Universal Health Care

[Sternhauser]

[quote name='Lilllabettt' date='25 April 2010 - 10:26 AM' timestamp='1272209208' post='2099718']
[quote]You assumption of market equilibrium is wrong.

Because:

1. Market failures happen all the time.
Neo-classical models operate in a theoretical universe of rational actors and perfect information. In the real world, markets fail and inefficiencies occur; further off the mark in some sectors than others.[/quote]

He's talking about the complete market failing. Not failures in the market. The markets of which countries have failed in the absence of State intervention?


[quote]2. Coordination failures happen all the time.

There are multiple equilibria, and a market may settle into a sub-optimal, or "bad" equilibrium.

For example: The economic development of a 3rd world nation requires a low-skill, unproductive sector to change to high-skill, productive work. For people to get these modern sector jobs, they will need more education. Firms will not invest in innovation if there is no labor supply available. At the same time, people are unwilling to invest in education to prepare them for these not-yet-existent jobs.

Unless an outside "big push" comes along,(usually from the government) firms and laborers will fail to coordinate, and stay stuck in the bad equilibrium of low-skilled, unproductive labor.
[/quote]

The people of third-world countries do not achieve the goal of education because the citizens do not have, first and foremost, the ability to control the fruits of their own labor, and thus have few resources to procure an education. Capital must be built. Private property rights are not respected in third world countries. Private property rights and stability are pre-requisites for building capital. Private property rights and social stability are goods that are antecedent to the State. State bureaucratic regulations stifle the entrepreneurial spirit.

The State itself maintains bad equilibria. Somalia is better off than all of its adjacent, State-run neighbors on the majority of UN nation ranking guidelines.

Please supply some examples of third world countries that were "pushed" (interesting choice of words) into prosperity by the State. Then, I'll give you dozens of examples of countries that are kept in poverty by the "pushing" of the State.

~Sternhauser

[Lilllabettt]

[quote]The people of third-world countries do not achieve the goal of education because the citizens do not have, first and foremost, the ability to control the fruits of their own labor, and thus have few resources to procure an education. Capital must be built. Private property rights are not respected in third world countries. Private property rights and social stability are goods that are antecedent to the State.
[/quote]

Totally wrong. Private property rights are NOT antecedent to the state. You are thinking euro-centrically. Many developing societies have a tradition of land and capital as public goods. Their subsumption into the capitalist system has been difficult because of this. An entire office at the World Bank is devoted to the problem of understanding how resources in the developing world can be transferred from "common use" to "private use" without depriving the broader community of their benefits.

[quote]State bureaucratic regulations stifle the entrepreneurial spirit. Private property rights and stability are pre-requisites for building capital. The State itself maintains bad equilibria. Somalia is better off than all of its adjacent, State-run neighbors on the majority of UN nation ranking guidelines.[/quote]

You are correct that stability is a pre-requisite for building capital. This stability is guaranteed by institutions ... you can think of institutions as "the rules of the game." Private investment will not happen when loan terms, finance terms, etc. are not "enforceable." Our modern experience is that institutions gain their legitimacy and enforceability from governments. There may be other methods, but this is the modern politcal experience.

This brings up another coordination failure, right here in America. You may be familiar with the process of "redlining," that is, the systematic exclusion of (typically urban) neighborhoods from access to financial services. The residents of a poor neighborhood need credit if they are going to invest and grow. But the credit market will not "go there" because the risks make it unprofitable. Nothing ventured, nothing gained, the market is stuck outside of the "Pareto-preferred" equilibrium.

I'm not sure why you choose Somalia to make your point. The last time the UN was able to collect the data there, the HDI (Human Development Index) ranking was 172 out of 174. You can't get much worse than Somalia.

[quote]Please supply some examples of third world countries that were "pushed" (interesting choice of words) into prosperity by the State. Then, I'll give you dozens of examples of countries that are kept in poverty by the "pushing" of the State. [/quote]

The term "big push" is not mine. It is standard verbage in economic development discourse. The concept of the "big push" originates with the Marshall Plan, with which you are probably familiar. The idea was that a massive influx of government-backed capital would restore fluidity to global commerce and rebuid post-war Europe. Since then it has been used with mixed results in the development project.

Africa, for example, has been a failure. The Asian Tigers (the NICS - Korea, Taiwan, Singapore, etc.) have achieved remarkable results using their authoritarian governments to make significant interventions in economic life.

Edited April 25, 2010 by Lilllabettt

[Nihil Obstat]

I'm going to defer to Stern's more complete economic knowledge for now.

[Fidei Defensor]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' date='26 October 2007 - 11:25 AM' timestamp='1193419555' post='1409680']
Actually many students qualify for food stamps. If you are on a life-sustaining medication and don't have a job, the government or the drug company will pay for your meds. If your child has a catestrophic illness and set up a payment plan, many companies eventually write off the account. My friend has been paying $5 a month for many years on her childs medical bills, and they have to accept it.
[/quote]
And yet, some of us who need meds/medical care and have jobs still can't afford it. Yes, there are ways to get what you need. I have discovered ways. But the current system won't readily give you help unless you are exactly as you mentioned — jobless and in dire need. The problem is that we should be avoiding the dire need part. Lets take care of things before it gets that bad.

[kamiller42]

I want my utopia and I WANT IT NOW!!!

[img]http://mypoliticalexile.files.wordpress.com/2009/09/veruca_salt.jpg[/img]

Happy days are here again
The skies above are clear again
So let's sing a song of cheer again
Happy days are here again!

From the Book of Duh...

[quote][b]Report says health care will[/b] cover more, [b]cost more[/b]
WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama's health care overhaul law is getting a mixed verdict in the first comprehensive look by neutral experts: More Americans will be covered, but costs are also going up.

But the analysis also found that the law falls short of the president's twin goal of controlling runaway costs, raising projected spending by about 1 percent over 10 years. That increase could get bigger, since Medicare cuts in the law may be unrealistic and unsustainable, the report warned.

n particular, concerns about Medicare could become a major political liability in the midterm elections. The report projected that Medicare cuts could drive about 15 percent of hospitals and other institutional providers into the red, "possibly jeopardizing access" to care for seniors.

[url="http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100423/ap_on_bi_ge/us_health_care_law_costs"]Source[/url]
[/quote]
Wasn't one of the major reasons for passage of Obamacare was to contain costs? Government takes over and costs are going up... duhhhhh!! We ain't see nuttin yet.

[Jesus_lol]

[quote name='kamiller42' date='25 April 2010 - 06:39 PM' timestamp='1272245973' post='2100060']
I want my utopia and I WANT IT NOW!!!

[img]http://mypoliticalexile.files.wordpress.com/2009/09/veruca_salt.jpg[/img]

Happy days are here again
The skies above are clear again
So let's sing a song of cheer again
Happy days are here again!

From the Book of Duh...


Wasn't one of the major reasons for passage of Obamacare was to contain costs? Government takes over and costs are going up... duhhhhh!! We ain't see nuttin yet.
[/quote]

possible reason for a cost increase? 57 odd additional million people getting some kind of coverage?

[Winchester]

[quote name='havok579257' date='24 April 2010 - 11:48 PM' timestamp='1272167314' post='2099541']
next time, instead of jumping to conclusions, how about actually ask me where my experience comes from. although why do that when you can just assume things and make posts like these.
[/quote]
No, I asked a question and gave a parenthetical note to show contrast.

You've come to a different conclusion from your experience and there's no arguing you out of it. The people who are truly victims of circumstance and working poor are a rarity. They are the exception to the rule of people who want luxuries instead of necessities. Who use ambulances like taxi rides, refuse to get their free prescriptions filled on their own time with their own effort. The number of supposed poor I've transported who carry bags of medicine that I couldn't afford outweighs the number of hard workers who've run out of money from living frugally. By far. I entertain the notion there might be a different culture elsewhere. In a major city, I doubt it, having talked to so many others who say the same things about clientele.

How many times have you walked in to a house for breathing difficulty and had to explain to the asthma patient that smoking (cigarettes are affordable to so many "poor" people) isn't good for asthma patients? You don't really have to explain it--they already know. They play dumb. The guy who has epilepsy but drinks knows it cancels out his meds. He doesn't care. He feels [i]entitled [/i]to drink. I've learned to accept it, and I even feel bad for some people. But the reality is the overwhelming majority have put themselves in their situation, which isn't really as bad as they make it. I've lived paycheck to paycheck. I've worked beside people on government aid at the same job with the same pay. The difference between us was my willingness to forgo some luxuries in life and to make a decision to not have kids I couldn't support with people I wasn't married to.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Jesus_lol' date='26 April 2010 - 12:34 AM' timestamp='1272263699' post='2100229']
possible reason for a cost increase? 57 odd additional million people getting some kind of coverage?
[/quote]
You have missed kamiller42's point, i.e., that the Obama administration said that this "reform" would contain and even lower the cost of health care in the United States, but the exact opposite is happening. In fact, like all government entitlements the new system will be run inefficiently and will cause the federal deficit to skyrocket. America already has 108 trillion dollars in unfunded liabilities, and this new health care system will cause that figure to rise exponentially, which is why the prediction of rationing of care and death panels is true. No country can continue deficit spending at the rate that the United States is doing it. The Obama administration has increased the deficit in two years by nearly as much as the Bush administration in eight years.

[kamiller42]

[quote name='Jesus_lol' date='26 April 2010 - 02:34 AM' timestamp='1272263699' post='2100229']
possible reason for a cost increase? 57 odd additional million people getting some kind of coverage?
[/quote]
In addition to what Apo said (He nailed it.), the costs were supposed to go down. Why? Because with more people participating (paying in), costs would be divided among more people, even the majority of non-payers being forced to pay, and purchasing power by the participants would be greater. And if none of that works, the government would just dictate what health care providers can charge for a service.

I think these thick headed politicians will find profit margins are what they are in most cases for a good reason. (For those cases where it's not, any savings from margin lowering mandates will be eaten up in a government bureaucracy.) Once they see adjusting margins down causes red ink, they'll simply adjust operating costs down, e.g. salary caps, reduced services, downgrade facilities and equipment, etc. If it's not by mandate, the industry will just have to do it to survive or fold up.