Taxes

[Dr Brain]

I said government was needed, not that taxes are needed.

 

I reject your assertion that healthcare is a right. I'm not saying that hospitals should turn away people who can't pay, since that's not the same thing.

 

Also, your implication that companies won't lower their prices below a certain point is simply untrue. I think you're confusing profit/sale for profit. Also, collusion to fix prices is illegal in the US (as it should be). It's usually unnecessary to enforce in a market without barriers to entry, though, as new companies will start up to compete with the price-fixers.

 

You're mistaking public militias for bounty hunters. The Sicilian mafia (the only one whos history I know anything about) didn't start from a public militia. I'd love to see some counter examples.

 

Please, quote me. The discussion isn't going anywhere else, since you're clearly ignorant of basic economics. I said the green house gas effect doesn't seem to exist in the Earth's atmosphere, because a ~40% increase in C02 hasn't had correlation with global temperature (the fundamental tenant of global warming). I do believe that the greenhouse effect exists in greenhouses. I also said that comparing Earth to Venus is fallacious. I said that the proximity to the Sun had more to do with the temperature than the atmosphere. I didn't say the atmosphere was insignificant. I said the Sun was more important. If you put Venus at one AU from the Sun, it would have a significantly lower average temperature.

[SeVeR]

Please, quote me.

 

Do you agree that the greenhouse effect exists?

 

No. The evidence shows that it doesn't.

 

I do believe that its proximity to the sun has more to do with its temperature than its atmosphere does. In all likelihood, it's atmosphere actually keeps it from absorbing more solar radiation. Also, if you're comparing a 36% increase of C02 on Earth to the atmosphere of Venus, you've got something else coming.

 

As NBVegita says, back to taxes: why do I have to pay for this?

 

And today:

I didn't say the atmosphere was insignificant."

Yea, you said it has the opposite effect. Edited January 19, 2010 by SeVeR

[NBVegita]

I do side with sever on a bunch of this (wow two topics at once! Hell might be freezing over)

 

There are a lot of things done by the government that could be privatized, but most of them shouldn't.

 

Taxes are needed to cover national defense (unless a way can be found to privatize this), a legal system of last resort (private arbitration being preferred in every case), a system for prevention of monopolies, and a system for copyright and patents (hopefully without the corruption of our current one).

 

I would assume you believe everything else should be privatized (correct me if I'm wrong).

 

I'm just going to hit a few points (not sure if they've already been hit) why this is bad.

 

Education. If you privatize education beyond college, you will create the same problem with college education. At first the prices will be reasonable, but then they will increase price just as colleges have. You also have the problem that now if you come from a lower class family chances are you cannot even get a high school education. You would effective increase the class gap in the country exponentially.

 

To sever's point on fire and police. How are you going to fund them? Without funding, you've got no fire house or police station. So either you're going to have to pay a monthly fee to be protected by the fire and police or you don't get protection? How else would a privatized company be able to fund the salaries and equipment needed? It's not like putting out fires has a capital return. Not to mention what about police force jurisdiction? If I only pay for police in Liverpool, NY and I go to Boston, MA do I have to pay a visitors fee to get protection? Or is it that they'll stop the bad guy, but they'll only arrest him if I pay the fee, otherwise they let him back at me? Why would they give me free protection? That would be like you walking into a massage parlor for a massage, being charged $200 and when I come in they say "Oh we'll give you a free massage because this guy already paid." It would NEVER work.

 

Roads and highways. Again you're either going to have to pay a monthly fee to get something fixed, or you're going to have to pay by occasion. Maybe they charge $2000 to fix that big pot hole in front of your house or you just have to live with it.

 

Social work. Unemployment. Snow plowing. Street cleaning. Parks and recreation. Prison.

 

I mean the list goes on.

 

Whats worse is some of those things are hard to differentiate between who pays and who doesn't. Are they supposed to look up your house if it's on fire to see if you're current with payments? How about if you don't pay to have the roads plowed, but everyone else does? Should they revoke your license? Same things with the highway, if you don't have a receipt and your driving on a fixed highway you didn't pay for, you'll get a ticket/arrested? If you privatize police, what incentive do they have to actually do their job? What if one privatized police force finds out another is corrupt, can they arrest them all? There are thousands of what if's.

 

I'm just asking questions if you can give me your answers.

 

I would almost guarantee you would end up paying more money in private fee's than you would from taxes.

Edited January 19, 2010 by NBVegita

[SeVeR]

You're mistaking public militias for bounty hunters. The Sicilian mafia (the only one whos history I know anything about) didn't start from a public militia. I'd love to see some counter examples.

Inconsequential, you haven't said how a public militia would work. You haven't answered any of my questions or refuted any of my points. The only line you picked on was the argument I neglected to develop in favour of my principle argument against privatising police: an argument you have completely ignored.

 

Also, your implication that companies won't lower their prices below a certain point is simply untrue. I think you're confusing profit/sale for profit. Also, collusion to fix prices is illegal in the US (as it should be).

Untrue? OK...........

 

Price fixing is extremely hard to prove. If all companies claim similar production costs then they'll all find similar prices for their products. That doesn't stop them all making profit beyond what it costs to get their product to market though. So clearly they can reduce the profit they take by reducing the cost of their product. But they're a business!, so they don't want to do this. If competition was allowed to reach maximum competitiveness there would simply be no profit beyond product cost, that is almost a definition of the term. Thus, there is a price the companies will not go below.

 

Look, 99% of the time people start a business to make money, not to give people good deals or to do public service. It's about money. Some things just shouldn't come down to money. You shouldn't be able to profit from people falling ill or wanting to be educated.

 

I reject your assertion that healthcare is a right. I'm not saying that hospitals should turn away people who can't pay, since that's not the same thing.

They get billed then if they can't pay? What happens? Edited January 19, 2010 by SeVeR

[Bak]

I don't agree that transfats were being pushed out of the private market because they were unprofitable. Sure, some people chose not to eat them, but others did. If consumption of transfats used some larger shared resource which was beneficial for everyone to keep around, it wouldn't be enough that some people stop consuming them, as the shared resource would still get exhausted eventually.

 

There's also a problem of the amount of mental load people can handle if all this was private. Imagine having to pick one company to provide police, another to provide hospitals ans ambulances, a third to pick up your trash, a fourth to provide you roads... it's too much work, and then the policy you get is even more mental load... you can go to hospital X and but not hospital Y, use highway 87 but you're not allowed on 90... Then again, companies might aggregate some of these, which may lead to them taking a commission and therefore corruption, which would lead to new aggregation companies springing up with slightly better services... pain in the ass

[Dr Brain]

You originally brought up militias, not me. I defended them when you said they were inherently a problem. I never said they were an adequate solution to policing (they may be, I haven't given it any thought since it's irrelevant).

 

Yes, price fixing is hard to prove, that's why barriers to entry should be minimized, so that it's not an issue. Regulation causes problems. End of story.

 

Everything is about money, including companies and governments. Just because you don't want it to be about money doesn't change anything. At least companies admit their motivating factor. Most companies make money by providing the best service/money that they can, and making sure their customers keep coming back. That's a much healthier relationship than taxer-taxee.

 

I'm confused... you think teachers and doctors shouldn't make money? Or you think that practices and schools shouldn't make money? Everyone should be forced to live with the worst health/education possible, even if they can afford better? My parents managed to pay for my sister and I to go to private school by sacrificing in other areas. You'd take that right away from people? How dare you?

 

Yes, they get billed. Personal bankruptcy is always an option (better to have credit problems than be dead, right?). There's also that charity thing I talked about earlier. If they're illegally in the country, then they get deported when they're healthy enough.

 

There's also a problem of the amount of mental load people can handle if all this was private. Imagine having to pick one company to provide police, another to provide hospitals ans ambulances, a third to pick up your trash, a fourth to provide you roads... it's too much work, and then the policy you get is even more mental load... you can go to hospital X and but not hospital Y, use highway 87 but you're not allowed on 90... Then again, companies might aggregate some of these, which may lead to them taking a commission and therefore corruption, which would lead to new aggregation companies springing up with slightly better services... pain in the ass

 

How many companies are represented at your local grocery store? Does your head explode when you go shopping? I think not. Adding a handful of companies to provide the services the government currently provides isn't going to change anything mentally.

 

People already have to choose home insurance companies, car insurance companies, health insurance companies, television providers, telephone providers, electricity providers, fuel providers, internet providers, security monitoring. Some people have to find companies to maintain their lawns, and to plow their driveways. Why is adding trash pickup going to be an issue?

 

There are millions of companies in the country, and yet these problems you describe do not exist with them. What is different about these particular services?

 

The one sure thing about the private sector is that they'll come up with better solutions than politicians. I'm sure companies could come up with a pricing and payment system for highways that made consumers happy.

[Bak]

I'm sure companies could come up with a pricing and payment system for highways that made consumers happy.

Find me a health insurance plan that can't drop me if I lose my job or raise my rates if I become sick.

 

People already have to choose home insurance companies, car insurance companies, health insurance companies, television providers, telephone providers, electricity providers, fuel providers, internet providers, security monitoring. Some people have to find companies to maintain their lawns, and to plow their driveways. Why is adding trash pickup going to be an issue?

It's already a pain in the ass to deal with all these companies, yes (they do have private trash pickup where my parents live in Florida). However, cable providers is one thing, where you pick one and stop thinking, because your TV works with what you have. If you pick a hospital provider, however, now you have to always be aware of which hospital you're going to (which is bad in emergency situations). If I have to always plan my routes to avoid certain roads, or have to knowingly take longer routes, that creates a continuous source of mental burden.

[Dr Brain]

I'm sure companies could come up with a pricing and payment system for highways that made consumers happy.

Find me a health insurance plan that can't drop me if I lose my job or raise my rates if I become sick.

 

Health insurance isn't a free market. It's regulated into insanity.

 

It's already a pain in the ass to deal with all these companies, yes (they do have private trash pickup where my parents live in Florida). However, cable providers is one thing, where you pick one and stop thinking, because your TV works with what you have. If you pick a hospital provider, however, now you have to always be aware of which hospital you're going to (which is bad in emergency situations). If I have to always plan my routes to avoid certain roads, or have to knowingly take longer routes, that creates a continuous source of mental burden.

 

The idea isn't that people would go to one hospital over another, they'd become more like Walmart and Target: they're pretty much the same for all things, and you go to whichever is convenient. In an emergency, even more so.

 

Also, people already avoid toll roads when they can, and go around places they know has bad traffic. I don't see how privatization is worse (and I see lots of ways that it's better).

 

Lets be honest, the "but then people might have to think" argument is pretty much the worst counter argument, ever.

[NBVegita]

Hey Dr. Brain, can you hit on a few of the points in my post?

[Dr Brain]

Sorry, I missed your post in the multi-post confusion.

 

Education. If you privatize education beyond college, you will create the same problem with college education. At first the prices will be reasonable, but then they will increase price just as colleges have. You also have the problem that now if you come from a lower class family chances are you cannot even get a high school education. You would effective increase the class gap in the country exponentially.

 

That's what scholarships are for. I came from a lower class family, and I went to college on a scholarship.

 

To sever's point on fire and police. How are you going to fund them? Without funding, you've got no fire house or police station. So either you're going to have to pay a monthly fee to be protected by the fire and police or you don't get protection? How else would a privatized company be able to fund the salaries and equipment needed? It's not like putting out fires has a capital return. Not to mention what about police force jurisdiction? If I only pay for police in Liverpool, NY and I go to Boston, MA do I have to pay a visitors fee to get protection? Or is it that they'll stop the bad guy, but they'll only arrest him if I pay the fee, otherwise they let him back at me? Why would they give me free protection? That would be like you walking into a massage parlor for a massage, being charged $200 and when I come in they say "Oh we'll give you a free massage because this guy already paid." It would NEVER work.

 

Seems to me like you're focusing on police, which was one of the few services I said might not be able to be privatized. But just because you and I aren't clever enough to figure out a private police system doesn't mean it can't be done. I'm sure google and 15 minutes on a libertarian site will give you plenty of ideas how it might work. I haven't bothered because police would be the very very last service to become privatized.

 

Roads and highways. Again you're either going to have to pay a monthly fee to get something fixed, or you're going to have to pay by occasion. Maybe they charge $2000 to fix that big pot hole in front of your house or you just have to live with it.

 

That money has to come from somewhere. Is it ethical to steal that money from your neighbors to fix it?

 

Social work. Unemployment. Snow plowing. Street cleaning. Parks and recreation. Prison.

 

I mean the list goes on.

 

Social work? Isn't that done by volunteers?

Unemployment can be done by charities and families.

Snow plowing is done by the owner of the road.

Ditto for street cleaning.

Parks and rec can be easily privatized. I don't use those services often, and I'm happy to pay when I do.

Prison is one of those unfortunate things that the government has to do, along with the legal system. The closest you could get to private would be a system where prisons bid for contracts (this wouldn't necessarily be the best way), but the authority has to originate from the republic, since you're denying people rights. Again, this would be one of the last things on the road to privatization.

 

Whats worse is some of those things are hard to differentiate between who pays and who doesn't. Are they supposed to look up your house if it's on fire to see if you're current with payments? How about if you don't pay to have the roads plowed, but everyone else does? Should they revoke your license? Same things with the highway, if you don't have a receipt and your driving on a fixed highway you didn't pay for, you'll get a ticket/arrested? If you privatize police, what incentive do they have to actually do their job? What if one privatized police force finds out another is corrupt, can they arrest them all? There are thousands of what if's.

 

More than likely, the money for the fire dept would be paid alongside homeowners insurance

 

If you're not paying for the road, you'd be denied access to the road, since it would be private property.

 

I would almost guarantee you would end up paying more money in private fee's than you would from taxes.

 

I would actually guarantee (not just almost, like you) that you would pay less.

 

How we focus on these instead:

Social Security Administration

Office of Personnel Management (what does this even do?)

Department of Transportation

Department of Labor (what does this even do?)

Department of Education

Housing and Urban Development

Department of Energy

International Assistance Programs

Department of the Interior

Department of Commerce

National Science Foundation

Corps of Engineers

Department of Agriculture

[SeVeR]

Most companies make money by providing the best service/money that they can, and making sure their customers keep coming back. That's a much healthier relationship than taxer-taxee.

No, that's the ideal relationship. The real relationship is companies charge the worst service they can for the highest price affordable because that is what maximises profit. Most customers don't know what their health insurance really includes, and most just respond to whatever special offer is being pumped on the advertisements. You may tell me that they will lose their customers, but the truth is, the customers don't know what they're getting when they sign up, and none of the other companies are any better since they all want to make profit. As long as the customers are merely satisfied 90% of the time, then it doesn't matter if 10% of the time they find that they aren't covered for something they actually need, just like it doesn't matter if 10% of the population can't even afford it in the first place. It's more profitable to charge 90% of the population more money, and give them crap service.

 

I'm confused... you think teachers and doctors shouldn't make money? Or you think that practices and schools shouldn't make money? Everyone should be forced to live with the worst health/education possible, even if they can afford better? My parents managed to pay for my sister and I to go to private school by sacrificing in other areas. You'd take that right away from people? How dare you?

I'm saying there shouldn't be a CEO sitting at his desk deciding how much he can squeeze Joe Bloggs' wallet for Joe to get his knee fixed and his children educated. In England there are public schools paid for by the state, and private schools that you can choose to pay for. Ya know, it doesn't have to be just one of the other. I support the English way because you have the right to a free education, and the choice to pay for something more. Health is the same.

 

Yes, they get billed. Personal bankruptcy is always an option (better to have credit problems than be dead, right?). There's also that charity thing I talked about earlier. If they're illegally in the country, then they get deported when they're healthy enough.

Hah, "I saved your life, now hand over your life savings." Charming. Edited January 20, 2010 by SeVeR

[Dr Brain]

Most companies make money by providing the best service/money that they can, and making sure their customers keep coming back. That's a much healthier relationship than taxer-taxee.

No, that's the ideal relationship. The real relationship is companies charge the worst service they can for the highest price affordable because that is what maximises profit. Most customers don't know what their health insurance really includes, and most just respond to whatever special offer is being pumped on the advertisements. You may tell me that they will lose their customers, but the truth is, the customers don't know what they're getting when they sign up, and none of the other companies are any better since they all want to make profit. As long as the customers are merely satisfied 90% of the time, then it doesn't matter if 10% of the time they find that they aren't covered for something they actually need, just like it doesn't matter if 10% of the population can't even afford it in the first place. It's more profitable to charge 90% of the population more money, and give them crap service.

 

You seem fixated on health insurance, which I've already said on multiple occasions is not a free market. You criticizing it over and over just emphasizes how messed up the regulations are. Tell me about how companies in other markets are screwing the customer, and I might pay attention (I might not though, you're getting pretty boring). Honest people can't make an honest living in regulated markets. That means you'll only get evil, depraved companies in those markets. The solution is not to put more regulation on them.

 

How many times have you been screwed by your local pizza place? How many times have you been cheated by your grocery store? Oh, I've had problems with companies a few times, but more often than not, that company goes out of business shortly afterwards. I wish I could say the same for the DMV.

 

I'm saying there shouldn't be a CEO sitting at his desk deciding how much he can squeeze Joe Bloggs' wallet for Joe to get his knee fixed and his children educated. In England there are public schools paid for by the state, and private schools that you can choose to pay for. Ya know, it doesn't have to be just one of the other. I support the English way because you have the right to a free education, and the choice to pay for something more. Health is the same.

 

So I shouldn't be legally allowed to feed my family if I start a school? Yes, I can see how you would get a great educational system out of that. Because we all know how many great people have come out of 's free educational system. Were you a byproduct of a free system, by chance?

 

For public vs. private schools, all I'm asking for is to pay for one or the other, instead of one or both. Is that too much to ask?

[SeVeR]

You seem fixated on health insurance, which I've already said on multiple occasions is not a free market. You criticizing it over and over just emphasizes how messed up the regulations are.

Well it's the prime example of how private services have failed. I bring it up because the problem isn't solved just by getting rid of monopolies. We all know that there are places with many insurance companies all charging too much, where is the monopoly here? You contend that this isn't price-fixing, and whether it is or is not, people still can't afford it, so something is wrong with the system. This translates to all other possible private services that I mentioned before, you don't need a monopoly to be over-charged.

 

Companies who screwed me over. Just recently a web-hosting company screwed me over by putting something in the small print of their contract that means I have to pay for a whole year of web-hosting I don't need. In fact this company is a prime example because they got an influx of customers due to getting transferred customers from another company that was closing down. What did they do after this influx? They downgraded their service in almost every way. I have been screwed over by clothing companies selling crap at high prices, the kind of stuff that lasts one or two washes before deforming. I recently ordered a small stove that broke after the first time I used it, I still haven't been refunded even though I returned it before Christmas. God... this has all been recent, there are lots more and my Dad has even more horror stories.

 

These are all examples of people producing crap to make profit. This is all beside the point though, being screwed over isn't always the same as being over-charged. Lets see, we pay too much for books, trainers (sneakers), legal drugs (drugs that are a fraction of the cost if bought in other countries, so why do Americans and Europeans get charged more?), cell-phone service, music CDs, gasoline (billion dollar profits are the result of stiff competition?), bottled water, all kinds of insurance: health, auto, home, travel. All are price-fixed in my opinion.

 

So I shouldn't be legally allowed to feed my family if I start a school? Yes, I can see how you would get a great educational system out of that. Because we all know how many great people have come out of 's free educational system. Were you a byproduct of a free system, by chance?

I don't see how you get that first question from what I said. On the other question, are you trying to say that a free education makes a person stupid now? I went to a free school and came from a poor background. I could give you a list of my qualifications and how much money I make on the stock market in my free time (oh look, economics knowledge...), but that would be bragging a bit. Are you really a doctor, Dr Brain? Maybe we have something in common afterall.

 

For public vs. private schools, all I'm asking for is to pay for one or the other, instead of one or both. Is that too much to ask?

It sounds quite reasonable to get a tax reduction during the time you are paying for private school. It doesn't sound reasonable to opt out of paying tax for public schools if you haven't got children. The same is true for all the other public services, you pay for them because if you don't use them everyday, you rely on them being there, and if you object to this, how can you not object to insurance? People without children contribute to public schools because if they have children then they'll know they can get them an education if private education costs too much. Edited January 20, 2010 by SeVeR

[Dr Brain]

Drugs and music are monopolies. The music monopoly is starting to break up, thanks to the digital revolution.

 

Gasoline suffers from huge legislative barriers. For example, I believe that there hasn't been a new refinery built in 30 years. Many of the prime methods of extracting oil have been banned, for no real reason (not even environmental). I believe the progressive movement benefits from a destruction of the economy, and making oil expensive is one of the best ways to do that.

 

Sneakers, books (excluding text books), cell phones, and bottled water I find to be quite affordable for what they are. Maybe the UK has legislation stopping them from being affordable. Perhaps there are monopolies or price fixing companies in the UK that sell these things. I couldn't care less.

 

Yes, I was insinuating that a free education is not a help. No I'm not a doctor, MD or otherwise. I created this alias when I was 12. When I was in graduate school, I decided to leave with a MS and not pursue my Ph.D, as I'd prefer not to be associated with the kind of people that end up with PhDs.

 

I don't know what you mean about not objecting to insurance. I don't buy insurance I don't need. Why would a 70 yr. old widow have to pay for public school? Why would a couple that cannot have children have to pay for public school? Why would registered sex offenders have to pay for public school?

[NBVegita]

That's what scholarships are for. I came from a lower class family, and I went to college on a scholarship.

 

I went to college on scholarship to, coming from a lower class family. Yet the only reason why I was able to get my scholarship was because I could go to school for basically free (just the small amount of tax money pulled out). If I had to pay to go to a private elementary, secondary and high school my parents couldn't have afforded it. There won't be state and federal scholarships for those programs and unless you're expecting your neighbors to pay, you and I wouldn't have had an education period.

 

That money has to come from somewhere. Is it ethical to steal that money from your neighbors to fix it?

 

Yes it is. The reason being is that simply because the road is in front of your house doesn't mean you own it. You don't choose who can or cannot drive on it, how it is cared for, or not cared for. The point is that roads are for public use and are as such cared for by the public as a whole. If you wake up and there is a pot hole out front, you have no idea where it came from or why and being everyone and anyone can use it, anyone and everyone should pay for it.

 

Social work? Isn't that done by volunteers?

Unemployment can be done by charities and families.

Snow plowing is done by the owner of the road.

Ditto for street cleaning.

Parks and rec can be easily privatized. I don't use those services often, and I'm happy to pay when I do.

 

Social workers are paid by the state/county governments depending on where you're located. Only a small amount of social work is volunteer. They need to be paid somehow.

 

As for charities and families. If I got fired today my family can't support me. Realistically no mid-lower class family could do that. As for charities, they can't even raise enough money to complete their causes today, now you're saying they need to expand exponentially? One advantage is that your lower class would get much small because they'd all starve to death.

 

You're assuming that you can own the roads? Well that’s great but technically you'd have to get permission to drive on each and every road, from each and every road owner. Great. Now what if you need to take a trip? What if you want to go to the hospital but the only hospital you can go to you can't drive to because you don't have permission? What if someone gets mad at you and buys all of the roads around your house and says you can't drive on them? I mean the concept that people/companies can individually own roads is ridiculous.

 

The only place I had to play as a kid was the city park by my house. If you make me have to pay to use it, I can no longer play at that park. Where am I going to play now? Most people who would be willing to pay will either make they private little community parks where only a select few will be allowed or they simply will let them die.

 

I would actually guarantee (not just almost, like you) that you would pay less

 

Oh really?

 

Look at it this way if you are a single person making say 30k a year, with a standard deduction of $5700. Your taxable income is now $24,300. For that income (based on 2009) you were only supposed to pay $3231 in federal tax. Now divide that per month you're paying $269.25 a month. State tax will vary by state obviously but even in NYS with a high state tax, you're paying maybe a total of $300 a month.

 

Now tell me how far you think $300 will get you when you need to pay for:

 

Private education

Road privileges

Fire protection added into your house insurance and or rent

Police protection (as a possibility)

A park (possibly)

Donations to a charity or maybe even helping out a family member if they've lost their job

Take away ss so now you've gotta help your parents retire or just watch them starve to death.

 

Ultimately if you privatized everything you're simply going to make the rich richer and the poor poorer. For example, rich people pay the same as poor people for cable. $100 a month for someone only making 30k a year is a much bigger expense than for someone making 300k a year. The same would happen with everything privatized. The lower class right now gets a "discount rate" as you would look at it, by the government for all of these services based on how much you make. A pay what you can system if you were. Now without that system, the rich will stay rich, actually may even become richer and the poor will simply become poorer.

 

I am not for socializing but there is a difference between trying to make something that is difficult already (having a poor to lower class person jump out of their "class") and make it exponentially harder. I don't support every government program or the way they spend money, but there are a great majority of programs that I fully support the government funding with our tax money.

 

Based on your system we would have a stagnant society. It is hard to progress as a society or a country when every person is out for themselves.

[»Lynx]

This thread has been interesting, but I thought I'd point out that some countries have taxes that you can opt out of. For example, Hong Kong (two-tier healthcare system) allows you to opt out of their public healthcare system if you wish to only use the private system.

 

Have fun going back and forth endlessly between two opinions, guys.

[Bak]

Hospitals won't become like Target and Walmart, because the patient does not see the costs directly.

 

People don't pay for services at a hospital, they pay for insurance, which then pays for the services. When you visit a hospital, you aren't told how much things cost, you only receive a bill afterward. Furthermore, even if you did know how much some test costs, who are you to be telling the doctor it's too expensive and you should opt for a different test? You don't have a doctor's education level which is necessary if you want to know the effectiveness of a test, or if there's a cheaper alternative test. If a hospital raises its rates, you don't really feel the impact, only the insurance company does. This is why it ends up being the insurance companies that shop around, and they tell you which hospitals are in-network which you can go to, and which ones your insurance doesn't cover. And then you have the bad situation I described earlier, where in an emergency you're scrambling to see if you're going to the correct hospital, rather than focusing on getting the quickest treatment possible.

 

It's also not like a grocery store. You don't get told that there's 5 companies which do the same test with various rates and you choose from one of them. Furthermore, how would you evaluate your choice (how do you know if the more expensive test is more accurate?)? What does the cost versus accuracy trade-off look like for medical tests? With a grocery store you can taste that some products are bad and avoid them in the future. Such direct feedback doesn't exist for medical services, except maybe for your personal interactions with the staff. It's the procedures, however, that make up the most of the cost (and a friendly doctor is not necessarily an effective doctor).

[Dr Brain]

Yes, that's the problem I'm talking about. Patients don't see the costs directly. Can you imagine what auto insurance costs would be like if you paid for windshield wiper replacement with your auto insurance? They'd be like health insurance is now.

 

In the few instances that my family have had to go to a hospital, we've always been able to negotiate for a better price, (since we don't have health insurance by choice). The hospitals charge whatever they like, because the insurance always pays for it. When they get someone without insurance, they're happy to give people a good rate (usually between 5% to 10% the "list" price, where a $10,000 bill becomes $500).

 

There have been efforts to reverse this, but the government has shut them down (e.g. http://blog.americanjusticecenter.com/2009/03/state-orders-dr-john-muney-to-stop.html (first article I found on Dr. John Muney, there are probably better ones from more credible sources than an online blog))

 

Hospitals may never get to the point of being like retail stores, but they'd at least progress further up the chain-of-suck to where auto shops are (giving good rates on labor, but bad rates on parts, since they can't control that).

[SeVeR]

Gasoline suffers from huge legislative barriers. For example, I believe that there hasn't been a new refinery built in 30 years. Many of the prime methods of extracting oil have been banned, for no real reason (not even environmental). I believe the progressive movement benefits from a destruction of the economy, and making oil expensive is one of the best ways to do that.

None of what you've said here justifies the huge profits being made. It can cost the bloody world to produce, but if they make a massive profit then they've still sold it for too much haven't they? I don't think competition has succeeded here, otherwise they would be trying to out-compete eachother by reducing their prices closer to their profit-margin.

 

Nevertheless, this argument is pointless because you will just say "It's a monopoly, and in my fantasy world all monopolies will be fixed". You pretty much said this for all my other examples.

 

Drugs and music are monopolies. The music monopoly is starting to break up, thanks to the digital revolution.

So why aren't we fixing the monopoly? Maybe politicians are too corrupt, but isn't this an inherent consequence of your system?

 

Why would a 70 yr. old widow have to pay for public school? Why would a couple that cannot have children have to pay for public school? Why would registered sex offenders have to pay for public school?

Grandchildren, adoption, criminals shouldn't get any benefit for their crime.

 

I don't know what you mean about not objecting to insurance. I don't buy insurance I don't need.

So lets say you come out of university and go into your first job. Your tax form arrives and asks you whether you want to opt out of paying for public schools, and you say "Yes". Since public schools wouldn't exist if everyone said "Yes", you should never have the choice of putting your kids into public school from that point on. You can't change your mind if you have kids in the future because you've done nothing to ensure the existence of those public schools up until the point you need them. As a result, if you can't afford private school, your kids don't get educated. Therefore, my point is that it's like paying into an insurance package for the possibility you may need it. Public schools have to survive during the point you don't need them because otherwise, when you do need them, or your children's children need them, they won't be there.

 

not pursue my Ph.D, as I'd prefer not to be associated with the kind of people that end up with PhDs.

I don't often come across statements that appear both stupid and hypocritical at the same time. Stupid because to change the path of your life for a superficial excuse like how you think you will look afterwards, is pretty dumb. Hypocritical because I'm guessing you think PhDs look down on other people, yet this superiority is something you exhibit in your own statement with "not to be associated with the kind of people". Interesting and funny. Edited January 22, 2010 by SeVeR

[Dr Brain]

None of what you've said here justifies the huge profits being made.

 

Huge profits? Why do I have to justify them? I think people should make whatever they can legally make. You're the one that thinks it should be taken away from them, because you know better.

 

You've also stated that you make obscene profits from the stock market. You seem to believe that any profit is a bad thing, and the stock market exists to trade shares of a companies profit. Isn't that hypocritical of you?

 

It can cost the bloody world to produce, but if they make a massive profit then they've still sold it for too much haven't they? I don't think competition has succeeded here, otherwise they would be trying to out-compete eachother by reducing their prices closer to their profit-margin.

 

No. Profit is the expense for hiring the best managers that money can buy. Lowering profit would lower efficiency to the point where they're not selling as much. The system has stabilized. Your interference in the market just destabilizes things.

 

Nevertheless, this argument is pointless because you will just say "It's a monopoly, and in my fantasy world all monopolies will be fixed". You pretty much said this for all my other examples.

 

By that argument, this entire forum is pointless. It's probably even true.

 

So why aren't we fixing the monopoly? Maybe politicians are too corrupt, but isn't this an inherent consequence of your system?

 

Yes, politicians are a big part of the problem.

 

Why would a 70 yr. old widow have to pay for public school? Why would a couple that cannot have children have to pay for public school? Why would registered sex offenders have to pay for public school?

Grandchildren, adoption, criminals shouldn't get any benefit for their crime.

 

Wow, so taxes are now a punishment?! I never expected you to admit it.

 

So lets say you come out of university and go into your first job. Your tax form arrives and asks you whether you want to opt out of paying for public schools, and you say "Yes". Since public schools wouldn't exist if everyone said "Yes", you should never have the choice of putting your kids into public school from that point on. You can't change your mind if you have kids in the future because you've done nothing to ensure the existence of those public schools up until the point you need them. As a result, if you can't afford private school, your kids don't get educated. Therefore, my point is that it's like paying into an insurance package for the possibility you may need it. Public schools have to survive during the point you don't need them because otherwise, when you do need them, or your children's children need them, they won't be there.

 

So again, you know what to use my money for better than I do? This paragraph says it all. You know better, so you get to decide how to use my money. I can't decide, because I'm an ignorant hick.

 

I don't often come across statements that appear both stupid and hypocritical at the same time. Stupid because to change the path of your life for a superficial excuse like how you think you will look afterwards, is pretty dumb. Hypocritical because I'm guessing you think PhDs look down on other people, yet this superiority is something you exhibit in your own statement with "not to be associated with the kind of people". Interesting and funny.

 

It's not my problem that you read so much into my statement that you came to untrue conclusions. I don't have a problem with PhDs looking down on other people (though I've observed that the average PhD tends to do just that). I have a problem with them because they're divorced from the real world to the point of being impotent. I wanted to do serious engineering work, and a PhD could have hampered my job prospects (since employers would know as well as I do that PhDs tend to be divorced from the real world). I didn't feel the two years of investment was worth a negative effect. Yes, it's about how other people look at me (superficial, in your words), but the entire idea of a degree is to change how other people look at you.

 

Stupid because to change the path of your life for a superficial excuse like how you think you will look afterwards, is pretty dumb.

Did you not change the course of your life to get your PhD (or MD, or DMD, or whatever degree you actually have)? Was that not to change how others looked at you? If you only wanted the education, you would have taken the classes, but you wouldn't have bothered with the honorific degree. I think it's rich of you to call me stupid for doing basically the same thing.

[NBVegita]

Did you not change the course of your life to get your PhD (or MD, or DMD, or whatever degree you actually have)? Was that not to change how others looked at you? If you only wanted the education, you would have taken the classes, but you wouldn't have bothered with the honorific degree.

 

I would say that most people pursue degrees so that they can get decent jobs. You can have all the education in the world, but most companies will simply not consider you for a position unless you have that "honorific" piece of paper. I'm going for my PhD right now in electrical engineering for two reasons. First that I work for a utility company so the more advance my knowledge in a subject directly related to my company, the more job opportunities await me. Second I would like to teach part time at my alma mater as my "retirement" job, for which I NEED a PhD to do so.

 

No one in my family (except my wife) or friends even knows I have a masters let alone that I'm half way to my PhD. If you're going to get a degree, or avoid a degree based on what others opinions of you will be, you're going to school for the wrong reason.

[Dr Brain]

EE? Neat. I have my MS in Electrical Engineering.

 

Anyway, companies hire you with a degree because the degree changes they way they look at you. If you have the view that people that interview and hire aren't people, then what you say is true.

[SeVeR]

None of what you've said here justifies the huge profits being made.

 

Huge profits? Why do I have to justify them? I think people should make whatever they can legally make. You're the one that thinks it should be taken away from them, because you know better.

I don't think any business should have their money taken away from them. I think they should compete to the point where the consumer wins. This is your ideal world is it not? Your whole argument is based on the idea that competition will give low prices for consumers if public services were privatised. The huge profits being made by oil companies shows that they aren't competing, they are taking profit that should go into under-cutting their rivals. Obviously competition has failed.

 

You've also stated that you make obscene profits from the stock market. You seem to believe that any profit is a bad thing, and the stock market exists to trade shares of a companies profit. Isn't that hypocritical of you?

I highlighted the funniest part of this last quote. Whatever image of me you have generated in your head for the purposes of better convincing yourself that I'm wrong, please get rid of it. I'm not ripping people off, therefore I have no problems with any profit I make. It's not obscene either, I almost make enough to live on, but I do it part-time, maybe I'll get better in years to come.

 

No. Profit is the expense for hiring the best managers that money can buy. Lowering profit would lower efficiency to the point where they're not selling as much. The system has stabilized. Your interference in the market just destabilizes things.

I'm obviously talking about profit after expenses like wages...

 

Yes, politicians are a big part of the problem.

Care to elaborate?

 

Wow, so taxes are now a punishment?! I never expected you to admit it.

Not what I said.

 

So again, you know what to use my money for better than I do? This paragraph says it all. You know better, so you get to decide how to use my money. I can't decide, because I'm an ignorant hick.

How about you contend the argument?

 

I don't have a problem with PhDs looking down on other people (though I've observed that the average PhD tends to do just that). I have a problem with them because they're divorced from the real world to the point of being impotent.

That's vague. The average PhD is more intelligent than the average non-PhD, so when you talk about PhDs being divorced from the real world, perhaps what you really mean to say is they disagree with your opinion on the real world.

 

(since employers would know as well as I do that PhDs tend to be divorced from the real world)

They would know that, would they? So you're saying that your opinion on PhDs is a fact? I'd like to know your real motive for convincing yourself this is a fact.

 

Did you not change the course of your life to get your PhD (or MD, or DMD, or whatever degree you actually have)? Was that not to change how others looked at you? If you only wanted the education, you would have taken the classes, but you wouldn't have bothered with the honorific degree. I think it's rich of you to call me stupid for doing basically the same thing.

If I gave up my PhD after two years because I was afraid of how people would look at me afterwards, I would expect everyone I know to think I was stupid. So don't criticise me for saying it.

 

I changed the course of my life to get a PhD. It wasn't to change how others look at me, rather how I look at myself, to know I am capable of it. I'm not looking for advanced career prospects, although it's nice to know they are advanced by a PhD; it gives me something to fall back on. Your idea that PhD's damage your impression on employers sounds like a pretty bad excuse for something you're not telling us.

 

My real reason wasn't any of this. I wanted to give myself time to learn things, not just to do with nuclear physics, but also philosophy, trading on the stock market, politics, and generally to have time to grow as an individual. A PhD doesn't have to work 9-5, in fact one can study whenever, as long as objectives are met.

 

Why would anyone pay money to take classes when one earns money to do a PhD? I want to learn more, that should be clear, and a PhD is the best way to do it. Again, the point you made regarding this as an "honorific" motive just seems like an excuse.

[Dr Brain]

So you seem to think that gas prices would drop if the industry were assumed by the government? Lol.

 

What is there to respond to? You seem convinced that public schools need money from people who don't use them, and that public schools are necessary to educate the poor. I disagree on both points.

 

Your post implies (I could be reading it wrong) that I spent two years on a PhD and gave it up. This is not the case. I graduated with my MS and decided not to continue further.

 

I know many PhDs that could solve partial differential equations in their head, but couldn't figure out how to ride a bus. I call that divorced from the real world. If you want to call it divorced from my world, that's fine. Either way, I'd rather live in that world (the one that the PhDs seem to have trouble with).

 

Axiom: Some people hold the same opinions that I do.

Assumption: Some of these people with the same opinions that I have work in companies.

Axiom: I would prefer to socialize with people that hold the same opinions that I do.

Inference: I would prefer to work at a company that employs people with the same opinions that I have.

Conclusion: Not getting a PhD betters my chances of being hired by a company that I would prefer to work at.

 

I don't think I can make my motivations more clear than that.

 

If you got your PhD to prove something to yourself, that's fine. Good for you. I didn't have any need to prove something to myself, so that wasn't a motivating factor. I got the education and job opportunities that I wanted with the completion of my MS. In my opinion, further effort would have been wasted.

 

Lets look at your statement that you get paid to get a PhD. I'm assuming you mean as a paid graduate student (this is how I financed my MS). While true, it's misleading. You get paid *more* not to get a PhD and instead get a real job. After the PhD, (if you can get a job that you want, see above), you get paid more than if you had not received a PhD. How long does it take to recover this difference? In the case of a MS vs BS, not long. 5 years is a typically quoted figure. In the case of a MS vs PhD? Much longer. I've heard figures that quote 10-20 years. If you factor in interest, it takes even longer.

 

I made the decision for me and my future. If you're looking for something more, I can't help you.

[NBVegita]

Anyway, companies hire you with a degree because the degree changes they way they look at you.

 

I would agree that is true. In your original post I assumed you had meant it in a more egotistical vs practical manner.