Universal health insurance

[Oscarthecat]

Absolutely, I meant every bit of it. To learn more about sunk costs, see here:

=“http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunk_cost”

Sunk cost - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Here’s something interesting I learned about sunk costs from that link…

“The economic approach that sunk costs should not be considered when decisions are being made can lead to a situation where the sum of a number of good decisions can lead to one big disaster.”

I guess that might apply to Phamarceutical companies in regard to the fact that their primary value is in their intellectual property-their patents, which are the result of their R&D. While a pharma company might validly consider marketing a “sunk cost” they would be foolish to blanketly label R&D a “sunk cost” because it is the very thing that makes or breaks their company.

 

[stinkcat_14]

Are you sure? Because losses in R&D generally lead to cutbacks in R&D…but maybe you already know that

In the long run, R and D investment has to be profitable otherwise it will not be done. However, in the short run, the sunk costs are irrelevant. So when Pfizer decides whether to sell a drug to Canada, it looks at the marginal costs and the marginal benefits, but ignores the sunk costs.

and at the same time, they will stop producing new drugs, because the costs outweigh the benefit. That sounds super.

Rather short sighted of Canada, don’t you think?

How much has Canada’s policy affected US drug R and D?

 

[Oscarthecat]

In the long run, R and D investment has to be profitable otherwise it will not be done. However, in the short run, the sunk costs are irrelevant. So when Pfizer decides whether to sell a drug to Canada, it looks at the marginal costs and the marginal benefits, but ignores the sunk costs.

How much has Canada’s policy affected US drug R and D?

As mentioned before, it increases the cost to US consumers, because we offset Canada’s costs. Although I expect you’ll want to spin it by talking about “fair costs,” and assert that the sale of drugs to one country has no impact on the sale of drugs to another, as though supply and demand were irrelevant because each buyer is an independent agent.

If the US started playing the same game as Canada with the pharma companies, the Pharma companies would look to recoup those costs. Effectively, either Canada would lose some of their negotiating power as the Pharma companies demand higher prices for their goods, which would not be good for Canada, or the Pharma companies would cut back on R&D, which would not be good for anyone.

 

[vern_humphrey]

In other words, using your monopoly power is immoral? Is this just immoral for governments or for people and companies as well?

Of course monopolies are wrong. But what Canada is doing is not monopoly – as an economist, you should understand that. A monopoly is one seller, many buyers. In terms of health care in general, Canada is a monopsony (many sellers, one buyer.)

But in this case, Canada is using simple force majure – little different from the Mafia.

 

[vern_humphrey]

As mentioned before, it increases the cost to US consumers, because we offset Canada’s costs. Although I expect you’ll want to spin it by talking about “fair costs,” and assert that the sale of drugs to one country has no impact on the sale of drugs to another, as though supply and demand were irrelevant because each buyer is an independent agent.

If the US started playing the same game as Canada with the pharma companies, the Pharma companies would look to recoup those costs. Effectively, either Canada would lose some of their negotiating power as the Pharma companies demand higher prices for their goods, which would not be good for Canada, or the Pharma companies would cut back on R&D, which would not be good for anyone.

The pharmacy companies cannot demand higher prices from Canada. If they do, Canada will confiscate their patents, assign a Canadian company to produce the drug, and “compensate” them with a pittance.

This is stealing, pure and simple, and the ultimate victim is the American consumer.

 

[stinkcat_14]

Of course monopolies are wrong. But what Canada is doing is not monopoly – as an economist, you should understand that. A monopoly is one seller, many buyers. In terms of health care in general, Canada is a monopsony (many sellers, one buyer.)

But in this case, Canada is using simple force majure – little different from the Mafia.

Of course I didn’t say that Canada was a monopoly, I said they had monopoly power. By monopoly power I mean that Canada has the ability through its behavior to influence the price. True it has some monopsony power, although it would not be a pure monopsony because the big pharma industry is more oligopolistic than competitive.

 

[cynic]

What laissez-fairists suggest is the exact opposite: even if UHC is clearly better, we should oppose it because lazy people don’t deserve medicine as they have not earned it. I vehemently disagree with that. Lazy people don’t deserve TVs, or fancy dinners, or lavish houses. But they do deserve medicine. A hospital will treat a homeless man having a heart attack, why won’t they give him meds? Just because he happens to be lazy?
.

Exactly. Why should somebody die of a treatable condition simply for being lazy, or having a low paying job?

I also point out that many Rothbardians, anarcho-capitalists and Objectivists – ultra laissez-faire advocates – would say that hospitals shouldn’t even treat poor having heart attacks. This is clearly Social Darwinism. The middle ground, what we have now, is essentially the same thing, only “unjust” as opposed to “outright cruel.” They mostly comprise of atheists as well, who believe that a man’s worth is all that matters, not his humanity.

Libertarians, those who most vehemently opposed to the nanny-state, generally hold that the right to your earnings is more important than anothers life. In other words the ends don’t justify this particular means. Property matters more than people.

They obsess about ‘force’ being used too, and believe that government involvement encourages weakness and irresponsibility.

But by this reasoning so could charity. Only a social Darwinian model - where people die as a result of their choices - could ever encourage the right kind of behaviour. So charity is not a valid alternative.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Of course I didn’t say that Canada was a monopoly, I said they had monopoly power.

What is their monopoly? What does Canada produce that everyone has to buy?

By monopoly power I mean that Canada has the ability through its behavior to influence the price.

Canada uses sheer force. What has that to do with monopoly?

True it has some monopsony power, although it would not be a pure monopsony because the big pharma industry is more oligopolistic than competitive.

Primarily because the government has squelched the smaller producers.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Exactly. Why should somebody die of a treatable condition simply for being lazy, or having a low paying job?

Why should somebody die of a treatable condition simply because the government imposed price controls and brought R&D to a halt?

Why should somebody die of a treatable condition simply because the government imposed rules and regulations that drove out doctors and created long waiting lists for treatment?

Libertarians, those who most vehemently opposed to the nanny-state, generally hold that the right to your earnings is more important than anothers life. In other words the ends don’t justify this particular means. Property matters more than people.

I suspect libertarians would disagree with that.

The rest of us hold that the inefficiencies of government-run systems are so well known that to blunder into a government-run health care system will cost lives.

They obsess about ‘force’ being used too, and believe that government involvement encourages weakness and irresponsibility.

And also imposes rule by bureaucrats, whose main aim is to make their own jobs easier.

But by this reasoning so could charity. Only a social Darwinian model - where people die as a result of their choices - could ever encourage the right kind of behaviour. So charity is not a valid alternative.

Now, **there **is sophistry in action.

 

[stinkcat_14]

Canada uses sheer force. What has that to do with monopoly?

Canada uses no more force than Donald Trump does. If Pfizer wants to rent space in Trump Tower, Pfizer has to play by the Donald’s rules or go someplace else. Similarly if Pfizer wants to sell drugs in Canada, they can either play by Canada’s rules or sell those drugs to someone else.

 

[Oscarthecat]

The pharmacy companies cannot demand higher prices from Canada. If they do, Canada will confiscate their patents, assign a Canadian company to produce the drug, and “compensate” them with a pittance.

This is stealing, pure and simple, and the ultimate victim is the American consumer.

Right, and in response, as I think I mentioned before, the drug companies will simply stop registering new patents in Canada-leaving Canada with the options of reverse engineering drugs, stealing drug designs from those companies, or going without new drugs.

Canada could confiscate those patents, but it would be rather shortsighted of them.

 

[Oscarthecat]

Of course I didn’t say that Canada was a monopoly, I said they had monopoly power. By monopoly power I mean that Canada has the ability through its behavior to influence the price. True it has some monopsony power, although it would not be a pure monopsony because the big pharma industry is more oligopolistic than competitive.

Wow, lots of good scrabble words in there…

 

[Oscarthecat]

Since I don’t ascribe to that belief whatsoever, I don’t see how I can be considered a Marxist, socialist or communist. In fact, by the standards of America, I’m relatively conservative: I oppose high minimum wages, social security and unemployment welfare.

And yet you support a socialist program- that’s rather inconsistent.

My belief in universal health care is not philosophical but pragmatic. It clearly works better, it’s more just, it’s more efficient. If that weren’t true, I would support the best system available.

Would you? Because so far you have seemed very closed minded about looking at other possibilities.

What laissez-fairists suggest is the exact opposite: even if UHC is clearly better, we should oppose it because lazy people don’t deserve medicine as they have not earned it. I vehemently disagree with that. Lazy people don’t deserve TVs, or fancy dinners, or lavish houses. But they do deserve medicine. A hospital will treat a homeless man having a heart attack, why won’t they give him meds? Just because he happens to be lazy?

Have I ever referred to the sick or the poor as lazy? Maybe others have, but don’t believe I have.

I’m not saying that anyone deserves to go without healthcare. What I’m saying is that it isn’t the role of the government to provide it for them, and it certainly isn’t the role of one citizen who believes in UHC to force it on citizens who don’t.

I also point out that many Rothbardians, anarcho-capitalists and Objectivists – ultra laissez-faire advocates – would say that hospitals shouldn’t even treat poor having heart attacks.

Sure, some might say that. But I can only speak for myself-and I have said repeatedly that we are compelled by Christian Charity to respond to those in need.

But we are certainly NOT supposed to force those around us to act against their will.

that is, if I saw someone in need, then I would go help them. I wouldn’t get the government to make everyone else do it.

This is clearly Social Darwinism. The middle ground, what we have now, is essentially the same thing, only “unjust” as opposed to “outright cruel.” They mostly comprise of atheists as well, who believe that a man’s worth is all that matters, not his humanity. So there is Godlessness on both ends of the spectrum, it is not fair to simply say “capitalism = Christian, socialism = atheism.”

No, this is clearly a straw man.

You continue to bring up the issue of violence, that somehow we’re forcing you to pay for UHC. This is not the case.

Not this again…

If you don’t want to pay taxes, you may move to a country with less.

We’ve already been through this…

Nobody is forcing you to stay in the U.S. and fund things you hate.

I think that it is arrogant and intolerant of you to expect everyone who disagrees with your vision of this country to leave it.
I’m not asking you to leave, but if you do, please take your taxes and your benefits with you-

What you don’t get to do is benefit from public taxation without contributing.

But you said earlier that I can choose to NOT benefit from UHC. So if I choose to NOT benefit from UHC, why do I still have to pay for it?

That is tax evasion. It is stealing, and it is a crime.

Are you really accusing me of stealing because I want to keep my own money???

It is a crime because the government says it is a crime.

We would only be using violence to force you to pay taxes if we said that you could not leave the U.S.

…said the king of England to the founding fathers…

 

[stinkcat_14]

Wow, lots of good scrabble words in there…

Of course, if you wanted more scrabble words, I would have asked Vern if his data had problems with heteroscedasticity and multicollinearity. Of course, he could have been ignoring the endogeneity inherent in the data .

 

[EphelDuath]

And yet you support a socialist program- that’s rather inconsistent.

Economic beliefs should be based on pragmatism, not philosophy. I oppose minimum wages because they don’t do the intended effect. Just the same, I support UHC because it works better than the alternatives.

I’m not saying that anyone deserves to go without healthcare. What I’m saying is that it isn’t the role of the government to provide it for them,

Yes, but the government is the only entity capable of doing so. Charity, while extremely virtuous, simply is not an encompassing enough entity to fund health care for everybody.

and it certainly isn’t the role of one citizen who believes in UHC to force it on citizens who don’t.

If in a republic, the majority makes a decision, the minority isn’t allowed to disobey it. Otherwise you have things like the Civil War. If House and Senate approve a UHC bill, what then would you do?

I think that it is arrogant and intolerant of you to expect everyone who disagrees with your vision of this country to leave it.

I’m not asking you to leave the country. I’m asking you to drop the notion that making you pay taxes is the equivalent of an authoritarian state. But, if you really, really, really don’t want to pay taxes, then there are other countries available.

My point is that if a democratic republic decides that everybody should contribute to something, you don’t get to get out of it

But you said earlier that I can choose to NOT benefit from UHC. So if I choose to NOT benefit from UHC, why do I still have to pay for it?

It’s impossible not to benefit, since even if you opt for private health care, you can still take public medicine if you so choose. The option is always available.

Are you really accusing me of stealing because I want to keep my own money???

That’s what tax evasion is! You’re making other people pay for your benefits like national defense. You’re forcing other people to pave your way in society.

…said the king of England to the founding fathers…

George III did not let the Americans leave the British Empire. In fact, that’s what the Revolutionary War was about, he wanted to force them to stay. If you can’t see the difference between “leaving because you don’t want to pay taxes” and “having to stay so you’ll be forced to pay taxes,” I don’t know what to say.

 

[Oscarthecat]

Exactly. Why should somebody die of a treatable condition simply for being lazy, or having a low paying job?

Here we go again with you implying that I think poor people should die…
and for the record, I don’t hate anyone

Libertarians, those who most vehemently opposed to the nanny-state, generally hold that the right to your earnings is more important than anothers life. In other words the ends don’t justify this particular means. Property matters more than people.

The implication here is that free marketeers buy into the socialist lie that the government can help people more than people can help people. If that were true, then yes, we would be making a decision between helping people and amassing wealth.
The fact is, I simply don’t believe that the government can use my money more effectively than I can. Consequently, I believe that creating big government programs actually hurts more people than helps.

For example, if you ask me for 10 dollars to help someone else, there are two reasons I might not give it to you-
First, I may simply be a selfish jerk.
Second, I may not believe you are capable of achieving your goal, and don’t want to waste money that could have helped someone else.

They obsess about ‘force’ being used too,

Yeah, people who don’t want to have force used on them are just obsessive wackos

and believe that government involvement encourages weakness and irresponsibility.

well, you’ve got me there…

But by this reasoning so could charity.

that’s why charity is voluntary- if a particular charitable endeavor proves to encourage weakness and irresponsibility, then I can choose to stop supporting it.
When the government endeavors prove to encourage the same, I am forced to pay higher taxes because liberals generally want to throw more of other people’s money at problems the government can’t fix.

Only a social Darwinian model - where people die as a result of their choices - could ever encourage the right kind of behaviour. So charity is not a valid alternative.

That brings up another funny thing about the socialist elite-they hold themselves so high above the rest of society that they don’t think people could possibly be expected to make the connection between choices and consequences.

• so they want to ban smoking, because people can’t understand it is bad for them.
• and they pass seatbelt laws, because people can’t understand it is good for them.
• and they make everybody else pay for their social programs, because people can’t be relied upon to respond responsibly toward others in need.

 

[EphelDuath]

So those who are poor don’t deserve to choose? They just have to take whatever the government gives them? What if they want care from a more expensive, private physician?

Then they can make money and afford it. Seriously, your argument is hurting yourself more than it is me: you’re saying that it’s unfair that people with higher incomes deserve higher standards of medical care. What, exactly, is your plan advocating?

Are you saying that they should have to pay for that? What if they can’t? Many UHC proponents would argue that that hardly seems fair.

It is not a right to have supreme health care, it is only a right to have adequate health care.

Have you ever worked for an organization that receives federal grant dollars? Because I have worked for several. The federal government dictates very specifically how an organization is allowed to spend the money they dole out.

And again, why does it have to be exactly the same?

DC will be in charge of my healthcare because they will dictate that their money cannot be spent on certain meds, on certain procedures, on certain types of specialties, or that I have to completel specific steps before receiving a specific level or type of care.

Says who?

Do you think that we don’t have to pay for public education? Who do you think pays for it? Our tax dollars pay for it.

My mistake, I thought you meant that we have to pay directly for it.

It costs more money on average to educate a student in the public school system in this country than it does in private school system

Source?

No, you’re missing the whole point. The reason public education is deteriorating (one of them, anyway) is because many parents have decided that their child’s education is the government’s responsibility.

That obviously is not the only reason. Finland has the best education in the world and they’re more “socialist” than ours is.

In the same way, as demonstrated in an article I posted several days ago, there is evidence that canadians under UHC don’t take as much personal responsibility for their own health, as measured by preventative care utilization.

Does this mean that we shouldn’t give medicine to people so that they will force themselves to be healthier? How is that not social Darwinism?

People want UHC because they don’t think they should have to worry about how they are going to get healthcare. People want public education, even though it is getting bad, because they don’t want to have to worry about educating their child.

No, many parents are very concerned about the decline of public education. The problem is that they cannot afford private school

“Government is not the solution to our problems. Government IS the problem.” -R. Reagan

Relevant quote if there was sufficient evidence to suggest that UHC was worse than private, except it’s not.

-according to the WHO, that is. But you would rather take the word of a bunch of socialists over a bunch of libertarians.

World Health Organization is a bunch of socialists?

Two wrongs make a right?

No, but you’re the one who thinks taxes are somehow equatable to government tyranny. This might be true in the world of Atlas Shrugged or BioShock, but not here.

How do you define fair? The cigar manufacturer got a fair price for those cigars. He used that money to pay his workers, feed his family, and probably buy healthcare. That seems fair.

You’re focusing on the wrong part of that sentence. It’s not unfair that he bought cigars. It’s unfair that he doesn’t have to worry about his health because he’s rich whereas many people lose their homes because they cannot get sufficient medicine.

You want to take money away from one person against their will just because you believe it is the right way to do things, and because you don’t believe that other people are able to make good choices. Is that fair?

If charity was sufficient enough to pay for medicine for everybody, then I would use that. It’s not, and I dare you to find me a single society where it is. But no, I don’t want “take money from one person;” I want to tax. That’s what taxes do. They levee from every person in society in order to maintain society.

You want to use the government to inflict force on me if I don’t pay for this program, even though I find it morally objectionable. Is that fair?

The only way the government will inflict force upon you is if you pull a gun on the tax collector.

Cheapest? No-that’s already been refuted.

No, it hasn’t. The only response offered is that “LOL GOVERNMENT OWNERSHIP MAKES THINGS MORE EXPENSIVE,” without reading the article.

citizen.org/pressroom/release.cfm?ID=1623

Most fair? Uh huh. As long as you have the guns and we have the money.

And yet, it’s fair that people don’t get medicine because they don’t have the money?

 

[Oscarthecat]

Economic beliefs should be based on pragmatism, not philosophy. I oppose minimum wages because they don’t do the intended effect. Just the same, I support UHC because it works better than the alternatives.

um, don’t want to burst your bubble, but pragmatism IS a philosophical method that places primary value on the effectiveness of a given proposal.

The problem with being strictly pragmatic is that you end up valuing the ends over the means. For example, the most effective way to battle overpopulation would be to drop bombs on large cities- very pragmatic, but hardly consistent with Catholic Moral Teaching.

Yes, but the government is the only entity capable of doing so.
Charity, while extremely virtuous, simply is not an encompassing enough entity to fund health care for everybody.

More socialist propaganda-sewing the lie that “people have no power without the government”
Getting very tired of this…

If in a republic, the majority makes a decision, the minority isn’t allowed to disobey it. Otherwise you have things like the Civil War. If House and Senate approve a UHC bill, what then would you do?

Majority rule is just a civilized version of mob rule…
not too long ago, the government passed laws that segregated people according to race and denied women the right to vote…
should people have just laid down and let the government keep those laws just because a majority said so?

I’m not asking you to leave the country.

No, you’re just telling me that if I don’t, you have no moral objection to government goons breaking down my door and putting my family out on the street.

I’m asking you to drop the notion that making you pay taxes is the equivalent of an authoritarian state. But, if you really, really, really don’t want to pay taxes, then there are other countries available.

The real issue here is that people keep expanding the role of government, and they expect everyone else to pay for it.

If you want to do something, then pay for it yourself. If you want me to help you pay for it, then ask me.
Just don’t try to force me to do it.

In return, I promise not to make you pay for any of my charitable endeavors against your will.

My point is that if a democratic republic decides that everybody should contribute to something, you don’t get to get out of it

So you’re saying we should just go along with whatever the democratic republic tells me to do- doesn’t matter what that is, because that’s just how it is.

Do you change your values according to popular opinion?

Mine don’t.

It’s impossible not to benefit, since even if you opt for private health care, you can still take public medicine if you so choose. The option is always available.

First of all, you’re making the assertion that UHC is beneficial.

Even if I accept that premise, which I don’t, I’m not benefitting from UHC if I pay for private care. So… I guess it is possible not to benefit.

That’s what tax evasion is! You’re making other people pay for your benefits like national defense. You’re forcing other people to pave your way in society.

No, I’m not forcing them to pave my way because you said that we’re all free to leave.

Everyone has a point past which they would stop paying their taxes. UHC just isn’t yours. That doesn’t mean that it is out of the realm of possibility that the government could come up with something you find so objectionable that you would refuse to pay your taxes out of protest.

George III did not let the Americans leave England. In fact, that’s what the Revolutionary War was about, he wanted to force them to stay. If you can’t see the difference between “leaving because you don’t want to pay taxes” and “having to stay so you’ll be forced to pay taxes,” I don’t know what to say.

They wanted an unjust government to leave them alone.
My point stands.

 

[Oscarthecat]

Seriously, your argument is hurting yourself more than it is me: you’re saying that it’s unfair that people with higher incomes deserve higher standards of medical care.

i·ro·ny:
–noun, plural -nies.

1. the use of words to convey a meaning that is the opposite of its literal meaning: the irony of her reply, “How nice!” when I said I had to work all weekend.

b. (esp. in contemporary writing) a manner of organizing a work so as to give full expression to contradictory or complementary impulses, attitudes, etc., esp. as a means of indicating detachment from a subject, theme, or emotion.

1. an objectively or humorously sardonic utterance, disposition, quality, etc.

 

[cynic]

If charity was sufficient enough to pay for medicine for everybody, then I would use that. It’s not, and I dare you to find me a single society where it is. But no, I don’t want “take money from one person;” I want to tax. That’s what taxes do. They levee from every person in society in order to maintain society.

Every working person. Other than that this is a perfect sum-up.