Bosstone–spinning some dystopian tall tale based on a simplistic (mis)understanding of how the world works is equally as retarded. You’ve messed up your hypo on the first step by assuming that every employer would decrease every employee’s pay after the tie is severed (ie, you are assuming that the employer-provided health benefits would not be replaced with cash). If an employer were able to reduce pay across the board like that, they would do it now. The rest of your hypo just compounds this birth defect.
I’m really at a loss as to why you think “government interference” has anything to do with the link between insurance and employment.
It’s actually a pretty simple relationship. Certain businesses started offering health insurance to their employees as a perk to joining their company. More businesses joined in. As the costs of health care in this country rose well past the rate of inflation, the “perk” became a demand. Now the only link between health care and employment is that employees are scared witless about losing their jobs for fear of losing health insurance.
I have no cites on this, but I would honestly be surprised if one of the top three reasons (if not the number one reason) why employees don’t seek new employment at a different business is because they fear the usual 3 month gap of no insurance when moving to a new job and the reason why they don’t go off and start their own business is because they fear the complete elimination of health care for them and their potential employees.
That’s not government interference. That’s our free market system.
Well, the reason I keep repeating myself is that you actually DON’T discuss anything at all. You simply “reject” the cites and points with no substantive argument whatsoever. Your only reason for the rejection is your ideology. That’s it. That’s all you’ve offered to the debate.
It’s like we’re arguing with a caricature of what a “pure” libertarian would look like, if such a beast existed. I’m starting to seriously think that you’re engaging in a performance art piece here.
EP, I’m starting to think you are either a badly programmed AI or you have mental issues. I keep discussing the facts, and you keep ignoring my discussion of the facts, all the while spouting that I am an ideologue who won’t discuss the facts. I think it’s fairly obvious which of us is the ideologue here.
Fair point, but can we assume that would be the case? Especially if there is no government regulation telling companies they must make it up in cash?
I can see the response already, “Employers that don’t will lose employees to those that do.” But there’s only a finite number of jobs to be had, and if everyone votes with their feet pretty soon employees won’t have a good option and they’ll still be screwed.
This, frankly, is wrong. The size of the pie is most definitely not fixed. I understand that it’s the socialist-mindset, for example France adjusts their public policy to this assumption.
But economic growth almost by definition creates more jobs. And yes there is a marketplace for talent - one that will provide either those benefits or cash equivalent, based on the person’s worth to the company.
Oh, of course. Over time. And that assumes simply stopping employer-subsidized insurance will lead to economic growth. Honestly, if the employer simply gives that benefit back in cash, then it’s a neutral change. The employer certainly isn’t benefiting, and the employee only benefits if they can find a cheaper plan than what the employer was on before.
EP–again, that is an example of me discussing the facts and you not responding (except to assert that I refuse to discuss the facts). Do you think the US food system should be socialized just because it would undoubtedly reduce administrative costs?
What “facts” have you brought to this debate? Usually facts are backed up by cites, numbers, and analysis. Where is this in your argument?
You’ve said that even if costs were significantly lower, you would not support UHC. You’ve said that even if health customers retained the same level of consumer choice, you would not support UHC. You’ve said that even if fewer people died under UHC, you would not support it. At what point can you say with a straight face that your opposition to UHC is not driven by political ideology?
If health care is so important that it can’t be trusted to government administration, why do you trust property rights, which you consider to be even more important, to government administration?
Over time is the only reasonable horizon for making policy decisions this far reaching.
And I disagree that it’s neutral: one of the biggest problems we have is that the price of the service is somewhat divorced from the person making the buying decision. If you forced health care providers to compete on *both *price and quality, it’s almost unavoidable that the results would seriously bend the cost curve downward. This works with ancillary health care services like lazik and cosmetic surgery, it works with generic drugs, it works with ‘optional’ healthcare like hair restoration, teeth whitening, and ED treatments - there’s every reason to believe that it would work with standard healthcare too.
And of course the largest benefit: by bringing in Mr Invisibile Hand, we make guys like RR (and me) happier. Him because we let market forces work their magic, and me because we increase health care choice, which is another way of providing more liberty to Americans.
Duke, your posting style is very frustrating to deal with you invariably mischaracterize what I say, come up wirth some implication based on that mischaracterization, and then expect me to provide an answer to that implication. It’s very odd.
So, here we go again:
In another thread I posted lots of cites about the negative effects as taxes increase and permanent unemployment in countries with large social programs and other things. In this thread, I’ve shown why the “facts” used by UHC supporters are incomplete and don’t actually suport UHC
Your streak of mischaracteri-ng what I’ve said in every post you direct at me remains unbroken. The only one of those things I’ve said is the one about administrative costs, and I’ve fully explained my position upthread.
First, I’ve never said the bolded part above. I don’t even know what it means. My position is based on what I view as the legitimate activities of the government, not whether I trust the government to do something or not.
Second, the reason I believe that protection of property rights is a legitimate government function is that force is justified to stop the use of force. So, it’s OK for the government to prevent theft and punish thieves (and the government should do that).
Is there something in the history of American business behavior that leads you to suspect that an assumption that they would be replaced with cash qualifies as anything other than magic-based wishful thinking?
I mean, sheesh, at least the other assumption is a relatively safe bet…
But why just those things? Surely you could pay for a private security patrol, and along with the opposing party come up with half the judge’s fee for hearing a case. Why should law-abiding and non-litigious people pay for your access to police and courts? (Yes, I’m being a little extremist and facetious, but under it is a legitimate question – I see an inconsistency in your position on what services the government should legitimately provide, and why, and sincerely would like to know your logic on why these and not others.)
Fuck you, I’ve got mine perfectly describes you. You don’t want to spend one thin dime of your allegedly vast fortune on anything that doesn’t specifically benefit you.
Same shit, different day, Ass Rover.
I don’t hate you, but I wouldn’t piss on you if you were on fire.
Translation: “You ask uncomfortable questions I can’t answer, kind of like my wife with the purses, and so, just like with my wife, it’s easier to just think of you as a jerk than actually make an effort.”
You said that increased spending on healthcare was actually a “feature” of this system, that it might mean doctors were doing a better job of diagnosing and caring for illnesses. Did you have any facts to back that up? No, but you did tell us that Canadians were #11 in the obesity table, like that meant anything (of course, no cite was listed other than LMGTFY), so thanks for that.
Of course, little things like increased life expectancy and lower birth mortality in UHC countries are facts, too, but I am sure you will hand-wave those away because, uh, Americans are fatter, or something.
For varying levels of “explained”, I suppose. But let’s go back to it. Would you support UHC if levels of patient choice were kept (which is something, of course, you didn’t know about for Canada, not that it kept you from claiming otherwise), or if, I don’t know, fewer people died? Because I’m pretty damn sure you wouldn’t. And, after you’ve answered that in the negative, go back to my question about political ideology.
So…it’s an opinion. Check. I.e., NOT based in fact or objectivity.
And there’s nothing wrong with that. Problem is, of course, that’s again an opinion. My view (and this is shared by the Founding Fathers) is that government’s legitimate purpose is to enable Americans to pursue “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” Well, you’ve got “liberty and the pursuit of happiness” down cold, but “life” is somewhat lagging behind IMHO. If my money is on the government table–and it is, just as surely as yours is–I’d rather have it try to prevent or mollify the very real prospect of catastrophic illness ending my life rather than the very remote prospect of terrorists or criminals ending my life. Again, my opinion, but I happen to think it’s a good one.
And that’s all there is to it, Rand. I have an opinion that the government can legitimately be involved in healthcare. You don’t. The difference is you think I’m a “liberal douche” for thinking that, despite the very real reasons I have for doing so. Based on your words in the purse thread, I think this is a common trait of yours. People with different opinions aren’t demons.