I'm dragging this back up for some unfinished business.


If by "ignorance" you mean "job" and "associated time constraints", you're right, but I'm afraid there isn't much I can do about it.:DL
Lol. Chill out, Tribesman. Despite the occasional heated discussion, we're all friends here, right? :up:
I was joking about bashing your post. I don't really bash posts, per se.
I knew where this thread was headed, and what the responses to your post were likely to be. Asking someone to bash the post for me for the sake of irony seemed pretty funny to me at the time, but it was an act of shameless self-amusement and you have my apologies. Speaking of which, I think this thread could use a little more constructive discourse and a little less insult-hurling..... even though CH's translation thing was pretty funny. (Shame on you, CH:DL) I mean :nope:

All that aside, let's move on to very issues I raised myself before my ignorance forced me to abandon them. Is this the one in question?

We're certainly agreed upon the fact that the state regularly bends to the corn lobby, as well as a lot of other lobbies. That's one of the main problems with the state, imo. It is an unparalleled mechanism for circumventing the dynamics of competition and the free market. Why should business compete if it can simply go to the people in charge and have them hamstring the competition? Of course, they are never so direct about it as that. They prefer using televised PR ads that feature sobbing children and foreboding music while they make impassioned pleas to legislators who only got into office because they won a popularity contest amongst a disinterested electorate. That doesn't sound like a recipe for success to me. It sounds like a good way to get into the exact situation we have right now; a collapsed market brought about by state interference in a capitalist system, which is precisely what I intend to discuss with Aramike in a moment.

As for the use of high-fructose corn syrup, what about it? It's a low-cost sweetener and a popular food additive. Agribusiness didn't have to lobby for it. It is pervasive because people like sweet foods. And it doesn't [I]cause[I] obesity. I'm sure it doesn't help people to be thin; human metabolism is kind of inefficient when it comes to breaking down complex sugars and reconstituting them as other nutrients, but it certainly doesn't cause obesity.
Almost half of the people in this nation are clinically obese, but more than half of them are not, and they eat many of the same foods. The ones that are obese generally got that way from a combination of two factors: inactivity and overeating. The low cost of food has certainly contributed to the latter, but so have government programs aimed at eliminating hunger.
The former has more to do with our success as a society than anything else. In short, our main problem is a resource surplus.
We can go into that if you wish, but I'll defer the point until later because this post is getting long already.

Now, let's get down to brass tacks, shall we? I' a bit behind on the discussion, but I'd like to talk about Aramike's proposed solution. As I implied before, if someone like Aramike or mookie were to draft this legislation, I might have a little faith in it. CaptainHaplo, to his credit, might also come up with something practicable, but I still remember his post about blowing up Mecca and Medina, so he gets negative points ;)

IIRC (and I do, because we have a quote function) Aramike suggested something along these lines;

"Streamlined", "efficient", and "government" don't just not go well together traditionally; they don't go together at all. That goes double for large and intrusive governments. The problem isn't that we don't have intelligent people to draft the legislation, it's that such legislation cannot be drafted.

Do you really think that anyone in this nation, or even on the face of this planet, is going to be able to legislate an effective healthcare system?



I can see where you're heading with this, and I even agree with a bit of it, but overall this is a recipe for disaster.

Let me start by saying that I can understand the promising nature of having the state cover financially catastrophic cases, and that I also understand the need for simple (if not complete) healthcare coverage. We are agreed upon that much, at least. The FDIC is one of the few federal programs that I think was a wise idea, and it has worked quite well until recently. I can see how the same sort of mechanism could be employed to cover catastrophic healthcare cases.
Legislation that simplifies healthcare coverage is similarly desirable. Current policies are far too nebulous, and complicate the market unnecessarily. That is due in part to the vast legal labyrinth that regulates the insurance industry. That legal structure should be simplified to the point of practicability and enforceability, of that I have no doubt. Personally, I'd like to see legislation that reverses most of the current preventative civil laws concerning what constitutes malpractice and licensure, and start anew with laws focused upon punishing negligence and fraud. Surely, you can see the merit in such a system. Rather than having a preemptive system full of loopholes that is designed by out-of-touch bureaucrats, we could have a nearly foolproof system that employs the universal mechanism of consequence. I'm being somewhat vague because of time constraints, but what I am basically suggesting is a legal framework that supports a system wherein consumers alert regulatory agencies of wrongdoing rather than having regulatory agencies try to prevent wrongdoing. This, I believe, will be more cost-effective and beneficial overall. Just look at the lengths to which companies go to prevent lawsuits. That's due to reactive market mechanics, not preventative government regulation.

What I disagree with is the idea that insurance companies should be required to cover everyone at a certain rate. You mention "benchmark efficiency in costs", but who sets that benchmark? The most successful company? The state? Consumers? Forgive my lack of understanding if I misinterpret you but I only see consumers as being able to establish a benchmark for costs and I only see the market as a way to realize that benchmark.

Certainly, the state is not the agent you suggest? Give me an example of the state ever establishing a benchmark in anything other than wastefulness and inefficiency and we may have room for compromise. Similarly, a company cannot set the benchmark because market mechanics will not allow it. If every retailer had to use Wal-Mart's prices they would go out of business because they cannot obtain supplies at the same price. If you advocate either of those agents, you are inviting monopoly, which is inefficient and abusive by its' very nature. Worse, you are inviting a fiat monopoly, protected by state monopoly on force.

What you are talking about, my friend, is price control, and price control never works. There is no agency, besides the market, that can effectively regulate prices. When Erhardt brought about the Wirtschaftswunder, the first thing he did was to abolish price controls. When Xiaoping established the special economic zones that now form the backbone of the modern Chinese economy, the first thing he did was to abolish price controls. When Friedman
was consulted about the gas crisis of the 70's, the first thing he suggested was to abolish price controls. In all these cases, the abolishment of price controls led to a resurgence of the market and a stabilization of prices.

Conversely, the very best way to establish a shortage or surplus is to set price controls and then let the state set prices. The market is a very dynamic and fast-moving entity because it is comprised of millions and sometimes billions of people interacting with the goal of self (and therefore mutual) benefit billions of times per day. The state is a very slow, semi-methodical, and also self-interested entity. If it sets prices too low, there will be a shortage, because by the time the state actually gets around to doing something about prices, it is too late. If it sets them too high, there will be a surplus for the same reason. We have seen this too many times already. If you want a worst-case scenario, you can look at the Soviet Union, and if you want a best-case scenario, you can look at the U.S and some of the E.U. nations, where price controls simply led to spiraling state expenses, simply for the sake of preserving the system. Ultimately, both suffer the same fate.

Healthcare in the U.S. needs reform, of that there can be no doubt. Insurance is too expensive, for people and companies alike. But the most efficient way to reform it is to get the government out of the system.

Here's an idea to reduce healthcare expenses upon the average citizen by about 35% and simultaneously encourage competition, thereby encouraging lower insurance costs: Cut corporate taxes entirely. Taxing or attempting to control business is stupid. It simply passes the costs along to the consumer, because it must maintain an acceptable profit margin.

As I said before; Maybe, just maybe, if someone as level-headed as you managed to get into office, some legislation that is more effective than simple market mechanics could be drafted, but I have my doubts.