Health Care

[Kaos]

The "free market" doesn't exist and its concepts are wholly inapplicable to health care.

You are insane.

[AUChizad]

The "free market" doesn't exist and its concepts are wholly inapplicable to health care.

Disagree.

The second point I understand as debatable.

To deny the existence of the "free market"? I don't understand that at all. Do you deny supply and demand is a thing?

[CCTAU]

Because they contract that lower rate with medical providers. It short changes a lot of doctors. It's why a lot of them don't like taking it. It can be debated on what the procedure should cost - I get that. But it should be at a rate that both the customer can pay and the doctor can make a living from. Believe it or not lots of doctors and hospitals are struggling with the bottom line because of their own costs that they can't do much about.

For people who never get sick and never need a specialist, these things do not matter. They think that as long as everyone has the same health insurance, they will get the same care.

I wonder how many sick people on Medi*  have had to start over with a new doctor because their current one stops taking gubmint money? And the good doctors; The ones who are ranked highly, they don't take the Medi*s.

[wesfau2]

To deny the existence of the "free market"? I don't understand that at all. Do you deny supply and demand is a thing?

My point is that we haven't had a truly "free market" since around the turn of the last century.  The misty-eyed longing for capitalist markets with unrestrained trade is akin to those longing for the "good old days" in America: it ignores the awful reality for those on the non-capital side of the equation. 

Legislation has been used to limit the psychopathic tendencies of the corporate "person" whose only mandate is shareholder profit.  It has been used to protect the worker (limiting hours and monitoring working conditions) and competition (antitrust measures.) 

There are still basic principles of economics at play, but to insist that "free market" conditions exist in any (legal) American industry is folly.

[Saniflush]

There are still basic principles of economics at play, but to insist that "free market" conditions exist in any (legal) American industry is folly.

Yeah I'm gonna have to disagree with you here. 

There are things that limit or are different than how it used to be (mainly tied to safety issues) but a free market does not necessarily mean that it's no holds barred.  The same rules and regulations apply to all businesses in a given industry (within this country) and it is up to the leadership of that business to decide how to deploy their assets to best take advantage of a marketplace. 
As I have told some of my vendors "I don't care if I do not have a pricing or warranty advantage over my competitors.  I care that I am on equal footing with them."  After that it is up to me to figure out how to whip their ass in business.

[Kaos]

My point is that we haven't had a truly "free market" since around the turn of the last century.  The misty-eyed longing for capitalist markets with unrestrained trade is akin to those longing for the "good old days" in America: it ignores the awful reality for those on the non-capital side of the equation. 

The "awful reality"

 

Legislation has been used to limit the psychopathic tendencies of the corporate "person" whose only mandate is shareholder profit.  It has been used to protect the worker (limiting hours and monitoring working conditions) and competition (antitrust measures.) 

There are still basic principles of economics at play, but to insist that "free market" conditions exist in any (legal) American industry is folly.

Quit being an obtuse jackass and arguing fake points.   Nobody's even saying anything remotely like you're trying to argue.  And stop being a bleeding heart social justice warrior for a few minutes.  Nobody needs that and it's not a good look for you. 

[GH2001]

My point is that we haven't had a truly "free market" since around the turn of the last century.  The misty-eyed longing for capitalist markets with unrestrained trade is akin to those longing for the "good old days" in America: it ignores the awful reality for those on the non-capital side of the equation. 

Legislation has been used to limit the psychopathic tendencies of the corporate "person" whose only mandate is shareholder profit.  It has been used to protect the worker (limiting hours and monitoring working conditions) and competition (antitrust measures.) 

There are still basic principles of economics at play, but to insist that "free market" conditions exist in any (legal) American industry is folly.

Wes. Dude.

 

[wesfau2]

Yeah I'm gonna have to disagree with you here. 

There are things that limit or are different than how it used to be (mainly tied to safety issues) but a free market does not necessarily mean that it's no holds barred. 

Would you say that you're free to set any price you want?  Advertise in any manner you like?

Competition is limited and even made "fair" through legislation.  There is an entire agency dedicated to forcing "fair trade" in this company.  Regulation exists in the market place, it is not free.

Quit being an obtuse jackass

...and he's back.

[Kaos]

Wes. Dude.

 

Do you need to borrow one of my
buttons?  They're coming in handy lately. 

This has reached Prowler-esqe levels of absurdity.  The argument that "there is no free market because there are LAWS" is an absolute joke. It's not even worthy of legitimate rebuttal. 

Businesses compete for dollars every single day.  That's what drives the American economy.  Because they compete for your dollars you're typically getting a better product at a lower price. 

It's only when benevolent Uncle Sammy steps in and adds subsidies, price controls and yada, yada, yada that things deteriorate.  The government has never understood that every action has an equal and opposite reaction. 

[Saniflush]

Would you say that you're free to set any price you want?  Advertise in any manner you like?

Competition is limited and even made "fair" through legislation.  There is an entire agency dedicated to forcing "fair trade" in this company.  Regulation exists in the market place, it is not free.

...and he's back.

Sure I am.
I set it too high and I limit my sales and my ability to stay in business. 
I set it too low and I limit my ability to make money and stay in business.
Either way I am free to set whatever price I like but as with life those decisions have consequences and sometimes consequences hurt. 

Part of being successful in business is having the know how to realize a dumb decision made by not only competitors but also by yourself.  If my competitor decides they are going to advertise on a banner pulled behind a plane at Jordan Hare during halftime of the LSU game I am going to point and laugh, but they have that freedom to do that if they think it is going to behoove them.

Is it a TOTALLY free market?  No it is not a TOTALLY free market.  If it were I could go down the street and hack my competitor to death with a machete.  Of course there are some rules and guidelines that govern all industries.  Once again the ones in my industry are mainly tied to employee safety and even those have run completely off the rails.  I have always been a firm supporter of OSHA however I have seen a monumental change in OSHA over the last ten years.  Their surprise on site inspections have become nothing more than fund raising thinly veiled as employee safety.

[Kaos]

Would you say that you're free to set any price you want?  Advertise in any manner you like?

You're fucking A right I can set any price I want.  I can price myself out of business, too.  Charge too much, charge too little.  I'm the one who has to figure out where that balance point is.  I've turned down jobs because I couldn't do what they wanted for the price they were able to pay.  I've put in quotes for work that I expected would be too high and gotten the job anyway. I've also put in quotes for work that were rejected because they were too high. I've lost business to foreign (Czech and Indian) companies who undercut me because they pay workers pennies on the dollar.

When I owned my furniture stores I negotiated prices for goods and then turned around and marked them up for the consumer.  I could charge whatever I could get away with.  I bought a truckload of recliners once for $30 each and sold them for nearly 20 times what I paid.  Because I fucking could.  I bought a half truck of refrigerators once and thought I got a good deal but I barely broke even because I paid too much.

I advertise however I see fit.  Can I create an ad and tell outrageous lies?  Of course not.  I can't claim that the stuff I create can cure cancer or even baldness.  I can't make up lies about my competition.  But that's hardly a limit.  I sold advertising during one of my occupational incarnations.  I quit that job in part because I was forced to lie to the customers about the number of subscribers and the publication's reach. I wasn't comfortable with it, but every other publication we competed against was doing the same thing. I ran all the advertising for my furniture stores and said whatever the fuck I wanted in the TV commercials I filmed.

Not to be rude, but you need to unfuck yourself pronto. 

Competition is limited and even made "fair" through legislation.  There is an entire agency dedicated to forcing "fair trade" in this company.  Regulation exists in the market place, it is not free.

...and he's back.

I never left.  You ARE being an obtuse braying jackass.  I'm doing you a favor by not sugarcoating it.

You're confusing regulation with control.  There's a vast difference between rules that regulate free trade and the absence of free trade entirely.   Just because the government requires that the advertising you publish be free of outrageous and false claims does not in any way diminish the fact that your business is competing with other similar businesses for a share of the market. 

Competition exists and needs to be present in the "healthcare market." 

Free healthcare for all = shitty healthcare for everyone. 

Learn that lesson, socialist. 

[wesfau2]

I submit that you cannot price as you see fit: collusion, price fixing and price gouging ( in 30 or so states) is illegal.

There are limits on advertising.

These things are governed to ensure "fair trade."  Fairness is not an objective outcome.

[War Eagle!!!]

I submit that you cannot price as you see fit: collusion, price fixing and price gouging ( in 30 or so states) is illegal.

There are limits on advertising.

These things are governed to ensure "fair trade."  Fairness is not an objective outcome.

Man Wes...you are damn near 100% wrong on this.

Typically, I can at the very least understand where you are coming from, but not here. This is just flat out wrong.

[wesfau2]

Man Wes...you are damn near 100% wrong on this.

Each of those sentences in my post is true.

[Kaos]

Each of those sentences in my post is true.

Horseshit.

[AUChizad]

Each of those sentences in my post is true.

I think your argument that we don't live in pure anarchism, therefore there's no such thing as the basic foundational economic principle that supply and demand play a pivotal role in what consumers are willing to pay for relative to competition, is a straw man.

[wesfau2]

Horseshit.

collusion, price fixing and price gouging ( in 30 or so states) is illegal.

There are limits on advertising.

CFR Title 16, Chapter I, Subchapter A

These things are governed to ensure "fair trade."

§1.8   Nature, authority and use of trade regulation rules.

(a) For the purpose of carrying out the provisions of the Federal Trade Commission Act, the Commission is empowered to promulgate trade regulation rules which define with specificity acts or practices which are unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce. Such rules may include requirements prescribed for the purpose of preventing such acts or practices. A violation of a rule shall constitute an unfair or deceptive act or practice in violation of section 5(a)(1) of that Act, unless the Commission otherwise expressly provides in its rule. However, the respondent in an adjudicative proceeding may show that his conduct does not violate the rule or assert any other defense to which he is legally entitled.

Id.

Fairness is not an objective outcome.

Fair:

b (1) :  conforming with the established rules :  allowed (2) :  consonant with merit or importance :  due a fair share

www.m-w.com

[AUChizad]

I think your argument that we don't live in pure anarchism, therefore there's no such thing as the basic foundational economic principle that supply and demand play a pivotal role in what consumers are willing to pay for relative to competition, is a straw man.

To expound on this, I think the mistake you're making is that regulation and free market are not mutually exclusive principles. They're competing principles, but not it's not exclusively one or the other.

[wesfau2]

I think your argument that we don't live in pure anarchism, therefore there's no such thing as the basic foundational economic principle that supply and demand play a pivotal role in what consumers are willing to pay for relative to competition, is a straw man.

Fair.  We've gotten a little sidetracked on this argument.

I concede the the fundamentals of economics still apply (supply, demand, etc), but that any illusion that the free marketplace still exists is faulty.  As such, if we're already in a managed market, then I find objection to further managing of the marketplace to be specious.

[wesfau2]

To expound on this, I think the mistake you're making is that regulation and free market are not mutually exclusive principles. They're competing principles, but not it's not exclusively one or the other.

I explicitly stated this very point earlier.  It's not a binary choice, but rather a continuum.