Death Panels Were Just the Beginning...

Why Bob's Not a REAL Buddhist!

Bob, we know how you feel.

Aww, thanks, Bob. We accept the compliment. Mickey also fails to address the many enemy combatants/terrorists who are actively trying to kill American troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, who decided to do so based on US actions in the GWOT. If we're really going to try to take a full cost/benefit approach, it would seem that all of those acts of terrorism should be part of the equation.

Quoting uncle ebeneezer: Aww, thanks, Bob. We accept the compliment.

Mickey also fails to address the many enemy combatants/terrorists who are actively trying to kill American troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, who decided to do so based on US actions in the GWOT. If we're really going to try to take a full cost/benefit approach, it would seem that all of those acts of terrorism should be part of the equation.

Over on Bob's other site there was an interesting post about what inspires terrorists. Hint: we have something to do with it. http://www.progressiverealist.org/bl...sm-vs-jihadism

"Nothing but name-calling"? Really Bob? He (C Hitchens) completely dismantled your meme that we (Americans) created Maj Hasan and blamed muslim deaths in Asia on Americans instead of the actual perps. Back up your talk Bob and invite Hitch onto BhTV to dismantle you once again [cue the clique and their alcohol references]. If you are unwilling to do this, it's at least worth noting this passage: "For a start, did Hasan or Muhammad ever say what "killing" of which "Muslims in Iraq and Afghanistan" they had in mind? There isn't a day goes by without the brutal slaughter of Muslims in both countries by al-Qaida or the Taliban. And that's not just because most (though not all) civilians in both countries happen to be of the Islamic faith. The terrorists do not pause before deliberately blowing up the mosques and religious processions of those whose Muslim beliefs they deem insufficiently devout. Most of those now being tortured and raped and executed by the Islamic Republic of Iran are Muslim. All the women being scarred with acid and threatened with murder for the crime of going to school in Pakistan are Muslim. Many of those killed

A enigmatically good statement on the nature of war: Iraq, or as we will soon know it, Viet Iran. PS happy thanksgiving, Bob, Mickey, and everyone.

Bob: "It's time we had a President who said 'No more free rides' "???? Awesome! Looking forward to Bob coming out against the public option, subsidized mortgages to people with no credit, buying bankrupt auto companies, stimulus money to prop up corrupt and inefficient public employee unions....etc etc

and "Digress" some more Bob and Mickey, this was the most interesting part of the diavlog: Points made: 1) Jeffrey Goldberg is "right-wing" on Foreign Policy
2) "The Atlantic" is flacking for Obama
3) Marc Ambinder is conservative (according to Bob)
4) Bob and Mickey have no future in Journalism

Bob and Mickey ... you guys are a guilty pleasure. Zero calories, but very entertaining. You guys are the ultimate foxes while we need more hedgehogs. I would like to hear from experts (hedgehogs) on mammograms, Afganistan, and terrorism. Keep it short ... half hour.

The public option is a free ride how?

Quoting harkin: "Nothing but name-calling"? Really Bob? He (C Hitchens) completely dismantled your meme that we (Americans) created Maj Hasan and blamed muslim deaths in Asia on Americans instead of the actual perps.

When Hitchens belittles someone on stylistic points - as he did Bob, several times - you know his argument is going to be thin. In this case, it is non-existent. He can blow all he likes about Muslim-on-Muslim-or-non-Muslim violence. We all understand the reality of it. The thing is, Hasan happened to be in the US Armed Forces, not Al Coyote, not the Taliban, not any group other than the one which invaded Iraq twice, invaded Afghanistan, garrisoned troops in Saudi Arabia and Lebanon, and maintained carrier groups in the Indian Ocean and the Persian Gulf which launched countless missiles into Muslim lands. Hundreds of thousands of Muslims were killed by direct result of US attacks. Hundreds of thousands of refugees were created by direct result of US attacks. Hundreds of thousands of Iraqi children died as a result of US sanctions. We bombed the fuck out of city, hamlet, hill and dale from 40,000 feet. With no air opposition. The US picked Iraq as an area in which to stage its war with

The unenlightening debate between Mickey and Bob about cost-cutting, mammograms, etc., points to the need for a genuinely free market in health care, in which individuals are empowered to pay for the care for themselves and their families that they think worthwhile, health care providers and insurance companies are made to compete for customers nationwide, and the government doesn't put its thumb on the scale through tax policy that favors employer-based insurance over that purchased by individuals. Greater centralization of health care decision-making will result in less aggregate satisfaction than we now experience, not more.

No doubt there are interesting arguments passing back and forth on this and that, but they are overwhelmed by the apocalyptic neuroses on display in the cringe and shudder inducing psychodynamics here. One guy is passive aggression personified and the other guy, with the high pitched, nasally voice prone to shrieking, is the uber bitch from hell. What the fuck: I'm still picking up the pieces of my jaw that dropped to the floor. Itzik Basman (not to be confused with Itzik Basman)

If people want annual mammograms, why can't they just pay for that out of pocket? It's what? around a hundred bucks? By the time women are recommended to get them, I would hope they could scrimp and save that much each year.
In fact, people should just pay out of pocket for most of the "normal" medical transactions and doctor visits. The payment should come in for catastrophic health issues that people cannot take care of themselves.
I guess the wrinkle of that is that everyone dies. At its best, health care can extend life, preferably the quality of life as well, but not prevent death. At some point down the road, a great number of people, perhaps a majority will require coverage for a catastrophic event.
Biology, it would be so much better if most people had a timer, and once that timer ended, they simply stopped. Nature is so inconvenient. Maybe if they were given some heads up time to know the date, know how much time they had left.
I wonder though, if we shifted the insurance to cover catastrophic events with a high deductible instead of routine things, what the effect would be in terms of

Quoting JonIrenicus: If people want annual mammograms, why can't they just pay for that out of pocket?

It's what? around a hundred bucks? By the time women are recommended to get them, I would hope they could scrimp and save that much each year.

In fact, people should just pay out of pocket for most of the "normal" medical transactions and doctor visits.

The payment should come in for catastrophic health issues that people cannot take care of themselves.

I guess the wrinkle of that is that everyone dies. At its best, health care can extend life, preferably the quality of life as well, but not prevent death. At some point down the road, a great number of people, perhaps a majority will require coverage for a catastrophic event.

Biology, it would be so much better if most people had a timer, and once that timer ended, they simply stopped. Nature is so inconvenient. Maybe if they were given some heads up time to know the date, know how much time they had left.

I wonder though, if we shifted the insurance to cover catastrophic events with a high deductible instead of routine things, what the effect would be in terms of

Quoting jeffpeterson: the need for a genuinely free market in health care, in which individuals are empowered to pay for the care for themselves and their families that they think worthwhile

Empowered? A free market for health care is literally impossible: it is impossible for market forces to work when health care is the good or service in question. There can be no competition, no choice, and no rational decision-making in a private health care market. At a fish market, you can buy fish from one vendor or another; you can go fishing yourself; you can decide you don't want fish; you can decide that you're not even hungry and spend your money on a new TV. You cannot look at treatment for your kid's leukemia in these terms. It is literally impossible. Cannot be done.

Quoting Ray: Empowered?

A free market for health care is literally impossible: it is impossible for market forces to work when health care is the good or service in question.

There can be no competition, no choice, and no rational decision-making in a private health care market. At a fish market, you can buy fish from one vendor or another; you can go fishing yourself; you can decide you don't want fish; you can decide that you're not even hungry and spend your money on a new TV.

You cannot look at treatment for your kid's leukemia in these terms. It is literally impossible. Cannot be done.

Right, and it's literally impossible to buy cars or homes, or food for your kids.

Quoting Ray: Empowered?

A free market for health care is literally impossible: it is impossible for market forces to work when health care is the good or service in question.

There can be no competition, no choice, and no rational decision-making in a private health care market. At a fish market, you can buy fish from one vendor or another; you can go fishing yourself; you can decide you don't want fish; you can decide that you're not even hungry and spend your money on a new TV.

You cannot look at treatment for your kid's leukemia in these terms. It is literally impossible. Cannot be done.

Well said. But market fundies don't hear you when you point out the limitations of their deity.

Quoting Ken Davis: Well said. But market fundies don't hear you when you point out the limitations of their deity.

Except he didn't say anything. He just proclaimed an impossibility. That's not pointing out, that's asserting.

Quoting Unit: Except he didn't say anything. He just proclaimed an impossibility. That's not pointing out, that's asserting.

As I said, you will not be heard. There is no commonality between our points of view. We share no basic assumptions. To market fundies, process is holy and any subsequent outcome is sanctified.

Quoting Ken Davis: As I said, you will not be heard. There is no commonality between our points of view. We share no basic assumptions. To market fundies, process is holy and any subsequent outcome is sanctified.

Whatever, and to you guys govt is holy, see how you're advancing the discussion....

Bob, you're the best. Really enjoyed your moral outrage in this diavlog - especially re: Gupta. Awesome. Totally agree with you on the Hitchens "rebuttal" - no substance there, besides Hitchens claiming he "doesn't like" your argument. Good to see Mickey as well. Thanks for another great year on BHTV.

Quoting Unit: Right, and it's literally impossible to buy cars or homes, or food for your kids.

Fish is food, and you can buy it for your kids. You did notice that I talked about fish markets? A private market for health care is impossible. When your chest gets impaled by a steering column in a car wreck, you cannot comparison shop, nor can you choose to spend your money on something other than health care, nor can you provide your health care yourself. This is why there is no private market for health care, except in places like Somalia. In the U.S., there is a private market for health insurance, which is something completely different from health care. The insurance market also makes the private health care market impossible, as a matter of fact. You need to learn the difference between insurance and care, in order to bring your crazed ideology to bear on the health care debate in a way that doesn't immediately make you look like an idiot.

First, using Wright's logic why can't we make the following cases: The murder of Dr. George Tiller is due to the US gov't's supporting abortion rights.
The lynching of blacks during the reconstruction era is due to northern meddling in the south.
The craziness in the right-wing base is due to Democrats' overreaching. And on and on? I suspect the reason Wright would continue to accept his claim, but deny all the ones I just made above, has to do with this point from Ken Davis:

Quoting Ken Davis: The thing is, Hasan happened to be in the US Armed Forces, not Al Coyote, not the Taliban, not any group other than the one which invaded Iraq twice, invaded Afghanistan, garrisoned troops in Saudi Arabia and Lebanon, and maintained carrier groups in the Indian Ocean and the Persian Gulf which launched countless missiles into Muslim lands. Hundreds of thousands of Muslims were killed by direct result of US attacks. Hundreds of thousands of refugees were created by direct result of US attacks. Hundreds of thousands of Iraqi children died as a result of US sanctions. We bombed the fuck out of city, hamlet, hill and dale from 40,000 feet. With no air opposition.

The US picked Iraq as

Quoting Ray: Fish is food, and you can buy it for your kids. You did notice that I talked about fish markets?

A private market for health care is impossible. When your chest gets impaled by a steering column in a car wreck, you cannot comparison shop, nor can you choose to spend your money on something other than health care, nor can you provide your health care yourself.

This is why there is no private market for health care, except in places like Somalia. In the U.S., there is a private market for health insurance, which is something completely different from health care. The insurance market also makes the private health care market impossible, as a matter of fact.

You need to learn the difference between insurance and care, in order to bring your crazed ideology to bear on the health care debate in a way that doesn't immediately make you look like an idiot.

I know the difference perfectly well thank you. You could for instance save money for the event that you'll be impaled during a car-wreck and you could also set up a contract for the way you want

Quoting Unit: I know the difference perfectly well thank you. You could for instance save money for the event that you'll be impaled during a car-wreck and you could also set up a contract for the way you want to be treated in such a scenario. In fact, in the nationalized systems I know, people purchase health-care with their own money when it really matters because the govt provided health-care is sub-par as you can imagine. The US actually spends less out-of-pocket than other countries such as Canada, so it's true that the insurance system we have right now is not necessarily a good thing. The idea about letting market forces operate is incentivize medical innovation in a direction that people really want. Take for instance lazik eye surgery: when profits are to be had, more resources are brought in and competition brings prices down. I don't mind "looking" like a idiot, beats being one.

I think you're being sincere. I hope you're just as ready to assert that we should euthanize poor cancer patients as you are to imagine the rest of this fantasy.

Bobby, obviously I can't speak for Bob but I would guess that he would agree that carrying out late-term abortions does increase the likelihood that a crazy person will decide to murder an abortion doctor, or bomb a clinic, etc., even to the level of an Oklahoma City style attack (though not very plausible.) The question then becomes a cost-benefit analysis in which the positives of an action whether it is allowing liberal abortion policy or liberating Iraq, must be weighed against the negatives of abortion clinic bombings, murders, and people deciding to join Al Qeada or shooting their fellow troops. Bob's point, as I see it (and I fully agree) is that the Christopher Hitchens' of the world don't want to simply say that their view of the balance of the equation is a net positive and thus we should invade Iraq, they want to claim that the negatives DON'T EXIST. Their rebuttal to "this action by such and such a person was made more likely by X" is to state that the person "would have done X anyways." Or "their culture encourages X" or some other deflection of the point that

Quoting AemJeff: I think you're being sincere. I hope you're just as ready to assert that we should euthanize poor cancer patients as you are to imagine the rest of this fantasy.

No, the spontaneously orderly thing to do is for them to pay for their own euthanasia, or just die in pain.

Quoting AemJeff: I think you're being sincere. I hope you're just as ready to assert that we should euthanize poor cancer patients as you are to imagine the rest of this fantasy.

Giving subsidies or vouchers to poor people is not an argument against free-markets, as long as prices are not regulated and profits are not taxed away.

Quoting claymisher: No, the spontaneously orderly thing to do is for them to pay for their own euthanasia, or just die in pain.

Yes and the politically thing to do is "vote" one should live and who should die, that's much better.

Quoting Unit: Yes and the politically thing to do is "vote" one should live and who should die, that's much better.

We already know what your vote is.

Quoting claymisher: We already know what your vote is.

I don't vote.

Quoting Unit: Whatever, and to you guys govt is holy, see how you're advancing the discussion....

I have no intention of advancing the discussion. There is no shared ground from which to conduct an argument.

Quoting Unit: Giving subsidies or vouchers to poor people is not an argument against free-markets, as long as prices are not regulated and profits are not taxed away.

Who qualifies for a subsidy? Do we vote on that? Where is the funding source? How much will it cost?

Quoting AemJeff: Who qualifies for a subsidy? Do we vote on that? Where is the funding source? How much will it cost?

That's up to politicians to determine. My point is that pointing to people who can't afford something is not an indication of market-failure, generally speaking.

Quoting Ken Davis: I have no intention of advancing the discussion. There is no shared ground from which to conduct an argument.

Got it.

Quoting Unit: That's up to politicians to determine. My point is that pointing to people who can't afford something is not an indication of market-failure, generally speaking.

People dying unnecessarily is almost always a sign of a systemic failure. I seem to recall someone submitting the following sneer, just a few minutes ago.

Yes and the politically thing to do is "vote" one should live and who should die, that's much better.

uncle, I think there are actually three responses to cases like Hasan's: (1) Our policies influenced Hasan to act the way he did, so we should modify or abandon our policies (Wright's view).
(2) Hasan would have done what he did anyway, so we should not modify or abandon our policy (Hitchens's view).
(3) Our policies influenced Hasan to act the way he did, but he's to blame for the way he acted, not us, so we should not modify or abandon our policy (a third view). My discussion of Wright's principle was directed to (3).

Quoting Ken Davis: I have no intention of advancing the discussion. There is no shared ground from which to conduct an argument.

Thank you. I find these "glibertarians" and their "Free Market" rhetoric incredibly boring. The "Free Market" doesn't exist - the government regulates almost every sphere of human activity and spends almost 40 percent of USA GDP. And no one sincerely cares about the "Free market" - its smokescreen rhetoric by the well to do. All the heads of AIG, BoA, and Citi, & dumbshits like Phil Graham constantly talked about the 'Free Market' until they asked for $500 billion in TARP money.

Quoting rcocean: Thank you. I find these "glibertarians" and their "Free Market" rhetoric incredibly boring. The "Free Market" doesn't exist - the government regulates almost every sphere of human activity and spends almost 40 percent of USA GDP.

And no one sincerely cares about the "Free market" - its smokescreen rhetoric by the well to do. All the heads of AIG, BoA, and Citi, & dumbshits like Phil Graham constantly talked about the 'Free Market' until they asked for $500 billion in TARP money.

I'm curious about what you do believe, rc. I don't see you as a likely proponent of regulated markets, and you have a palpable dislike of libertarians. What are your guiding principles when you try to judge the value of economic ideas?

Quoting AemJeff: People dying unnecessarily is almost always a sign of a systemic failure.

I seem to recall someone submitting the following sneer, just a few minutes ago.

I'm glad that there are generous people like you AemJeff that are willing to give their own money up to pay for poor dying cancer patients. Oh and Clay as well I forgot. Keep up the good work.

Quoting Unit: I'm glad that there are generous people like you AemJeff that are willing to give their own money up to pay for poor dying cancer patients. Oh and Clay as well I forgot. Keep up the good work.

That was an impressively short trip from ideological bravura to to a defensive crouch. You've provided no evidence of consistency, or even that you understand the implications of your stated point of view. I've been arguing the details and the moral implications of my POV here and elsewhere on the site for several days. All I ever hear from you are pieties and assertions from doctrine.

Bobby, I don't see the difference between 2 and 3. How does Hasan being the one to blame, change the game. In a most rudimentary form I see it as : X (our policy/action/inaction) + Y (perception/reaction by Hasan or whomever) = Z (end result.) Hitchens argues that X should be fixed because Y is predetermined and no level of adjustment of X will make a difference in Y or ultimately, Z. Therefore we should just set X at the level we want. Bob argues that X is the only variable that we can actually control, and that Y is a variable directly tied to the level of X. That is not to say that X is to blame for the level of Y, but that Y is determined partly on the level of X. Therefore if we are serious about finding the optimal Z then we need to find the proper X and be aware of the effect X has on Y. I don't see how the fact that a rational (or irrational actor) is ultimately responsible for their own decisions/actions, changes the dynamics of the equation or the fact that tinkering with whatever factors we can adjust (namely X) could result in a better Z.

Quoting AemJeff: I'm curious about what you do believe, rc. I don't see you as a likely proponent of regulated markets, and you have a palpable dislike of libertarians. What are your guiding principles when you try to judge the value of economic ideas?

In economics, I am an utter pragmatist. Policy should be based on facts and reality as opposed to academic theories and rhetoric. In general, I favor policies that benefit the great mass of hard working Americans over those who do no productive work. And we need to take care of those who can't take care of themselves.

Quoting rcocean: In economics, I am an utter pragmatist. Policy should be based on facts and reality as opposed to academic theories and rhetoric.

In general, I favor policies that benefit the great mass of hard working Americans over those who do no productive work. And we need to take care of those who can't take care of themselves.

"Reality" is in the eye of the beholder, isn't it? It's hard to reconcile that kind of subjectivity with strict pragmatism. How do we create a meaningful consensus about the underlying facts? That's one of the reasons why ideological systems exist, to provide theoretical bases on which to make basic factual judgments.

Quoting AemJeff: "Reality" is in the eye of the beholder, isn't it? It's hard to reconcile that kind of subjectivity with strict pragmatism. How do we create a meaningful consensus about the underlying facts? That's one of the reasons why ideological systems exist, to provide theoretical bases on which to make basic factual judgments.

Sorry Jeff, I have no idea what you're writing here. We can't know what the facts are or what reality is, so we need theory? My problem is with people who don't know the economic facts, economic history, and/or have no knowledge of real business. Often, however, these people read Karl Marx, Adam Smith, Ann Rand, Hayek, etc. and then support economic policies based on these "theories" - which have no relationship to the real world of 2009. These same people don't understand that "theories" are often used as propaganda tools to gain real-life economic advantages. Theories are only as good as their relevance to the real world. One should always be skeptical and ask "who does this policy/theory help and who does it hurt"?

Quoting rcocean: Sorry Jeff, I have no idea what you're writing here. We can't know what the facts are or what reality is, so we need theory?

My problem is with people who don't know the economic facts, economic history, and/or have no knowledge of real business. Often, however, these people read Karl Marx, Adam Smith, Ann Rand, Hayek, etc. and then support economic policies based on these "theories" - which have no relationship to the real world of 2009.

These same people don't understand that "theories" are often used as propaganda tools to gain real-life economic advantages.

Theories are only as good as their relevance to the real world. One should always be skeptical and ask "who does this policy/theory help and who does it hurt"?

I hear you. Consider the following factual question: Is R. S. McCain a racist? Or this one: How many people die in the United States each year because of inadequate health insurance? Without a consensual frame through which these questions can be considered, people conclude very different things. "Facts" arrive through filters. One person's "propaganda tool" is someone else's bible. Ultimately we each have to choose a point of view, either deliberately, or by default.

Unit, I think we're pretty close to agreement here. But would you agree that it is near impossible to determine the point at which profits are "taxed away?" I mean, I guess if tax rates are at 100%, then it's safe to say that profits are taxed away. But that's not a serious possibility. Take Northern Europe, where personal income tax rates are *really* high compared to the US. Now I know that we're not talking about personal income taxes here but the lesson is the same: one man's confiscatory tax rate are another man's efficient tax rate. The difference often depends on what you believe government should be doing. Certainly taxes impinge on general freedom, but in terms of how a particular market functions, if our standards are such that taxes effect the freedom of the market, then so do subsidies, since both have an impact of some sort. But since we're not talking only about having an impact, (we're talking about placing a finger of government directly on the scales) then in terms of regulation, subsidies, and taxes, only regulation seems to impinge of the free nature of the market, wouldn't you agree?

Quoting Unit: I know the difference perfectly well thank you.

No; you don't.

Quoting Unit: You could for instance save money for the event that you'll be impaled during a car-wreck

See? You're talking about insurance, when you should be talking about care. You cannot rationally save your money for a catastrophic illness or injury. Only a crazy person would set aside millions of dollars on the off chance that he might have a hugely expensive illness or injury. This craziness eliminates the possibility of a free market for health care. Insurance is an attempt to rationalize this craziness, but here market forces work against you: the market incentivizes insurance companies to deny care, any way they can. With the results Americans see today. Private health care markets do not work. They have never worked; they will never work.

Quoting AemJeff: That was an impressively short trip from ideological bravura to to a defensive crouch. You've provided no evidence of consistency, or even that you understand the implications of your stated point of view. I've been arguing the details and the moral implications of my POV here and elsewhere on the site for several days. All I ever hear from you are pieties and assertions from doctrine.

AemJeff, you're the one who jumped in while I was objecting to someone else's claim that free-market in health-care is "literally" (sic) impossible. You and Clay brought in heavy moralizing bs that apparently you don't really believe in, because you're not really spending any of your own money to help the dying poor cancer patients. Presumably your good intentions should be good enough for everyone to think that you're on the good side. Unfortunately, the political reality is quite different. Politicians use good intentioned folks like you and Clay ("the baptists") and big business interest groups ("the bootleggers") to pass regulation that privatize profits for the big lobbies and socialize losses for the rest of us. In the end you might help the dying

Quoting Jay J: Unit,

I think we're pretty close to agreement here. But would you agree that it is near impossible to determine the point at which profits are "taxed away?" I mean, I guess if tax rates are at 100%, then it's safe to say that profits are taxed away. But that's not a serious possibility.

Take Northern Europe, where personal income tax rates are *really* high compared to the US. Now I know that we're not talking about personal income taxes here but the lesson is the same: one man's confiscatory tax rate are another man's efficient tax rate. The difference often depends on what you believe government should be doing.

Certainly taxes impinge on general freedom, but in terms of how a particular market functions, if our standards are such that taxes effect the freedom of the market, then so do subsidies, since both have an impact of some sort. But since we're not talking only about having an impact, (we're talking about placing a finger of government directly on the scales) then in terms of regulation, subsidies, and taxes, only regulation seems to impinge of the free nature of the market, wouldn't you agree?

Yes I would agree, regulation is

Quoting Ray: No; you don't.

See?

You're talking about insurance, when you should be talking about care.

You cannot rationally save your money for a catastrophic illness or injury. Only a crazy person would set aside millions of dollars on the off chance that he might have a hugely expensive illness or injury.

This craziness eliminates the possibility of a free market for health care.

Insurance is an attempt to rationalize this craziness, but here market forces work against you: the market incentivizes insurance companies to deny care, any way they can. With the results Americans see today.

Private health care markets do not work. They have never worked; they will never work.

You've never heard of health-savings accounts? Saving is not the same thing as insurance.

Saddam Hussein alone was responsible for every single death of a child that resulted from UN sanctions. Blaming America for only one of those deaths is ahistorical and frankly idiotic.

Quoting Unit: AemJeff, you're the one who jumped in while I was objecting to someone else's claim that free-market in health-care is "literally" (sic) impossible. You and Clay brought in heavy moralizing bs that apparently you don't really believe in, because you're not really spending any of your own money to help the dying poor cancer patients. Presumably your good intentions should be good enough for everyone to think that you're on the good side. Unfortunately, the political reality is quite different. Politicians use good intentioned folks like you and Clay ("the baptists") and big business interest groups ("the bootleggers") to pass regulation that privatize profits for the big lobbies and socialize losses for the rest of us. In the end you might help the dying poor cancer patients at the expense of some other poor people the ones that don't get the health-saving new technology that real market competition would bring.

As for pieties and doctrine, I feel the same way towards your posts, and I'm sorry if I don't read every single one you post, maybe you can point me to something relevant instead of accusing.

Look at the "Intellivision" thread

Quoting AemJeff: I hear you. Consider the following factual question: Is R. S. McCain a racist? Or this one: How many people die in the United States each year because of inadequate health insurance? Without a consensual frame through which these questions can be considered, people conclude very different things. "Facts" arrive through filters. One person's "propaganda tool" is someone else's bible. Ultimately we each have to choose a point of view, either deliberately, or by default.

Is R. S. McCain a racist - is not a "factual" question - its simply matter of opinion & depends on your definition of 'racism". This is completely different from economic fact - like my salary is $100,000 a year, or the dollar is at a 14 year low against the Yen. That someone doesn't want to admit reality or facts because of their "filter" -doesn't make them right or equal to someone who views reality objectively. I can see why you're a leftist since you think reality and facts are malleable things that just depend on who does the interpreting. At bottom there is no objective truth and all of politics comes down to Lenin's "kto, kogo?" Health care for example. How do we provide Health care to everyone most

Quoting AemJeff: Look at the "Intellivision" thread for the substance of what I've been arguing; which certainly includes the claim that free markets and health care are incompatible. And, to be clear, it is substantively a moral argument - so don't be surprised by a moralistic tone. We do make those contributions, of course, and so you.

As a rule I try not to comment if I haven't listened to the diavlog. Whose moral? I tend to think that price controls and mandates are immoral.

Lyle: Saddam Hussein alone was responsible for every single death of a child that resulted from UN sanctions.

Blaming America for only one of those deaths is ahistorical and frankly idiotic. Please read this piece. Denis Halliday, Hans von Sponeck, Jutta Burghardt all resigned from the UN over the collective punishment of sanctions.

Quoting Unit: You've never heard of health-savings accounts? Saving is not the same thing as insurance.

Yes; I have. Yes; in this case, it is. Here, again, we face your real problem: you simply cannot wrap your mind around the idea that treatment for cancer is not the same thing as a new television. You can save up to buy a new TV; you cannot save up to have cancer. A medical savings account is insurance. You become your own insurer. In a standard insurance policy, you and the insurance company each bet against the other--and then each of you can try to cheat on the bet. You can try to become sick, while the insurance company can try to weasel out of paying for your treatment when you do become sick. If both parties act rationally, you will stay healthy, but if you fall ill, the insurance company will cheat you. This is precisely the situation we have in the U.S. With a medical savings account, you are betting against yourself. You are socking your money away on the chance of catastrophic illness, the treatment for which will cost millions upon millions of dollars. To win the bet, you can either get

Quoting Ray: Yes; I have. Yes; in this case, it is.

Here, again, we face your real problem: you simply cannot wrap your mind around the idea that treatment for cancer is not the same thing as a new television.

You can save up to buy a new TV; you cannot save up to have cancer.

A medical savings account is insurance. You become your own insurer. In a standard insurance policy, you and the insurance company each bet against the other--and then each of you can try to cheat on the bet. You can try to become sick, while the insurance company can try to weasel out of paying for your treatment when you do become sick.

If both parties act rationally, you will stay healthy, but if you fall ill, the insurance company will cheat you. This is precisely the situation we have in the U.S.

With a medical savings account, you are betting against yourself. You are socking your money away on the chance of catastrophic illness, the treatment for which will cost millions upon millions of dollars.

To win the bet, you can either get sick and spend the money or stay healthy and die of old

I don't listen to dialogues with Mickey in them, but I did read Bob's op ed and I thought it was very astute.

(1) Our policies influenced Hasan to act the way he did, so we should modify or abandon our policies (Wright's view).

I don't agree with the way you have framed Bob's position. He is merely saying that the wars on Muslims may increase rather than decrease the threat of terrorism. An example of how this may happen is Hasan. It doesn't mean we should modify or abandon our policies BECAUSE of Hasan. Noting the Hasan case is just another way of questioning the wisdom of waging wars in Muslim world. It does not provide sufficient or blanket grounds for rejecting such wars. For warists, there may be -- as Uncle E. points out -- many other reasons to wage wars. Some reasons may be better than others. Some reasons may trump the risk of triggering characters like Hasan. Some reasons may be flawed independently of the existence of Hasan-like acts. I thought the war on Afghanistan was a horrible mistake in September 2001. I was protesting the Afghan war throughout 01 and 02. I am a bit

If Saddam Hussein have never invaded Kuwait there would have never been UN sanctions placed on Iraq. What do you not understand about that? Every child that died, died because of Saddam Hussein. He killed every single one of those children.

Quoting AemJeff: Look at the "Intellivision" thread for the substance of what I've been arguing; which certainly includes the claim that free markets and health care are incompatible. And, to be clear, it is substantively a moral argument - so don't be surprised by a moralistic tone. We do make those contributions, of course, and so you.

Ok I watched the Intellivision diavlog which was quite good, especially the first three links. Did you read the Tabarrok post? It claims that when people pay for their own health care prices come down and people invest more in preventive care. To me the more intuitive conclusion is that govt and health care are incompatible. Most people agree that govt does a sloppy politicized job at providing goods and services, so why would we entrust something as precious as health-care to incompetent bureaucrats? PS: I'll now go read the comments to that diavlog.

Now that one of Bobs irritants has been revealed in this diavlog, we now have a test to tell how far along the enlightened Buddhist/meditative path Bob has traveled. When bob can watch 5 of these videos without showing any eye twitches, he will have reached enlightenment. http://video.google.com/videosearch?...en&emb=0&aq=f#
May you have more strength than I do. One video of Cindy Sheehan and I go into seizure mode.

Quoting Unit: Ok I watched the Intellivision diavlog which was quite good, especially the first three links. Did you read the Tabarrok post? It claims that when people pay for their own health care prices come down and people invest more in preventive care. To me the more intuitive conclusion is that govt and health care are incompatible. Most people agree that govt does a sloppy politicized job at providing goods and services, so why would we entrust something as precious as health-care to incompetent bureaucrats?

PS: I'll now go read the comments to that diavlog.

Ok I went through the comments at Intellivision. Boy talk about off-topic, what's Global Warming got to do with the dv? Anyways, about your long (thoughtful) back-and-forth with Jay J, I really don't have much to add to what Jay J said. He articulates my point of view quite well and I don't feel like going over there and interjecting at this point, the one-on-one between you two stands very well on its own. Maye just a few comments: Yes in catastrophic situations you're not in a condition to bargain and shop around, however, people have written wills for a long time

Earlier, I wrote: (2) Hasan would have done what he did anyway, so we should not modify or abandon our policy (Hitchens's view).
(3) Our policies influenced Hasan to act the way he did, but he's to blame for the way he acted, not us, so we should not modify or abandon our policy (a third view). uncle ebeneezer responded,

Quoting uncle ebeneezer: Bobby, I don't see the difference between 2 and 3. How does Hasan being the one to blame, change the game. In a most rudimentary form I see it as : X (our policy/action/inaction) + Y (perception/reaction by Hasan or whomever) = Z (end result.)

Hitchens argues that X should be fixed because Y is predetermined and no level of adjustment of X will make a difference in Y or ultimately, Z. Therefore we should just set X at the level we want.

Bob argues that X is the only variable that we can actually control, and that Y is a variable directly tied to the level of X. That is not to say that X is to blame for the level of Y, but that Y is determined partly on the level of X. Therefore if we are serious about finding the optimal Z then we need to find the proper X and be aware

Quoting Unit: Saving is not the same thing as pooling money together into an insurance scheme.

True. But a medical savings account is not the same thing as saving. That's why it's called a medical savings account and not just saving. Medical savings accounts get a special tax status, because the money in them will be used only for medical expenses. This does indeed make them a kind of pooled money, a kind of insurance.

Quoting Unit: BTW Insurance is exactly a market solution to catastrophic situations like floods, fires and cancer.

No; these insurances are a scheme, not a solution. They do not solve catastrophes. But, yes, you are (finally) starting to get something of the point: a medical savings account makes sense only when it is trivial. Unfortunately (and here we'll hope that you're starting to get other points as well), the health care debate is not about trivialities.

Quoting Wonderment: I don't agree with the way you have framed Bob's position. He is merely saying that the wars on Muslims may increase rather than decrease the threat of terrorism. An example of how this may happen is Hasan. It doesn't mean we should modify or abandon our policies BECAUSE of Hasan. Noting the Hasan case is just another way of questioning the wisdom of waging wars in Muslim world. It does not provide sufficient or blanket grounds for rejecting such wars.

I didn't mean to give the impression that Wright thought that Hasan case alone was reason enough to reject going to war against any country where the population is predominantly Muslim. Just that going to war against predominantly Muslim countries will increase Hasan-like incidents, which is one reason against going to war against Muslim countries. I wonder what you think of the following statement: "having liberal abortion laws will encourage incidents like the murder of Dr. Tiller, which is one reason against having such laws."

Quoting Ray: True.

But a medical savings account is not the same thing as saving. That's why it's called a medical savings account and not just saving.

Medical savings accounts get a special tax status, because the money in them will be used only for medical expenses. This does indeed make them a kind of pooled money, a kind of insurance.

No; these insurances are a scheme, not a solution. They do not solve catastrophes.

But, yes, you are (finally) starting to get something of the point: a medical savings account makes sense only when it is trivial.

Unfortunately (and here we'll hope that you're starting to get other points as well), the health care debate is not about trivialities.

Look people put money in college saving accounts and by the time their kids are 18 they've accumulated enough money to send their kids to college for four years. Is that trivial? Imagine accumulating the same amounts over a lifespan. Also the point that you are missing is that when people pay out-of-pocket prices come down, suppliers compete and costs come down. On the other hand when people are insulated from the costs, providers have no incentive

Quoting Ray: Yes; I have. Yes; in this case, it is.

Here, again, we face your real problem: you simply cannot wrap your mind around the idea that treatment for cancer is not the same thing as a new television.

You can save up to buy a new TV; you cannot save up to have cancer.

A medical savings account is insurance. You become your own insurer. In a standard insurance policy, you and the insurance company each bet against the other--and then each of you can try to cheat on the bet. You can try to become sick, while the insurance company can try to weasel out of paying for your treatment when you do become sick.

If both parties act rationally, you will stay healthy, but if you fall ill, the insurance company will cheat you. This is precisely the situation we have in the U.S.

With a medical savings account, you are betting against yourself. You are socking your money away on the chance of catastrophic illness, the treatment for which will cost millions upon millions of dollars.

To win the bet, you can either get sick and spend the money or stay healthy and die of old

Quoting claymisher: Well put.

Even people who have the money to self-insure (millionaires) still buy insurance because insurance companies (as shitty as they are) have the buying power individuals don't have and get better prices for hospital procedures.

I wouldn't call it buying power...they're colluding, is more like it.

Unit, Pardon the intrusion but I can't resist a few points: * Your interlocutor has mentioned serious illnesses like cancer more than once. Don't you think incentives are different for consumers (the market for cancer treatment is not like the market for allergy pills) when cancer is the illness a person needs treating? I mean, people don't know how much money it will take to cover some unknown illness they'll have in the future, and the chances that no matter how much they save, they won't be able to afford care seems high enough to act as a disincentive to save; in other words, it's not clear that it's rational to have a rainy-day fund for the possible day when you're diagnosed with cancer. *As for the efficiency of saving all that much over a lifespan, wouldn't it be more efficient to just collect taxes from everyone, then pay for expensive treatments for horrible things like cancer out of this collection, rather than having each individual tuck away probably larger chunks of their income per person? Some people could afford it, but if your goal is to insure the

Quoting Jay J: Unit,

Pardon the intrusion but I can't resist a few points:

* Your interlocutor has mentioned serious illnesses like cancer more than once. Don't you think incentives are different for consumers (the market for cancer treatment is not like the market for allergy pills) when cancer is the illness a person needs treating? I mean, people don't know how much money it will take to cover some unknown illness they'll have in the future, and the chances that no matter how much they save, they won't be able to afford care seems high enough to act as a disincentive to save; in other words, it's not clear that it's rational to have a rainy-day fund for the possible day when you're diagnosed with cancer.

*As for the efficiency of saving all that much over a lifespan, wouldn't it be more efficient to just collect taxes from everyone, then pay for expensive treatments for horrible things like cancer out of this collection, rather than having each individual tuck away probably larger chunks of their income per person? Some people could afford it, but if your goal is to insure the

Hi Unit, Please interject at will, it will make me feel better for interjecting myself here. I just want to say that I think it is probably sometimes important to distinguish between catastrophic events and chronic illnesses, but not so important here. The reason I feel this way is that I now notice that I'm using the word catastrophic perhaps a bit more expansively that it is sometimes used (when one uses a word differently from the norm, it seems like they're under obligation to say so). BUT I think my use of the word captures people's concern. See, if people have chronic illnesses that go untreated, that end up having a catastrophic event, and if they have a catastrophic event, they sometimes end up with a chronic condition. Of course I think it should be charitably assumed that by "chronic" we're not talking about someone with chronic allergies; we're talking about fairly serious things. As for whether people are or aren't in a position to shop around/bargain, I wasn't meaning that people are like, literally incapacitated or comatose. I mean they're in no position to forego care; they're powerless. This combined that with how expensive the treatment is to

Claymisher, Thanks. I should probably just leave it at that, but I'm not so sure that we see eye to eye just yet. Nothing I said in the thread with Jeff contradicts anything I've said over on this one. Like I said, perhaps I should leave the good vibes alone,, hopefully we can pinpoint any level of agreement, so as to have confidence that we agree and aren't just barking tribal approval at each other..

Two things:

Quoting Jay J: See, if people have chronic illnesses that go untreated, that end up having a catastrophic event, and if they have a catastrophic event, they sometimes end up with a chronic condition.

When people are budgeting to pay for their own health care, they end up doing more forward-thinking and more preventive medicine. If health-care is free you have less of an incentive to take care of yourself trusting that when they time comes all kinds of resources will be deployed to save you (at no personal cost to you).

As for whether people are or aren't in a position to shop around/bargain, I wasn't meaning that people are like, literally incapacitated or comatose. I mean they're in no position to forego care; they're powerless.

Why are they powerless? I'm in no position to forgo a roof over my head. As soon as someone can shop around they have power by definition.

I didn't mean to give the impression that Wright thought that Hasan case alone was reason enough to reject going to war against any country where the population is predominantly Muslim. Just that going to war against predominantly Muslim countries will increase Hasan-like incidents, which is one reason against going to war against Muslim countries.

Not quite. He believes (if I read him correctly) that one factor that should be weighed when deciding to wage war on Muslim countries is blow-back in the form of domestic terrorists.

I wonder what you think of the following statement: "having liberal abortion laws will encourage incidents like the murder of Dr. Tiller, which is one reason against having such laws."

I think it's true that a factor that should be weighed in crafting liberal abortion laws is the safety of practitioners, i.e. protecting them from murderous fanatics. Of course, I wouldn't say we should deny women the right to abortion because of the risk to practitioners, and I wouldn't say we should refrain from murderous invasions of other countries because it could heighten the risk of domestic terror. All we are saaaaying is factor it in (and give peace a chance).

Quoting Jay J: Unit,

Pardon the intrusion but I can't resist a few points:

* Your interlocutor has mentioned serious illnesses like cancer more than once. Don't you think incentives are different for consumers (the market for cancer treatment is not like the market for allergy pills) when cancer is the illness a person needs treating? I mean, people don't know how much money it will take to cover some unknown illness they'll have in the future, and the chances that no matter how much they save, they won't be able to afford care seems high enough to act as a disincentive to save; in other words, it's not clear that it's rational to have a rainy-day fund for the possible day when you're diagnosed with cancer.

There are many varieties of cancer and no one really know the best way to combat some of them. Is chemo the way to go? there's a debate on that. Should old people remove their prostate after a certain age? Again doctors disagree, etc...As you can see we're not talking about a single simple disease. So wouldn't you want the people in charge of administering cancer

Quoting Unit: I wouldn't call it buying power...they're colluding, is more like it.

Where did you learn economics?

Quoting Unit: I'm glad that there are generous people like you AemJeff that are willing to give their own money up to pay for poor dying cancer patients. Oh and Clay as well I forgot. Keep up the good work.

Come on, that's bullshit and you know it.

Quoting Unit: Yes in catastrophic situations you're not in a condition to bargain and shop around, however, people have written wills for a long time and nothing is stopping someone from drawing up detailed instructions on how they want to be treated in case of an emergency.

Please, tell me more about this fascinating proposal.

Unit, As for ingraining bad incentive into people, I agree that the incentives created by having the kind of social insurance I am proposing creates similar incentives to the ones we might ordinarily call "bad." What makes the incentives harmless in this case, IMHO, is the landscape of serious illness (catastrophic or chronic) compared to common illnesses like the common cold. I don't think people are going to change their behavior that much because they know someone will pay for their horrible disease, because the cost of treatment seems impossible to predict and often so expensive that it's futile to try and save enough to actually pay for it. In other words, will it cost 10,000$ or 100,000$ or 1,000,000$. Treatments are often so expensive that an individual that isn't insulated by social insurance has no hope of paying for it out-of-pocket. What I've said so far has addressed the financial incentives of insurance, and now I turn to the overall behavioral incentives: It seems very likely to me that people aren't sitting around not preventing a horrible disease because they know someone will pay for the care. I mean, if the disease

Quoting claymisher: Come on, that's bullshit and you know it.

I'm shocked. From the moralizing tone you were using I would have sworn that you were one of those people that donate most of their income to poor cancer patients.

Quoting claymisher: Where did you learn economics?

From reading.

Quoting Lyle: If Saddam Hussein have never invaded Kuwait there would have never been UN sanctions placed on Iraq. What do you not understand about that?

Every child that died, died because of Saddam Hussein. He killed every single one of those children.

You sound like Bill Clinton.

Quoting Jay J: What makes the incentives harmless in this case, IMHO, is the landscape of serious illness (catastrophic or chronic) compared to common illnesses like the common cold. I don't think people are going to change their behavior that much because they know someone will pay for their horrible disease, because the cost of treatment seems impossible to predict and often so expensive that it's futile to try and save enough to actually pay for it. In other words, will it cost 10,000$ or 100,000$ or 1,000,000$. Treatments are often so expensive that an individual that isn't insulated by social insurance has no hope of paying for it out-of-pocket.

I'm not sure I follow the reasoning. The more expensive the treatment the more likely the bad incentives will show up. I'm pretty sure no one is trying to make money off the common cold. But in the case of rare diseases with costly treatments it's much more likely, especially if some third-party is paying the bill.

What I've said so far has addressed the financial incentives of insurance, and now I turn to the overall behavioral incentives: It seems very likely to me

Quoting Wonderment: Not quite. He believes (if I read him correctly) that one factor that should be weighed when deciding to wage war on Muslim countries is blow-back in the form of domestic terrorists.

Hmm. I think that's what I said. When I say that "X is reason for Y", I don't necessarily mean that "X is all the reason there is for Y" or "X is reason enough for Y" but rather "X provides some reason for believing Y".

I think it's true that a factor that should be weighed in crafting liberal abortion laws is the safety of practitioners, i.e. protecting them from murderous fanatics.

Of course, I wouldn't say we should deny women the right to abortion because of the risk to practitioners, and I wouldn't say we should refrain from murderous invasions of other countries because it could heighten the risk of domestic terror.

I take it, then, that if you thought you had good evidence that some policy P that you strongly supported would utterly really outrage the right-wing, to the extent that civil war in the country was a real possibility, you would take that as giving you a fairly powerful, though perhaps defeatable, reason to refrain from enacting P? (I'm not

Why are free markets good? Free markets allocate resources efficiently when two conditions are met:
1) Perfect information
2) Rational decisionmaking on the part of buyers and sellers Neither condition applies to health care markets as they are currently constituted in USA. Screening mammography goes for around $108 in my community. You can check prices on line at the website: http://www.remakehealth.com/. This is still a long way from perfect information, since there is no information available about quality of providers, or customer satisfaction, or risks and benefits. Mammography utilization decreases about 10% for every $10 increase in the cost of the procedure. This doesn't mean people are making rational decisions. It does suggest that utilization of ineffective screening tests will go up as out-of-pocket costs are driven towards 0, even if the tests continue to generate lots of false positives. Mickey, your discussion of pros and cons of breast cancer screening does nothing to inform people about the risks and benefits. You obviously have not done any reading beyond the most superficial and and uninformed press reports. I don't mean to be unduly harsh on this point, but your insistence on repeating the uninformed criticisms of

Quoting Unit: I'm shocked. From the moralizing tone you were using I would have sworn that you were one of those people that donate most of their income to poor cancer patients.

Moralizing tone? Really? You're the outlier here. You're the guy who values an abstract ideal over actual human suffering.

Hmm. I think that's what I said. When I say that "X is reason for Y", I don't necessarily mean that "X is all the reason there is for Y" or "X is reason enough for Y" but rather "X provides some reason for believing Y".

Natural language is tricky that way. If you don't distinguish carefully between "factor" and "reason," for example, you can be imprecise. We say things like "that's why" casually, with a great deal of ambiguity.

I take it, then, that if you thought you had good evidence that some policy P that you strongly supported would utterly really outrage the right-wing, to the extent that civil war in the country was a real possibility, you would take that as giving you a fairly powerful, though perhaps defeatable, reason to refrain from enacting P? (I'm not setting you up for a trap. Just wondering.)

Again, lots of wiggle room in "fairly powerful, though perhaps defeatable." The degree to which I was committed to a principle would matter. It would have weight in the decision-making process. Now that you mention civil war, I would say that abolition of slavery would be a principle I'd be loathe to walk away from, no matter what the consequences. (Notwithstanding, I think the US Civil War was

Not only has it clearly been edited, I think there are like five edits in it. Is there a word for putting an uncharismatic person who's bad on TV up on one of these split screen things? Or a word for using that strategy to make an idea look bad independent of its merits? CNN, Fox, etc must have an internal vocabulary for these things.

Fair enough; I think you and I are mostly on the same page, though I think there are some principles that I wouldn't violate no matter what harm it led to other people engaging in (yes, even if it meant the end of the world).

Mickey looks like Alan Grayson. Am I allowed to say that?

Bob asks. The answer of course is no. As a left-wing atheist, and fanatical supporter of Israel - he doesn't have to. He just attacks people his Limousine Liberal audience doesn't like.

Quoting claymisher: Moralizing tone? Really? You're the outlier here. You're the guy who values an abstract ideal over actual human suffering.

There you go again. How are you valuing human suffering more than me? Just by saying so? That's pretty cheap.

Quoting CrowsMakeTools: Why are free markets good?

Free markets allocate resources efficiently when two conditions are met:
1) Perfect information
2) Rational decisionmaking on the part of buyers and sellers

Not at all. Market are especially good when 1) and 2) *do not* hold. If information were perfect and everyone were rational then we could let a central-planner allocate the goods and services accordingly and everyone would be fine with that. When 1) and 2) do not hold we need a process of discovery that harnesses the high complexity of human society. Markets do that through the price system of signaling relative scarcities. If you abolish markets you're going to be even more in the dark than before. Take mammograms. We don't know who should get them, at what age, when they're risky etc..These things cannot reliably be determined by experts (even experts disagree). In a centrally-planned health-care system decisions would be made that are uniform and would disregard the diversity that exists in society. With a (non-distorted) price system, people would determine these questions at an individual level and suppliers would have an incentive to meet these varied demands.

Screening mammography goes for around $108 in my

I was going to critique Hitchens article but I couldn't. He doesn't even make an intelligent argument. As Wright says, pathetic.

Quoting uncle ebeneezer: Bob's point, as I see it (and I fully agree) is that the Christopher Hitchens' of the world don't want to simply say that their view of the balance of the equation is a net positive and thus we should invade Iraq, they want to claim that the negatives DON'T EXIST. Their rebuttal to "this action by such and such a person was made more likely by X" is to state that the person "would have done X anyways."

Maybe, but I think the counterargument is really that the negatives of the type that are being discussed should not be taken into account. The first thing that came to my mind when Bobby posed his comparisons was the heckler's veto doctrine -- simplistically, the argument for limitation on free speech based on the harm caused by people who react to the free speech (i.e., are so outraged by some protest or Nazis in Skokie or whatever) that they create harm that is expensive for the community in question to deal with. I've also seen the argument made, and rejected on the same grounds, re abortion clinics -- that the protestors attracked would

Quoting Unit: You've never heard of health-savings accounts? Saving is not the same thing as insurance.

The problem is that you two are combining two different things -- routine care, which is not all that expensive and for which the market should work better than it does (and that it doesn't is due to how we handle health care in this country) and catastrophic care, which is routine to some extent only that it hits everyone eventually. The problem is that the latter is a normal insurable type of event, but risks get bad so costs get impossible when one is aging or if one has a condition -- why it's not a free market solvable problem, IMO. The idea that makes sense to me is that we simply cover catastrophic costs through a single payer mechanism and cut out the middle man insurance company and let people deal with routine care on their own. The problem, of course, is that insurance for routine care subsidies the catastrophic care. Of course, the fact also seems to be that people are way more adverse to cuts (keep your hands

Quoting AemJeff: I'm curious about what you do believe, rc. I don't see you as a likely proponent of regulated markets, and you have a palpable dislike of libertarians. What are your guiding principles when you try to judge the value of economic ideas?

I think rcocean is an underrepresented voice on the 'net, as "conservatives" here seem, IME, to be much more libertarian, yet people like rc are much more representative of the Republican Party as it is. Of course, for the same reason there ought to be more conflict within the Republican Party, as I really don't see the libertarians standing for a lot of the goals of conservativism, and Grover Norquist's takedown of Huckabee ought to be galling. It's especially weird given the love later extended to Palin, whose own policy history was more liberal than Huckabee's,* who was deemed unacceptable, but who merely had a better story, I guess. *Note that her main policy objectives in AK were farm subsidies for the Mat-Su Valley and taxing oil companies. Plus, in reality, getting federal money. That's not a criticism, it's how AK Republican politics works, and, frankly, AK Republican politics is not socially conservative either, so Palin has been oversold on that front as well, church

Quoting rcocean: Health care for example. How do we provide Health care to everyone most efficiently? The Libertarian just says "free market blah, blah" the socialist says "Government run blah blah". Facts are irrelevant. Their "theory" provides the answer - they don' t even have to think.

Myself, I want to see the facts. How well has National health-care been in other countries? What flaws exist in the current system in the USA? Should we have a mix, if so, what? Are people dying because of inadequate care? If so, how many and why? And how do we correct this?

But the problem is that it does depend on who you ask and that people tend to like what they have. People are more afraid of change than hopeful -- that's probably the same principle behind the fact that we allegedly spend more on insurance than rationally justified by the risk of loss. In any case, I have a friend who considers himself a libertarian (I should get him over here, I guess), but who has lived for years in the Netherlands, and thinks that the US opposition to public health care is nutty. I mention him only because the people one considers testimony from valuable probably

Quoting Unit: Market are especially good when 1) and 2) *do not* hold. If information were perfect and everyone were rational then we could let a central-planner allocate the goods and services accordingly and everyone would be fine with that. When 1) and 2) do not hold we need a process of discovery that harnesses the high complexity of human society. Markets do that through the price system of signaling relative scarcities. If you abolish markets you're going to be even more in the dark than before.

What? Have you been in a coma the past three years? With treatment paid for by your medical savings account and executed by your living will? Dude, the Depression we're in (yes; Depression; yes; still in) refutes neo-classical economics. If what you're saying were true, the Depression (yes) could not have happened. Every time we rely on the model you're advancing here, we get huge market instabilities, i.e. the market becomes irrational. I mean: you'd have to be crazy to think that the financial sector, which hews closest to your model, is sane.

Yeah, I forgot about the heckler's veto. Thanks for bringing that up. If Wright is going to be moved by the heckler's veto, then it must be because he thinks we don't have the same responsibilities to avoid instigating the overreaction of bad actors as we do to avoid instigating the overreaction of good actors. In other words: in Wright's view, Muslims are justified in thinking that the US wages unjust wars, so one of the negative consequences we should take into consideration when trying to figure out whether we should go to war against Iraq/Afghanistan is blowback. Such blowback would be an overreaction, but it would be based on reasonable grounds, and so therefore we should do what we can to minimize it. On the other hand, pro-lifers, again in Wright's view, have an unreasonable view, so blowback that pro-choice policies cause should not be taken into consideration when we decide whether or not to, say, provide federal funding for abortion. Pro-life blowback would not only be an overreaction, but it would be based on unreasonable grounds, so we not care about minimizing it. But, I doubt Wright takes the Heckler's veto that seriously. If he

Quoting Ray: What?

Have you been in a coma the past three years? With treatment paid for by your medical savings account and executed by your living will?

Dude, the Depression we're in (yes; Depression; yes; still in) refutes neo-classical economics. If what you're saying were true, the Depression (yes) could not have happened.

Every time we rely on the model you're advancing here, we get huge market instabilities, i.e. the market becomes irrational.

I mean: you'd have to be crazy to think that the financial sector, which hews closest to your model, is sane.

You don't seem to be that sane yourself. Can you put two words together that make sense? A couple of observations: The financial system is crony capitalism at its best, a revolving door between politics/lobbyist/CEOs etc...Secondly, you probably should study the Great Depression a bit before launching in silly comparisons. Hint: one in four people were unemployed, the money supply contracted by a third, GDP fell by 30% between 30 and 33 compared to today's 3% drop. Now it' true that the behavior of our politicians is making recovery harder than it should have been. In fact all the current busibodyness of "reforms" (health-care, climate etc...) is hurting the recovery in a big way.
I just find it funny that here

Quoting stephanie: The problem is that you two are combining two different things -- routine care, which is not all that expensive and for which the market should work better than it does (and that it doesn't is due to how we handle health care in this country) and catastrophic care, which is routine to some extent only that it hits everyone eventually. The problem is that the latter is a normal insurable type of event, but risks get bad so costs get impossible when one is aging or if one has a condition -- why it's not a free market solvable problem, IMO. The idea that makes sense to me is that we simply cover catastrophic costs through a single payer mechanism and cut out the middle man insurance company and let people deal with routine care on their own. The problem, of course, is that insurance for routine care subsidies the catastrophic care.

Of course, the fact also seems to be that people are way more adverse to cuts (keep your hands of my Medicare) than opposed to growth of gov't spending, which is why the

Quoting Unit: I agree that "conservatives" should be focusing on the issues you mention, but for that matter "liberals" should as well, or the reformers themselves.

Why are they not proposing to realistically address the high costs? (the public option is a bad joke). When you say things like "it's not a free market solvable problem" you're somehow assuming that it's instead a "govt solvable problem", but is it? Can you realistically solve the problem with more govt and at the same time "address the high costs"? What keeps the price of bread so affordable? Is there a law? A public baking alternative? No. Competition is keeping the price down. Competition between private ventures without govt guarantees, competition between bakers that face the realistic threat of going out of business. Not some fake competition between puppet-insurance companies.

I think it is a gov't solvable problem, at least in a different gov't then ours, in that I think it's been largely solved in other countries. I agree with you that liberals (policy wonks generally) ought to be focusing on these problems too, but I've bought into the idea that Dems care about providing care and Republicans about paying for it, so am not

Quoting Bobby G: Yeah, I forgot about the heckler's veto. Thanks for bringing that up.

If Wright is going to be moved by the heckler's veto, then it must be because he thinks we don't have the same responsibilities to avoid instigating the overreaction of bad actors as we do to avoid instigating the overreaction of good actors.

But don't you think Bob's deal is that he's not moved by the heckler's veto or doesn't see the analogy? I'm not sure if he'd agree that the actions of the bad actor/anti free speech person should be taken into account in the 1st amendment case, but from long history he seems to think that we should take into account the negative reaction of the bad actor (terrorist) in the war case. I'm not sure what I think about this, but I know I'm anti heckler's veto, which seems to suggest a conclusion. It also suggests that the argument between Hitchens and Wright is not that there's no bad effect, but the relevancy of the bad effect. I think your analogy between pro life and Muslim views is interesting, so if you feel like

Quoting stephanie: I think it is a gov't solvable problem, at least in a different gov't then ours, in that I think it's been largely solved in other countries.

This is simply not true. Yes of course if you don't look at the 100% of gdp public debts etc...in other words if you narrow in enough maybe it's govt-solved, maybe.

I agree with you that liberals (policy wonks generally) ought to be focusing on these problems too, but I've bought into the idea that Dems care about providing care and Republicans about paying for it, so am not surprised that the focus of the Dems is on providing care but pissed that the Republicans, for political reasons, are playing the death panel card -- in other words, playing on people's worries about cutting Medicare.

I see so Dems should reap the benefits of acting like Santa and Rep should pick up the slack a be the Grinch. But somehow Rep are refusing to play that part. And you're surprised?

I think it's obviously true that the public skepticism about HCR is due to fears for Medicare and one's own entitlements generally, so ought not to please libertarians

Bob shows his elitist attitude "All these decisions" "none of whom have any clue". It's these kinds of statements that create anti-elitist backlash. Even if it's true, and I don't think this is true, that people don't know what they're doing with their choices and they ultimately make stupid and bad decisions in some greater understanding of their lives, people want to be able to make those bad decisions for themselves. Now it's not true at all that people don't have a clue. People know a lot more about what they want then what you think they want. This is why command level decisions fail, because there is a disparity in power versus knowledge. While at the individual level, and small scale levels this disparity isn't that big of a deal (a parent can do what's best for a child, a company can make a decision on behalf of its employees), that knowledge gap starts getting huge when you try to scale it to larger problems. Large scale problems like this one are better solved through openly distributed networks of decision making with distributed resources. I think you're better

Quoting stephanie: I think rcocean is an underrepresented voice on the 'net, as "conservatives" here seem, IME, to be much more libertarian, yet people like rc are much more representative of the Republican Party as it is.

Of course, for the same reason there ought to be more conflict within the Republican Party, as I really don't see the libertarians standing for a lot of the goals of conservativism, and Grover Norquist's takedown of Huckabee ought to be galling. It's especially weird given the love later extended to Palin, whose own policy history was more liberal than Huckabee's,* who was deemed unacceptable, but who merely had a better story, I guess.

*Note that her main policy objectives in AK were farm subsidies for the Mat-Su Valley and taxing oil companies. Plus, in reality, getting federal money. That's not a criticism, it's how AK Republican politics works, and, frankly, AK Republican politics is not socially conservative either, so Palin has been oversold on that front as well, church aside. Okay, not sure why I went off on this, but oh, well.

You make a good point on Palin. We really don't know what kind of Republican she is. She had to toe the McCain line during the campaign and for obvious reasons

Thank you CrowsMakeTools for an excellent contribution. Jay J does a good job arguing that, given no health care delivery system is likely to be perfect, one that delivers care and insures for it in a predominantly for-profit, market-driven way will not do it as equitably as will one in that attempts to deliver it as a "public good," however imperfectly achieved. Kenneth Arrow in 1963 made a case that health care isn't a commodity best traded in an investor-owned for-profit market (http://stevereads.com/papers_to_read...dical_care.pdf). Arrow's still kickin' and stands by his argument. John C. Goodman of the conservative National Center for Policy Analysis says only partly tongue-in-cheek in the introduction to his indictment of half a dozen single payer insurance systems around the world, "Lives at Risk" (2004), "We can potentially spend our entire gross domestic product . . . on health care in useful ways." That way goes Mickey. To write off "best practices" boards such as the one making recommendations on breast cancer screening as servants to politicians doesn't do them justice. "Evidence-based" best practice guidelines may still engender thoughtful disagreement by responsible medical experts and be subject to interpretation--that's the reality

Actually she has a record as Governor. Why that wasn't explored by the MSM god only knows. It could be the MSM preference for focusing on personality and the trite; to actually report is now beyond their scope.

Great post!

Quoting Gulfstream: Thank you CrowsMakeTools for an excellent contribution. Jay J does a good job arguing that, given no health care delivery system is likely to be perfect, one that delivers care and insures for it in a predominantly for-profit, market-driven way will not do it as equitably as will one in that attempts to deliver it as a "public good," however imperfectly achieved. Kenneth Arrow in 1963 made a case that health care isn't a commodity best traded in an investor-owned for-profit market (http://stevereads.com/papers_to_read...dical_care.pdf). Arrow's still kickin' and stands by his argument. John C. Goodman of the conservative National Center for Policy Analysis says only partly tongue-in-cheek in the introduction to his indictment of half a dozen single payer insurance systems around the world, "Lives at Risk" (2004), "We can potentially spend our entire gross domestic product . . . on health care in useful ways." That way goes Mickey. To write off "best practices" boards such as the one making recommendations on breast cancer screening as servants to politicians doesn't do them justice. "Evidence-based" best practice guidelines may still engender thoughtful disagreement by responsible medical experts and be subject to interpretation--that's the reality

So you argue extending some level of risk to 280 + million for the benefit of 20-30 million. Edited

This isn't about economics. This is about values. If you value basic health care for everyone you try to figure out the best way to achieve that goal. If you don't, you make excuses about market efficiencies and the unseen. Economics at best can illuminate the tradeoffs we face. It can't tell us what choice is right. On one side you've got Hayek* and Milton Friedman advocating the government picking up the tab after the first $4-5,000. Among living libertarians, you've got guys like Brink Lindsay and Will Wilkinson advocating similar means to the same ends. You've also got liberals like Matt Yglesias and Ezra Klein looking for supply-side improvements, like removing barriers to entry in the medical professions and for service providers). These are technical debates about the choice of social arrangements to achieve a decent society. On the other hand you've got Unit's market triumphalism, where the idea of goals and values are suspect, and analysis is reduced to contempt of government (or if you're feeling generous, perversity, futility, and jeopardy). * in "The Road to Serfdom": Nor is there any reason why the state should not assist the individuals

Quoting claymisher: This isn't about economics. This is about values. If you value basic health care for everyone you try to figure out the best way to achieve that goal. If you don't, you make excuses about market efficiencies and the unseen. Economics at best can illuminate the tradeoffs we face. It can't tell us what choice is right.

On one side you've got Hayek* and Milton Friedman advocating the government picking up the tab after the first $4-5,000. Among living libertarians, you've got guys like Brink Lindsay and Will Wilkinson advocating similar means to the same ends. You've also got liberals like Matt Yglesias and Ezra Klein looking for supply-side improvements, like removing barriers to entry in the medical professions and for service providers). These are technical debates about the choice of social arrangements to achieve a decent society.

On the other hand you've got Unit's market triumphalism, where the idea of goals and values are suspect, and analysis is reduced to contempt of government (or if you're feeling generous, perversity, futility, and jeopardy).

* in "The Road to Serfdom": Nor is there any reason why the state should not assist the individuals

Quoting Unit: Clay,

I never said I wouldn't support Friedman's Negative Income Tax idea. Some people here are arguing that markets and health-care are incompatible. I think not and I try to defend my ideas. It doesn't make me more of a market triumphalist, than AemJeff a govt triumphalist. We are just debating an issue. Are market-forces desirable or not in health-care? I think we are throwing away a lot of precious benefits by going after genuine profits and genuine competition. The fact that I cannot describe in detail what forms privately supplied health-care would look like is partly because we never had such a system before and partly because that's the point of markets: you can't predict what entrepreneurs will come up with. Are corporate clinics like the Mayo clinic the way to go? Would it be better to rely more on WalMart and other retailer for everyday ailments? I don't know. But I know that markets reliably distribute aspirin, contact lenses, lasik surgery, plastic surgery, family counseling etc....examples aplenty. I also look at the current situation and I see a lot of crony capitalism, legal monopolies, over-regulated too-big-to-fail entities that are too eager to be regulated further as long as the

Quoting Ken Davis: When Hitchens belittles someone on stylistic points - as he did Bob, several times - you know his argument is going to be thin. In this case, it is non-existent. He can blow all he likes about Muslim-on-Muslim-or-non-Muslim violence. We all understand the reality of it. The thing is, Hasan happened to be in the US Armed Forces, not Al Coyote, not the Taliban, not any group other than the one which invaded Iraq twice, invaded Afghanistan, garrisoned troops in Saudi Arabia and Lebanon, and maintained carrier groups in the Indian Ocean and the Persian Gulf which launched countless missiles into Muslim lands. Hundreds of thousands of Muslims were killed by direct result of US attacks. Hundreds of thousands of refugees were created by direct result of US attacks. Hundreds of thousands of Iraqi children died as a result of US sanctions. We bombed the fuck out of city, hamlet, hill and dale from 40,000 feet. With no air opposition.

Yes, the US is no different from Japan and Germany in ww2, bombing indiscriminantly to terrorize civilians.... Congrats on reading Hitchens post without absorbing one iota of substance, yet using it as a means to spread propaganda, including your despicable attempt to characterize UN sanctions

Quoting piscivorous: Actually she has a record as Governor. Why that wasn't explored by the MSM god only knows. It could be the MSM preference for focusing on personality and the trite; to actually report is now beyond their scope.

Yes, she has a record as governor, which is basically federal subisidies, Mat-Su farm subsidies, and oil taxes, as I said. That made her very popular in AK while oil prices were high. Her popularity fell when oil prices did.

Quoting Ken Davis: As I said, you will not be heard. There is no commonality between our points of view. We share no basic assumptions. To market fundies, process is holy and any subsequent outcome is sanctified.

Although your specific terms are loaded to refer to religious beliefs, your essential position describes rationalism perfectly. It's not about the conclusion, it's about the way the conclusion is reached. Normal human instincts are to go for the arguments that result in the conclusion you want, but rationality is about letting the conclusions go and staying fast to standards of argumentation and evidence. The problem - your problem - is that you consider your statements to be criticisms instead of praise.

Quoting stephanie: I do hate how we are approaching the problem, though, as we aren't going to ... get rid of the insurance middleman, or break the tie between employment and healthcare -- all issues conservatives should be focusing on and have in the past,

yep. although I have to say i've really only ever heard those ideas from liberals or democrats. those are certainly the two issues i was hoping to have solved - and of course, they won't be addressed.

Quoting stephanie: but they know the public desire is just for more entitlements.

who is this "public"? nobody that i've ever met. The reason we are getting shitty-ass counter-productive health insurance reform is because Republicans are tacitly siding with the insurance lobby to make sure that no real reform happens.

Quoting popcorn_karate: yep. although I have to say i've really only ever heard those ideas from liberals or democrats. those are certainly the two issues i was hoping to have solved - and of course, they won't be addressed.

who is this "public"? nobody that i've ever met.

The reason we are getting shitty-ass counter-productive health insurance reform is because Republicans are tacitly siding with the insurance lobby to make sure that no real reform happens.

That's oversimplified by an order of magnitude. There are insurance company shills playing both sides of the street, here, believe me. There are perfectly good arguments on the Republican side about insurance company bonanzas, if the Democratic plan passes. One thing is for sure, Republican opposition is far more about beating the Democrats than it is about health care.

Quoting AemJeff: One thing is for sure, Republican opposition is far more about beating the Democrats than it is about health care.

who does that help? oh, the insurance companies that want no real reform? yep. huh almost like they are "tacitly" supporting them... care to object and then re-state my point again? enjoy yourself.

Quoting popcorn_karate: who does that help? oh, the insurance companies that want no real reform? yep. huh almost like they are "tacitly" supporting them...

care to object and then re-state my point again?

enjoy yourself.

The insurance companies will win, either way. The Democrats are as deep in their pockets as the Republicans. Believe me, they'll take "reform" if it implies a net benefit to their bottom line. I'm on the side of the Democrats, to the extent that "pre-existing conditions" are to be eliminated as a disqualifying criterion. But, there are no angels here.

We did not carpet bomb any city or town. Get you facts straight buddy. We've killed plenty of people, but that's because they're fighting us or sadly got caught up in the fight. These things happen in war unfortunately.

Quoting rcocean: In general, I favor policies that benefit the great mass of hard working Americans over those who do no productive work. And we need to take care of those who can't take care of themselves.

"The most merciful thing in the world, I think, is the inability of the human mind to correlate all its contents." - H.P. Lovecraft

Quoting AemJeff: I'm on the side of the Democrats, to the extent that "pre-existing conditions" are to be eliminated as a disqualifying criterion.

So you want to abolish health insurance altogether and replace it with... what, exactly?

Quoting Caledonian: So you want to abolish health insurance altogether and replace it with... what, exactly?

Not what I said. As I said upthread, I've argued this extensively elsewhere on this site, recently. If you want to know what I think, see that thread.

Quoting AemJeff: Not what I said.

You didn't use those words, certainly. But abolishing the pre-existing condition as something that rules out coverage is fundamentally incompatible with the concept of insurance.

Quoting Caledonian: You didn't use those words, certainly. But abolishing the pre-existing condition as something that rules out coverage is fundamentally incompatible with the concept of insurance.

Then call it "Shirley." As long the people who need medical care are systematically excluded, the system is useless.

Quoting AemJeff: Then call it "Shirley." As long the people who need medical care are systematically excluded, the system is useless.

I honestly cannot get over the fact that people are willing to openly advocate total barbarism. These people care more for their abstract theories of economy than they do human life. Invariably, it's the "pro-lifers" who fall most squarely in this camp.

Quoting TwinSwords: I honestly cannot get over the fact that people are willing to openly advocate total barbarism. These people care more for their abstract theories of economy than they do human life.

Invariably, it's the "pro-lifers" who fall most squarely in this camp.

To be fair to Caledonian, this is mostly a semantic argument, probably overlaying an economic one. I personally don't care if what we call "medical insurance" actually conforms to the definition of "insurance," in any real sense. If I'm reading Cal properly, as being engaged in this from a libertarian perspective, then the point is that letting the market do its thing is the best the way to make things fair. It's probably pretty clear by now that I have no faith in markets, specifically in regard to health care, at all. And I surely don't care even a tiny bit about insurer's profits, or think that represent value, independent of their specific function of equalizing the burden of medical costs and risks shared by all of us.

Quoting AemJeff: To be fair to Caledonian, this is mostly a semantic argument, probably overlaying an economic one.

I might have missed some important point he made; I didn't read all of his posts. But by barbarism, I was referring to what I take to be his belief that it's just fine if some people can't get medical care due to prexisting conditions, with all of the attentent implications, because he's more committed to abstract economic theory than actual human life. Then I threw in the snark about how barbarians of this kind often call themselves "pro life." The last bit was snark and possibly not applicable to Caledonian, as I don't know whether he's a typical Republican.

Quoting AemJeff: I personally don't care if what we call "medical insurance" actually conforms to the definition of "insurance," in any real sense.

Yeah, sure; I understood that when you said "call it Shirley." What's important to you is the outcome, the practical result, not the economic ideology. That's a credit to you, IMO.

Quoting AemJeff: If I'm reading Cal properly, as being engaged in this from a libertarian perspective, then the point is that letting the market do its thing is the best the way to make things fair.

Yeah, maybe, I don't know. I don't

Quoting Bobby G: though I don't think Bob think it was unjustified to invade Afghanistan, and he supported the Iraq invasion at the time, no?

Actually, both Bob and Mickey were opposed to the Iraq war at the start. They have discussed this in several diavlogs.

Quoting Caledonian: You didn't use those words, certainly. But abolishing the pre-existing condition as something that rules out coverage is fundamentally incompatible with the concept of insurance.

Eh. I see the point you're making, but I think the real culprit here is community rating, not guaranteed issue. You could force insurers to take all comers but allow them to differentiate on price. That would only work, of course, with a MUCH more aggressive mandate and higher subsidies.

It is a mostly semantic argument, but both you and Twin seemed to have missed what the argument is. The economic definition of insurance (and this is not just a libertarian definition; it's just a technical academic one) is a system of risk pooling in which the cost of buying in is related to the size and probability of loss. Any system of shared health care costs in which individual cost does NOT correlate with risk is, in a technical sense, not insurance. That's all.

Quoting PreppyMcPrepperson: It is a mostly semantic argument, but both you and Twin seemed to have missed what the argument is.

The economic definition of insurance (and this is not just a libertarian definition; it's just a technical academic one) is a system of risk pooling in which the cost of buying in is related to the size and probability of loss. Any system of shared health care costs in which individual cost does NOT correlate with risk is, in a technical sense, not insurance. That's all.

Would it be better to say that covering pre-existing conditions is assurance, not insurance? I think modern medicine has over-taken the concept of insurance, even for the more healthy. If everyone needs immunizations, check-ups, colonoscopies at 50, mammograms at 40, etc., I guess we should just pack it in and go single-payer.

Quoting PreppyMcPrepperson: It is a mostly semantic argument, but both you and Twin seemed to have missed what the argument is.

The economic definition of insurance (and this is not just a libertarian definition; it's just a technical academic one) is a system of risk pooling in which the cost of buying in is related to the size and probability of loss. Any system of shared health care costs in which individual cost does NOT correlate with risk is, in a technical sense, not insurance. That's all.

I do understand that, of course. Maybe I've hidden my argument too well here; but in short form, it's that the insurance model isn't a good fit, and complaining that a solution doesn't follow that model isn't an argument that I credit very highly.

Quoting PreppyMcPrepperson: It is a mostly semantic argument, but both you and Twin seemed to have missed what the argument is.

The economic definition of insurance (and this is not just a libertarian definition; it's just a technical academic one) is a system of risk pooling in which the cost of buying in is related to the size and probability of loss. Any system of shared health care costs in which individual cost does NOT correlate with risk is, in a technical sense, not insurance. That's all.

Did you get that from a book or something?

Quoting AemJeff: I do understand that, of course. Maybe I've hidden my argument too well here; but in short form, it's that the insurance model isn't a good fit, and complaining that a solution doesn't follow that model isn't an argument that I credit very highly.

I have gathered from your previous posts that this is your opinion, Jeff. But I don't think that's quite what you said in this post. Insurance is a pretty clear-cut concept. You believe that health care should not be insured, but funded by some other mechanism entirely. Fair enough. But what you said sounded more like, "Well, I don't accept your [ie Cal's] definition of insurance," which leaves open the notion that his definition is itself subjective and that your disagreement with him lies in how you define insurance. The definition of insurance not subjective. What IS subjective is whether insurance, as objectively defined, applies to the health system at all. You can legitimately argue that it shouldn't but then you need to say exactly that.

Quoting PreppyMcPrepperson: I have gathered from your previous posts that this is your opinion, Jeff. But I don't think that's quite what you said in this post.

Insurance is a pretty clear-cut concept. You believe that health care should not be insured, but funded by some other mechanism entirely. Fair enough. But what you said sounded more like, "Well, I don't accept your [ie Cal's] definition of insurance," which leaves open the notion that his definition is itself subjective and that your disagreement with him lies in how you define insurance. The definition of insurance not subjective. What IS subjective is whether insurance, as objectively defined, applies to the health system at all. You can legitimately argue that it shouldn't but then you need to say exactly that.

Fair enough. My original overly sarcastic response was framed far too sloppily; and my supposedly clarifying response to Twin didn't really clear it up as well it it should have.