The Public Option's Unfair Advantage? Gov't Bailouts - Michael Cannon

[boxant]

A great simple point that people seem to be overlooking.

[wervasdeferens]

The ultimate question relating to this video is:

Do we need to pay United Health's CEO $20 million/ yr to send our money to the Hospital?

Or have the government pay someone $70K/yr to do the same damn job?

That's were we are!

[McArrowni]

So basically, something will make the public system more efficient, therefore the public system is bad. American conservatives crack me up.

[CaratJews]

It makes no sense whatsoever to focus only on cancer survival rates and heart disease survival rates. When you use measures that reflect the entire US population's access to healthcare, which is what the World Health Organization does in its reports, then the US is ranked #37 in the world. We can do better.

[megarational]

Poor poor private insurance companies.

If those blood sucking vermin can't compete let the fuckers die a horrible death at the mercy of the "free market".

Unfortunately, it won't happen. In none of the other nations that adopted some form of public option (or UHC) - and that includes virtually every other advanced nation on earth - did it kill those cockroach insurance companies. .

[UncommonThinker]

Blind hatred anyone? Yes, several countries have gone as far as to oulaw private insurance. Now, compared to ours, their systems are totally inferior. Cannon also rails against the government for forcing us into insurance to pay for things which would be best spent out of pocket. This third party system for physicals and check-ups is just stupid.

[megarational]

Did I say the tiny fraction of nations that have "outlawed" private insurance? NO. I said "that have adopted some form of public option or UHC".

You seem to be intent on distortion right from the "get-go".

Private insur. is the third party system. Buying insurance from a private insurance plan is like buying tickets from a scalper.

[UncommonThinker]

Do you even know how many nations have outlawed private health care.

The government is worse than a scalper. Governments actually try to rig the game in their favor. Especially our government. We can't even run an effective education system. Which is among the worst in the industrialized world. You think health care will be any different? You're delusional.

[lelyn1234]

Damn right! Let's bail out the health of our workforce, the way we bailed out the finance sector.

What's the most important stimulus for long term economic growth? Worker Productivity. A healthy worker can do more better. Our working class has been in a constant economic collapse. The only bailout so far has been in finance, and that industry could be on the cusp of a rebound,it makes sense considering how booming the Health Industry will soon be, to make Healthcare responsible to the Public

[k166a]

"And then I found $20!"

If only he would have said that at the end of the video, I would have given it 5 stars...

[espunde]

The Insurance industry is bad, but Government run health-care will be much worse. No one who knows anything about the insurance industry would call it an example of the free market at work. This guy is right, bailouts are the unfair advantage, you cannot out-compete the public purse, unless you have a really good company.

[thesparitan]

if that was true then why does Europe have better healthcare then the US. why does it cost twice as much in the US as it does in France but they have the best healthcare in the world and we are below thirty. why are we only nation with private healthcare system and non-optional public healthcare system. Why is it that the majority of bankruptcies are caused by healthcare cost. We have probably the worst system in the world if you add in cost benefit ratio.

[Smartassawhip]

Last time I checked we are at #37 which sucks. I don't know why so many conservatives think our country can not do what every other developed country has done.

[McArrowni]

American conservatives know that there are other developped countries?

[Smartassawhip]

You do have a point... They don't seem to be able to see anything past the end of their noses so they may not know that. :)

[UncommonThinker]

If you consider cancer survival rates and heart disease survival rates then we have the best medical care system in the world. By far, you need to do a lot more research and watch a lot more cannon clips to get a real sense for what he actually believes.

[UncommonThinker]

Health care is already ran by the government. Its the most regulated industry in the country.

[samkurz]

Go kiss the insurance companies ass to leach sucking

idiot.

[wimscheers]

This guy blocks out everything the Government could ever do. Government will not let x go bankrupt, financial markets will abuse this lower risk, hence everything the government touches is unfair. And thats BS. 1 It should be perfectly reasonable to put a no bailout clause in the bill. 2 Where was this guys when the TARP money was handed out?

[Robfenix]

This is a stupid argument. He argues against doing something now based on what might happen in the future. Just argue against doing the future thing when and if the program gets into trouble, and when this bailout is proposed. He just takes it for granted that the program will fail at :95-1:01. But if revenue is less than pay-outs then isn't it accounted for in the program for premiums just to rise? Further, even if gov. bails out the program, that's still better than bailouts to corporations.

[thesparitan]

I know, I hate these people that think that have the power of precognition. there are rules and regulation congress could enact that would prevent the government from direct funding of healthcare. you know like the POST OFFICE! post does ask for money from the government why should the public option. fucking idiots. well said dude.

[eszettfromhell]

I normally agree with the Cato Institute but this is an inarticulate rant, simply because the health insurance industry is *already* prone to bailouts. The idea that there is *less* risk hasn't been backed up by data.

[thesparitan]

i love this comment board, it seems everyone thiks this guy is wrong. no one seems to like or agree with what he is saying.

[thesparitan]

this guy is so fucking wrong. what about europe, what about every firsst world nation having universal healthcare and direct government involvement.

[UncommonThinker]

He talks about that a lot too. Are you waiting for me to tell you about it or what? You don't seam to know much about their programs and the level of care they're actually getting.

[thesparitan]

i dont know what you are asking or what exactly you are talking about, but i will geuss you are asking me if i know about the public option and healthcare and the answer is yes i do.

[CharlesVarney]

If the public options funds are low, why would they not simply raise the premium? That's what every other insurance company does with regularity. Why would a bail-out even be necessary?

[UncommonThinker]

Because if premium money is sqandered the way it is in medicare and medicaid (massive fraud) raising premiums would only drive people out of the public option. And they still won't get enought money. That's why any company would need a bailout. Its not rocket science.

[CharlesVarney]

One can only hope that they would run it properly. If they stick to providing health insurance and avoid things like corporate jets, multi-million dollar bonuses, etc... they might pull it off. They just need to treat it less like a bloated, wasteful, money burning monstrosity and more like a sensibly run, well oiled, health care providing machine. The goal is to help people, not bilk people. It always should have been, but people do funny things for money and power.

[spikesmth]

So what...

Government insurance drives private health insurance into the ground (excluding the lost jobs) through subsidy, competition, hostile takeover, what have you. Why is that bad? The market system creates a lower bound under-class who simply do not have access to adequate healthcare because of affordability, plus those just above that-with insurance, but still at high risk for medical bankruptcy. Maybe healthcare is one of those things that isn't allocated best with markets.

[freesk8]

Cannon is absolutely right.

A govt health insurance plan will tend to drive out private programs, just as govt schools tend to drive private education to the limits of the wealth and religious niches.

Private insurance will become a niche player in the market.

[redbrest]

Did I understand this guy ? Hes worried about the insurance company's getting treated unfairly ? What the hell is wrong with him ?

Id say Id have to agree with comment below this.

Puck The Insurance companies just like they Puck every one that comes there way.

[actualizeU]

what the heck does this have to do with a public option.. furthermore why should we trust the insurance companies not to continue the same old game of sticking it to us. You sound like their tool dude. why should I care what you think.

[the2012report]

Fuck the insurance companies! Insurance companies suck rotting wookie cock!

[Sardonac]

I don't understand this and would greatly appreciate a clarification from a more informed viewer. Mr. Cannon states that individuals and companies will "invest" in the public option in what, from this clip, seems to be a share trading way. However, it's my understanding that the PO is not going to be a traded company as it is entirely not-for-profit.

[Weeth]

No, its not going to be publicly traded... just as the government itself is not publicly traded... yet you can still make loans to the government (eg t-bills, bonds, etc.)

[funkalunatic]

What? Is the public option going to be buying health mortgages and creating a health bubble? Please. This is just another libertardian in a suit.

[garith21]

There's a bit of a problem when you compare financial institutions linked to other financial institutions in a complex web that can make entire economies fall and a non profit health insurance company. =P

[tndowns1122]

What a credit to the American insurance lobby that people are scared about a public program being able to offer better protection than private insurance. What a nonsense argument with absolutely no intellectual credibility.

[hurataimad]

not that i care much about american policy, but what that guy said didn't make any sense whatsoever.

i don't even think he understood what he was saying.

[JAROSLAVAGINA]

lol it made perfect sense. you just have to educate your self in economics.

[hurataimad]

well the 4 years of my degree isn't enough time educating myself to understand the waffle of this man's gibberish.

i would suggest YOU DON'T understand it, because the honest 1st reaction, if you did, would be to break it down and explain it to me, instead of throwing insults in the dark.

[JAROSLAVAGINA]

ohhhh its pretty elementary. take amtrack for example. amtrack hasn't made a profit in forever, but they are still in operation. now why is that?

fanny mae and freddie mack when belly up, but are some how still in business. now why is that?

its because government backed entities aren't allowed to fail.

now what kind of company are you going to invest in? a regular insurance company which has to compete to stay in business? or a "public option" company which doesn't?

get it?

[hurataimad]

you honestly come across as a simpleton.

1st fan/fred failed because of the culture of risk... in simple terms money breeds money... it is too complicated to explain over this forum, and i'mnot inclined to write it out 4 u neither.

2. what has profit got to do with anything? public option isn't profit based

3. there are umpteen amount of gove run institutes that are a success, fire, police., etc.. all across the world.

your premise is wrong.

and i don't believe you understood him.

[JAROSLAVAGINA]

1.) now explain to me why they were bailed out and we'll be back on topic.

2.) profit is necessary for stand alone companies/organizations to keep operating. no profit, no organization.

3.) last time i checked, fire, and police departments weren't consumer driven organizations. amtrack, the usps, and the like are.

after that comment you obviously have no concept of running a business or even the basic premise of economics.

i'm not going to waste my time any more.

[hurataimad]

1. charities are organizations who aren't profit centric, many NGOs also aren't profit centic, you are truely a lunatic.

2. who says bailout was a solution, if you fail you suffer the consquences and rebuild, IT WAS BUSH's idea the bailout. the economy should have been allowed to fall. the bailout was a bad idea. having the most innocent bare the burden of the innocent. it's like a child serving the sentence of a serial killer.

3. i'm not american.

[JAROSLAVAGINA]

1.Charities must break a profit to survive, they just have to reinvest that profit back into the organization. (again, you obviously don't have any idea on how a business/organization runs)

2. the bail out was not a solution. it was just what the government did to ensure a the government organization did not fail. and what the fuck does it have to do with it being bush's idea. it was bush's idea to invade iraq. your point is?

3. ........?

[imadhurata]

my point about profit wasn't that a charity can't make a profit, it was that the public op isn't profit centric, meaning that they aren't pushing the whole organization to make a profit, like a charity, they are centered around helping as many people as poss, and your point about putting their profit back into the charity,well by them doing so it ceases to be profit and becomes capital, hence they don't make a profit,so u proved my point, they so don't care about it that they put it back into

[JAROSLAVAGINA]

profit centric or not, the charity has to make its balance sheets balance, (make a profit) otherwise, it requires a bailout. if the "public" demands lower costs they'll give them to the point that they don't break even, but its ok, because they don't need to break even because they have the federal governments backing via subsidies or "bailouts"

your not listening are you?

[hurataimad]

1st off what charity asked for bailout money?

now onto your premise and strangely enough you answered you own question previously. the difference is like a charity, it puts what it makes back into the business. also it runs on a more altruistic level, so labour costs will not be so great. also the quality of the product will be better, because there will be no cutting costs 4 profits. it isn't a great idea but the notion it is somehow similar to fred/fran is laughable.

[hurataimad]

4.  the basic premise of economy is humans and their interactions, not business.

5. i have nothing against profit or business, all i'm saying is the motivation of the public option isn't profit, it's a vehicle to push down the price of the other insurence. so this insurence will not be concerned about making a profit.

6. no i'm not in favor of it, it's just a distraction to prevent the upheaval of archaic backwork system in america.

[JAROSLAVAGINA]

4. and what do you think businesses are made out of? and what does this have to do with anything?

5. again, non-profits still have to make a profit, as its pretty risky to say "we're going to make exactly $300,000.24". what will happen in this case, is that to keep the public option appealing, it will provide insurance BELOW COST requiring a subsidy... effectively a bailout.

6. ...... what the hell are you talking about?

[imadhurata]

NGOs don't HAVE TO MAKE money, who the hell told that you utter moron, they can recieve sponsorship, assistance, help and many NGOs don't sell nothing, so how the helll do they make money. they can via grants, aid, charity money, god knows what else.......... they aren't selling shirts, toys, food......... what insane world are you living in?

[JAROSLAVAGINA]

hahahahahahahahaha wow... i give up.... i hope you never start up a non-profit. it'll be burried in the ground before it even starts.

[hurataimad]

it's like you think non profit organizations don't actually exist, you are truely an "a" class moron. THEY ARE CALLED NGOs NON (BLOODY) PROFIT ORGANIZATIONS.

LOOK IT UP ON WIKIPEDIA YOU UTTER IDIOT if you don't believe me.

and why in heaven's name will i be starting up a NGO? and what's wrong in setting up a NGO?

[JAROSLAVAGINA]

lol so let me get this straight:

NPO's, don't have to break even because they are non-profit organizations. in fact, they can spend and spend and spend, and not bring in a dime of revenue, because they are non-profit organizations. They don't have to pay bills, because they are a NPO.

correct? is this what your saying?

before you go shooting around the "idiot" card, you should check the mirror first.

(and wikipedia should not be cited as a valid source, just so you know.)

[hurataimad]

no you moron, what i'm saying is such a thing as non profit organizations exist, that is why there is such a term.

and wiki was used to illustrated the existence of of such a thing as NPOs, unless you are suggesting i wrote that wiki article you prove my point to a utube moron.

if you don't like wiki, google it, or utube search it, or go to a library, or just read a book. damn you are thick.

[JAROSLAVAGINA]

and what I am saying is that non profits are better off trying to bring in revenue at a level exceeding budget expenditures (this is called "profit") than say "we are going to make $37,056.23. i explained this earlier, perhaps you were too busy calling names to actually interpret information.

My friend, you obviously have no clue what you are talking about, and you have strayed so far from the topic of debate, that, from an intellectual standpoint, you have lost.

Good Day.

[hurataimad]

1st off you are debating over a point which i didn't make, you made to yourself and you are debating that point still.

in other words, you are debating yourself.

what i said is the public option ISN'T profit CENTRIC, now what does that mean? that doesn't mean they don't try to make money. what that means is that their motivation isn't profit. if profit helps them in their aims, then they will try and make money. once again not profit CENTRIC.

[hurataimad]

NPOs

[imadhurata]

by the way where do you get the notion that it was the public sector that recieved bailout money? it was the private sector that recieved bailout money and it was that sector that came with their begging bowls asking for the bailout money.

don't blame the public sector for the private sector failings.

[hurataimad]

7. a honest comparative look at other health systems around the world, you would realize the same.

8. our NHS (UK) has no 1, no 1 questioning it's existence. no one not even the rightest of right would suggest making it more like yours. the mere idea of making an insurance based health system is laughable. that is why no other country has followed your example in terms of healthcare coverage.

[JAROSLAVAGINA]

7. the us has the highest survival rate for diseases such as cancer and heart disease.

8. see number 7.

[imadhurata]

if a large amount of your population doesn't even get healthcare how do they get treatment for cancer? i think your conservative think tanks and dealing from the bottom of the pack with that stat. most people will be refused treatment and those that aren't have either a premium type insurance or their care was cost effective, meaning the cancer isn't too bad, so hence the survival rate OF THOSE WHO GET COVER is better than our WHOLE population WHO GET COVER.

[hurataimad]

9. healthcare is altruistic at heart and societal, if anything should be run by government it should be healthcare. that is a no brainer and that is why americans' healthcare coverage is so antiquated in comparison to other developed countries.

10. health is the most valuable asset we have as humans, a billionaire would give up all his wealth to buy his health back, and hence it's attracts the worst vultures in our societies, if you allow it and america has.

[JAROSLAVAGINA]

9. no its not. that's like saying agriculture is altruistic at heart. that's like saying construction and home building is altruistic at heart. that's like saying car manufacturing is altruistic at heart.

10.lol definately not food, clothing, housing, or any of the far more important things we need on a daily basis.

[imadhurata]

obviously you don't understand the meaning of the word altruistic. as for food clothing being more important then health, WHAT DO YOU THINK HAPPENS WITHOUT FOOD OR CLOTHING, you lose your health. health is the reason for food clothing housing, moron.

[hurataimad]

finally, you do realize that in the uk we suffer from healthcare tourism and it is mainly coming from the states. this was highlighted about a year or two back, i don't know if we have brought in legislation in the meantime, but you people cost our people alot of money, ALOT.

so sort out yout healthcare and stop coming over here where you aren't welcome.

[JAROSLAVAGINA]

what the hell are you even talking about?

no... i'm sorry... your a troll or just not listening.

when your capable of better debate, please come back.

[hurataimad]

no you are the troll and you can't debate because you have absolutely no knowledge.

[hurataimad]

how HOW THE HELL ISN'T THAT NOT A FAIR DEBATING POINT BETWEEN AN AMERICAN AND BRIT ON THE ISSUE OF HEALTHCARE.

that there is the only issue which should be debated between us.

instead you take it as an insult because your moronic mind can't understand that YOUR F%^&ing immigrants are costing ME money, we play 4 our coverage not some dirty americas taking advantage of the free travel between our countries.

YOU DISGUST ME!

[JAROSLAVAGINA]

lol you understood nothing in this video did you?

[arequipa1]

watch out ForaTV, if you put videos up criticizing obama and pelosi's nightmare plan, these pissy youtubers will give you LESS THAN FIVE STARS!!!! OH MY FREAKIN GAWD!

[elphenom9]

doosh

[newusername01]

Um, so health-care in America is in the shit hole and this guy doesn't want to try and fix it because?.. Oh, that's right. It'll hurt the insurance companies .

[JAROSLAVAGINA]

lol you also understood nothing in this video did you?

[ONQproductions]

TOOL!

[wervasdeferens]

In order to keep government programs solvent, just raise taxes,problem solved.

You never see any teabagger protest whenever the insurance companies raise premiums,do ya?

Medicare tax is 1.5% of payroll,raise it to 2.5%, damn, is that so hard?

The reason America is in decline is because the people have been duped by CATO,Heritage Foundation, et al.

Just follow the money.

[seamoremonster]

Corporate vulture...it's not about providing profits for insurance giants...it's about providing affordable health care.

[wervasdeferens]

That's what i'm saying. These guys from these right wing think tanks are behind the "Free Market" is God, government is the enemy crap.

CATO claims to be Libertarian,so they still follow Ayn Rand philosophy.

The Right constantly derides government programs and taxes, but is perfectly fine with paying more and more to the private sector.

[arequipa1]

yes, that's correct. ....AND?

[seamoremonster]

Sorry. I can see where it looks as if I'm attacking you...I'm not. I'm agreeing with you. Michael Cannon is the corporate vulture not you!

[JAROSLAVAGINA]

lol because the free market allows choice, which is what this guy is saying in essence. I take it your against monopolies correct? Would you explain why you are against monopolies, so i can enlighten you as to why the "public option" is a bad idea? (hint hint... think about where this guy is going in this vid... he's hinting towards a federal monopoly)

[wervasdeferens]

JAROSLAVAGINA,

Can you enlighten me as to any government agency that pays it's director $20-30 million/yr.?

Can you explain why my medicare "premium" is $13/week and my Blue Cross is $87/wk?

Can you enlighten me as to how the CEO of United Health has amassed $700 million from premiums? Or how the previous CEO amassed $1 billion.

Also, can you tell me if a director of any government agency has amassed a comparable sum while running his particular agency?

[JAROSLAVAGINA]

your medicare premium is 13 dollars a week, because it is subsidized. CEO's of of companyes make money because companies offer services.

i'm not even going to bring up the 800,000$ hourses post masters get for free.

but since you decided to ignore my original post i'll continue from there.

a government sponsored public "option" will create a monopoly for reasons listed in the vid. and then what will happen? poorer quality? less access? longer wait times?

all because of no competition

[wervasdeferens]

"CEO's of of companyes make money because companies offer services."

Medicare isn't a service?

What would happen if I paid $87 in medicare taxes instead of to Blue Cross?

Would that make medicare solvent?

You bet your ass it would. The fact is that admin and overhead in the private sector is what is inflating their cost.

If you desire the government to do a comparable job, then we must pay a comparable price.

I argue that the government can do it for far less.

[wervasdeferens]

"all because of no competition"

The government is non-profit,who cares about competition?

Besides, we're talking about corporations whose main function is to collect funds and redistribute those funds to service providers, AFTER they take their 15%-30%cut.

The Government would only take 3-7%.

Why would quality,access,etc suffer?

Where would the Doctors go? We're the last For Profit health care system in the industrialized world.

$500/hr anesthesiologist LOL Free Market LOL Choice?

[Weeth]

you must have a strange definition of free markets to be able to refer to our health care industry as one.

[wervasdeferens]

Well, I meant health insurance industry.

Which is one giant monopoly of collusion.

[Weeth]

.. you must have a strange definition of free m arkets to be able to refer to our health insurance industry as one.

[wervasdeferens]

Weeth,

Please explain to me how it is not one.

There have been over 400 mergers in the industry in the last decade. In most states there are essentially only 2-3 providers,who engage in price collusion and market share domination.

Do you think their anti-trust exemption is stifiling competition?

One could argue that insurance industry practices aren't Free market.

And I would counter by proving that unregulated "Free" markets will always result in Monopoly.

Mono=one.

watch?v=LURqbi6j0l8

[Weeth]

werv,

free market: an economic system in which prices and wages are determined by unrestricted competition between businesses, without government regulation or fear of monopolies.

The health care/insurance industry is 1 of the most regulated industries in America.

Look @ the most regulated industries in America & then look at the least regulated industries in America. Tell me where the monopolies are.

History proves that coercive monopolies are practically impossible without government.

[wervasdeferens]

Weeth,

The reason for regulation is mainly to protect consumers. Sometimes the regulations have unforeseen consequences, such as the consumer always stuck with the increased cost of the regulation.

The need for regulation doesn't just arise from an over zealous government, but from adverse effects on society or consumers by business practices.

First comes the Monopoly or bad behavior,then comes the regulation.

[wervasdeferens]

The government might allow Monopolies to exist(anti-trust exemption), but the Free Market creates them.

Did the government create Standard Oil,AT+T,Wal-Mart, etc.?

The Glass Steagall Act prevented the mingling of commercial and investment banks(regulation).

The Gramm-Leach-Bliley act repealed this measure in 1999(deregulation).

This allowed Citibank to become the "too big to fail" Citigroup,for example. GLB Act is largely responsible for the financial crises,the Free Market at work.

[Weeth]

werv,

Well, we are deviating from our initial point—that is, that the health industry is nowhere near being a free market—but I will concede the point if you can give me one example of a coercive monopoly ever coming to existence in a free society without government assistance.

[wervasdeferens]

Weeth, I see your point.

But there are different types of Monopolies.Coercive,natural,go­vernment,Parker Bros,etc.

The Government created the Post Office, which is a monopoly, but how much would snail mail cost the consumer if there was competition in the snail mail market? Or Police,Schools,Utilities,etc?

Efficiency monopolies brought on by economies of scale?

Certain industries should not be left to the Free Market,

Benefit to Society outweigh individual profit,contrary to Rand.

[Weeth]

werv,

who cares how much snail mail would cost—more than an e-mail, thats for sure. should the government have monopolized VHS production in order to keep it around as an inferior alternative to DVDs? i dont understand your point.

you ask how much the free market would charge us for the P.O., schools, and utilities as if theyre not costing us right now...

taxes, deadweight losses, inefficiencies, lack of innovation, debt, inflation, erosion of individual power, etc...

[wervasdeferens]

Snail mail was just an example of government monopoly and lower cost to the consumer because of economies of scale.

As I said, certain industries should not be left up to the free market.,mainly certain Service industries. Industries that provide goods and business related services, should be left to the free market.

.

[wervasdeferens]

Do you think currency should be government controlled? Or left to the international banking cartel?

The Fed causes inflation,debt,erosion of individual economic power(Fiat Money)

Compare the cost of private vs. public education. Or sending an overnight package Fed Ex vs. USPS.

Have you ever seen the movie "Gangs Of New York", about when Fire Depts were private entities?

A lot of buildings burned downed, it's the same with health insurance. The building is burning down with Ayn Rand

[Weeth]

werv,

The Fed is, in effect, a government institution.

You ask to compare the cost of public v pvt education. The avg cost per student in public schools is something like 7k. Thats higher than the avg pvt tuition. Get rid of the public schools, open up pvt. competition, & give tax dollars back to parents, & most pvt schooling will be more than affordable. For those who cant afford, offer subsidies and/or vouchers.

The public ed. system is 1 of the most tragic consequences of govt control.

[Weeth]

werv,

Did you just say that government-subsidized snail mail gives lower cost to the consumer through economies of scale?

I know you think certain industries should not be left to the free market. My question is, specifically, which industries and why.. ?

[wervasdeferens]

You're right, I didn't mean they shouldn't exist, because if you have the means you have the right to purchase whatever you can afford.

What I meant is there should be a public sector alternative.

Like Harvard vs. State U, or UPS vs. USPS, there should be a public alternative for Health insurance.

Do you think most citizens could afford private education? Would eliminating govt subsidies(taxes), make private services more affordable? I think it would make them more exclusive,your thought?

[Weeth]

werv,

Why does there need to be an inefficient alternative that wastes $ and consigns Americans into generations of debt?

I can understand the desire to give the poor a break, but why does that necessitate laughably inefficient, govt-run institutions? Why not just give vouchers &/or subsidies to the poor? Answer: because govt understands it gets more power by directly controlling the institutions.

Look at how the bureaucrats raced to repeal the vouchers in D.C... it helped the poor too well.

[wervasdeferens]

Weeth,

You make good points, but one has to look at the history of these public institutions and why they came into existence in the first place.

The same as with regulations, the government intervenes when the Market is not meeting the needs of society as a whole.

The problem is that the bottom 40% of the population pays little Taxes and has little income or wealth.

So cutting Taxes to starve the beast, cuts services that 1/2 the country can't afford in the private sector.

[wervasdeferens]

Most of the "laughable government programs", came about as a result of the Great Depression.

Do you want to live in a country where 1/3 of the people have little or no education? Where disease is rampant, because of lack of access to Health Care? Where old people are starving and homeless?

We've tried laissez faire economics twice now, both times it has failed.

There's growth when first initiated,(1920's.late 80's+90's) the bubble burst both times.

Watch PBS' Frontline "The Warning"

[Weeth]

werv,

But how did the Great Depression come about? The short answer: the Fed & stupid govt fiscal policy.

The Fed was created in 1913. Coincidence? The Fed took what might be a minor recession & turned it into a 10 yr depression by artificially contracting the money supply by 1/3rd.

Then, the Roosevelt govt pursued outrageous fiscal policies—most notably, wage controls, price controls, & government-granted monopolies.

Its like burning down a house and then charging the owner for "repair".

[wervasdeferens]

Weeth,

The Fed is the problem.

They finance both sides of wars and plunge countries into debt. They control the money supply and interest rates. They crash economies and then buy up all the equity for pennies on the dollar.

But what I've also notice is that from 1918-1924ish tax rates were 70+%,led to the roaring 20's. Then in 1925 tax rate cut to 25%, led to the 1929 crash, is it a coincedence about the Tax rate?

Steady growth from WWII until 1978, taxes were 70-90%,cuts/bubbles/crash.

[Weeth]

werv,

Well, we definitely agree on the Fed.

Your other point is fair, but the growth after WWII relied heavily on exogenous economic factors (ie every1 needed our stuff).

The problem with taxes is that the top 5% pay something like 80% of federal income taxes while the bottom 50% pay ZERO. That is a recipe for demagoguery and majority tyranny.

[wervasdeferens]

I agree with you on every point.

The US once again needs to start manufacturing "stuff" the world needs and wants.

The reason the top 5% pay all of the taxes is because they have all of the wealth.

That's what got Obama the socialist tag, when he talked about wealth redistribution. But it is precisely what has to happen.

Recent policy has concentrated on the supply-side,disregarding the demand-side.

Higher wages produce higher demand, but the trend has been anti-union and easy credit.

[Weeth]

werv,

You have it the other way around. Government does not need to intervene in the free market because 40% of the population pays no income taxes. Rather, 40% of the population pays no income taxes because the government feels the need to intervene in the free market. These govt programs would never fly if every1 had to pay for them. They realize this is the only way to get away with this stuff.. through demagoguery.

And market-crippling govt regulations almost always precede takeovers.

[wervasdeferens]

Weeth,

You're a smart person, you and I just see economics differently. It's not that I haven't heard or studied your arguments before. I've read Ayn Rand's books, studied Milton Freidman, I follow Peter Schiff and VonMises Austrian economics.

I also follow politics,and there has been a concerted effort by the Conservatives, to demonize the Government,the Media and Academia.

Why? Answer: to grab all of the Wealth.

Research the historical distribution of wealth in the US,it's an eye-opener

[Weeth]

werv,

It is in every individual's interest to "grab all the wealth" (yes, that even includes all of the saints in Washington). The only difference between wealth acquired by free individuals & wealth acquired by government bureaucrats is a gun.

Bill Gates acquired his wealth by satisfying millions of people. Government has acquired its wealth by stealing from millions of people. What kind of society do you want to live in?

I guess I just prefer to own my own life, for better or for worse.

[wervasdeferens]

Nobody's griping about Bill Gates' wealth,he earned every penny by offering a product that people could choose whether to buy or not.

If my house is on Fire, I don't have a choice to shop around for the best price,and comparison shop for someone to put it out. Likewise, if I get colon cancer. If there's no choice there's no free market. condition.

Besides, where do our taxes ultimately wind up? Answer:the private sector

[Weeth]

werv,

You missed the point. The government is the one who set your house on fire. Then forced you to pay them for "repair".. and then bought your house with the money.. lol.

Look, you don't have a choice whether or not you eat or not. That is a life and death matter. This is the greatest fallacy that I hear—that necessity necessitates government control. Quite the contrary, necessity should exclude government. Its far too important to leave to government.

[wervasdeferens]

Good analogy about the house fire. LOL

[Weeth]

werv, to the point of monopolies...

What is wrong with natural monopolies?

Natural monopolies can only come into existence through exceptional innovation, efficiency, and customer satisfaction. Once they become unable to do any of those things, they lose their "monopoly" status.

...profit & "benefit to society" are not mutually exclusive ends. in fact, they are inextricably linked.

Tell me.. which industries must be trusted to the sure hand of government instead of the free market, and why?

[JAROSLAVAGINA]

i apollogize i posted the wrong link there, and can't find the post.

[JAROSLAVAGINA]

so lets nationalize anesthesiologists' jobs everywhere. i mean hell these guys only went through 8 years of college, and so many years of getting licensed, be damned if they be successful!

[srch4trth]

my wife had local anesthesia and was in surgery for 45 mins. We got a bill, just from the anesthesiologist, for $1200. Thank goodness we'd already met our $2250 deduc by then. Next year my deduc will increase to $3000, with a decrease in my premium by $20 a month. Private insurance = BIG BUSINESS!!!

[wervasdeferens]

srch4trth,

Thanks for the real world example.

I don't understand how these people justify the cost. The 8 years of college,student loan excuse doesn't quite cut it.

People don't choose to get sick. Why should they have to buy a Doctor a Mercedes Benz when they do get sick?

Bankrupting the country, just because you went to Med School? I don't understand the greed factor,but I'm a Liberal so greed and selfishness is not in my nature.

[UncommonThinker]

Just stupidity. Greed and selfishness is your exact nature. Which is why you haven't taken out student loans, gone to med school and taken it upon yourself to provide those services at a cost you think is fair. Oh no, you want other people to do the hard part for you. Am I right?

[wervasdeferens]

Well, I personally have a BBA, I own a small trucking company that is just now recovering from the Oil "Enron-type Speculation" scam of Bush/Cheney. Free market at work.

And frankly, I get tired of the worn out cliches.

If you think predatory capitalism is so wonderful, what's your position on genocide and slavery?

I take it you're fine with those things too.

Hey, the indigenous people of the world weren't innovative,they lacked drive.

[wervasdeferens]

Those who are greedy and selfish try to justify their actions, by using the human nature argument,Ayn Rand objectivism,aka bullshit..

Maybe you've heard of Maslow's hierarchy of needs. Some people stay on the bottom level regardless of the wealth and knowledge that they acquire.

Thank goodness that many move up the pyramid to become human beings.(Self-actualization)

Sadly, many stay at the bottom and call themselves Conservatives/Libertarians.

[yoshi3329]

As someone of slavery descent, let me correct you. Government intervention kept my ancestors enslaved. Politically powerful slave masters managed to foist the cost of their business on the public which kept slavery going (That's not capitalism that's socialism). Had the free market were allowed to work my ancestors would have been freed w/out a war.

Speaking of socialism, how many Eastern Europeans went hungry/died b/c of socialism/Communism? B/Millions.

I take it your ok with that?

[wervasdeferens]

yoshi3329 ,

You got it all twisted sista.

The Free Market is what seeks out cheap labor,there is still slavery today in some countries. Why? Because the governments allow it.

Without Laws,Rules and regulations, the market will do whatever it takes in order to make a profit.

.Do you really believe that the "Free Market" would pay a decent wage if they weren't forced to? Jobs have left the US in order to avoid labor and environmental laws,Unions and Taxes.

[wervasdeferens]

Without the Emancipation Proclamation and Constitutional amendments, we'd still be slaves

Slavery is abolished by Laws(government),not by the invisible hand of the free market.

The Free Market has no compassion, and how could it or should it?

[yoshi3329]

"Why? Because the governments allow it."

You just proved my point. When government get's involved it's no longer capitalism it's socialism.

[srch4trth]

wervasdeferens,

BTW, I work for an insurance company.

[wervasdeferens]

srch4trth, Health insurance?

You leech, LOL, just kidding I don't hate the players,just the game.

Life,Home and Car insurance are different from Health because one doesn't have to purchase their services.

The alternative to not having Health Insurance is death or bankruptcy,unless you're lucky or rich.But even young/healthy people have accidents and unexpected illnesses.

Health insurance should be socialized, but not the other types,imo.

[srch4trth]

wervasdeferens,

Health insurance.

[wervasdeferens]

LOL, well

"we all gotta put food on our family"- George W Bush

[liber8me]

what a load of crap, the liberarian right doesnt want to pay ANYTHING to the public sector. it was denouncing the bail outs of bush and obama

[JAROSLAVAGINA]

lol actually NOT following what the CATO institute has advised economically is whats got us in this mess.

[wervasdeferens]

You're right CATO and Libertarian principles,in general, are great when it comes to social issues.

However, laissez-faire economic policies are what got us in this mess.

Leave the FED aside for a moment, and just look what at what Gramm/Leach/Bliley caused in the financial sector.

[rios9000]

but gramm/leach/bliley was only a problem because of the massive increase in credit by the fed and massive subsidization of housing by fannie, freddie and all the other gov't programs as well as the too-big-to-fail doctrine. Basically, the gov't deregulated one side of the equation which messed things up even more. If they had deregulated both sides (risk + reward) and not pumped in so much loose credit, we wouldn't be in this mess.

[wervasdeferens]

rios9000, GLB allowed these massive mergers and allowed the mixing of investment banks with commercial banks and insurance companies.(See 1920's deja vu) add in Tax Cuts

It just gave the gamblers on Wall St. more money to gamble with and lose.

As far as lax credit, how else was Demand to meet Supply?

This was the era of supply-side economics.

Pro-CEO(Supply) and anti-worker(Demand).

People(and govt) used their home equity and credit cards to maintain their standard of living (and wars)