Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[DJ]

I don't get why you automatically assume that health care has to be expensive

Because it takes hundreds of manhours of work by highly skilled people who have to recoup the cost of their very expensive education, and because healthcare has virtually zero price elasticity so every prudent businessman will push the price to the skies.

[Leafsnail]

You don't need a government to stop that. People can do a lot more then they think, but again, they expect the government to solve their problems.

So, what exactly do you suggest?

Bear in mind that terminally ill patients probably can't boycott necessary drugs.

[Glowcat]

I don't get why you automatically assume that health care has to be expensive, while that is mostly a product of having mandatory health care, cartels, no incentive to drop prices and a continuing push for more expensive and less effective medicines from the pharmaceutical companies.


Also, why would there be an income drop in such a society?

Mandatory Health Care is a recent development in the USA. Costs have been pretty high before then.

Everything else you mentioned is what happens as a consequence of profit-driven Capitalism with no restraints. Isn't that what you're arguing for?

Edit for more:

You don't need a government to stop that. People can do a lot more then they think, but again, they expect the government to solve their problems instead of choosing the cheapest provider and addressing cartels. Laisez-faire governments do enforce the law (and since that's pretty much all they do they're expected to do it more effectively then the laughable excuse for a "police" we have now), and cartels will still be illegal.

So people have the time to research and constantly watchdog for every possible unethical practice while working to keep them and their family both alive and educated with no social support and also overcome the expensive propaganda machines their opposition will purchase? Yes, I can totally see that working. It's not like people are constantly being duped by funded misinformation campaigns today... no sir, that's just a liberal myth.

[Virex]

I propose perfect freedom to operate within a broad limit of tightly enforced laws. The current laws are often not enforced at all which is the main reason why we get a kind of rampant corporatism that has nothing to do whatsoever with proper capitalism. Take for example cartels. Currently, companies are essentially free to own 90% of the market if they bribe the right people. For a healthy economy, I believe no company should own more then 15% or maybe 25% of the market at any moment. If there's no choice, there can be no market.

You don't need a government to stop that. People can do a lot more then they think, but again, they expect the government to solve their problems.

So, what exactly do you suggest?

Bear in mind that terminally ill patients probably can't boycott necessary drugs.

You're once again thinking reactively. First thing people need to learn is to be proactive and that's exactly why state-sponsored "safety nets" are so bad. they are reactively and provide perfect security, meaning that people assume they can afford to be reactive as well.


In this case, boycotting drugs is of course not really possible. What is possible, however, is to work together with companies. If there is sufficient competition, as there should be for a healthy capitalist market, then it is quite easy for a provider to strike deals with the producer so they can get the expensive deals cheaply in exchange for a slight raise on the cheaper drugs. This can then be used as an incentive for other, sensible, people to affiliate themselves with that provider. Of course there will always be those who are too short-sighted to prepare for such a situation, I'll give you that. But you can probably guess my response to that...

[DJ]

So I can't run my business as I see fit? To me that sounds more restrictive on my rights than taking a small portion of my profits and using it to fund public services.

[Virex]

A laisez-faire government also wouldn't allow you to shoot someone and I haven't heard you about that yet. There are some basic rules needed for a society to operate and our current society doesn't adhere to most of those economic rules. That's also what caused the recent crisis. The economic laws of our society are rotten to the core.

[Leafsnail]

You're once again thinking reactively. First thing people need to learn is to be proactive and that's exactly why state-sponsored "safety nets" are so bad. they are reactively and provide perfect security, meaning that people assume they can afford to be reactive as well.


In this case, boycotting drugs is of course not really possible. What is possible, however, is to work together with companies. If there is sufficient competition, as there should be for a healthy capitalist market, then it is quite easy for a provider to strike deals with the producer so they can get the expensive deals cheaply in exchange for a slight raise on the cheaper drugs. This can then be used as an incentive for other, sensible, people to affiliate themselves with that provider. Of course there will always be those who are too short-sighted to prepare for such a situation, I'll give you that. But you can probably guess my response to that...

I have no idea what you're talking about.

That's not just a "longsighted" solution.  It just plain doesn't work.

You're proposing that we magically lower the prices on some drugs in return for price gouging on the cheaper ones.  Well... how?  Who exactly is gonna broker such a deal?  Why?  How could it possibly be enforced?  Has this ever happened in any other form?

And "sufficient competition" is bull.  If I have some specific diseases, I need a specific drug.  Unless you get rid of patents for drugs (and then, why would companies develop anything?) there will be no competition on a fair few of them.

[Glowcat]

A laisez-faire government also wouldn't allow you to shoot someone and I haven't heard you about that yet. There are some basic rules needed for a society to operate and our current society doesn't adhere to most of those economic rules. That's also what caused the recent crisis. The economic laws of our society are rotten to the core.

Which faulty economic laws led to the recent crisis that didn't involve a lack of regulation?

[Virex]

Not enforcing existing rules, or even economy 101. Banks were completely unwilling and in some cases also unable to provide proper insight into their products and the associated risks. A healthy economic legislation would have enforced a lot more openness and accuracy about this because a market can't work with poor information about the products. That would've made it clear to people that the risks of many projects were unacceptably high and therefor would've given an advantage to banks that chose to go with safer methods. Or at least it would've been if people didn't expect the government to pay up in case something went wrong.

You're once again thinking reactively. First thing people need to learn is to be proactive and that's exactly why state-sponsored "safety nets" are so bad. they are reactively and provide perfect security, meaning that people assume they can afford to be reactive as well.


In this case, boycotting drugs is of course not really possible. What is possible, however, is to work together with companies. If there is sufficient competition, as there should be for a healthy capitalist market, then it is quite easy for a provider to strike deals with the producer so they can get the expensive deals cheaply in exchange for a slight raise on the cheaper drugs. This can then be used as an incentive for other, sensible, people to affiliate themselves with that provider. Of course there will always be those who are too short-sighted to prepare for such a situation, I'll give you that. But you can probably guess my response to that...

I have no idea what you're talking about.

That's not just a "longsighted" solution.  It just plain doesn't work.

You're proposing that we magically lower the prices on some drugs in return for price gouging on the cheaper ones.  Well... how?  Who exactly is gonna broker such a deal?  Why?  How could it possibly be enforced?  Has this ever happened in any other form?

And "sufficient competition" is bull.  If I have some specific diseases, I need a specific drug.  Unless you get rid of patents for drugs (and then, why would companies develop anything?) there will be no competition on a fair few of them.

Vendors, hospitals and doctors will be the ones making the deals. They have to bind customers, just like any other vendor and one very good way to do that is to provide premiums on important drugs. If you can supply a hospital with an expensive drug for a reasonable price as part of a package deal, they'll be inclined to go with you, even if some other drugs are slightly more expensive. This for example also happens with food. restaurants often offer food with next to no profit margin and recoup the costs with drinks. Nobody needs to enforce it, because sensible people and I assume the majority of people will get some sense when they have to care for themselves, will want to have some security as to being able to afford expensive drugs. The things will manage themselves.


And I was indeed suggesting getting rid of patents. They kill competition. It's also false that this will make it so that companies stop developing drugs, because there are always better drugs to be made. Instead they will bundle their research powers in combined projects so they can spread the load and it becomes easier to recoup costs. This has the added benefit of faster spread of knowledge and better overall drugs. Furthermore, since companies will have to compete on drug quality and prices, those will improve too. There won't be any more replacement drugs for drugs that are older then 20 years as well, which should mean better drugs and less side effects.

[Glowcat]

Not enforcing existing rules, or even economy 101. Banks were completely unwilling and in some cases also unable to provide proper insight into their products and the associated risks. A healthy economic legislation would have enforced a lot more openness and accuracy about this because a market can't work with poor information about the products. That would've made it clear to people that the risks of many projects were unacceptably high and therefor would've given an advantage to banks that chose to go with safer methods. Or at least it would've been if people didn't expect the government to pay up in case something went wrong.

In other words, you would prefer if the government stepped in and actively provided stability to the market. That isn't what Free-Market Capitalism is about.

Banks wouldn't take such risks if the government attached some serious strings to any benefit it dolled out. Failing to properly disincentivize them from their actions is blatant Corporatism and an example of bad government. If the banks were too big to fail without taking everyone else down with them then either they needed to pay up for their mistakes or should be broken down so that they wouldn't threaten the whole economy whenever they screwed up.

[Gantolandon]

I don't get why you automatically assume that health care has to be expensive, while that is mostly a product of having mandatory health care, cartels, no incentive to drop prices and a continuing push for more expensive and less effective medicines from the pharmaceutical companies.

Because no sane man will try to bargain and seek for a better price when his life is at stake. Seriously, just look at the "alternative medicine" business and there is great chance that you'll see some frauds offering worthless therapies to terminally ill people at huge prices.

Also, why would there be an income drop in such a society?

No minimum wage. Employers firing their workers as they see fit - which means they can impose lower payment on them. No worker rights, meaning longer work day and/or mandatory unpaid overtime.

You're once again thinking reactively. First thing people need to learn is to be proactive and that's exactly why state-sponsored "safety nets" are so bad. they are reactively and provide perfect security, meaning that people assume they can afford to be reactive as well.

How the fuck one would be proactive while being terminally ill?

I propose perfect freedom to operate within a broad limit of tightly enforced laws. The current laws are often not enforced at all which is the main reason why we get a kind of rampant corporatism that has nothing to do whatsoever with proper capitalism. Take for example cartels. Currently, companies are essentially free to own 90% of the market if they bribe the right people. For a healthy economy, I believe no company should own more then 15% or maybe 25% of the market at any moment. If there's no choice, there can be no market.

Who would enforce this? The government? Why isn't it doing this now?

Not enforcing existing rules, or even economy 101. Banks were completely unwilling and in some cases also unable to provide proper insight into their products and the associated risks. A healthy economic legislation would have enforced a lot more openness and accuracy about this because a market can't work with poor information about the products. That would've made it clear to people that the risks of many projects were unacceptably high and therefor would've given an advantage to banks that chose to go with safer methods.

Market does work on poor information about the product. What is an advertisement if not trying to raise the value of the product in the eyes of the potential buyer?

All right, let's assume this get's enforced... again, who does it? Government? Why isn't it doing this right now?

Vendors, hospitals and doctors will be the ones making the deals. They have to bind customers, just like any other vendor and one very good way to do that is to provide premiums on important drugs. If you can supply a hospital with an expensive drug for a reasonable price as part of a package deal, they'll be inclined to go with you, even if some other drugs are slightly more expensive. This for example also happens with food. restaurants often offer food with next to no profit margin and recoup the costs with drinks.

Yeah, comparing hospitals to restaurants is the way to go...

For example, if I don't want to go to a restaurant, I can make something to eat by myself or even grab something to eat from the supermarket. How do I do that with hospitals? Can I remove my own appendix or cure the cancer with aspirine?

[Virex]

You can determine beforehand what you think is the best hospital or even what you think should happen to you if you were to fall ill. For example, if you think the local hospital sucks balls, you could carry with you a document saying that you only want to be stabilized by the people from that hospital and that the treatment, if possible, has to be conducted in another hospital/clinic that you think is far better suited for the situation. Being proactive means thinking about what could happen and preparing for when it happens.


Also, if you really think it'd be best for you to cure your problems by taking an aspirin, I don't see why any one should stop you. It's your right to not be treated if you don't want to.


I want the government to enforce the following rules:

1.) No monopolies
2.) No cartels
3.) Companies have to provide in-depth information about their products
4.) Companies may not bribe, extort, threaten, wound, kill or preform other actions that are illegal to normal people
5.) People must be free to chose what they buy


The government doesn't need to do anything else, because 1. and 2. ensure that a company can always provide a cheaper or saver alternative and 3., 4. and 5. ensure that people are capable of judging each product accurately and chose the right one.
Currently, none of those rules are enforced. People don't know squat about what they buy, they can chose between 120 products made by 1 or 2 companies and they don't even know what company is behind what product. Prices are not set by supply and demand but by what companies think they can get away with without tipping the authorities off. Companies can and regularly do buy new laws and half of the products ever conceived are forbidden in some way.


As to why the government isn't doing this right now, I honestly have no clue. Apparently, they find appeasing the big companies and their own wallets more important then enforcing the most basic laws that provide a healthy market situation.

[Gantolandon]

You can determine beforehand what you think is the best hospital or even what you think should happen to you if you were to fall ill. For example, if you think the local hospital sucks balls, you could carry with you a document saying that you only want to be stabilized by the people from that hospital and that the treatment, if possible, has to be conducted in another hospital/clinic that you think is far better suited for the situation. Being proactive means thinking about what could happen and preparing for when it happens.

This is impractical and insane on several many levels. First, if you are taken by ER it means you can't afford to choose a hospital for yourself. Every additional minute spent can be the one where your brain stops working. Second, the ambulance is not a taxi and it won't take you to the hospital in another city only because you wish to be treated there. You actually occupy this one ambulance with its crew, which could instead save a victim of the car pileup several streets away. Not to mention that people do actually travel and they would need to know exactly every hospital in the general vicinity of every place they would visit.

Also, if you really think it'd be best for you to cure your problems by taking an aspirin, I don't see why any one should stop you. It's your right to not be treated if you don't want to.

The point is that hospitals are not the same as restaurants. The main difference is that not using the latter does not put you in the life-threatening situation.

I want the government to enforce the following rules:

1.) No monopolies
2.) No cartels

It's already supposed to do this.

3.) Companies have to provide in-depth information about their products

You can't enforce something like that. Companies will always try to make their product appear more valuable than it is. There is a whole branch of industry devoted exactly to this. You may only ban outright lies about the product (which is already forbidden), but this can't be the customers' main line of defence against dishonest sellers.

4.) Companies may not bribe, extort, threaten, wound, kill or preform other actions that are illegal to normal people

They already can't.

5.) People must be free to chose what they buy

They are already free, or they should be according to the law.

Currently, none of those rules are enforced. People don't know squat about what they buy, they can chose between 120 products made by 1 or 2 companies and they don't even know what company is behind what product. Prices are not set by supply and demand but by what companies think they can get away with without tipping the authorities off. Companies can and regularly do buy new laws and half of the products ever conceived are forbidden in some way.

Yeah. It's almost like those free market values were utter bullshit, because applying them in practice doesn't work as intended.

As to why the government isn't doing this right now, I honestly have no clue. Apparently, they find appeasing the big companies and their own wallets more important then enforcing the most basic laws that provide a healthy market situation.

Apparently you don't understand the basic law of capitalism: the guy with money can use it to make even more money. Government will always bend over for the big companies unless their very survival is threatened. It will be true both in "socialist" democratic countries and in libertarian paradises. If anything, the corruption will be even more rampant in the latter, because the position of people with money will be even stronger.

[DJ]

If you can supply a hospital with an expensive drug for a reasonable price as part of a package deal, they'll be inclined to go with you, even if some other drugs are slightly more expensive.

No, you fail marketing forever. If you're selling aspirin for 20% more so you can provide dialysis for 50% less, the people will just buy aspirin from other hospital and go to you for dialysis. The outcome, of course, is you going bankrupt.

[Toady One]

People could afford to snipe less at each other in this thread.  If pointless sniping at the start of many posts is removed, this thread wouldn't be catching moderating reports and devolving to a thread lock in general.