ya I agree.

Its obvious that we neglected it during the 70's and 80's and we got this...

7/15/2009 5:34:20 PM

Quote :

"Our poor people are still poor, but they have opportunities not to be destitute thanks to anti-poverty programs. Our societies are better off not having the slums seen at the early part of last century, or in other countries where the gov. doesn't have the means to aid their poor. There could always be reform in the system, but there is absolutely no rational reason to eliminate the programs."

I agree, our ability to afford such programs allows even our poorest to live lives better than a good number of the well-to-do in developing countries (this, of course, due to our relatively-higher level of economic freedom, which is necessary for growth). However, anti-poverty programs existed long before the government was involved. There is actually a good bit of evidence suggesting government involvement crowds out private charity. (e.g. The 1937 Works Progress Administration research monograph, "Trends in Relief Expenditures," documented how private charitable contributions rose exponentially up to 1932, but fell sharply thereafter as government expenditures rose exponentially. Additionally, from what I understand, physicians used to see it as their duty to provide free service to the poor and elderly. As Medicaid and Medicare came into being, payment was expected.)

It is not clear whether government crowding out private charities and churches is a good thing. The advantage is that we are likely to raise more money via taxation (albeit, via coercion) than through voluntary contributions. The disadvantage, however, is that government is much less efficient, so it begs the question as to whether private charities can accomplish better outcomes with lower contributions. Considering the huge amounts of money we spend on beneficiaries who truly do not need the aid, one can make a very strong argument that private charities can more than fill the void (i.e. Given that people are much less likely to exploit a church or charity organization than they are a government program, more money would be available and directed to those who actually need it.)

Long story short - there is a perfectly rational reason to eliminate government anti-poverty programs. Not everyone will agree with the assumptions, but it is rational.

[Edited on July 15, 2009 at 7:11 PM. Reason : .]

7/15/2009 7:04:32 PM

Quote :

"Would you mind describing why you think it is necessarily "true" that people that cannot afford to eat should starve to death???"

It's simple, actually. however, you have distorted my argument a little. It's not the people who can't afford to eat who should starve. it's the people who don't make an effort to be able to afford to eat who should starve. I actually have very little problem with unemployment benefits on the whole, because they are given to people who actually worked and, here's the kicker, they eventually end(!). The people who choose not to work or who choose not to try to find work should starve to death. Let's face it, food in the US isn't exactly the most expensive thing, so it's not asking that much for a person to be gainfully employed enough to be able to afford food.

Why should a person who doesn't want to work get a free ride? On the whole, a lazy animal dies. It starves to death. If it doesn't put forth the effort to find food, then it most certainly dies. Why in the hell would we want to allow the opposite? If anything, do so makes it harder on the people who actually do put forth the effort, as they pay higher taxes in order to pay for the leeches.

This isn't to say that charities shouldn't exist. I am all about some charities, and I'll gladly give my money to a charity of my choosing to help feed the hungry. But when some lowlife scum who doesn't work and hasn't tried to work begins demanding my money, I ought to be able to tell him to fuck off. But that isn't the case with gov't freebies.

7/15/2009 7:16:49 PM

^ well, that actually doesn't quite answer my question (i was actually hoping to understand the moral system you're employing to come to these conclusions), but even if it did I'm not sure what you're complaining about then. Most of the major "welfare programs" you've been talking about either have employment requirements or have time limits or both (this includes food stamps).

So I guess, you must actually support them.

Allllrrriiiggghhhttt!
USA! USA! USA!

[Edited on July 15, 2009 at 8:08 PM. Reason : ``]

7/15/2009 8:06:24 PM

what more is there to say? I think it is wrong for a person to have to pay for another person not to work. I think it is wrong for a person not to even try and find work and be able to mooch off of the hard work of others

7/15/2009 8:09:11 PM

Quote :

"If politicians hadn't created a welfare state in order to garner votes, Lucky Ducky's life might have been a lot different."

libertarians love to kick around this idea about how things were on the avg. better without what we know as welfare capitalism today. so what was life like in the 19th century for those who didn't have access to social services?

i know there's other reasons why the avg. person makes more nowadays (for one, technology and improvements in productivity), but even still, poor people live longer, can still buy goods and services and contribute to the economy, and at least have access to education. in short, whereas improvements in production in the late 19th and early 20th centuries made the average worker a little wealthier, welfare programs have led to educational mobility beyond what we used to see, a sharp decrease in the number of destitute elderly persons following social security, and a decrease in the poverty rate in industrialized nations.

i'm all for private charity and citizens working outside the government to help each other (as they always should), it's ab-so-lutely what i prefer. i like people working together without being prodded to do so. but come on, what happens when the economy turns down and donations don't come in like they would in better times?

without any welfare, i do think the average person would be more likely to volunteer and help out through non-governmental means, but when the times are rough, there has to be a provider of last resort.

unless you think altruism is suicide, in which case there's no hope for you.

7/15/2009 8:37:08 PM

Quote :

"without any welfare, i do think the average person would be more likely to volunteer and help out through non-governmental means"

Is that because you would not? Both historical evidence and common sense shows that people volunteer more when they are needed than when they are not. Or, more to the point, when they do not believe they already gave at the office.

7/15/2009 8:57:16 PM

Quote :

"Is that because you would not?"

where the flipping fuck did you assume that from? did you read the post? are you a bot?

point still stands that in the worst hard times, there will be fewer voluntary resources donated b/c people can't afford to give them. donations are the lifeblood of charity. food kitchens are more stressed and whatnot. you need a last resort and if you believe in such a thing as a common good, it just might have to be the government.

[Edited on July 15, 2009 at 9:02 PM. Reason : .]

7/15/2009 8:58:50 PM

Quote :

"the only reason anyone lives in poverty is because they are too lazy to throw themselves off the government tit!"

There are people with real needs..the infirmed, the mentally challenged etc. Private charity should take care of these people as it was done before gov't involvement.

What taxpayers are sick of are the able-bodied who are working the system to live off of everyone else..parasites. The people in line at the grocery store who pay for food with their foodstamps and then pull out a wad of cash to pay for cigarettes and beer.

Moron's photo of a 1930s Hooverville is dramatic. But the Great Depression could've been shortened by years if the Fed. Reserve had not contracted the money supply.

The photo of the Haiti slum is also dramatic. But I wonder how much foreign aid we have sent their gov't over the years only to have it stolen by their corrupt leaders.

Moron's photos are impressive..but are they the result of greedy rich people who refuse to help the poor or more from gov't screw-ups and corruption?

7/15/2009 10:31:04 PM

Quote :

"point still stands that in the worst hard times, there will be fewer voluntary resources donated b/c people can't afford to give them."

The same holds equally for government programs. In hard times, tax revenue declines. Hence why Mass. has stopped paying for some medical services and won't sign you up for your mandatory, guaranteed insurance if you fill the form out wrong. However, when times get rough, private people can contribute their labor or other help for free. The government still has to pay for it.

7/15/2009 10:53:23 PM

^well, this is why you run deficits. govts. have the borrowing power and legislative powers to do so. governments can do a lot of stuff private charities can't. when times are tough, there's no better public investment than milk for babies...wasn't that Churchill who said that?

7/15/2009 11:16:50 PM

Quote :

"what more is there to say? I think it is wrong for a person to have to pay for another person not to work. I think it is wrong for a person not to even try and find work and be able to mooch off of the hard work of others"

everytime you receive a paycheck you pay into unemployment. When you are unemployed for lack of work reasons you receive benefits for 26 weeks out of the year up until the destruction of the US economy (now its 39 weeks). Very few people can "mooch" off the hard work of others. You're creating a fake world which you want to exist so you can be angry and poor people.

also going to a state school is a burden on rich people. Because what self respecting rich person would go to state school and they have to pay for that shit.

[Edited on July 16, 2009 at 12:27 AM. Reason : edit]

7/16/2009 12:27:04 AM

Quote :

"point still stands that in the worst hard times, there will be fewer voluntary resources donated b/c people can't afford to give them."

This is inconsistent with the WPA data mentioned above. As the depression worsened, charitable contributions increased exponentially. It wasn't until government started to take over that contributions receded.

Also, voluntary resources are not just monetary. What goes unmeasured are the number of man-hours and in-kind benefits given.

[Edited on July 16, 2009 at 6:36 AM. Reason : ,]

7/16/2009 6:31:34 AM

Quote :

"unless you think altruism is suicide"

Stealing people's earnings is altruism? Really?
I love how liberals play the "you're immoral" card, when all they ever want to do is STEAL YOUR MONEY.

Quote :

"I think it is wrong for a person to have to pay for another person not to work. I think it is wrong for a person not to even try and find work and be able to mooch off of the hard work of others"

You don't just think it -- it is wrong. (Again... I'm not talking about children and other dependents.)

[Edited on July 16, 2009 at 8:35 AM. Reason : ]

7/16/2009 8:34:45 AM

Just curious - what do you people think of folks who are simply unemployable for reasons outside their control? People with a mental or physical disability who don't have access to treatment, or for whom treatment isn't possible?

Sure, some of these people are dextrous or competent enough to be placed in certain jobs, like Wal-mart greeter, or golf ball retriever, but those jobs are few and far between.

7/16/2009 9:33:03 AM

The Market® will take care of them.

7/16/2009 9:43:39 AM

well the disabled are fairly sympathetic characters. i think the real trouble may lie in the schizophrenics or bipolar or the generally mentally unstable. as it is we've moved most of these people out of the mental hospitals and into the jails. if the social safety net as well government health programs were eliminated many more of these people would be homeless and committing crimes. and some of these crimes would be far worse than stealing people's stereos out of their cars.

7/16/2009 9:55:01 AM

^^^
They are adult dependents -- they don't need jobs. It's the responsibility of their guardian to pay their bills. No guardian? Then you're not really an adult dependent, and you should get the best job you can. Of course, with immoral minimum wage laws, it'll be hard to find a job, seeing as how all they're really worth may be $4/hr.

Why do you seem to think that employment and financial security is a right? We are just animals on a rock -- life isn't always "fair".

May I ask, though, why it is that liberals push for universal health care for everyone, but to defend that push, they only use as examples those whose problems aren't their fault? It's not just that they want a public option for the few that slip through the cracks by no fault of their own... NO. They want a public option for everyone -- even if they are 100% at fault for their illness/injury.

Quote :

" if the social safety net as well government health programs were eliminated many more of these people would be homeless and committing crimes. "

No, because the private sector would step up and take care of it. Our society is not going to sit back and allow poor people to commit crimes when all it takes is private donations to feed and house them. Would you? If poor people are starting to break in to your and your neighbors houses, you wouldn't give more to help them? I would.

Quote :

"The Market®"

translation: The evil boogey-man heartless corporations.
That's not the proper market. The proper market consists of private business serving the needs of people. When they stop serving the needs of people, the business goes under. Why? Because it's a real private business, not a branch of the fascist government. Corporations get their limited liability from government fiat. That means they are not private. Real private businesses get limited liability from groups of flesh-and-blood consenting individuals. If a business discontinues serving the needs of the people, the people stop giving it limited liability -- they kill it. Now, corporations are immortal -- they are free to give $0.00 to charity, pollute the air and water, and there's nothing people can do to stop it. That's The Market® you refer to. I'm a capitalist libertarian, and I agree that that market is improper and has to go. Long story short -- you can't cite the market as the problem, when many capitalists don't even support that market.

[Edited on July 16, 2009 at 10:14 AM. Reason : ]

7/16/2009 10:11:15 AM

Quote :

"No, because the private sector would step up and take care of it. Our society is not going to sit back and allow poor people to commit crimes when all it takes is private donations to feed and house them. "

they're doing a pretty piss-poor job of it now.

Quote :

" If poor people are starting to break in to your and your neighbors houses, you wouldn't give more to help them? I would."

i would suggest that most would just move somewhere safer. do you really think that most americans when confronted with lawlessness would think, "hmm i should give these criminals money and then the problem will be solved"? i think many more would think "up the police budget".

there are simply people with mental problems that are not very sympathetic. i have known bipolar and schizophrenic people and they can be huge assholes and honestly, sometimes very scary. they're not exactly good poster-children for a non-profit.

[Edited on July 16, 2009 at 10:19 AM. Reason : .]

7/16/2009 10:19:07 AM

Quote :

"they're doing a pretty piss-poor job of it now."

Why would they have to do a good job now? When welfare still exists, that runs the show. Do you donate money for education? I doubt it -- we already have public schools. Why donate for charity that the government already has a monopoly on? Not to mention the private sector is being taxed for all this. Give back the tax money, and allow them TO CHOOSE to give it to charity. And like I said, if they don't, flesh-and-blood individuals should be able to vote to revoke the limited liability for that business. Don't you like that idea?

Quote :

"i would suggest that most would just move somewhere safer. do you really think that most americans when confronted with lawlessness would think, "hmm i should give these criminals money and then the problem will be solved"? i think many more would think "up the police budget". there are simply people with mental problems that are not very sympathetic. i have known bipolar and schizophrenic people and they can be huge assholes and honestly, sometimes very scary. they're not exactly good poster-children for a non-profit."

Moving somewhere safer would cost much more than simply giving money to charity. And no, when confronted with lawlessness, I think that local and national leaders can use their bully pulpit to convince the public that simply giving to various charities is a better strategy than merely upping police budgets. The reason so many might have the "It's not my problem to help them" attitude is largely helped by the fact that society, by virtue of government welfare, doesn't have to deal with those problems. We no longer care about our fellow man, because we're thinking, "Isn't that the government's responsibility?" Well, we stop making it the government's responsibility, and over time, our society would tend to return to actually being benevolent to others -- wanting to help others -- and not just wanting to remain completely uninvolved. Sure, some will always refuse to give to charity -- and so what?

7/16/2009 10:34:44 AM

Quote :

"Just curious - what do you people think of folks who are simply unemployable for reasons outside their control? People with a mental or physical disability who don't have access to treatment, or for whom treatment isn't possible? Sure, some of these people are dextrous or competent enough to be placed in certain jobs, like Wal-mart greeter, or golf ball retriever, but those jobs are few and far between."

And you can see why such jobs are few and far between: they are illegal. Disabled employees are simply not worth as much as other employees. Thanks to federal law, the disabled have become a liability for lawsuits and it is illegal to pay them less than the endless supply of full bodied teenagers available at minimum wage. So why would anyone accept the hassle of employing the disabled?

Repeal the Americans with Disabilities Act and repeal the minimum wage, and enough jobs will be created to employ all the nations disabled that are willing to work. The equillibrium wage will be low by our standards, but at least then they and their guardians will have the option of work.

And remember: unemployment rates underestimate real unemployment for the disadvantaged. People eventually learn that they are unemployable and then make other arrangements. Once they stop looking for work (or answering the phone to answer a survey saying they are looking, such as because it is disconnected), they are no longer statistically unemployed! As such, the 13% unemployment rate among the disabled is way under-reporting the number that would work if they believed they could.

7/16/2009 10:38:23 AM

Quote :

"I love how liberals play the "you're immoral" card, when all they ever want to do is STEAL YOUR MONEY."

lol, you need to think more deeply about things. Without government, what would money be? How do you think "your money" is even able to retain or maintain its value? How would you even be able to make money if the government wasn't behind you every making sure you have things like roads, clean water, rule of law, emergency services, etc that support all the things that help make your money valuable?

Part of "your money" is innately the governments, the real question is just how much?

7/16/2009 10:50:39 AM

Quote :

"Why do you seem to think that employment and financial security is a right? We are just animals on a rock -- life isn't always "fair"."

We choose to sustain a society where a homeless shelter is rock bottom. It's a very small price, but well worth it. That's why we aren't animals.

7/16/2009 10:51:09 AM

wait...

I still want to know how the unemployed are "mooching" off hard working Americans?...

7/16/2009 11:11:44 AM

Here is Obamas ad/push for healthcare.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nT-FBlG4SEw

The one guys dad walks with limp... oh no

Its time, its time, its time... for you to buy your own damn insurance and stop relying on someone else to provide it for you. Whether its an employer or the Fing govt.

7/16/2009 11:15:35 AM

Quote :

"We choose to sustain a society where a homeless shelter is rock bottom. It's a very small price, but well worth it. That's why we aren't animals."

"We"? Get that majoritarian crap out of here. I agree that shelters should be the bottom, but they should and can be 100% private. You disagree that they should and can be 100% private. Although, you admit that it's a very small price -- certainly something the private sector can afford. I just refuse to cross the line of actually forcing the private sector to pay. That is theft. Theft is immoral. (Keep in mind that Robin Hood was in the private sector. )

Quote :

"Without government,"

I'm a libertarian, not an anarchist. Nice straw-man, though...

7/16/2009 11:19:20 AM

Quote :

"I just refuse to cross the line of actually forcing the private sector to pay. That is theft. Theft is immoral. "

It is not theft.

7/16/2009 11:24:37 AM

Quote :

"Its time, its time, its time... for you to buy your own damn insurance and stop relying on someone else to provide it for you. Whether its an employer or the Fing govt."

does anyone here actually pay for 100% of their health insurance without help from their employer?

I did for a few months and It cost me 353 dollars (a month) for the low plan. sucked

7/16/2009 11:43:40 AM

Quote :

"I agree that shelters should be the bottom, but they should and can be 100% private."

Wasn't this how it was in the beginning? It didn't work, so we changed it.

7/16/2009 11:48:30 AM

Willy Nilly,

If you define theft simply as "taking something by force", then I suppose you could call taxation a form of theft. However, not all forms of theft would widely be considered immoral. For example, if a lost and starving hiker comes across an empty cabin w/food, most people would not say his theft of the food in the home was immoral (you might, but i wouldn't believe you).

So, what makes you think taxation is immoral?

[Edited on July 16, 2009 at 12:15 PM. Reason : ``]

7/16/2009 12:14:51 PM

private shelters?

would we have homeless people pay to live in them

or have ads on the sides of the buidlings.

7/16/2009 12:15:44 PM

Quote :

"Also, voluntary resources are not just monetary. What goes unmeasured are the number of man-hours and in-kind benefits given."

unless you're growing food from seeds you harvested from wild trees or making someone happy with an acapella version of your favorite song, you're going to need some sort of monetary donation. even that food has to be procured through some monetary means somehow.

And the most recent data backs me up. Money is low, but people do want to help.

http://money.cnn.com/2009/02/13/news/economy/charity_donations/?postversion=2009021311

Quote :

"Stealing people's earnings is altruism? Really? I love how liberals play the "you're immoral" card, when all they ever want to do is STEAL YOUR MONEY."

Ahahahha, you live for strawmen, don't you? Never mind that the "altruism is suicide" (courtesy St. Ayn the Reasoned) comment was aimed at people who don't help voluntarily. Take a chill pill and stop fearing the liberal reaper, dude.

Quote :

"private shelters? would we have homeless people pay to live in them or have ads on the sides of the buidlings."

I think he means church or independent community org. sponsored shelters, but the thought of "HOMELESS SHELTER sponsored by MILLER LITE" sounds pretty hilarious.

[Edited on July 16, 2009 at 12:31 PM. Reason : .]

7/16/2009 12:27:39 PM

Quote :

"does anyone here actually pay for 100% of their health insurance without help from their employer? "

I pay for my wife's insurance. It went up to over 300 a month for a healthy 30yr old through my employers plan. So we got our own for 109 a month. WE added pregnancy which brought it to 225 a month.

I could get a much better individual plan for what me and my boss pay for my insurance per month. However, he simply wont give me the money and let me buy my own. Oh well. It would be great to get a personal tax credit for buying your own ins... but oh well again.

7/16/2009 12:41:34 PM

my example was people with mental health issues. they need more than a bed and food. and to be honest they're often not even too likely to find help on their own. the government recently has been letting this community (and by extenstion the community at large) down. much of this is because mental health is not treated equally by insurance companies. sure they'll prescribe drugs but many of these people need far more than that. and yes this stuff costs money. and no, there largely aren't private orgs that can adequately address the problem. i just hope to god the VA is able to handle their mental health side of things better than they did post-vietnam because the influx ptsd folks certainly won't help the situation.

and a little food for thought: churches used to be a large provider of homeless shelters etc (and they still are in some areas). this was funded by a large population of people who went to their church and paid their tithe. how does the fact that a substantially lower number of people go to church these days (and churches spend a lot more of their money on their buildings and salaries than charity) have to do with the decline in the church role in helping the needy? i don't know that it's all just because the gov't has stepped in. i think they've stepped because they've had to fill in the gap. (i don't know if this second paragraph is actually accurate at all. just curious what others think about this possibility. and maybe someone will be able to bear a little more light on whether it's true or not).

7/16/2009 12:52:49 PM

^ well, the Diocese that I was under out in Memphis before I moved back to NC was still flush with cash and doing all sorts of good deeds. Lotsa dead old people are still supporting the church. Not to mention, they hold some of the most valuable properties in the city.

the Catholic Church is growing, but not with wealthy members, mostly with poorer immigrant members. i don't know how organized the megachurches are around these issues, but if Rick Warren is any sign, they're pretty substantial.


but you're, right, there is a general decline, for various reasons (for one, the redefinition of community in the internet age). this will be a problem for my generation to deal with, I'm sure.

i do know that some shelters do charge small fees now, which has resulted in the official motto of Memphis being changed from "hey, you got a dolla? I need to eat" to "hey you got a dolla, i gotta pay the shelter".

[Edited on July 16, 2009 at 1:28 PM. Reason : .]

7/16/2009 1:25:40 PM

You lived in memphis? Me too. I dont miss much but the bbq and some parts of town. I was glad to put it in the rearview mirror.

7/16/2009 3:17:05 PM

Quote :

"unless you're growing food from seeds you harvested from wild trees or making someone happy with an acapella version of your favorite song, you're going to need some sort of monetary donation. even that food has to be procured through some monetary means somehow."

There are a lot more ways to give back that do not require money. A local pizza restaurant providing their leftovers to the homeless, volunteering for Habitat for Humanity, providing pro-bono work ect

Quote :

"And the most recent data backs me up. Money is low, but people do want to help. "

That data is irrelevant to the theory I put forth. The theory is that where government gets involved, private funds are supplanted. Most charitable contributions today do not go towards areas that the government operates heavily in. I know of few charities that specialize in public housing, education, feeding the poor (excluding the homeless), funding low-income and elderly health care, ect. Prior to the New Deal, charities and churches and individuals (e.g. doctors providing pro-bono care) were very much involved in these areas.

7/16/2009 3:44:02 PM

health care?

7/16/2009 4:02:59 PM

Quote :

"a sharp decrease in the number of destitute elderly persons following social security"

you sure of that?

Quote :

"governments can do a lot of stuff private charities can't."

Right. Lick blow a fuck ton of money on worthless shit without actually helping any one.

Quote :

"Very few people can "mooch" off the hard work of others."

Care to base that in any kind of reality?

Quote :

"they're doing a pretty piss-poor job of it now."

Correct. Because the people today can't afford to support charities as well because the government is stealing all of their money in the first place.

Quote :

"Without government, what would money be? "

It'd be something of actual value that isn't being silently stolen from us every day through inflation to pay off special interests. That's what it would be.

Quote :

"Wasn't this how it was in the beginning? It didn't work, so we changed it."

It's not that it "didn't work." It's that people said the government could do a better job. And the government failed miserably at it.

7/16/2009 4:03:08 PM

Forbes on Health Care:

Quote :

"Today there is a disconnect between providers and consumers. Almost all health insurance is covered by third parties--either insurance companies or governments--so patients rarely know what most health care services cost. If you go to a hospital and ask about prices, the staff's immediate reaction is that you must be uninsured. Why else would you want to know what something costs? Yet in just about every other aspect of our commercial lives the price of things is known. No wonder health care doesn't experience the kind of productivity gains found elsewhere. For example, the cost of food as a proportion of one's income is a mere fraction of what it was decades ago (see chart above). Twenty years ago cell phones were bulky and expensive; today they have become cheap virtual computers with easy access to the Internet. They even take pictures and videos. There are 4 billion cell phones in use around the world. In 1900 the automobile was a toy for the rich and cost the equivalent of about $100,000 today. Henry Ford's moving assembly line turned autos into something that any working person could afford. We could attain similar and ongoing miracles in health care. We are already seeing some in a few areas. Conventional Lasik eye surgery costs a third of what it did ten years ago. And there has been virtually no inflation in the prices of cosmetic surgery, even though there have been enormous technological advances, and the demand for these procedures has increased sixfold since the early 1990s. Special hospital facilities in India, Thailand, Singapore and elsewhere that engage in medical "tourism" have infection rates a fraction of those found in most U.S. hospitals. These positive results are driven by the fact that patients write the checks and are thus fully conscious of the costs, as well as by the fact that providers are under pressure to make their offerings more enticing and affordable. Genuine free-market reforms in health care will slash the number of the uninsured and lead to the same kinds of innovations and efficiencies that are experienced in most of the rest of the economy."

7/16/2009 4:06:35 PM

^ all that column did was list a bunch of semi-interesting facts about technological innovation, then end up with the normal free-market line as one would expect, while making no real connection between the two.

7/16/2009 4:12:01 PM

What are these miraculous free-market reforms, pray tell?

7/16/2009 4:12:04 PM

Forbes misses the boat a bit. He could have pointed to one area in healthcare that the technology is improving drastically while the cost to consumers are dropping... non-covered/elective services which are all free market principles. Lasik is a great example. Plastic surgery would be another.

7/16/2009 4:33:46 PM

Quote :

"Care to base that in any kind of reality?"

what kind of reality are your claims based on?

7/16/2009 5:27:26 PM

Quote :

"[user]WillyNilly[/user]: Why don't more liberals propose a national pooling of risk ONLY for the RANDOM illnesses and injuries? The #1 objection to government-provided health-care is that everyone would have to help Joe Couch-Potato pay for his heart surgery -- that was very arguably entirely Joe Couch-Potato's fault. Joe Couch-Potato AND ONLY Joe Couch-Potato should have to pay for his self-caused health-care needs. "

I don't wanna pay for the surgery of excessive runners, athletes, etc... All the super fit, vain bitches I see out on the street better be saving those dollars for when they need half their body parts replaced at 45.

7/16/2009 6:11:04 PM

^^^^^True, it is lacking in detail.

^^^^
Allow competition to actually work by reducing state mandates, allowing individuals to purchase insurance plans across state lines, eliminate the incentive for insurance to be tied to employers, making it easier to set up community-care centers (which would go a long a way in reducing lines at the ER), reduce state barriers to retail-health clinics.

Other ways to increase competition that are more controversial: increasing the number of medical schools and/or medical students (the latter has not budged in decades despite a growing population), supplanting Medicare’s lexus-style insurance plans with vouchers (too generous of coverage insulates consumers from price changes and thus creates no incentive for cost/benefit analysis. E.g. hip replacements at age 90)

The most important thing we can do is put the consumer back in control of their health-care dollars. As Michael Cannon put it, “government controls half of our nation's health care dollars, and lets employers control an additional quarter. And nobody spends other people's money as carefully as they spend their own.” When we are spending other people’s money, there is no incentive to be cognizant of costs. If consumers are not worried about costs, neither will providers. This leads to overconsumption by the consumer and gives providers leverage to buy the most expensive technology without regard to how much value is added given that costs can always be shifted to the consumer without any push-back.

Procedures that are typically paid for by the consumer, such as cosmetic surgery and lasik, have witnessed both increases in quality and decreases in costs - just like every other market that is not dominated by third-party payers.

For a primer on the effects of third-party payments, I recommend these very detailed posts by economist, Keith Hennessey:
http://keithhennessey.com/2009/05/13/third-party-payment-in-health-insurance/
http://keithhennessey.com/2009/05/14/third-party-payment-in-health-care-part-2/
http://keithhennessey.com/2009/05/18/third-party-payment-part-3/


[Edited on July 16, 2009 at 6:25 PM. Reason : ,]

7/16/2009 6:17:48 PM

Good answer

7/16/2009 7:26:58 PM

Quote :

"I did for a few months and It cost me 353 dollars (a month) for the low plan. sucked "

One of the reasons it is so expensive is becasue of gov't mandates on policies. States won't allow insurance companies and employers to offer low-cost, no-frills, designed mainly for young healthy people. If you force insurance companies to include particular benefits that some politician wants, costs go up and consumer-desired benefits go down.

Get the go'vt out of health-care, let it be consumer-driven instead of gov't-controlled. The system should be returned to one where consumers paid for everyday small medical bills themselves, and insurance was saved for catastrophic problems. Costs would go down significantly if consumers, and not insurance companies paid for everyday health-care.

We don't use our auto-insurance to buy gas. Why use medical insurance to cover colds, and stitches?

7/16/2009 9:03:06 PM

I can't wait to file for bankruptcy some day due to my medical bills.

LET FREE-EEDOM RINGGGGGGGGGGG

7/16/2009 9:08:37 PM

^ Are you implying that greater economic freedom would lead to higher prices?

7/16/2009 9:51:12 PM