Comments on: Proposers versus Producers http://fee.org/articles/tgif/proposers-producers/ Home to freedom and prosperity, and free-market education for over 50 years Fri, 19 Mar 2010 14:23:07 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: Victor RIley http://fee.org/articles/tgif/proposers-producers/comment-page-1/#comment-8946 Victor RIley Sun, 30 Aug 2009 21:04:54 +0000 http://fee.org/?p=8435#comment-8946 I agree that we won't change each others' minds, but I thank you for a useful and enlightening discussion. I would say in parting that I think you can rest easy about what the Obama plan would mean for you personally and others in your situation. The Investor's Business Daily recently published an editorial comparing the Obama plan to the UK system of allocating care based on quality of life and asserting the Dr. Stephen Hawking would never survive in such a system; in fact, Hawking has lived his whole life in the UK and is quite satisfied with his level of care. I think this characterization of the Obama plan is, like many others we have talked about, a myth. In any event, best wishes and thanks again. I agree that we won’t change each others’ minds, but I thank you for a useful and enlightening discussion. I would say in parting that I think you can rest easy about what the Obama plan would mean for you personally and others in your situation. The Investor’s Business Daily recently published an editorial comparing the Obama plan to the UK system of allocating care based on quality of life and asserting the Dr. Stephen Hawking would never survive in such a system; in fact, Hawking has lived his whole life in the UK and is quite satisfied with his level of care. I think this characterization of the Obama plan is, like many others we have talked about, a myth. In any event, best wishes and thanks again.

]]> By: Dr. Steve http://fee.org/articles/tgif/proposers-producers/comment-page-1/#comment-8938 Dr. Steve Sun, 30 Aug 2009 01:07:49 +0000 http://fee.org/?p=8435#comment-8938 Nor am I an economist, but sighting public education as an example of useful utilization of collective resources is a poor example. Public education is rising in cost and the product is declining in value. Society surely does benefit from a well educated populace, but why does one presume that the only way to acheive that is by governmnet intervention? Without government steeling money from citizens at all levels to "educate" or indoctrinate, there would be plenty for private education. If that was insufficient, charity would come into play. Of course it might come with strings attached, like meaningful progress, discipline in the class room, other nonfactors today. Those with wealth would place a higher value on an educated work force than does the government. They would also demand a return on the investment, even if the investment is in the form of charity. I never advocate for abandoning those with chronic conditions. That is precisely what Obama's advisor Dr. Ezechial Emanual is advocating. I contend the free market will better distribute the limited resources(they are limited, as with anything else) than the government, and eventually at a more competitive price. I have been in practice for over 30 years and have seen medicare lead the way limiting access to innovation, recently followed closely behind by insurance. The thing is the government has the power of law/force while the insurance is still a voluntary agreement, although not as free as it might be. Trust me, I want to offer you my services if you and I can agree on their value to you. I want you to go where you think you get a better value. Maybe I change my ways, maybe you decide I am the best for your needs. Societies best interest will be served in the end if you and I interacting, multiplied by millions, is allowed to occur freely. Sadly, I do not think I will change your mind and I know you will not change mine, so I'm done. If your side prevails, I hope you remember this conversation in 5-10 years. I may not be around as I too have a chronic condition. Obama will cut my care off as my age has me having a deminishing value and will redistribute resources elsewhere. You really need to read the writings of Ezechial Emanual. You do not ever want to allow a system that can put someone like him in charge. Maybe Sheldon can provide the link to the article on Germany Health Care a century ago. Nor am I an economist, but sighting public education as an example of useful utilization of collective resources is a poor example. Public education is rising in cost and the product is declining in value. Society surely does benefit from a well educated populace, but why does one presume that the only way to acheive that is by governmnet intervention? Without government steeling money from citizens at all levels to “educate” or indoctrinate, there would be plenty for private education. If that was insufficient, charity would come into play. Of course it might come with strings attached, like meaningful progress, discipline in the class room, other nonfactors today. Those with wealth would place a higher value on an educated work force than does the government. They would also demand a return on the investment, even if the investment is in the form of charity.
I never advocate for abandoning those with chronic conditions. That is precisely what Obama’s advisor Dr. Ezechial Emanual is advocating. I contend the free market will better distribute the limited resources(they are limited, as with anything else) than the government, and eventually at a more competitive price. I have been in practice for over 30 years and have seen medicare lead the way limiting access to innovation, recently followed closely behind by insurance. The thing is the government has the power of law/force while the insurance is still a voluntary agreement, although not as free as it might be. Trust me, I want to offer you my services if you and I can agree on their value to you. I want you to go where you think you get a better value. Maybe I change my ways, maybe you decide I am the best for your needs.
Societies best interest will be served in the end if you and I interacting, multiplied by millions, is allowed to occur freely.
Sadly, I do not think I will change your mind and I know you will not change mine, so I’m done. If your side prevails, I hope you remember this conversation in 5-10 years. I may not be around as I too have a chronic condition. Obama will cut my care off as my age has me having a deminishing value and will redistribute resources elsewhere. You really need to read the writings of Ezechial Emanual. You do not ever want to allow a system that can put someone like him in charge. Maybe Sheldon can provide the link to the article on Germany Health Care a century ago.

]]> By: Victor RIley http://fee.org/articles/tgif/proposers-producers/comment-page-1/#comment-8937 Victor RIley Sun, 30 Aug 2009 00:22:34 +0000 http://fee.org/?p=8435#comment-8937 Oh, yeah, there's one more point I want to make about the statement, "As to your own individual life choices, do you want a colonoscopy or a 50 inch TV? Don’t expect me to provide you either on my buck." This is another misleading rhetorical device. The reality is that you may pay for a tiny fraction of my care, and I would pay for a tiny fraction of yours. Just as I pay for some of your roads, civil defense, law enforcement, the research that makes your livelihood possible in the first place.... Stating that you would be paying for someone else's care is an oversimplification that only distorts the debate, because others pay for the services that you use in turn. Where I think we should draw the line is at the point where society has an interest. I would argue that society has an interest in your health and mine; it doesn't have an interest in your 50 inch TV. Oh, yeah, there’s one more point I want to make about the statement, “As to your own individual life choices, do you want a colonoscopy or a 50 inch TV? Don’t expect me to provide you either on my buck.” This is another misleading rhetorical device. The reality is that you may pay for a tiny fraction of my care, and I would pay for a tiny fraction of yours. Just as I pay for some of your roads, civil defense, law enforcement, the research that makes your livelihood possible in the first place…. Stating that you would be paying for someone else’s care is an oversimplification that only distorts the debate, because others pay for the services that you use in turn. Where I think we should draw the line is at the point where society has an interest. I would argue that society has an interest in your health and mine; it doesn’t have an interest in your 50 inch TV.

]]> By: Victor RIley http://fee.org/articles/tgif/proposers-producers/comment-page-1/#comment-8935 Victor RIley Sat, 29 Aug 2009 22:57:35 +0000 http://fee.org/?p=8435#comment-8935 Dr. Steve, you said, "Insurance for a pre-existing condition is not insurance. The risk is established at 100%. You are seeking discounted managment of a known risk. It would be like insuring a house already on fire." This analogy doesn't hold. People with pre-existing chronic conditions who can management them to keep them from becoming debilitating and expensive can continue to make valuable contributions to society. I'm not an economist, but I think the principle of aligning incentives to societal objectives comes into play when deciding whether or not to use public funds. This is how we treat education - we recognize that society benefits from an educated populace, so we fund public education. Why not do the same for medicine? Doesn't society benefit from a healthy and productive population? It sounds to me that you're advocating a model in which people with chronic conditions are left to suffer and die if they don't have sufficient personal resources to pay for treatment. Is that in society's best interests? Dr. Steve, you said, “Insurance for a pre-existing condition is not insurance. The risk is established at 100%. You are seeking discounted managment of a known risk. It would be like insuring a house already on fire.” This analogy doesn’t hold. People with pre-existing chronic conditions who can management them to keep them from becoming debilitating and expensive can continue to make valuable contributions to society. I’m not an economist, but I think the principle of aligning incentives to societal objectives comes into play when deciding whether or not to use public funds. This is how we treat education – we recognize that society benefits from an educated populace, so we fund public education. Why not do the same for medicine? Doesn’t society benefit from a healthy and productive population? It sounds to me that you’re advocating a model in which people with chronic conditions are left to suffer and die if they don’t have sufficient personal resources to pay for treatment. Is that in society’s best interests?

]]> By: Dr. Steve http://fee.org/articles/tgif/proposers-producers/comment-page-1/#comment-8934 Dr. Steve Sat, 29 Aug 2009 22:29:36 +0000 http://fee.org/?p=8435#comment-8934 Colonoscopy vs TV, your money, your choice. I don't care. It is which you value the most, not me. Maybe you are a TV critic and that is your "contribution" to society. It is not for me or society to mandate how you use your money. The market is not forced to offer you a product with your pre-existing condition because it is distorted by the government tax policies and other regulations. Tax law favors group, employer based policies, limiting the individual policy. Maybe you could get a policy in another state, but you do not have access because of the cartel state establishments. Get the government out of the way, let the market have the chance it has not had for 70 years. Insurance for a pre-existing condition is not insurance. The risk is established at 100%. You are seeking discounted managment of a known risk. It would be like insuring a house already on fire. It is not that I am not sympathetic, but let us be honest about what "insurance" is. Speaking of discounts, maybe a doctor would discount fees to you, but he/she is prohibited by law since the "government" regards that as fraud, accepting less than usual fees or what is submitted to medicare, then disregarded for their allowed. Again, get the damn government out of the way! Colonoscopy vs TV, your money, your choice. I don’t care. It is which you value the most, not me. Maybe you are a TV critic and that is your “contribution” to society. It is not for me or society to mandate how you use your money.
The market is not forced to offer you a product with your pre-existing condition because it is distorted by the government tax policies and other regulations. Tax law favors group, employer based policies, limiting the individual policy. Maybe you could get a policy in another state, but you do not have access because of the cartel state establishments. Get the government out of the way, let the market have the chance it has not had for 70 years.
Insurance for a pre-existing condition is not insurance. The risk is established at 100%. You are seeking discounted managment of a known risk. It would be like insuring a house already on fire. It is not that I am not sympathetic, but let us be honest about what “insurance” is.
Speaking of discounts, maybe a doctor would discount fees to you, but he/she is prohibited by law since the “government” regards that as fraud, accepting less than usual fees or what is submitted to medicare, then disregarded for their allowed. Again, get the damn government out of the way!

]]> By: Victor RIley http://fee.org/articles/tgif/proposers-producers/comment-page-1/#comment-8933 Victor RIley Sat, 29 Aug 2009 19:01:38 +0000 http://fee.org/?p=8435#comment-8933 Dr. Steve, actually the policy I would have wanted would have been unavailable to me at any price because of a pre-existing condition. That's why the health insurance portability provision of HIPAA that Kennedy championed was what made it possible for me to start my own company. Unfortunately, it only applies in cases where people have already had health insurance continuously for the previous 18 months. Those who don't have that history and do have a pre-existing condition simply can't buy insurance. Regarding the colonoscopy vs. TV example, you'll have to explain the logic of that one to me. Are you saying that they're equally enjoyable and equally necessary, and that the consequences of not getting either are comparable, both to me personally and to my future productivity and contributions to society? Dr. Steve, actually the policy I would have wanted would have been unavailable to me at any price because of a pre-existing condition. That’s why the health insurance portability provision of HIPAA that Kennedy championed was what made it possible for me to start my own company. Unfortunately, it only applies in cases where people have already had health insurance continuously for the previous 18 months. Those who don’t have that history and do have a pre-existing condition simply can’t buy insurance.
Regarding the colonoscopy vs. TV example, you’ll have to explain the logic of that one to me. Are you saying that they’re equally enjoyable and equally necessary, and that the consequences of not getting either are comparable, both to me personally and to my future productivity and contributions to society?

]]> By: Dr. Steve http://fee.org/articles/tgif/proposers-producers/comment-page-1/#comment-8929 Dr. Steve Sat, 29 Aug 2009 13:16:06 +0000 http://fee.org/?p=8435#comment-8929 Victor, personal bankruptcy in this country is not due to medical expenses the majority of the time but other poor choices and sometimes rotten luck. Medical expenses are usually a minor percentage in the cases when it is a factor. It is another useful myth. Interestingly, in Canada medical costs are a more frequent major factor. Preventative care is over rated as a total cost reduction measure for society. As to your own individual life choices, do you want a colonoscopy or a 50 inch TV? Don't expect me to provide you either on my buck. If insurance stands between you and the doctor it is because the government rules let them. You cant buy the policy you may want because of state or federal rules getting in the way with mandates, etc. Of course the policy you want in a real market might be priced at about 30-40 K since people want insurance to pay for everything, no restrictions. Victor, personal bankruptcy in this country is not due to medical expenses the majority of the time but other poor choices and sometimes rotten luck. Medical expenses are usually a minor percentage in the cases when it is a factor. It is another useful myth. Interestingly, in Canada medical costs are a more frequent major factor.
Preventative care is over rated as a total cost reduction measure for society.
As to your own individual life choices, do you want a colonoscopy or a 50 inch TV? Don’t expect me to provide you either on my buck.
If insurance stands between you and the doctor it is because the government rules let them. You cant buy the policy you may want because of state or federal rules getting in the way with mandates, etc. Of course the policy you want in a real market might be priced at about 30-40 K since people want insurance to pay for everything, no restrictions.

]]> By: Jacob Steelman http://fee.org/articles/tgif/proposers-producers/comment-page-1/#comment-8926 Jacob Steelman Sat, 29 Aug 2009 09:27:11 +0000 http://fee.org/?p=8435#comment-8926 The ruling elite never misses an opportunity to appeal to the emotions of the citizens to promote the myth of the wisedom of the ruling elite especially the power brokers and propagandists (media and entertainers)whose job it is to promote the policies of the ruling elite. This done to convince the citizens that they should not question the wisedom of the ruling elite no matter what government policy particular members of the ruling elite advocate. The important objective for the ruling elite is to make sure that government and the ruling elite are in control. This way the ruling elites are free to argue,maintain political war and negotiate the polical spoils among themselves unencumbered by the need to pay much, if any, attention to the demands of consumers and the citizens. The loser is the consumer whose votes in the marketplace every day are thwarted in one way or the other by government intervention through taxes (including the hidden tax of inflation),regulation or nationalization whether it be health care, education, automobiles, travel, property ownership, financial services, energy etc. The most intrusive of all government intervention and widely supported by the ruling elites is the central banking system based on a non-asset based fiat currency and fractional reserve system which allows government to avoid the more disciplined method of taxation as a means to raise revenues for government programs, bailouts and nationalizations in favor of the mere printing of fiat currency at will by the central bank. This results in the depreciation in the value of the currency and loss of purchasing power which penalizes thrift and rewards debtors which is favored by the ruling elites. With so much at stake and its policies built on false premises no wonder the ruling elites work hard to maintain the myth of their infinite wisedom in economic policies and political solutions to all matters. The ruling elite never misses an opportunity to appeal to the emotions of the citizens to promote the myth of the wisedom of the ruling elite especially the power brokers and propagandists (media and entertainers)whose job it is to promote the policies of the ruling elite. This done to convince the citizens that they should not question the wisedom of the ruling elite no matter what government policy particular members of the ruling elite advocate. The important objective for the ruling elite is to make sure that government and the ruling elite are in control. This way the ruling elites are free to argue,maintain political war and negotiate the polical spoils among themselves unencumbered by the need to pay much, if any, attention to the demands of consumers and the citizens. The loser is the consumer whose votes in the marketplace every day are thwarted in one way or the other by government intervention through taxes (including the hidden tax of inflation),regulation or nationalization whether it be health care, education, automobiles, travel, property ownership, financial services, energy etc. The most intrusive of all government intervention and widely supported by the ruling elites is the central banking system based on a non-asset based fiat currency and fractional reserve system which allows government to avoid the more disciplined method of taxation as a means to raise revenues for government programs, bailouts and nationalizations in favor of the mere printing of fiat currency at will by the central bank. This results in the depreciation in the value of the currency and loss of purchasing power which penalizes thrift and rewards debtors which is favored by the ruling elites. With so much at stake and its policies built on false premises no wonder the ruling elites work hard to maintain the myth of their infinite wisedom in economic policies and political solutions to all matters.

]]> By: Don’t be an intellectual drunk driver : Minor Thoughts http://fee.org/articles/tgif/proposers-producers/comment-page-1/#comment-8918 Don’t be an intellectual drunk driver : Minor Thoughts Sat, 29 Aug 2009 04:16:04 +0000 http://fee.org/?p=8435#comment-8918 [...] Sheldon Richman on “Proposers versus Producers.” [...] [...] Sheldon Richman on “Proposers versus Producers.” [...]

]]> By: Victor RIley http://fee.org/articles/tgif/proposers-producers/comment-page-1/#comment-8916 Victor RIley Sat, 29 Aug 2009 02:50:47 +0000 http://fee.org/?p=8435#comment-8916 Dr. Steve, not to take this too far down the road of the current health insurance debate, but I see two common assumptions in your response: first, that consumers need to have more skin in the game in order to control costs; and second, that government involvement will overly constrain doctors' treatment options. I don't think that either is necessarily true. For one, I think the rate of personal bankruptcies due to medical expenses demonstrates that consumers already have plenty of skin in the game, and a $20 K deductible wouldn't do much to stem that tide. Also, as you undoubtedly know, under-use of medical services early on leads to much higher expenses and worse outcomes later, and high-deductible insurance will just perpetuate this pattern. For the second, when people talk about government bureaucrats standing between you and your doctor, how is that any different from what insurance company do already? Dr. Steve, not to take this too far down the road of the current health insurance debate, but I see two common assumptions in your response: first, that consumers need to have more skin in the game in order to control costs; and second, that government involvement will overly constrain doctors’ treatment options. I don’t think that either is necessarily true. For one, I think the rate of personal bankruptcies due to medical expenses demonstrates that consumers already have plenty of skin in the game, and a $20 K deductible wouldn’t do much to stem that tide. Also, as you undoubtedly know, under-use of medical services early on leads to much higher expenses and worse outcomes later, and high-deductible insurance will just perpetuate this pattern. For the second, when people talk about government bureaucrats standing between you and your doctor, how is that any different from what insurance company do already?

]]> By: Donald M. Coder http://fee.org/articles/tgif/proposers-producers/comment-page-1/#comment-8915 Donald M. Coder Sat, 29 Aug 2009 02:30:51 +0000 http://fee.org/?p=8435#comment-8915 Kennedy? He just died? Was he the one whose father sold steel to the Japanese during World War II? I remember issues of death, alcohol, Marxist economic policies, and moral problems. Is that the one? Kennedy? He just died? Was he the one whose father sold steel to the Japanese during World War II? I remember issues of death, alcohol, Marxist economic policies, and moral problems. Is that the one?

]]> By: Dr. Steve http://fee.org/articles/tgif/proposers-producers/comment-page-1/#comment-8913 Dr. Steve Fri, 28 Aug 2009 23:59:30 +0000 http://fee.org/?p=8435#comment-8913 Victor, I do not favor any government health insurance, BUT if the universal policy were insurance for catastrophic events, after say a 20,000 dollar deduction first paid by the patient, it would more appropriate. You do not want insurance, you want someone else to pay for your wants/needs or me to supply them at only your terms. You want to unleash your talent but constrain mine. Victor, I do not favor any government health insurance, BUT if the universal policy were insurance for catastrophic events, after say a 20,000 dollar deduction first paid by the patient, it would more appropriate. You do not want insurance, you want someone else to pay for your wants/needs or me to supply them at only your terms.
You want to unleash your talent but constrain mine.

]]> By: Why are politicians celebrated? - Orange Punch - OCRegister.com http://fee.org/articles/tgif/proposers-producers/comment-page-1/#comment-8910 Why are politicians celebrated? - Orange Punch - OCRegister.com Fri, 28 Aug 2009 23:09:08 +0000 http://fee.org/?p=8435#comment-8910 [...] Richman of the Foundation for Economic Education has some delightfully irreverent thoughts on the phenomenon that politicians (he calls them “proposers,” some might call them [...] [...] Richman of the Foundation for Economic Education has some delightfully irreverent thoughts on the phenomenon that politicians (he calls them “proposers,” some might call them [...]

]]> By: Victor RIley http://fee.org/articles/tgif/proposers-producers/comment-page-1/#comment-8906 Victor RIley Fri, 28 Aug 2009 21:25:44 +0000 http://fee.org/?p=8435#comment-8906 I agree with the point about employer-based health insurance. It certainly locks otherwise entrepreneurial people into "safe" jobs that may make suboptimal use of their skills, talents, and energy. I think that universal health insurance would unleash a wave of entrepreneurship in the US that would increase our productivity and improve our long-term competitive position in the world. I agree with the point about employer-based health insurance. It certainly locks otherwise entrepreneurial people into “safe” jobs that may make suboptimal use of their skills, talents, and energy. I think that universal health insurance would unleash a wave of entrepreneurship in the US that would increase our productivity and improve our long-term competitive position in the world.

]]> By: Sheldon Richman http://fee.org/articles/tgif/proposers-producers/comment-page-1/#comment-8904 Sheldon Richman Fri, 28 Aug 2009 20:16:58 +0000 http://fee.org/?p=8435#comment-8904 I think your second point is worthwhile. Both excuses are used cynically, each by a different political-cultural faction. Each can be the last refuge of a scoundrel. As to your first point, we wouldn't have needed the portability act -- a mere Band-Aid -- if employer-based insurance didn't exist. It exists because of the tax laws, and I am not aware that Kennedy ever did anything to oppose it. He supported employer-based insurance (until he could get single-payer). Using tax manipulation, he also pushed HMOs to cut costs, which people came to hate. I believe he saw them as useful in preparing us for universal Medicare. I think your second point is worthwhile. Both excuses are used cynically, each by a different political-cultural faction. Each can be the last refuge of a scoundrel.

As to your first point, we wouldn’t have needed the portability act — a mere Band-Aid — if employer-based insurance didn’t exist. It exists because of the tax laws, and I am not aware that Kennedy ever did anything to oppose it. He supported employer-based insurance (until he could get single-payer). Using tax manipulation, he also pushed HMOs to cut costs, which people came to hate. I believe he saw them as useful in preparing us for universal Medicare.

]]> By: Victor RIley http://fee.org/articles/tgif/proposers-producers/comment-page-1/#comment-8901 Victor RIley Fri, 28 Aug 2009 17:10:47 +0000 http://fee.org/?p=8435#comment-8901 Two points. First, Kennedy actually did make us better off - the health insurance portability requirements contained in the HIPAA legislation that he championed made it possible for me to leave a corporate job and start a consulting practice that enabled me to be more of a producer and more than doubled my income. That would not have been possible without those provisions. Second, referring to the sentence above that reads, "The dynamic leader who gives impassioned speeches and sponsors legislation on behalf of social justice appears heroic in part because few people can find the logical flaws in the program", I think this point is more true if you replace the words "social justice" with the word "patriotism". Invoking patriotism leads people to blindly accept all kinds of practices that go against American values and even the Constitution. I think recent history shows that this is much more of a problem than any action of behalf of social justice. Two points. First, Kennedy actually did make us better off – the health insurance portability requirements contained in the HIPAA legislation that he championed made it possible for me to leave a corporate job and start a consulting practice that enabled me to be more of a producer and more than doubled my income. That would not have been possible without those provisions. Second, referring to the sentence above that reads, “The dynamic leader who gives impassioned speeches and sponsors legislation on behalf of social justice appears heroic in part because few people can find the logical flaws in the program”, I think this point is more true if you replace the words “social justice” with the word “patriotism”. Invoking patriotism leads people to blindly accept all kinds of practices that go against American values and even the Constitution. I think recent history shows that this is much more of a problem than any action of behalf of social justice.

]]> By: TGIF: Proposers versus Producers | Anything Peaceful http://fee.org/articles/tgif/proposers-producers/comment-page-1/#comment-8896 TGIF: Proposers versus Producers | Anything Peaceful Fri, 28 Aug 2009 14:22:52 +0000 http://fee.org/?p=8435#comment-8896 [...] The rest of TGIF is here. [...] [...] The rest of TGIF is here. [...]

]]>