Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Frazzled wrote:Your own argument doesn't work. You just said everything is inefficient.

It only doesn't work until we find the right angels to rule.

biccat wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Your own argument doesn't work. You just said everything is inefficient.

It only doesn't work until we find the right angels to rule.

Even then some americans don't believe in God or angels so I guess we're stuck with the government we have now until all atheists become theists. Yeah, that's right atheists are holding socialized medicine and a fantasticly efficient government back.

biccat wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Your own argument doesn't work. You just said everything is inefficient.

It only doesn't work until we find the right angels to rule.

Remember, a vote for Frazzled is a vote for FREEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEDom!


(We should posit that if Obama had done what he should have proerly, and formed a team to take the best of all systems-or a modified Canadian one, I'd have voted for him in 2012).

Frazzled wrote:

Melissia wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Please cite an example of efficient federal government in the last 100 years.

Please cite an example of an efficient private health care system in the last 100 years.

Oh wait that's right... there is none in the entirety of human history. Humans in general are inefficient. But that also means there's room for improvement no matter which system you use. When I said "intelligently done" I simply meant that-- one that is improved over our current system, which is woefully inefficient.

Medicare Advantage. It filled the gaps of Medicare at less cost then said Medicare. Of course it was specifically targetted for killing by your man Obama.


Your own argument doesn't work. You just said everything is inefficient. So under the Melissia rule there can be no universal healthcare, just like you'd like to kill Medicare and SS.

Remove the insurance middleman. It's a magic fething bullet. Unfortunately to do so (and to cut costs by half) would require an actual factual socialist universal healthcare system. Something canada and most of europe have working quite well. Sadly people like you would never want a system that works. You're too invested in your unsustainable status quo leeching money (and available care) from the young to ineffectually pay for the old. We can keep that gak going for exactly one more generation and I get the feeling thats all you (really) care about.

ShumaGorath wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

Melissia wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Please cite an example of efficient federal government in the last 100 years.

Please cite an example of an efficient private health care system in the last 100 years.

Oh wait that's right... there is none in the entirety of human history. Humans in general are inefficient. But that also means there's room for improvement no matter which system you use. When I said "intelligently done" I simply meant that-- one that is improved over our current system, which is woefully inefficient.

Medicare Advantage. It filled the gaps of Medicare at less cost then said Medicare. Of course it was specifically targetted for killing by your man Obama.


Your own argument doesn't work. You just said everything is inefficient. So under the Melissia rule there can be no universal healthcare, just like you'd like to kill Medicare and SS.

Remove the insurance middleman. It's a magic fething bullet. Unfortunately to do so (and to cut costs by half) would require an actual factual socialist universal healthcare system. Something canada and most of europe have working quite well. Sadly people like you would never want a system that works. You're too invested in your unsustainable status quo leeching money (and available care) from the young to ineffectually pay for the old. We can keep that gak going for exactly one more generation and I get the feeling thats all you (really) care about.

I think that they young people should make sure that the elderly can retire, I don't want some old guy with hairy ears handing me my food at McDonald's or a wrinkly old man washing my car with a cat because his vision is that bad.

Frazzled wrote:Your own argument doesn't work. You just said everything is inefficient.

I also said, for those that are intelligent enough to understand modern English, that some things are less inefficient than others.

Melissia wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Your own argument doesn't work. You just said everything is inefficient.

I also said, for those that are intelligent enough to understand modern English, that some things are less inefficient than others.

Actually you just said that humans in general are woefully inefficient. You also said that there's a chance to improve a system, but if humans are generally inefficient then that means the systems they make will also be inefficient. Just remember that generalizations are always bad.

Melissia wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Your own argument doesn't work. You just said everything is inefficient.

I also said, for those that are intelligent enough to understand modern English, that some things are less inefficient than others.

So in other words you pretty much said nothing. Again, got it.

If you had to pay a 60% tax rate for universal healthcare, and I mean you Melissia, not them rich swells, would you do it?

halonachos wrote:Actually you just said that humans in general are woefully inefficient.

Learn to read.

Melissia wrote:Humans in general are inefficient. But that also means there's room for improvement no matter which system you use.

Seriously, does politics interfere with one's literacy? I'm not really advocating any specific system. I'm advocating ANY system that is an improvement over our current one.

halonachos wrote:

Melissia wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Your own argument doesn't work. You just said everything is inefficient.

I also said, for those that are intelligent enough to understand modern English, that some things are less inefficient than others.

Actually you just said that humans in general are woefully inefficient. You also said that there's a chance to improve a system, but if humans are generally inefficient then that means the systems they make will also be inefficient. Just remember that generalizations are always bad.

Technically with an inefficient base property that is equivalent between steps (as "human inefficiency" would be) the way to reduce inefficiency would be to reduce steps. One of the things the American health care system is known for is compartmentalizing and introducing a significant number of interlocutors who stand between patient pay and care and who all want their cut. The system is visibly inefficient from a top down perspective and visibly ineffectual from a bottom up primarily because of how many times responsibility for patient care changes hands as the patient moves through the system.

Melissia wrote:

halonachos wrote:Actually you just said that humans in general are woefully inefficient.

Learn to read.

Melissia wrote:Humans in general are inefficient. But that also means there's room for improvement no matter which system you use.

Seriously, does politics interfere with one's literacy? I'm not really advocating any specific system. I'm advocating ANY system that is an improvement over our current one.

halonachos wrote:You also said that there's a chance to improve a system, but if humans are generally inefficient then that means the systems they make will also be inefficient.

I guess that politic's does interfere with one's literacy. Well that and "But that also means there's room for improvement no matter which system you use" doesn't really follow if you say that humans are generally inefficient because it means that humans will generally tend not to make anything efficient. Now if you had left out the whole "humans are generally inefficient" part then I would have no problem agreeing with you.

biccat wrote:
There is a substantial difference between an affirmative and implied contract.

I agree, but I'm not talking about the affirmative contract to do job X, I'm talking about the implied contract which requires adherence to a given means of social exchange. In any society where the exchange of goods and services is regulated by convention those members of that society are under an implied contract to abide by the norms (minimally) which govern those contracts, under pain of, at best, ostracism, and at worst death due to the inability to engage with the rest of the system.

biccat wrote:
Further, the consequences for withdrawing from the social contract are much more far reaching than the consequences for withdrawing from a private contract.

That depends on the degree to which the private contract is divorced from the social contract (think company towns).

It must also be said that private contracts are fundamentally governed by the social contract, and so are underscored by those political forces which desire the perpetuation of private contracts in a given form. As such, it makes no sense to differentiate between the voting bloc, which seeks a given set of social arrangements, and the private contractor who seeks another. In both cases they a pursuing (minimally assenting , through political action, a given set of arrangements which they favor.

biccat wrote:
Yes, it does. Government is always by consent (by some portion of the population). Even tyrannies function by consent of those they rule over.

We won't agree on this, so there's little point in debating it here as it will only lead to a tangent. Suffice it to say that I disagree completely.

biccat wrote:
I have a good article (somewhere) discussing the idea of private property and government, and how government arose as a response to private property, not vice versa. It's a good read, and quite an interesting concept.

I've heard that argument made, though I never understood how it was materially distinct from Hobbes, though that's probably because I consider government as a precondition for the social contract.

biccat wrote:
No, what I'm presuming is that people are rational actors (one of the basis for economics). A person will always act in his or her own rational self interest.

Right, a person will always act according to a set of rationales as defined by the self. Of course, determining what that set of rationales is, or even what the self is, introduces a very, very long list of problems which most people will resolve by aesthetically referring to their own preferences; as you have done here by assuming there is a rational preference for private sector solutions.

biccat wrote:
Those who purchase insurance do bear the full burden of the expense for their medical value. Insurance companies don't tolerate free riders, they assess premiums based on the risk of coverage * amount insured. In contrast, the government tolerates free riders, and loves them as a voting bloc.

Because of the calculation of premiums is made according to the decisions of many consumers, and not just one, the insurance company necessarily allows for free riders in the sense that a certain class of individuals will receive more medical care than they themselves paid for. This also holds for the state, as no particular person pays absolutely nothing in tax once things like sales, and property tax are considered.

biccat wrote:
Private markets restructure themselves to provide the best services at the best rate. Competition (where it is fairly allowed to flourish) ensures that inefficient businesses work themselves out of the system. The government doesn't have this driving force, and therefore has no incentive to minimize costs, fraud, and eliminate free riders.

If government only occurs via consent, then government must also do what you describe in order to maintain consent. The process would be slower, of course, but it would still be necessary if the state wished to maintain control.

If government does not occur only by consent, then the state still has a significant incentive to ensure its own survival by way of maintaining a sustainable operation, which would require the elimination of excess costs, and fraud, though not necessarily free riders (though such people would need to be controlled).

biccat wrote:
If the voting bloc is going to effect change, they either have to have a majority or force some other minority to accept their position (which adds them to the voting bloc for that issue) to create a meaningful change.

That depends on the system in question. For example, in the United States, the voting bloc only needs to maintain sufficient coherence to assure a given representative that he will obtain a majority of the bloc by advocating policy X.

biccat wrote:
And this does mean that the minority would have no say in the decision making process, and will have the majority's position imposed on them.

An yet that generally doesn't occur because majorities are rarely so unified in their desire for a particular thing as to universally support a particular initiative to promote it. Note that the Republicans were able to have a significant impact on healthcare despite being in the minority in both houses.

biccat wrote:
What? That doesn't even make sense.

What part are you struggling with?

dogma wrote:I agree, but I'm not talking about the affirmative contract to do job X, I'm talking about the implied contract which requires adherence to a given means of social exchange. In any society where the exchange of goods and services is regulated by convention those members of that society are under an implied contract to abide by the norms (minimally) which govern those contracts, under pain of, at best, ostracism, and at worst death due to the inability to engage with the rest of the system.

I generally agree, but living in a given society is more of an implied agreement to abide by society's terms. In contrast, exchanging value for services is an affirmative contract between two contacting parties.

You suggested that people who refuse to abide by a society's majority decision have the right to leave the society. This is a very harsh consequence for a minor issue. You could use this rationale to support any law, no matter how unjust or unfair.

However, when there is a bargained-for-exchange, as in the case with private markets, the consumer doesn't have to give up all of their interests if they don't like the deal. They can easily walk away or, at worst, pay a premium for the goods or services they purchase.

dogma wrote:It must also be said that private contracts are fundamentally governed by the social contract, and so are underscored by those political forces which desire the perpetuation of private contracts in a given form. As such, it makes no sense to differentiate between the voting bloc, which seeks a given set of social arrangements, and the private contractor who seeks another. In both cases they a pursuing (minimally assenting), through political action, a given set of arrangements which they favor.

I still think you're not understanding the fundamental difference between a bargained for exchange and the (necessary) exclusive authorization of the government to compel consent with a majority decision.

dogma wrote:We won't agree on this, so there's little point in debating it here as it will only lead to a tangent. Suffice it to say that I disagree completely.

I would suggest you read the Declaration of Independence sometime. It's a remarkable work. Some of the literature that it relies on would be relevant as well.

dogma wrote:I've heard that argument made, though I never understood how it was materially distinct from Hobbes, though that's probably because I consider government as a precondition for the social contract.

You're putting the cart before the horse. Without a preexisting social contract, there's no grounds, nor need, for a government. In any society, a social contract is developed well before the institution of a government.

dogma wrote:Right, a person will always act according to a set of rationales as defined by the self. Of course, determining what that set of rationales is, or even what the self is, introduces a very, very long list of problems which most people will resolve by aesthetically referring to their own preferences; as you have done here by assuming there is a rational preference for private sector solutions.

I'm not assuming a rational preference for private sector solutions, because as I said, it is rationale for some people to prefer a government solution. Those who serve to benefit from a public sector solution will favor a public sector solution. Those who place value on compassion above the additional cost they will bear (Buffet, Soros, Gates) will also support a public sector solution. Similarly, those who value freedom above the additional cost they bear under a private sector system will, like those who would simply pay more, favor the private sector system.

My point was that people (generally) don't support public sector health care because it's "better," but because it's in their rational self interest to support public sector health care. Conversely, supporters of public sector health care demonize private sector proponents for either not sharing their values or being self-interested.

dogma wrote:Because of the calculation of premiums is made according to the decisions of many consumers, and not just one, the insurance company necessarily allows for free riders in the sense that a certain class of individuals will receive more medical care than they themselves paid for. This also holds for the state, as no particular person pays absolutely nothing in tax once things like sales, and property tax are considered.

You are missing the point of "free riders" as it relates to an insurance company. People buying insurance aren't paying for medical care, and therefore there cannot be free riders.

dogma wrote:If government only occurs via consent, then government must also do what you describe in order to maintain consent. The process would be slower, of course, but it would still be necessary if the state wished to maintain control.

Not necessarily. So long as the political will for inefficient systems remains, there will be a desire to maintain systems as they are. Consider Bush's attempt to reform social security. It is a system in dire need of reform, but the political will to maintain the system overruled the political will to make the system more efficient.

Private actors don't win on platitudes like politicians, they win on results.

dogma wrote:If government does not occur only by consent, then the state still has a significant incentive to ensure its own survival by way of maintaining a sustainable operation, which would require the elimination of excess costs, and fraud, though not necessarily free riders (though such people would need to be controlled).

Politicians not only have no incentive to reduce free riders, they have an incentive to increase free riders at the expense of others (see e.g. the current income tax system). Sustainability isn't a concern except for the short term: long enough to survive a reelection campaign. There's a reason why PPACA costs were projected out to a 10-year window.

dogma wrote:

biccat wrote:
What? That doesn't even make sense.

What part are you struggling with?

Pretty much the entire part. You're confusing the political power of a voting bloc with the economic power of an employer. Simply naming the two similarly ("haves vs. have-nots") doesn't mean that they are in any way equivalent.

edit: and suggesting that I was "struggling" with your post is incorrect. Your failure to make a clear statement isn't my problem.

if you say that humans are generally inefficient because it means that humans will generally tend not to make anything efficient.

We do tend not to, at least in the US we have a strong tendency towards tradition, no matter how harmful it is to ourselves and others. That doesn't mean it is impossible for us to improve ourselves, it just means it's improbable.

biccat wrote:
I generally agree, but living in a given society is more of an implied agreement to abide by society's terms. In contrast, exchanging value for services is an affirmative contract between two contacting parties.

My contention would be that exchanging values for services implicitly reinforces those societal norms which underpin exchange.

biccat wrote:
You suggested that people who refuse to abide by a society's majority decision have the right to leave the society. This is a very harsh consequence for a minor issue. You could use this rationale to support any law, no matter how unjust or unfair.

I didn't mean to suggest that such people should be compelled to leave, only that they have the right to do so (most of the time). They could just as easily attempt to change the law, regulation, or convention, and frequently choose to do so.

biccat wrote:
However, when there is a bargained-for-exchange, as in the case with private markets, the consumer doesn't have to give up all of their interests if they don't like the deal. They can easily walk away or, at worst, pay a premium for the goods or services they purchase.

Most of the time that's true, but it isn't an inherent characteristic of private markets as they are classically defined. Again, company towns come to mind.

biccat wrote:
I still think you're not understanding the fundamental difference between a bargained for exchange and the (necessary) exclusive authorization of the government to compel consent with a majority decision.

I consider governance, even strict majoritarian governance, to be a form of bargaining.

biccat wrote:
I would suggest you read the Declaration of Independence sometime. It's a remarkable work. Some of the literature that it relies on would be relevant as well.

I mean, I'm working on my PhD in political science, I've read the Declaration more than a few times, and the underpinning work just as frequently. I simply disagree with nearly all of it.

biccat wrote:
You're putting the cart before the horse. Without a preexisting social contract, there's no grounds, nor need, for a government. In any society, a social contract is developed well before the institution of a government.

That's nonsense. There is no explicit reason that a social contract must precede a government. Well, if you consider government to be by consent only, then that is the case, but that position is also nonsense.

biccat wrote:
My point was that people (generally) don't support public sector health care because it's "better," but because it's in their rational self interest to support public sector health care. Conversely, supporters of public sector health care demonize private sector proponents for either not sharing their values or being self-interested.

Ah, ok, in that sense we're in agreement. In general, political arguments are not predicated on the (classically) material qualities of the thing being advocated.

biccat wrote:
Not necessarily. So long as the political will for inefficient systems remains, there will be a desire to maintain systems as they are. Consider Bush's attempt to reform social security. It is a system in dire need of reform, but the political will to maintain the system overruled the political will to make the system more efficient.

Sure, but the same can be said of corporations like GM, and their proclivity for producing a type of car which is not market competitive.

biccat wrote:
Private actors don't win on platitudes like politicians, they win on results.

So do politicians. States can fail just like corporations. As I said, the time scale is merely longer.

biccat wrote:
Pretty much the entire part. You're confusing the political power of a voting bloc with the economic power of an employer. Simply naming the two similarly ("haves vs. have-nots") doesn't mean that they are in any way equivalent.

edit: and suggesting that I was "struggling" with your post is incorrect. Your failure to make a clear statement isn't my problem.

Economic power and political power function in a manner which is sufficiently similar for them to be interchangeable. I'm hardly the first person to suggest this.

Brushfire wrote:You don't go far enough. The amount of waste is symptomatic throughout all US government programs. Too many agencies competing for money and resources for thier priorities. The Pentagon cannot account for the billions of dollars missing in rebuilding Iraq. Medicare is rife with fraud abuse. If you want to save what we have for the time being, the military budget is the best available candidate for immediate cuts. Wouldn't hurt to cut foreign aid too. You cannot have guns and butter. LBJ tried to pay for both Vietnam and create the Great Society, and failed.

Sort of, but not really. But it doesn't make any sense to mention foreign aid, it just isn't on a scale that matters to overall budgeting.

Oh please. The best laid plans of mice and men. You really think Obama, who has no experince in finance, or any of his chosen staff who came up with this, really understand how to make a national health program for 300 million run efficently without the waste or fraud abuse?

I don't think you understand how government works. The president doesn't actually need to have financial experience to recieve and accept reports with financial estimates in them.

It's all therotical until the rubber hits the road.

Obviously, but estimates can still be made, and still be largely reliable. $500 billion is, by the way, the midpoint, actual savings are as likely to be higher as they are to be lower.

Bush's adminstration thought the Iraqi war would pay for itself with oil, and we saw how well that turned out.

Except that Bush's plan was ridiculous, and most everyone who looked into it said so. It is not, in fact, the fault of experts when a politician ignore their advice.

I'm not merely picking on Obama--Many presidents before him had the same goals and failed.Top down mega-programs are just too cumbersome and too huge to run effecently without massive waste. If we must have them, then we have to pick and choose which ones are really necessary, and let others go by the wayside. There is no way to afford programs for everybody, because human beings are just not not efficent or honest enough to run something that huge without massive waste.

This is nonsense. The rest of the developed world has healthcare that is much cheaper, and delivers far better results. They do this by with national schemes as the foundation of their health system.

Frazzled wrote:Evidently before the plan we couldn't find $500BN in savings, but after the plan we mysteriously can, with such confidence we'll just go ahead and cut that budget. Nuts.

The savings are driven by structural reform, mostly from removing incentives for over-medication.

More importantly though, you have to realise that it's an estimate of savings from reforms, not an absolute commitment to cut funding by $500 billion. If it doesn't work, they won't just cut services and put the elderly out on an iceflow to save the money. You keep pretending otherwise, probably because you were told so and it was fun to believe it was true.

Frazzled wrote:And you're going to make it efficient under universal healthcare how?

Please cite an example of efficient federal government in the last 100 years.

The Australia healthcare system costs about half as much per capita, and delivers superior outcomes. What about Germany or Japan?

Or is this another case of American exceptionalism, except instead of America being uniquely more gifted than the rest of the world, suddenly they're unique in being incapable in some special way?

sebster wrote:
Or is this another case of American exceptionalism, except instead of America being uniquely more gifted than the rest of the world, suddenly they're unique in being incapable in some special way?

With such preternatural skills one would think you would avoid marriage.

dogma wrote:With such preternatural skills one would think you would avoid marriage.

I tend to think of myself as exceptionally incapable in most ways.