The Song Fight Bulletin Board

"The Pencil Czar" would be an excellent song title.
/off topic

Generic wrote:Anti-market talking points to combat my pro-market talking points

This is where this debate always reaches an impasse. I have faith that if people want or need more affordable medicine or cleaner energy or anything else you can name, the market has an incentive to provide it, and will do so in the best way humans know how. If you don't share that faith, then yes, central planners will have to do their best to "make the pencil", as it were.

melvin wrote:

Generic wrote:Anti-market talking points to combat my pro-market talking points

This is where this debate always reaches an impasse. I have faith that if people want or need more affordable medicine or cleaner energy or anything else you can name, the market has an incentive to provide it, and will do so in the best way humans know how. If you don't share that faith, then yes, central planners will have to do their best to "make the pencil", as it were.

Regulation plays a role here in that without oversight, "the market" has little incentive to present alternatives when exploitive methods can produce cheaper solutions. Highly efficient powdered coal incinerators never would have happened if the crazy environmentalists didn't point out that what was happening was killing people left and right. Leave it to the market and the shortest, cheapest route trumps longevity, health concerns and sustainability every time. Transformative processes are a resource in and of themselves and should be embraced.

Yes, this too can be exploited. That doesn't make it wrong.

roymond wrote:

melvin wrote:

Generic wrote:Anti-market talking points to combat my pro-market talking points

This is where this debate always reaches an impasse. I have faith that if people want or need more affordable medicine or cleaner energy or anything else you can name, the market has an incentive to provide it, and will do so in the best way humans know how. If you don't share that faith, then yes, central planners will have to do their best to "make the pencil", as it were.

Regulation plays a role here in that without oversight, "the market" has little incentive to present alternatives when exploitive methods can produce cheaper solutions. Highly efficient powdered coal incinerators never would have happened if the crazy environmentalists didn't point out that what was happening was killing people left and right. Leave it to the market and the shortest, cheapest route trumps longevity, health concerns and sustainability every time. Transformative processes are a resource in and of themselves and should be embraced.

Yes, this too can be exploited. That doesn't make it wrong.

Agreed. If it can be shown that coal energy kills people, there is clearly a basis in fundamental human rights to stop it. However, in terms of the market's overall far-sightedness, I don't think the state offers a better alternative, as much policy-making has no vision beyond the four-year election cycle.

roymond wrote:

melvin wrote:

Generic wrote:Anti-market talking points to combat my pro-market talking points

This is where this debate always reaches an impasse. I have faith that if people want or need more affordable medicine or cleaner energy or anything else you can name, the market has an incentive to provide it, and will do so in the best way humans know how. If you don't share that faith, then yes, central planners will have to do their best to "make the pencil", as it were.

Regulation plays a role here in that without oversight, "the market" has little incentive to present alternatives when exploitive methods can produce cheaper solutions. Highly efficient powdered coal incinerators never would have happened if the crazy environmentalists didn't point out that what was happening was killing people left and right. Leave it to the market and the shortest, cheapest route trumps longevity, health concerns and sustainability every time. Transformative processes are a resource in and of themselves and should be embraced.

Yes, this too can be exploited. That doesn't make it wrong.

Energy and other utilities have to be regulated simply because the demand itself is exploited otherwise. I'm looking at you oil/gasoline.

Generic wrote:I've got a friend who barely makes enough to get by, and her company just switched health insurance plans. Now her bi-polar medication is off the plan, and she's on the hook for close to an extra $1000 a month. If she doesn't take these pills, she gets highly unstable, and, when it comes down to it, unemployable. Vicious cycle. Do you think that this person belongs in the gutter just because she can't afford the medications that keep her functioning?

I've read both yours and Melvin's posts with great interest. But I need to comment on the above because this is where the problem exists with our health care.
1. She's at the mercy of her company changing health plans that don't work for her.
2. $1000 a month for medication. This goes back to what Melvin posted.
3. Doctors prescribing these drugs and in turn making her depentant on them.
4. Knowing that there are natural alternative to these drugs, but the professionals that we trust, helps her to live with her problem with drugs that will never fix her problem, but will make her depend on them for the rest of her life. There's no profit in the cure.

The U.S. Government is the most ruthless drug cartel in America with a goal to make every American addicted to their dope. They even have a system in place that if an illegal drug user gets arrested with possession, the court system will make that person pay to go to their program and get them a prescription to their drugs to "help" get them off the illegal drugs.

You break your leg, you go to the doctor.
You're pissing blood, you go to the doctor.
You've got the flu, eat peanut butter toast and tea and sweat it out.
You've got restless leg syndrome, change your diet and get more exercise.

BLT, you couldn't have said it any better really. I totally agree with you.

YOU ARE SO RIGHT @ There is no profit in CURE.

And with the government monopolizing drugs with micromanaged control. You can't self medicate, you have to buy THEIR product. I spent years getting off of illegal drugs and when I went in to see a doctor about heart palpitations, the FIRST THING SHE DID was try to prescribe me XANAX! I had just told her that I quit doing drugs recreationally and here she was prescribing one of my favorites. (I'm diagnosed with anxiety FYI)

Don't get me started on Methadone or any of these other 'prescription' drugs. Kids have access to the best drugs in the country and they don't have to go out to the corner to meet their man. Its all right there in the bathroom cupboard.

Billy's Little Trip wrote:I'm looking forward to seeing who will play Sarah Palin on SNL. She kind of looks like Tina Fey, but I don't think she's part of the cast anymore. But I believe she is still part of the writing staff. It would be SO fucking funny to get someone like Pamela Anderson on SNL just to do Palin skits. Do bits like Mc Cain is her sugar daddy. My gawd that would rock!

By the way. For those that saw SNL last Saturday, I just wanted to point out that I called it with Tina Fey playing Palin. If you didn't see it, youtube it, it was great! It was Tina Fey as Palin and Amy Poehler as Hilldog.
....I still think Pamela dressed all smart would make for a funny Palin.

Actually, her it is. Palin and Hill

Billy's Little Trip wrote:It would be SO fucking funny to get someone like Pamela Anderson on SNL just to do Palin skits. Do bits like Mc Cain is her sugar daddy. My gawd that would rock!

Pam Anderson, on the subject of Palin

erik wrote:

Billy's Little Trip wrote:It would be SO fucking funny to get someone like Pamela Anderson on SNL just to do Palin skits. Do bits like Mc Cain is her sugar daddy. My gawd that would rock!

Pam Anderson, on the subject of Palin

Believe me, I know. This was part of my thinking for the skit. Anderson is an avid peta supporter and would do good satire on Palin. Plus her "well played" ditsy demeanor would make it funny.

On the subject of actual medical procedures, how does the market really come into play? A doctor tells you a life-saving operation will cost you $30,000. Now what? Do you shop around? Do you haggle with him to cut the price, or give you the floor model?

There is no free-market negotiation with the doctor. So you negotiate with your insurance company. Your one insurance company. You don't have a choice, because if you tried to switch companies, you'd be turned down because of your now preexisting condition. You must stay with this company for as long as you will possibly need treatment for this ailment. Where is the choice, that hallmark of the free market?

So you talk to your insurance company. They try to deny your claim outright, but if they can't they say they'll only pay a certain percent of it, or they'll demand you take a less costly treatment, even though it'll leave you crippled. These are things they are obligated to do, because they are publicly-traded for-profit corporate entities.

Why isn't anyone arguing for free market sewage (or coast guard, police, fire)? Is it because some things are too important to leave up to the market? Is it because a private company would build the cheapest possible sewage mains at the highest possible cost, as would be their duty to their stockholders?

The same goes for healthcare. It is the (legal) duty of healthcare providers in the US to provide the lowest quality service at the highest price. If they didn't, their stockholders could and should sue them. The less treatment they provide, the more money they make. And if we're primarily concerned with the free market, good for them.

But I'm more concerned with you getting that operation than I am with the interests of stockholders.

On the subject of actual medical procedures, how does the market really come into play? A doctor tells you a life-saving operation will cost you $30,000. Now what? Do you shop around? Do you haggle with him to cut the price, or give you the floor model?

>>> In a word, yes. Although it would be a lot easier than it sounds. The aggregate “shopping around” done by millions of Americans every day would create a marketplace with competitive prices and knowledgeable consumers, just like any other marketplace. You’d be able to make an informed decision about where to get the best procedure and/or the best price, depending on your priorities.

There is no free-market negotiation with the doctor. So you negotiate with your insurance company. Your one insurance company. You don't have a choice, because if you tried to switch companies, you'd be turned down because of your now preexisting condition. You must stay with this company for as long as you will possibly need treatment for this ailment. Where is the choice, that hallmark of the free market?

>>> There is no choice, because the current insurance-based system is NOT a free market. The doctor tells you what you need, and the insurance company pays for it. There is absolutely no economic connection between supply (the doctor) and demand (you).

So you talk to your insurance company. They try to deny your claim outright, but if they can't they say they'll only pay a certain percent of it, or they'll demand you take a less costly treatment, even though it'll leave you crippled. These are things they are obligated to do, because they are publicly-traded for-profit corporate entities.

>>> Agreed. The current system is bad. See above.

Why isn't anyone arguing for free market sewage (or coast guard, police, fire)? Is it because some things are too important to leave up to the market? Is it because a private company would build the cheapest possible sewage mains at the highest possible cost, as would be their duty to their stockholders?

>>> No company has ever prospered by offering the worst possible service at the highest possible cost. Any such company would quickly find themselves bankrupt and/or under criminal investigation. However, when the government delivers the worst possible service at the highest possible cost, what is our recourse?

The same goes for healthcare. It is the (legal) duty of healthcare providers in the US to provide the lowest quality service at the highest price. If they didn't, their stockholders could and should sue them. The less treatment they provide, the more money they make. And if we're primarily concerned with the free market, good for them.

>>> Again, it's important not to confuse the current triangle of doctor/patient/insurer with an actual free market of buyers and sellers.

But I'm more concerned with you getting that operation than I am with the interests of stockholders.

>>> Me too.

Football coaches could greatly improve their side-stepping drills by reading this thread.

Go Bills!
-bill

Sober wrote:Brilliant clip from last night's Daily show:
...
The Daily Show is the most important show on television.

I've just started watching the Daily Show. We get it here on a digital channel. I saw it occasionally in Aus. as an international version or something...but anyway

Damn that is good!!! You are right The Daily Show probably is the most important show on television.

Why can't all American comedy shows be like this?!?! Jon Stewart is actually funny! That really is as good as the best satire to come out of UK or Australia (think Not The 9OClock News or The Chaser). Could we please have less of Everyone Loves Raymond and more of this please?

Sorry melvin - a couple of points really jumped out at me here:

melvin wrote:... the stark immorality of denying people urgent care, even if they can afford to pay a doctor and the doctor is willing.

Is this somehow different than the stark immorality of denying people urgent care, even if they cannot afford to pay a doctor?

I don't really want to discuss health care. My wife is a doctor, my brother is a doctor, many of my friends are doctors. I am sick of their whinging about this stuff - I really couldn't give a shit. I am healthy.

But - in a large country like Australia or Canada or the USA - much wealth is generated in rural areas. People need to live in rural areas. It is not reasonable to expect that in a rich country like Australia or Canada or the USA that people in rural areas should have less access to quality health care than those in major cities. The free market does not deliver quality healthcare to remote areas. It never will. Haven't you ever watched "Northern Exposure"? Nor will it deliver adequate telecommunications, postal services, public transport, air transport etc etc.

The modern nation state has a responsibility to provide for the health of its people. the provision of this healthcare benefits the society as a whole. Your elitist free-market fantasy simply does not work. There is plenty of room for a private system to run in combination with nationalised healthcare so that rich people can have private rooms if they want. But denying adequate healthcare to those who cannot afford it is simply not an option in a humane society.

melvin wrote: The important thing is that the market, by its very nature, keeps us constantly moving in the right direction as providers of goods and services battle it out to better meet our needs, and we vote on the results with every dollar we spend.

No - the the market, by its very nature, keeps us constantly moving in the direction dictated by the market. That direction is neither right nor wrong. The market currently has the world moving in the direction of anthropogenic annihilation. Is that the right direction?

Up until 1989 - the market dictated that CFC's were the most efficient and economical gas to use for refrigerant devices. Luckily, the market was stopped - and the evil spectre of "big world government" came down - and the Montreal Protocol banned the production of CFCs worldwide. McDonald's would never have ceased using CFCs in its packaging if it wasn't for the Montreal Protocol. "The Market" would not have reduced incidences of skin cancer in Melbourne, Perth, Dunedin, Cape Town without the Montreal Protocol. Sadly - the short-sighted disciples of "the Market" shot down the Kyoto Protocol and prevented it from having equal success.

Read about the Tragedy of the Commons. It is an old concept that I learnt about in 1st year Uni - but it still explains why the free market simply cannot work for commonly owned commodities.

melvin wrote: Meanwhile, governments will still be debating how much carbon tax is enough when Toyota sells its two-millionth Prius.

Yes - and the Prius is an excellent motor car. But it is a market solution. It is not a good solution.

When will Toyota start producing urban planning schemes providing for sustainable cities with adequate public transport that negate the need for private motor cars?

Caravan Ray wrote:

Sober wrote:Brilliant clip from last night's Daily show:
...
The Daily Show is the most important show on television.

I've just started watching the Daily Show. We get it here on a digital channel. I saw it occasionally in Aus. as an international version or something...but anyway

Damn that is good!!! You are right The Daily Show probably is the most important show on television.

I love that show as well as the runner up Cobert Report. (Which is sort of a Fox News / Bill O' Reiley satire show)

Just for the record, "The Daily Show is the most important show on television" is a lift from their own tag. I think it was closer to "The most important news show on television, ever." from the announcer's serious vocal delivery, or something like that.

Excellent points, ray. Hadn't thought about those particular issues.

I did cringe at the word 'elitist,' however. Since our primaries, the word has practically become a racial epithet.

Well, Ray and Sober, I've got some pretty snappy comebacks, but no one's going to budge here. Good luck to all.

Jesus, Melvin. Stop backing down! I want more lively debate up in this bitch!

And I realized I would like to add, for everyone's benefit:

I actually can't speak for the entire US (though my guess is it is very similar elsewhere), but in the great state of Florida, no one is ever denied medical treatment because of inability to pay. It is illegal for a hospital to refuse treatment for that reason.

For instance: A friend of mine had gallbladder disease, and admittedly had no money, nor health insurance. So they gave her the necessary surgery anyway, then sent her a bill for $36,000 or so. Seems a little steep, especially since an insurance company would be charged nowhere near that. On the other hand, they allow her to pay like $20 a month. Or she could just never pay it and have an unsightly blemish on her credit history. Either way, it seems like a rather small price to pay to get your life back...when you were the one neglecting your gallbladder health in the first place.

Not that I would have been in such a hurry to get any organ yanked out, even with insurance. But whatever.

Though I see absolutely no solution to the "healthcare crisis" or whatever, my personal recommendation is to eat a healthy diet and stay away from danger...oh and have a solid genetic foundation. Hmm.

Lord of Oats wrote:Jesus, Melvin.

I debated the Iraq war daily over e-mail with one guy from about August 2002 until the spring of 2005. I just don't have that kind of time these days.

Pinky Ray wrote: ...responsibility ....... immorality ..... not reasonable.......

Mr Green has a good income, but he hates his boss. he works 40+ hours a week at a job that quit being interesting years ago. He sits in his cube fantasizing about his abandoned aspirations of being a rich and famous nose flute soloist. His boring job pays enough that he can save money for a rainy day. He had a tetanus shot in the '80s other then that hasn't been to the doctor as an adult.

Mr Gimme is a nice guy but he dropped out of school to pursue his ill fated dream of becoming a rich and famous theremin player. He has issues with authority figures, so he hasn't ever been able hold a job. He spends any spare money on lottery tickets and theremin batteries.

the wind blows some pages off of a wall calendar....

Mr Gimme gets a painful chronic skin disease, very expensive interferon treatments and lots of doctor visits - for the rest of his life. It is a very sad thing and no one wants to see it happen.

What percentage of Mr Greens income is it moral to takeaway from him to pay for Mr Gimmes treatments? 0.1%,10% 50% ? Would that amount still be moral if you had to threaten Mr Green with prison before he gives it to you?