Healthcareproviders and preexisting conditions | 55 comments (55 topical, 0 hidden)
Nothing for the massage (none / 1)
Price controls never works
So if the government keeps prizes down thereby lowering costs that equals everything more expencive... yeah that one I just don't get :-s

Price controls cause shortages.

Then she comes with some number that 88% of all medical costs are paid by thirdparty providers (which she explains is insurance and the government)... hmmm yeah if you pay premiums shouldn't that number be 100%...

No.

Seriously... are you retarded or just forgetfull?


If you think health care is expensive now, wait until you see what it costs when it's "free."

by TheArtistFormerlyKnownAsTwba on 11/13/2009 06:42:01 AM EST

[ Parent ]
:-D (none / 1)
Thank you for returning to trying to make an argument for your case instead of just calling me an asshole etc... (yeah I know you threw my namecalling 'Seriously... are you retarded or just forgetfull' of you back in my face but that's fine... if I can't take what I dish out I shouldn't dish it out to begin with :-D

You're arguments are still wrong but at least you're trying :-D

But let's take the article you've sitet as you're argument for why pricecontrols doesn't work...

First of all it's allways a good thing to start with finding out where the author is coming from (what his premis is)...

Now I don't know him personally but he is a writer for a magazine called 'capitalism magazine'... which means he is probably a strong proponent of a free marked without regulation of any kind... but if that's his premis (all regulation is bad) and he concludes in the end that a specific regulation is bad then that's just a circular argument and as such holds NO value... (essetially he's saying - if all regulations are bad then this regulation is bad... this is logically true but holds no information and therefor is worthless)...

But like I said... I don't know him and on the off chance that he is not starting from that premise but thinks that some regulation is good... just not this one... let's look at his argumentation...

he starts by siting hawaii's attemt in 2002 to control oilprizes and then speculates why they differed it to 2004 and that it was because they knew that it would have bad concequences so they differed it till after the elections and then states that as fact...

The problem here is unless he has sources (which he does not - or doesn't mention) inside the hawaiian government telling him that this was the reason then it is NOT fact... just speculation...

Now he might be right (only time will tell) but other explanations can be offered to why they differed the implementation of set prizecontrol... maybe they realized that if implemented imediatly and not give the oilcompagnies sufficient warning so they could implement changes to adjust to the new rules it would end up costing the compagnies a lot of money and thereby jobs and mayby even put them out of business (= even more jobs lost) so they decided to give the compagnies ample warning so the impact wouldn't be fatal...

I'm not saying that's the reason either but his theory of why they did it is NOT the only reasonable explanation so it doesn't prove that they somehow knew (or expected) that prizecontrols (allthough populist) are bad... so that part of the argument falls away (to be revisited another day if he gives proof that he was right about the motivation)...

then he sites that oilcompagnies have allready protested and threatned to leave hawaii... but off course the oilcompagnies are gonna complain... did you expect anything different?... that's not an argument for it being wrong or even hurtful... to any compagny change is ALLWAYS bad... the logic being... as is now makes us a lot off money (that is known) and if you change that I don't know if I can still make a lot of money (that is unknown) so I want to stay in the status quo cause here I know I'll make money...

But what if they get mad and leaves?
you think that even if they leave compagnies will leave any marked where they can make money? - no the answer is that even if the compagny leaves they will still sell oil to hawaii at the lower prizes (it's not all just money it's also markedshares)...
Let me give you an example from denmark... we have a cap on medical expences... you think that means that no pharmacutical will sell their products in denmark (I meen we are only 5 mill people so it's not the worlds biggest marked)?
No they ALL sell their products here but at a lower prize than countries whithout a prizecap and the same will be true for hawaii... so they will still have the same amount of oil as they had before but cheaper... as long as the compagnies still can make money they will sell... so NO shortage... and that takes care of that argument...

Then he sites the oilcrisis of '79 and blames it on the prizecontrol of oil back then... and since there have been no such crisis after reagan got rid of those controls (well they are waiting in line now aren't they?) :-D

Also I'm old enough to remember the crisis and the reason for it... and it is demonstraly wrong that it was because of prizecontrol...

Now I don't know about the US prizecontrols and what they were in '79 but I do know that NO country in europe had any prizecontrols on oil in the 70'ies and we also (as did the rest of the world) an oilcrisis... it was worldwide and not just in the US... so that can't be the reason for the crisis... and infact the real reason (if he knew what he was talking about) was that in '79 the consumption of oil worldwide reached the level of the capacity of the middle-east to pump up oil... and as the consumption kept rising (and still do till this day) but the new methods of pumping even more oil out of the ground hadn't invented yet no increase in oilproduction followed so consumption rose above production and created a shortage worldwide which resulted in the crisis (NOT prizecontrol)...

To prove my point... we are reaching the same kind of bottleneck in the consumption/production cycle which is why oilprizes has skyrockeded worldwide in resent years (without prizecontrol in the US - excluding hawaii)... and if we don't SOON find improved methods of produktion or alternate energysources we will have a new oil crisis (again NOT because of prizecontrol)... so that takes care of that argument... :-D

Then he moves on to sweden and rentcontrol and sais that even though more people could afford homes and therefor more people bought a home... that would most centainly result in a shortage of homes available so eventualy the homes would have to cost more because shortage = more expencive... what he forgot was to look and see if that had been the case in sweden... and funny enough sweden didn't get a morgagecrisis or a shortage of house until reasently... but that was because of the worldwide economiccrisis and NOT because of yearlong rentcontrols... and that takes care of that argument... :-D

then he moves on to saying that not only does prizecontrols cause shortages (which he has yet to prove - see above) but also a decline in quality...

Then he mentions that if there is a shortage of housing the incentive of the landlord to maintain the houses disapears so the quality of housing goes down... and in that he is 100% right... in a shortage you get lower quality for the same money....

The only problem with that is as I have shown above prizecontrols do NOT create shortage so that 'strawmans' argument is pointless in this discusion on prizecontrol... since it doesn't create shortages it doesn't create lower quality... so that takes care of that argument... :-D

He then finishes by postulating that since prizecontrol causes lower quality (which it doesn't) waiting lists will skyrocket and because of the shortage (which it doesn't cause) it will eventually be astronimacaly more expencive than what you have now... but since I have allready shown that he failed to produce evidence that prizecontrols causes shortages causes lower quality there is NOT longer waitinglists and it is NOT more expencive which is what you see in ALL industrialized countries (except the US) which have universal healthcare payed for by taxes...

Again your argument turns out to be wrong...

But it all comes down to this... it doesn't matter how complex and finetuned your economic (or other) model is... if it contradicts reality the model must change NOT reality...

Your (and the author of the article) model predict that universal healthcare will be more expencive and produce lower quality...

The reality of allmost 100 years of univesal healthcare in the rest of the industrialized world have produced same to lower prizes and better healthcare...

And since your model contradicts reality there is only one option... your model is wrong and has to change to fit reality... reality doesn't have to change to fit your model... :-D

Love Thothlike

by Thothlike on 11/13/2009 01:55:01 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Econ (none / 1)
That price controls cause shortages is a basic economic fact.


If you think health care is expensive now, wait until you see what it costs when it's "free."

by TheArtistFormerlyKnownAsTwba on 11/13/2009 03:25:38 PM EST

[ Parent ]
hmmmm not really :-) (none / 1)
damn it you select looong articles for me to respond too... so this is the last one for me... otherwise you could tie me up for hours responding to article after article... so after this respons my respons to ALL further atempts to find new aticles (that are just gonna have the same flaws as these two) are gonna be...

It doesn't matter what your fine models and theories are... if their predictions contradict reality they are the ones who must conform to reality and NOT reality that must conform to your theories (read previous respond)... <you insert this answer yourself after future presented articles basically saying the same thing> :-D

But for this article...
He starts by reciting the same rent argument that we saw in the former article... claiming that a shortage in apartments will lower set quality...
I'm in 100% agreement... shortage = lower quality product... but (as it AGAIN will become apparent) prize-control does NOT create shortages so it's ireelevant to this discusion...

Then he sites a poll among economists that showed 76.3% of them believe that 'A ceiling on rents reduces the quality and quantity of housing available'... 16.6 percent agreed on the quality being lowered but not the quantity (which makes no sense) and only 6.5% believed that no shortage or qualityreduction will occur...

The problem with this is that it's NOT a democracy... there is a RIGHT and a WRONG answer to that question... it's NOT a matter of opinion... either it does create shortages (and subsequently lower quality) or it doesn't and the answer will be determined by REALITY (see my new standard answer to similar articles above)... so a vote or a poll on the subject is laughable as an argument...

Then he just simply states as fact... prizeceilings = shortages... well simply stating something is NOT an argument... it's a...... <wait for it>.... you've guessed it... statement :-D

Then he comes with a hypothetical scenario of wheatproduction... again NOT arguing just stating that a prizeceiling on wheat would create a lower wheat surply and an increase in demand which create a shortage... now that's just silly... explain to me why it would create a lower wheatsurply... the same amount of corn will still be planted and sowed and made to wheat so where does the lower surply come in? - mayby if the ceiling is set way lower than it costs to produce you have a point that than more farmers would go out of business and hence less wheat... but nobody is THAT unreasonable (unless during extreme shortages like during war or hyperinflation but then as he himself agrees it's just temporary ond after the war or inflation the cieling goes back up <more on that later>)... but if the ceiling is set so that the farmer can still make money just not as much then there will be NO lower surply and hence NO shortage even in his hypothetical example... that takes care of that argument... :-D

Then he goes on to the '79 oilcrisis... well I've answer that allready so <read previous respons>...

Then he sites the shortages during WW2 and how prizecontrols were implementet and all the detremental effects they had... I could say a lot about the effects too but thats NOT relevant in this discusion since he aparantly forgot (even though he himself mentions it...) that the prizecontrols came AFTER the shortages and can therefor logically NOT be the cause... and infact the cause of the shortages was the war itself and not anything else the governement did incl. prizecontrol... so that takes care of that argument... :-D

Then he mentions other examples during WW1 and WW2 where he mentions that the prizecontrols came AFTER the shortage and then quickly forgets again... so <allready answered>... again I have a lot to say about the detremental effects of the later prizecontrols and the real causes for them (but let me help you here... it was NOT the prizecontrols) but that's not relevant here since the prizecontrols obviously didn't cause the shortage which is your whole argument... so that takes care of that argument...

Then he starts talking about rationing (again comming after the shortage created by either war or hyperinflation) and how it's the only conclusion if you introduce prizecontrols (again AFTER the fact)... well rationing is only a tool AFTER the fact in case of EXTREME shortages such as during the great depression and the world wars etc... NOBODY has yet to be as stupid as to surgest rationing during surplus... and again everything he mentions comes AFTER the shortage so therefor can NOT be the cause of the shortage (incl prizecontrols and rationing)... so that takes care of that argument... :-D

Then after a loooooooong ranting about rationing... he goes on to labor issues and say that minimumwages MAY create uninployment... and he is right it may but unfortunatly for him reality shows that it doesn't...

Let me give you an example... in denmark we have had minimum wages since the 1930'ies and today the minimumwage in denmark is approx 17$/hour (that goes for ANY job imployed by ANYONE over 18)... since the early 90'ies till now we have had an unemplymentrate of between 1.2% and 2.3% and only since the economic crisis has it risen to 5.8% where it is now (NOT because of minimumwages but because of the crisis)... that's about half of the about 10% that the US has right now... so NO... minimumwage does NOT create unemployment it just create better wages... so that takes care of that argument... :-D

Then he goes back to the rent argument but I have allready answered that so... :-D

He then revisits the WW1 and WW2 and inflation argument and why prizecontrol is bad to instigate AFTER the shortage for a looooooong time (again I could say a lot about this but it's STILL not relevant since it's AFTER the shortage)...

And then he finishes by esentially saying QED (Quest Est Desmerandum - it is hereby proven)... well my good sir it is NOT... I rest my case...

Love Thothlike

by Thothlike on 11/13/2009 05:02:12 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Yes, really. (none / 1)
Price controls cause shortages.


If you think health care is expensive now, wait until you see what it costs when it's "free."

by TheArtistFormerlyKnownAsTwba on 11/13/2009 05:08:31 PM EST

[ Parent ]
hmmm... (none / 2)
just saying it doesn't make it so :-D

Love Thothlike

by Thothlike on 11/13/2009 05:16:22 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Question (none / 1)
Would Denmark's unemployment rate increase if the minimum wage was doubled to thirty four dollars per hour?


If you think health care is expensive now, wait until you see what it costs when it's "free."

by TheArtistFormerlyKnownAsTwba on 11/13/2009 06:01:16 PM EST

[ Parent ]
hmmm... (none / 0)
I'm not psychic so I don't know...

But since in the history of minimumwages a rise has NEVER increased unemployment I fail to see why it would now... so my guess would be a resouding NO :-D

Love Thothlike

by Thothlike on 11/13/2009 06:17:23 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Great (none / 1)
Then why not raise the minimum wage to one hundred dollars per hour? Wouldn't that be great?


If you think health care is expensive now, wait until you see what it costs when it's "free."

by TheArtistFormerlyKnownAsTwba on 11/14/2009 02:54:28 PM EST

[ Parent ]
hmmm... (none / 0)
actually that's a good point... :-D

offcourse rasing the minimumwage arbitrarily to 100$ or 2.000.000$ or... is a BAD idea...

in any economy rasing it too high will cause inflation...

what I SHOULD have said was nowhere in the history of minimumwages has HAVING (not a rise in) a minimumwage caused unimployment...

so where should it be without causing damage to the economy...

well the idea behind a minimumwage is to make sure that even the lowest paying fulltime job can support a decent living for a person (so there's no need for a second or third job to survive)...

so the math would look like this...

(minimumwage)$ * (full time job)hours/week * 52 weeks / 12 month = (decent living)$

now what a decent living is can be discussed but it should make you able to afford a decent place to live and food for you and your family and healthcare and clothes as a minimum... :-D

in denmark we have a minimumwage of 17$/hour and a work week of 35.5hours/week so a decent living have been set at...

17$ * 35.5hours/week * 52 weeks / 12month = 2615.17$/month

for 2615.17$/month you can live a decent life in denmark so i think it's set fair... that doesn't meen that everybody gets that... most gets more (i'm a highschool teacher and I make 6000$/month)... but no matter what you do you will not starve or be homeless or die of preventable deceases on the minimumwage...

in the states you have a federal minimumwage of 7.25$/hour (but it can go as low as 2.65$/hour in kansas... but lets take the federalstandard... and the US have a (average since you don't have specific rules of how much a workweek should be) workweek of 42hours/week...

so your idea of a decent living is...

7.25$ * 42hours/week * 52weeks / 12 month = 1319.5$/month...

whether you can support yourself and your family in the US on that I don't know but it seems you can't since many seem to have to take both second and third jobs just to make ends meet... so mayby you should rase it a little... :-D

how much you should rase it is up to you but if people on minimumwages need 2 jobs to make ends meet mayby you should double it to 14.5$/hour or if they need 3 jobs to make ends meet you should tripple it to 21.75$/hour...

but again that's up to you :-D

but to answer your question... NO it should not be set arbitrarily but you should have a minimumwage and it should cover living expenses on just 1 full time job :-D

Love Thothlike

by Thothlike on 11/14/2009 10:58:05 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Teacher, leave those kids alone (none / 1)
...i'm a highschool teacher...

But you obviously do not teach economics.


If you think health care is expensive now, wait until you see what it costs when it's "free."

by TheArtistFormerlyKnownAsTwba on 11/16/2009 06:12:43 AM EST

[ Parent ]
:-D (none / 0)
True :-D
I teach philosophy and psychology...

Love Thothlike

by Thothlike on 11/17/2009 01:24:55 AM EST

[ Parent ]

Healthcareproviders and preexisting conditions | 55 comments (55 topical, 0 hidden)