is anyone aware if this project is already being done by someone?
if not, perhaps we can brainstorm how to go about this, now that the pdf for the revised nwt is out.
a couple initial impressions:.
Apognophos,
I cursory look at some of the scriptures in Genesis reveals that pretty much every verse is different in minor ways. I thought they had reprinted the NWT with minor changes here and there and we wanted to see where those minor changes were (by using a program to detect all of them).
Now, since the changes are in every verse, how did you envision the output of this process?
MMM
is anyone aware if this project is already being done by someone?
if not, perhaps we can brainstorm how to go about this, now that the pdf for the revised nwt is out.
a couple initial impressions:.
Ummm.. that's a good question. You never really know until you try to extract the text. I usually just use iText PDF library. There is java version and a .NET version. The java version might interest you, since you seem to be into the unix/linux side of the world. I also have some PDF libraries that I paid for, but oddly enough, I don't usually go to them.
The old one can be pulled off the website easily. Notice that you can get to each chapter just by the url :http://www.jw.org/en/publications/bible/nwt/books/genesis/1/
I'll try to grab it and parse through it tomorrow.
MMM
is anyone aware if this project is already being done by someone?
if not, perhaps we can brainstorm how to go about this, now that the pdf for the revised nwt is out.
a couple initial impressions:.
I am a programmer. I can extract the text quite easily. I've made many programs to parse through PDF files.
I've often wanted to do something like that - get the content out of different version of the WTLIB and see if anything has changed between versions. Although the WTLIB is not PDF, I can still force the content out through some automated WinAPI calls. But alas! - I don't have the time.
Where do you get the PDF?
MMM
they seem determined to undermine the us democracy and shut the government down hurting employees and veterans.. what a despicable bunch, hope they get their asses kicked for what they are doing..
" In reality we have moved further and further from regulations over the last 40 years. More and more like "free market". The closer we get the worse it is for today's consumers (and workers)."
How have me moved closer to a free market in health care?
they seem determined to undermine the us democracy and shut the government down hurting employees and veterans.. what a despicable bunch, hope they get their asses kicked for what they are doing..
jgnat,
Big pharma are not a government created monopoly...they are a market created monopoly!
I'm going to start a separate thread about patent, copyright, and open data.
Sounds good. I'll comment on monoplies on your new thread.
So, why don't you believe that inelastic demand puts a gun to our head?
I've been detailing it in the posts between DogGone and I. But I don't blame you for not reading them. I was long-winded. When there is consumer choice, competition will drive down the price of any good or service, even if it has inelastic demand - that is a good in which the quantity demanded doesn't depend on price. It is granted that if a product has inelastic demand, it is an upward pressure on prices. BUT ONLY IF it is in the context of a monopoly. Otherwise, consumer choice will undercut that upward pressure and start to lower prices.
MMM
they seem determined to undermine the us democracy and shut the government down hurting employees and veterans.. what a despicable bunch, hope they get their asses kicked for what they are doing..
Berengaria,
" What exactly does this mean?? It is nothing more than health insurance. What is different per healthcare??"
It is mandated insurance, with a bunch of mandates on the insurance company. You don't think its a move toward single payer?
" I would have paid far less if anything. Why would any of it rise under ACA?"
I would have paid a lot less too, if we had a free market. The reason I paid for it is because I am connected to the cost through a high-deductible insurance plan. That is, I have to pick up the cost up to my deductible amount. The problem is that over decades, we've moved away from a market in the US. We simply don't have it.
In short, it will cause the prices from the service providers and drug companies to rise because the consumers are not connected to the cost. I don't blame you for not reading the posts between DogGone and I. They are long and drawn out, but that's the short n' sweet of it. You, Berengaria, may pay less - but the price from the doctor is still being paid by someone else. The doctor has no reason to lower the price of the service.
MMM
they seem determined to undermine the us democracy and shut the government down hurting employees and veterans.. what a despicable bunch, hope they get their asses kicked for what they are doing..
jgnat,
You wrote:
Here's another idea to reduce the cost of pharmaceuticals.
http://www.ted.com/talks/thomas_pogge_medicine_for_the_99_percent.html
This speaker explains how the market system results in higher costs. Right now pharmaceutical companies waste a lot of money on marketing, patent registration, defending themselves against generics, and suing each other.
Boy oh boy, you certainly have a lot of videos to watch. I watched them both. The first one hit on something I agree with - the patent wars, so-to-speak. Thomas Pogge references the vast sums of money spent each year on pharma companies suing each other, spurred on by the various patents each owns company owns.
Also, I wrote my last post in a hurry. I should have waited, but I made the decision to hit Submit and then I ran out the door. When I said "the patent pool is fine", I wanted to add that they would work much better under the total abolition of patents. In fact I would expect to see pools as part of a market response. There have been patent pools in the past, mostly set up voluntarily by the free market as an attempt to get around deadlock created by patent law. They would provide a vehicle for inventors to get paid for thier inventions. But again, that's a market approach. What we need is a market, a true market.
I also would like to note that so far we have been talking about extreme cases in the healthcare industry (monopolies and patents). Even then, a market seems preferrable. This is not what the ACA is about. It is not just seeking to cover these drugs. It is a general law covering every facit of healthcare. I still do think that it will continue to cause prices to rise until rationing is put in place. These are real concerns, not just some knee-jerk reaction to the "evils" of socialism. For example, you were describing the town of Grande Cache, I believe:
We have a few doctors, and experiencing our first shortage in years. Wait time (other than emergency) is about a month. We have a hospital but no surgery. People requiring emergency surgery are airlifted out, and expecting mothers have to "book" their deliveries and hope nature lines up with their best-laid plans. Medical care all falls under Alberta Health Services (provincial). All medical care is "free", including the airlifts.
This amazed me. About a year ago I got pnuemonia. It started out like a really bad cold and so I stayed home from work, looking to wait it out, like I do for any common cold. I remember waking up in the morning and hearing some raspy sounds in my lungs. It was at this point I realized something was wrong, although I had no idea what it might be at that point. I called my doctor and was in within an hour. I had antibiotics within the next 30 minutes, and a chest x-ray within the next 15 min. I was home within a couple hours with all the medication I needed. Two days later, I was on the mend and went back to work. I paid $90 for the doctor office visit. $15 for the x-ray, and $7 for the antibiotics, all of which would rise in price under the ACA (and fall under a market). You might argue: "See, you had an inelastic demand! You needed to go to the doctor, and the doctor could raise the price to whatever she wanted." Well, she could try. But there is another doctor down the road. I could just go there. In fact, I drove past several doctors on my way to my current doctor because I am attached to the cost of my care via a high-deductible plan. I shopped around prior to this incident. Now, if I had an ACA-like bill covering my expenses, I surely wouldn't shop around, and my doctor surely would raise the price further, up and up and up.
MMM
they seem determined to undermine the us democracy and shut the government down hurting employees and veterans.. what a despicable bunch, hope they get their asses kicked for what they are doing..
jgnat,
You wrote:
MMM, where did I say scrap the patent system? I suggest the patent pool, exactly what the speaker is promoting.
The Vlog brothers always talk fast. They have a self-imposed limit of five minutes, and they cram in as much as they can. They are also factual.
I fail to see how you have concluded from all this that too much government intervention has led to rising prices. Canada has loads more government intervention, and our costs are lower. As does Europe. As the brother says so well, it's the loaded gun to your head - inelastic demand - that leads to high prices.
Oh, I wasn't suggesting that you said it. I said it, but I was asking your opinion based upon perceived common ground: mainly that patent law causes a lot of issues. And don't like the idea of patents for more than medical reasons. Since I deal in computer science, I am reminded of the $200 million patent infringment case against Microsoft back in 2009 (I think it was 2009). They were hit hard just because some small company came up with a way of organizing documents via custom XML (something I thought would clearly be in the public domain). It seems just flat out dumb for it not to be. But there you go, MS has to pay $200 million (actually, I think it was more after the appeal). I was left thinking, "Wait wait.. I've used custom XML in some of my file formats, letting users link around files I've creates with XML markup... does that mean I'm in violation?" (not that I made enough money for i4i (company that sued MS) to be interested in me. Or how about the 2000 case from British Telecommunications - attempting to collect on their patent claim to the hyperlink. Yes, the plain ol' internet hyperlink. More in the area of health, I read a few interesting articles (don't have the links right now, but I could find them) about the invention of the MRI. Raymond Damadian was a smart guy, but he sucked at actually building machines around his invention. General Electric was trying to produce one, for much less, and it was much more reliable. There was another company trying to produce an MRI machine (can't rememeber the name right now). Sensing his competition was about to produce a better machine, he appealed to patent law and shut the entire bunch down. And so, we get what we get... expensive MRIs for years upon years.
The patent pool is fine, but if the patent laws were abolished it would be even better. The market would most likely turn Big Pharma into a lot of tiny pharma's. The best pay day would be to try to invent and enter into contracts with producers of drugs for a percentage of sale. That would probably also cause more pharmas to concentrate on the drugs needed for the greater population, instead of just the rich.
As I have stated with DogGone, I don't think inelastic demand in and of itself is a "gun to the head." It leads to high prices if there's no consumer choice, as your example of Big Pharma illustrates - a goverment created monopoly.
MMM
they seem determined to undermine the us democracy and shut the government down hurting employees and veterans.. what a despicable bunch, hope they get their asses kicked for what they are doing..
jgnat,
Your first video: (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qSjGouBmo0M&feature=player_embedded) - I did watch it but I did not comment on it. The maker of the video (vlogbrothers) fires off many many points, hard and fast. It makes it tough to respond to everything there. However, since I agree with a lot of what he says, it is somewhat easier. I have no reason to really disagree; he is right, we spend way too much on healthcare. The problem is not over utilization, it is not that we are inherently sicker, and it is not because things just cost a lot here. I keep bringing it up that people aught to ask why it costs so much, not attempt to just pay for it. I also do not think it is because of inelastic demand. It is because we have systematically, over a long time, gone away from the free market and caused all sorts of distortions in the pricing mechanism.
One interesting point - he mentions malpractice insurance somewhere around minute 4. He states that it can't be that either because Texas enacted Tort reform (although I don't know the details, I can assume it was meaningful reform for the sake of the argument) and the cost of healthcare fell only 0.1%. I have no reason to disagree, after all, what is pushing the price down? It is not enough just to remove the barrier for the price to fall, you must also have a meaningful market with competition to push down the prices. That doesn't happen the way we currently do things (employer based insurance or medicare or medicaid).
I think the point I've been trying hard to make is that the way things are now - as messed up as they are - have come about by a process, a process that started with wage controls during WWII, and continued on to today. More and more of the free market was replaced with subsidies, distortions, or special privileges. Which leads me into your second video:
http://www.ted.com/talks/ellen_t_hoen_pool_medical_patents_save_lives.html
Again, I agree with her. You said: "Pharmaceuticals build their entire business model on coming up with a unique product that can only be supplied by them... until the patent expires." They build their model around the patent law. Ellen in your video states just as much. So what do you think would happen if we just got rid of patents? Note: getting rid of patents is not MORE government, it is LESS - since they are just government sanctioned monopolies.
MMM
they seem determined to undermine the us democracy and shut the government down hurting employees and veterans.. what a despicable bunch, hope they get their asses kicked for what they are doing..
DogGone,
Thank-you for your congratulations… I’m not looking forward to the sleep deprivation…
Actually, I shouldn't say that. It really depends on the baby. Is this your first? Our current newborn is #3. She is doing very well with her feedings (gained back all the weight she lost in the hospital), and at times sleeps for stretches of six hours. If this is your first, I don't want to freak you out or anything.. :) I am losing more sleep because I juggle the family with three jobs.
Thank-you, also, for your excellent post. It is certainly working my faculties.
Same here. I have to say that I think I see more clearly where we view things differently.
That is why I mentioned that I had equivocated between a specific item and the category. I’m going to clarify that statement to get at what I mean. Food items normally do conform to the law of demand. Many healthcare items and many healthcare services do not. What do I mean by normally? Normally means absence a general famine. When there is not a famine the substitution effect takes over and reduces quantity. Tomatoes are too expensive so I buy apples. In many, but not all, cases the substitution effect is largely absent from healthcare items and services. If a bone marrow transplant is needed I cannot choose a hip replacement instead.
Ahh, I see what you mean now. And I agree we should stay away from mixing the entire industry (healthcare) and a single product (tomatoes). I'm with you on that. But there are points of disagreement. But first, another point of agreement. I believe we are on the same page in regards to natural disasters, things like a famine due to crop failure or massive storm damage. You asked this of me before, but I don't believe I answered it directly: "In a famine situation demand is inelastic. In a famine, what do you think the government should do? Nothing? Let those who have the money pay for it and get it? In answering this question I'd appreciate knowing how this differs from healthcare."
I feel it is perfectly fine to supply aid to areas and populations at times like these. And I think this position is consistent with a libertarian ideology. But there is a big difference between aiding during times of disaster, and providing ongoing, continuous subsidies each and every day as a matter of policy. But still, any government aid should be structured in a way that it doesn't mess with the free market in the area. That is, any aid should operate within the market itself and it should be focused. I know that is hard for government to do. Otherwise it would send the wrong message - that people shouldn't actually take care to insure their property. People aren't stupid. If they see a bailout all the time, it causes them to adjust their view of risk.
A good example of this would be what most people consider "price gouging" during times of disaster. The price of a good contains a lot of information about supply and demand, and it acts as a signal for both the supplier and the consumer. When its adjusted during times of disaster, that adjustment can cause more problems and suffering than what otherwise would have been. Let me give you an example: I lived in Florida as hurricane Andrew passed through in 1992. I wasn't near the most damaged areas (I was far north of Miami), but we did get a bunch or rain and wind. After it was all over, there were some people selling gasoline for a high price (I think it was $15/gallon, but I can't really remember the exact number). I remember this because it was on the news. We saw long lines of people looking to get some gas for their generators and cars, and they were paying the higher price. But after a while, the police came by and took the men away for price gouging - taking advantage of those poor people in the time of a disaster. As they drove away, the line of people all clapped…… then they went home cold and without the gas they needed to stay warm. Something similar happened just a year a go with hurricane Sandy. Congress did vote for a huge relief package for New Jersey, and the news acted like it would all be OK. But months after the relief package was passed, there were people still without power, and there were still gas shortages within the affected areas. Why? Because the price wasn't allowed to rise on a good with seemingly inelastic demand (the demand didn't stop - they wanted to purchase the same quantity, and they couldn't substitute it with another good, and price wouldn't have been a factor). It should have been allowed to rise with no regulation. Yes, people would have flocked in with their own containers of gas and sold it at very high prices. But that high price would have been a signal to suppliers: "Make lots of money here!! Get gas to this area! We need it!" As the gas became available again, the price would then fall. In the mean time, people get what they need. This is in contrast to the federal goverment throwing money at it, which left people out in the cold (literally).
This is a good transition into healthcare - back into the law of demand. I agree that for some goods and services, you can substitute with something else, and for others you cannot. However, I don't feel it makes the market "special". In the example of my wife, seeking a chiropractor, you mentioned that the demand from our perspective was inelastic - that is we were still going to seek out the services no matter what. But that's when a market is needed the most. Yes, it really may be the case that we can not substitute a chiropractor treatment with some other alternative, but we can substitute providers! My wife needed that treatment, but even though she was in pain, she (not me) made the decision to get the heck out of there and seek out a competitor. Now let's assume for a moment that we went home and found no other competitor with a cheaper price. What do we do then? Do we throw up our hands and declare that the market just failed? No, the price, as it does with gasoline during a hurricane, holds important information. It is telling would-be providers of chiropractic services, "Make money here! Come provide this service!" The result would be, over the long term, more chiropractors and a lower price with more real availability to care of that sort.
That is why I was bringing up monopolies in my previous post. In the cases of products that are not subject to substitution, and products that are needed, rather than wanted, and therefore would seem like the law of demand is suspended, there is only a real problem if there is the customer can't go somewhere else to get the product.
In summary, I don't think inelastic demand really is a problem as long as there is competition. It underscores the importance of a real market. It also cuts to the core of my issue with ACA and single payer - it eliminates the competitive forces. For competition to really work you need 1) competitors, and 2) consumers that discriminate between competitors on price.
It really is a special market. Many items and many services have highly inflexible demand and are not subject to the substitution effect. I’m not going to try to argue all the factors of why it is so high… I’m nowhere near knowledgeable enough to engage that debate. I’m arguing, though, that it is a special market. Government involvement can have favorable or unfavorable effects on the allocation of services, on pricing, and on quality of delivery. However, government involvement does not change the fundamentals I’m referring to. It can be a countervailing force, however.
I don't think I should repeat too much. Many of the things I wrote in the previous section apply here. For those goods or services that view as inelastic, with no substitution, can a consumer get the good or service elsewhere?
Curious: how do you feel about car parts? If I want a new alternator for my 2004 Mitsubishi Outlander, I certainly can't substitute that part with a carburetor. I can't even substitute it with other alternators. I need one made for my car only. But its a good thing that I don't need to get it from the manufacturer. There are substitute providers, and so I pay less.
Upon reading and rereading your post, I think that after giving an excellent explanation of inelastic demand you then fail to use it correctly. When economists routinely write about inelastic demand they are referring, as you noted, to “where the demand doesn’t change so much in relation to price.” Inelasticity of demand has an effect on market fundamentals and it doesn’t have to approach perfect inelasticity for this effect to be dramatic.
Hmmmm.. Perhaps I did use it incorrectly. I wouldn't be surprised if I messed it up a bit. It was 3 AM after all. It'll happen to you too soon…ooops.. never mind, I shouldn't say that… don't want to freak you out. :)
Can you expand on what you mean by "market fundamentals"? - it is an overused term and I'm not sure what you mean by it. What effects are you referring to? Higher price?
I agree that a monopoly distorts the market effect, of course, as you note in your illustration of the desert town. (A strange town legislature that would grant a monopoly to an essential service but fail to regulate it). It is convenient to your argument that the desert town suffered a monopoly due to government interference. However, it does not have to be so. Let’s take this same town with no government interfering in the control and distribution of the water supply. An individual puts the capital into digging the well. He then creates the distribution network to deliver the water. He has a natural monopoly due to being first to market and to the high barrier to entry for any competitor. It is not perfectly inelastic at any price point as people would, at extreme prices, take tankers to other towns, walk miles to get water, etc. Nevertheless, the market forces are distorted because there are no easy substitutes, the demand is highly inelastic. After all, in the free market this entrepreneur should and will charge what he or she can.
Now, I’m not creating a straw man here, I know you weren’t arguing that monopolies are only caused by governments. I merely wanted to illustrate where government interference is required in a market distorted by highly inelastic demand. (Note: we should not confuse inelastic demand and inelastic need. It does not have to be a need, as in our discussion, to distort the market)
Like I said, I like to use illustrations, but I know each illustration has its limits. They never correspond to reality in every way, but rather just a few ways. But I am glad the illustration didn't blow up on me. I have you to thank for that because you didn't take it too far beyond what it was meant to illustrate. I agree with your point that there might be high start-up costs for a new well owner. Nevertheless, the barrier will be broken quite easily when the price rises. It will send a signal to others to risk the cost to start another well, or take out a loan for start-up resources. The only way to prevent that from occurring is to legally prohibit it. Up to that point I think the illustration is sound. But if you go too much farther, it starts to unravel. For example, you might say that it seems odd a legislature would do such a thing, seeing that they would be voted out next election cycle and replaced with people that would lift the drilling monopoly. I think my main reason for bringing that into the illustration is that we have now, in our current US economy, a whole heck of a lot of companies in bed with the government. They go to the government to ask for special privileges usually under the guise of "helping the middle class". In reality, its just to try to get law to step in and limit competition.
Your monopoly illustration is analogous, as you suggest, to drug companies with patents on life saving medicine. (Side point: monopolies cause price distortions which cost the consumer more. However a monopsony can reduce prices as is widely seen in state run healthcare.)
I am very skeptical of that last statement. In the case of a monopsony in healthcare, the state declares it is the only payer. All the providers need to come to the table and give a good deal! No state contract for those providers that do not give a good deal. This works for a while, but those companies that are outbid will soon go away (there is only one payer after all). Effectively, the competition is eliminated and a monopoly is created. The last company standing then can raise prices.
But, all of this is beside the point. The inelasticity of the demand (quantity) presents a strong resistance to natural free market forces. It does not require a monopoly and does not require a lack of supplier choice for a given service or item. What is requires is a poor elasticity in the QUANTITY demanded despite any given price for a specific service or item. This is where I believe you err: “I would say you are right only because government subsidies necessarily discourage people from the activities that would make it elastic.” I agree that government subsidies discourage people from making sensible market driven decisions about healthcare which further compound the problem. Your story about your wife’s need is illustrative of the value of deductibles and copays in helping shape efficient consumer behavior. We are not as far apart as you might think.
However, although you made a smart price decision your wife’s demand was highly inelastic. At the end of the day, the demand was still 1. You had a choice of suppliers and a choice of prices. That did not mean you had elastic demand. Of course, given an inelastic demand you will still make a smart price choice. But, the quantity was not affected. You were not able to say, well, at that price I will just get a drug instead (see, I’ve learned about the restrictions on drugs for pregnant ladies!). I believe you are mistaking consumer choice in a given buying situation among prices and suppliers with the demand itself.
The central question is not whether we can ensure that there are market forces at play to ensure consumers make better price decisions (I believe the ACA encourages copays and deductibles???) but whether the market is special because, as I claim, it is subject to highly inelastic demand.
Inelastic demand is an effect even when there are choices of suppliers and prices. If you did not find a less pricy chiropractic service, in fact, if you found that all the others were 10% HIGHER you would go back to that practice and get the procedure. The sticker shock would be the same. Your power to negotiate a better price for the product would not be.
And here is where you need to flesh it out. When you say, it "does not require a lack of supplier choice" - for that statement specifically, please give the economic "why" and "how". Step through it for me. Remember, we are trying to answer whether or not a product with inelastic demand makes it "special" so that it needs to be socialized. You write about it a little bit above. You said, "I believe you are mistaking consumer choice in a given buying situation among prices and suppliers with the demand itself." I don't think I am confusing them; rather, I am saying the consumer choice matters. The pure existence of a product with inelastic demand doesn't mean its "special" and requires government takeover.
Your last sentence there: "If you did not find a less pricy chiropractic service, in fact, if you found that all the others were 10% HIGHER you would go back to that practice and get the procedure. The sticker shock would be the same. Your power to negotiate a better price for the product would not be." - I addressed this in the first section. Yes, you are right. At that moment, for my case, I would go with the cheapest price (the original one). But since chiropractors have been working in this area for decades, we had choice through competition, and a lower price was paid. When the consumer is removed from the cost, however, it has the opposite effect - and that's what I want to avoid.
We still may differ in reference to copays. I don't think copays do anything. I could go to the expensive doctor and pay $30. Or I can go to the cheap one and pay $30. Deductibles are good because for a portion of the policy, the consumer is directly connected to the cost. I think everyone should have just a catastrophic plan - although I am not saying it should be forced on anyone.
Market prices also drive the input costs. At the macro level, I believe the demand elasticity has a particularly strong effect on highly specialized inputs. I can’t pay my employees too much or the market will not bear the cost of our services. However, if the market was less elastic I could. I need my specialized team and so do my competitors. Wage costs could go up until this class of specialized folks were paid the most the market can bear. That occurs in efficient market dynamics too, but in a market distorted by inelastic demand for a highly specialized service (skill) or product that ceiling is much higher. It illustrates why the free market is not enough to produce efficient pricing when the forces are out of balance.
Hmm, but I don't see it that way. I see a highly specialized team getting paid a lot of money. That price signals the future producers of that labor (students looking to find a career) to invest in education so that they too can earn a lot of money meeting the obvious demand for those skills.
I disagree. You might want to say “unless you price fix by law OR ration care”.… Even still, those nations with the most socialized healthcare frequently provide better outcomes for less cost per patient (or by GDP) than the US. Monopsonies are highly effective against natural monopolies and are also a counter weight to inelastic demand (IMHO).
Yes, I concede I should have said "OR"… actually, on second thought we both messed up. It should be "AND/OR". It could be one or the other or both. I need to come back and re-address this statement at another time, maybe tonight or tomorrow. You say "better outcomes" - how can you be so sure? How do you define "better"? Monopsonies tend to make artificial monopolies…
I think you made a mistake there. A glut of services will cause a decrease in price. I think you meant that price fixing causes a decrease in services. We have seen this in Canada where some specialists move to the US where they can make more money and operate with greater freedom. Your point is valid. It is a good argument against a single “invisible” payer. I take your point. However, I counter that the argument that prices will naturally fall in a free market is incorrect due to the forces discussed above. In multi-decade live examples in country after country central price negotiations and fee schedules have NOT lead to poor outcomes.
The moral argument is that when there is scarcity of supply of something critical to live and limb the market is not a suitable moral arbiter for the allocation of products and services. It works for ipods not for heart transplants. I argue that morally, those with more money should not be the first entitled to healthcare. Of course, wealthy baby boomers will get plenty of hip replacements in a market driven system. However, the underprivileged child will not necessarily receive the needed treatment. I believe the moral duty is to remove "not" from that last sentence and it takes collective action to make that possible.
DogGone does not have all the answers. But, would you agree that this is a special market? Maybe, you do not like the options of a single payer, single insurer, individual mandate, etc; However, do you still feel the free market, absent government interference, will lead to reduced prices for items and services across the board in healthcare the way it does in fast food and home electronics?
Ahh, but I don't think I made a mistake. But I would say that I was severely unclear, LOL. I said, "you can see it will cause a glut in services and an increase in price". The glut of services is caused by the distorted price from a single payer, but there is no downward force on the price. A single payer will make it look like, from the perspective of the consumer, that the cost is low (zero). They will flood into the doctor. The doctor will start to raise prices, and most likely expand. After all, from the perspective of the doctor, its a huge increase in demand (looks like healthcare might be responding to the law of demand :)). New doctors will come into the market to get in on the boom. But, the consumer is not connected to the cost, so there is no downward pressure on the price. No doctor will have any reason to lower the actual price of their servies, only increase. It will continue to rise and the boom will continue - that is until the benefactor, the single payer, can't maintain the cost. Then comes the price controls AND/OR rationing.
I have enjoyed these posts!
MMM
