Healthcare.gov Turning To Tech Giants For Help?

[c3141hf]

Free market-style health care delivery systems have existed and no longer exist because they do not distribute their services in a manner that is socially acceptable. Continually arguing for their reapplication based on dogmatic non-empirically based heterodox economics (free market fundamentalism) is madness.

I refuse to follow anyone's macroeconomic plans that do not use empirical data and deny the existence of market failure, which is exactly what market fundamentalist systems require.

To be frank, I don't give a damn what you consider to be "socially acceptable" (which, in and of itself, is a loaded term that is inherently subjective and unquantifiable). You are attempting to justify what amounts to armed robbery on a grand scale on the basis that simply because the robbers consist of a mob of people rather than an individual, that it somehow excuses rank criminal behavior. If you liberals think that a free market health care system can't possibly provide for people in a manner that *you* consider to be socially acceptable, then feel free to put your money where your mouth is and start a charity to help people.

 

[Stiletto]

First of all, medical malpractice costs only account for small percentage of the costs in the health care system: http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/09_39/b4148030880703.htm. Secondly, the cost of the insurance isn't the problem, it's the cost of the health care. Adding a thousands insurers isn't going to magically bring down the price that your health care providers are charging.

But it will bring the price down of insurance policies, as a result of natural competition. That is a net positive that can be counted upon. So far, ACA has raised the price of insurance policies and seems poised to do just about fucking nothing to bring down health care costs. On the contrary...because of the removal of co-pays for preventative medicine, the availability of medical experts, space and equipment will all be strained. High demand equals low prices or something, right?

 

[CreepyUncleGoogle]

To be frank, I don't give a damn what you consider to be "socially acceptable" (which, in and of itself, is a loaded term that is inherently subjective and unquantifiable). You are attempting to justify what amounts to armed robbery on a grand scale on the basis that simply because the robbers consist of a mob of people rather than an individual, that it somehow excuses rank criminal behavior. If you liberals think that a free market health care system can't possibly provide for people in a manner that *you* consider to be socially acceptable, then feel free to put your money where your mouth is and start a charity to help people.

LOL @ armed robbery

 

[Semantics]

Lyndon Johnson needed a distraction from the fact that he was getting ready to ramp up the Vietnam war. It is a classic case of panem et circenses (bread and circuses); give the plebs free stuff to keep them distracted from the fact that you are exploiting them and using them as slave labor.

Not at all right, LBJ a texas democraft last of his kind came from nothing and was a peoples man; one of the few in history that could control congress entirely because he loved the game that is politics. The Vietnam war and ramp up was just following of precedence set before him by the policy of containment. JLB didn't use distraction with the Vietnam war ramp he just bulled people into not printing too much about it, and when they did he fed lines to make people happy instead of what his generals advised him. JLB was a bully and an intimidator he used his size to get close to people and make them uncomfortable he used his position to make them talk to him while he took a shit. His policy on loyalty was that you would sniff his ass in front of a macy's store window and tell everyone watching it smelled like roses, but none the less he genuinely cared about the poor and the common man the ideas of war on poverty and great society were not something to throw to the masses it was something he believed in, it's quite well documented. Hell if you want to question something to political strategy, take the race card and kennedy, it's something that is up in the air due to his policy changed concerning it overnight. His original strategy was to keep out of it he later flips that on it's head after the broadcasts of the south to the rest of the US. Now in his diaries it's made very unclear if it was a purely political move or there was genuine distress over what transpired.

 

[heatlesssun]

But it will bring the price down of insurance policies, as a result of natural competition. That is a net positive that can be counted upon.

No these can't be counted on to bring down much because they have very little to do with the cost of actual health care.

So far, ACA has raised the price of insurance policies and seems poised to do just about fucking nothing to bring down health care costs.

This is a HUGE flaw in right wing thinking which 30 years ago understood the free market of insurance. A large population of uninsured folks in a market with high costs presents HUGE problems.

On the contrary...because of the removal of co-pays for preventative medicine, the availability of medical experts, space and equipment will all be strained. High demand equals low prices or something, right?

Actually my co-pays have been reduced. There's the thing. I'm not looking at this from politics. I have an 85 year old mother that's had numerous health issues but still owns her own home and doesn't have a pile of medical bills that she can't pay and doesn't have to ask her children to pay, thank you Medicare. My father fought in WW II and had all kinds of health issues after that, thank you VA. My wife and I have had a number of non-catastrophic health issues, but severe enough that we wouldn't be able to work unless untreated, thank you private insurance.

I so hate that this has become so political because I have seen so many times what sickness and illness and death mean especially in light of bills that potentially couldn't be paid.

It's easy to say that health care isn't a right until not having means you're dead.

 

[wonderfield]

It's easy to say that health care isn't a right until not having means you're dead.

I managed to beat an (obviously) life-threatening cancer without health insurance.

So, I'll just go ahead and say it: health care isn't a right.

 

[Climber]

If it were free then you and other wouldn't be complaining about the cost. This isn't about free health care, but affordable health care and again, it just seems like you and others haven't been through any personal experiences with it to make you appreciate just how important it is to be able to get care and not face a mountain of debt. And there's much more to it than laying off Big Macs and exercising. You can end up exercising and blow out a knee, been there done that, expensive as hell.

There are some good policies in ACA, considering I was on the receiving end of Blue Cross cancelling my health insurance after 2 years and then back billing me for a "pre-existing" condition all because I saw a doctor a few months prior due to stomach pains. So I like the removal of pre-existing conditions in ACA; however, affordable? That all depends on what you call affordable.

My family and I will now be playing just under an extra $300 a month if we choose a plan here in Colorado instead of staying with our current provider. Oh and it will be less coverage. Every single person I know who has priced plans out will pay more and get less coverage. Let me say that again...EVERY single person I know who has priced plans out will pay more and get less coverage. I'm talking upwards of about 5 dozen people, Democrat, Republican, rich or poor it doesn't matter they are paying more for less.

I can get free healthcare for life due to my veteran status so I don't need to worry about it but I also know what comes along with free healthcare because of that. If you have ever used the VA healthcare system you would know of long waits, a trial and error system of care that utilizes the cheapest methods first to rule out easily diagnosed problems. Our healthcare system is in need of change and an overhaul, but ACA isn't it.

This website debacle is just the start of another inefficient, misunderstood, and misused system by our government. I would think anyone could see that but I guess politics just clouds the majority of people's minds.

 

[Stiletto]

No these can't be counted on to bring down much because they have very little to do with the cost of actual health care.

It doesn't have to have anything to do with the cost of health care. If insurance companies were forced to compete on a national level, they'd have to start dropping their rates. Whether it's the free market effect forcing them to offer an edge over other, easily available companies...or the anti-corruption effect of throwing them into a far bigger pool that will be more difficult to coordinate with to fix rates...they'll come down, in order to survive. It won't matter if health care costs increase even more...they'll eat into their profits if they want to stay in business.

This is a HUGE flaw in right wing thinking which 30 years ago understood the free market of insurance. A large population of uninsured folks in a market with high costs presents HUGE problems.

What does that have to do with the fact that premiums have spiked all over the country as a result of ACA, and health care costs have little chance of dropping anytime soon? Are you just so flustered by your inability to face the reality of the implementation that you're just ranting about the right wing? In fact, weren't you just whining about the politicization of this issue? Practice what you preach.

Actually my co-pays have been reduced. There's the thing. I'm not looking at this from politics.

You just whined about right wing thinking and you have the gall to say you're not looking at this from politics? Is this satire or are you really so oblivious to your own words?

I so hate that this has become so political...

Still unclear. Maybe you could clarify your position further by talking about right wing thinking again. Or just accuse me of never having dealt with health care bills, which is still a bullshit smear that you wield like it means anything...but doesn't.

It's easy to say that health care isn't a right until not having means you're dead.

You know why it's easy to say that health care isn't a right? Because it isn't. It never was. It never will be. You can say it's a right all day long, just like I can say ice cream is a right. Guess what? Doesn't make it so.

 

[Climber]

It's easy to say that health care isn't a right until not having means you're dead.

Health care isn't a right. Education isn't a right. Internet isn't a right. The list can go on and on. You don't even have a right to life. Freedom isn't a right. None of these things are rights and the list can go on and on.

I understand what you are saying though, that as nations become more civilized that things we understand to be evil like slavery, murder, kidnapping, abuse, etc...etc...evolve and we get rid of them. Healthcare is similar to that this principal in so much that as one of the wealthiest and most civilized nation in the history of the world you would think that we have progressed where basic and complete healthcare is normal to all of our citizens.

The problem with this is we're 17 trillion in debt, our kids are dropping out of school earlier and earlier every year, greed, lust, laziness, envy, and anger are more and more prevalent and the rest of the population is just complacent and lethargic. All of these point to a self destructive system that needs to be fixed first. If the vast majority of our population was on the same page ACA might as well be very beneficial; however, we're not and until the basics get fixed we're putting the cart before the horse and it will fail as every thing else the Government has tried to "fix" has failed.

 

[heatlesssun]

It doesn't have to have anything to do with the cost of health care. If insurance companies were forced to compete on a national level, they'd have to start dropping their rates.

Whether it's the free market effect forcing them to offer an edge over other, easily available companies...or the anti-corruption effect of throwing them into a far bigger pool that will be more difficult to coordinate with to fix rates...they'll come down, in order to survive. It won't matter if health care costs increase even more...they'll eat into their profits if they want to stay in business.

Again, it's not the cost of the insurance but the cost of the care.

What does that have to do with the fact that premiums have spiked all over the country as a result of ACA, and health care costs have little chance of dropping anytime soon? Are you just so flustered by your inability to face the reality of the implementation that you're just ranting about the right wing? In fact, weren't you just whining about the politicization of this issue? Practice what you preach.

How old are you? How long have you been buying health insurance?

You know why it's easy to say that health care isn't a right? Because it isn't. It never was. It never will be. You can say it's a right all day long, just like I can say ice cream is a right. Guess what? Doesn't make it so.

Condemn your own to this standard. Until you do what you say is meaningless.

 

[heatlesssun]

The problem with this is we're 17 trillion in debt, our kids are dropping out of school earlier and earlier every year, greed, lust, laziness, envy, and anger are more and more prevalent and the rest of the population is just complacent and lethargic. All of these point to a self destructive system that needs to be fixed first. If the vast majority of our population was on the same page ACA might as well be very beneficial; however, we're not and until the basics get fixed we're putting the cart before the horse and it will fail as every thing else the Government has tried to "fix" has failed.

If I may ask, how is someone telling a dying loved one that we are 17 trillion in debt as a nation supposed to fix any this? Have you ever told a loved one that they must die because the nation is 17 trillion in debt and no one has the money to keep them alive? Who here who is worried about the US debt and didn't just pull out a thick wad of cash
thinking its all swell? Again, far too many politics, ZERO personal experience with what all of this means in daily lives.

 

[c3141hf]

If I may ask, how is someone telling a dying loved one that we are 17 trillion in debt as a nation supposed to fix any this? Have you ever told a loved one that they must die because the nation is 17 trillion in debt and no one has the money to keep them alive? Who here who is worried about the US debt and didn't just pull out a thick wad of cash
thinking its all swell? Again, far too many politics, ZERO personal experience with what all of this means in daily lives.

Argumentum ad passiones.

You act as if there are no charities or kind people out there that would be willing to help and that the government is the only one who could possibly fix your problems.

As a North Carolinian (Charlotte, I assume, since you work for a bank), you should know that our state has some of the highest premium increases of any state because of Urkelcare. And no, it is not the Republican's fault that they didn't expand Medicaid because people who previously could afford health insurance shouldn't now be forced to rely on the government when they used to be self-sufficient.

 

[sliverjazz]

If you can't beat them, join them.

 

[rudy]

If I may ask, how is someone telling a dying loved one that we are 17 trillion in debt as a nation supposed to fix any this? Have you ever told a loved one that they must die because the nation is 17 trillion in debt and no one has the money to keep them alive? Who here who is worried about the US debt and didn't just pull out a thick wad of cash
thinking its all swell? Again, far too many politics, ZERO personal experience with what all of this means in daily lives.

You have a very good point, in fact it is so good you have described EXACTLY what the problem with health care costs are.

Now flip your argument around and put it into real terms and ask a person how they would act. You are old and have cancer the doctors are about to send you into 6 months to a year of chemotherapy and tell you it could easily cost 200-400k depending on relapses etc.... You cannot afford it, and no bank will give you a loan because you are likely to die. Would you knowing this ask your kids to take out 300k in loans to maybe save you for 5 - 10 years or maybe only see you live for 6 months? I think most parents would rather refuse treatment and spend their remaining days with their grand children and go out knowing they didn't just bury their kids in debt that would take them the rest of their lives to pay off if they ever did pay it off. They would have to tell their kids sorry there is no money for college so you will have to go be part of the lower class. The effect could take a stable extended family and impoverish them for generations.

But suddenly the whole game changes when the person paying the tab is a huge insurance company or even a larger government. When the costs is depersonalized and spread out we just take and take without ever making the hard decisions. But in fact on a 350 million person scale what I described above is basically what is happening to the country as a whole. And unfortunately when the system is big enough and the direct costs are so far removed it is easy for us to keep putting off addressing the issue for so long that it will come back and haunt our kids or even grand kids in a way they cannot imagine and simply cannot do anything about and it will surely come to affect them at the WORST possible time, during a war, depression or some other catastrophic event when the countries inability to borrow will be detrimental to maintaining a decent quality of life for even the young and healthy.

But anyhow you cant possibly get people to think that long term now days, people can barely remember what their politicians did 3 months ago. It is a classic tragedy of the commons.

 

[Stiletto]

Again, it's not the cost of the insurance but the cost of the care.

And the ACA does next to nothing to fix that, so what are you talking about? I'm talking about ways to reduce the cost of seeking medical care, and reducing the cost of health insurance is one way to achieve that. The ACA doesn't.

How old are you? How long have you been buying health insurance?

What the hell does my age have to do with anything? Or the length of time I've had health insurance? Why are you turning this into a personal argument?

Condemn your own to this standard. Until you do what you say is meaningless.

...can anyone else translate this? What we got here is a failure to communicate.

 

[Stiletto]

If I may ask, how is someone telling a dying loved one that we are 17 trillion in debt as a nation supposed to fix any this?

How is someone telling a poor person that they now have to shell out hundreds of dollars for insurance supposed to help them?

 

[Stiletto]

Again, far too many politics, ZERO personal experience with what all of this means in daily lives.

1. You keep bringing politics up, so stop this hypocritical BS.

2. You have no idea whatsoever as to the degree to which the people you're talking with have dealt with health care issues, and your continued feigned omnipotence has gotten to the point of unadulterated trolling. Get over yourself, and stop trying to make the entire argument about your emotions, and how much more you think you've suffered health issues in your life than anyone who disagrees with your view.

 

[Shalafi]

How is someone telling a poor person that they now have to shell out hundreds of dollars for insurance supposed to help them?

You left out the part where they can't make their extortion payments because the website doesn't work

The ACA is basically extortion.

If you buy health insurance, premiums are jacked and you have had almost all choice removed from you.

If you don't buy health insurance, you are "taxed."

If you don't pay your taxes, government can use violence to end you, imprison you, and strip you of everything you own.

 

[Climber]

If I may ask, how is someone telling a dying loved one that we are 17 trillion in debt as a nation supposed to fix any this? Have you ever told a loved one that they must die because the nation is 17 trillion in debt and no one has the money to keep them alive? Who here who is worried about the US debt and didn't just pull out a thick wad of cash
thinking its all swell? Again, far too many politics, ZERO personal experience with what all of this means in daily lives.

Dying is a part of life. I've parted with numerous loved ones, WTF you think you are the only person to ever lose a loved one? To see a loved one shrivel up and die of cancer? Pretty damn self righteous and selfish of you to think so. What, because I don't like the majority of ACA I'm a heartless cruel asshole who likes to watch other people suffer? Get off your high horse and stop using ridiculous arguments to try and make your case and realize that others have, are, and will continue to lose loved ones no matter how perfect of a health care system we have. ACA isn't going to magically cure your family.

 

[heatlesssun]

Dying is a part of life. I've parted with numerous loved ones, WTF you think you are the only person to ever lose a loved one? To see a loved one shrivel up and die of cancer? Pretty damn self righteous and selfish of you to think so. What, because I don't like the majority of ACA I'm a heartless cruel asshole who likes to watch other people suffer? Get off your high horse and stop using ridiculous arguments to try and make your case and realize that others have, are, and will continue to lose loved ones no matter how perfect of a health care system we have. ACA isn't going to magically cure your family.

Before you judge me, you need to hear my story, one that no politician, left or right will ever tell. This happened 20 years ago, and quite honestly it is nothing to be proud of, I am simply making the point that few here have ever made personal decisions based on the lives of their loved ones around costs.

 

[Stiletto]

That degree of unctuosity is breathtaking.

 

[ounumen]

So glad I get to pay more taxes for people I couldn't give a shit about! Love MERICA!

 

[heatlesssun]

That degree of unctuosity is breathtaking.

My father died of terminal cancer on May 25, 1993. Unless you have some details of your own experiences with death and money you need to shut the fuck up.

 

[c3141hf]

My father died of terminal cancer on May 25, 1993. Unless you have some details of your own experiences with death and money you need to shut the fuck up.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_emotion

 

[mope54]

How old are you? How long have you been buying health insurance?

He's fresh out of high school and hasn't ever bought health insurance. One of the many reasons not to engage in these kinds of discussions with him.

 

[Shalafi]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_emotion

You nailed it. It doesn't work on me either.

The cold hard facts is that everyone dies, there is no escaping that fact. Life begins, and it ends.

Universal healthcare would not change the fact that life ends. Having the state rob society at large so we can all retain the services of an inferior brand of healthcare that will not be innovative or provide any increase in quality, in fact, it will stifle innovation and drop the quality of healthcare to North Korean levels.

Everyone does have access to healthcare, IF they can afford it. The only problems I see with it in the current situation have already been stated, high government regulation, government involvement in tampering with the free market by acting as a buyer of the service and then underpaying for it, forcing the free market to react by overcharging others and being forced to collude with the insurance industry to increase costs so that the average citizen can't afford healthcare without insurance.

THOSE are the problems, all the appeals to emotion in the entire world cannot change those immutable facts. I prefer to deal in reason and not emotion.

 

[Shalafi]

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/201...gift-and-she-doesnt-look-very-happy-about-it/

I think the Senator had a genius idea to help out

 

[Stiletto]

My father died of terminal cancer on May 25, 1993. Unless you have some details of your own experiences with death and money you need to shut the fuck up.

I've had those experiences, and I don't feel the need to sling them around in an internet forum in order to try to win a debate that has nothing to do with those experiences. You're arguing from emotion rather than logic, which is something I've come to expect from irrational, sanctimonious types.

 

[Stiletto]

He's fresh out of high school and hasn't ever bought health insurance. One of the many reasons not to engage in these kinds of discussions with him.

Oh, I can't wait to hear how you came up with that bit of bullshit.

 

[CreepyUncleGoogle]

Having the state rob society at large so we can all retain the services of an inferior brand of healthcare that will not be innovative or provide any increase in quality, in fact, it will stifle innovation and drop the quality of healthcare to North Korean levels.

There are a lot of obese and unhealthy people living in the US that are like that because of lifestyle choices that they made. Now, thanks to the fact that a government agency is vaguely involved in medicine, they can more easily blame a popular scapegoat, the government, for their fatness and laziness by saying it's like because of a lame health industry that they've got tons of problems. I'm gonna be like everyone else and win brownie points when I tell my friends at work that I'm a big fatty fat fatso because of an inadequate system and the government. Oddly enough, it doesn't explain how people were less fat in the ancient past of like the 1980s when we were still burning goats and chickens for our gods to lower their noodly appendages out of pity to heal us.

 

[terrybogard21]

I love all the trumping of ideas/comments and link posting going on in this thread. Website is beyond saving, & no one is going to come asking for heads on the issue either.

 

[Shalafi]

I love all the trumping of ideas/comments and link posting going on in this thread. Website is beyond saving, & no one is going to come asking for heads on the issue either.

Well, honestly, we need to reduce government by 75-80 percent, pass a balanced budget amendment which uses the surplus to pay off our deficit, and we need to end mandatory increases in spending, we need to phase out all entitlements, end all social welfare programs, and remove government as much as possible from the private sector.

The private sector would not have produced something as abysmal as this. This is what happens when government is run by criminals that steal taxpayer money for wealth transfers to their political campaign contributors by using no bid contracts. This company never intended to make a functional website. They intended to get paid for their contributions.

$700 million? Not a bad payday.

 

[InternationalHat]

Well, honestly, we need to reduce government by 75-80 percent, pass a balanced budget amendment which uses the surplus to pay off our deficit, and we need to end mandatory increases in spending, we need to phase out all entitlements, end all social welfare programs, and remove government as much as possible from the private sector.

I disagree with everything here and will continue to vote in every election I can against anything like these ideas.

The more people that are educated in macroeconomics, the less will be on that side too considering Robert Shiller just won the nobel prize and the most influential thinkers among business leaders are like Krugman and Stiglitz. Why do you think academia leans towards progressive economic policies, because they're fun? No, it's because the other side went radical sometime before the mid 80's.

Reactive economic policies and the benefits of strong state social programs that go against austere ideas have like a century+ of empirical evidence for their economic effectiveness. The free market fundamentalist side has no evidence. There's dogma and that's it, and that's why it will never win. It's not science-based. It is not an evaluative discipline. It attempts to explain economics a priori. It's populist rabble to get you riled up. Educated people in power, people who forecast markets, people in positions to actually make change know those free market fundamentalist ideas are inappropriate now. Any lip service it gets will be to secure a vote. Greenspan admitted that mixing in those ideas failed, why hang on?

Libertarianism/free market fundamentalist economics is a cancer of the somewhat intelligent white collar worker - you have to be smart enough to be swayed by their seemingly logical arguments but not educated enough to realize that macroeconomics has long since moved on. By the late 80's the entire Institutional Economics movement completely put the Austrian School to bed. You realize that the core of the Austrian School's arguments rely on what is called methodological individualism? This idea crumbles like a stack of cards under any acknowledgement that institutional structures, heck even historical knowledge that applies on a group level can influence social/economic phenomena. That and by their own admission for any of those fundamentalist free market ideas to work they demand absolute ideological purity. You can't just distill them into what you did above and expect them to still apply.

...

The problem I think you're having is you're mixing a bunch of ideas. No one is arguing against economic freedom. There's a strong correlation between being an established wealthy nation and economic freedom - allowing competitive market forces to work. However, that doesn't preclude a strong social state. Denmark I believe, with its very high tax rates, strong social safety net etc. is technically more economically "free" according to the crazy right-wing Heritage foundation than the US. The idea is you spend/grow gov't during recession and save/cut during growth. It works well to jumpstart markets and prevents crowding out - plenty of examples like Sweden in the 90's successfully doing so.

Countries with the highest positive growth - emerging markets are LESS free, to insulate themselves and control growth sustainably: to prevent the kind of irrational exuberance that propels emerging markets into bubble like growth. They become more free when they have established markets and a higher gdp per capita. Maintaining that growth requires continued efforts to maintain consumption, equality, etc.

 

[c3141hf]

I disagree with everything here and will continue to vote in every election I can against anything like these ideas.

The more people that are educated in macroeconomics, the less will be on that side too considering Robert Shiller just won the nobel prize and the most influential thinkers among business leaders are like Krugman and Stiglitz. Why do you think academia leans towards progressive economic policies, because they're fun? No, it's because the other side went radical sometime before the mid 80's.

Reactive economic policies and the benefits of strong state social programs that go against austere ideas have like a century+ of empirical evidence for their economic effectiveness. The free market fundamentalist side has no evidence. There's dogma and that's it, and that's why it will never win. It's not science-based. It is not an evaluative discipline. It attempts to explain economics a priori. It's populist rabble to get you riled up. Educated people in power, people who forecast markets, people in positions to actually make change know those free market fundamentalist ideas are inappropriate now. Any lip service it gets will be to secure a vote. Greenspan admitted that mixing in those ideas failed, why hang on?

Libertarianism/free market fundamentalist economics is a cancer of the somewhat intelligent white collar worker - you have to be smart enough to be swayed by their seemingly logical arguments but not educated enough to realize that macroeconomics has long since moved on. By the late 80's the entire Institutional Economics movement completely put the Austrian School to bed. You realize that the core of the Austrian School's arguments rely on what is called methodological individualism? This idea crumbles like a stack of cards under any acknowledgement that institutional structures, heck even historical knowledge that applies on a group level can influence social/economic phenomena. That and by their own admission for any of those fundamentalist free market ideas to work they demand absolute ideological purity. You can't just distill them into what you did above and expect them to still apply.

...

The problem I think you're having is you're mixing a bunch of ideas. No one is arguing against economic freedom. There's a strong correlation between being an established wealthy nation and economic freedom - allowing competitive market forces to work. However, that doesn't preclude a strong social state. Denmark I believe, with its very high tax rates, strong social safety net etc. is technically more economically "free" according to the crazy right-wing Heritage foundation than the US. The idea is you spend/grow gov't during recession and save/cut during growth. It works well to jumpstart markets and prevents crowding out - plenty of examples like Sweden in the 90's successfully doing so.

Countries with the highest positive growth - emerging markets are LESS free, to insulate themselves and control growth sustainably: to prevent the kind of irrational exuberance that propels emerging markets into bubble like growth. They become more free when they have established markets and a higher gdp per capita. Maintaining that growth requires continued efforts to maintain consumption, equality, etc.

Argumentum ab auctoritate.

 

[InternationalHat]

Argumentum ab auctoritate.

You realize that the core of the Austrian School's arguments rely on what is called methodological individualism? This idea crumbles like a stack of cards under any acknowledgement that institutional structures, heck even historical knowledge that applies on a group level can influence social/economic phenomena. That and by their own admission for any of those fundamentalist free market ideas to work they demand absolute ideological purity. You can't just distill them into what you did above and expect them to still apply.

Thanks for playing though.

Also your style of pointing out every discussion shortcut as a logical fallacy may be fun for you but it's not going to change anyone's mind. People can look up what they need to rather than have me or anyone else write an essay.

This is not a critical reasoning class. It is the internet. I can't teach you the entirety of macroeconomics in a few posts.

Not that you could even remotely speak on the same level regarding economics anyway so who cares.

 

[OP20]

Ahhhh yes, Austrian economics doesn't work at all. Tell us again how Keynesian economics have worked out for us? Perpetual debt is awesome!!!! The federal reserve definitely hasn't syphoned wealth from the poor and middle class and transferred it to the top 1%. The current system is working perfectly.

 

[c3141hf]

Thanks for playing though.

Also your style of pointing out every discussion shortcut as a logical fallacy may be fun for you but it's not going to change anyone's mind. People can look up what they need to rather than have me or anyone else write an essay.

This is not a critical reasoning class. It is the internet. I can't teach you the entirety of macroeconomics in a few posts.

Not that you could even remotely speak on the same level regarding economics anyway so who cares.

Onus probandi incumbit ei qui dicit, non ei qui negat.

 

[Retronym]

The infinite variables of micro economics can't allocate resources and pricing mechanisms as efficiently and optimally as a central planner model. Further, dollars are an inferior tool to purchase goods and services, having universal fungibility, making coercive fees, penalties, taxes and other egalitarian instruments obsolete. Caps and care rationing from the top down are the correct tools to deal with the market spending increase, which is the exact same thing as a cost increase.

/s

 

[InternationalHat]

Ahhhh yes, Austrian economics doesn't work at all. Tell us again how Keynesian economics have worked out for us? Perpetual debt is awesome!!!! The federal reserve definitely hasn't syphoned wealth from the poor and middle class and transferred it to the top 1%. The current system is working perfectly.

We haven't followed Keynesian economics, what makes you think we have? Deficit spending during the recession was reduced offsetting the stimulus. Setting a deficit spending reduction target during a recession is absolutely anti-Keynesian. Further, stimulus numbers were way off what Keynes likely would've prescribed based on the degree of economic downturn.

Everything from Keynes was blended into Neoclassical economics making for a soupy mess of everyone's ideas that doesn't really do too much of anything in any one direction. Keynes argued for lower taxes and/or higher spending during recessionary or depression periods. Most importantly, Keynesian policies have not been implemented because they are politically unpopular. Keynes influenced people like Hyman Minsky and Irving Fisher who pretty accurately modeled the effects of the recent crisis and how debt both private and public plays into recessionary periods.

The federal reserve targets an inflation rate so we don't get deflationary pressure. Their methods of issuing bonds etc may not be ideal, but they aren't syphoning wealth from the poor and middle class, that's capitalism at work and will be in any kind of market system. It's the job of the overarching social structures to remedy that somehow. The value of basic labor is less and less with technology, the value of highly skilled technicians and people who understand how to utilize those markets is more. Resolving distribution issues is where we are.

Perpetual debt is fine. Most of it is owed to ourselves. Additionally, our total debt is far lower than our total wealth. Even if you're a debt alarmist, our deficit is being reduced almost every year (aside from '11) for the past 5 ish years or so. Private debt getting out of control is a bigger deal than public debt.

 

[OP20]

Wealth based on debt is not true wealth. Your living in a fantasy world and its turned into a nightmare. The federal reserve using traditional CPI inflated has been inflating our currency 8-9% per year. Inflation hurts the poor and middle class most of all whose wages can't keep up... especially those on fixed income. Medicare and Social Security will overwhelm our federal budget in the next 30 years. Our current path is unsustainable.

The system as it currently is based on everything your economics professors taught you in school is going to continue to benefit the fortunate few and bury the rest of us.

Wealth = Savings
Debt = Slavery