…the only reason this conflict arose was a New Deal-era tax loophole that gave birth to our peculiar employer-based health care system. The main lesson of Hobby Lobby is that this system has to go.
Yes. Of course, ObamaCare should never have happened, either, for the same reason.
So true. As I mentioned on the earlier thread.
O/T
Putin is a d*ckhead, it’s written in the stars!
http://www.themoscowtimes.com/news/article/no-plans-to-rename-star-called-putin-is-a-dckhead/503017.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KCmJUobwKQk
Prescient.
Note to Liberals: Atlas Shrugged and 1984 and Animal Farm are warnings, not instruction manuals.
It’s silly that health insurance is tied to the employer, and it just makes the paternalistic relationship worse. If Conservatives were more than just socially regressive assholes they’d use this as an opportunity to drive change and increase the independence of workers. But they won’t. And at this point I think they might even lose the next election.
From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.
If conservatives actually understood the free market, they’d either
actually argue for a free market or end the charade and socialize the system.
We can’t import drugs from other countries.
There are massive barriers to entry to bringing doctors here.
There is no price list at most hospitals.
There is no price transparency on drugs at pharmacies.
I think that’s the most intelligent thing I’ve ever heard you say.
Well, that’s a pretty low bar.
Are you saying that liberals understand the free market?
At least as far as health care goes, most conservatives don’t understand it.
Classical economics assumes no barriers to entry or exit,
perfect information and choice and substitution.
Let’s start with an easy one. How come every thing in a drug store has a price
except the drugs? How come you can’t know what the price of heart pills are going to be? Why are there so many barriers to getting these drugs from Canada, Mexico, France?
Classical economics should allow you to order them online, without a prescription and from any supplier.
You will never hear one commentator on Fox News ever say “This is wrong”.
You will never hear one commentator on Fox News ever say “This is wrong”.
What a stupid comment. How would you know what anyone would say on Fox News?
How would you know what anyone would say on Fox News?
Must be one of those ignorant Fox viewers we hear so much about.
How come every thing in a drug store has a price except the drugs?
I wasn’t aware drug stores gave out drugs for free.
As for knowing the price of things, I guess Deny guy blames the rollout of Healthcare.gov rollout on Bush.
Dn, what on Earth are you talking about? What does your argument have to do with conservatism?
Let’s start with an easy one. How come every thing in a drug store has a price
except the drugs? How come you can’t know what the price of heart pills are going to be? Why are there so many barriers to getting these drugs from Canada, Mexico, France?
What does this mean? Are you saying conservatives are responsible for the above questions? Are you implying that conservatives want to control the drug market? Where did you get this idea? Seriously, it isn’t hard to find an essay by Bastiat. Hint: it isn’t on the back of a cereal box.
You really do deserve the moniker douche nozzle.
Classical economics assumes no barriers to entry or exit,
perfect information and choice and substitution.
Let’s start with an easy one. How come every thing in a drug store has a price
except the drugs?
Then its not classical economics, duh.
The fundamental problem, which dn-guy is poorly alluding to, is that health care is not particularly subject to market forces. For example: if you find a coupon for a free dinner at a restaurant laying on the ground, chances are you’ll change your plans in the near future and go eat at that restaurant. Not so if you find a coupon for free chemotherapy. The “market” for (in this case) chemotherapy is highly inelastic (not subject to supply and demand and not substitutable). You either need chemo and will pay any price or you don’t and couldn’t be paid to take it. Substitute just about any other medical procedure for chemo and you’ll get the same answer.
Another fundamental problem is information. You the patient don’t know if you need chemo or not, nor (if you do need it) what kind of chemo is appropriate. Nor are you particularly able to evaluate who is a good or bad provider of chemo. (Death rates, for example, could be skewed because a certain provider keeps getting the sicker patients.)
The last fundamental problem is that it’s very difficult for a for-profit insurance company to make money off of somebody who files a lot of claims and/or can’t afford a high premium. This is the same whether they are selling fire insurance or health insurance.
Obamacare was an attempt to fix these problems within the constraints of our current system of for-profit insurance. It’s generally working, in that poor people are getting covered. But to make Obamacare work, other requirements have to be established, such as making everybody buy into the system.
A much more elegant solution would have been to implement the “Medicare for all” solution (allowing people of any age to buy into Medicare.) But we were told (repeatedly and vehemently) that this would be the End of Civilization As We Know It. So, since it wasn’t possible to get 60 votes in the Senate for that proposal, we got what we got.
Thus, Rand, I find your repeated complaints about the problems of Obamacare to be very similar to the man who killed his parents and begs the court for mercy on the ground that he is an orphan. If you want something better than what we have, work for it, and recognize what every five-year-old has learned, namely you can’t have everything you want.
I find your repeated complaints about the problems of Obamacare to be very similar to the man who killed his parents and begs the court for mercy on the ground that he is an orphan.
That’s only because you apparently suck at analogies.
So, since it wasn’t possible to get 60 votes in the Senate for that proposal, we got what we got.
They were all democrats, too.
The “market” for (in this case) chemotherapy is highly inelastic (not subject to supply and demand and not substitutable). You either need chemo and will pay any price or you don’t and couldn’t be paid to take it. Substitute just about any other medical procedure for chemo and you’ll get the same answer.
So you are telling me that there does not exist a person who would try to make chemo cheaper? That for some inexplicable reason, health care is off-limits to innovation and cost reduction?
Of course this is true when the larger players have access to law makers who regulate the smaller players out of business. Roosevelt did this with tires, for example. The democrats will now do this with health care.
“Of course this is true when the larger players have access to law makers who regulate the smaller players out of business. Roosevelt did this with tires, for example. The democrats will now do this with health care.”
To be fair, this is not something new. This has been building up for a very long time, since the introduction of Medicare and Medicaid and the wage and price controls that forced companies to start offering benefits packages in lieu of higher salaries. And the American Medical Association isn’t blameless, either – talk about larger players getting smaller players regulated out of the market!
Our resident Rhodes Scholar, dn-guy writes: “Classical economics assumes no barriers to entry or exit,
perfect information and choice and substitution.” No doubt after studying the work of Bastiat, Boehm-Bawerk, von Mises, etc. Care to tell us what works of classical economics you got this from, dn?