| Author | Thread |
|
|
11/10/2006 04:30:12 AM · #76 |
Originally posted by routerguy666:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by routerguy666:
Markets existed before the laws that regulated them. |
The very earliest written records we have of human civilization (Babylonian cuniform tablets) refer to inventory, regulation, and taxation. |
Are you seriously attempting to argue that laws were created to address things that didn't even exist yet? Someone just sat down and thought, 'Hmm some day people might start trading goods and services using some form of generally acceptable medium of exchange... I better write up some rules and regulations to govern this behavior now before this starts happening.' |
Laws are developed both to combat existing problems and to anticipate potential problems.
There does not need to be a global monopoly in order for one to establish that monopolies on a local scale create economic problems and to extrapolate that you ought to legislate against monopolies on a local *and* global scale.
|
|
|
|
11/10/2006 04:41:38 AM · #77 |
Going back to something you said earlier Matthew, I am wondering whether the system we have here in some parts of the UK and inparticular where I live works.
So, the government set targets for waiting times that clearly aren't (although they should be) acheivable. When waiting lists reach the maximum allowed waiting time the hospitals close those lists meaning patients who need medical attention (and in some cases urgent medical attention)are not even able to be on a list to receive this treatment.
To the Government targets appear to be being met and the NHS is performing as it should, but this system is failing all those who require medical treatment and are refused it because of 'targets'.
I am no political expert and couldn't really offer up an answer to this problem but surely there MUST be one??
Please don't take this the wrong way but, we raise money to fund medical care in third world countries through allsorts of campaigns here in the UK. I would never wish for those countries not to get the help they need but maybe we should start looking a little closer to home and finding solutions to the 'system' we have here that is clearly not working!
|
|
|
|
11/10/2006 05:17:23 AM · #78 |
Originally posted by talj:
Please don't take this the wrong way but, we raise money to fund medical care in third world countries through allsorts of campaigns here in the UK. I would never wish for those countries not to get the help they need but maybe we should start looking a little closer to home and finding solutions to the 'system' we have here that is clearly not working! |
I agree that the system does not work in these cases. Have you chatted with your MP yet?
I also agree that one solution would be to add more money to the system. However, I am sceptical about the degree of value in this - the system appears from the outside to be facing multiple challenges and lack of resources is only one of them.
Our common resources are limited, and we have to divvy up one pot. It would be easy to cut, say, aid to developing countries. I suspect that you would not notice the difference in the service provided if that relatively small (to us) amount of money came back into the system. However, our reputation would suffer horribly - perhaps causing detriment greater than the cost of the aid.
There is a balance between provision of first class service and cost to the public purse. Arguably, we are not willing to pay enough tax to pay for a better service (while much higher than the US, our tax burden is still smaller than parts of the continent). Again, and it is not very helpful to you (for which - apologies!), if you want a first class service the obligation currently falls on you to pay for it yourself.
I still think that you are getting a very sub-standard service and the waiting list thing is a disgrace - I genuinely hope that you get this resolved much faster than current estimates which fall below even a second rate service.
I have started rambling a bit here so will stop.
|
|
|
|
11/10/2006 06:44:44 AM · #79 |
Its ok Matthew, you were making perfect sense! :o)
I have an appointment at the begining of December with my MP (Labour) and over the next few days will be putting together all the details to send to him beforehand as requested. Whether this does me any good or not we shall see!
The thing about paying for the first class service (going private), due to past medical issues I can not get private medical insurance without incurring large financial penalties and even then I would not be covered for anything that maybe related to past issues. Secondly, when my troubles all began if someone had told me I would be stuck in the position I am now I would have gone private there and then. But, because I am now 15 months down the road and have been supporting myself for all this time I can not not afford to go down the private route.
So, I am left to rely on a public service that currently, in my area, refuses to serve the public.
There has to be a better way!
|
|
|
|
11/10/2006 08:39:12 AM · #80 |
Talj,
I truly feel for your position and hope many readers see your plight.
The above response from legalbeagle is pointed and accuracte from my perspective. There is a limit to how much tax a populace can tolerate. One reason I pondered if you did not have to pay any public support tax (not in fuel, food, other service taxes) for the NHS, could you then better afford private care. I suspect that private care would still be more than the total you are currently paying in taxes, however the service would be worth it in my opinion. At least you would not be paying both the tax for NHS AND the premium for private care. Thus the savings would be substantial and you would not be in this situation.
My county just passed a tax (during the Nov. 7th elections) whereby each homeowner is assessed an additional tax to pay for uninsured health care. My portion will likely be another $300-400 a year.
|
|
|
|
11/10/2006 10:36:30 AM · #81 |
Originally posted by Flash:
I suspect that private care would still be more than the total you are currently paying in taxes, however the service would be worth it in my opinion. At least you would not be paying both the tax for NHS AND the premium for private care. Thus the savings would be substantial and you would not be in this situation. |
The big "but" here is that talj did not have healthcare insurance and is now uninsurable. The cost of the healthcare is prohibitively expensive.
In a world without the NHS, talj would have had a few hundred dollars more each year, but as you say, would be forced to buy health insurance at a greater cost than tax paid for the NHS, or do without. If she still cannot afford private health insurance, she is stuck in the same position she is in now, but with no safety net at all.
I would add that Talj is experiencing the worst of the NHS system - there are many examples of it working exceptionally well. By way of contrast, the last time I had a semi-serious illness and had to have several scans on my health insurance, the private hospital staff saw me quickly but were moaning about the out of date equipment they had compared to what they were used to in the NHS (not reassuring!)!
|
|
|
|
11/10/2006 10:46:10 AM · #82 |
Originally posted by legalbeagle:
I would add that Talj is experiencing the worst of the NHS system - there are many examples of it working exceptionally well. By way of contrast, the last time I had a semi-serious illness and had to have several scans on my health insurance, the private hospital staff saw me quickly but were moaning about the out of date equipment they had compared to what they were used to in the NHS (not reassuring!)! |
You are right, I would not question the hardwork that goes into making things tick from doctors, nurses etc and there will always be extremes. I have received fantastic care in the past on the NHS and its just unfortunate I am on the 'bad' end of things this time.
An update on the Aircast boot...
I tried the doctor to get a new boot yesterday, he says there is nothing he can do and that going to the hospital will get me nowhere.
So I called the UK supplier of my particular make of boot. They supply the NHS. Firstly they told me that they charge the NHS £99.50 for each boot....I was told I could not have a new boot because they cos well over £150 a time....so not strictly true.
They also informed me I can purchase a new boot directly from them at the cost of £128.66 inc. VAT and delivery. With this if anything goes wrong they will replace the boot. So I have ordered myself a new one which should arrive next week.
But, I still shouldn't have to be doing this...
|
|
|
|
11/10/2006 11:56:20 AM · #83 |
Originally posted by talj:
Originally posted by Rompy:
I suppose going private would put you in the poor house.... |
Hi Sharon,
Thanks for your reply. Sadly, as I have been supporting myself the past 15 months whilst being unable to work, going private just isn't an option for me. In all honesty if they had told me a year ago I would be in this situation I would have gone private there and then. Now all I can do is sit and wait.
- Natalya |
Is private healthcare a possibility in the UK? The system proposed by the Clintons made private care illegal if it had passed. To the tune of 50,000 dollar fine and 10 years in prison. Hope Hillary has forgotten this bit when she takes office.
|
|
|
|
11/10/2006 12:00:40 PM · #84 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
And don't give the "government is always more inefficient" line because in this case it's not true -- the administrative costs for Medicare are far below those found in private health insurance companies. |
Wonder what the fraud rate for the two enitities are?
|
|
|
|
11/10/2006 01:14:24 PM · #85 |
Originally posted by routerguy666:
1. There is no such thing as a "free market."
There is no such thing as a free market in existence right now, due to varying levels of governmental interference. There were, however, examples of truly free markets in the middle ages and before that in the Greek Empire.
2. The "middle class" is the creation of government intervention in the marketplace
Government intervention.
"The conservative belief in "free markets" is a bit like the Catholic Church's insistence that the Earth was at the center of the Solar System in the Twelfth Century. It's widely believed by those in power, those who challenge it are branded heretics and ridiculed, and it is wrong.
Yet we seem to be discussing its merit and feasability here, and no one has yet to be burned at the stake.
"In actual fact, there is no such thing as a "free market." Markets are the creation of government.
Markets are not created by the government. Whoever wrote this needs to retake their entire course in economics. Markets are created by supply and demand, resource scarcity and production efficiencies. A government is not required for any of those things to exist.
"Governments provide a stable currency to make markets possible.
No. Governments force markets to use the currency they provide so that they have a mechanism with which to monitor and tax the activity in those markets. It is entirely possible for markets to exist that do not exchange currency. There are service markets, resource markets, etc.
They provide a legal infrastructure and court systems to enforce the contracts that make markets possible.
Markets existed before the laws that regulated them. This person puts the cart before the horse. you do not legislate antimonopoly regulations if there is not already a monopoly in existence that has motivated the creation of the law and which the law would then address.
They provide educated workforces through public education, and those workers show up at their places of business after traveling on public roads, rails, or airways provided by government. Businesses that use the "free market" are protected by police and fire departments provided by government, and send their communications - from phone to fax to internet - over lines that follow public rights-of-way maintained and protected by government.
Apparently a big fan of big government. I travel to work in a car I bought, a private company made, private companies provide the fuel for, and private companies maintain. At work U use equipment made by private companies, communicate over privately owned telephone infrastructure, and move data around a global network composed of the infrastructure created, sold, and deployed by private industry.
"And, most important, the rules of the game of business are defined by government. Any sports fan can tell you that football, baseball, or hockey without rules and referees would be a mess. Similarly, business without rules won't work.
Government interference. Replace 'wont work' with 'won't work in a way I find acceptable' and then the guy veers backs towards accuracy. |
I'm always surprised when you right-wingers argue against these sorts of basic economic principles that are by now truisms and accepted practice of every developed capitalist economy the world over, and accepted and advocated by every economic theory, and theorist -- even Milton Friedman, the economist whose theories guided the economic policies of Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher. I'd suggest that YOU go back and re-read some basic economic texts and see what Milton Friedman has to say about (1) governments building and maintaining the national infrastructure, (2) governments creating a legal framework to enforce contracts, and (3) governments intervening in and manipulating the national monetary policy. Yes, even the most right-wing free-marketeer economist, Milton Friedman, supports a role for government intervention (you would say "interference") in the economy, in Friedman's case to control inflation via controlling the money supply and therefore the cost of credit, which is what our own Federal Reserve is supposed to do. So let's please dispense with the silly right-wing argument that there is no legitimate role for government in managing the economy.
Message edited by author 2006-11-10 13:15:42. |
|
|
|
11/10/2006 03:14:06 PM · #86 |
| If Hillary is elected, will Janet Reno be first lady? |
|
|
|
11/10/2006 08:04:16 PM · #87 |
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
I'm always surprised when you right-wingers argue against these sorts of basic economic principles that are by now truisms and accepted practice of every developed capitalist economy the world over |
Accepted world over? Correct me if I'm wrong, didn't you just post:
"conservative economics...a process that has dramatically picked up steam under George W. Bush."
Did I just pass out for a few years or does that not mean that right now, in 2006, there is a group of economists in the largest capitalist economy in the world who very obviously disagree with this 'basic economic prinicple and truism'?
Your sweeping generalities are admirable. Noam Chomsky would be proud.
Message edited by author 2006-11-10 20:04:35. |
|
|
|
11/10/2006 09:59:40 PM · #88 |
Originally posted by routerguy666:
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
I'm always surprised when you right-wingers argue against these sorts of basic economic principles that are by now truisms and accepted practice of every developed capitalist economy the world over |
Accepted world over? Correct me if I'm wrong, didn't you just post:
"conservative economics...a process that has dramatically picked up steam under George W. Bush."
Did I just pass out for a few years or does that not mean that right now, in 2006, there is a group of economists in the largest capitalist economy in the world who very obviously disagree with this 'basic economic prinicple and truism'?
Your sweeping generalities are admirable. Noam Chomsky would be proud. |
I fear that this is going to be a case of you not wanting to see what's right in front of your eyes, or perhaps you are willfully misinterpreting my argument to make a rhetorical point, but I'll give it one more try.
The "basic economic principles" to which I referred are interventions by government in the economic activity of a nation such as (1) governments building and maintaining the national infrastructure, (2) governments creating a legal framework to enforce contracts, and (3) governments intervening in and manipulating the national monetary policy -- such government activity making the existence of markets possible in the first place, and helping to make those markets operate more efficiently. These are the arguments put forward by the author in the first part of the article I posted, which you argued against, and which I restated in my last post. If you can show me one reputable economist who argues that these are NOT areas where government can legitimately intervene in the economic activity of a "free" market, I'll stand corrected.
I wasn't addressing at all the point made in the article about conservative economic policies hurting the middle class. By the way, it might help the debate if you go and read the entire article to which I linked, not just the excerpt posted in the thread.
|
|
|
|
11/10/2006 11:02:49 PM · #89 |
Do you understand what a market is? Let me say again, for the tenth time, a government is not a prerequisite for the existence of a market.
I can sit here tonight and bake 5 apple pies. From base ingredients to final product, I can do this without any assistance from the government - short of them keeping from people dropping bombs on me while I'm making my product.
Tomorrow, I can use any means I can think of to advertise the fact that I have some goods for sale at whatever price I decide to charge for them.
Tomorrow, the fate of my 5 apple pies will be entirely decided by the forces of supply and demand operating in a free market.
If other people are selling equally delicious pies, I can not charge as much or I will not sell as many.
If I am the only one selling pies, I can charge as much as I like until people no longer see the value of a pie for the price I am asking for it.
Because people are presumably hungry, and I am presumably out to get paid for making these pies to begin with, an apple pie market now exists.
And Uncle Sam had nothing to do with it.
It is that f**king simple, and I do not understand how any argument to the contrary can be made. You can take the same situation - 1 person with a supply of something, 1 person with a demand for it - and stick them on the 9th moon of Venus AND A MARKET HAS BEEN CREATED WITHOUT ANY HELP, REGULATION OF, OR INTERFERENCE BY A GOVERNMENT.
Get it?
Ok let's continue. I've decided to expand my business and move from making pies to manufacturing twelve ton concrete blocks for use in constructing large buildings. Unfortunately for me, these blocks are far too heavy to be moved by hand so I need to transport them by truck. Even more unfortunate for me, there isn't a single road in my area and all the customers for my new product are located on the other side of the state. Whatever shall I do?
I find someone who is in the road building business. They have a supply of road-building-service for which I most certainly have a demand. We agree upon a price, the road I need gets built and maintained, and I am now able to transport my goods and sell them to my customers. Two small markets were created and operated with the utmost efficiency without any government intervention.
What if road-builder guy took all my money and never built the road? What recourse would I have? Well I could accuse him of fraud, which is a crime, and the enforcment of laws is the governments responsibility. It does not require them to engage in or in any way disturb the market forces already operating quite well without them. They simply have to act as an objective third party available to settle disputes.
Ok I'm tired and if my point isn't clear by now it will never be. Governments are not required for markets to exist and operate efficiently. Governments have roles in society which can benefit market activities so long as the fundamental principles of supply and demand are in no way restricted/controlled/dampened by the government.
So one more time - governments are not a prerequisite for the existence of markets. Free markets are created by the forces of supply and demand and that is it. Econ 101. |
|
|
|
11/11/2006 12:39:42 AM · #90 |
Originally posted by routerguy666:
I can sit here tonight and bake 5 apple pies. From base ingredients to final product, I can do this without any assistance from the government - short of them keeping from people dropping bombs on me while I'm making my product. |
If ... you have property where grow your own apple trees, cut down some for firewood, have a field of wheat and a plow and a scythe and a mill, a cow or pig you're willing to sacrifice for some fat, a planting of sugar beets and a refinery, have the proper kind of mud to build yourself an oven, smelt some ore and hammer out a pie pan ...
Otherwise those thing got to you via public roads, easements for utility companies, tax breaks for the utility companies to string the electric wires or run the gas lines to your house, trained the mining engineers and metallurgists, etc.
And when someone (possibly bigger than you are) grabs one of your pies and refuses to give you anything in return, you'll have to be your own police force -- I hope you know how to make a gun and ammunition out of the raw materials on your own land ...
Message edited by author 2006-11-11 00:41:28. |
|
|
|
11/11/2006 12:43:18 AM · #91 |
you gonna have to give part of that pie to Hillery too.
|
|
|
|
11/11/2006 12:55:18 AM · #92 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
And when someone (possibly bigger than you are) grabs one of your pies and refuses to give you anything in return, you'll have to be your own police force -- I hope you know how to make a gun and ammunition out of the raw materials on your own land ... |
Can't make a gun, but I'll bet I could make one big ass trebuchet that could toss several hundred pounds of big rocks onto the heads of the pie-stealing SOB's. |
|
|
|
11/11/2006 01:00:36 AM · #93 |
| The accuracy of the trebuchet as an anti-personnel weapon is rather poor ... and by the time you forge an ax to cut down the trees, plait a rope out of the bark, amass the stones for ammunition, and tan the hides to make the sling, I suspect the perp will have moved out of range -- even if they stop to eat the pie first ... not to mention that they probably whacked you over the head with a big ol' club first. |
|
|
|
11/11/2006 01:04:26 AM · #94 |
Originally posted by David Ey:
you gonna have to give part of that pie to Hillery too. |
Originally posted by David Ey:
If Hillary is elected, will Janet Reno be first lady? |
Do you have some kind of fixation on Hillary Clinton?
I only ask this because twice you've posted something about her in this thread. A thread that only has a very, very tangential relationship to her.
You can start your own "I love Hillary" thread to discuss such matters should you wish to air your private fantasies.
|
|
|
|
11/11/2006 01:05:54 AM · #95 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
The accuracy of the trebuchet as an anti-personnel weapon is rather poor ... and by the time you forge an ax to cut down the trees, plait a rope out of the bark, amass the stones for ammunition, and tan the hides to make the sling, I suspect the perp will have moved out of range -- even if they stop to eat the pie first ... not to mention that they probably whacked you over the head with a big ol' club first. |
That's why you build it first and load it with lots of fist size rocks before the SOB's show up. |
|
|
|
11/11/2006 01:06:50 AM · #96 |
Let's dissect your attempt at a rebuttal for education's sake:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
If ... you have property where grow your own apple trees, cut down some for firewood, have a field of wheat
|
This is a matter of property rights, and has absolutely nothing to do with the discussion at hand. Governments holding land in trust for the future sale to private owners is one of the "roles in society which can benefit market activities" which I already addressed in my previous post. Believe it or not, even today there are open access resources which no one owns and anyone can access.
Originally posted by GeneralE:
and a plow and a scythe and a mill, a cow or pig you're willing to sacrifice for some fat, a planting of sugar beets and a refinery, have the proper kind of mud to build yourself an oven, smelt some ore and hammer out a pie pan ...
|
I guess you stopped reading before the bit about paying someone to build a road. The things you do not have, someone else does. You demand, they supply. Again, econ 101. Someone doesn't know how to make a pan? Someone will figure it out and demand more for the finished product. Someone thinks they can come up with a better pie pan? Ahh, innovation inspired by competition. Ahhh, Markets are great. Government comes along and says they will supply all the pans from now on? Hope you like your pan, because no one is going to be making a better one since only Uncle Sam can sell them. Ahhh, government regulation sucks.
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Otherwise those thing got to you via public roads,
|
Ok you defintely stopped reading. Some reason private industry can't build and maintain roads? Pretty damn sure they can considering Chicago just recently sold one of their expressways to a private company...
Originally posted by GeneralR:
easements for utility companies, tax breaks for the utility companies to string the electric wires or run the gas lines to your house
|
See above about government involvment stifling innovation. As you can see by the number of alternative phone companies and energy companies, all government involvement in the utilities market has accomplished is guarantee a base level of service that is 40 years behind the times, experiencing an increasing number of failures, and proving a major barrier to entry to innovative companies who wish to enter the market. Chalk another one up for governments increasing market efficiency.
Originally posted by GeneralE:
trained the mining engineers and metallurgists, etc. |
Education is not something only the government can provide, however a government program to provide education is also not an example of the government messing with market forces. If company XYZ needs metallurgists and the only choice is to train 10 people themselves or go without, market forces will dictate that company XYZ do the training so they can continue with their business. Another role goverment can play? Sure. A necessity without which market economics grinds to a halt? Nope.
Originally posted by GeneralE:
And when someone (possibly bigger than you are) grabs one of your pies and refuses to give you anything in return, you'll have to be your own police force -- I hope you know how to make a gun and ammunition out of the raw materials on your own land ... |
Yeah, defense and law enforcement. I've mentioned it in two other posts now as one of the primary roles that a government should play.
|
|
|
|
11/11/2006 02:08:44 AM · #97 |
You're gonna pay someone to build a road with a pie? I'm not sure Bechtel accepts apple pie as a form of payment. Of course, without government, there'd be no Bechtel -- the corporation is a creation of government and the legal system.
And what "property rights" are those of which you speak? Surely not those established in law ... without government you only have a right to property if you can keep someone bigger and stronger and better-armed than you from taking it away.
Message edited by author 2006-11-11 02:24:41. |
|
|
|
11/11/2006 09:14:34 AM · #98 |
| It seems there are two arguements going on here. I agree with ROuterguy about a market can exist without government. I agree with General about government playing a huge(too Big in my opinion) role in control of the market. The difference and to get back on point is, a free market can exist only in its natural state without govenment interference and that is Econ 101+ Poli sci 101. A free market means you get screwed sometimes. When the bigger guy comes along and takes your apple pie and does not build your roads. But if he does this to enough little guys they get together and kick his butt take away his materials and build the road themselves. and no they do not form a govenment. Supply and demand drive a free market not government. Governments supply red tape and a job for themselves. |
|
|
|
11/11/2006 11:39:22 PM · #99 |
Well spazmo99, This thread started as a rant about nationalized public health and who was the loudest trumpeter if not Hillary? When elected whatdoyathink will be near the top of the sociocommie's agenda?
Get used to hearing about Hillary. She and Bill gonna be spewing their crap to us for a long, long time.
|
|
|
|
11/12/2006 01:42:42 AM · #100 |
Originally posted by David Ey:
Well spazmo99, This thread started as a rant about nationalized public health and who was the loudest trumpeter if not Hillary? When elected whatdoyathink will be near the top of the sociocommie's agenda?
Get used to hearing about Hillary. She and Bill gonna be spewing their crap to us for a long, long time. |
That was in 1993, more than a dozen years ago. Get over it. From your tone though, I'm guessing she can count on your full support.
I thought GWB was going to revolutionize health care in America too. One of his big campaign promises. Didn't really work out that way though, did it? Why don't you harp on him? He and his fellow Republicans even had control of the Congress. His administration's failure to address health care is so much more timely than anything that happened in the Clinton years.
I suppose that next you'll start raving about FDR and the excesses of the New Deal.
Message edited by author 2006-11-12 01:45:35. |
|
