Redistribution Will be MINE! [Archive] - SoonerFans.com Message Boards

RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!

2/15/2008, 02:43 PM

Seriously RLIMC, like I've said, I'm totally down with political talk on the SO. But don't you have ANYTHING else that holds your attention? At all? Don't you watch TV (other than FOX News)? Do you like cars? Girls? Food? Music? Dorky video games? Sports? ANYTHING???

If you sprinkled in a few posts here and there about another subject every now and then, it might help more people relate to you. Just a thought.'Samatter, you don't like football and other sports? They don't go on the SO. I post a lot in the football forum. I have posted a lot in the past re other subjects on the SO, too.

However, it is now a time when we are faced with 2 of the 3 candidates who are openly hardcore socialists, and the third one openly advocates some socialist ideas. These people want things for our country that are clearly dangerous to our future. Yeah, it's kind of important right now. The political and economic direction of our country could radically be altered by November.

sanantoniosooner

2/15/2008, 02:46 PM

This reminds me of that joke where the guy says "I went to a fight and a hockey game broke out"

BigRedJed

2/15/2008, 02:46 PM

'Samatter, you don't like football and other sports? They don't go on the SO. I post a lot in the football forum. I have posted a lot in the past re other subjects on the SO, too.

However, it is now a time when we are faced with 2 of the 3 candidates who are openly hardcore socialists, and the third one openly advocates some socialist ideas. These people want things for our country that are clearly dangerous to our future. Yeah, it's kind of important right now. The political and economic direction of our country could radically be altered by November.
Well, then by all means, post away. I hadn't considered that beating people about the head with your political views on an OU message board was the most effective way for you to possibly save the world during this time of crisis. Carry on.

bri

2/15/2008, 02:47 PM

We're doomed! DOOOOOOOMED!!!

Gah.

jk the sooner fan

2/15/2008, 02:51 PM

But don't you have ANYTHING else that holds your attention? At all? Don't you watch TV (other than FOX News)? Do you like cars? Girls? Food? Music? Dorky video games? Sports? ANYTHING???

yes I like pina colada's, and getting caught in the rain....i am not in to health food, and i do like champagne...... i like making love after midnite, in the coooool summer rain

BigRedJed

2/15/2008, 02:56 PM

I suddenly feel a little creeped out.

Position Limit

2/15/2008, 02:59 PM

sanantoniosooner

2/15/2008, 03:00 PM

Go for a ride on your vespa.

Creeping someone else out always sets it right.

BigRedJed

2/15/2008, 03:03 PM

I predict great things for this thread.

jk the sooner fan

2/15/2008, 03:05 PM

it would'nt be so bad if he had some inkling of political knowledge. is he aware of what his republican president just passed in the way of redistribution? methinks rush would be a major beneficiary of policies put forth from a guy like obama. he's just a self-loathing liberal.

i think he's making fun of the fact that Bush passed the bill

and Obama is a socialist, so "no thanks"

Position Limit

2/15/2008, 03:11 PM

i think he's making fun of the fact that Bush passed the bill

and Obama is a socialist, so "no thanks"

thank you for the translation. seriously. half the time i have to really think about what he's trying to grunt out. and my post was not intended to promote obama. sorry for the confusion.

BlondeSoonerGirl

2/15/2008, 03:17 PM

What do you people do with your spare change?

I've been wondering.

Curly Bill

2/15/2008, 03:18 PM

What do you people do with your spare change?

Give it to strippers. :D

jk the sooner fan

2/15/2008, 03:18 PM

i donate mine to causes supported by rush limbaugh

Frozen Sooner

2/15/2008, 03:19 PM

Buy Yukons

sanantoniosooner

2/15/2008, 03:20 PM

[mike rich]buy $700 glasses[/mike rich]

Frozen Sooner

2/15/2008, 03:21 PM

[mike rich]buy $700 glasses[/mike rich]

STILL the worst decision I've ever made.

dolemitesooner

2/15/2008, 03:22 PM

Well I dont know but a stripper here in oklahoma will put there mams in your face for a dollar.

So for .50 cents you could get 1 mam I imagne

RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!

2/15/2008, 03:22 PM

it would'nt be so bad if he had some inkling of political knowledge. is he aware of what his republican president just passed in the way of redistribution? methinks rush would be a major beneficiary of policies put forth from a guy like obama. he's just a self-loathing liberal.Does this mean you think I approve of everything W does, or that I would approve of all the things McCain would do? How did you arrive at that conclusion?...wait, move on to another thread.

bri

2/15/2008, 03:35 PM

How much for one rib?

colleyvillesooner

2/15/2008, 03:36 PM

STILL the worst decision I've ever made.

Yes, it was.

Frozen Sooner

2/15/2008, 03:40 PM

Yes, it was.

*nods*

stoops the eternal pimp

2/15/2008, 04:07 PM

How much for one rib?

Good Lode thats a lotta money!

Stoop Dawg

2/15/2008, 04:07 PM

Can I get change for $100?

RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!

2/15/2008, 04:39 PM

sanantoniosooner

2/15/2008, 04:43 PM

RLIMC just struck a cord with me.

I'm going to get a nanny.

SicEmBaylor

2/15/2008, 04:45 PM

I like to say "redistribution" in a Russian accent. It amuses me greatly.

JohnnyMack

2/15/2008, 04:50 PM

How much for one rib?

Aight, **** the cup. Pour it in my hands for a dime?

soonerscuba

2/15/2008, 05:01 PM

So, what would be nice would be if one or more of the progressive members of the SO would present some good reasons to be in favor of nanny-state Socialism. We will need to believe in our new leaders, and have faith in their decisions, no?

A commisar would prevent us from constantly being subjected to your threads. What do I win?

royalfan5

2/15/2008, 05:15 PM

A commisar would prevent us from constantly being subjected to your threads. What do I win?

Will This do?
http://youtube.com/watch?v=uGEEBUupVAw

Frozen Sooner

2/15/2008, 05:16 PM

So, what would be nice would be if one or more of the progressive members of the SO would present some good reasons to be in favor of nanny-state Socialism. We will need to believe in our new leaders, and have faith in their decisions, no?

I'm sure someone will step up just as soon as you post a defense of a return to Gilded-age factories with 8-year olds working 16-hour shifts, massive damage to the environment for non-sustainable growth, and Jim Crow laws.

Oh, wait, that's a straw man? You don't say...

RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!

2/15/2008, 05:21 PM

I'm sure someone will step up just as soon as you post a defense of a return to Gilded-age factories with 8-year olds working 16-hour shifts, massive damage to the environment for non-sustainable growth, and Jim Crow laws.

Oh, wait, that's a straw man? You don't say...Is that your opinion of the alternative to big govt., wild-eyed, wide open nanny-state socialism. Intertesting!(in a sad way)

sanantoniosooner

2/15/2008, 05:22 PM

you want a pillow fight in the worst way, don't you?

JohnnyMack

2/15/2008, 05:22 PM

Oh, wait, that's a straw man? You don't say...

Why do you hate Tuba?

RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!

2/15/2008, 05:23 PM

A commisar would prevent us from constantly being subjected to your threads. What do I win?I grant you the ability to NOT CLICK!(unless you want to explai the sheer joy of pure socialism)

jk the sooner fan

2/15/2008, 05:36 PM

Oh, wait, that's a straw man? You don't say...

i think you've met your monthly quota for using that term

Frozen Sooner

2/15/2008, 05:37 PM

Nah. You get a coupon for a new usage of the term every time someone uses one.

RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!

2/15/2008, 05:49 PM

Fishin' report on monday or tuesday. Happy Merged President's Day weekend, y'all!

sanantoniosooner

2/15/2008, 05:52 PM

Do you use a pole or do you lull the fish into submission with political talk?

stoops the eternal pimp

2/15/2008, 05:58 PM

Do you use a pole or do you lull the fish into submission with political talk?

John McCain hates fish. Jump in my boat!

Ike

2/15/2008, 06:01 PM

So, what would be nice would be if one or more of the progressive members of the SO would present some good reasons to be in favor of nanny-state Socialism. We will need to believe in our new leaders, and have faith in their decisions, no?

Who says we need to believe in our leaders and have faith in their decisions? We are finishing up 8 years of having a large swath of America NOT believing in our leaders or having faith in their decisions, and we've survived OK. I think that effect will scale just fine.

bri

2/15/2008, 08:24 PM

I sho am hongry!

Jerk

2/15/2008, 08:34 PM

I'm sure someone will step up just as soon as you post a defense of a return to Gilded-age factories with 8-year olds working 16-hour shifts, massive damage to the environment for non-sustainable growth, and Jim Crow laws.

Oh, wait, that's a straw man? You don't say...

Do you honestly believe that this is what the conservative movement is for?

Frozen Sooner

2/15/2008, 08:36 PM

Do you honestly believe that this is what the conservative movement is for?

No. Which is exactly the point of what you quoted. When something is called a straw man, it means that it's a misrepresentation of the opponent's view that you can then tear apart.

Nobody is going to defend "nanny-state socialism" (or at least very few are) just like very few are going to defend completely unfettered laissez-faire capitalism that leads to Dickensian conditions.

Now, should someone ask me to defend single-payer health care, yeah, I'd probably be willing to do that. Should someone ask me to defend progressive taxation, yeah, I'd probably be willing to do that.

However, implying that all progressives or liberals believe in "nanny-state socialism" isn't an invite to discourse. It's an invitation to have insults and slanders hurled at you.

Jerk

2/15/2008, 08:40 PM

No. Which is exactly the point of what you quoted.

Oh, ok. I was going to make a handy little list of what should be the goals of conservatism but you've probably seen them before and I would be wasting your time.

Frozen Sooner

2/15/2008, 08:43 PM

Oh, ok. I was going to make a handy little list of what should be the goals of conservatism but you've probably seen them before and I would be wasting your time.

Honestly, I think we're all pretty much in agreement with what both camp's goals should be, I think we're in disagreement about how those goals are reached. That's a discussion that I'd be happy to sit down over a beer with you and have.

bri

2/15/2008, 08:55 PM

ONE RIB!!!

Jerk

2/15/2008, 08:58 PM

Cool, Mike.

Mixer!

2/15/2008, 09:04 PM

http://img177.imageshack.us/img177/9347/ribsuw9.jpg

Frozen Sooner

2/15/2008, 09:05 PM

One of those goals should definitely be more Hugh Laurie on TV. Thanks for reminding me that House is on tonight. :D

stoops the eternal pimp

2/16/2008, 10:22 AM

Aw, c'mon, now! Look out for a brother, man, c'mon, yeah. Check this out: why don't you let me get a sip for fifteen cents?

RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!

2/18/2008, 12:39 AM

Now, should someone ask me to defend single-payer health care, yeah, I'd probably be willing to do that. Should someone ask me to defend progressive taxation, yeah, I'd probably be willing to do that.

However, implying that all progressives or liberals believe in "nanny-state socialism" isn't an invite to discourse. It's an invitation to have insults and slanders hurled at you.Mike, the two subjects you just mentioned ARE nanny-state socialism. I hope you don't consider that view an insult. What do you consider examples of nanny-statism?

Frozen Sooner

2/18/2008, 04:13 AM

Mike, the two subjects you just mentioned ARE nanny-state socialism. I hope you don't consider that view an insult. What do you consider examples of nanny-statism?

Yeah, actually, they're not.

If you think the words "nanny state socialism" aren't by their nature dismissive and insulting, then frankly I'm not going to spend time helping you figure out why.

What would I consider socialism? Government ownership of factories. Government dictating production quotas for goods and services. Government mandates of both maximum and minimum wages for each job class. Strangely enough, that's what socialism actually is.

RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!

2/18/2008, 11:13 AM

Yeah, actually, they're not.

If you think the words "nanny state socialism" aren't by their nature dismissive and insulting, then frankly I'm not going to spend time helping you figure out why.

What would I consider socialism? Government ownership of factories. Government dictating production quotas for goods and services. Government mandates of both maximum and minimum wages for each job class. Strangely enough, that's what socialism actually is.Well, Socialized Medicine and a taxation system that punishes achievement might not be socialism by your definition, but they are a far cry from the freedoms and incentives suitable for promoting growth and prosperity that we are accustomed to, and give the gavernment even more power over our lives.

SanJoaquinSooner

2/18/2008, 12:47 PM

I have no desire for a cradle-to-grave welfare state, similar to some European countries. I have no desire for a President Hugo Chavez.

But some income redistribution is inevitable and desirable.

And hardcore conservatives agree in some instances.

E.g.,

1. Consider a family of four vs. a childless couple. The childless couple, on average, will subsidize the family of four. The childless couple pays more in taxes due to the lack of deductions for dependents as well as not receiving the child tax credit. The childless couple subsidizes the public education expenses of their neighbor's kids.

The childless couple subsidizes the cost of higher education - particularly the low in-state tuition rates.

I paid in-state tuition rates at OU. I received K-12 public education for 11 years of my schooling.

Should all residents pay full educational expenses with no income redistribution?

2. More generally, shouldn't the family of four pay MORE in taxes, instead of LESS, since four people use more gov't services, on average, than two people? If you believe in no income redistribution then this follows.

3. I got a grand bargain of a subsidized education for K-12 and many years at OU. And part of the convenant we should have with less fortunate folks who do the $hitty work out there is to have in place a system that allows upward mobility. That may include some types of income redistribution.

4. As a kid, one learns that the Monopoly player with the right combination of smarts and luck eventually wins all the money and owns most all the property with all the other players poor and destitute - not unlike some latin american countries. Upward mobility is uncommon in some of these countries for many complex reasons. If we were in charge of designing a society to live in, without knowing our lot in life, what would we choose?

5. Oh yeah, my favorite football team is the Oklahoma Sooners - the team of a state school, not a private one. Does that make me a socialist?

Frozen Sooner

2/18/2008, 01:43 PM

Well, Socialized Medicine and a taxation system that punishes achievement might not be socialism by your definition, but they are a far cry from the freedoms and incentives suitable for promoting growth and prosperity that we are accustomed to, and give the gavernment even more power over our lives.

Single payer does not equal socialized. Doctors are welcome to open private practices and charge whatever they wish. Single payer does mean that everyone knows what conditions and treatments are covered and for how much instead of the mess we currently have. Why is it, you think, that the per capita expenditure on health care in the United States is twice as much as it is in any other nation, and three times as much as it is in the third-highest nation?

Progressive taxation does not "punish" achievement. Paying a higher marginal rate does not mean you make less money when you earn more. Since the United States economy has grown at an exponential rate while we've had progressive taxation in place, that argument is obvious bunk. Adam Smith himself was in favor of progressive taxation, for what it's worth-it's amusing that you think he's a socialist.

"It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion."-Adam Smith, The Wealth of Nations

RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!

2/18/2008, 04:25 PM

1)We are the country people come to for the best care in medicine.
2) You seem to think I should buy the notion of Progressive Taxation simply because Adam Smith did, or once did?
Look, I've seen enough collectivism at work in govt. all my life, Mike, and it sucks. It simply is counter to human nature, and stifles the desire to work.

I guess, from what I've heard for a long time, that it is glamorized in the schools, and of course we see it in the MSM, all the time. It looks that enough people have been acculturated into believing it. It will take a dramatic leap forward under Clinton or Obama, and maybe even under McCain. Entering the Brave New World.

mdklatt

2/18/2008, 04:45 PM

Look, I've seen enough collectivism at work in govt. all my life, Mike, and it sucks.

Do you ever drive on federal highways or fly anywhere?

Frozen Sooner

2/18/2008, 04:49 PM

RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!

2/18/2008, 04:50 PM

Do you ever drive on federal highways or fly anywhere?National Defense is one of the valid functions of govt.

BigRedJed

2/18/2008, 04:50 PM

Guns.

BigRedJed

2/18/2008, 04:51 PM

Aww, man. That was supposed to be after Froze's post.

Frozen Sooner

2/18/2008, 04:53 PM

Guns.

DAMMIT! I forgot about how I always get drunk and shoot babies!

Point conceded.

Frozen Sooner

2/18/2008, 04:54 PM

National Defense is one of the valid functions of govt.

"Collectivism." "Socialism." I bet the commissars said that a lot as well.

mdklatt

2/18/2008, 04:58 PM

National Defense is one of the valid functions of govt.

That doesn't answer my question. User fees (primarily fuel taxes) only make up 2/3 of federal highway spending. So anybody who pays more income tax than you or pays the same tax but drives fewer miles than you is subsidizing you. You have kids, right? Unless you don't claim them as deductions, that's more subsidizing. If they ever attend a public school at any level (including college) there's even more distribution of wealth. GET OFF THE GOVERNMENT DOLE YOU FREELOADING FREELOADER!

mdklatt

2/18/2008, 05:00 PM

1)We are the country people come to for the best care in medicine.

Sure, the ones that can afford it.

P.S. Google "medical tourism".

RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!

2/18/2008, 05:03 PM

No, I think you should stop calling progressive taxation "socialism." You're more than welcome to be against it. However, you're going to have to do better than just raising the "socialism" bogeyman, and you're going to have to do better than claiming it "punishes" achievers. I've already shown you that it's not socialism, and it's pretty evident it doesn't punish achievement or we wouldn't have had any achievement over the last 90 years.

If the health care system in our country is so great, why do we have a higher rate of infant mortality than 36 other nations? If our health care system is so great, why is our life expectancy lower than 19 other nations?OK, but it is more work to call Progressive Taxation Unfair Taxation or Unfair Expropriation. I might slip and revert to calling it socialism, just to evaluate the effect.

We have a higher rate of infant mortality because some of our doctors are in the business of killing babies instead of delivering them, I suppose. Why do you think we do? Maybe our life expectancy is lower than some countries because our lives are so easy, so we we eat too much fat, and don't exercise enough.

Frozen Sooner

2/18/2008, 05:07 PM

OK, but it is more work to call Progressive Taxation Unfair Taxation or Unfair Expropriation. I might slip and revert to calling it socialism, just to evaluate the effect.

We have a higher rate of infant mortality because some of our doctors are in the business of killing babies instead of delivering them, I suppose. Why do you think we do? Maybe our life expectancy is lower than some countries because our lives are so easy, so we we eat too much fat, and don't exercise enough.

1. Evasive and unresponsive. You know darn well that abortion statistics aren't included in infant mortality rates-and that abortion should actually decrease infant mortality rates, as people likely to have abortions aren't likely to be great parents at that time.

2. Our lives are significantly better and easier than those in Canada, the UK, and Germany?

So why do you think progressive taxation is unfair?

mdklatt

2/18/2008, 05:13 PM

OK, but it is more work to call Progressive Taxation Unfair Taxation or Unfair Expropriation.

Why is a flat tax (I assume that what you're getting at) fair? Prove it. With math and stuff. Demonstrate how the benefit somebody receives from the government is exactly proportional to the amount of money they earn.

And can I assume that any flat tax scheme that raised your tax rate (so the people in higher brackets didn't have to pay so much) would somehow be unfair?

RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!

2/18/2008, 05:23 PM

I don't think I have to somehow prove a flat tax to be fair. It obviously is, since it taxes earned income at the same rate. You guys need to show why raising the rate makes any sense(if fairness is what you want, instead of punishing people for achievement)

Frozen Sooner

2/18/2008, 05:27 PM

NormanPride

2/18/2008, 05:29 PM

I think this is the first time I've ever seen RLIMC post anything coherent. Awesome. I'm having fun in this thread.

mdklatt

2/18/2008, 05:32 PM

I don't think I have to somehow prove a flat tax to be fair. It obviously is, since it taxes earned income at the same rate.

Another non-answer. So, I guess if McDonald's started charging a flat rate instead of a flat amount you'd be perfectly fine with that? If not, why not?

RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!

2/18/2008, 05:32 PM

I think you do. We've had a progressive tax in this country since 1913, and it hasn't hampered achievement in the slightest that I can see. You want a change to a flat tax-which would tax a far greater proportion of disposable income for those of lower income than higher-to replace progressive tax. Tell me why I should support a flat tax when we've managed to create the world's largest economy with a progressive tax system in place.The govt could not require people to pay below a certain level, like we do now, and tweak things to ease into the highest tax rate, also as we now do, but stop the rate at a reasonable level, maybe 20% or so. Simple as that.

Frozen Sooner

2/18/2008, 05:34 PM

The govt could not require people to pay below a certain level, like we do now, and tweak things to ease into the highest tax rate, also as we now do, but stop the rate at a reasonable level, maybe 20% or so. Simple as that.

Congratulations. You're on board with a progressive tax system. You're not describing a flat tax, you're describing a cut in marginal tax rates.

RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!

2/18/2008, 05:34 PM

Another non-answer. So, I guess if McDonald's started charging a flat rate instead of a flat amount you'd be perfectly fine with that? If not, why not?I don't understand this question.

mdklatt

2/18/2008, 05:35 PM

I think this is the first time I've ever seen RLIMC post anything coherent. Awesome. I'm having fun in this thread.

Yeah, at least now he's merely throwing out nonsequiters instead of ranting. He's acheived "Oklahoma Tuba" level. :D

BigRedJed

2/18/2008, 05:35 PM

I think you do. We've had a progressive tax in this country since 1913, and it hasn't hampered achievement in the slightest that I can see...
Nope, the light bulb, telephone, radio, automobile, assembly line, repeating firearm and airplane were all invented prior to 1913. As far as I can tell, it has all been downhill since then. Must be the tax.

Frozen Sooner

2/18/2008, 05:36 PM

Nope, the light bulb, telephone, radio, automobile, assembly line, repeating firearm and airplane were all invented prior to 1913. As far as I can tell, it has all been downhill since then. Must be the tax.

:D

RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!

2/18/2008, 05:37 PM

Congratulations. You're on board with a progressive tax system. You're not describing a flat tax, you're describing a cut in marginal tax rates.Fine. Keep the top rate at approx 20% or less.

mdklatt

2/18/2008, 05:37 PM

I don't understand this question.

Say McDonald's charged people different amounts for the same food based on their income level. If you make ten times the median income, you pay $40 for a Happy Meal, for example. Would that be fair?

Frozen Sooner

2/18/2008, 05:41 PM

Fine. Keep the top rate at approx 20% or less.

I don't know that cutting the top marginal rate almost in half while we're engaged in a costly war and have a trillion-dollar deficit is the most fiscally responsible idea I've ever heard.

This, by the way, is the reason I much prefer Obama's plan for single-pay health insurance versus Clinton's. Obama's plan is supposed to be self-financing through premiums-economies of scale should make the premiums low enough to afford for the vast majority of citizens.

NormanPride

2/18/2008, 05:44 PM

I hate hearing that something as unpredictable as "economies of scale" will help make an entire country's healthcare system financially feasible. That's my only issue with Obama's plans.

mdklatt

2/18/2008, 05:46 PM

RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!

2/18/2008, 05:48 PM

I think this is the first time I've ever seen RLIMC post anything coherent. Awesome. I'm having fun in this thread.Good that you're able to deciper coherent thought, now. Sorry it took so long.

Frozen Sooner

2/18/2008, 05:48 PM

I hate hearing that something as unpredictable as "economies of scale" will help make an entire country's healthcare system financially feasible. That's my only issue with Obama's plans.

That makes me somewhat nervous as well, but there's pretty good evidence that economies of scale do exist in the medical claims industry. There's also economies to be realized from continuous coverage. For example, on a vision plan, it would be more cost-effective to just pay for corrective surgery than it would be to buy contacts for the rest of someone's life. It would be more cost-effective to treat obesity than to buy insulin for 30 years. So on, so forth.

RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!

2/18/2008, 05:51 PM

Say McDonald's charged people different amounts for the same food based on their income level. If you make ten times the median income, you pay $40 for a Happy Meal, for example. Would that be fair?So, you are advocating a flat tax, where everybody pays the same AMOUNT. That is the fairest tax possible, but the best we can hope for is a flat rate, at least at a fairly low level of income.

RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!

2/18/2008, 05:53 PM

I don't know that cutting the top marginal rate almost in half while we're engaged in a costly war and have a trillion-dollar deficit is the most fiscally responsible idea I've ever heard.

This, by the way, is the reason I much prefer Obama's plan for single-pay health insurance versus Clinton's. Obama's plan is supposed to be self-financing through premiums-economies of scale should make the premiums low enough to afford for the vast majority of citizens.Are you a product of the Public School System?

mdklatt

2/18/2008, 05:53 PM

I hate hearing that something as unpredictable as "economies of scale" will help make an entire country's healthcare system financially feasible. That's my only issue with Obama's plans.

What's so unpredictable about it? As the number of insureds in a pool goes up, the cost per insured goes down...unless your pool is exclusively made up of diabetic octagenarians with AIDS or something. Plus, a single payer would have a helluva lot of bargaining power with providers....

...Unless we do something stupid and pass a law saying that the government has to pay retail like is the case with the new Medicaire prescription benefit. It's an entitlement twofer--old people and Big Pharma.

Frozen Sooner

2/18/2008, 05:53 PM

Actually, what he's describing is a per capita tax, which is also not a flat tax.

NormanPride

2/18/2008, 05:54 PM

Good that you're able to deciper coherent thought, now. Sorry it took so long.

Hey, it's not my fault I can't follow your stream-of-consciousness ramblings when people mock you. If you'd cut down on the CAPS LOCK a bit I think people would take you more seriously. This thread is a perfect example, in that I've enjoyed thoroughly the back and forth between you and Mike.

That makes me somewhat nervous as well, but there's pretty good evidence that economies of scale do exist in the medical claims industry. There's also economies to be realized from continuous coverage. For example, on a vision plan, it would be more cost-effective to just pay for corrective surgery than it would be to buy contacts for the rest of someone's life. It would be more cost-effective to treat obesity than to buy insulin for 30 years. So on, so forth.

I'll trust the research on this one, but my pessimist side is telling me that the only cost benefit we'll get out of this one is in the time gained from not shopping insurance anymore. ;)

Frozen Sooner

2/18/2008, 05:55 PM

Are you a product of the Public School System?

Yes. Odd how I'm able to understand that you have to balance expenditures with revenue at some point. Where were you educated that this basic tenet of finance wasn't explained?

NormanPride

2/18/2008, 05:57 PM

What's so unpredictable about it? As the number of insureds in a pool goes up, the cost per insured goes down...unless your pool is exclusively made up of diabetic octagenarians with AIDS or something. Plus, a single payer would have a helluva lot of bargaining power with providers....

...Unless we do something stupid and pass a law saying that the government has to pay retail like is the case with the new Medicaire prescription benefit. It's an entitlement twofer--old people and Big Pharma.

I don't know that I worded my concerns well enough. Specifically, I'm worried that the economies of scale will be enough to fund such a huge undertaking by a historically financially... unscrupulous organization.

RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!

2/18/2008, 05:57 PM

Hey, it's not my fault I can't follow your stream-of-consciousness ramblings when the other libs like me mock you. If you'd cut down on the CAPS LOCK a bit I think people would take you more seriously. This thread is a perfect example, in that I've enjoyed thoroughly the back and forth between you and Mike.

)NICE!

Frozen Sooner

2/18/2008, 05:59 PM

I don't know that I worded my concerns well enough. Specifically, I'm worried that the economies of scale will be enough to fund such a huge undertaking by a historically financially... unscrupulous organization.

And that could be a concern.

What might be an even better system would be a system parallel to the Federal Reserve System. A private corporation is granted a monopoly to provide health insurance while being subject to heavy oversight.

RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!

2/18/2008, 06:03 PM

NormanPride

2/18/2008, 06:03 PM

Heh. Not a lib. I'm more like SicEm, really.

Frozen Sooner

2/18/2008, 06:06 PM

OCUDad

2/18/2008, 06:07 PM

Heh. Not a lib. I'm more like SicEm, really.Don't take it personally. In RLIMC's lexicon, a "lib" is anyone who disagrees with him/her/it. Which means, in his/her/its "reality," a "lib" is anyone with an IQ above room temperature.

The Clone is the Cindy Sheehan of the right. The flip side of a very ugly extremist coin. Disagreeing with him/her/it makes you a thinking human being, neither a liberal nor a conservative.

NormanPride

2/18/2008, 06:09 PM

And that could be a concern.

What might be an even better system would be a system parallel to the Federal Reserve System. A private corporation is granted a monopoly to provide health insurance while being subject to heavy oversight.

Not a fan, really.. Though I don't know enough about the way things go to tell you why.

From working in the industry a few months, I can see some of the biggest cost saving measures we can give to hospitals and doctors is a consistent system. If they know what services will be denied and which ones will be covered, then that cuts a lot of confusion and work for them. Also, the tort system for malpractice suits needs to be completely reworked to fix insurance for healthcare providers.

mdklatt

2/18/2008, 06:11 PM

So, you are advocating a flat tax, where everybody pays the same AMOUNT. That is the fairest tax possible.

It's only fair if everybody receives the exact same benefit from the government, which is a bogus assumption right off the bat. So, we're back to where we started. You're the one proposing a change from what we have now to a flat tax, so the burden is on you to somehow prove that it's more "fair". I'll even give you a definition of fair to work with: The amount paid (in tax) should be proportional to the goods received (economic benefit from the government). Good luck calculating that second part.

Frozen Sooner

2/18/2008, 06:14 PM

Not a fan, really.. Though I don't know enough about the way things go to tell you why.

From working in the industry a few months, I can see some of the biggest cost saving measures we can give to hospitals and doctors is a consistent system. If they know what services will be denied and which ones will be covered, then that cuts a lot of confusion and work for them. Also, the tort system for malpractice suits needs to be completely reworked to fix insurance for healthcare providers.

Agreed on the first part. That's part of the economies of scale. I think the fact that doctors have to keep someone on staff specifically to deal with insurance issues is a huge frictional drag on the health care profession.

On the second part...

I have a really hard time anytime someone starts poking around with tort reform. Homey's posted some eloquent defenses of the current tort system, and I won't attempt to replicate them. We do need some recognition that doctors aren't infalliable and that even with the best care a physician is capable of providing patients sometimes die, or lose limbs, or get infections in their incisions. The only solution I can come up with is have all medical malpractice suits go through an investigatory process (similar to EEOC complaints) before they can be brought to court, but I'm not sure I like that. The right to redress injury through the courts is a fundamental right, and tampering with that...man.

mdklatt

2/18/2008, 06:22 PM

I'll trust the research on this one, but my pessimist side is telling me that the only cost benefit we'll get out of this one is in the time gained from not shopping insurance anymore. ;)

What about the economic benefit of not having US industry bogged down with the burden of providing health care for employees? Imagine if your employer just gave you all the money they now spend for your health plan and you just gave it to the government instead. You wouldn't be out any money, and the employer wouldn't have the cost of administrating health benefits anymore. From the individual's point of view, why does it matter if the government is the one offering up a health care plan instead of your employer?

And what about the medical benefit of consistency of care because you're not forced to change physicians every time you change jobs or your employer changes insurance plans?

mdklatt

2/18/2008, 06:26 PM

I don't know that I worded my concerns well enough. Specifically, I'm worried that the economies of scale will be enough to fund such a huge undertaking by a historically financially... unscrupulous organization.

The single payer doesn't have to be the government, although it would be nice to knock the profit motive out of the insurance side of things (I am not advocating putting health care providers under government control--nor is Hillorama to my knowledge).

RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!

2/18/2008, 06:27 PM

OK, Bill. This conversation is over, at least from my side. You're more interested in calling names than actual discussion. It's quite obvious that you don't even understand what a flat tax is, yet you keep calling anything but a flat tax "nanny state socialism." As I predicted, you've attempted to insult me (which I ignored).

When you decide to have a reasonable discussion again, let me know.I don't know why you don't think I know what a flat tax is, Mike. A flat rate vs a flat amount per person, is what I normally think of as the flat tax most people refer to. As I explained before, I don't think it unfair to not tax people that have low earnings, and don't mind a progressive range. But the top rate needs to be low, and at a fairly low amount of earnings, in order to let people make most of their own economic decisions, and to encourage industrious behavior. Otherwise, it's abusive, punishing taxation, IMO.

mdklatt

2/18/2008, 06:28 PM

From working in the industry a few months, I can see some of the biggest cost saving measures we can give to hospitals and doctors is a consistent system. If they know what services will be denied and which ones will be covered, then that cuts a lot of confusion and work for them.

Seems like a single-pay system would go a long way towards that, no?

mdklatt

2/18/2008, 06:37 PM

But the top rate needs to be low, and at a fairly low amount of earnings, in order to let people make most of their own economic decisions, and to encourage industrious behavior.

How are the current tax rates an impediment to industrious behavior? Or any tax rate other than 100% for that matter? Are there people that turn down the opportunity to make more money because they'll have to pay more taxes? Man, those are some idealistic SOBs. I can be idealistic, too--I'm willing to put my money where my mouth is. I'm willing to switch places with Bill Gates and take on his staggering tax burden. Hell, I'll even kick in an extra 10% earmarked exclusively for paying down the debt. Nobody can call me a hypocrite.

mdklatt

2/18/2008, 06:57 PM

Are you a product of the Public School System?

Just out of curiosity, where'd you go school, preppy boy?

Curly Bill

2/18/2008, 07:01 PM

RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!

2/18/2008, 07:10 PM

Just out of curiosity, where'd you go school, preppy boy?I went to Catholic schools, mostly, but I think even the Public Schools back when I was in grade school and high school didn't glorify socialism like they apparently do, nowadays. It's sad and alarming to witness all the folks who are down on America and capitalism.

Vaevictis

2/18/2008, 07:14 PM

I hate hearing that something as unpredictable as "economies of scale" will help make an entire country's healthcare system financially feasible. That's my only issue with Obama's plans.

It's not just economies of scale, however. It also has to do with standardization and a lowered profit motive to delay payments.

Basically, standardizing payment schedules, clearance, and coverage reduces the overhead on the medical provider's side. There's also a profit motive for insurers to deny and delay payment that should otherwise be remitted; this requires the health care professionals seeking collection to spend tons of money on collections.

I recall a study that said that the amount of money insurers spend on processing claims averages above 10% of the claims themselves (closer to 20%, iirc). Toss in how much how much money medical professionals have to spend fighting to collect, and you've got a princely sum.

Medicare spends under 2%.

That's a ton of money that would likely be saved under a single payer system.

What about the economic benefit of not having US industry bogged down with the burden of providing health care for employees?

Ask Detroit about that. It's not a coincidence that a one of the fastest growing auto manufacturing towns is in Canada.

Just out of curiosity, where'd you go school, preppy boy? ... so I know to never send my kids there.

mdklatt

2/18/2008, 07:14 PM

Having given this thread a cursory reading, I'm tempted to say something smart along the lines of: I sure do want me some government managed/controlled/run health care, seeing as how they handle other things so well.

Why do you hate the troops?

...but seeing as how some of you actually seem think that's a grand idea, I think I might have better things to go do.

You might want to give it more than cursory reading before you pass judgement, because I bet you dollars to donuts that what you think "government health care" means isn't what we're talking about.

Vaevictis

2/18/2008, 07:17 PM

Why do you hate the troops?

Personally, I think I should be allowed to print money and have it be legal tender. Everything's better in private hands, right? ;)

Curly Bill

2/18/2008, 08:04 PM

Why do you hate the troops?

Hate 'em? Heck no, I was one 'em.

You might want to give it more than cursory reading before you pass judgement, because I bet you dollars to donuts that what you think "government health care" means isn't what we're talking about.

I've already passed judgement and I don't want the govt. messing with the health care system.

This is the govt. that has us 9.2 trillion in the hole, and we want to give them more to manage? ...and you can play semantics and say it really isn't govt. run if you want to, but we all know what it is.

NormanPride

2/19/2008, 10:48 AM

There were some good responses after I left for the day. I don't want people to think I'm against simplifying the payer system, even to the point of government control. I'm always wary of giving the government more power over us, though this seems like a legitimate change that would save the country a lot of money and let people do their jobs rather than fight over who's going to pay for it.

I'm still against government run education and a few other things, but some elements of society are better handled by one big thing than tons of little things. I would place healthcare payment in the same realm as electricity and water - basic aspects of human life now.

RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!

2/19/2008, 11:32 AM

You NEED to go fishing, NP.

NormanPride

2/19/2008, 11:53 AM

No kidding, man. I could use with a break. :)

Stoop Dawg

2/19/2008, 12:54 PM

I think you do. We've had a progressive tax in this country since 1913, and it hasn't hampered achievement in the slightest that I can see.

It hasn't? What are you comparing to? How do you know that achievement wouldn't be even higher?

I haven't done the math, so I'm not advocating a flat tax. But I do wonder how a flat tax would shake out if we also removed all deductions. Actually, I think what I would really like to see is abolishment of income tax altogether.

Stoop Dawg

2/19/2008, 12:59 PM

That makes me somewhat nervous as well, but there's pretty good evidence that economies of scale do exist in the medical claims industry. There's also economies to be realized from continuous coverage. For example, on a vision plan, it would be more cost-effective to just pay for corrective surgery than it would be to buy contacts for the rest of someone's life. It would be more cost-effective to treat obesity than to buy insulin for 30 years. So on, so forth.

Continuous coverage is an absolute must. However, IMHO, a better way to achieve continuous coverage is to abolish group plans. Employers can still pay for part/all of the premium if they want to offer that benefit, but the plan should not be established and maintained through the employer. Just like you don't change car insurance when you change jobs, why should you change health insurance? Notice how the auto insurance industry is *competing* for our business? See how that drives premiums down? Crazy, huh?

Stoop Dawg

2/19/2008, 01:06 PM

What's so unpredictable about it? As the number of insureds in a pool goes up, the cost per insured goes down...unless your pool is exclusively made up of diabetic octagenarians with AIDS or something. Plus, a single payer would have a helluva lot of bargaining power with providers....

I don't know anything about Obama's plan, and I don't know what play you are talking about, but I know that Hillary's plan would require coverage for EVERYONE and would eliminate exclusions for "pre-existing" conditions. How does anyone think that plan will lower premiums?

And yes, single payer would have a helluva lot of bargaining power. Too much, in fact. When all demand is collected into a single consumer, you don't really have "demand" anymore. Free markets require multiple participants to create balance. We should be working to *add* consumers, not remove them. Get rid of group plans and let insurance companies compete for individual consumers.

Stoop Dawg

2/19/2008, 01:16 PM

What about the economic benefit of not having US industry bogged down with the burden of providing health care for employees? Imagine if your employer just gave you all the money they now spend for your health plan and you just gave it to the government instead. You wouldn't be out any money, and the employer wouldn't have the cost of administrating health benefits anymore. From the individual's point of view, why does it matter if the government is the one offering up a health care plan instead of your employer?

What if you took the money from your employer and then shopped for your own insurance in a competitive market? From the individual's point of view, the difference between govt insurance and private insurance is currently on display: Medicare. Say what you want about private insurce, it's not as ****ed up as Medicare.

And what about the medical benefit of consistency of care because you're not forced to change physicians every time you change jobs or your employer changes insurance plans?

Medical and economic benefit. This is a necessary thing.

The single payer doesn't have to be the government, although it would be nice to knock the profit motive out of the insurance side of things (I am not advocating putting health care providers under government control--nor is Hillorama to my knowledge).

Under Hillary's plan, if insurance companies want to get the "govt stamp of approval" they will be forced to cover anyone who wants coverage cannot exclude pre-existing conditions. Since the govt will likely dominate the consumer market, all insurance companies of consequence (excluding those who will pander to individuals willing to purchase non-govt insurance, who we can safely assume will be considered "rich") will essentially be govt regulated.

Vaevictis

2/19/2008, 01:17 PM

Notice how the auto insurance industry is *competing* for our business? See how that drives premiums down? Crazy, huh?

The auto insurance industry is fundamentally different than the health care industry. Switching costs in the auto insurance industry are trivial. In the health care insurance industry they are not.

Ironically, based on your description of it, Hillary's plan would make the health care insurance industry much more like the auto insurance industry -- ie, everyone has to have it, and doing away with pre-existing conditions will result in negligible switching costs.

If you think the auto insurance industry is the model, then perhaps you ought to be behind Hillary's plan. Or at least the parts mentioned above.

Stoop Dawg

2/19/2008, 01:18 PM

Seems like a single-pay system would go a long way towards that, no?

I would be on board with a single clearinghouse, but not a single pay. We need choice to drive competition, which leads to lower premiums.

Stoop Dawg

2/19/2008, 01:21 PM

Ironically, based on your description of it, Hillary's plan would make the health care insurance industry much more like the auto insurance industry -- ie, everyone has to have it, and doing away with pre-existing conditions will result in negligible switching costs.

One major point you left out - the auto insurance industry is not govt regulated.

If you think the auto insurance industry is the model, then perhaps you ought to be behind Hillary's plan.

I was actually just trying to make the point that competition drives down cost. We need to implement rules to increase competition, not decrease it.

Frozen Sooner

2/19/2008, 01:25 PM

The auto insurance industry most assuredly is government regulated. Premium changes must be approved by state agencies. Policies must be approved by state agencies. Insurers all must take a certain proportion of "uninsurable" drivers at state-mandated rates. People who sell auto insurance must obtain a license from the state (and the test isn't particularly easy for most who take it.)

Vaevictis

2/19/2008, 01:28 PM

One major point you left out - the auto insurance industry is not govt regulated.

Well, I left it out because when I originally read your message, the only thing I saw was mandatory coverage and no pre-existing conditions ;) Both of which would make the health insurance industry operate a lot more like the auto insurance industry.

What I would really like to see is a single clearinghouse, standardized electronic interfaces, absolutely MASSIVE penalties for insurance company failure to pay within a certain period. At a minimum, anyway.

I would also like to see an investigation into whether it would be possible to securitize health insurance. That might allow for some very interesting efficiencies.

Stoop Dawg

2/19/2008, 01:34 PM

Vaevictis

2/19/2008, 01:47 PM

And yes, single payer would have a helluva lot of bargaining power. Too much, in fact. When all demand is collected into a single consumer, you don't really have "demand" anymore. Free markets require multiple participants to create balance. We should be working to *add* consumers, not remove them. Get rid of group plans and let insurance companies compete for individual consumers.

I believe you are incorrect. Having one consumer doesn't result in having "no demand" anymore than having one producer (a monopoly) results in having "no supply."

The issue with monopoly is that conditions may be such that profit for the monopolist is maximized prior to equilibrium, resulting in shortage and dead weight loss.

I don't believe that a single consumer system as you're describing can suffer from the same or similar problem. It may reduce the profitability of the insurers, but if the overall price is set too low, insurers will simply refuse to supply (creating a shortage, and hence deadweight loss). However, because ALL people must by law be covered, the system will have no choice but to raise prices until suppliers are willing to supply.

(of course, if they don't want to raise prices, they'll monkey with what "covered" means, but that's another story...)

JohnnyMack

2/19/2008, 01:52 PM

(excluding those who will pander to individuals willing to purchase non-govt insurance, who we can safely assume will be considered "rich") will essentially be govt regulated.

Is the premium then fully deductible? If I chose to stay with Insurance Company X instead of the Govt. run program?

Stoop Dawg

2/19/2008, 01:57 PM

Is the premium then fully deductible? If I chose to stay with Insurance Company X instead of the Govt. run program?

I don't know if the premium is deductible, and if so, to what extent. I do know that you won't get the govt subsidy for health insurance if you choose a non-govt plan. Of course, if you are considered "rich" you probably won't get that anyway, which will lead to all of the "poor" people being on low-budget govt plans while the "rich" people go get private insurance. I don't see how that will lead to any social problems.....

JohnnyMack

2/19/2008, 02:04 PM

I don't know if the premium is deductible, and if so, to what extent. I do know that you won't get the govt subsidy for health insurance if you choose a non-govt plan. Of course, if you are considered "rich" you probably won't get that anyway, which will lead to all of the "poor" people being on low-budget govt plans while the "rich" people go get private insurance. I don't see how that will lead to any social problems.....

I'm a big fan of the Govt. allowing things like that to be fully deductible. As well as private school tuition.

Stoop Dawg

2/19/2008, 02:09 PM

I believe you are incorrect. Having one consumer doesn't result in having "no demand" anymore than having one producer (a monopoly) results in having "no supply."

The issue with monopoly is that conditions may be such that profit for the monopolist is maximized prior to equilibrium, resulting in shortage and dead weight loss.

I don't believe that a single consumer system as you're describing can suffer from the same or similar problem. It may reduce the profitability of the insurers, but if the overall price is set too low, insurers will simply refuse to supply (creating a shortage, and hence deadweight loss). However, because ALL people must by law be covered, the system will have no choice but to raise prices until suppliers are willing to supply.

(of course, if they don't want to raise prices, they'll monkey with what "covered" means, but that's another story...)

You are, of course, correct. I think, though, that having price negotiations occur between the govt and the insurance companies is not as efficient as having millions of consumers set the price with their checkbooks.

The other benefit of consumer choice is increased customer service. We just changed health insurance (my wife took a new job) and it has been a nightmare. The employer had to file the paperwork, and they did it wrong. We go to the dentist and they can't verify coverage. We call BCBS but we can't make any corrections, the employer has to do it. The person who handles benefits at the employer is on vacation. All we needed to do was correct her birth date. My wife was on the phone with the health insurance company, talking to a real person, but was unable to accomplish this seeminly simple task. Even after the employer eventually submitted the change we were told it would take 3-5 days for the change to be reflected in the "verification system" so the dentist could verify coverage. Eventually, we thought we'd just pay for the service ourselves and get reimbursed from the insurance company, but evidently the reimbursement rates are different (read: lower).

I know that there are plenty of companies with horrible customer service, but the fact that we essentially have no choice (economically speaking) but to take BCBS doesn't really make BCBS value us as customers. I suppose that if enough people complained that my wife's employer might change companies, but I think customer complaints are probably not at the top of the list of priorities when companies are shopping health care plans.

Hillary's plan *does* address the choice issue, assuming enough insurance companies get on the "govt approved" list. So that's a plus.

Stoop Dawg

2/19/2008, 02:13 PM

I'm a big fan of the Govt. allowing things like that to be fully deductible. As well as private school tuition.

Yeah, but that would be a "tax break for the rich" (nevermind that the "poor" are actually receiving a freakin govt subsidy). ;)

JohnnyMack

2/19/2008, 02:15 PM

Yeah, but that would be a "tax break for the rich" (nevermind that the "poor" are actually receiving a freakin govt subsidy). ;)

Yeah. :rolleyes: God forbid we pump that money back into the economy, naw, let's grind it up in mismanaged Govt. programs instead.

Stoop Dawg

2/19/2008, 02:16 PM

It's not just economies of scale, however. It also has to do with standardization and a lowered profit motive to delay payments.

Basically, standardizing payment schedules, clearance, and coverage reduces the overhead on the medical provider's side. There's also a profit motive for insurers to deny and delay payment that should otherwise be remitted; this requires the health care professionals seeking collection to spend tons of money on collections.

I recall a study that said that the amount of money insurers spend on processing claims averages above 10% of the claims themselves (closer to 20%, iirc). Toss in how much how much money medical professionals have to spend fighting to collect, and you've got a princely sum.

Medicare spends under 2%.

That's a ton of money that would likely be saved under a single payer system.

Doh!

I know I've got a string of replies going here, but this is the one I really wanted to reply to in the first place.

We don't need a single payer system to achieve those benefits. A clearinghouse system would accomplish nearly the same thing.

Stoop Dawg

2/19/2008, 02:20 PM

Yeah. :rolleyes: God forbid we pump that money back into the economy, naw, let's grind it up in mismanaged Govt. programs instead.

Technically, every dollar the govt spends *does* go back into the economy (they buy tanks from private industry and employ real people just like other companies).

However, I do recall a college econ class that made the case that govt dollars do not have the same economic effect as private dollars, although I don't recall why. Perhaps an econ major could help me out? Is it because the govt spends so much of its money overseas?

Frozen Sooner

2/19/2008, 02:26 PM

Technically, every dollar the govt spends *does* go back into the economy (they buy tanks from private industry and employ real people just like other companies).

However, I do recall a college econ class that made the case that govt dollars do not have the same economic effect as private dollars, although I don't recall why. Perhaps an econ major could help me out? Is it because the govt spends so much of its money overseas?

I can think of a couple of arguments that would lead to that conclusion, but I have no idea which one your professor used. If I were inclined to argue that point, I would probably talk about the crowding-out effect of government borrowing.

NormanPride

2/19/2008, 02:35 PM

Can someone explain a "clearinghouse" briefly? I am inexperienced in the ways of political mumbo-jumbo. :D

RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!

2/19/2008, 02:38 PM

The free market is a better, more efficient use of money than the govt. purchasing things, because the money invested by the private sector goes where it is perceived there will be demand for goods and services purchased. Govt. purchases things with other goals in mind.(not to mention the fact that the money the govt. has was taken by force of law from the populace)

Stoop Dawg

2/19/2008, 02:57 PM

Can someone explain a "clearinghouse" briefly? I am inexperienced in the ways of political mumbo-jumbo. :D

Hmmm, I thought it would be easy to find a link, but it wasn't (and I'm a little impatient with Google anyway).

The basic definition is;

1. a place or institution where mutual claims and accounts are settled, as between banks.
2. a central institution or agency for the collection, maintenance, and distribution of materials, information, etc.

So it would essentially be a centralized system (preferably electronic) for processing, tracking, and paying claims. Your doctor could submit a claim to *any* insurance company through a standard interface, and receive payment through that same system. Likewise, insurance companies would receive all claims in the same format, and pay all claims through the same system.

Vaevictis

2/19/2008, 03:17 PM

We don't need a single payer system to achieve those benefits. A clearinghouse system would accomplish nearly the same thing.

I agree that it would certainly be close. I would gladly welcome a standardized clearinghouse.

Can someone explain a "clearinghouse" briefly? I am inexperienced in the ways of political mumbo-jumbo. :D

Visa and Mastercard are clearinghouses. Basically, the clearinghouse facilitates the "settlement" of payment claims between buyer and seller. Often times, they have the ability to enforce binding arbitration, which speeds up claim disputes and lowers their cost.

Additionally, your agreement is usually with the clearinghouse itself. The merchant gets paid by the clearinghouse, and the clearinghouse gets paid by the consumer.

This reduces the merchant's counter-party risk (being that the clearinghouse usually has deep pockets), and shifts it to the clearinghouse (or in credit card transactions, to the banks) who is much better at evaluating the risk associated with the other side of the transaction.

I can think of a couple of arguments that would lead to that conclusion, but I have no idea which one your professor used. If I were inclined to argue that point, I would probably talk about the crowding-out effect of government borrowing.

Also, I would guess that part of it might be the fact that the government spends money on things that normal consumers wouldn't. This distorts the market. Sometimes this is a good thing, sometimes it's not.

Hamhock

2/19/2008, 03:19 PM

i just wanted to post in this thread so y'all could see my new avatar.

tia

Fugue

2/19/2008, 03:21 PM

i just wanted to post in this thread so y'all could see my new avatar.

tia

word, me too. :texan:

Frozen Sooner

2/19/2008, 03:29 PM

Also, I would guess that part of it might be the fact that the government spends money on things that normal consumers wouldn't. This distorts the market. Sometimes this is a good thing, sometimes it's not.

That's a pretty negligible effect, though, as the money ends up going to consumers in the end anyhow. Government workers get paid wages. They're consumers. The corporation that builds a missile pays dividends to consumers. The guy who turns a wrench building the missile gets paid. He's a consumer.

The money ends up getting spent in market-efficient manners.

Hamhock

2/19/2008, 03:31 PM

That's a pretty negligible effect, though, as the money ends up going to consumers in the end anyhow. Government workers get paid wages. They're consumers. The corporation that builds a missile pays dividends to consumers. The guy who turns a wrench building the missile gets paid. He's a consumer.

The money ends up getting spent in market-efficient manners.

yes, but the government artifically props up products/services (storing helium underground) with $$ that normally would go different places.

did y'all see the excel help thread?

Vaevictis

2/19/2008, 03:32 PM

That's a pretty negligible effect, though, as the money ends up going to consumers in the end anyhow.

I don't think it's negligible. What would happen to the price of grain if the government didn't meddle in that market?

JohnnyMack

2/19/2008, 03:32 PM

i just wanted to post in this thread so y'all could see my new avatar.

tia

Is that a Liger?

Hamhock

2/19/2008, 03:33 PM

Is that a Liger?

bobcat, stupid.

Frozen Sooner

2/19/2008, 03:35 PM

yes, but the government artifically props up products/services (storing helium underground) with $$ that normally would go different places.

did y'all see the excel help thread?

Right, but the money still gets out there. The guy building the gigantor helium tank goes out and spends his paycheck on market-efficient porn and crack.

There is a slight distortion of labor markets, and a distortion of markets for goods that consumers don't generally buy, true.

Like I said, though, there's a couple of arguments that you could use. Me, I think the crowding-out argument is ultimately the more defensible argument for major distortion of the market. Both arguments are flip sides of the same coin, I guess. One is the distortion that the government causes in the market for goods, one is the distortion of capital markets.

Frozen Sooner

2/19/2008, 03:38 PM

I don't think it's negligible. What would happen to the price of grain if the government didn't meddle in that market?

It would collapse-but what would be the effect of General Mills no longer buying wheat?

Vaevictis

2/19/2008, 03:40 PM

It would collapse-but what would be the effect of General Mills no longer buying wheat?

From an economists point of view, the answer to that would be: "Someone would see a profit opportunity and step in to exploit it." General Mills itself is unimportant.

Frozen Sooner

2/19/2008, 03:41 PM

From an economists point of view, the answer to that would be: "Someone would see a profit opportunity and step in to exploit it." General Mills itself is unimportant.

:nods:

Vaevictis

2/19/2008, 03:43 PM

This of course prompts the question: Who would step in to prop up grain markets, if not the government?

JohnnyMack

2/19/2008, 03:44 PM

You?

You've made a dollar or two in your day, once you're done with school, maybe you could take over?

Hamhock

2/19/2008, 03:46 PM

This of course prompts the question: Who would step in to prop up grain markets, if not the government?

nobody?

Frozen Sooner

2/19/2008, 03:50 PM

This of course prompts the question: Who would step in to prop up grain markets, if not the government?

Elves. Lots and lots of elves.

The same companies that would recognize a profit opportunity if GM got out of the grain-buying business would recognize the same profit opportunity if the government did. Several grain farmers would go out of business, of course, in both scenarios. Price would equilibrize at a lower level than before either went in. Either way, farmers are buying goods and services with the money they got paid, or aren't because they're not getting paid anymore. The difference between the government giving them money for their grain and GM giving them the money doesn't seem like it would have a huge effect on GDP. Sure, the market for wheat is thrown a bit out of whack, but what's the net effect on the economy as a whole?

Vaevictis

2/19/2008, 03:50 PM

nobody?

The grain producers would probably try to create a bloc, but I believe that theory would state that it would be an unstable arrangement because there would be high incentive for the members of the bloc to cheat. (ie, there's no Nash equilibrium)

Frozen Sooner

2/19/2008, 03:52 PM

The grain producers would probably try to create a bloc, but I believe that theory would state that it would be an unstable arrangement because there would be high incentive for the members of the bloc to cheat. (ie, there's no Nash equilibrium)

Both theory and empirical data bear this out. See the Depression-era grain riots.

Stoop Dawg

2/19/2008, 03:53 PM

This of course prompts the question: Who would step in to prop up grain markets, if not the government?

I'm afraid that I'm completely ignorant on grain markets. Not just grain markets, mind you, but it's certainly on the list.

Why *does* the govt subsidize farmers? Is the demand really so low that they would go out of business? Or would the prices sky-rocket making the price of food too expensive?

Vaevictis

2/19/2008, 03:53 PM

The same companies that would recognize a profit opportunity if GM got out of the grain-buying business would recognize the same profit opportunity if the government did. Several grain farmers would go out of business, of course, in both scenarios. Price would equilibrize at a lower level than before either went in.

Yeah, but in that case, nobody's propping up the prices. They just fall to the new equilibrium.

Sure, the market for wheat is thrown a bit out of whack, but what's the net effect on the economy as a whole?

Whole? Maybe none. But locally (within specific markets)? I expect a lot.

Frozen Sooner

2/19/2008, 03:54 PM

I'm afraid that I'm completely ignorant on grain markets. Not just grain markets, mind you, but it's certainly on the list.

Why *does* the govt subsidize farmers? Is the demand really so low that they would go out of business? Or would the prices sky-rocket making the price of food too expensive?

The American Farmer is romanticized to such a level in our society that it's counter to public policy to have them lose their farms and go out of business.

Frozen Sooner

2/19/2008, 03:54 PM

Yeah, but in that case, nobody's propping up the prices. They just fall to the new equilibrium.

Whole? Maybe none. But locally (within specific markets)? I expect a lot.

Sure, but the question was whether government spending is less effective than private spending. I assume that would be in the context of generating GDP growth.

Vaevictis

2/19/2008, 03:57 PM

Why *does* the govt subsidize farmers? Is the demand really so low that they would go out of business? Or would the prices sky-rocket making the price of food too expensive?

I'm sure the timing of Iowa's primaries have nothing to do with it.

But other than that, I don't know. I seem to recall that they were originally instituted after a collapse, but my memory is foggy.

Vaevictis

2/19/2008, 04:02 PM

Sure, but the question was whether government spending is less effective than private spending. I assume that would be in the context of generating GDP growth.

Economists would tell you that the beauty of the market is that it inherently directs resources to their most efficient use. Any distortion at all would prevent that, hence, government spending and its distortive effect on any market inherently means that it's less effective.

Stoop Dawg

2/19/2008, 04:05 PM

The American Farmer is romanticized to such a level in our society that it's counter to public policy to have them lose their farms and go out of business.

Alan Greenspan asserts that moving farmers off the farms and into factories (or other specialized jobs) actually fuels economic growth. Not only would the govt save some money, but those displaced farmers (or their children and grand-children) would ultimately enjoy a higher standard of living.

Hamhock

2/19/2008, 04:06 PM

I'm sure the timing of Iowa's primaries have nothing to do with it.

.

i heard someone pontificating on this. i don't remember who, bu tit was quite interesting listening to them talk about the current ethanol requirements/hype and what they would be like if Iowa wasn't first on the list.

Frozen Sooner

2/19/2008, 04:08 PM

Economists would tell you that the beauty of the market is that it inherently directs resources to their most efficient use. Any distortion at all would prevent that, hence, government spending and its distortive effect on any market inherently means that it's less effective.

Actually, not all economists would say that. Adam Smith laissez-faire economists would.

Consider the following propositions:

An industry with inherently high barriers to entry.
An industry with inherent externalities.
An industry where perfect information does not exist.
An industry where rational consumer choices are not made.

In any of these industries, market operations do not lead to the most efficient allocation of resources.

Mike Rich
BA Economics. University of Oklahoma. 1997. :D

Again, I'm not disputing that government spending distorts the market. Heck I'm not even stating your argument is wrong. I just think that crowding out is the more convincing argument that government spending is less effective than private.

royalfan5

2/19/2008, 04:10 PM

The American Farmer is romanticized to such a level in our society that it's counter to public policy to have them lose their farms and go out of business.
and it's a great way to get cheap food for the Food Stamp program. Subsidies have driven small farmers out to a greater extent than low grain prices. Plus, the upcoming ethanol cluster**** that I will spend a great deal of time sorting out. To be fair though, the EU is much worse than the United States about subsidizing farmers.

Stoop Dawg

2/19/2008, 04:13 PM

But other than that, I don't know. I seem to recall that they were originally instituted after a collapse, but my memory is foggy.

Hmmm, once again, I want to qualify my remarks by saying that I have no idea what I'm talking about.

I seem to recall watching a show (History channel, I believe) that said that there were land grants given in the past (don't remember why). I don't know if these are the same subsidies or different ones. Essentially, the govt gives you money for owning farm land. However, now that all that land has changed hands several times, the current owners really don't make much (if anything) because they purchased the land at a premium - the land value was artificially inflated due to the govt subsidies. Now, we're stuck with artifically high farm land values and if the subsidies were removed the land would be almost worthless. Okay, not worthless, but certainly worth less.

Govt intervention = quagmire.

Vaevictis

2/19/2008, 04:15 PM

Actually, not all economists would say that. Adam Smith laissez-faire economists would.

Heh, okay, classical (naive, IMO) economics would tell you that then. (right? :O )

In any of these industries, market operations do not lead to the most efficient allocation of resources.

Absolutely understood, and agree. Free market economics are based on certain assumptions, and you have to meet them for the free market to be the best thing going.

Again, I'm not disputing that government spending distorts the market. Heck I'm not even stating your argument is wrong. I just think that crowding out is the more convincing argument that government spending is less effective than private.

Hell, I'm not even advocating this argument because I believe it. Just stating the other side ;)

royalfan5

2/19/2008, 04:17 PM

Another reason for the traditional subsidies towards grain production was it's value in helping US foreign policy via Public Law 480. This played a huge role in Agriculture thriving during the 70's. Kind of like Ethanol is doing now.

BigRedJed

2/19/2008, 04:19 PM

You know, generally when I feel dumber for having read a thread in the SO, it's because the thread is full of dumb stuff. Now, it's full of smart stuff, and I still feel dumb.

:confused:

Stoop Dawg

2/19/2008, 04:21 PM

Actually, not all economists would say that. Adam Smith laissez-faire economists would.

Consider the following propositions:

An industry with inherently high barriers to entry.
An industry with inherent externalities.
An industry where perfect information does not exist.
An industry where rational consumer choices are not made.

In any of these industries, market operations do not lead to the most efficient allocation of resources.

Mike Rich
BA Economics. University of Oklahoma. 1997. :D

I argree with high barriers to entry and/or regulation in the public interest. For example, it is not in the public's interest to have 25 power companies operating in each city, each with their own power lines running to every single residence and business.

I don't know what externalities are.

Lack of perfect information results in higher prices, but what is inefficient about that? With enough suppliers, the risk-adjusted equilibrium will be met, right?

Which industry(s) suffer from irrational consumer choices?

Stoop Dawg
Talkin' out my arse. 2008. :D

Vaevictis

2/19/2008, 04:27 PM

Which industry(s) suffer from irrational consumer choices?

Health care, for one.

Frozen Sooner

2/19/2008, 04:28 PM

Heh.
In order:

High barriers to entry lead to monopoly power. Monopoly power always leads to constrained production to raise economic profit above zero. Economic profit is not what most people consider profit to be, by the way. Market efficiency is reached when economic profit is 0.

Externalities are costs of production that are not realized by the producer. Pollution is an externality. Since the costs of production are not realized by the producer, the supply curve is artificially shifted to the right. The producer is able to compete on input markets with an inefficient advantage.

Lack of perfect information means that either consumers purchase products at lower than the 0 profit equilibirum or producers cannot find buyers at the 0 profit equilibrium. There's a lot more involved with this, but both of those scenarios are a deviation from market efficiency.

Irrational market decisions are made every day in our nation. Marketing is nothing but the practice of convincing people to make irrational decisions.

JohnnyMack

2/19/2008, 04:35 PM

This is like reading a textbook.

This sucks.

Vaevictis

2/19/2008, 04:43 PM

This is like reading a textbook.

This sucks.

:les: DONT CLICK!!

Stoop Dawg

2/19/2008, 04:49 PM

Externalities are costs of production that are not realized by the producer. Pollution is an externality. Since the costs of production are not realized by the producer, the supply curve is artificially shifted to the right. The producer is able to compete on input markets with an inefficient advantage.

Gotcha.

Lack of perfect information means that either consumers purchase products at lower than the 0 profit equilibirum or producers cannot find buyers at the 0 profit equilibrium. There's a lot more involved with this, but both of those scenarios are a deviation from market efficiency.

I still don't know what that means, but it's entirely possible that the concept is simply beyond my grasp and I don't expect you to take the time to explain it to me in detail - as it probably wouldn't do me any good anyhow.

Irrational market decisions are made every day in our nation. Marketing is nothing but the practice of convincing people to make irrational decisions.

Hmmm, I'd disagree. Is it irrational to buy $125 shoes because they have a swoosh on the side? You might say "yes", but the high school kid who is trying to achieve social acceptance says "no". Much marketing is geared toward social status, but achievment of social status is not irrational. Nike doesn't really sell shoes anymore, they sell an image. I guess that's a different industry from "shoes".

Frozen Sooner

2/19/2008, 04:52 PM

But see, from the definition of economics, that is an irrational decision. There is no actual difference in quality other than emotion.

How about store-brand food and name-brand food? Even if double-blind tests showed that they taste identical, I guarantee that people would pay a premium for the name-brand.

The perfect information assumption is easy to explain, I just didn't do a good job. Example: on your drive home from work, you see that gas is $3.03 per gallon at the Shell station three blocks from the office. Thinking "Hey, great deal!" you fill up your tank. However, as you get to your subdivision, you see that the Shell station on the corner has gas for $2.50 per gallon.

If you had had the perfect information, you would have likely waited to buy gas at the station near your house. The station near your house is willing to supply gas at a lower price than the one near your office, so they are most likely the more efficient gasoline supplier. However, because you had imperfect information, you bought gas at an inefficient station.

Stoop Dawg

2/19/2008, 04:56 PM

This is like reading a textbook.

This sucks.

I wouldn't normally get too excited about economics either, but I'm just finishing up Alan Greenspan's book "Age of Turbulence". The first half is an excellent read for anyone, but the second half is a bit over my head.

Frozen Sooner

2/19/2008, 04:57 PM

Lots of recent theoretical work on imperfect information and rational ignorance, by the way. If you liked Greenspan's book, you'd probably dig that as well. At some point, the costs to obtain perfect information outweigh the benefits, making pursuit of perfect information irrational.

Stoop Dawg

2/19/2008, 05:35 PM

But see, from the definition of economics, that is an irrational decision. There is no actual difference in quality other than emotion.

I see what you are getting at, and I'm probably mis-using "efficient" and "irrational" from an economic stand-point. However, I still contend that there *is* an actual difference in "quality". This higher level of "quality" stems not from the product itself, but from the status I attain by wearing the product. That's why I said it's not really the "shoe" industry anymore, it's the "see what I got" industry. Don't all luxury goods fall into this category?

The perfect information assumption is easy to explain, I just didn't do a good job. Example: on your drive home from work, you see that gas is $3.03 per gallon at the Shell station three blocks from the office. Thinking "Hey, great deal!" you fill up your tank. However, as you get to your subdivision, you see that the Shell station on the corner has gas for $2.50 per gallon.

If you had had the perfect information, you would have likely waited to buy gas at the station near your house. The station near your house is willing to supply gas at a lower price than the one near your office, so they are most likely the more efficient gasoline supplier. However, because you had imperfect information, you bought gas at an inefficient station.

Gotcha. Let me play more "Devils Advocate" though.

I suppose there are buyers who watch prices throughout the week and generally know where the cheapest gas is. Those people don't fall into the "imperfect information" scenario so let's forget about them.

That leaves people like me who don't pay attention and people on trips or are otherwise in an area where they do have "imperfect information". In that case, people buy gas at the most *convient* location (within reason). I worked at the 7-Eleven office for a few years out of college and it was widely circulated within the company that they don't sell products - they sell convenience. The "value" is not the gasoline, it's the availability of the gasoline at the time that the consumer needs it. That's why gas is almost always higher near the highway.

The same is true for almost all retail businesses. Location, location, location! I'm not sure it's fair to call the entire market "inefficient" just because consumers (especially in America) tend to value convenience over price. The market bears the price that consumers are willing to pay. Convience is part of the "value". Not to mention the fact that retailers pay a premium for convient locations, and that cost must be passed along to consumers.

On second thought, perhaps I'm going off the reservation. Does "imperfect information" only apply if all other things are equal? That was a favorite phrase of my econ instructor: "all other variables being equal". If the two gas stations are paying the same rent, the same delivery fees, using the same additives, same labor costs, etc. then I suppose that one is less "efficient". Although I suspect that it is rare that "all other variables are equal" in reality.

At some point, the costs to obtain perfect information outweigh the benefits, making pursuit of perfect information irrational.

Exactly. And at least in America, I'd say that point is pretty high.

Hamhock

2/19/2008, 05:38 PM

http://www.horrordvds.com/reviews/misc/pictures/nerds.jpg

credit to colley

NormanPride

2/19/2008, 06:04 PM

This thread is awesome. I had almost forgotten how much I loved economics. I need to get a few books for my birfdey coming up in April...

Frozen Sooner

2/19/2008, 06:15 PM

Stoop Dawg-

Perfect information is a necessary assumption of a perfectly competitive model. Only in the perfect competition model is it a truism that market allocation is always the most efficient distribution of resources.

In the example of the two gas stations, ceteris paribus absolutely does not hold-at least not in the way you're using it. In fact, you would have to assume that either the second gas station owner is pricing his product below economic cost, the first gas station is pricing his product above economic cost, or that the two stations have differing economic costs. I tried to keep things as simple as possible though-we can assume that both gas stations are of equal convenience to the consumer, as the example stated that both were on his daily commute. Ceteris paribus does hold for the consumer-the gas is of equal quality, the convenience factor is the same, the only difference is that one station is selling it for less.

A convenience-based decision is certainly rational. Inconvenience is the very soul of rationality-how much effort is it going to cost me to purchase a product?

Here's a case from real life:

I have a friend who is constantly in fear of not getting the best deal possible. It literally will take him months to decide to purchase anything that costs more than about $500-involving several trips to the store, massive amounts of research, getting a consensus of his friends on what WE think the best course of action is, etc. Drives us all bat****. This is a guy who makes in excess of $90k per year. I've seen him drive to 5 different stores and take about 10-15 hours of his time in order to save $100. That's irrational knowledge. Sure, he got the best price information he possibly could, but it didn't save him any money.

Vaevictis

2/19/2008, 06:30 PM

But see, from the definition of economics, that is an irrational decision. There is no actual difference in quality other than emotion.

I don't think it is once you bring the concept of utility in the equation. The utility -- which includes the emotional, according to my understanding -- of buying those $125 shoes might really be $125. In that case, the decision isn't irrational from an economic point of view.

The typical example of irrational behavior involves chasing sunk costs. Supposedly, there was a study done where an economist monitored an all you can eat buffet. Some people paid, and some people "won" a free meal. The people who paid ate more than those who won a free meal. If the diners were rational, both groups would eat the same amount -- because the utility you get from eating the food is the same whether you paid or not. But, the diners who paid ate more chasing the sunk cost -- "I have to get my money's worth!" -- of the meal.