Also seeing America's ballooning deficit my statement "in half the countries they even pay less tax for healthcare than they do in the USA" may not be true. To be more precise I mean they have less government spending per capita simply because their systems are so much more efficient without the HMO's.
Agreed. Guess who is the best friend of HMOs in the USA - That's right - Govt. Think of it this way - when you put these giant govt bureaucracies like "Dept of Health and Human services", someone has to pay the salaries of the govt employees (which aren't frugal by any standard).
All public/socialized health care does is put a straight jacket on competition between doctors to gain customers, attracting them with better service and cheaper prices. Who suffers? The patient and the taxpayers.
"All public/socialized health care does is put a straight jacket on competition between doctors to gain customers, attracting them with better service and cheaper prices. Who suffers? The patient and the taxpayers."
Well if you say so....
Oh wait no reality has contradicted you so far on the count of health-care. The less socialized system is the crappier right now.
"Heck you could go to India and get a heart surgery for 3% of what it costs in the USA. Is that good enough proof for you" Of course it isn't. I've used that argument loads of times against people who claim the US system is efficient. But my point was the American system was shit. So that doesn't go against what I say at all. Further more Indian's GDP per capita is about 2% of what it is here so you've only managed to prove my claim about healthcare not being affordable in those countries.
Well if you are going to make up facts, then sure go ahead. The Indian health care system is more free market because the govt has not had the time or brilliance to dig into it and spread its tentacles. It will happen eventually because it is a socialist country. Till then it is a free market system.
You know what I should not have been so irresponsible in my statement I admit that. Still the Indian system is by no means free market. Maybe more free market.
lol.. and you know that the GDP is calculated correctly. Do you know that about 80% of Indians don't pay taxes? Tax evasion is rampant in India and for good reason.
Its always amuses me when people think they are so smart that they know what is happening on the other part of the world.
"lol.. and you know that the GDP is calculated correctly. Do you know that about 80% of Indians don't pay taxes?"
In the face of contradicting evidence you dismiss it. That's called cognitive dissonance.
I got my stats from the IMF website. Which as far as I know uses a whole range of variables to estimate it's statistics including however rampant tax evasion is in any particular country. It certainly isn't dependant on official government info.
Its called refuting an argument. An evidence is an unchallengeable fact. I got my knowledge by being on the ground for 25 years. And if you think IMF isn't fooled by locals - think again.. Check out how many bad loans IMF has made to Indian NGO entities. Its not even funny how easy it is to fool these international agencies.
"Which as far as I know" - that is the limitation. Try to know more, things get a whole lot of fuzz factor when they travel 20,000 miles.
"Its called refuting an argument. An evidence is an unchallengeable fact. I got my knowledge by being on the ground for 25 years. And if you think IMF isn't fooled by locals - think again.. Check out how many bad loans IMF has made to Indian NGO entities. Its not even funny how easy it is to fool these international agencies."
You didn't refute it all, dilute it at most. Anyway these facts are consistent with the world bank and CIA so I'll take their word over yours if you don't mind.
Hey take whatever you think is right. If anything - there are a ton of things westerners do not understand about the east. Look at Musharraf's example. He was the best friend and ally of the USA in Pakistan and they helped bring him down, handing control over to the democratic leaders who are much more on the side of Islamic fundamentalists. Sad, and it can only hurt the USA to keep repeating these mistakes over and over.
Well these new leaders aren't exactly Al Qaeda's best friend (or should I say Al Qaeda isn't exactly THEIR best friend).
But this really has nothing to do with our topic. If you have a better source for Indian GDP I eagerly await it. In the meantime it is beyond obvious that the Indian health care system doesn't provide as well for it's citizent as the European or even American system does. Neither is it expected to do so in such a poor country.
Man you know Indian subcontinent well. You want a better source of Indian GDP - Go to India and understand how things work there. As for beyond obvious - like I said believe what you want. Did you know that India is a poor country of rich people? (I don't expect you to get what that means.)
Did you know that Hondas, Chevys and Mercedes Benz costs twice as much as they cost as over here in the US, yet they sell like hot cakes?
You are right, that is why every single major car manufacturer has set up production facilities in India - and yet you do not see a single car in the US that with a Made in India sticker on it. You find Mexico, Canada, Germany, S.Korea, Japan and what not, even Brazil, but not from India.
Pray tell, what happens to all those cars being produced in India?
Its not your fault - its people get too smart when they get good at fooling the govt - because they must if they want to live life well.
God damn that has to be the dumbest comment I've read all day. Congrats on that. India not selling cars overseas is an achievement now? LOL!
India is a growing market. The rates at which cars like mercedes are sold in India are not comparable to the west at all however. Heck I'm not sure what you are even trying to prove here anymore.
Yes India is the utopian society and the wealthiest country in the world.. Have it your way.
Yes, it is a growing market - why would it not be? It has a ton of people that are loaded with money.
India is hardly a utopian society - but it is a classic example of the free-market forces fighting the control of socialization. Until 1984-85 - there was almost no foreign investment in India. Banking, oil, transportation and other infrastructure, all were govt owned (socialized). India opened the gates to privatization and as they hae privatized, conditions have improved a lot.
Lovely, that I picked out one sector of India which is pretty much free-market. Did I say anything else in India is or is not free market? Tell you what - It is pretty clear to me that people who know they would starve if they are paid according to their ability, are and should be scared of free-markets. If you think you will starve in a free market - be afraid all you want. Cause no force in this world has been able to kill the market force. They all have tried and they all have failed.
The Indian health care system is not 'pretty much free market' at least not by the grasping at straws definition of your average libertarian. I don't want to kill the market force, I'm not a communist. I believe in the mixed economy as a model and my belief is justified with data all around the world and history. Yours hasn't got a single shred of real world evidence for it.
Sure, every system is a mixed model. The authoritarians (not communists) try to tell people they know better and attempt to control the free market. They regulate and license in these attempts to make sure things are best they can make them. Problem is that the best authoritarians can make systems into - are no where near the best of free markets.
If the Indian healthcare system was anywhere close to the US system, people would die like flies. But they don't & India has the largest population.
Is that good enough evidence? If not, I suggest you take a trip to India and witness it yourself. What better proof than getting it directly from the source? The living conditions are horrid for a huge part of the population. The diet is bad. The weather is such that it causes floods and famines. And yet, India is still not an empty ghost land.
India has a rosy future ahead (well with the global problems maybe not). But I'll take cold hard stats over anecdotal evidence when we are dealing with very specific subjects like the affordability of health care.
Since you seem to have missed it:Either way I would love you to explain this qoute "Obviously there was money in the taxi business (probably taxi driver's unions looting the market)."
Since it doesn't make any sense. At least not in explaining the lower regulated prices.
Please explain that quote because it made no sense in the context of the post you were replying to.
Ever heard of taxpayer subsidized businesses? E.g. Farming in the USA, Metros in New York, Chicago and London? Railways in India, Power Generation in China. That explains almost all lower regulated prices - at least for business that have survived more than a few years after imposition of price regulations.
When you privatize a business, essentially your govt is disowning the responsibility to pay subsidies or cover up losses incurred due to running the business at a lower than cost of production (e.g. charge the customer $1 for a trip that costs 80 cents in gas/diesel, and 20 cents in labor and 30 cents in wear and tear of the equipment, 10 cents in insurance, etc.) If you privatize such a business, prices will jump to $1.40 from $1. What you should also see, is reduction in the general tax rate.
yes that is often the case. But not always see privatized health-care for example which is an inefficient costly mess compared to their less privatized counterparts.
show me one example of this. As far as I have seen, a free unregulated healthcare system has always been very responsive, rewarding efficiency and very inexpensive compared to govt controlled healthcare. The only thing that makes govt programs that make it seems as if its cheaper is that no one covers the cost paid for by the taxpayer. Infact, a healthy taxpayer is forced to pay for the bureaucratic mess of govt regulated healthcare, and big business -insurance and pharma benefit.
"a free unregulated healthcare... compared to govt controlled healthcare"
And where are you getting this info from? Nowhere in the real world has that happened.
What I mean is that the US system which is more free market than their other western counterparts is twice as expensive in total costs per capita than it's European systems* (in half the countries they even pay less tax for healthcare than they do in the USA) with half the doctors and beds per patient**.
What makes you think that the US system is any more free market than the european counterparts? The healthcare in europe is more or less socialized. In the US there is a socio-fascist element to the way healthcare is managed.
Check out health care in parts of the world which do not yet have govt involvement in regulation of the medical profession. HMOs are unheard of and quality of service is very very good compared to the cost and technical sophistication going into it.
"What makes you think that the US system is any more free market than the european counterparts?"
Because it is further privatized? It simply IS more free market. I love the cognitive dissonance libertarians go trough when faced with all the evidence that contradicts their theories. Really predictable.
"Check out health care in parts of the world which do not yet have govt involvement in regulation of the medical profession" those are the worst in the world. Only found in 3rd world countries.
Actually health care has been heavily regulated - and so its not a free market. Eg. you cannot go to a doctor and negotiate the cost of service, even if the doctor wants to give you service at a cheaper cost. Note that in case of dentists - they do cut you deals at cheaper rates (more than 50% off)than usual, if you are not insured. Any country that NEEDS insurance for health care is NOT a free market.
Its easy to call your misinformation as cognitive dissonance of libertarians, isn't it?
Really? Have you been to a 3rd world country? Go try it. Once you do, you will hate the way you are being ripped off in EU and USA.
Note that from a bypass surgery to common cold treatment - all are almost 10% or less of the costs in the USA. And people are actually trust the doctors with their lives. Unlike the malpractice nightmare of the USA.
Misinformation, arrogance and ignorance - all a defense to a senseless system, making rich entities like insurance richer.
But that is a false argument. The fact that 3rd world healthcare is cheap does not mean it is efficient or good. The people there still can't afford decent healthcare because to them it is NOT cheap. All it proves is that wages are lower there and to that I say DUH! Besides the healthcare is not advanced it's only good for basic procedures.
3rd world to 1st world is apples to oranges as far as costs are concerned.
"I already covered this - your assumptions about health care in the 3rd world are totally off and not true." But you failed to even attempt to prove that claim. Now you did and managed just the opposite you disproved your claim. Because heart surgery is more affordable for Americans even with the horrible inneficient system they have than it is for the people of India.
I have intentionally given you the freedom to choose which country you may investigate for their health care. I can tell you that there are free-market healthcare systems where you would pay only a tiny fraction of the cost of the European and US system and still get comparable health care.
Give me an example. And also I don't really like that definition because that does not constitute a better healthcare system. What matters is if it's citizens are able to get comparable healthcare, for a fraction of the costs. Notice the ","? Both these criteria must be met because we all know higher costs of living do not mean a poorer society but more often the opposite.
Of course you will get comparable health care for a fraction of the cost - did I say it any differently before?
Higher costs? How do you compare? % of common payscale? or in terms of finite quantities of valuable substance like gold? or should we just look at the dollar amount? Give me any measure. Yes, earnings are low in the 3rd world - but that is because they are yet to understand industrialize (thanks to their govts holding them back) and learn to use capital as it should be.
"Higher costs? How do you compare? % of common payscale? or in terms of finite quantities of valuable substance like gold?"
No simply by comparing the health-care they actually RECEIVE rather than what they could theoretically receive if they had our paychecks. Health-care is shit in those countries and not affordable for it's people.
Lol.. they actually do receive very good health care. It is funny that you assume that "their health-care is shit", when these people perform brain-surgeries, heart-transplants and all sorts of complicated surgeries, and yes common people in those countries can afford them.
Maybe you are talking about their govt spending on health care which is and I hope remains negligible.
Life expectancy is not only dependent on health care but also the kind of food the people can afford. It is well known that people in the third world cannot afford high protein diet. The diet is built of carbs, sugars and fats, which are necessary for working but not good for replenishing body wear and tear.
Do note that the people who can afford proper diet do live significantly longer than others.
Then there is workplace deaths, accidents and wars, riots and crimes.
We privatized taxis in Amsterdam. Prices actually went up because of sunk costs. Still I have nothing against taxi privatization (and maybe some deregulation, but not when it comes to mileage at least not yet). Still libertarianism is full of shit.
why does it always go back to fearing other people. it seems like such a feminine issue. why is it people assume that it's going to be some gun-toting crack-smoking cannibal that is driving you home or cutting your grass. bad people in are in a gross minority and being picked up by a murderer rapist driving a taxi is about as likely as being in a car wreck 150 times.
What the hell kind of stupid comment is that anyway. Do you think you are going to convince anyone of your argument because you declare it 'more manly'? Really lame.
"Its pretty common for union workers to employ these sort of tactics to scare the uniformed public. Nice try, but only fools fall for it."
What the hell are you talking about. That wasn't a response to you did you miss the @thegreatpadaxes? I was qouting his rediculous lines nothing to do with unions.
I noticed all that. And I saw your attempt to refute his argument by pointing out to the weakest part of his statement. Have you never heard of unions claiming how they provide quality service, while those that may replace them will not?
when the taxi industry was deregulated in ireland fares went up as did rapes taxi drivers had to find 2nd jobs as they were too many taxis and not enough customers a tired driver is worse then a drunk driver but no body seem to care as local councils recieved millions in licence fees and just kept pumping taxi licences out to every one
be very careful of deregulation and look to ireland and see what happened.or check TAXI WATERFORD [you tube]
were there other jobs in Ireland? If there were other jobs, why would people continue to drive taxis..In fact the problem was NOT that there were too many drivers or even drunk drivers. The problem was that city was restricting the number of taxi ranks in the prime areas. Obviously there was money in the taxi business (probably taxi driver's unions looting the market). No wonder the unionized drivers were complaining about it - even threatening authorities to try and keep competition out.
"were there other jobs in Ireland? If there were other jobs, why would people continue to drive taxis.."
Sunk costs (they've already made their investment in the car).
Same thing happened here in the Netherlands. Though the issue may be the deregulation themselves rather than the free market (just speculating here). If you have a sudden scrap in regulations it's very possible the market gets flooded like that and makes a bad estimate. Also your critique appears to be mere speculation as well.
So if you invest in something you should gain it back? Of course not. If you invest in something that is not needed anymore, either disinvest and move to a different job. Yes, losses occur - think of that next time you yell and scream at the owners of businesses for trying to earn a profit. Why should the customer pay for the cab owner's mistake, same as you should not have to pay for any other business?
Of course I am speculating based on my observations elsewhere - I don't live in Ireland.
Well you certainly did cloud your speculation with words insinuating fact like 'obviously' I also loved your little pathetic jab at unions (which of course was clear speculation).
Either way sunk cost are risk for the business that push up prices. But like I said I'm speculating as well. Normally a flood in supply would lead to lower prices which makes these examples quite interesting. Not interesting enough for me to be an expert about them though.
Either way I would love you to explain this qoute "Obviously there was money in the taxi business (probably taxi driver's unions looting the market)."
Since it doesn't make any sense. At least not in explaining the lower regulated prices.
Do business go violent forcing mob rule on people when they are likely to suffer losses, just like these taxi cab drivers did. Ever hear of a business declaring a "strike" because it is facing losses?
Do business go violent forcing mob rule on people when they are likely to suffer losses, just like these taxi cab drivers did. Ever hear of a business declaring a "strike" because it is facing losses?"
Now you are just talking to yourself. Read the comments you are replying to prices ROSE!
Is taxi cab driver the least paid job in Amsterdam - post price increase?
Unless your answer to the first question is zero OR the answer to the second question is YES - what you are claim has other things you are not disclosing here.
What were the regulations affecting the entry of new taxi cab drivers in the business? e.g. Were there restrictions on the total number of taxis in the city? Do you have to be a member of the taxi driver's union?
I don't know the answer to all these questions. In fact like I said is I am not an expert on this case. If you want to know the unemployment rate in the Netherlands is 2.7% less than half that in the USA. But still it's up to you to explain the two pieces of contradicting evidence to your theory. I don't have to do yout work for you.
Alright, so why are those 2.7% of unemployed not taking taxi driving as a job? There are two sides to the puzzle - taxpayer subsidized businesses are regulated into lower prices, because all those people paying taxes are paying for your service usage. Another reason why unregulated prices rise is if govt restricts who can enter the business. If I am the only one selling oranges, I can charge 5 times the market rate.
i don't have nothin' to complain about then. here it cost $60 bucks (2004). it also costs the nightly rent and if wrecked, it costs the 20% of the cost that the insurance doesn't pay. that ain't jack in comparison!
but even i don't think i care too much for his political whining neither. there would be lawsuits and chaos all over if cabbies had the freedom to drive a family of four drunk or stoned as wrecklessly and unprofessionally as an unpaid chauffeur like a friend.
Just about every third world country has an unregulated, privately operated, jitney system--owned and operated by thousands of independent individuals. As a result, the competition provides far better service at far lower prices.
As a contrast, Paul Harvey just announced that a NYC taxi license now costs $650,000 -- two-thirds of a million dollars. How many people would the taxi have to rip off just to pay for the license?????
Also seeing America's ballooning deficit my statement "in half the countries they even pay less tax for healthcare than they do in the USA" may not be true. To be more precise I mean they have less government spending per capita simply because their systems are so much more efficient without the HMO's.
jpbalkenende 3 years ago
Agreed. Guess who is the best friend of HMOs in the USA - That's right - Govt. Think of it this way - when you put these giant govt bureaucracies like "Dept of Health and Human services", someone has to pay the salaries of the govt employees (which aren't frugal by any standard).
All public/socialized health care does is put a straight jacket on competition between doctors to gain customers, attracting them with better service and cheaper prices. Who suffers? The patient and the taxpayers.
utubehayter 3 years ago
"All public/socialized health care does is put a straight jacket on competition between doctors to gain customers, attracting them with better service and cheaper prices. Who suffers? The patient and the taxpayers."
Well if you say so....
Oh wait no reality has contradicted you so far on the count of health-care. The less socialized system is the crappier right now.
jpbalkenende 3 years ago
And which one is that?
Heck you could go to India and get a heart surgery for 3% of what it costs in the USA. Is that good enough proof for you?
utubehayter 3 years ago
"Heck you could go to India and get a heart surgery for 3% of what it costs in the USA. Is that good enough proof for you" Of course it isn't. I've used that argument loads of times against people who claim the US system is efficient. But my point was the American system was shit. So that doesn't go against what I say at all. Further more Indian's GDP per capita is about 2% of what it is here so you've only managed to prove my claim about healthcare not being affordable in those countries.
jpbalkenende 3 years ago
Lastly the Indian system isn't more free market than the American system. It's still shit though because it is a 3rd world country.
jpbalkenende 3 years ago
Well if you are going to make up facts, then sure go ahead. The Indian health care system is more free market because the govt has not had the time or brilliance to dig into it and spread its tentacles. It will happen eventually because it is a socialist country. Till then it is a free market system.
utubehayter 3 years ago
You know what I should not have been so irresponsible in my statement I admit that. Still the Indian system is by no means free market. Maybe more free market.
jpbalkenende 3 years ago
lol.. and you know that the GDP is calculated correctly. Do you know that about 80% of Indians don't pay taxes? Tax evasion is rampant in India and for good reason.
Its always amuses me when people think they are so smart that they know what is happening on the other part of the world.
utubehayter 3 years ago
"lol.. and you know that the GDP is calculated correctly. Do you know that about 80% of Indians don't pay taxes?"
In the face of contradicting evidence you dismiss it. That's called cognitive dissonance.
I got my stats from the IMF website. Which as far as I know uses a whole range of variables to estimate it's statistics including however rampant tax evasion is in any particular country. It certainly isn't dependant on official government info.
jpbalkenende 3 years ago
Its called refuting an argument. An evidence is an unchallengeable fact. I got my knowledge by being on the ground for 25 years. And if you think IMF isn't fooled by locals - think again.. Check out how many bad loans IMF has made to Indian NGO entities. Its not even funny how easy it is to fool these international agencies.
"Which as far as I know" - that is the limitation. Try to know more, things get a whole lot of fuzz factor when they travel 20,000 miles.
utubehayter 3 years ago
"Its called refuting an argument. An evidence is an unchallengeable fact. I got my knowledge by being on the ground for 25 years. And if you think IMF isn't fooled by locals - think again.. Check out how many bad loans IMF has made to Indian NGO entities. Its not even funny how easy it is to fool these international agencies."
You didn't refute it all, dilute it at most. Anyway these facts are consistent with the world bank and CIA so I'll take their word over yours if you don't mind.
jpbalkenende 3 years ago
Hey take whatever you think is right. If anything - there are a ton of things westerners do not understand about the east. Look at Musharraf's example. He was the best friend and ally of the USA in Pakistan and they helped bring him down, handing control over to the democratic leaders who are much more on the side of Islamic fundamentalists. Sad, and it can only hurt the USA to keep repeating these mistakes over and over.
utubehayter 3 years ago
Well these new leaders aren't exactly Al Qaeda's best friend (or should I say Al Qaeda isn't exactly THEIR best friend).
But this really has nothing to do with our topic. If you have a better source for Indian GDP I eagerly await it. In the meantime it is beyond obvious that the Indian health care system doesn't provide as well for it's citizent as the European or even American system does. Neither is it expected to do so in such a poor country.
jpbalkenende 3 years ago
Man you know Indian subcontinent well. You want a better source of Indian GDP - Go to India and understand how things work there. As for beyond obvious - like I said believe what you want. Did you know that India is a poor country of rich people? (I don't expect you to get what that means.)
Did you know that Hondas, Chevys and Mercedes Benz costs twice as much as they cost as over here in the US, yet they sell like hot cakes?
utubehayter 3 years ago
Like hot cakes you say? Well it's hard to counter such hard hitting numbers and facts. lol
jpbalkenende 3 years ago
You are right, that is why every single major car manufacturer has set up production facilities in India - and yet you do not see a single car in the US that with a Made in India sticker on it. You find Mexico, Canada, Germany, S.Korea, Japan and what not, even Brazil, but not from India.
Pray tell, what happens to all those cars being produced in India?
Its not your fault - its people get too smart when they get good at fooling the govt - because they must if they want to live life well.
utubehayter 3 years ago
@utube
God damn that has to be the dumbest comment I've read all day. Congrats on that. India not selling cars overseas is an achievement now? LOL!
India is a growing market. The rates at which cars like mercedes are sold in India are not comparable to the west at all however. Heck I'm not sure what you are even trying to prove here anymore.
Yes India is the utopian society and the wealthiest country in the world.. Have it your way.
jpbalkenende 3 years ago
Yes, it is a growing market - why would it not be? It has a ton of people that are loaded with money.
India is hardly a utopian society - but it is a classic example of the free-market forces fighting the control of socialization. Until 1984-85 - there was almost no foreign investment in India. Banking, oil, transportation and other infrastructure, all were govt owned (socialized). India opened the gates to privatization and as they hae privatized, conditions have improved a lot.
utubehayter 3 years ago
Lovely, that I picked out one sector of India which is pretty much free-market. Did I say anything else in India is or is not free market? Tell you what - It is pretty clear to me that people who know they would starve if they are paid according to their ability, are and should be scared of free-markets. If you think you will starve in a free market - be afraid all you want. Cause no force in this world has been able to kill the market force. They all have tried and they all have failed.
utubehayter 3 years ago
The Indian health care system is not 'pretty much free market' at least not by the grasping at straws definition of your average libertarian. I don't want to kill the market force, I'm not a communist. I believe in the mixed economy as a model and my belief is justified with data all around the world and history. Yours hasn't got a single shred of real world evidence for it.
jpbalkenende 3 years ago
Sure, every system is a mixed model. The authoritarians (not communists) try to tell people they know better and attempt to control the free market. They regulate and license in these attempts to make sure things are best they can make them. Problem is that the best authoritarians can make systems into - are no where near the best of free markets.
If the Indian healthcare system was anywhere close to the US system, people would die like flies. But they don't & India has the largest population.
utubehayter 3 years ago
Is that good enough evidence? If not, I suggest you take a trip to India and witness it yourself. What better proof than getting it directly from the source? The living conditions are horrid for a huge part of the population. The diet is bad. The weather is such that it causes floods and famines. And yet, India is still not an empty ghost land.
utubehayter 3 years ago
India has a rosy future ahead (well with the global problems maybe not). But I'll take cold hard stats over anecdotal evidence when we are dealing with very specific subjects like the affordability of health care.
jpbalkenende 3 years ago
Since you seem to have missed it:Either way I would love you to explain this qoute "Obviously there was money in the taxi business (probably taxi driver's unions looting the market)."
Since it doesn't make any sense. At least not in explaining the lower regulated prices.
Please explain that quote because it made no sense in the context of the post you were replying to.
jpbalkenende 3 years ago
Ever heard of taxpayer subsidized businesses? E.g. Farming in the USA, Metros in New York, Chicago and London? Railways in India, Power Generation in China. That explains almost all lower regulated prices - at least for business that have survived more than a few years after imposition of price regulations.
utubehayter 3 years ago
@utubhayter
Pretty much everything is tax subsidized to some extend. Still that could explain it but I don't think they changed the subsidies.
jpbalkenende 3 years ago
When you privatize a business, essentially your govt is disowning the responsibility to pay subsidies or cover up losses incurred due to running the business at a lower than cost of production (e.g. charge the customer $1 for a trip that costs 80 cents in gas/diesel, and 20 cents in labor and 30 cents in wear and tear of the equipment, 10 cents in insurance, etc.) If you privatize such a business, prices will jump to $1.40 from $1. What you should also see, is reduction in the general tax rate.
utubehayter 3 years ago
@utuehayter
yes that is often the case. But not always see privatized health-care for example which is an inefficient costly mess compared to their less privatized counterparts.
jpbalkenende 3 years ago
show me one example of this. As far as I have seen, a free unregulated healthcare system has always been very responsive, rewarding efficiency and very inexpensive compared to govt controlled healthcare. The only thing that makes govt programs that make it seems as if its cheaper is that no one covers the cost paid for by the taxpayer. Infact, a healthy taxpayer is forced to pay for the bureaucratic mess of govt regulated healthcare, and big business -insurance and pharma benefit.
utubehayter 3 years ago
@utubehayter
"a free unregulated healthcare... compared to govt controlled healthcare"
And where are you getting this info from? Nowhere in the real world has that happened.
What I mean is that the US system which is more free market than their other western counterparts is twice as expensive in total costs per capita than it's European systems* (in half the countries they even pay less tax for healthcare than they do in the USA) with half the doctors and beds per patient**.
*WHO
**Forbes
jpbalkenende 3 years ago
"than THE European systems" I mean. Wanted to say "it's European counterparts" but that did not fit.
jpbalkenende 3 years ago
What makes you think that the US system is any more free market than the european counterparts? The healthcare in europe is more or less socialized. In the US there is a socio-fascist element to the way healthcare is managed.
Check out health care in parts of the world which do not yet have govt involvement in regulation of the medical profession. HMOs are unheard of and quality of service is very very good compared to the cost and technical sophistication going into it.
utubehayter 3 years ago
"What makes you think that the US system is any more free market than the european counterparts?"
Because it is further privatized? It simply IS more free market. I love the cognitive dissonance libertarians go trough when faced with all the evidence that contradicts their theories. Really predictable.
"Check out health care in parts of the world which do not yet have govt involvement in regulation of the medical profession" those are the worst in the world. Only found in 3rd world countries.
jpbalkenende 3 years ago
Actually health care has been heavily regulated - and so its not a free market. Eg. you cannot go to a doctor and negotiate the cost of service, even if the doctor wants to give you service at a cheaper cost. Note that in case of dentists - they do cut you deals at cheaper rates (more than 50% off)than usual, if you are not insured. Any country that NEEDS insurance for health care is NOT a free market.
Its easy to call your misinformation as cognitive dissonance of libertarians, isn't it?
utubehayter 3 years ago
Really? Have you been to a 3rd world country? Go try it. Once you do, you will hate the way you are being ripped off in EU and USA.
Note that from a bypass surgery to common cold treatment - all are almost 10% or less of the costs in the USA. And people are actually trust the doctors with their lives. Unlike the malpractice nightmare of the USA.
Misinformation, arrogance and ignorance - all a defense to a senseless system, making rich entities like insurance richer.
utubehayter 3 years ago
@utubehayter
But that is a false argument. The fact that 3rd world healthcare is cheap does not mean it is efficient or good. The people there still can't afford decent healthcare because to them it is NOT cheap. All it proves is that wages are lower there and to that I say DUH! Besides the healthcare is not advanced it's only good for basic procedures.
3rd world to 1st world is apples to oranges as far as costs are concerned.
jpbalkenende 3 years ago
*as far a NOMINAL costs are concerned.
jpbalkenende 3 years ago
I already covered this - your assumptions about health care in the 3rd world are totally off and not true.
utubehayter 3 years ago
"I already covered this - your assumptions about health care in the 3rd world are totally off and not true." But you failed to even attempt to prove that claim. Now you did and managed just the opposite you disproved your claim. Because heart surgery is more affordable for Americans even with the horrible inneficient system they have than it is for the people of India.
jpbalkenende 3 years ago
I have intentionally given you the freedom to choose which country you may investigate for their health care. I can tell you that there are free-market healthcare systems where you would pay only a tiny fraction of the cost of the European and US system and still get comparable health care.
utubehayter 3 years ago
@utubehayter
Give me an example. And also I don't really like that definition because that does not constitute a better healthcare system. What matters is if it's citizens are able to get comparable healthcare, for a fraction of the costs. Notice the ","? Both these criteria must be met because we all know higher costs of living do not mean a poorer society but more often the opposite.
jpbalkenende 3 years ago
Of course you will get comparable health care for a fraction of the cost - did I say it any differently before?
Higher costs? How do you compare? % of common payscale? or in terms of finite quantities of valuable substance like gold? or should we just look at the dollar amount? Give me any measure. Yes, earnings are low in the 3rd world - but that is because they are yet to understand industrialize (thanks to their govts holding them back) and learn to use capital as it should be.
utubehayter 3 years ago
"Higher costs? How do you compare? % of common payscale? or in terms of finite quantities of valuable substance like gold?"
No simply by comparing the health-care they actually RECEIVE rather than what they could theoretically receive if they had our paychecks. Health-care is shit in those countries and not affordable for it's people.
jpbalkenende 3 years ago
Lol.. they actually do receive very good health care. It is funny that you assume that "their health-care is shit", when these people perform brain-surgeries, heart-transplants and all sorts of complicated surgeries, and yes common people in those countries can afford them.
Maybe you are talking about their govt spending on health care which is and I hope remains negligible.
utubehayter 3 years ago
@utubehayter
Fine.. Then give me your 3rd world example and also include the life expectancy over there just so we know.
Please enlighten me if what you say is true then I would love to know.
jpbalkenende 3 years ago
Life expectancy is not only dependent on health care but also the kind of food the people can afford. It is well known that people in the third world cannot afford high protein diet. The diet is built of carbs, sugars and fats, which are necessary for working but not good for replenishing body wear and tear.
Do note that the people who can afford proper diet do live significantly longer than others.
Then there is workplace deaths, accidents and wars, riots and crimes.
utubehayter 3 years ago
We privatized taxis in Amsterdam. Prices actually went up because of sunk costs. Still I have nothing against taxi privatization (and maybe some deregulation, but not when it comes to mileage at least not yet). Still libertarianism is full of shit.
jpbalkenende 3 years ago
why does it always go back to fearing other people. it seems like such a feminine issue. why is it people assume that it's going to be some gun-toting crack-smoking cannibal that is driving you home or cutting your grass. bad people in are in a gross minority and being picked up by a murderer rapist driving a taxi is about as likely as being in a car wreck 150 times.
thegreatpadaxes 3 years ago
@thegreatpadaxes
"it seems like such a feminine issue."
What the hell kind of stupid comment is that anyway. Do you think you are going to convince anyone of your argument because you declare it 'more manly'? Really lame.
jpbalkenende 3 years ago
its pretty common for union workers to employ these sort of tactics to scare the uniformed public. Nice try, but only fools fall for it.
utubehayter 3 years ago
"Its pretty common for union workers to employ these sort of tactics to scare the uniformed public. Nice try, but only fools fall for it."
What the hell are you talking about. That wasn't a response to you did you miss the @thegreatpadaxes? I was qouting his rediculous lines nothing to do with unions.
jpbalkenende 3 years ago
I noticed all that. And I saw your attempt to refute his argument by pointing out to the weakest part of his statement. Have you never heard of unions claiming how they provide quality service, while those that may replace them will not?
utubehayter 3 years ago
@utubehayer
"I noticed all that..."
Then you read to much into my message. I was irked by that ridiculous line that's all.
jpbalkenende 3 years ago
hey all i'm saying is i don't have a lot of guy friends who fear for their lives everytime they meet someone new. i'm willing to take my chances.
thegreatpadaxes 3 years ago
free markets!
Jeust0999 3 years ago
This guy is so right! And sort of hot...
gsilva007 3 years ago
when the taxi industry was deregulated in ireland fares went up as did rapes taxi drivers had to find 2nd jobs as they were too many taxis and not enough customers a tired driver is worse then a drunk driver but no body seem to care as local councils recieved millions in licence fees and just kept pumping taxi licences out to every one
be very careful of deregulation and look to ireland and see what happened.or check TAXI WATERFORD [you tube]
honda257912 3 years ago
were there other jobs in Ireland? If there were other jobs, why would people continue to drive taxis..In fact the problem was NOT that there were too many drivers or even drunk drivers. The problem was that city was restricting the number of taxi ranks in the prime areas. Obviously there was money in the taxi business (probably taxi driver's unions looting the market). No wonder the unionized drivers were complaining about it - even threatening authorities to try and keep competition out.
utubehayter 3 years ago
"were there other jobs in Ireland? If there were other jobs, why would people continue to drive taxis.."
Sunk costs (they've already made their investment in the car).
Same thing happened here in the Netherlands. Though the issue may be the deregulation themselves rather than the free market (just speculating here). If you have a sudden scrap in regulations it's very possible the market gets flooded like that and makes a bad estimate. Also your critique appears to be mere speculation as well.
jpbalkenende 3 years ago
So if you invest in something you should gain it back? Of course not. If you invest in something that is not needed anymore, either disinvest and move to a different job. Yes, losses occur - think of that next time you yell and scream at the owners of businesses for trying to earn a profit. Why should the customer pay for the cab owner's mistake, same as you should not have to pay for any other business?
Of course I am speculating based on my observations elsewhere - I don't live in Ireland.
utubehayter 3 years ago
Well you certainly did cloud your speculation with words insinuating fact like 'obviously' I also loved your little pathetic jab at unions (which of course was clear speculation).
Either way sunk cost are risk for the business that push up prices. But like I said I'm speculating as well. Normally a flood in supply would lead to lower prices which makes these examples quite interesting. Not interesting enough for me to be an expert about them though.
jpbalkenende 3 years ago
Either way I would love you to explain this qoute "Obviously there was money in the taxi business (probably taxi driver's unions looting the market)."
Since it doesn't make any sense. At least not in explaining the lower regulated prices.
jpbalkenende 3 years ago
What is wrong with lower prices?
Do business go violent forcing mob rule on people when they are likely to suffer losses, just like these taxi cab drivers did. Ever hear of a business declaring a "strike" because it is facing losses?
utubehayter 3 years ago
"What is wrong with lower prices?
Do business go violent forcing mob rule on people when they are likely to suffer losses, just like these taxi cab drivers did. Ever hear of a business declaring a "strike" because it is facing losses?"
Now you are just talking to yourself. Read the comments you are replying to prices ROSE!
jpbalkenende 3 years ago
What is the unemployment rate in Amsterdam?
Is taxi cab driver the least paid job in Amsterdam - post price increase?
Unless your answer to the first question is zero OR the answer to the second question is YES - what you are claim has other things you are not disclosing here.
What were the regulations affecting the entry of new taxi cab drivers in the business? e.g. Were there restrictions on the total number of taxis in the city? Do you have to be a member of the taxi driver's union?
utubehayter 3 years ago
I don't know the answer to all these questions. In fact like I said is I am not an expert on this case. If you want to know the unemployment rate in the Netherlands is 2.7% less than half that in the USA. But still it's up to you to explain the two pieces of contradicting evidence to your theory. I don't have to do yout work for you.
jpbalkenende 3 years ago
Alright, so why are those 2.7% of unemployed not taking taxi driving as a job? There are two sides to the puzzle - taxpayer subsidized businesses are regulated into lower prices, because all those people paying taxes are paying for your service usage. Another reason why unregulated prices rise is if govt restricts who can enter the business. If I am the only one selling oranges, I can charge 5 times the market rate.
The US is not a freemarket though
utubehayter 3 years ago
"The US is not a freemarket though "
Nothing is so all that proves is free markets have never 'worked'.
And are you reading? Those 2.7% of unemployed are not taking tax driving as a job because the market is already FLOODED!
jpbalkenende 3 years ago
*taxI driving
LOL was that a freudian slip you wonder ;)
jpbalkenende 3 years ago
Libertarians are the best party. The majority of Americans don't even realize they are one. This guys proves it on a idea as dumb as taxis.
baser11 4 years ago
Weird guy, but GREAT ideas!
DeAnte85 4 years ago
i don't have nothin' to complain about then. here it cost $60 bucks (2004). it also costs the nightly rent and if wrecked, it costs the 20% of the cost that the insurance doesn't pay. that ain't jack in comparison!
but even i don't think i care too much for his political whining neither. there would be lawsuits and chaos all over if cabbies had the freedom to drive a family of four drunk or stoned as wrecklessly and unprofessionally as an unpaid chauffeur like a friend.
agsaunders 4 years ago
Just about every third world country has an unregulated, privately operated, jitney system--owned and operated by thousands of independent individuals. As a result, the competition provides far better service at far lower prices.
As a contrast, Paul Harvey just announced that a NYC taxi license now costs $650,000 -- two-thirds of a million dollars. How many people would the taxi have to rip off just to pay for the license?????
ronpaulvoter 4 years ago
There is a market set price on industries but only dependent on preferences. This guy is right! Government kills!
shanklinmike 5 years ago