When Government Plays Doctor

[SOCALHUSKER]

I have got to quit working, I miss all the good threads.

 

Let me get this straight, Jen favors more government control over a big part of our lives. I did not see that one coming. Also, demonizing corporations for focusing on making a profit, Isn't that what they are supposed to do?

 

Calrfense can't see government as a primary reason costs are high in health care. Aren't you in law school, doesn't your entire profession and those in it's wages rely entirely on the very existence of complex, almost indecipherable regualtion and defense therefrom? Isn't it likely that the rediculouly high price of your wife's education is also a side effect of third party payer systems? If for instance there where no government loans or grants, do you think the average med student could possibly afford tuiton. What then, would the meds schools all shut down or would they find a way to charge a reasonable amount of money for their services? Would the average doctor then expect, even be required to make so much themselves?

 

Huskerjack23 claims that free markert economies (capitalism) don't take into account factionalisms such as raceism, sexism, status and prejudice. Yeah it does, to sum up, those are called human nature and capitalism plays upon human nature. Failure to exploit human nature is one of the greatest weaknesses of Marxism.

 

Raceism: If you play only white guys on your team and I play only my best guys who do you think is going to win that game.

 

Sexism: see above.

 

Status: Capitalism rewards the best ideas and best performers, it may not always be fair, but competition will always be open if your looking for the best of the best. Nepotism is not capitalism.

 

Bottom line for me is, capitalism works. Yes, it must be retrained from time to time in the interest of the public, but by and large our problems stem from overregualtion not underregulation.

 

Lastly, Socal....did you recently purchase a next pair of purple Nikes?

 

Very well put!!

 

Purple Nikes?? I don't get it!?!?!

[huskertim]

Doomsday cult reference, just a playful jab.

 

Also, should read new pair of purple Nikes.

[carlfense]

I have got to quit working, I miss all the good threads.

 

Let me get this straight, Jen favors more government control over a big part of our lives. I did not see that one coming. Also, demonizing corporations for focusing on making a profit, Isn't that what they are supposed to do?

 

Calrfense can't see government as a primary reason costs are high in health care. Aren't you in law school, doesn't your entire profession and those in it's wages rely entirely on the very existence of complex, almost indecipherable regualtion and defense therefrom? Isn't it likely that the rediculouly high price of your wife's education is also a side effect of third party payer systems? If for instance there where no government loans or grants, do you think the average med student could possibly afford tuiton. What then, would the meds schools all shut down or would they find a way to charge a reasonable amount of money for their services? Would the average doctor then expect, even be required to make so much themselves?

 

Huskerjack23 claims that free markert economies (capitalism) don't take into account factionalisms such as raceism, sexism, status and prejudice. Yeah it does, to sum up, those are called human nature and capitalism plays upon human nature. Failure to exploit human nature is one of the greatest weaknesses of Marxism.

 

Raceism: If you play only white guys on your team and I play only my best guys who do you think is going to win that game.

 

Sexism: see above.

 

Status: Capitalism rewards the best ideas and best performers, it may not always be fair, but competition will always be open if your looking for the best of the best. Nepotism is not capitalism.

 

Bottom line for me is, capitalism works. Yes, it must be retrained from time to time in the interest of the public, but by and large our problems stem from overregualtion not underregulation.

 

Lastly, Socal....did you recently purchase a new pair of purple Nikes?

 

First things first: she is my girlfriend, not my wife. I'm much too terrified of a serious commitment to take that particular step right now.

 

And no, I can't agree that government is the primary reason why prescription drugs are expensive in the US. (if you are talking about medicine as a whole, then I'd agree with that...the government probably plays a major roll in medical costs in general...but costs would rise regardless, see earlier posts.)

 

As far as the legal system goes, no one has yet been able to draft a system of law that is entirely understandable and accessible to the layman.

 

Addressing the third party loans, isn't it more likely that in the absence of governmental loans private banks would seize on the opportunity to loan money to a group of people (future doctors) who will likely be able to repay that loan plus interest? Med school is an inherently expensive education. Costs might be reduced in some areas, but it will never be cheap.

[HuskerJen]

Have you read any of my other posts? Reread what I have written regarding the Feds policies of artificially low interest rates and the effects it has on the economy/business cycle. Then tell me again that government intervention hasn't been the cause of our economic woes. What proof do you have that any of your scenarios would happen?

 

I have and I essentially agree with you. However, also I believe government's role, concerning the private sector, should be that of oversight and watchdog...nothing more.

 

China, India, Malaysia, Pakistan, not to mention all the countries in Africa...there are counties all over the globe where companies "pay" people .25 cents an hour because there are no laws telling them what is an acceptable wage.

 

The Cuyahoga River fire in 1969 Because of this fire, Cleveland businesses became infamous for their pollution, a legacy of the city's booming manufacturing days during the late 1800s and the early 1900s, when limited government controls existed to protect the environment.

 

Cuyahoga River Fire

 

That's the "free market," in pure form, in action.

[huskertim]

Sorry to marry you off so young cf.

 

As to prescription costs, I would guess that if I could buy my drugs in Canada for instance (currently illegal), I might get them cheaper. The question is would the increased competition lower prices here or raise them there? It's an interesting dilema.

 

Want an easy to read legal system, try Hammurabi's Code or you could try the constitution sans 200 years of "interpetation".

 

The 3rd party payer problem I refer to is real, be it loans or perscriptions. I know I for one will shop for a bargain when I have to pay for it out of my pocket but when I can put it on my insurance, what do I care what it costs. Do you honestly think I would care more about that cost if it were billed to Uncle Sam instead of Blue Cross?

Tell me that same logic doesn't enter into purchase decisions when you can just put in on the card.

[HuskerJen]

Let me get this straight, Jen favors more government control over a big part of our lives. I did not see that one coming. Also, demonizing corporations for focusing on making a profit...

 

I just wanted to clarify here...

 

I believe government's role, concerning the private sector, should be that of oversight and watchdog...nothing more.

 

Profit is good. Profit is what, and why, people start businesses. I have nothing against companies making billions in profits, nor do I have a problem with executive compensation even if it ranges into the hundreds of millions of dollars.

 

Where I am zealousy anti-business is those instances where companies exploit their employees, pollute the environment and/or when the company is in financial trouble and yet those at the top: CEO, CFO, etc are still making their salaries and receiving bonuses...that's what pisses me off.

[huskertim]

That pisses us all off, but it's usually the very same guys who are supporting your local politicians.

[SOCALHUSKER]

Doomsday cult reference, just a playful jab.

 

Also, should read new pair of purple Nikes.

 

No worries. I've just had my eyes opened and am looking to spread the word.

[SOCALHUSKER]

Let me get this straight, Jen favors more government control over a big part of our lives. I did not see that one coming. Also, demonizing corporations for focusing on making a profit...

 

I just wanted to clarify here...

 

I believe government's role, concerning the private sector, should be that of oversight and watchdog...nothing more.

 

Profit is good. Profit is what, and why, people start businesses. I have nothing against companies making billions in profits, nor do I have a problem with executive compensation even if it ranges into the hundreds of millions of dollars.

 

Where I am zealousy anti-business is those instances where companies exploit their employees, pollute the environment and/or when the company is in financial trouble and yet those at the top: CEO, CFO, etc are still making their salaries and receiving bonuses...that's what pisses me off.

 

Without the backing of the governments power none of this would be possible.

[HuskerJen]

SOCALHUSKER,

 

You completely side-stepped the issues I've raised...

 

Okay, let's start over...

 

I said:

 

And therein lies the rub...a true free market doesn't work because when left to their own devices the individuals running a company always put profit ahead of everything else: responsibility, the environment, workers rights, etc.

 

In other words they can't be trusted to act ethically on their own.

 

On the other hand...

 

If government runs the industry it becomes excessively complicated because it is mired in needless beauracracy and regulations.

 

So what's the solution here? Is there a solution? Is there a middle ground between socialism and a pure free market economy?

 

To which you responded:

 

How do you know this? Can you provide proof for this statement?

 

1. If there weren't laws telling companies not to dump pollutants into rivers and streams they would do it.

 

The Cuyahoga River fire in 1969 Because of this fire, Cleveland businesses became infamous for their pollution, a legacy of the city's booming manufacturing days during the late 1800s and the early 1900s, when limited government controls existed to protect the environment.

 

I mean, do I really need to rundown all the incidences of companies polluting the environment because there weren't laws telling them not to?

 

Read all about the Cuyahoga River Fire ---> Cuyahoga River Fire

 

2. If there weren't laws limiting the size of a particular industry there would be about 4 monopolies running everything.

 

Look at the media, radio and television stations, since the relaxation of ownership rules because of the 1996 Telecommunications Act. Companies went on a frenzied buying and acquistion rampage. These are the kinds of monoplies that government needs to prevent.

 

3. If there weren't laws governing minimum wage most companies would pay people .25 cents a day.

 

India, Malaysia, Pakistan, not to mention all the countries in Africa...there are counties all over the globe where companies "pay" people .25 cents an hour because there are no laws telling them what is an acceptable wage.

 

The bottom line: If companies could be trusted to act ethically and to do the right thing no oversight would be needed.

 

Would you care to address the issues I've raised or you going to conveniently miss them again?

[carlfense]

Agreed Jen. Profit is powerful motivation . . . but left unchecked that motivation will shift into greed.

[huskertim]

SOCALHUSKER,

 

You completely side-stepped the issues I've raised...

 

Okay, let's start over...

 

I said:

 

And therein lies the rub...a true free market doesn't work because when left to their own devices the individuals running a company always put profit ahead of everything else: responsibility, the environment, workers rights, etc.

 

In other words they can't be trusted to act ethically on their own.

 

On the other hand...

 

If government runs the industry it becomes excessively complicated because it is mired in needless beauracracy and regulations.

 

So what's the solution here? Is there a solution? Is there a middle ground between socialism and a pure free market economy?

 

To which you responded:

 

How do you know this? Can you provide proof for this statement?

 

1. If there weren't laws telling companies not to dump pollutants into rivers and streams they would do it.

 

The Cuyahoga River fire in 1969 Because of this fire, Cleveland businesses became infamous for their pollution, a legacy of the city's booming manufacturing days during the late 1800s and the early 1900s, when limited government controls existed to protect the environment.

 

I mean, do I really need to rundown all the incidences of companies polluting the environment because there weren't laws telling them not to?

 

Read all about the Cuyahoga River Fire ---> Cuyahoga River Fire

 

2. If there weren't laws limiting the size of a particular industry there would be about 4 monopolies running everything.

 

Look at the media, radio and television stations, since the relaxation of ownership rules because of the 1996 Telecommunications Act. Companies went on a frenzied buying and acquistion rampage. These are the kinds of monoplies that government needs to prevent.

 

3. If there weren't laws governing minimum wage most companies would pay people .25 cents a day.

 

India, Malaysia, Pakistan, not to mention all the countries in Africa...there are counties all over the globe where companies "pay" people .25 cents an hour because there are no laws telling them what is an acceptable wage.

 

The bottom line: If companies could be trusted to act ethically and to do the right thing no oversight would be needed.

 

Would you care to address the issues I've raised or you going to conveniently miss them again?

 

 

Let me take a crack at this one.

 

1 There aren't laws telling evil companies that the can't dump pollutants into rivers etc. There are laws limiting how much they can dump. IE you may have 3 parts per million dioxin output into local watershead. This is kind of like the FDA saying you may have .003 grams of rat balls per pound of peperoni. Guess how many grams of ratballs end up in your peperoni. Any idea how many grams of rat balls I want in my peperoni? Why do you suppose, instead of criminal penalties (at least in most cases), they impose financial penalties?

 

2 4 monopolies, interesting. You do realize that since 1996 that the average consumer has enjoyed vastly expanded choices for phone, internet, wireless, satellite and telegraph services. Yeah, the big guys get bigger, but the little guys just keep popping up. Hey, by the way hows that Hulu stock doing these days?

For the record, I do support antitrust laws, I just don't trust the lawyers making them.

 

3 You know, I've worked for minimum a couple of times in my life, but I always seemed to find someone willing to pay more. Thank God for my altruistic employers. I do find it odd that the local fast food joints are all offering more than minimum wages, they must all be run by really nice guys. Jen, maybe you could swing by the local home depot parking lot and try to hire some day labor (for the unintitiated, that means illegals) at .25 a day or even minimum for that matter.

 

I'm not an anarcist, I see the need for government regulation, but let's not place too much faith in the puppets of those you wish to regulate. Greed is bad, but a wise man uses the fools vices against him. The "invisable hand" of the free markert is merely a self checking mechanism against such greed. Unfortunately, this measure is defeated by the introduction of your tax dollars to the market.

[HuskerJen]

 

Let me take a crack at this one.

 

1 There aren't laws telling evil companies that the can't dump pollutants into rivers etc. There are laws limiting how much they can dump. IE you may have 3 parts per million dioxin output into local watershead. This is kind of like the FDA saying you may have .003 grams of rat balls per pound of peperoni. Guess how many grams of ratballs end up in your peperoni. Any idea how many grams of rat balls I want in my peperoni? Why do you suppose, instead of criminal penalties (at least in most cases), they impose financial penalties?

 

2 4 monopolies, interesting. You do realize that since 1996 that the average consumer has enjoyed vastly expanded choices for phone, internet, wireless, satellite and telegraph services. Yeah, the big guys get bigger, but the little guys just keep popping up. Hey, by the way hows that Hulu stock doing these days?

For the record, I do support antitrust laws, I just don't trust the lawyers making them.

 

3 You know, I've worked for minimum a couple of times in my life, but I always seemed to find someone willing to pay more. Thank God for my altruistic employers. I do find it odd that the local fast food joints are all offering more than minimum wages, they must all be run by really nice guys. Jen, maybe you could swing by the local home depot parking lot and try to hire some day labor (for the unintitiated, that means illegals) at .25 a day or even minimum for that matter.

 

I'm not an anarcist, I see the need for government regulation, but let's not place too much faith in the puppets of those you wish to regulate. Greed is bad, but a wise man uses the fools vices against him. The "invisable hand" of the free markert is merely a self checking mechanism against such greed. Unfortunately, this measure is defeated by the introduction of your tax dollars to the market.

 

The environment: And if those laws weren't in place companies would dump ALL their pollutants into streams, rivers and those toxic remnants would seep down into the aquifer where we get our drinking, bathing and swimming pool water from...try again.

 

Monopolies: Do we really have more choices? Sure there are many cell phone companies out there, AT&T/Cingular, Alltell, Sprint, Cricket, Verizon, etc. But, if you read their business policies there's not much difference, if any, between them and they all pretty much march to the same tune. The point here is that we live in a society where "choice" is the grandest illusion of all. If you have 10 sources to watch the news, what difference does it make if all the networks are owned by the same company? What happens when a story breaks about company wrong-doing and the news networks, because they're all ran by the same corporation squashes the story and/or orders it not to be reported? Yeah I know, that's ridiculous that would never happen.

 

Slave labor: I'm not talking about here in the USA so that's a moot argument. Do some research on working conditions and wages across the globe and you'll see what I'm talking about. How much do you think Nike pays their sweatshop workers a day? Maybe two or three dollars? And during that day those same workers churn out x number of piece of crap shoes.

 

Here's a practical example: A company's CEO needs to make safety improvements to avoid an explosion and the resulting damage to both the physical plant and the environment. If the CEO makes these safety upgrades, the company, and by extension the workers, plant and all involved are safer and the company posts a profit of 999 million dollars. If the company doesn't make the saftey upgrades, the posted profit is 1 billion. Guess what the CEO will do? That's right, he'll forego the safety for record profits.

 

(And by the way, ^^^^ actually happened. The numbers may be off but the gist of it is right on target.)

 

The point: You cannot ever convince me that if companies were left alone, unregulated, unwatched and uncontrolled, such as in a pure free market form, that they would act ethically and do the right thing. There is just too much evidence that says otherwise. And if you think that companies, if left alone, would act ethically and responsibly, then pass me some of the substance(s) you are ingesting because it obviously blocks out reality.

[huskerjack23]

I have got to quit working, I miss all the good threads.

 

Let me get this straight, Jen favors more government control over a big part of our lives. I did not see that one coming. Also, demonizing corporations for focusing on making a profit, Isn't that what they are supposed to do?

 

Calrfense can't see government as a primary reason costs are high in health care. Aren't you in law school, doesn't your entire profession and those in it's wages rely entirely on the very existence of complex, almost indecipherable regualtion and defense therefrom? Isn't it likely that the rediculouly high price of your wife's education is also a side effect of third party payer systems? If for instance there where no government loans or grants, do you think the average med student could possibly afford tuiton. What then, would the meds schools all shut down or would they find a way to charge a reasonable amount of money for their services? Would the average doctor then expect, even be required to make so much themselves?

 

Huskerjack23 claims that free markert economies (capitalism) don't take into account factionalisms such as raceism, sexism, status and prejudice. Yeah it does, to sum up, those are called human nature and capitalism plays upon human nature. Failure to exploit human nature is one of the greatest weaknesses of Marxism.

 

Raceism: If you play only white guys on your team and I play only my best guys who do you think is going to win that game.

 

Sexism: see above.

 

Status: Capitalism rewards the best ideas and best performers, it may not always be fair, but competition will always be open if your looking for the best of the best. Nepotism is not capitalism.

 

Bottom line for me is, capitalism works. Yes, it must be retrained from time to time in the interest of the public, but by and large our problems stem from overregualtion not underregulation.

 

Lastly, Socal....did you recently purchase a new pair of purple Nikes?

 

this may all be true, but if a company can get successful while still being discriminatory because they're prejudiced, then they would do it.

 

status: guess what? as soon as a company corners the market, that hampers good ideas because any good ones will either be bought out and watered down or crushed entirely.

[SOCALHUSKER]

SOCALHUSKER,

 

You completely side-stepped the issues I've raised...

 

Okay, let's start over...

 

I said:

 

And therein lies the rub...a true free market doesn't work because when left to their own devices the individuals running a company always put profit ahead of everything else: responsibility, the environment, workers rights, etc.

 

In other words they can't be trusted to act ethically on their own.

 

On the other hand...

 

If government runs the industry it becomes excessively complicated because it is mired in needless beauracracy and regulations.

 

So what's the solution here? Is there a solution? Is there a middle ground between socialism and a pure free market economy?

 

To which you responded:

 

How do you know this? Can you provide proof for this statement?

 

1. If there weren't laws telling companies not to dump pollutants into rivers and streams they would do it.

 

The Cuyahoga River fire in 1969 Because of this fire, Cleveland businesses became infamous for their pollution, a legacy of the city's booming manufacturing days during the late 1800s and the early 1900s, when limited government controls existed to protect the environment.

 

I mean, do I really need to rundown all the incidences of companies polluting the environment because there weren't laws telling them not to?

 

Read all about the Cuyahoga River Fire ---> Cuyahoga River Fire

 

2. If there weren't laws limiting the size of a particular industry there would be about 4 monopolies running everything.

 

Look at the media, radio and television stations, since the relaxation of ownership rules because of the 1996 Telecommunications Act. Companies went on a frenzied buying and acquistion rampage. These are the kinds of monoplies that government needs to prevent.

 

3. If there weren't laws governing minimum wage most companies would pay people .25 cents a day.

 

India, Malaysia, Pakistan, not to mention all the countries in Africa...there are counties all over the globe where companies "pay" people .25 cents an hour because there are no laws telling them what is an acceptable wage.

 

The bottom line: If companies could be trusted to act ethically and to do the right thing no oversight would be needed.

 

Would you care to address the issues I've raised or you going to conveniently miss them again?

 

Sorry Jen, haven't been trying to ignore you, just stuck in the hellhole of Yuma, AZ and didn't have any internet access.

 

So, what you are saying is the laws created have stopped "big" companies from being greedy, polluting and whatever other heinous things "big" companies do? Sorry, but that's not true. In fact, the regulation has had quite the opposite effect. As I have explained earlier, excess, or any regulation, creates a non-competitive market in which companies no longer have to worry about pleasing the customer because they have no incentive to do so. They merely must please the politicians who create the regulation. Property rights are the staple for an anarcho-capitalist society, which means no polluting is permitted because it violates the rights of other individuals. Without the government regulation, or a government for that matter, those who violate this very simple law would be held accountable for their actions and in a much more efficient and just way. No amount of money would get you off the hook if the market and the customers is who you were held accountable to.

 

As for monopolies, government is the reason they exist in the first place. History proves this. Using the same logic as above would show you that the government regulation is the reason for lack of competition. When there is no competition, the business is no longer accountable to the satisfaction of the customer, but instead to the regulators. This allows companies with larger capital, to control politicians and therefore control the market. The result is a monopoly. Government regualtion isn't the solution, it's the problem.

 

The same could be said for minimum wage laws. They don't encourage employers to pay better, they merely set a lower standard for what they have to pay. Again, using the same logic as above, the law only requires the company to satisfy the politicans and not the market which allows the business to function. Since the workers are part of the market, the regulation takes away any say they have in the matter and places it into the hands of bureacrats. Read Hazlitt's section on Minimum Wage Laws for a better explanation on what you are actually endorsing. You also bring up numerous tyrannical, third world countries as examples for why we need regulation, but don't you agree that the reason those countries are in the conditions they are in is because of government/business corruption. Without the governments involvement or regulation, the market would decide the winners and losers and the people in those places, as well as those in the US, would be a lot better off.