Getting Healthcare Right

I'd like to take a poll right now. Most of us have no idea how much our labor makes for these companies, and so, have no idea what our labor is actually worth. What I will tell you is after the bloated wallets in upper management are further filled with large bonuses, while workers are treading water trying to keep their heads up over the piddlance they've been paid, the workers didn't even nearly get their fair share.

 

which is exactly what they should not do, as the higher than normal price is what lets suppliers know that people in that area are in dire need of batteries and bottled water. A cap on price is a cap on supply.

Again, understanding but the basic laws of supply and demand would clear up most of the confusion afflicting you guys about "capitalism".



Fortunately, most governments know better than to use price ceilings and price floors these days, and people tend to be pretty charitable toward folks in dire need when they have the means and the chance, contrary to what the commies would have us believe.

 

Would you continue shopping at a store that did that? I've been through a few natural disasters. I think the worst was the loma prieta earthquake in 89. I came home to no electricity and a block party. The local liquor store was handing out free melting ice cream for the kids, and the candles and batteries weren't marked up at all. Since they were being good neighbors, us guys didn't mind buying the less than cold beer.

If they had marked up prices on emergency items, they might have had an unfortunate epidemic of window breakage, and a loss of customers.

 

How does not knowing what your labor is worth tell you anything about what your labor is worth? There is no objective standard of what things are worth. Anything and everything, including labor of all kinds, is only worth what someone is willing to pay for it. That is as as close as you'll ever get to an objective law of value. All the scribblings of all the politicians in the world can never do anything to change it even if they were all scribbling on the same page.

 

Their fair share of the profits? No, that's not how it works. Your fair share is what the value of your labor is where you are employed.

I know, I know... it's irritating. The company might be pulling in all sorts of money, while you're struggling to make ends meet. Believe me, I know how that is. That's not the deal though. Whether your employer loses money or makes money, they have a legal obligation to pay what is specified in your contract. Since you're not going to take an automatic cut in pay when their profit margin drops, then you don't automatically get a raise when it rises.

I think a fair salary is paying somebody what the market says their labor is worth. So if I hire some guy to cut wood all day for a dollar, that's not fair because I'm taking advantage of the fact that he doesn't know that the guy down the street from me will pay 100 dollars a day for the exact same work. My guy is just ignorant of the true value of his labor, and taking advantage of his ignorance is immoral.

 

The "true value" being what, the value you place on his labor, the value the guy down the street places on his labor, the value he places on his own labor, or something independent of all three of you?

 

The true value of his labor being what the local market values his labor at. If it is five dollars an hour working for Bob, then it's five dollars an hour working for Bill across the street.

I'm sorry, but this is where I can't fall perfectly in line with my fellow free marketers. I've known employers who took advantage of people who trusted them to be friends, when they were nothing of the sort. I know that it's incumbent upon people to get the best deal they can get, but at the same time, there is a moral value (not economic) at work which says you don't take advantage of people's ignorance.

 

Sorry, but if that's all the protection you can expect from the government of the United States, the most powerful country in the world, no matter what Putin thinks? That's too bad. You don't aspire to hope for much in life. If we in Canada, yes with taxes, can all have a simple health card, applied for at birth which allows us access to any and all parts of healthcare before we've even paid a cent toward it ( you really can't expect it of a newborn) , how can you possibly, any of you, not believe every one of you deserves what at least should be considered a basic right as a human being .....living in THE MOST POWERFUL COUNTRY IN THE ENTIRE WORLD!

Here I am up in Canada, shaking in my boots afraid that while all this **** is going on down there, somebody is going to attack in some way. (not us necessarily, I'm more worried it'll be there.)Let's face it, the first things they'll find to attack are either Newfoundland or Cape Breton Island and mainland Nova Scotia on our east coast. We have an unbelievable ratio of trees to people, and the trees are winning hands down. So let's agree, your east coast is a lot more interesting than mine to attack.

I think we can all agree that although we look the same and live in houses up here, we only feel safe because we're sitting on top of you guys. Halleluiah! If we weren't where we are , just based on our combined armed forces capacity, what language do you think we'd be speaking up here? It's anybody's guess. I bet it wouldn't be English or French.

 

Its not all we expect from our gov't.
We expect, at least the majority, not speaking for some of the RW, eqaulity opportunity for all people, particularly citizens.
We expect, a solid reasonable defense, unlike our RW, who think our defense should be a good offense.
We expect, that when our gov't makes trades agreements with other countries that result in our job losses, the gov't will provide the transition needs like welfare and training to aide in the drop in pay that will undoubtedly happen.

Of course I say all this as a middle class person, aligned to neither of our corrupt party elites who cowtow to large multinational corporations for campaign $$$$ to ensure they have a life long career in our political system.

 

So it's okay to take advantage of people in a time of need so that the right message gets to whomever, so that the market knows there's been a demand. So raise the price of batteries and water because desperate people have no lights and water, as long as you get to, which is presumably going to come to an end when the emergency is over? And as far as a floor on the prices of batteries and water, unless there's some kind of dementia outbreak in your area, I think you'll find it difficult to find anybody selling them for less than they paid for them.
And have those too poor to afford the inflated prices either go without, or hope there are enough good Samaritans who rush in to supply that stuff. I guess we're supposed to see some evidence of this love for thy fellow man in those who would inflate these prices at such a time in the first place, if allowed.

 

Good for you, as well you should. You should expect no less.

 

I'm glad they did. It was being pushed through by Paul Ryan without adequate input, and without addressing the most basic things promised by Trump, like buying insurance across state lines. This needs a lot of time -- and it needs cooperation instead of interference by democrats.

In the meantime, Obama care continues to collapse. Nevada has predicted bankruptcy since before it got off the ground. When it hits, it will take many people with it. It will not be pretty. Both parties share responsibility for the failure.

 

I don't get it. That comment was too vague. Tell me

 

How did the democrats interfere when nobody even tried to involve them or convince them in any way to support the bill?

 

Well, I've sold my share of my own labor, and I'm all about gouging an employer for as much I can get, and my hat's off to anyone who can do it better, but the way I see it, that's a matter of negotiation.

Take the situation where you pay some guy(Ted) $1/day, knowing someone else is willing to pay 100. That's a dastardly thing to do. I think we all agree to that. In a real life scenario, though, people are gonna talk with Ted about is new job. Eventually, word is gonna get to Ted that the guy down the street(Ron) pays 100/day and needs another guy. That's when Ted goes to work for Ron. And what happens to you after all the non-retarded people find out what you did to Ted. They're gonna be mad at you, and give you dirty looks at the deli. They might not even want to buy your wood any more. They might say "Yeah, guy-who-made-Ted-work-for-a-dollar, I'll buy that cord of wood from you. I'll give you fifty cents for it."

Imagine that Ron doesn't need another hand. He's paying $100/day to three other guys, and he's on pace to get all the wood he knows how to sell in the future for the money he has to invest right now. He finds out what you've been doing to Ted, but he literally has no money to pay Ted. His girlfriend, who's known him for a while and knows a thing or two about the firewood market as a result, decides she's willing to risk $50/day, three days a week on wood she may or may not sell in the distant future to help Ted out if he's willing to take the offer.

Is anyone else justified in forcibly preventing Ted from accepting Ron's girlfriend's offer?

 

Republicans weren't either, that's the problem. It was a total redux of Nancy Pelosi saying "you have to pass the bill to see what's in the bill".

But dems spend their energy with lots of negativity and back-biting. They'd be so much smarter to jump in and help by bringing their concerns and remedies to the table. Then they could share in the credits for a successful product. Not all dems were for obamacare, you know.

 

Democracies have a track record of failing because they are flawed from the get-go. As soon as the majority of people realize that all they have to do is vote for whatever the minority is, they will do so. A republic or representative democracy is just a corrupt politician away from the same fate.

The only type of government that has a long track record of success are monarchies. They can oftentimes suffer through the reign of an ignorant monarch, but the foundation is firm because they have a built-in check to the power that a monarch has because a monarch generally wants to hand his kingdom in as healthy a condition as possible to his heir. On the other hand, there is nothing to keep a president from running the country into the ground. His son will not inherit the country, so the only motivation is to fleece the country dry.

It's basically the difference between a one-night stand and marriage. You don't care about some girl you're going to kick out of bed in the morning. Just enjoy her while she's there, and then point her towards the door after she's made breakfast, and then bumrush her out onto the sidewalk. If she's your wife, you might want to compliment her for not burning the toast.

 

It was in response to this:

We can predict this with apodictic certainty just knowing the nature of representative democracies and the current political climate.

 

I don't think the argument should be based on all communistic vs free enterprise. Both bring out the worst in human nature.

I keep toying with the idea that some kind of mild government interference would be beneficial to all. Kind of like the days of Ma Bell when she was a monopoly but there was enough government oversight to see to it that phone cable ran out into sparsely populated areas that would not have been serviced in a totally capitalistic environment. I wonder -- what if a percentage structure could be imposed on corporate salary models -- where each job level received a percentage of the the top dog's salaries. If the business is failing, everyone has low pay; and if it succeeds, everyone shares in the higher income. It would incentivize the boss to hire smart people, and inspire smart people to contribute freely and not hold back. What if each layer of employees down the ladder to the janitor all got a salary tied to a percentage of the top salary. Think, if the janitor worked in a very successful business he could make $100,000 a year - imagine the competition for his job - how hard he would work to keep his job. Think what ambitious and creative team players the middle management would be because they all had an equal part to play to create greater earnings and boost their own salaries. And the top management would not be able to think of the corporation as a thing they can suck dry and parachute out of - but would actually have to show successful leadership to gain the wealth they desire.

 

You don't know that. Price is an emergent property. Unless we're there witnessing everything develop, we are not qualified to say why the price is what it is. It's usually not some guy with a Monopoly hat and a malicious grin and cackle. It's usually something like: The local battery supplier's supply chain is broken, he doesn't want to run out, so he raises prices to keep them on the shelf. As they continue to fly off the shelves, he continues to raise price until he notices that he needs some of these batteries for himself. At that point, he pulls all the batteries from the shelf. People keep coming, saying "common, man, please??? I'll give you $100 for two batteries". He says: "I'll tell you what. I'll sell you my stash for $10,000. For that, I'll go live off the land. Otherwise, you go live off the land."

Price is an emergent property. It is the result off all these ineffable factors contributing to supply and all these other ineffable factors contributing to demand.

 

If the providers' rapidly escalating inflated profits are not fairly adjusted, no plans with ACCEPTABLE coverage will be affordable to MOST citizens.

 

Admittedly it's a fair point.

We also seem to agree. It's immoral to pay far less than a fair market value for labor. That is the mitigating factor that puts a bit of a cog in the wheels of supply and demand. It's not just that the employer is paying far too little for the labor needs to be tarred and feathered, but that we as humans need to keep an eye out for that kind of thing. If there's some guy who doesn't know a law from a supply, but he's a fool for chopping wood, we need to step in and stop that from happening.

The problem is that this is so close to what the socialists are saying that free market types who don't make this kind of distinction get pegged as being immoral people. We want burger flippers to starve, we don't want them to get paid a fair wage, we want to put their kids down in the coal mines and work long after the canary has keeled over... They are framing their argument as a moral imperative, while we bore everybody to tears with supply and demand, as if there isn't a morality to our side.

And in a way, they are correct. We're not doing a good enough job framing our side of the story as a moral and just way of doing things. We're losing the propaganda war! I have a friend who recently hit the classified ads recently looking for a job, and I was trying to help her. Believe me, we're not doing a good enough job because some of these ads are so full of lies, semi-truths, and omissions that I came close to ordering a hard copy of Mao's little red book. If one were to believe these crooks, you'd think that everybody working at McDonald's is a highly prized member of a dedicated team of highly educated professionals working tirelessly in order to provide their valued customers with the utmost in consumer satisfaction, instead of being a bunch of grumbling incompetents who generally hate each other slightly less than they hate the customers themselves.

 

I agree, there are long waits. Hell, sometimes the appointments take just as long. TWO HOURS. Two HOURS I wasted. Making it more efficient isn't about the type of health care system, it should be more efficient regardless.

 

The paragraph you quoted was the precursor to the point of the the post which came to be illustrated in the following paragraph, and was punctuated by the question at the end. (That was the idea anyway)

We agree that it's immoral to cheat someone, where "cheat" can only be defined by people with a conscience, and each of them will define it differently according to all the nuances of their particular perspective. And I'm convinced that most of us would think that most of them are right if we could take cognizance of all those nuances. If there is any such thing as "fair market value", it must be a convention at a particular time and place.