World Politics

[Anonymous]

I agree; big business has a lot of resources to lure a lot of undereducated folk with a few insideious catch-phrases. people do have a right to choose and to speak their own mind, it is unfortunate that they allow others to do that for them and just follow along like cows with a bit of rope in front. But I think the game has only just started; it may be that the obama administration is taking the time to get it right ( I certainly hope so) -

Ok.

So now those who oppose StateRun Obamacare are undereducated.

The folks expressing their opinions at the tea parties, town hall meetings and recent elections did not appear to be letting others speak for them, but we may disagree on this point.

Regarding the "following along like cows" comment, the same thing for those who believe in government solutions however I don't think you are all "cows" or "undereducated". I think you are mistakenly placing too much faith in big govt solutions. There is a difference.

The part in bold makes me smile. The Obama Administration did not put forth their own bill (see Max Baucus). Hardly remarkable leadership, IMO. Time is this Administration's enemy. Just read some of the posts above. The same thing is happening all across the USA. The Administration is having an increasingly difficult time as independent voters are running from Obama as fast as they can.

The strange thing about health care is, the Republicans can't stop this legislation even if every one of them voted against the bill. Makes one wonder, if the Dems have such a great plan, why it can't pass a straight party-line vote?

 

[ihavenolimbs]

Econ101

Scott, in a democracy, business exists to serve the consumer, not the reverse. (Adam Smith -- the Wealth of Nations guy -- said that first.)

Second, in market transactions there are externalities, and many of them negative. In economics, the automobile is a common example.

Positive externality:
- Mobile labour pool

Negative externalities:
- Pollution (environmental, noise, ...)
- Congestion
- Car accidents injuring/killing people
- Even urban flooding! (A study from England)

Anyway, by definition the externalities are external to the market transaction. How does a society try to maximise the positive externalities and minimise the negative? Regulation and taxation. In a representative democracy people elect representatives to do this. It'd be kind of boring to have to read 1200 page documents and vote on the policy ourselves so we elect boring people to do it for us.

Negative externalities don't disappear in free-market utopias. Taiwan's high economic freedom comes at the expense of the environment, not to mention corruption and poverty also. A lot of the island is extremely polluted.

And the other things Freemarketists tend to overlook are anti-competitive behaviours. I work in the tech industry (I'm an electronics engineer) and I see a lot of this. Vendor lock-in (obfuscation, DRM, patents, bribery, ...) is a favourite for preventing markets, therefore competition, from working. Intel just got clubbed for anti-competitive behaviours, again. But ignorance shouldn't be understated either. So many people are clueless regarding tech. Perfect markets require knowledgeable participants. The combined knowledge of society is far too much for anyone to be knowledgeable in very many areas.

Again, how does society try to discourage anti-competitive behaviour and protect the consumer from businesses exploiting an ignorant customer base, regulation.

I'm sure you know everything that I've just written, it's all common knowledge. But freemarketists tend to think that if markets were more-free then a lot of these problems somehow magically disappear. They don't. There is a guy checking toys for safety because children have died in the past. Not because some politician created a job for his buddy, that part may just be chance.

Anyway, regarding Obama and his healthcare. The reason why govt healthcare insurance is cheaper than private insurance (as all OECD countries demonstrate) is because a single buyer and multiple sellers is called a monopsony (this gives the govt good bargaining power, like with Medicare+Medicaid), and because administration costs are lower.

 

[Hugh Januss]

The strange thing about health care is, the Republicans can't stop this legislation even if every one of them voted against the bill. Makes one wonder, if the Dems have such a great plan, why it can't pass a straight party-line vote?

Come on Scott you're a smart guy, you know the answer to that. Remember death panels, socalism, higher taxes, the health insurance industry was not afraid to spend money to insure that nobody screwed with their enormous cash cow. A scared population is a controlable population, and their scare tactics certainly worked.

 

[scribe]

Dems don't have a straight line party vote. Republicans and Independents (particularly Leiberman) can filibuster and block the legislation in the Senate if dems don't give something in concession.

 

[CentralCaliBike]

Come on Scott you're a smart guy, you know the answer to that. Remember death panels, socalism, higher taxes, the health insurance industry was not afraid to spend money to insure that nobody screwed with their enormous cash cow. A scared population is a controlable population, and their scare tactics certainly worked.

Sounds like you are saying that the Republicans are smarter than the Democrats by politically out maneuvering them. Not sure I would want the guys who are considered to be less intelligent to be setting financial policy

 

[Laszlo]

Ok.

So now those who oppose StateRun Obamacare are undereducated.

The folks expressing their opinions at the tea parties, town hall meetings and recent elections did not appear to be letting others speak for them, but we may disagree on this point.

Regarding the "following along like cows" comment, the same thing for those who believe in government solutions however I don't think you are all "cows" or "undereducated". I think you are mistakenly placing too much faith in big govt solutions. There is a difference.

The part in bold makes me smile. The Obama Administration did not put forth their own bill (see Max Baucus). Hardly remarkable leadership, IMO. Time is this Administration's enemy. Just read some of the posts above. The same thing is happening all across the USA. The Administration is having an increasingly difficult time as independent voters are running from Obama as fast as they can.

The strange thing about health care is, the Republicans can't stop this legislation even if every one of them voted against the bill. Makes one wonder, if the Dems have such a great plan, why it can't pass a straight party-line vote?

I am just trying to express, as an outsider, the image I see in the media of the crowds against obama- basically trailer trash. I think a lot of the opposition to obama is based on simple racism; being organized and led by big business. I've seen clips of this glen beck character, I honestly can't believe anyone could stand watching two minutes of him- I don't think those who do don't really think for themselves. That is my problem with democracy; if most of the lemmings choose to jump into the sea it does not mean that is the right choice. And if there are crowds of the poor, destitute, downtrodden and homeless lining up against free healthcare I can only conclude they are beguiled.

I am very much an outsider in this debate- it's just my 2 cents- I can't vote in the states, you pay your taxes, you have to live with the consequences of your decisions-I just hate to see such poverty and uncaring in such a wealthy nation.

 

[Hugh Januss]

Sounds like you are saying that the Republicans are smarter than the Democrats by politically out maneuvering them. Not sure I would want the guys who are considered to be less intelligent to be setting financial policy

I quess there is a thin line between dumber and less dishonest.

 

[CentralCaliBike]

I quess there is a thin line between dumber and less dishonest.

I somehow have never considered the Democrats to have a corner on the honesty market.

 

[blackcat]

Scott, in a democracy, business exists to serve the consumer, not the reverse. (Adam Smith -- the Wealth of Nations guy -- said that first.)

Second, in market transactions there are externalities, and many of them negative. In economics, the automobile is a common example.

Positive externality:
- Mobile labour pool

Negative externalities:
- Pollution (environmental, noise, ...)
- Congestion
- Car accidents injuring/killing people
- Even urban flooding! (A study from England)

Anyway, by definition the externalities are external to the market transaction. How does a society try to maximise the positive externalities and minimise the negative? Regulation and taxation. In a representative democracy people elect representatives to do this. It'd be kind of boring to have to read 1200 page documents and vote on the policy ourselves so we elect boring people to do it for us.

Negative externalities don't disappear in free-market utopias. Taiwan's high economic freedom comes at the expense of the environment, not to mention corruption and poverty also. A lot of the island is extremely polluted.

And the other things Freemarketists tend to overlook are anti-competitive behaviours. I work in the tech industry (I'm an electronics engineer) and I see a lot of this. Vendor lock-in (obfuscation, DRM, patents, bribery, ...) is a favourite for preventing markets, therefore competition, from working. Intel just got clubbed for anti-competitive behaviours, again. But ignorance shouldn't be understated either. So many people are clueless regarding tech. Perfect markets require knowledgeable participants. The combined knowledge of society is far too much for anyone to be knowledgeable in very many areas.

Again, how does society try to discourage anti-competitive behaviour and protect the consumer from businesses exploiting an ignorant customer base, regulation.

I'm sure you know everything that I've just written, it's all common knowledge. But freemarketists tend to think that if markets were more-free then a lot of these problems somehow magically disappear. They don't. There is a guy checking toys for safety because children have died in the past. Not because some politician created a job for his buddy, that part may just be chance.

Anyway, regarding Obama and his healthcare. The reason why govt healthcare insurance is cheaper than private insurance (as all OECD countries demonstrate) is because a single buyer and multiple sellers is called a monopsony (this gives the govt good bargaining power, like with Medicare+Medicaid), and because administration costs are lower.

Obama also giving a sweetheart deal to the health insurers.

good post, want to add one thing, re: GFC and the Rubin/Summers deregulation Can't remember the exact commentator, one of William Black/Robert Reich/Paul Krugman/Joseph Stiglitz, but one was talking about regulation being absolutely necessary, with an example of his mother in China turning off electrical equipment prior to going to bed (because of potential fire hazard). Point was regulation required so market transactions can proceed, and without sufficient regulation, it inhibits economic activity.

Re: Wall Street regulation and derivatives. Harry Markopolos has said the products are too inscrutable to the SEC, and the congress utterly unwilling to stop those campaign contributions at the spigot. Obviously campaign reform required.

segue to Obama?

well, Obama backed away from agreements with McCain for public financing, when the floodgates opened from grass roots.
first diplomatic appointments? UK ambassador to Citi, German ambassador to Goldmans.

 

[Anonymous]

Come on Scott you're a smart guy, you know the answer to that. Remember death panels, socalism, higher taxes, the health insurance industry was not afraid to spend money to insure that nobody screwed with their enormous cash cow. A scared population is a controlable population, and their scare tactics certainly worked.

Really?

http://www.usnews.com/money/blogs/flowchart/2009/8/25/why-health-insurers-make-lousy-villains.html

Look, the health care system in this country has problems. To lay it all at the feet of the insurance co's does not tell the whole story.

The real question is this, is govt in a better position to operate what amounts to roughly 1/8 of the GDP of this country. If the answer is "yes", then so be it. I think it's the wrong move.

 

[iliveonnitro]

I somehow have never considered the Democrats to have a corner on the honesty market.

Regardless of political affiliation, honesty is not a typical characteristic found in government.

That statement goes well beyond "legitimate" politics, too.

 

[usedtobefast]

I am just trying to express, as an outsider, the image I see in the media of the crowds against obama- basically trailer trash. I think a lot of the opposition to obama is based on simple racism; being organized and led by big business. I've seen clips of this glen beck character, I honestly can't believe anyone could stand watching two minutes of him- I don't think those who do don't really think for themselves. That is my problem with democracy; if most of the lemmings choose to jump into the sea it does not mean that is the right choice. And if there are crowds of the poor, destitute, downtrodden and homeless lining up against free healthcare I can only conclude they are beguiled.

I am very much an outsider in this debate- it's just my 2 cents- I can't vote in the states, you pay your taxes, you have to live with the consequences of your decisions-I just hate to see such poverty and uncaring in such a wealthy nation.

i am texas born myself and agree on the racism charge as well. i saw institutionalized racism as a kid and recognized it immediately. it is the mammoth in the room no one wants to address.- either way. it does cut both ways for sure. very delicate subject. capitalism is not democracy.

 

[Anonymous]

Dems don't have a straight line party vote. Republicans and Independents (particularly Leiberman) can filibuster and block the legislation in the Senate if dems don't give something in concession.

There are 40 Rep. Senators, 58 Dems and 2 Independent. Lieberman caucus's with the dems. Senator Sanders supports the public option.
http://sanders.senate.gov/

The bottom line? The Republicans can't stop this. This is an in-fight between Dems.

So I ask again, why is this legislation having so much trouble?

 

[Anonymous]

I am just trying to express, as an outsider, the image I see in the media of the crowds against obama- basically trailer trash. I think a lot of the opposition to obama is based on simple racism; being organized and led by big business. I've seen clips of this glen beck character, I honestly can't believe anyone could stand watching two minutes of him- I don't think those who do don't really think for themselves. That is my problem with democracy; if most of the lemmings choose to jump into the sea it does not mean that is the right choice. And if there are crowds of the poor, destitute, downtrodden and homeless lining up against free healthcare I can only conclude they are beguiled.

I am very much an outsider in this debate- it's just my 2 cents- I can't vote in the states, you pay your taxes, you have to live with the consequences of your decisions-I just hate to see such poverty and uncaring in such a wealthy nation.

You see what the mainstream media in the US wants you to see. There was a skirmish in the LeMond/Trek lawsuit thread earlier today about this very thing.

Your perception of racism regarding opposition to Obama policies is further evience of BS being fed to you through the US media. If racism were that pervasive in the US, Obama never would have been elected (by a comparitively wide margin).

Uncaring? That's pretty much how I define govt and why I am so opposed to the further erosion of Liberty in this country. I just can't believe that the absolute crap that is in Washington DC are capable of working out long term solutions to this country's problems. Most everyone posting on this thread has much to say about corporate corruption. Almost no one is willing to even acknowledge that Washington DC is no better. The difference is the corporate types (at least some) eventually get their heah handed to them. When I see Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, Hank Paulson and Chris Cox led away from the Capitol in hand-cuffs then, maybe, I will start to believe that we are starting to clean up the cespool that is currently writing legislation in this country. But I'm not holding my breath.

 

[BroDeal]

Really?

http://www.usnews.com/money/blogs/flowchart/2009/8/25/why-health-insurers-make-lousy-villains.html

Look, the health care system in this country has problems. To lay it all at the feet of the insurance co's does not tell the whole story.

The real question is this, is govt in a better position to operate what amounts to roughly 1/8 of the GDP of this country. If the answer is "yes", then so be it. I think it's the wrong move.

Private industry had their chance. It utterly failed. It produced the most expensive healthcare system in the world with the worst outcomes.

Just once--once I tell you--I would like to hear one of these healthcase naysayers actually come up with a solution. All they do is b!tch about socialism. They never have any answers.

 

[blackcat]

Private industry had their chance. It utterly failed. It produced the most expensive healthcare system in the world with the worst outcomes.

Just once--once I tell you--I would like to hear one of these healthcase naysayers actually come up with a solution. All they do is b!tch about socialism. They never have any answers.

I was a big fan of Peter Schiff til he started talking about health insurance and the private superior solution. Guess running for GOP senate seat will do that. He running from Connecticut the Health Insurance (and hedgie) state.

 

[Hugh Januss]

Private industry had their chance. It utterly failed. It produced the most expensive healthcare system in the world with the worst outcomes.

Just once--once I tell you--I would like to hear one of these healthcase naysayers actually come up with a solution. All they do is b!tch about socialism. They never have any answers.

According to Scott Socal's own link the health care industry makes 3.4% profit on 1/8 of the entire GDP. Am I wrong in thinking that is a huge chunk of change? If it was run as a nonprofit wouldn't that be enough all by itself to cover the uninsured in this country. On top of that we no longer have to pay the CEOs their customary millions or the millions in advertising Healthnet over Cigna or vice versa. Sure some insurance salesmen would need to find real jobs, but no good thing ever comes for free.

 

[blackcat]

not compared to finance.

Finance and insurance is just paper shuffling, the GFC paid end to the debate that they lubricate the economy with optimum allocation of resources.

What are the stats on Ivy League grads going off to finance industry? 30 years ago 5%? Currently 40%? Lots of intellectual capital wasted in pursuit of capital.

may as well add in "Defense" Industry spending also.

 

[scribe]

There are 40 Rep. Senators, 58 Dems and 2 Independent. Lieberman caucus's with the dems. Senator Sanders supports the public option.
http://sanders.senate.gov/

The bottom line? The Republicans can't stop this. This is an in-fight between Dems.

So I ask again, why is this legislation having so much trouble?

In fighting? This is legislation, bro. It is not a clean business. Dems will pull it together and pass something. The real damage the conservatives fear are the amendments down the road.

 

[Anonymous]

Private industry had their chance. It utterly failed. It produced the most expensive healthcare system in the world with the worst outcomes.

Just once--once I tell you--I would like to hear one of these healthcase naysayers actually come up with a solution. All they do is b!tch about socialism. They never have any answers.

You are just wrong. If you want to cite the WHO reports then you might want to look at how the WHO arrived at their conclusions. Why don't you look at cancer survival rates at the US (among other things)?

There are proposals out there you just are not listening because your mind is made up. We could start with tort reform, med insurance purcahse across state lines, rules regarding pre-existing conditions, major modifications to the HMO structure, no-frills catastrophic coverage policies (for the healthy young these policies would be very inexpensive), expansion of health savings accounts... BUT, I don't think it matters. Once in the benevolent hands of uncle sam everything will be fixed.

Once, just once, I would like someone to point at something (anything) the govt does well from a cost (including administrative overhead) standpoint. Without the profit motive there is exactly zero pressure to be efficient. The US govt has an endless source of revenue no matter how bad they jack things up.

BTW, the fears of healthcare rationing being unfounded? Try getting the H1N1 virus vaccine if you are over 50 and at risk. Good luck with that.

 

[Anonymous]

According to Scott Socal's own link the health care industry makes 3.4% profit on 1/8 of the entire GDP. Am I wrong in thinking that is a huge chunk of change? If it was run as a nonprofit wouldn't that be enough all by itself to cover the uninsured in this country. On top of that we no longer have to pay the CEOs their customary millions or the millions in advertising Healthnet over Cigna or vice versa. Sure some insurance salesmen would need to find real jobs, but no good thing ever comes for free.

Hugh, we are just discussing stuff and I think much of you, I mean we agree on bikes, babes and beer.

Are you serious?

Seriously, 3.4% marging is pretty tight when you consider the risk. Let's say H1N1 or some other major virus or illness sweeps this country (or natural disaster... anything that drives major numbers of people to seek medical attention). The reserves the health insurers hold could be exhausted fairly quickly. Additionally, individual states will shut down insurance companies if they are not profitable for obvious reasons.

It's really unfair to lay this at the feet of the health insurance industry. Full disclosure: I am only slightly involved in this industry. If the govt takes it over it would not effect me personally from a business standpoint, so my position is not one of self-preservation.

 

[Cobblestones]

There are 40 Rep. Senators, 58 Dems and 2 Independent. Lieberman caucus's with the dems. Senator Sanders supports the public option.
http://sanders.senate.gov/

The bottom line? The Republicans can't stop this. This is an in-fight between Dems.

So I ask again, why is this legislation having so much trouble?

You ask the wrong question, I think. Don't ask how many senators are democrats and how many are republicans. Ask, how many senators get major campaign contributions from the health insurance industry** and how many don't. Then check which side has the majority.

Same with the banking sector, pharma industry etc.

**And include to check how many spouses or close relatives have important positions in said industry etc.

ETA: As an example of an utterly corrupt congressman, I give you Steve Buyer and his Frontier Foundation. It's a TPM site, so, of course it's partisan, but the facts really do speak for themselves in this case. Watch the CBS interview which is linked at the bottom of the site. Also, it's just one example. I could have dug up a democratic example just as well. It runs in both parties, sadly.

BTW, the fears of healthcare rationing being unfounded? Try getting the H1N1 virus vaccine if you are over 50 and at risk. Good luck with that.

It's actually very easy. Just work for Goldman Sachs, Shittybank or Skank of America. You'll get the vaccine even if you're not at risk

 

[Anonymous]

I was a big fan of Peter Schiff til he started talking about health insurance and the private superior solution. Guess running for GOP senate seat will do that. He running from Connecticut the Health Insurance (and hedgie) state.

Is it at all possible that Schiff may be correct?

So Schiff becomes corrupt when he runs for political office but not before? What does that say about those in political office, or is this just an isolated case with Schiff? And those are the folks you trust to remake the healthcare system and do it effectively, or is it you only think those that run for or are currently in the GOP are able to be corrupt?

I don't follow your logic on this one.

 

[Anonymous]

You ask the wrong question, I think. Don't ask how many senators are democrats and how many are republicans. Ask, how many senators get major campaign contributions from the health insurance industry** and how many don't. Then check which side has the majority.

Same with the banking sector, pharma industry etc.

**And include to check how many spouses or close relatives have important positions in said industry etc.



It's actually very easy. Just work for Goldman Sachs, Shittybank or Skank of America. You'll get the vaccine even if you're not at risk

Ok Cobbles, I don't necessarily disagree with you.

So these are the one's who are either corrupt or corruptable that you place your faith in? I acknowledge corruption in the private sector but it is much easier to root that out. Last time I checked Chris Dodd was still in charge of Senate Banking. Compare that with Angelo Mozillo or Hank Goldberg (DB's that got rich BUT are no longer making decisions for their organizations).

 

[CentralCaliBike]

Private industry had their chance. It utterly failed. It produced the most expensive healthcare system in the world with the worst outcomes.

Is it possible that it is the most costly because this nation has the most number of cutting edge medical procedures in the world?