Actually, like in most situations (hell, if not all), a free market system would probably be better than a nationalized program. This is because the free market would provide the most efficient, cost-effective prices. However, health care needs to be reformed so that (a) everybody receives health care, and (b) health care companies are not able to pick and choose which customers to service, and how.

[quote="sheerheartattack"](a) everybody receives health care, and (b) health care companies are not able to pick and choose which customers to service, and how.[/quote]

Right. And if this were possible without a nationalized program, then that's great. But to me, it looks like other countries are doing just fine with a nationalized program. A free market system would also negate the possibility of free health care, which again, other countries seem to be implementing well.

There's no such thing as "free health care." The money has to come from somewhere, so you're either going to be paying for it through a direct cost, or through higher taxes (which are enough of a mess already). You can say that the costs can be more progressive with national health care, but you could just as easily argue that private health care can be progressive just as easily through government aid (you'll get your free health care, and I'll get my efficient - and lower - free market pricing).

While socialized health care might work, it's not necessarily the best alternative. It's not perfect, and the transition to a completely nationalized system is much more extreme (perhaps even politically impossible, at least at this point).

[quote="sheerheartattack"]perhaps even politically impossible, at least at this point).[/quote]

Troo dat, troo dat. But the thing about using free enterprise for health care... We're in a capitalist society where the goal is to make as much money as possible--who you step on doesn't matter. Pretty much the ends justify the means in complete capitalism, which is very much how the health industry is starting to turn... or has turned, rather. There's no morality in their decisions, and their goal is to keep as much money as possible at the expense of people sinking into crazy-debt and even dying. It would be one thing if our drug companies sold us the "way-cool drugs" for cheep, but when you have to pay hundreds of dollars to fill one prescription, it's fucking ridiculous if you're taking multiple medications, and outrageous when you're on social security trying not to be destitute, yet still having to pay for your medication which is hundreds of dollars--a huge chunk of that social security income.

Wouldn't it be something if Wal-Mart became the saving grace of America with their selling of way-cool drugs 4 cheep?

[quote="Blank"][quote="sheerheartattack"]perhaps even politically impossible, at least at this point).[/quote]

Troo dat, troo dat. But the thing about using free enterprise for health care... We're in a capitalist society where the goal is to make as much money as possible--who you step on doesn't matter. Pretty much the ends justify the means in complete capitalism, which is very much how the health industry is starting to turn... or has turned, rather. There's no morality in their decisions, and their goal is to keep as much money as possible at the expense of people sinking into crazy-debt and even dying. It would be one thing if our drug companies sold us the "way-cool drugs" for cheep, but when you have to pay hundreds of dollars to fill one prescription, it's fucking ridiculous if you're taking multiple medications, and outrageous when you're on social security trying not to be destitute, yet still having to pay for your medication which is hundreds of dollars--a huge chunk of that social security income.

Wouldn't it be something if Wal-Mart became the saving grace of America with their selling of way-cool drugs 4 cheep?[/quote]

Those things you listed are not inherent in either a free-enterprise system or in a completely capitalist system. Hence, they can be reformed - the point of this thread.

Yes, you would be right if someone was arguing, "Everything is fine the way it is now, so let's not change anything." The flaw in your argument is that no one is actually arguing that.

Not to mention that you seem to have a skewed perception of capitalism and economics. But that's another story.

[quote="sheerheartattack"]You seem to have a skewed perception of capitalism and economics. But that's another story.[/quote]

Why don't you explain it to him? You often seem to play the "You're all wrong, but I'm going to abstain from sharing my thoughts" card quite often.

[quote="GoldenRhino"][quote="sheerheartattack"]You seem to have a skewed perception of capitalism and economics. But that's another story.[/quote]

Why don't you explain it to him? You often seem to play the "You're all wrong, but I'm going to abstain from sharing my thoughts" card quite often.[/quote]

Actually, I almost always explain my rationale, but I didn't feel that it was relevant to the thread in this case. This might have been the first time I have played said card, although, like I said, I thought it to be an irrelevant and tangential explanation. But if you, personally, want a response, I will most certainly oblige you,

[color=olive][size=150][b]ECONOMICS 102 WITH SHEERHEARTATTACK[/b][/size][/color]

In the "complete capitalism" that Blank refers to, markets are efficient and therefore prices are determined solely by supply and demand. Therefore, the high prices of drugs are not because of a lack of morality, or to "pad their bottom line." Health insurance firms do not make money at the expense of customers. In fact, they cannot make money at the expense of customers. Of course, firms need to be profitable in order to survive, as well as in order to pay back shareholders (the people who own the money). Therefore, drug companies couldn't possibly drop prices to an unprofitable price, or there would be no more drug companies. If you want cheap drugs, you need governmental support.

Morality is determined by the law, not by firms. It is stupid to blame firms for immorality. There's a common (and mistaken) belief that firms are inherently evil. Firms are not a necessary evil - they are a necessary good. The free market forces firms to be completely competitive, which is in all ways a good thing. Think of it as a sport. If it is legal in the sport to trip a person, it makes perfect sense for a player to trip opponents to their advantage. It is the responsibility of the rules of the game and the game's referees to make tripping illegal, if it is deemed "dirty" or unfair. It is not the responsibility of the players, the coaches, or the managers - it is, in fact, their responsibility to do whatever they can to win, thus resulting in the highest levels of performance, which is beneficial to all parties. The problems with health care rest entirely upon the government. Unfortunately, in its current state, the government has failed us - not the corporations.

SHA - 1
Socialism - 0

[quote="sheerheartattack"] the high prices of drugs are not because of a lack of morality, or to "pad their bottom line." Health insurance firms do not make money at the expense of customers. [b]In fact, they cannot make money at the expense of customers.[/b] Of course, firms need to be profitable in order to survive, as well as in order to pay back shareholders (the people who own the money). Therefore, drug companies couldn't possibly drop prices to an unprofitable price, or there would be no more drug companies. If you want cheap drugs, you need governmental support. [/quote]

HIGH SCHOOL ECON - NO COURSE # NECESSARY =o!

You misunderstand me. When I'm referring to capitalism, I'm referring to the laissez-faire ideal of capitalism with the least amount of market restriction possible. I was stating that I think that our health care coverage is very much turning into a laissez-faire-esque system--one I don't necessarily agree with. I was not saying that the prices of drugs are so high "because of a lack of morality" One could easily think about supply vs. demand, in which case demand for drugs is EXTREMELY high, considering that for many people, it is a necessity.

So in this laissez-faire market for health care, those who sell drugs can sell them for lucrative prices for a variety of reasons. 1. Many are experimental and aren't mass-produced, which increases cost. 2. Many drugs are prescribed inaccurately (assuming doctors are pressured to prescribe drugs by receiving bonus incentives from drug companies or something); many have multiple prescriptions where only one or two may be necessary. 3. These numerous inaccurate prescriptions can lead to the patients becoming worse, or never getting better, causing them to continue paying for drugs that don't work and/or drugs they don't need. 4. The demand for drugs is high enough where drug companies can make prices high enough to kill the poorest of society, but still raise profit from those who can afford it.

The least convincing for the laissez-faire market viewpoint may be reason 2, but you must concede that it is entirely feasible for companies who produce drugs to want their products sold, so they "lobby" those who prescribe what the companies sell.

But overall, I call BS on your they cannot make money at the expense of their customers statement, merely because they have and continue to do so because demand is [i][b]that damned high.[/b][/i] They may not do it at the expense of a ton of their consumers, but they can safely do it to a small margin to make a decent profit, especially when not allowing treatment for one individual can save them thousands of dollars.

Morality may have nothing to do with firms, as you say, but people run firms, and it's the people's responsibility to stand up against injustice which is why we have the law. And when you compare your sports analogy to healthcare, would not everyone win if they had affordable healthcare, since that's the goal? Oh wait, with privitized healthcare the goal is to make money. Therefore, they can, will, and have made money by denying healthcare.

It is a misunderstanding to interpret laissez-faire capitalism to mean that the government should be "hands off" no matter what. The root of capitalism, in its purist sense, is to promote competition. Any action that promotes competition is inherently good for productivity, and therefore standard of living, real wages, technology, etc.

The idea behind laissez-faire is to minimize taxation, governmental infringement of property rights, and other economic interventions (such as minimum wage laws and price floors/ceilings). Providing a fair playing field to stimulate competition and legally eliminating unethical practices are not contradictory to the principles of laissez-faire.

The reason why firms cannot take advantage of high demand is because they are in direct competition with other firms. Therefore, prices will always return to the equilibrium price where the supply and demand curves intersect. Also, I'm not sure if you're talking about drug companies or insurance companies, here. At first it seems you were referring to drug companies, but now it sounds like you're referring to insurance companies, to which I'll respond. Like I said before, the health insurance system in the United States needs to be seriously reformed. That is, in this case, that full coverage must be available to everyone. It solves your problem with my efficient principles.

Finally, the goal for health insurance should be to make money. That promotes competition and efficiency, and ultimately, the dollars get passed down to the customer. If you think that these firms are not appropriately passing savings to the customer, then they must be passing them to shareholders. If that's the case, then why don't you buy stock in health insurance companies and come back when you will undoubtedly be rich?

And even if it sounds like it, I don't think you're an ignorant twat, Blank. You know I <3 you. But you know I can't resist a good argument pounding.

Edit:

Take college econ. Prosper.

[quote="sheerheartattack"]The reason why firms cannot take advantage of high demand is because they are in direct competition with other firms. Therefore, prices will always return to the equilibrium price where the supply and demand curves intersect. [/quote]

I disagree and counter with: It's an oligarchial monopoly.


EDIT: And you should also figure I'm too p00r to buy stocks. D;

[quote="Blank"][quote="sheerheartattack"]The reason why firms cannot take advantage of high demand is because they are in direct competition with other firms. Therefore, prices will always return to the equilibrium price where the supply and demand curves intersect. [/quote]

I disagree and counter with: It's an oligarchial monopoly.


EDIT: And you should also figure I'm too p00r to buy stocks. D;[/quote]

I was operating under your conditions of pure capitalism, where all markets are in perfect competition.

Anyway, what you mean to say is this: It's an oligopoly. Oligopolies operate similarly to a market in perfect competition. There is still an equilibrium price where the supply and demand curves intersect, and that is where the prices will inevitably end up. The difference is that the demand curve is kinked at the equilibrium point. Above the kink, demand is elastic - if a firm decides to raise prices, its sales would drop miserably because other firms would remain the same. However, below the kink, demand is inelastic - if a firm reduces prices, its sales would not increase by very much. This is because the other firms would be forced to cut their prices. Therefore, the firms must retain the equilibrium price.

Plus, that wasn't really a rebuttal, Blank. But it did provide you with a good lesson on oligopolies.

Anyway, there's no such thing as being "too poor to buy stocks" if you're so sure it's going to go up. It's basically free money, and you can even buy on margin so you can front even less of your own cash.

[quote="sheerheartattack"][quote="Blank"][quote="sheerheartattack"]The reason why firms cannot take advantage of high demand is because they are in direct competition with other firms. Therefore, prices will always return to the equilibrium price where the supply and demand curves intersect. [/quote]

I disagree and counter with: It's an oligarchial monopoly.


EDIT: And you should also figure I'm too p00r to buy stocks. D;[/quote]

I was operating under your conditions of pure capitalism, where all markets are in perfect competition.

Anyway, what you mean to say is this: It's an oligopoly. Oligopolies operate similarly to a market in perfect competition. There is still an equilibrium price where the supply and demand curves intersect, and that is where the prices will inevitably end up. The difference is that the demand curve is kinked at the equilibrium point. Above the kink, demand is elastic - if a firm decides to raise prices, its sales would drop miserably because other firms would remain the same. However, below the kink, demand is inelastic - if a firm reduces prices, its sales would not increase by very much. This is because the other firms would be forced to cut their prices. Therefore, the firms must retain the equilibrium price.

Plus, that wasn't really a rebuttal, Blank. But it did provide you with a good lesson on oligopolies.

Anyway, [b]there's no such thing as being "too poor to buy stocks"[/b] if you're so sure it's going to go up. It's basically free money, and you can even buy on margin so you can front even less of your own cash.[/quote]

So I couldn't think of the term oligopoly, but I knew what it was and knew what I meant.

True oligopolies can collaborate to charge a price that makes the best amount of profit for all companies involved. Of course they don't hold meetings and all agree to base their prices the same, but look at airlines. They collaborated in the past, finding a way to charge enough to make decent profits and so that the average consumer would still use their airlines [manufactured higher equilibrium because there were no alternatives for the consumers to use]. However, when Southwest Airlines developed as a company, the other companies began to lose business because Southwest charged a much cheaper airline fare. As a result, they tried to get rid of Southwest entirely. It didn't work and Southwest became a very successful company, offering quick, inexpensive service at the cost of reduced luxuries. Then the whole 9/11 thing happened to clusterfuck all of the airlines, but that's a different story.

However, airline travel is a necessity only to a very small amount of individuals. When compared to the people who use prescription drugs and/or expensive healthcare treatments to sustain their lives, the equilibrium price of airline travel is extremely static. The oligopoly of the healthcare industry can set prices of medicine and healthcare much higher than that of airlines and there will not be much elasticity because these services and products are absolutely necessary for many people. When less-wealthy individuals must make the choice between shelter and healthcare while STILL not effecting overall elasticity in large numbers, there IS a problem. One can argue that by reducing the price of drugs and healthcare lower than the other primary necessities of life creates inelasticity in that marketplace.

That may be cluttered or whatever, and I don't feel like fixing it, so:

Drugs/Healthcare > Shelter (for many). If Drugs/Healthcare sold < than the cost of Shelter, then there will be technical inelasticity.

If you had the option of dying tomorrow, would you honestly choose that over losing your home?



Also: Saying that there are no people "too poor to buy stocks" is complete, utter bullshit. When one does not have any money, or assets like me, then they are in fact, too poor to buy stocks with their current condition. With such statements, I could argue that your perspectives on economics are inherently flawed because you do not seem to understand the concept of being poor against your will.

[quote="Blank"]

So I couldn't think of the term oligopoly, but I knew what it was and knew what I meant.

[/quote]

It actually impressed me that you were capable of producing a similar word, with a basic understanding of the concept. I was only correcting you.

[quote="Blank"]

True oligopolies can collaborate to charge a price that makes the best amount of profit for all companies involved. Of course they don't hold meetings and all agree to base their prices the same, but look at airlines. They collaborated in the past, finding a way to charge enough to make decent profits and so that the average consumer would still use their airlines [manufactured higher equilibrium because there were no alternatives for the consumers to use]. However, when Southwest Airlines developed as a company, the other companies began to lose business because Southwest charged a much cheaper airline fare. As a result, they tried to get rid of Southwest entirely. It didn't work and Southwest became a very successful company, offering quick, inexpensive service at the cost of reduced luxuries. Then the whole 9/11 thing happened to clusterfuck all of the airlines, but that's a different story.

[/quote]

What firms do in oligopoly is find the equilibrium market price through each other's actions. Basically, for a price increase, an airline will raise its prices, usually over a weekend (I think). The other firms in the industry will either meet the price or remain the same. If all the firms raise their prices, that means that the equilibrium price is higher, and all the prices will be set to the equilibrium. If they do not, the original firm will have no choice but to bring its prices back down to the equilibrium. The more competition in an oligopoly, the more the market acts similarly to perfect competition. This is [i]especially[/i] true in the airline industry, because as soon as airlines try to raise prices, another firm will enter the market with cheaper prices (much like your SW Airlines example).

[quote="Blank"]

However, airline travel is a necessity only to a very small amount of individuals. When compared to the people who use prescription drugs and/or expensive healthcare treatments to sustain their lives, the equilibrium price of airline travel is extremely static. The oligopoly of the healthcare industry can set prices of medicine and healthcare much higher than that of airlines and there will not be much elasticity because these services and products are absolutely necessary for many people. When less-wealthy individuals must make the choice between shelter and healthcare while STILL not effecting overall elasticity in large numbers, there IS a problem. One can argue that by reducing the price of drugs and healthcare lower than the other primary necessities of life creates inelasticity in that marketplace.

[/quote]

The ability to "set prices" is based on competition, not demand. The demand will set the equilibrium price, to which all firms will have to set their prices, lest they go bankrupt. Anyway, any discussion about the health care industry is moot because, like stated many times before, [i]it needs to be reformed[/i].

[quote="Blank"]

That may be cluttered or whatever, and I don't feel like fixing it, so:

Drugs/Healthcare > Shelter (for many). If Drugs/Healthcare sold < than the cost of Shelter, then there will be technical inelasticity.

If you had the option of dying tomorrow, would you honestly choose that over losing your home?

[/quote]

If anything, this is the most cluttered part of your post that I understand the least. Sorry, Blank.

[quote="Blank"]

Also: Saying that there are no people "too poor to buy stocks" is complete, utter bullshit. When one does not have any money, or assets like me, then they are in fact, too poor to buy stocks with their current condition. With such statements, I could argue that your perspectives on economics are inherently flawed because you do not seem to understand the concept of being poor against your will.

[/quote]

You can (a) borrow $50, (b) earn $50 by working [b]less than one work day[/b], (c) find $50, (d) forgo your internet service for a month or so, (e) not buy that turtleneck cashmere sweater you were going to get, (f) ask for it for Christmas, (g) one of a million other things. Once again, there is no such thing as being too poor to buy stocks when you are [b]100% sure that the stock is going to go up, no matter what.[/b] It seems that you missed the point that there is no guarantee that the stock is going to go up, despite how much you think that being a firm in the health care industry is a sure thing.

Assume:

A) No one will lend me money.
B) All the money I earn go to bills that must be paid.
C) Probability says chances of this happening are close to moot.
D) I don't pay for internet service.
E) I have not purchased anything in two months.
F) Don't believe in Christmas/Don't receive anything for Christmas.
G) Seven. (lol i dunno) Wages garnished by the government. Or... imprisonment.

But trust me sheer, there are people who are too poor, or have other obligations that must be addressed, lwhich may not allow a person to realistically purchase stocks. Perhaps your argument is that there is the capability to purchase stocks at the expense of making ends meet... On second thought, no there aren't because I've seen homeless people who couldn't afford a free sample from a grocery store because they were so far in debt.


EDIT: Sucking cock =/= an option for G.

[quote="Blank"]

EDIT: Sucking cock =/= an option for G.[/quote]

If you're not willing to suck cock, then you must not really want it that bad anyway.

Anyway, there are no stocks that are guaranteed to go up or pay consistent, massive dividends. That was my (only) point. If such a stock existed, it would cost a lot more than the $50 that a health insurance stock would cost.