Korean Job Discussion Forums :: View topic - Health Care Reform Discussion

Speak Korean Now!

Teach English Abroad and Get Paid to see the World!

Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"

FAQ

Memberlist

Usergroups

Profile

Health Care Reform Discussion
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3

Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Current Events Forum

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author

Message

Ya-ta Boy

Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994

Posted: Tue Mar 17, 2009 5:59 am Post subject:

Quote:

Even Adam Smith believed in that.

bb,

I think it's unfair of you to bring up Adam Smith. Even Ronald Reagan made an entire political career without mentioning the 'untoward' parts of Smith where he warned against the excesses of greed. It's just unpolitic.

ontheway

Joined: 24 Aug 2005
Location: Somewhere under the rainbow...

Posted: Tue Mar 17, 2009 7:32 am Post subject:

bucheon bum wrote:

Pluto, I didn't mean to imply that was the case. My point was merely that theory only takes you so far. Humans then take it and distort it for their own individual purposes. Smile

The goal is to obviously minimize those distortions. Some sort of rules/guidelines have to be made. Even Adam Smith believed in that.

Adam Smith believed that greed made the market work. He believed that businessmen would conspire to raise their profits.

But he also knew that the government was worse.

He opposed government regulations.

ontheway

Joined: 24 Aug 2005
Location: Somewhere under the rainbow...

Posted: Tue Mar 17, 2009 7:42 am Post subject:

bucheon bum wrote:

And ontheway, theory only goes so far. My father worked in the health care insurance business for 3 decades. When he started, nearly all health care insurance providers were non-profits. Their costs were below the one that Ya-ta boy provided (it was under 5%).

So what happened? A smart man running one of the blue crosses or blue shields found out how to turn the company from a non-profit into a for-profit. Obviously a company that has such low costs is enormously profitable. Big surprise that he and his executive team profited from this. Big surprise that more management felt the need to get a piece of the action. Costs grew, margins shrank. By the time my father left BC in the late 70s, costs had gone up to about 10%.

The fact the the Blues changed from nonprofit to profit does not correlate to increased costs.

The fact is that it was during this same time period that:

1) massive inflation by the Federal Reserve pushed up prices and created bubbles, one of which was in health costs.

2) major intervention and regulation by the federal government forced insurers to cover individuals who should not be covered and pay for minor treatments that have high paperwork costs

3) the fact that health insurance was a tax free benefit paid by the employer meant that the insured population demanded coverage for smaller and smaller items that should not be insured by paid by the consumer. This forced major paperwork costs onto service providers and insurers.

Had health insurance been actually provided in a free market, free of government regulation of the insured, the coverages and the income tax distortion, the finaly consumer would have opted for much cheaper types of insurance that had higher deductibles and reasonable co-pays. This would have had the effect of reducing the costs of the doctors and other service providers and therefore the charges to the insurance companies, reducing the insurance companies paperwork costs in addition to the medical charges and finally major reductions in the cost of insrance.

In short, the entire increase can be laid at the feet of the government.

It is quite likely that in the absence of this government regulation the costs of running the insurance companies and the costs of policies would have declined in this period even while coverages increased.

bucheon bum

Joined: 16 Jan 2003

Posted: Tue Mar 17, 2009 8:04 am Post subject:

ontheway wrote:

bucheon bum wrote:

Pluto, I didn't mean to imply that was the case. My point was merely that theory only takes you so far. Humans then take it and distort it for their own individual purposes. Smile

The goal is to obviously minimize those distortions. Some sort of rules/guidelines have to be made. Even Adam Smith believed in that.

From the man himself:

Quote:

�Justice�is the main pillar that supports the whole building. If justice is removed, the great fabric of human society which seems to have been under the darling care of Nature must in a moment crumble into atoms�.Men, though naturally sympathetic, feel so little for others with whom they have no particular connection in comparison to what they feel for themselves. The misery of one who is merely their fellow creature is of so little importance to them in comparison to even a small convenience of their own. They have it so much in their power to hurt him and may have so many temptations to do so that if the principle of justice did not stand up within them in his defense and overawe them into a respect for his innocence, they would like wild beasts be ready to fly upon him at all times. Under such circumstances a man would enter an assembly of others as he enters a den of lions.�

ontheway

Joined: 24 Aug 2005
Location: Somewhere under the rainbow...

Posted: Tue Mar 17, 2009 8:15 am Post subject:

bucheon bum wrote:

ontheway wrote:

bucheon bum wrote:

Pluto, I didn't mean to imply that was the case. My point was merely that theory only takes you so far. Humans then take it and distort it for their own individual purposes. Smile

The goal is to obviously minimize those distortions. Some sort of rules/guidelines have to be made. Even Adam Smith believed in that.

From the man himself:

Quote:

At the time of Adam Smith, the principle of justice which he supports, as do I, was the principle of property rights and common law. Criminal acts of theft, robbery, assault, murder and fraud were illegal.

He did not support any sort of government regulation or control. He did not support government welfare or subsidies. He was, in fact, completely opposed to such government intrusions.

At this time the word "regulate" did not even have its present day meaning of government control. To "regulate" something meant to be well trained or to make its functioning efficient or regular, like a clock.

This is one reason the 2nd amendment is misunderstood. The "well regulated militia..." means "well trained" ... that this private army of individuals will have arms so as to be well trained in their use to protect themselves against the government.

bucheon bum

Joined: 16 Jan 2003

Posted: Tue Mar 17, 2009 8:17 am Post subject:

so common law is not some form of regulation? Then what is it? And who said anything about subsidies or welfare? I didn't. I'm simply arguing that the gov'ts purpose is to have laws and regulations to follow. They don't necessarily involve money beyond court costs and something along the lines of the SEC, FBI,etc.

ontheway

Joined: 24 Aug 2005
Location: Somewhere under the rainbow...

Posted: Tue Mar 17, 2009 8:35 am Post subject:

bucheon bum wrote:

so common law is not some form of regulation? Then what is it?

And who said anything about subsidies or welfare? I didn't.

I'm simply arguing that the gov'ts purpose is to have laws and regulations to follow. They don't necessarily involve money beyond court costs and something along the lines of the SEC, FBI,etc.

Try reading John Locke, John Stewart Mill, Adam Smith and Murray Rothbard. All of their books.

Pluto

Joined: 19 Dec 2006

Posted: Wed Mar 18, 2009 6:55 pm Post subject:

bucheon bum wrote:

Pluto, I didn't mean to imply that was the case. My point was merely that theory only takes you so far. Humans then take it and distort it for their own individual purposes. Smile

The goal is to obviously minimize those distortions. Some sort of rules/guidelines have to be made. Even Adam Smith believed in that.

Yes, well, Adam Smith's legacy continues to be hotly debated today. Although, I believe he was more of a liberal, in the classical sense, than some claim.
Anyways, it seems seem that the pendulum has clearly swung towards the socialist side of things as far as medicine is concerned. I just worry that people aren't considering all the trade offs, upside and downside risks, before moving forward. Hence, my first post.

Kuros

Joined: 27 Apr 2004

Posted: Wed Mar 18, 2009 6:59 pm Post subject:

Pluto wrote:

bucheon bum wrote:

Pluto, I didn't mean to imply that was the case. My point was merely that theory only takes you so far. Humans then take it and distort it for their own individual purposes. Smile

The goal is to obviously minimize those distortions. Some sort of rules/guidelines have to be made. Even Adam Smith believed in that.

The system as it exists could hardly be worse. Its hard for me to engage in any health care discussion with anyone without them accepting that initial premise.

RufusW

Joined: 14 Jun 2008
Location: Busan

Posted: Wed Mar 18, 2009 8:43 pm Post subject:

ontheway wrote:

the socialists DID step in. They required coverage for those who were not fit to be in a pool.

That's the great thing about universal coverage - the citizens of a country look after one another and no-one's left out. It's pretty honorable in my opinion.

I'm British and I don't think we'd ever want to change the system. Do we live in poverty because of the higher taxes? .... no. If the NHS was introduced to the USA would you guys want to change back?

Ya-ta Boy

Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994

Posted: Thu Mar 19, 2009 6:45 am Post subject:

Quote:

This is one reason the 2nd amendment is misunderstood. The "well regulated militia..." means "well trained" ... that this private army of individuals will have arms so as to be well trained in their use to protect themselves against the government.

Ya know, LSD was a popular recreational drug way back when, but it was never ever a dependable defense of political fantasy. Even with Ken Kesey. It just wasn't.

Please defend your delusion. Anti-federalist propaganda of 1788-89 is interesting, but not persuasive. That is why we actually have a Constitution and not a confederacy.

Display posts from previous:

	Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Current Events Forum	All times are GMT - 8 Hours Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3
Page 3 of 3

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

TEFL International Supports Dave's ESL Cafe