<p>Oh, you’d explain why he’s wrong using Austrian School I suppose? So what, you make up some axioms that are in no way verifiable, and then make meaningless deductions from there? For the record, I would describe myself as closest to new keynesian, I understand the thought and rigor behind neoclassical, and heterodox schools such as Austrian just seem silly to me. I mean, no math, no data, it’s basically philosophy.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You do realize that the government is all ready deeply entrenched in the current health care system you are supposedly fine with?</p>
<p>Mike, I respect your knowledge; it’s refreshing. We shall talk tomorrow. And yes, you and Krugman will both feel the rigor of the Austrian School. With knowledge of recent events, I pity your standpoint.</p>
<p>Your models did you well to predict this crisis, didn’t they? :)</p>
<p>Nearly all economic models pre-2008 did little in the way of taking into account financial markets, so I agree with you, those models were essentially worthless. However, I will say that the housing bubble and the financial repercussions surrounding it are the most convincing arguments I’ve seen for a more well-defined regulatory structure for credit. I would even link you to a great article on Isaac Newton, arguably the greatest mind of the last thousand years, losing a fortune because he couldn’t control his own speculation, but you’ve expressed your distaste for articles :).</p>
<p>Health care costs are not high because doctors order useless tests to make money, or as Obama claims don’t communicate enough to send tests between each other (I work at a hospital and routinely fax EKGs between doctors offices and hospitals for patients who NEED frequent testing for pre-existing conditions and preventative care)</p>
<p>The real reason health care costs are high are illegal immigrants. They use emergency room services without insurance and cannot be turned away- and then never pay.</p>
<p>I’m more concerned with the effect of the high administrative costs of private insurance. It’s not hard to see that private firms spending ~15% on administrative costs, a good part of which is the cost of the firm trying its best not to provide coverage, is a suboptimal result when compared to government programs that have administrative costs of ~5-7%.</p>
<p>Edit: Those numbers are from a NHE report I saw from 2007 I believe, so they may have changed slightly by now.</p>
<p>“The same can’t be said for Brits where only 30% are happy with their personal health insurance. Those evil, bloated insurance companies must be doing something right, eh?”
<p>Why is this in College Life? Is there any point to this thread other than chest-thumping and decrying the fall of American values/intelligence one way or the other? Are you so fixated on your little tribal associations of “liberal” and “conservative” that you simply shut off your brain to repeat the latest soundbytes and root against the enemy team?</p>
<p>I’m somewhat tempted to enter into this discussion, but I hate animosity on what (IMO) should be an unbiased (in most circumstances) forum.
But I also feel it is my duty to say something: I am disgusted by American politics, I am disgusted by European politics, and I am disgusted by (insert nationality here) politics. Practically every system is ideal in writing but flawed in practice, since it is human nature to want power, to find loopholes in the system and corrupt it.</p>
<p>For that reason, I can say my political views are somewhat libertarian. I am a transcendentalist in ideals, but really rather cynical in world view. I feel that, due to the infinite variables that shape each individual being, no political system is perfect. I do think that democracy is nearer to that perfection than say, totalitarianism or Cuban communism. Therefore, I think freedom to choose what you want in life pretty much works for me. I love to hear other POVs on how the world should work, because it opens new portals to thought. </p>
<p>Liberals and coservatives have stereotypes that are often true and sometimes false, all around. I think there are just as many stupid liberals as conservatives, but the liberal ideology often comes off as “smarter”. The real insteresting part there is when you ask questions- they can’t really answer. I really dislike the “open-mindedness” that both sides tend to say they tout (Ever hear the word “pundit”? “Right to choose”?), but there is so much animosity and evil in politics that such a word is hardly possible. Open mindedness takes effort, because of the natural inclination to flock and be overly defensive of viewpoints. In this vein, I don’t think that either side is more intelligent.</p>
<p>(In my fantasy world, each country would be a different model of government, and everybody would choose which place to live based on their ideals. If one didn’t work, people could move, and that model would be phased out. In the end, if five governments or one worked well, then the world would be generally happy and government would be perfected. I know, there are infinite flaws to this fantasy, which is why thats what it is and why I don’t spend too much time thinking about it.)</p>
<p>I didn’t know that, but it still seems like a huge copout. You can use that excuse–“well if I don’t spend it, someone else will!”–to justify any spending. It would be best for him to not request any earmarks, but I realize that he is a politician just like anybody else on the Hill.</p>
<p>Re: Free Market and Healthcare</p>
<p>What happens when you are poor and suffer from a chronic genetic illness? Is it really fair that you go into thousands and thousands of dollars in debt just because you lost the genetic lottery?</p>
<p>I too wish to enter into this discussion, but I have nothing worthy to contribute – as usual. Perhaps it’ll turn into a debate about political undertones of Spongebob. Then I could contribute.</p>
<p>I’m a staunch moderate, and yes, I assume conservatives are dumber than a sack of jelly beans (except jelly bellies, those things are wicked smart). </p>
<p>I also assume liberals, or any strong partisan, is equally dumb.</p>
<p>I too hate politics. I just want gov’t out of my life. But if there were no conservatives in politics, 95 cents out of every dollar I ever made would be going to the government. And my gas guzzeling Ford pickup would be illegal. That is why conservatives/libertarians must be involved in politics.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Illegal Immigrants are the source of hundreds of problems, including healthcare. I think this, along with the fact that the insurance companies or so huge and bloated that they are all tied together and don’t actually compete like in a free market, and the fact that medicare and medicaid give no reason for healthcare providers to try and lower costs, is why things are the way they are.</p>
<p>But illegal immigrants cause a ton of *<strong><em>ing problems and have ruined the state of California. How’s this for a “Stimulus”? Build a giant *</em></strong>ing wall from San Diego to Brownsville, pull all our troops back from Iraq, and line em up along this wall and don’t let nobody in. I can go on a five hour rant about this but won’t until someone starts posting some amnesty blither blather.</p>
<p>lol it always comes back to Spongebob with you. </p>
<p>Anyway, I think this debate is pretty interesting. I’m also on Team Nothing to Contribute but it’s cool to lurk and read what everyone’s saying.</p>
<p>I don’t care if people make pro-Republican comments, but when people talk about religion and link it to politics, it makes me really angry. This country was founded on separation of church and state. A lot of the founding fathers weren’t religious like the bible-bashers, they were deists. </p>
<p>Also, if God loves everyone, why do (lots of) religious people hate gays?</p>
<p>Name one person on this thread who’s based an argument off of religion. Or made an anti-gay argument. I’m Catholic and go to church every Sunday, but I think to base political arguments off of religion is insane. Very few, if any, Republicans/Cosnervatives/Libertarians/Paulbots/Right Wingers under the age of thirty are bible thumpers. I think religion is a non issue in this debate.</p>
<p>For what it’s worth, back to the thread title, I certainly don’t think that all republicans are dumb. However, I’ve never heard an argument that I felt was remotely intelligent that advocated for social conservatism.</p>
<p>Just avoid roads, public libraries, calling the police of fire department, collecting unemployment, utilities, public universities(UW Madison), parks, and of course public swimming pools and you should be fine :).</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>About the health insurance industry not acting like a free market, the problem is it does in many ways act like a free market. As such, it’s in the insurance companies’ best interest to pay for as little as they can get away with. To do this, they spend large amounts of money on denying as many claims as possible. With a government option competitor, and mandates so that insurers and the consumers don’t try to game the system, the U.S. could have a much more comprehensive, efficient health care system.</p>
<p>Edit: I agree with Halie, I find social conservatism not only insufferable, but also in complete contradiction with the philosophical underpinnings of fiscal conservatism. They just don’t fit together, in my mind at least.</p>