The KGB Oracle Forums General Public Discussion (SPECIAL ACCESS) KGB Political Debate Central Does government regulation kill jobs?

Lets get back to our discussion.

If capitalism and free market is so effective at containing costs why is US spends significantly more than any other country with socialized medicine while results are significantly worse?

You suggest that US spends more on medical research and rest of the world benefits from this knowledge. While US does spend more (but only in absolute $, not percentage of GDP) on medical research, how none of this research (accounting for 6% of GDP!) produces any revenue? Are you suggesting that all these new drugs, medical devices and training for novel treatments are just given for free to the rest of the world?

There is also not a finite amount of wealth in the world...

I can't tell if you guys are intentionally ignoring my premiss or if I'm really that unclear.

Wealth, unless you define it as fiat currency, is finite.

As in, unlike grades, you can't have enough for everyone to have all they want.

The principle of taking from one who earned and giving to another who did not still stands.

Also, Das Kapital is a joke, Marx nor any others has ever actually described a working system of wealth creation. Marx supporters fall back on two defenses - one being that anyone who looks at their agenda with the critical eye of rationality and science is simply part of or a tool of the "1%" so to speak - and the other being their claim to an inherent "morality" of being "fair".

Sinij, maybe later I will explain to you how the health care system works and why we get the cost issues we have ( hint: there are 3 primary reasons). But before that, if you are so in favor of Obamacare why dont you write up an essay that addresses what it is trying to do, and account for the unintended consequences while you are at it.

You should take some time to say why it will work.

A few points to address - the payout system, medicare funding, death panels, where costs the govt tries to forcibly cut will re-appear, the level of care people should expect, the effect on existing insurance plans, long term viability in the face of a falling dollar. Also the effects on the economy of the new taxes it introduces, especially the new tax on home sales.

I will say one thing, Obamacare looks likely to raise the costs of advanced health care for people around the world as the pharmaceutical companies look to recoup costs. Expect big legal and diplomatic fights over that as well.

I stated this number of times, but you keep bringing it up, so please write it down: I am not in favor of Obamacare. Obamacare was Republican-proposed compromise plan back from the day of Hillarycare and this time around was the best deal democrats managed to push through due to opposition from the right. It is only marginally better than previous system by addressing lifetime maximum, providing exchanges for personal buyers and disallowing practice of dropping coverage to the sick. Obamacare will also likely to be more expensive than existing system, turning 15% GDP health care costs into something approaching 18% and probably pushing US healthcare expenditures above all EU spending combined in absolute numbers.

As I mentioned previously, I too have a problem with fragmented, not uniformly regulated private insurance market as a gatekeeper of health care. I don't see Obamacare as attack on my liberties, constitution or freedom, but that doesn't mean I think it is a good system.

The only real way of containing medical costs while providing universal coverage is strict rationing that only possible under fully socialized system, where government directly collects health care costs as taxes and provides payouts to hospitals and private practices. Current system, where individual and employer have to pay for medical insurance is already extra-governmental tax on income, where you have to pay at least 5% of average salary just to get any coverage.

As to "death panels"... I am disappointed. Of all people on the right I'd expect you to see through this hysteria. You know health care has to be rationed, there is no way around it. Only now private insurers make decisions how to ration it, they currently do "death paneling" while trying to maximize profits!

I really don't understand right's obsession with "mine, stay away, mine!". Do bank CEOs earn multimillion dollar bonuses while taking bailouts? This might be extreme example, but nobody earns anything in a vacuum. As exploitative as they might be, our society made these bonuses possible, not efforts of these CEOs. Society, in its entirety, from welfare queens to cure-for-cancer inventors, make your earning possible.

Whatever you do for living, imagine you are moved to Somalia. Do you see your life drastically changing and your ability to earn entirely disappearing as a result of absence of society enabling you to earn?

You are correct, was not sure that you had internalized the rationing though. I will agree with you on this as far as necessity of rationing goes.

Though I dislike having govt agents decide it even less than I like the current system.

See this is where you veer off the cliff, rationally speaking. Society in its entirety certainly did not and does not make things possible, only certain aspects do.

Also, you know Somalia is a very silly comparison. You are trying to mix arguments.

So lets pick this apart.

First, Capitalism is self-evidently responsible for the wealth that has been created in our society. Socialism does not create wealth it spreads it around, I am pretty sure even you agree with this. Central economic planning simply doesn't work.

Secondly, we all agree that banks should not have gotten bailouts - but that is not Capitalism at work. That is Interventionism, a close cousin to Socialism. Also in this case throw in a good dose of cronyism, not sure how or why you insist on confusing that for Capitalism but that seems to be something all the "99percenters" like to do... and it makes absolutely zero sense.

Third, CEOs - that is people who lead and organize enterprise certainly can contribute to wealth generation. So can many others. Something that welfare queens certainly do not do is contribute to wealth generation.

Society as a whole just "is", if you want to create an accurate statement you have to consider the component parts and examine the details of how the wealth is actually created and flows. I think this is Jet's problem as well when he posts here. Its something endemic with the left, the left just does not understand in many cases that wealth even CAN be created by human action... and thinks it is something that occurs on its own, which is simply not true.

Sorry, creating wealth is hard. Making money if you get the govt on your side is not. But there is a very profound difference between the two.

Capitalism sans govt Intervention is a meritocracy. Socialism and Interventionism are bureaucracies. One system pays out profits fairly based on the services and goods provided. The other two pay out profits based on politics. I am sure you do not understand why anyone objects to having govt leeches who provide nothing and have no stake in your life or business telling you how to run your business or how to spend your money, but it irks the rest of us greatly.

And I am glad you do not understand the " mine, mine,mine". Please Paypal me all the money receive above and beyond what you need for survival. I am a part of society, and you couldn't have gotten it without me anyway. LOL

The "Mine , mine , mine" mentality is simply that having other people ( who did not work for your money ) tell you who to give it to, when those people you must give it to are not using it to provide services in your interest (like a military for ex. ) is very irritating. Especially when they preach down to you about their false morality as they do so.

In fact, the the Bank Bailouts are actually analogous to this. People who did not earn money receiving it from the govt because of politics. As mad as you get because a few Banks got bailed out, I get because of the govt trying to micromanage my finances and health care and taxing me to dole out money on the basis of crony politics. Whether it is Dems buying Union votes, Dems or GOPers handing cash to bankers, or either party handing out subsidies to their favorite industries. Its all the same.

That being said, some level of safety nets are acceptable as long as they are below the threshold of providing undue drain on my wallet or danger to the economy. If the left had left off where we were in 2000 I would have myself been content. But instead of being happy that we had created a more or less sustainable society that still contained safety nets and forced retirement programs ( SS, Medicare) the left wanted yet more.

My biggest objection to the left any more and the reason I now flat out reject them in all manners is because of this. It is clear that it will NEVER be enough. If I still have a penny of my own left to spend, there will be leftists waiting to spend it for me. If I have a choice left in what food I eat or what I choose to do with my time, there will be a leftist wanting to use force to make me abide by their way. Once they take over completely I can kiss any property I own goodbye as well, so says history.

I get really depressed whenever I think about how far socialism has progressed in this country, and statist group-think.

Somalia is not such off-base comparison. It demonstrate what happens when society disappears. You cannot create wealth in the vacuum, and society isn't just "is", social order has to be maintained so productive part of society can go on and create wealth.

Are you familiar with game theory? If yes, human society cannot exist with pure cooperators, it is just not in human nature to behave in altruistic manner or purely creatively. We can only manage level of exploitators, best we can hope is to keep level down so cooperators can function. As much as I hate defending welfare queens, their contribution to society is not murdering you and me with a machete while we sleep. That what we pay them for, to keep exploitators from outright destructive behavior. We both might not like it, but Somalian alternative is much, much worse.