Go Back   Mountain Buzz > Other Chatter > The Eddy

Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 01-28-2012   #31
El Flaco's Avatar
Golden, Colorado
Paddling Since: 1984
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 1,879
Nice selective comprehension. The guy is on the Republican nominee's economic team, along with folks from the American Enterprise Institute (super conservative), and is the Chief Economist for an internationally respected $1.7 billion analytics company.....and all you can understand is that he was a registered democrat.


El Flaco is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-29-2012   #32
fdon's Avatar
Christopher Creek, Arizona
Paddling Since: 1969
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 288
Originally Posted by mr. compassionate View Post

I as well would prefer the repubs not delve into the social issues one reason I don't like Santorum.
Never thought I'd see the day I stand in agreement with Mr. C on a political choice (or much else as far as that goes) and from where I am standing, it looks like all of the R candidates are stewing up the very same shit.

fdon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-29-2012   #33
Denver, Colorado
Paddling Since: 1999
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 855
[QUOTE=mr. compassionate;260635]
Originally Posted by BCJ View Post
Such a great deal [Medicare], probably the reason it's sending us quickly into bankruptcy. Not saying I have the answers but definitely no govt sponsored care.
-- Yes, you definitely don't have the answers. I mean, how could you possibly have any answers if you don't even know how to accurately locate the real problem?

Here's a clue: The rising cost of Medicare has nothing to do with the program - it has an administrative cost of around 2% - and the lies spread by the heritage foundation won't change this. The real problem is the soaring health care costs that everybody is dealing with (in the form of soaring premiums, co-pays and deductibles), not just the medicare program. Why are health care costs soaring? Market failure.

As far as the bankruptcy issue:

Of course spending over $1 trillion a year on the Military-Security-Industrial-Complex to maintain over 780 plus military bases located in 160 different countries and waging endless wars has nothing to do with the debt problem? And bailing out the banks to the tune of $8.8 trillion has nothing to do with the debt problem?

Nope, I guess it's just the elderly people who depend on Medicare that are the problem? I guess it's just the $133 billion spent last year on the unemployed in this country who are the problem?

And I guess in your unenlightened world there is no need to look at the trillions and trillions of dollars being shoveled over to the real welfare queens of this country - corporate welfare - huh? Nope... it's just those damned elderly and unemployed who are bankrupting this country.
marko is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-29-2012   #34
Denver, Colorado
Paddling Since: 1999
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 855
Here is an edited re-post about market failure that I have already written about here at the buzz. The original and some conversation that followed with others can be read here.

Market failure:

The cause of the health care problem is market failure. Say whatever you like or dislike about the ‘free market’, but empirical evidence has shown us that it is not a good way to deliver health care because that is not the market’s primary purpose – which is maximizing profits. If we all drop our partisan identifications as our basis in viewing this problem, and take a look at the economics, we might find better answers to the problem.

An efficient market requires these things to work properly: For the producers to operate under conditions of perfect competition – this requires a rigorous set of conditions (perfect information, a uniform product, many sellers and buyers and freedom of entry and exit) – which secures that sellers are price takers, producing at the lowest possible cost in the long run and earning profits. In the health care industry the number of sellers is limited and restricted, while the number of buyers is uncontrolled and could be considered almost infinite. Add to this fact is that the buyers have no freedom of exit from the health industry. (ie. The buyer says, “Well, I disagree with how much you are charging for a heart bypass, so I’ll just skip on down the street to the next guy who is doing them for cheaper.”) And, regardless of how healthy you are, we all know that all of us will be forced to engage in this industry.

The above elements, along with the massive lopsidedness of information, the monopoly power of hospitals, and the atypical nature of health care are all clear violations of the perfect competition requirements for the market to function as the theory suggests.

Furthermore, in a market the price is supposed to be established not by the buyers or sellers, but through a thing called market forces (supply and demand). In the health care industry the market forces fail to institute either price or quantity because demand is price-inelastic. (ie. the seller controls the price absolutely and the buyer has no choice but to engage, unless they want to chance serious illness or death.) However, in America, the person will get treated with or without insurance, but those without insurance will get pushed over to the public sphere and the taxpayer will end up footing the bill. And as Dr. Steffie Woolhandler and Dr. David U. Himmelstein stated in their research paper, “We are already paying for National Health care, but not getting it.”

So the market has failed to establish price and quantity, and the health care providers have become price-makers and the buyer has little or no choice in the matter - market failure. So why do the majority of DC politicians continue to promote privatization of health care if it is failing? Market reform is a joke because of the inherent non-market nature of this industry. And, this is all before the insurance companies even step into the picture.

Next, we add the inherent function of insurance corporations: to maximize shareholder value, and not provide health care, as their number one objective. The insurance corporations exacerbate the problem through exploiting the market failure to maximize profits for shareholders. The New England Journal of Medicine published a research article that explains how 31% of health spending in America is wasted on administrative costs. To compare: The overhead cost of running the non-profit Medicare system is 2%. Another study done by the same authors provides empirical data to prove that the private health industry is increasing costs, and not decreasing costs like the theory suggests it should.

Let's not forget this important point: All other advanced industrial countries throughout the world have already figured this out, so it is not as if we need to re-invent the wheel to solve our health care spending problems. It's as simple as this... we could take parts of that country's wheel, and the other country's wheel and create an even better wheel. It's possible. Hell, there are even some sane economists working for the U.S. Government Accountability Office who have already suggested such a thing. But, crickets are still chirping on that one...

Here is what the GAO wrote:

"If the universal coverage and single-payer features of the Canadian
system were applied in the United States, the savings in administrative
costs alone would be more than enough to finance insurance coverage
for the millions of Americans who are currently uninsured. There would
be enough left over to permit a reduction, or possibly even the elimination,
of copayments and deductibles, if that were deemed appropriate.

If the single payer also had the authority and responsibility to oversee
the system as a whole, as in Canada, it could potentially constrain the
growth in long-run health care costs. Measured either on a per capita
basis or as a share of gross national product, health care costs have
risen at a dramatically slower pace in Canada than in the United States.
The difference reflects Canada’s low administrative costs, controls on
hospital budgets and on the acquisition of high-technology equipment,
and fee controls for physician services."

They go on to conclude that many elements of the Canadian system (universal access, uniform payment system, and expenditure controls) should be worthy of consideration for US reform and that they should take these worthy elements and combine and build upon the "unique strengths of the existing structure of US health care."

marko is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-30-2012   #35
Denver, Colorado
Paddling Since: 1995
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 2,239
jeez,I stopped coming to the eddy because I was tired of arguing with Marko over and over about the same thing and getting too pissed. Now I come back and read this ,now he's my hero ,ok not really hero, but couldn't agree more! Globalism allows roving capital to play people from different scale economies against one another. Tarriffs to address that condition are necessary,but need not be as drastic as Mr. C asserts. It is simply balancing inequities. Restrictions on moving large sums of capital across international boundaries ,or at least transaction fees are called for. People through democratic processes should structure society not some invisible force that is a byproduct of greed.
And why should these guys be allowed to take so much money out of the economy of the country that created most of it leaving the inhabitants high and dry. I may have to rescind the crack about the ills neo- liberalism,but i still think/know i can take you on imperialism [ supposed to be a smiley face my keyboard won't display them in a post] cheers,you too Flaco.

Mr . C , You've been called out about the Dixiecrats before,guess you don't want to learn.


Lawrence " I'm a Democratic Socialist Populist and proud" O 'Donnell IS one of my heroes and proud of it.
cayo 2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-30-2012   #36
Denver, Colorado
Paddling Since: 1995
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 2,239
and another thing

Back to the threads original theme,in a way Mr.C's basic premise is right; YOU CAN'T KEEP PAYING PEOPLE NOT TO WORK.I understand that unemployment benefits will nearly all be spent immediately, out of need ,and that has the most short term stimulative effect. I understand that you can't just let people suffer. That is a short term band-aid to try and get the economy rolling and keep people afloat until the jobs situation improves.As someone who is self employed but with just slow sporadic work coming in it is somewhat iratating that people are getting unemployment benies beyond what they were entitled to for having paid into it.

My solution is workfare-like,make them work a flexible schedule so they can still seek work but do something like public works to earn it in the meantime. This would shake the mythical leeches who supposedly prefer hand outs to dignity ,work ,and more money ,if they existed[ ok there are a few true deadbeats].

The stimulus should have been bigger ,without or with lower tax cuts and buy American provisions ,and fast tracked public works on infrastructure.If your gonna' pay out all this money at least have something to show for it in the long run. The recovery would be a little further along. I can't believe i'm so in favor of protectionism but globalism changed the game,abruptly.

Lastly,this will likely infuriate the conservs,even though it is contradictory to protectionism,we need to build in small advantages for the poor countries that help them catch up over time.We used them as stepping stones to our success ,it would alleviate the differential that is being exploited,and it is moral.Do we want to live in a world even more stratified and tilted?
cayo 2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-31-2012   #37
jbolson's Avatar
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 139
While I agree that less government is better, and am libertarian minded, I agree with Marko on most points. Our system is broken, and no one is talking about fixing it.

The failure I see is the historical failure of governments to regulate corporations. I think it comes down to two a couple key failures.

1. Corporations must clean up their polution and not be allowed to damage the environment.

2. Corporations have social responsiblities, and not only need to look our for thier own employees, but also the greater society.

jbolson is offline   Reply With Quote

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off

Similar Threads
Topic Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
some causes of the economic crisis marko The Eddy 5 02-24-2009 11:06 AM
Economic Crisis... who's to blame? yarmonymatoid The Eddy 89 01-15-2009 07:52 PM
Anyone Agree With This Philosophy? **Bonus Trivia at end** TimWalker The Eddy 15 11-04-2006 09:13 PM

» Classified Ads
NRS Whitewater Kayak...

posted by sunsurfsnow

Brand new, still has tag. Price is $20 less than retail and...

14' AIRE Wave Destroyer...

posted by River Capt D

AIRE 14' x 22" dia. Wave Destroyer cat tubes, purchased...

Pyranha 9R LG

posted by atom

2016 Pyranha 9R LG for sale. Used twice. Love it but not...

Powered by vBadvanced CMPS v3.2.3

Our Communities

Our communities encompass many different hobbies and interests, but each one is built on friendly, intelligent membership.

» More about our Communities

Automotive Communities

Our Automotive communities encompass many different makes and models. From U.S. domestics to European Saloons.

» More about our Automotive Communities

Marine Communities

Our Marine websites focus on Cruising and Sailing Vessels, including forums and the largest cruising Wiki project on the web today.

» More about our Marine Communities

Copyright 2002-2012 Social Knowledge, LLC All Rights Reserved.

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 08:38 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2016, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.