When does the idiot finally get it?

[perfor8]

Paul Krugman's Nobel lofts him into those stratospheric heights of esteem heretofore occupied only by the likes of other Nobel winners, e.g. Barrack Obama.

 

[poopgiggle]

Paul Krugman's Nobel lofts him into those stratospheric heights of esteem heretofore occupied only by the likes of other Nobel winners, e.g. Barrack Obama.

Right because the Nobel Peace Prize, the awarding of which is often a politically-motivated decision, is directly comparable to Nobel prizes awarded in the sciences.

 

[poopgiggle]

Krugman has a Noble Prize, but so does Friedman, and their views are pretty opposite of each other. The prize itself doesn't mean much aside from the guy having an idea - it doesn't necessarily mean the idea will go anywhere.

Please link me to anything Milton Friedman wrote on health care economics.

My biggest problem with Krugman is he ignores one of the basic facets of economics: People are not inherently 'good,' and they will do what it takes to get themselves ahead. Often at the expense of their neighbors.

He doesn't ignore it. In fact, it's a basic premise of his argument.

The idea of some sort of requiring some insurance, and that an insurance company cannot make a profit, undermines why the insurance companies even exist.

He's not addressing the current abortion of a healthcare solution that we have now, which requires one to buy private insurance. He's addressing market-based solutions to health insurance.

 

[poopgiggle]

Actually more than one alternative solution was presented. The one with the most support was only 800 pages instead of 2,500 or whatever the final number was on Obamacare. It didn't get a lot of play in the media because it kind of contradicted the whole "party of no" slogan they had adopted. Republicans were shut out of the whole process so suggesting alternatives was kind of a waste of their time. Obama told us these negotiations would be held on CSPAN for all to observe. Instead, the only negotiating was between democrats to determine who was going to get the sweetest deal.

I'm not talking about the Republican deal, I'm talking about policy solutions from the Tea Party faction.

The whole process should be a reminder as to why it is never good for either party to have a large majority. It gives them the ability to do more "governing" which is simply more legislation resulting in larger government. I'd certainly like to see Obamacare repealed as I would all entitlements. However, political gridlock is probably the only way we all win. We need a government that moves slowly. Look at the crap that happens when either side has a majority and can ram legislation through.

This is why, in elections for offices in the legislative or executive branch, I tend to vote for whichever party doesn't control the other branch.

 

[Blinocac200sx]

The solution is to get government out of the way. Government is the problem.

 

[poopgiggle]

With respect to the "state of healthcare in the country" it is neither within the Constitutional realm of the legislature, nor the financial responsibility of the taxpayer, to "improve the situation somehow".

The "solution", is to defund all previous solutions.

Don't hold your breath.

The realm of government in a capitalist system is to provide services that can't be efficiently provided by the private sector, or that the private sector requires in order for markets to exist: law enforcement, courts, roads, etc.

Krugman argues that healthcare cannot be allocated efficiently by a totally market-based approach. There are good non-government solutions like co-ops that aren't a profit-based model, so they avoid some of the conflict-of-interest issues that Krugman raises, but I submit that it would be proper for government to initiate and/or assist with the formation of these co-ops because there isn't really an incentive for the private sector to do it.

E: I really like that solution on its face, but I haven't really seen an extensive analysis of the idea so I can't support it wholeheartedly. Also, good luck getting that past the health insurance lobby.

 

[RWS]

Personally I think we'd be better picking representatives from us "commoners" who don't want to serve. Then after two years replacing them with someone else who doesn't want to serve. Rinse and repeat every two years.

i've always been of the opinion that most who actually WANT to hold ANY public office, probably SHOULDN"T hold ANY public office. it's not the work and responsibility that they want, it's the title, power, and pay.

 

[inactive]

Please link me to anything Milton Friedman wrote on health care economics

I won't bother even looking as it's not relevant. I was talking about the relevance of a Nobel prize, not Friedman's take on health care.

He doesn't ignore it. In fact, it's a basic premise of his argument.

I guess I missed that amid the content of his article that states:

there’s a widespread sense that our fellow citizens should get the care we need

I patently disagree with this, and any other economist worth their salt should too. Sure, companies are in the business to make money. But companies are not any LESS inherently self-serving than consumers are. When it comes down to it, most people couldn't care less about OTHERS' care, only that they are taken care of.

I don't give a damn if Mickey or Johnny or whomever, who never bothered to get insurance, and eats himself to death, has a heart attack and is riddled with medical debt after his bypass. I just care that my son can be taken care of when I take him to the doctor. Calloused? Sure but that's life. Maybe I'm just an a-hole.

He's not addressing the current abortion of a healthcare solution that we have now, which requires one to buy private insurance. He's addressing market-based solutions to health insurance.

By "current" do you mean Pre- or Post- Affordable Healthcare Act? Neither requires ANYONE to purchase health care, though the latter will tax those that do not.

 

[inactive]

The realm of government in a capitalist system is to provide services that can't be efficiently provided by the private sector, or that the private sector requires in order for markets to exist: law enforcement, courts, roads, etc.

Krugman argues that healthcare cannot be allocated efficiently by a totally market-based approach.

I agree with Krugman that healthcare cannot be efficiently allocated by a free market, but I would make the argument that health care is not as important as law enforcement, courts, roads, etc... and should not be allocated.

But that's just me

 

[poopgiggle]

I won't bother even looking as it's not relevant. I was talking about the relevance of a Nobel prize, not Friedman's take on health care.

Both Friedman and Krugman are (or were) brilliant economists. I was just trying to establish that Krugman is a respected academic economist, not some Democratic Party shill.

I patently disagree with this, and any other economist worth their salt should too. Sure, companies are in the business to make money. But companies are not any LESS inherently self-serving than consumers are. When it comes down to it, most people couldn't care less about OTHERS' care, only that they are taken care of.

The greater point is that you will end up paying too much for too little care with private insurers since a large portion of your insurance payments go towards administrative overhead designed to minimize "medical costs" (i.e. paying for your medical care).

So when you say...

I don't give a damn if Mickey or Johnny or whomever, who never bothered to get insurance, and eats himself to death, has a heart attack and is riddled with medical debt after his bypass. I just care that my son can be taken care of when I take him to the doctor. Calloused? Sure but that's life. Maybe I'm just an a-hole.

...remember that the insurance company is actively trying to avoid paying for your son's medical bills, and you're paying for them to pay people to do that.

By "current" do you mean Pre- or Post- Affordable Healthcare Act? Neither requires ANYONE to purchase health care, though the latter will tax those that do not.

...so in effect it's now fining people who don't get health insurance? So it's required in the same sense that I'm required not to speed? That's close to required, at least close enough for government work.