIDS victims in Russia contracted the virus through dirty needles or HIV-tainted blood in the state-run hospitals."

(http://mises.org...)

I mean, since it's EVERY SINGLE COUNTRY, I'm sure it's a fluke and everyone who thinks it's a bad, but can make no competent argument as to why they think this, is correct, but ponder this -

Cuba has better healthcare than The United States does.

Imagine, a consumer market in health care.

Competition would limit prices, and inspire innovation and new research and development. Supply and demand would efficiently allocate resources and balance each other out.

Consumer choice would be restored, and individuals would be able to get high deductible insurance plans that are crafted to their individual needs.

Much more affordable health care, better health care, with more consumer choice. Excellent.

I'd be okay with transforming Medicaid into a voucher, so the poor could get subsidies to afford health care for themselves. And mutual aid societies in the past provided health care to the poor.
"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
malcolmxy
Posts: 2,855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/18/2013 11:12:27 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/18/2013 9:37:31 AM, Contra wrote:
At 1/17/2013 2:02:33 PM, malcolmxy wrote:

Healthcare? My favorite debating passion, as well as defending economic freedom.

Me, too.


EVERY western industrial country with public, universal healthcare has 2 things:

1. Lower per capita health care costs (both from the government and the individual consumer) than The United States

Of course. If gov't controls health care, they could cut funding by $100 per capita and the health care costs would go down.

No, they don't. They control Health Care Payments/Insurance. There are any number of health expenses which are beyond their control, including the cost of any, and all, supplies needed at a hospital, the cost of construction of a new hospital, drug costs, durable medical good costs, etc, etc, etc.


As Jimtimmy said, we have a cronyist mess that nobody likes. Introduce private sector competition, and individual responsibility would limit the usage of health care.

Why hasn't it done so yet, then? What's it waiting for? There is no lack of private competition in the Health Insurance Industry, including numerous upstarts and HMOs. Where's my high quality of care and lower costs (for me and the gov't)?

I've been waiting a long time now.


Health care costs would dramatically fall, and choice would be expanded.

still waiting for this magic carpet you keep promising...


Competition is the most effective measure to lower costs and improve quality. There are two fundamental options on how to fund health care.

That's only true when the goal is profit. The goal of health care is NOT profit. In fact, profit cab become a barrier to the actual goal of healthcare, which is, of course, HEALTH.


1. Have gov't bureaucrats set the prices. But how can a few unelected bureaucrats set prices for the whole economy? They cannot. It simply doesn't work that way, like if they decided the gov't would pay $X for an MRI, it would either be excessive (and cause waste and abuse), or be limited, meaning not enough supply is delivered.

They don't set prices. They prevent gouging, and they survey the industry such that providers are unable to charge more than is "usual and customary" for their services...just like private insurers do.


Government cannot set prices. Simple as that.

Wanna bet?

Name me a competitive industry and I'll show you how it is funded and restricted by the government. The government provides more jobs, goods and services, directly or INDIRECTLY, than the entirety of the private sector...by a factor of 1.5X.


2. Supply and demand. Millions of individuals rationally pursuing what is best for them causes supply to increase when profits are high and to relocate their resources when profits fall, so that supply and demand eventually balance out. Prices efficiently allocate resources.

Why hasn't this happened yet, then? Surely your Capitalist Wonderland exists somewhere such that our country may use this bastion of fairness and competition as a template for our system, so where is it?


2. A better average standard of care than The United States

By having government deliver services, it has zero incentive to treat their "customers" well.

and yet, the standards of healthcare in The UK, France, Germany, Japan (the list goes on for a long time)...and Costa Rica are all higher than ours, but hey, we're totally better than Slovenia, so whoo hoo. USA #38!! USA #38!! USA #38!!


From a former Soviet citizen who was part of Gorbachev's administrative team:

"In order to receive minimal attention by doctors and nursing personnel, patients had to pay bribes. I even witnessed a case of a "nonpaying" patient who died trying to reach a lavatory at the end of the long corridor after brain surgery. Anesthesia was usually "not available" for abortions or minor ear, nose, throat, and skin surgeries."

Cool. France has some of the lowest healthcare costs in the world, and the World Health Organization ranks them, and their socialized medicine program, #1 in the world in terms of patient care...with no bribes or nothing...not even a baguette slipped to the nurse while no one was looking.

There's no such thing as the Soviet Union any longer, and a totalitarian dictatorship is something completely different than a socialist market.

You wanna privatize fire and police protection? Wanna see industries rife with bribery, throw those two services back into the private sector where they failed miserably previously. This is simply another market the public sector is better equipped to handle than the private sector. Don't worry...y'all got most of the efficiencies in the private sector, but you're gonna have to let go of this market, because you suck at it.


"In the depths of the socialist experiment, healthcare institutions in Russia were at least a hundred years behind the average US level. Moreover, the filth, odors, cats roaming the halls, drunken medical personnel, and absence of soap and cleaning supplies added to an overall impression of hopelessness and frustration that paralyzed the system. According to official Russian estimates, 78 percent of all AIDS victims in Russia contracted the virus through dirty needles or HIV-tainted blood in the state-run hospitals."

(http://mises.org...)

blah, blah, blah...just don't try to tell me that Ayn Rand knows how to write good fiction, OK?


I mean, since it's EVERY SINGLE COUNTRY, I'm sure it's a fluke and everyone who thinks it's a bad, but can make no competent argument as to why they think this, is correct, but ponder this -

Cuba has better healthcare than The United States does.

Imagine, a consumer market in health care.

Imagine unicorns that sh!t rainbows. HERE is something that works. In fact, it works universally. Where is your ONE example of your market (HEALTHCARE - apples to apples a day keep the bullsh!t away)?

Just one...

I got like 30 for you, but I just wanna see 1 FROM you and you will convert me into a believer.


Competition would limit prices, and inspire innovation and new research and development. Supply and demand would efficiently allocate resources and balance each other out.

Consumer choice would be restored, and individuals would be able to get high deductible insurance plans that are crafted to their individual needs.

Much more affordable health care, better health care, with more consumer choice. Excellent.

Most excellent, Ted, but where is it?


I'd be okay with transforming Medicaid into a voucher, so the poor could get subsidies to afford health care for themselves. And mutual aid societies in the past provided health care to the poor.

How about everyone is just on Medicare so we can all get better healthcare and do so at a much lesser expense to everyone.

Why is this so scary to you and your Mises following, sheep in wolves-clothing brethren?
War is over, if you want it.

Meet Dr. Stupid and his assistants - http://www.debate.org...
Contra
Posts: 3,941
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/19/2013 12:55:15 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/18/2013 11:12:27 AM, malcolmxy wrote:
At 1/18/2013 9:37:31 AM, Contra wrote:
At 1/17/2013 2:02:33 PM, malcolmxy wrote:

Healthcare? My favorite debating passion, as well as defending economic freedom.

Me, too.

I'd like to debate this if you are up for it.

As Jimtimmy said, we have a cronyist mess that nobody likes. Introduce private sector competition, and individual responsibility would limit the usage of health care.

Why hasn't it done so yet, then? What's it waiting for? There is no lack of private competition in the Health Insurance Industry, including numerous upstarts and HMOs. Where's my high quality of care and lower costs (for me and the gov't)?

I've been waiting a long time now.

Many times employees are tied to their employer's insurance plan, and they don't have the choice of which insurance company they want.

General medical care should be payed for via individual savings accounts, and linked to high deductible health insurance.

General medical treatment makes insurance overtly complicated, so people should themselves pay for these kinds of things. Competition would drive prices down. Health insurance competition over state lines would also bring down prices.

Licensing limits the number of medical professionals. We should weaken these licenses, if not replace them with private sector alternatives.

Consumers should bear the cost of their health care. Third parties have zero incentive to hold down prices, while direct payers do have this incentive.

1. Have gov't bureaucrats set the prices. But how can a few unelected bureaucrats set prices for the whole economy? They cannot. It simply doesn't work that way, like if they decided the gov't would pay $X for an MRI, it would either be excessive (and cause waste and abuse), or be limited, meaning not enough supply is delivered.

They don't set prices. They prevent gouging, and they survey the industry such that providers are unable to charge more than is "usual and customary" for their services...just like private insurers do.

Doesn't this seem like a slippery slope? Bribes could hold out competition. Price gouging is necessary to allow supply to adjust to meet the demand.


Government cannot set prices. Simple as that.

Wanna bet?

Name me a competitive industry and I'll show you how it is funded and restricted by the government. The government provides more jobs, goods and services, directly or INDIRECTLY, than the entirety of the private sector...by a factor of 1.5X.

Not true at all. If you are talking about the multiplier effect, gov't spending has a multiplier under 1 (about 0.5), while tax cuts have a multiplier of 3 over 3 years.

(http://elsa.berkeley.edu...) - it's on page 22
(http://www.cato.org...)


2. Supply and demand. Millions of individuals rationally pursuing what is best for them causes supply to increase when profits are high and to relocate their resources when profits fall, so that supply and demand eventually balance out. Prices efficiently allocate resources.

Why hasn't this happened yet, then? Surely your Capitalist Wonderland exists somewhere such that our country may use this bastion of fairness and competition as a template for our system, so where is it?

Actually a Capitalist free market in health care does exist - in Singapore. They are considerably healthier (their diets are much of the reason -- but people would eat healthier if they held the financial burden of obesity), and pay about 1/5th the cost of health care that we do. In other words, they spend about 3.7% of their GDP on health care, while we spend over 17% of our GDP in this area.

Canada still spends over 11% of GDP on health care.

(http://www.american.com...)



2. A better average standard of care than The United States

By having government deliver services, it has zero incentive to treat their "customers" well.


From a former Soviet citizen who was part of Gorbachev's administrative team:

"In order to receive minimal attention by doctors and nursing personnel, patients had to pay bribes. I even witnessed a case of a "nonpaying" patient who died trying to reach a lavatory at the end of the long corridor after brain surgery. Anesthesia was usually "not available" for abortions or minor ear, nose, throat, and skin surgeries."

Cool. France has some of the lowest healthcare costs in the world, and the World Health Organization ranks them, and their socialized medicine program, #1 in the world in terms of patient care...with no bribes or nothing...not even a baguette slipped to the nurse while no one was looking.

That study is not based on customer care. And French doctors frequently riot in the streets because of their low pay.

There's no such thing as the Soviet Union any longer, and a totalitarian dictatorship is something completely different than a socialist market.

You wanna privatize fire and police protection?

I've seen voluntary fire fighting services work very well.

Straw man though. Health care is not the equivalent of basic governmental services.

And besides, markets succeed. Free enterprise has been instrumental at raising the living standards of American citizens.

"In the depths of the socialist experiment, healthcare institutions in Russia were at least a hundred years behind the average US level. Moreover, the filth, odors, cats roaming the halls, drunken medical personnel, and absence of soap and cleaning supplies added to an overall impression of hopelessness and frustration that paralyzed the system. According to official Russian estimates, 78 percent of all AIDS victims in Russia contracted the virus through dirty needles or HIV-tainted blood in the state-run hospitals."

(http://mises.org...)

blah, blah, blah...just don't try to tell me that Ayn Rand knows how to write good fiction, OK?

I've actually never read Ayn Rand.


I mean, since it's EVERY SINGLE COUNTRY, I'm sure it's a fluke and everyone who thinks it's a bad, but can make no competent argument as to why they think this, is correct, but ponder this -

Just one...

I got like 30 for you, but I just wanna see 1 FROM you and you will convert me into a believer.

Singapore - is the best I can think of, but it is not perfect.

http://econlog.econlib.org...

Health savings accounts, market competition and choice, private medical insurance, high deductible insurance linked to individual HSA's.

What if we only spent 1/4th of what we spend now on health care. Singapore does this GDP-wise, and they are healthier. We don't have a huge hack and slash though, we leave it to the market to sort it out.

Glad to know you are on my side now.

I'd be okay with transforming Medicaid into a voucher, so the poor could get subsidies to afford health care for themselves. And mutual aid societies in the past provided health care to the poor.

How about everyone is just on Medicare so we can all get better healthcare and do so at a much lesser expense to everyone.

Because consumer choice, rather than a forced, top down bureaucracy would be much more efficient, expand individual freedom (you are free to choose what care you want), and save lives. And eliminate the tens of trillions in unfunded liabilities.
"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
malcolmxy
Posts: 2,855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/19/2013 2:36:01 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/19/2013 12:55:15 AM, Contra wrote:
I'd like to debate this if you are up for it.

Sure...what the heck? I am waiting to finish my third debate, so my abilities to set up the debate (as well as vote in any of them) is limited at the moment, as far as I understand, so you'll need to set it up and challenge me if you do not mind.

Many times employees are tied to their employer's insurance plan, and they don't have the choice of which insurance company they want.

Really? What company do you work at, because every company I've worked at has included at least 75% of the major insurers in the region as one of the choices, at least 1 HMO, and one smaller, though established, provider amongst the choices for providers. Yes, some had better deals than others, because by pledging large chunk of the overall premiums, a bulk rate can be negotiated. THIS IS HOW HEALTH INSURANCE STARTED OUT IN THE FIRST PLACE - THIS IS THE MARKET AND THE WAY THE MARKET HAS ALWAYS FUNCTIONED - THROUGH EMPLOYERS OR EMPLOYEE CO-OPS.

Consumers should bear the cost of their health care. Third parties have zero incentive to hold down prices, while direct payers do have this incentive.

Yeah...my parents have to do this now that they are retired. They have the least robust plan at an HMO and they pay more than I've ever thought about paying (serves them right for being such sh!tty drivers and getting lower auto insurance rates than me despite this fact)

1. Have gov't bureaucrats set the prices. But how can a few unelected bureaucrats set prices for the whole economy? They cannot. It simply doesn't work that way, like if they decided the gov't would pay $X for an MRI, it would either be excessive (and cause waste and abuse), or be limited, meaning not enough supply is delivered.

You act as if Health Insurance companies provide a service which adds any value to the process other than the slight elimination of risk. The profit they take, given that they are nothing but a middle man which moves money around, are necessarily ALWAYS is going to make them less efficient than an entity which doesn't make a profit. Force them into a non-profit set up if you are so fired up to keep them private, but the very nature of profit is a barrier to their competition.

Doesn't this seem like a slippery slope? Bribes could hold out competition. Price gouging is necessary to allow supply to adjust to meet the demand.

No. This hasn't happened anywhere else there is a single payer program, and beside, just like a corporation of any size, leakage is a function of large logistical arrangements. The government has an incentive to stop this themselves, and they will, or they will as efficiently as anyone else would.

Not true at all. If you are talking about the multiplier effect, gov't spending has a multiplier under 1 (about 0.5), while tax cuts have a multiplier of 3 over 3 years.

(http://elsa.berkeley.edu...) - it's on page 22
(http://www.cato.org...)

1/4 of Boeing's business is solely dedicated to government defense contracts. Do I really need to explain not only how this makes them the price setter not only for Boeing's Defense Business, but also their Commercial business?

Actually a Capitalist free market in health care does exist - in Singapore. They are considerably healthier (their diets are much of the reason -- but people would eat healthier if they held the financial burden of obesity), and pay about 1/5th the cost of health care that we do. In other words, they spend about 3.7% of their GDP on health care, while we spend over 17% of our GDP in this area.

Malta is tied with Singapore in spending rank, and they rank higher in overall health care. Take a wild guess at the system of health care which they employ. Do you think it's private or public in its funding?

In fact, take a wild guess at the system employed by EVERY country which ranks higher than Singapore (there are 6 of them. Singapore is an outlier in the Capitalist model. The US is the closest thing otherwise and we rank #1 in per capita costs and and #38 in standard of care.

If control went to the states and the private market were controlled in that small arena, I'd say a private system MIGHT be able to work, but on this scale, only a public system is tenable.

Canada still spends over 11% of GDP on health care.

(http://www.american.com...)

Good. That is much less, per capita, than the US spends.

Cool. France has some of the lowest healthcare costs in the world, and the World Health Organization ranks them, and their socialized medicine program, #1 in the world in terms of patient care...with no bribes or nothing...not even a baguette slipped to the nurse while no one was looking.

That study is not based on customer care. And French doctors frequently riot in the streets because of their low pay.

Yes, it is. It's based on QUALITY OF CARE, which is, in the health industry, customer care.

And, the French rioted when their work week was proposed to increase 32 to 34 hours. They'll riot when the supply of baguettes doesn't equal the supply of blue cheese appropriate to spread on a baguette. C'mon with your French doctors are rioting. That's a function of them being French.

You wanna privatize fire and police protection?

I've seen voluntary fire fighting services work very well.

where? I never have, so this interests me. I've seen that rural areas have to pay into the nearest city/county fire dept just like those within the city/county limits now or the fire dept's will allow their house to burn to the ground, given that it is controlled in its burn, but that's it.

Straw man though. Health care is not the equivalent of basic governmental services.

Yes it is. "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness" - What is more paramount to those things than one's health? Plus, police and fire were not always considered to be under the purview of the government. It wasn't until the private market failed so miserably in these endeavors that the government, under pressure from the public, took it over (also, they were baring much of the cost already, so it was MORE EFFICIENT for them to just take over the whole market, and now you consider it an essential government service.)

Guess what? Healthcare is failing on that same level.

I've actually never read Ayn Rand.

Consider yourself among the lucky.

I mean, since it's EVERY SINGLE COUNTRY, I'm sure it's a fluke and everyone who thinks it's a bad, but can make no competent argument as to why they think this, is correct, but ponder this -

Just one...

I got like 30 for you, but I just wanna see 1 FROM you and you will convert me into a believer.

Singapore - is the best I can think of, but it is not perfect.

http://econlog.econlib.org...

Glad to know you are on my side now.

Singapore is a fluke (though I have to admit, I didn't think there would even be one, so nice job on finding that one), but still, their advantage, like Cuba's, is that they are small and totalitarian in their rule. 'Member what happens when you spit on a Singapore sidewalk? they have control.

Health insurers offer wellness discounts now, and they don't amount to anything close to a 75% discount. They're maybe 3%, or 5% if you include those that give a rebate on gym memberships.

How about everyone is just on Medicare so we can all get better healthcare and do so at a much lesser expense to everyone.

Because consumer choice, rather than a forced, top down bureaucracy...

For who transfers money from point A to point B really adds value to this process which the government would completely screw up if t
War is over, if you want it.

Meet Dr. Stupid and his assistants - http://www.debate.org...
Contra
Posts: 3,941
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/19/2013 12:54:14 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/17/2013 2:58:13 PM, malcolmxy wrote:
At 1/17/2013 2:29:41 PM, Contra wrote:

When has complete deregulation of a financial industry EVER been a good idea. Unless you enjoy anal rape sans lubrication, it's about the dumbest proposal you could possibly put forth.

When has government intervention into the economy ever been a good thing? And your anal rape comment only made me think of routine TSA procedures.

Just off the top of my head?

Anti-trust regulations

Regulatory capture that inhibits competition, raises prices, limits choice, and creates artificial monopolies.

Please to name one monopoly that monopoly busting laws have created.

Some government monopolies include the Post Office, railroads, telecommunications (remember AT&T), railroads, in my state liquor stores, etc.

There would be more competition with a free market, with free entry posing a threat to any existing firms.

Insider trading laws

Eliminating these laws would reveal the true value of the stock market, if an insider made a big investment in one area, it would signal to others where growth is expected. Ipso facto, greater transparency and clearer market signals.

Eliminating these laws would legitimize criminal behavior

It's only criminal because gov't made it that way. People who smoke pot are considered criminal, though they aren't hurting anyone.

and make the varous stock markets meaningless. Do you have any idea how easy it would be for me to manipulate the stock market, get fabulously wealthy and destroy millions in wealth in the process without these laws in place?

You wouldn't be destroying wealth. If Apple planned on releasing a new tablet, and you invested in the stock market, you would be pumping capital into the stock market, which Apple could use to reinvest in their firm, and expand their business. They could also invest in R&D and innovation, creating better goods for all of us.

Stock market exchanges could voluntarily prohibit insider trading if they wished.

This issue revolves around the fundamental idea of freedom of information. Stock prices would truly show the value of the stock.

I would rather legalize armed robbery than eliminate these laws, because that would do less damage to the economy.


Student loans

Could be performed effectively via the private sector. Gov't right now does it, which means:

private sector is involved, first off, and the government protects the private sector in this instance because one cannot default on gov't debt. They can only delay payment if they are insolvent. (just like IRS debt)

No, the federal gov't itself makes the loans. (http://www.huffingtonpost.com...)

The private sector could finance college education, and at a better price.


1. Moral hazard -- artificially low cost of loans raises demand for college, making the gov't costs explode which are passed onto the taxpayer

The demand for US college education stems from the fact that we have the finest University system in the world, bar none.

Look into how much of your tax bill goes to fund either student loans or university education and then come back and tell me how this has "exploded".

The cost of college increases with more demand. Many people are getting degrees that are not in high demand -- say liberal arts degrees.

Please explain to me how shifting the best education to the smartest people, regardless of income, is a public negative. This, I gotta hear.

Don't twist my words here. There is no reason why the private sector cannot compete and provide college loans, or other means of funding college, say equity sharing.

Taxing people who don't go to college to pay for others to go to college is unfair. The private sector can deliver the same benefit of a skilled population, while protecting individual rights.



Leave loaning to the free market. Better yet, remove all subsidies, and competition would better emerge, demand would go down, as would prices. There are plenty of people who would benefit greater from community college instead.

Did you happen to see what took place after we deregulated the mortgage industry? If not, it's quite a story. Ask me about it sometime.

Deregulate? Remember the loan guarantees established by government (removing direct risks)? Community Reinvestment Act forced banks to make bad loans. Fed policy inflated the currency which made people want to invest in more valuable assets -- housing.

Deregulation leads to profit grabbing and destruction of the market. This was true of the tulip market 500 years ago, and it is true today and it will be true every time it happens.

Yes, I agree that the sector of the economy which grows our food, and has done so for many centuries, has nearly collapsed because of its competition. Forget about the fact that agricultural productivity are at new peaks, a free market with free entry and true competition are truly horrible, we should rectify this by having special interest central planners take over.

A great example was in the Soviet Union, private farms (1% of total farms) yielded 33% of the total crop for the union.

Lets forget about history, which has shown that free enterprise has delivered consistently better goods at increasingly affordable prices, while generating the broadest prosperity.


Unemployment insurance

Not bad, but could be replaced via individual savings accounts. It's not that bad though.

You want to rely on individuals when it comes to ensuring income is flowing through the economy during a recession. Exhibit #1 - the Snuggie

People would learn. Or else people want to suffer, then that's why they refuse to change.


There is no reason why we cannot privatize the highway system. Better quality, lower prices, and a consistent investment in our transportation infrastructure that protects individual rights (no eminent domain).

You like indoor plumbing?

You are talking about basic infrastructure, something left to local gov't. Besides, gov't didn't provide local plumbing in my area.

Good to know.

Ha! All that you mentioned could be dealt with (or is) by local gov'ts, free people, and/or private firms.

Financial Accounting Standards and Practices

True. Though the private market could also do this. But I'm perfectly fine with government doing this.

Enron - no they couldn't, and they wouldn't, because it is the ethical duty of EVERY corporate officer in a corporation to do whatever they can to increase profit, including cooking the books.

True. But Enron was a massive recipient of corporate welfare -- over $600 million - for global warming "activities". Enron also sponsored numerous regulations which protected it from competition.

Private firms could evaluate businesses to make sure they have accurate budget/ shareholder reports. Businesses would benefit from this honesty, as shareholders would have more confidence in their operations.

Private evaluators have an incentive to do this accurately and with honesty, because if they fail, their reputation and therefore business suffers. The SEC lacks this incentive, that's why they cannot prevent many abuses.


I'm sure there's more, but that was all I could come up with in 15 seconds

Seriously...I swear, you libertarians do not think sh!t through before you spout your useless dogma.

I do. I think that freedom is in most cases a better prescription than government coercion. Free markets are better than big government. Gov't has some roles it can play, but usually less is better.
"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
Contra
Posts: 3,941
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/19/2013 1:02:09 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/17/2013 3:59:51 PM, malcolmxy wrote:
Also, I find it interesting that other than Accounting Standards, the one thing you didn't balk at from my list of examples was unemployment insurance.

Unemployment insurance works (which has got to be an extremely difficult admission for a libertarian), but there is NO WAY that a single payer healthcare system could work.

If people are unemployed, and receive unemployment benefits, they didn't cause their unemployment.

People who are on unemployment almost always the drive and motivation to work, and I think a minimum safety net, protecting those who have fallen on hard times, is a responsible policy.

Wage subsidies (Earned Income Tax Credit) are helpful because they incentivize work. Medicaid could be transformed to a voucher payment, essentially subsidies that help low income people pay for their health care.

These acts are low steps compared to what we have now. I support helping those in poverty, by giving them an incentive to work hard, and helping the unskilled survive while they gradually rise up the income ladder by gaining experience and job training.

Percolate on that for a while and someone tell me why that makes sense, because I'm coming up short as I try to logically get from A to B.

Health care shouldn't be an insurance policy. General medical treatments should be payed out of individual health savings accounts.

Health care is not a "maybe will happen, maybe it won't" type thing. Everyone will need health care. Unemployment is only a temporary thing, and gov't can help those unemployed for a short while by providing them benefits. This should happen at the state level though.
"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
malcolmxy
Posts: 2,855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/19/2013 2:15:07 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/19/2013 12:54:14 PM, Contra wrote:

Please to name one monopoly that monopoly busting laws have created.

Some government monopolies include the Post Office
A. NOT a monopoly (UPS, FedEx, etc)
B. NOT created by anti trust law (created by constitution)

railroads,
A. railroads were built through corporate charter
B. railroads are free market through and through, and always have been. Regardless, they are transportation, and even if there was a monopoly, there wouldn't be (plane, car, bus)

telecommunications (remember AT&T)
A. the government didn't create natural monopolies
B. nature did

state liquor stores
A. NOT an anti-trust law issue

There would be more competition with a free market, with free entry posing a threat to any existing firms.
A. There would be more pixie dust in magicland, what's the point? What is it about USPS that really irks you?

Eliminating these laws would legitimize criminal behavior

It's only criminal because gov't made it that way. People who smoke pot are considered criminal, though they aren't hurting anyone.
A. OK, let's hear how monopolies in the private sector don't hurt anyone

and make the varous stock markets meaningless. Do you have any idea how easy it would be for me to manipulate the stock market, get fabulously wealthy and destroy millions in wealth in the process without these laws in place?

You wouldn't be destroying wealth. If Apple planned on releasing a new tablet, and you invested in the stock market, you would be pumping capital into the stock market, which Apple could use to reinvest in their firm, and expand their business. They could also invest in R&D and innovation, creating better goods for all of us.
A. I would be stealing. Theft destroys wealth. Producer Surplus created by most monopolies destroys wealth

Stock market exchanges could voluntarily prohibit insider trading if they wished.
A. Do you believe the market has any desires to do this? Do you believe a market has any desire outside of existence?

This issue revolves around the fundamental idea of freedom of information. Stock prices would truly show the value of the stock.
A. Companies, in order to operate, must keep trade secrets. This is a fundemental tenet of competition.

I would rather legalize armed robbery than eliminate these laws, because that would do less damage to the economy.

No, the federal gov't itself makes the loans. (http://www.huffingtonpost.com...)
A. No, they guarantee them (They don't issue all of them)

The private sector could finance college education, and at a better price.
A. My Stafford Loads were at 2.75%. What unsecured loans exist at a price better than that?

The cost of college increases with more demand. Many people are getting degrees that are not in high demand -- say liberal arts degrees.
A. So, you believe that a well rounded education is a bad thing?
B. Virgin is looking into starting a commercial space ship. Which private industry could have funded space exploration such that this would have been possible now?
C. Which private industry could have funded a large hadron collider?

Don't twist my words here. There is no reason why the private sector cannot compete and provide college loans, or other means of funding college, say equity sharing.
A. And yet, they don't, because there is no obvious return on education for anyone but the education, just like there is no obvious return on exploration.

Taxing people who don't go to college to pay for others to go to college is unfair. The private sector can deliver the same benefit of a skilled population, while protecting individual rights.
A. Fairness is a tenet of Communism, not Capitalism. You want fair? Become an advocate for Communism.

Deregulate? Remember the loan guarantees established by government (removing direct risks)? Community Reinvestment Act forced banks to make bad loans. Fed policy inflated the currency which made people want to invest in more valuable assets -- housing.
A. Having worked in that industry, I can honestly say you have no idea what you're talking about.

Yes, I agree that the sector of the economy which grows our food, and has done so for many centuries, has nearly collapsed because of its competition. Forget about the fact that agricultural productivity are at new peaks, a free market with free entry and true competition are truly horrible, we should rectify this by having special interest central planners take over.
A. That is only on a total calorie basis, and because of Secretary Butz, more than anything, this is achieved through corn. Don't even get me started on this.
B. BUT Agriculture policy is one area I generally agree with Libertarians, so whatevs.

Lets forget about history, which has shown that free enterprise has delivered consistently better goods at increasingly affordable prices, while generating the broadest prosperity.
A. obviously, ignoring history is one of your fortes, so cool.

There is no reason why we cannot privatize the highway system. Better quality, lower prices, and a consistent investment in our transportation infrastructure that protects individual rights (no eminent domain).
A. There are a lot of reasons. The biggest of which is that there would be no cohesive system that traversed all points. Highways must be a monopoly, and the best entity equipped to do this is the government
(Just like phones, who would have put forth that huge of an investment, with such a huge time commitment without any income return to offset costs, except a government?)

You are talking about basic infrastructure, something left to local gov't. Besides, gov't didn't provide local plumbing in my area.
A. So, you have a septic tank and a private well?

Ha! All that you mentioned could be dealt with (or is) by local gov'ts, free people, and/or private firms.
A. Nope.

True. But Enron was a massive recipient of corporate welfare -- over $600 million - for global warming "activities". Enron also sponsored numerous regulations which protected it from competition.
A. That wasn't why they destroyed the CA economy.

Private firms could evaluate businesses to make sure they have accurate budget/ shareholder reports. Businesses would benefit from this honesty, as shareholders would have more confidence in their operations.
A. Private firms like Arthur Anderson?

Private evaluators have an incentive to do this accurately and with honesty, because if they fail, their reputation and therefore business suffers. The SEC lacks this incentive, that's why they cannot prevent many abuses.
A. like Arthur Anderson did?

I do. I think that freedom is in most cases
A. Freedom isn't free.
War is over, if you want it.

Meet Dr. Stupid and his assistants - http://www.debate.org...
malcolmxy
Posts: 2,855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/19/2013 2:17:50 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/19/2013 1:02:09 PM, Contra wrote:

Health care shouldn't be an insurance policy. General medical treatments should be payed out of individual health savings accounts.
A. catastrophic injury/disease is the #1 cause of bankruptcy

Health care is not a "maybe will happen, maybe it won't" type thing. Everyone will need health care. Unemployment is only a temporary thing, and gov't can help those unemployed for a short while by providing them benefits. This should happen at the state level though.
A. not everyone gets cancer
War is over, if you want it.

Meet Dr. Stupid and his assistants - http://www.debate.org...
Contra
Posts: 3,941
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/19/2013 10:40:19 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/19/2013 2:17:50 PM, malcolmxy wrote:
At 1/19/2013 1:02:09 PM, Contra wrote:

Health care shouldn't be an insurance policy. General medical treatments should be payed out of individual health savings accounts.
A. catastrophic injury/disease is the #1 cause of bankruptcy

Health care is not a "maybe will happen, maybe it won't" type thing. Everyone will need health care. Unemployment is only a temporary thing, and gov't can help those unemployed for a short while by providing them benefits. This should happen at the state level though.
A. not everyone gets cancer

So for that debate, I would advocate for a free market in health care, do you support single payer? And if so, what would you recommend the resolution to be?
"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
malcolmxy
Posts: 2,855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/19/2013 10:51:54 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/19/2013 10:40:19 PM, Contra wrote:

So for that debate, I would advocate for a free market in health care, do you support single payer? And if so, what would you recommend the resolution to be?

Private Health Insurance is a Racket and all Corporate Officers in that industry should be immediately jailed?

I don't care. Every single fact is on my side, except Singapore, and that is easily explained away. Pick whatever you want.
War is over, if you want it.

Meet Dr. Stupid and his assistants - http://www.debate.org...
malcolmxy
Posts: 2,855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/19/2013 10:56:04 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Notice you got nothin' for my responses to your last response.

It's because the minute you dig a little deeper than the surface rhetoric, the libertarian argument completely falls apart.

You sure you don't just wanna accept reality and skip the whompin' from the debate?

It's a lot easier and less time consuming.
War is over, if you want it.

Meet Dr. Stupid and his assistants - http://www.debate.org...
Contra
Posts: 3,941
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/20/2013 11:00:37 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/19/2013 10:56:04 PM, malcolmxy wrote:
Notice you got nothin' for my responses to your last response.

It's because the minute you dig a little deeper than the surface rhetoric, the libertarian argument completely falls apart.

You sure you don't just wanna accept reality and skip the whompin' from the debate?

It's a lot easier and less time consuming.

Okay, I'll rebut your claims.
"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
Contra
Posts: 3,941
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/20/2013 11:43:58 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/19/2013 2:15:07 PM, malcolmxy wrote:
At 1/19/2013 12:54:14 PM, Contra wrote:

Please to name one monopoly that monopoly busting laws have created.

Some government monopolies include the Post Office
A. NOT a monopoly (UPS, FedEx, etc)
B. NOT created by anti trust law (created by constitution)

UPS doesn't deliver my mail. Neither does FedEx. They deliver packaged goods.

railroads,
A. railroads were built through corporate charter
B. railroads are free market through and through, and always have been.

Many are unfairly subsidized for the "greater good" (my state subsidizes them by over $300 million/ year.

Regardless, they are transportation, and even if there was a monopoly, there wouldn't be (plane, car, bus)

telecommunications (remember AT&T)
A. the government didn't create natural monopolies
B. nature did

That's why AT&T was the gov't monopoly for the longest time until a few decades ago. In telephones?

Anti-trust laws are hard and expensive to comply with. These types of laws, and other regulations (regulatory capture), inhibit the movement of resources, and unfairly benefit the larger businesses in an area.

If there is a firm, that has high profits, those profits signal that there should be more supply. New firms arise, competition resumes, and usually the monopoly falls dead. Kodak was a monopoly, until modern competition nearly killed it.

state liquor stores
A. NOT an anti-trust law issue

A. There would be more pixie dust in magicland, what's the point? What is it about USPS that really irks you?

Slow service.

Eliminating these laws would legitimize criminal behavior

and make the varous stock markets meaningless. Do you have any idea how easy it would be for me to manipulate the stock market, get fabulously wealthy and destroy millions in wealth in the process without these laws in place?

You wouldn't be destroying wealth. If Apple planned on releasing a new tablet, and you invested in the stock market, you would be pumping capital into the stock market, which Apple could use to reinvest in their firm, and expand their business. They could also invest in R&D and innovation, creating better goods for all of us.
A. I would be stealing. Theft destroys wealth.

You wouldn't be stealing. Just selling the investment that you initially made.

Think about it. If I owned 10% of the shares for PIMCO (PHK), I would only sell if the market was in a free fall.

Producer Surplus created by most monopolies destroys wealth

What?

Stock market exchanges could voluntarily prohibit insider trading if they wished.
A. Do you believe the market has any desires to do this? Do you believe a market has any desire outside of existence?

I'm sure an exchange would prohibit insider trading if they thought it would bring more confidence regarding their operations.

This issue revolves around the fundamental idea of freedom of information. Stock prices would truly show the value of the stock.
A. Companies, in order to operate, must keep trade secrets. This is a fundemental tenet of competition.

I would rather legalize armed robbery than eliminate these laws, because that would do less damage to the economy.

No, the federal gov't itself makes the loans. (http://www.huffingtonpost.com...)
A. No, they guarantee them (They don't issue all of them)

Same thing led to the housing market collapse. But hey, lets ignore what we've learned!

The private sector could finance college education, and at a better price.
A. My Stafford Loads were at 2.75%. What unsecured loans exist at a price better than that?

I'd assume that's the lowest rate available, but the thing is, competition is key. Many people are getting college degrees that aren't in demand. If these people went to a community college instead, they would be acquiring skills that are needed.

B. Virgin is looking into starting a commercial space ship. Which private industry could have funded space exploration such that this would have been possible now?
C. Which private industry could have funded a large hadron collider?

Don't see your point or how it's relevant.

Don't twist my words here. There is no reason why the private sector cannot compete and provide college loans, or other means of funding college, say equity sharing.
A. And yet, they don't, because there is no obvious return on education for anyone but the education, just like there is no obvious return on exploration.

Maybe because the gov't does the very same thing now, and the skyrocketing cost of college has coordinated itself with the rise in subsidies.

(http://www.debate.org...)

If you subsidize something, demand rises, the cost goes up, and if you continue this cycle, the costs will skyrocket. Case in point -- health care and college costs.

A. Fairness is a tenet of Communism, not Capitalism.

What a load of crap. Capitalism is fair, as you have the right to self ownership and free association.

A. That is only on a total calorie basis, and because of Secretary Butz, more than anything, this is achieved through corn. Don't even get me started on this.
B. BUT Agriculture policy is one area I generally agree with Libertarians, so whatevs.

So you agree food subsidies have made people fatter and unhealthier. Good.

What's your political ideology?

Lets forget about history, which has shown that free enterprise has delivered consistently better goods at increasingly affordable prices, while generating the broadest prosperity.
A. obviously, ignoring history is one of your fortes, so cool.

I'm assuming that you weren't being sarcastic.

A. There are a lot of reasons. The biggest of which is that there would be no cohesive system that traversed all points. Highways must be a monopoly, and the best entity equipped to do this is the government

California partially privatized their highways. The private lanes are much faster, and more efficient. In France, they have private highways, one of them made a 45 minute ride become a 15 minute ride.

(Just like phones, who would have put forth that huge of an investment)

I'm pretty sure it was was an individual, not gov't, that invented the telephone. The private sector is responsible for all of the innovations which have made our lives better off. The best the gov't has is the internet, which was basically useless until a European invented the world wide web in the early 1990s.

You are talking about basic infrastructure, something left to local gov't. Besides, gov't didn't provide local plumbing in my area.
A. So, you have a septic tank and a private well?

^ Private yes.

A. Nope.

Local businesses could mutually own the roads. They do this with shopping malls. Water is owned by local gov't (and the state), sewer systems are local gov't, private individuals can own the freeways (or some of the lanes).

A. That wasn't why they destroyed the CA economy.

No, it was the price controls, which prevented there being enough supply. Plus, the high taxing and spending gov't killed the CA economy.

They are pretty much (http://finance.yahoo.com...) screwed at the moment.

A. Private firms like Arthur Anderson?

One guy and you jump to conclusions? The government has plenty of failures too, should we discount them because they have failed more often? (yes we should)

The private evaluators have a strong incentive to protect consumers and provide reliable, accurate information, as this strengthens and protects their business operations.

Some effective private firms that help self regulate the market include:

UL
Verisign
Paypal
"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
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/20/2013 11:59:05 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Malcolm, what moral obligation do I have to pay for anybody else's healthcare?

If you cannot answer this simple question, the no matter how good public healthcare is (it's not), it cannot be justified.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
malcolmxy
Posts: 2,855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2013 1:19:28 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/20/2013 11:59:05 AM, Lordknukle wrote:
Malcolm, what moral obligation do I have to pay for anybody else's healthcare?

If you cannot answer this simple question, the no matter how good public healthcare is (it's not), it cannot be justified.

I don't know, but since that's how private insurance works, why would you even as the question?

Here in my city, we took the 100 worst vagrant offenders of the use of city services (mostly emergency room) and gave them free apartments, free NEW furniture (I volunteer at the facility putting together the crappy, but new Ikea furniture), and they are under no obligation to stop drinking or using drugs, and if they have a mental disease, it is treated for free.

This program saves the city $5 million/year and every politician, conservative and liberal, alike, in the city is looking to expand the program.

I don't really care f sh!t is fair or moral or whatever. Is it better? Cool...do that thing.

Like socialized healthcare.
War is over, if you want it.

Meet Dr. Stupid and his assistants - http://www.debate.org...
malcolmxy
Posts: 2,855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2013 1:57:49 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Also, if you're trying to tie economics to morality, you're going to be disappointed continuously throughout your entire life.
War is over, if you want it.

Meet Dr. Stupid and his assistants - http://www.debate.org...
malcolmxy
Posts: 2,855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2013 8:22:04 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/20/2013 11:43:58 AM, Contra wrote:

UPS doesn't deliver my mail. Neither does FedEx. They deliver packaged goods.

http://www.ups.com...

Many are unfairly subsidized for the "greater good" (my state subsidizes them by over $300 million/ year.

^and yet, they face plenty of competition (Trucks haul more freight, more distance, and commercial transportation is dominated by the airplane and car, so what is your issue here. They are useful for business, but business doesn't realize it, so the government kicks in for the benefit of everyone)


Regardless, they are transportation, and even if there was a monopoly, there wouldn't be (plane, car, bus)

Yeah, so why do you care? Plus, not even an example that I asked for.

That's why AT&T was the gov't monopoly for the longest time until a few decades ago. In telephones?

they were a natural monopoly. What do you want from me? I don't make the rules. I just recognize them.


Anti-trust laws are hard and expensive to comply with. These types of laws, and other regulations (regulatory capture), inhibit the movement of resources, and unfairly benefit the larger businesses in an area.

bullsh!t.


If there is a firm, that has high profits, those profits signal that there should be more supply. New firms arise, competition resumes, and usually the monopoly falls dead. Kodak was a monopoly, until modern competition nearly killed it.

Kodak was a monopoly of what?


Slow service.

If you're dumb enough to go wait in line in the face of the gazillion other options they offer online and in their physical offices. that's every business now, though.

You wouldn't be stealing. Just selling the investment that you initially made.

No, markets only work when all investors have access to the information to make decisions. Once you use information which the rest of the investing public isn't privy to, you can essentially steal the money of other investors by either inflating the price of the stock or crashing it. That is stealing, but it is done without a ski mask and a gun, so it's called "investment"? Again, bullsh!t.

Think about it. If I owned 10% of the shares for PIMCO (PHK), I would only sell if the market was in a free fall.

or if the market were going to go into a free fall tomorrow and only you, and a select few others, knew about it. That's manipulation and it is tantamount to theft.


Producer Surplus created by most monopolies destroys wealth

What?

Learn basic economics if you're gonna argue with me. I don't have time to explain how this sh!t works for you.

I'm sure an exchange would prohibit insider trading if they thought it would bring more confidence regarding their operations.

I'm sure airlines would institute safety standards after a few hundred crashes as well.

Do you know how auto makers decide to issue a recall?

They weigh the lawsuits against the cost. Death likely? Who cares? Death is cheaper than permanent injury.

Same thing led to the housing market collapse. But hey, lets ignore what we've learned!

No, MERS, Securitizing mortages and credit default swaps lead to the mortgage crisis, but hey, let's not pay attention in the 1st place and pretend something else caused that disaster.

I'd assume that's the lowest rate available, but the thing is, competition is key. Many people are getting college degrees that aren't in demand. If these people went to a community college instead, they would be acquiring skills that are needed.

When Steve Jobs focused on fonts and calligraphy in college, it wasn't in demand...then, it was.

They quit teaching kids how to write (as opposed to print) recently because of computers...except, hey, dumb@ss ...now touchpads and handwriting recognition are the obvious input or the future.

The market doesn't even know what the market is gonna do, and paying attention to only what is in demand in the moment is monumentally stupid.

Don't see your point or how it's relevant.

Was space exploration good or bad? Supercolliders good or bad? Only a government can fund these endeavors because there is no apparent profit from them (and yet, how many industries for consumers has NASA funded research created?). The government does some things BETTER than the private sector, and many of those things are good.

You don't see it because you don't want to see it.

Maybe because the gov't does the very same thing now, and the skyrocketing cost of college has coordinated itself with the rise in subsidies.

Or, maybe it coincides with the fact that no job worth getting, outside of the skilled labor industries, which are shrinking by the minute, is available to anyone without a college degree. The percentage of High School graduates who want to attend college is a function of the market, not the government.

If you subsidize something, demand rises, the cost goes up, and if you continue this cycle, the costs will skyrocket. Case in point -- health care and college costs.

Subsidies lower price, not raise demand. Jesus, learn economics before you argue it.

What a load of crap. Capitalism is fair, as you have the right to self ownership and free association.

Meritocracy is fair. Capitalism is efficient. Communism is equitable. Again, econ - look into it.

So you agree food subsidies have made people fatter and unhealthier. Good.

No. Corn subsidies have done this. There are, in fact, good subsidies. The reason we're stuck with corn is because of where Iowa sits in the election primary season.


What's your political ideology?

I'm a Socialist Libertarian. (for real. that's not a joke.)

I'm assuming that you weren't being sarcastic.

No, I was...but to highlight that you have no sense of history. sarcasm has many forms.

California partially privatized their highways. The private lanes are much faster, and more efficient. In France, they have private highways, one of them made a 45 minute ride become a 15 minute ride.

AFTER the state and federal highway system was already built. Here in Washington, some highways have HOV lanes that single occupancy drivers can use for a fee, and that fee increases with the volume of traffic.

Works the same way, but it's through the government. That's common sense, not the "know how" of the private sector.

The people who the government employs are no dumber than those in the private sector.


(Just like phones, who would have put forth that huge of an investment)

I'm pretty sure it was was an individual, not gov't, that invented the telephone.

Yeah, well an individual invented the rocket propulsion necessary to break earth's gravity and travel to the moon, for all the good it would have done him without a government to fund his obsession to rocket to outer space.

^ Private yes.

You're the exception, but cool...money where your mouth is. I can respect that.

Local businesses could mutually own the roads. They do this with shopping malls. Water is owned by local gov't (and the state), sewer systems are local gov't, private individuals can own the freeways (or some of the lanes).

Businesses fail. Governments do as well, obviously, but much less frequently, and you can't leave basic services to chance. R U CRAZY?

No, it was the price controls, which prevented there being enough supply. Plus, the high taxing and spending gov't killed the CA economy.

OMFG - They would force plants to shut down and cause brown outs so that they could pull power from a remote plant and charge 5X for it.

you have no idea what you're talking about.

One guy and you jump to conclusions? The government has plenty of failures too, should we discount them because they have failed more often? (yes we should)

Gov't is still in business. AA isn't.
War is over, if you want it.

Meet Dr. Stupid and his assistants - http://www.debate.org...
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2013 10:20:22 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/21/2013 1:19:28 AM, malcolmxy wrote:
At 1/20/2013 11:59:05 AM, Lordknukle wrote:
Malcolm, what moral obligation do I have to pay for anybody else's healthcare?

If you cannot answer this simple question, the no matter how good public healthcare is (it's not), it cannot be justified.

I don't know, but since that's how private insurance works, why would you even as the question?

Lol wut? Private insurances makes me pay for the future risk of my actions, not anybody else's.

Here in my city, we took the 100 worst vagrant offenders of the use of city services (mostly emergency room) and gave them free apartments, free NEW furniture (I volunteer at the facility putting together the crappy, but new Ikea furniture), and they are under no obligation to stop drinking or using drugs, and if they have a mental disease, it is treated for free.

This program saves the city $5 million/year and every politician, conservative and liberal, alike, in the city is looking to expand the program.

I'm going to need a source for this.

However, this is ultimately irrelevant.

I don't really care f sh!t is fair or moral or whatever. Is it better? Cool...do that thing.

Lol you dumb. Have you heard of the Is/Ought fallacy? Just because something is, doesn't mean it ought to be. Even accepting your ridiculous premise that socialized healthcare is good, it doesn't justify that it ought to be.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."