Monopolies are good for the monopolists, not the public

[ElFenix]

I have to disagree here. We DO have the power to vote out monopolies, if by that you mean particular government institutions or programs, by voting for candidates who support disbanding those programs. The reason we lack de facto power is because we have made ourselves powerless because we do not send clear messages to our elected officials.

- wolf

it's impossible to send clear messages when the only message is a vote between two candidates. people who vote for a candidate may only agree 60% with them, but that's better than the 40% that they agree with the other guy.

 

[MotF Bane]

it's impossible to send clear messages when the only message is a vote between two candidates. people who vote for a candidate may only agree 60% with them, but that's better than the 40% that they agree with the other guy.

Then don't vote for either of the two big parties.

“Always vote for principle, though you may vote alone, and you may cherish the sweetest reflection that your vote is never lost.”

 

[woolfe9999]

it's impossible to send clear messages when the only message is a vote between two candidates. people who vote for a candidate may only agree 60% with them, but that's better than the 40% that they agree with the other guy.

No, it isn't impossible to send clear messages, even in a two-party system.

Take the issue of healthcare reform. I supported the healthcare reform bill, but the bill was very unpopular in general. The republicans, who were both ideologically opposed, and also wanted to see the bill fail for political reasons, were nonetheless emboldened to rally their party line because the public polling supported their position. You really think that if that bill had been popular with the public, there wouldn't have been some defectors among the republican ranks? Of course there would have been. If the bill had had say 62% approval in the state of Maine, you think someone like Collins or Snowe wouldn't have defected to the dems? Of course they would have because they want to be re-elected in their home state. While I personally did not like the result, it nonetheless was an exercise of power on the part of the people which had a direct and material effect on the outcome of legislation. The same thing holds true with any particular issue.

Quite honestly, our constant meaningless sloganeering does nothing but ideologically polarize the two political parties, whereas we may advocate stances on particular issues that run counter to the sloganeering, or we may just not understand them well enough to even make informed decision. Issue based politics is where its at, and its not where we are. We disempower ourselves.

- wolf

 

[ElFenix]

but approval isn't the same as a clear message. if a large % of the people who approve are people who like the other guy more than me even if i do vote with them on this one issue, i haven't increased my chances of reelection. in fact, i probably decreased them.

 

[nobodyknows]

i've been talking about delivery of medical care this whole time. particularly how it is paid for. that's been the big national discussion for the last X months. have you been under a rock or something?

hey, i know, let's take a look on my first post on the subjection of medical care in this thread:


holy crap what do you know, i talked about delivery of care. not r&d or statistics gathering or epidemiology, which is most of the CDC's business.

After all your double talk you still haven't addressed any of my points? WTF "delievery of care" has to do with anything is beyond me. We will have the same people delivering the care no matter how we manage the financing? Why shouold i address any of your BS when you want to cahnge the subject to somethjing not even related to the issue? To quote Archie Bunker, "Dingbats!!".

To say that we can't eliminate levels of bureacracy by eliminating the 50 million dollar year CEO's and all the overpaid exec's who think they can't be done without shows your extreme lack of vison and imagination.

 

[nobodyknows]

If govt regulates the monopolies, then who regulates govt, the biggest monopoly of them all?

We the people, which is why I'm a big fan of the right to bear arms.

 

[Craig234]

but approval isn't the same as a clear message. if a large % of the people who approve are people who like the other guy more than me even if i do vote with them on this one issue, i haven't increased my chances of reelection. in fact, i probably decreased them.

There isn't a vote just between two candidates. There are primaries to pick those two candidates, third parties, write-ins.

Yes, elections are imperfect, but they do create a pressure on politicians (when there aren't term limits remoivng it) to lean towards what the public wants.

And that can be improved as democracy is improved, taking money out of the system, doversifying media owenrship, going to ranked voting, etc. That's Democracy - the people have more say than they do about, say, an unregulated Wall Street, in which 41% of all profits in the US recently were gobbled up by firms who milked the middle class, extracting wealth in bubbles, with private debt skyrocketing many trillions of dollars increasing much more than public debt the last few decades, and that's only the earlier stages of 'monopoly', it gets a lot worse if allowed to continue.

Funny enough, the hope to fix it doesn't lie outside government - but with the people electing better government, before government itself is crippled not to be able to stand up for the people.

Just as FDR did when he didn't serve Wall Street, really, but under pressure that the socialists could get their way, he protected capitalism by regulating it, and things improved.

If not for demcoracy and government, the people can't do that, and the people are powerless not only as they were in the robber baron era, before progressive reforms, but 'poor masses' as in most of history.

You can say how impossible that is, as long term concentrations of wealth have skyrocketed at the expense of the vast majority of Americans, while the concentration of wealth leads to such political domination by the rich that neither party gets passed the sort of financial reform after the biggest economic meltdown in nearly a century that the public would benefit from. Where does that head, as it moves to monopoly for the rich?

 

[ElFenix]

After all your double talk you still haven't addressed any of my points? WTF "delievery of care" has to do with anything is beyond me. We will have the same people delivering the care no matter how we manage the financing? Why shouold i address any of your BS when you want to cahnge the subject to somethjing not even related to the issue? To quote Archie Bunker, "Dingbats!!".

To say that we can't eliminate levels of bureacracy by eliminating the 50 million dollar year CEO's and all the overpaid exec's who think they can't be done without shows your extreme lack of vison and imagination.

because financing the delivery of care is the big national thing that people are talking about right now? no one is talking about getting rid of the CDC (well, other than you), but a lot of people want medicare to expand quite a bit or maybe take over all financing of the delivery of medical care. that medicare might take over everything is how this discussion went tangential from the main monopoly discussion.

 

[nobodyknows]

because financing the delivery of care is the big national thing that people are talking about right now? no one is talking about getting rid of the CDC (well, other than you), but a lot of people want medicare to expand quite a bit or maybe take over all financing of the delivery of medical care. that medicare might take over everything is how this discussion went tangential from the main monopoly discussion.

I only brought up the CDC as an example where the goverment has charge of a major part of our health care (and is doing a good job despite all the naysaying) even though the Constitution doesn't expressly give it that right. I myself never mentioned medicare I don't think??

It's my firm opinion that the rich and the big coporations like keeping the healthcare system fucked up. It gives them so much more leverage over their employees. I think the high cost of healthcare is hurting this country in ways people aren't even talking about, such as stifling entrepnership because people can't afford to quit their jobs and have solid, dependable health insurance.

What the fuck good is a healthcare system that in the long run hurts the people it's was supposedly designed to help?

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

I only brought up the CDC as an example where the goverment has charge of a major part of our health care (and is doing a good job despite all the naysaying) even though the Constitution doesn't expressly give it that right. I myself never mentioned medicare I don't think??

It's my firm opinion that the rich and the big coporations like keeping the healthcare system fucked up. It gives them so much more leverage over their employees. I think the high cost of healthcare is hurting this country in ways people aren't even talking about, such as stifling entrepnership because people can't afford to quit their jobs and have solid, dependable health insurance.

What the fuck good is a healthcare system that in the long run hurts the people it's was supposedly designed to help?

The CDC is a research oriented entity. They do not provide health care. If you want government run health care, come to NY, where we are closing schools and firing teachers, closing down state parks, taking taxes and lottery money earmarked for schools so we can not bother to reform Medicaid. These same incompetent types you want being in charge of your doctor. Go figure.

 

[nobodyknows]

The CDC is a research oriented entity. They do not provide health care. If you want government run health care, come to NY, where we are closing schools and firing teachers, closing down state parks, taking taxes and lottery money earmarked for schools so we can not bother to reform Medicaid. These same incompetent types you want being in charge of your doctor. Go figure.

Isn't it the CDC who is in charge fo making the flu viacines? They seem to be pretty good at getting that done, delivered, and administered.

Just because YOU say it doens't work in New York doesn't mean it can't work. It just means you don't want it to work.

So in your opinion a state park comes before people's health? They're closingf schools and firing teachers all the time so you'll excuse me if I don't take you at your word that it is Medicare causing it all? I agree that it is a fucked up system designed to get as much taxpayer money into the hospitals, docotors, insurnace companies hands as is possible, but start throwing some of them frauds in jail for a few years and make it not so worth while for the cheaters/liars/frauds to cash in.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Isn't it the CDC who is in charge fo making the flu viacines? They seem to be pretty good at getting that done, delivered, and administered.

Just because YOU say it doens't work in New York doesn't mean it can't work. It just means you don't want it to work.

So in your opinion a state park comes before people's health? They're closingf schools and firing teachers all the time so you'll excuse me if I don't take you at your word that it is Medicare causing it all? I agree that it is a fucked up system designed to get as much taxpayer money into the hospitals, docotors, insurnace companies hands as is possible, but start throwing some of them frauds in jail for a few years and make it not so worth while for the cheaters/liars/frauds to cash in.

You don't know what the CDC does do you? No, clearly you don't. Administer vaccinations? Oh, BTW we had all lots of all H1N1 injections recalled. Every one.

Strike One.

So this is how the government handles things.

http://www.businessweek.com/ap/financialnews/D9DU1UMO0.htm

Here's a good one from that link.

Dropkin and Humphrey pointed out that parks' $155 million budget isn't all that much in a state that plans to spend more than $130 billion. Meanwhile, the parks system contributes $1.9 billion a year in economic activity statewide, according to one recent study.

So the government would rather save $155 million and lose almost 2 billion as a result.

Strike Two.

Hey, here's something else.

http://www.nysenate.gov/news/medicaid-expansion-will-compound-state-s-crisis


It's not just the state- The Senate is passing the buck:

According to Gov. David A. Paterson, the bill will require state taxpayers to cover 50 percent of the new costs. In a recent op-ed in this paper, the governor wrote that, “Under the Senate bill, New York will face close to $1 billion annually in new Medicaid costs.”

New York’s current Medicaid obligations are already breaking the bank. In 2007, New York spent $44.3 billion on Medicaid to serve 5.1 million people

Medicaid spending in New York accounted for 20 percent of the total state budget this year, and State Health Commissioner Richard Daines already projects Medicaid spending to increase by another 12 percent next year.

So does Medicaid account for ALL increases? No, but it's a hell of a big part of it, I believe the single biggest item in the budget.

So what's being done to make it more efficient? Not one damn thing.

Strike FAIL.

Yer out.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

I agree that it is a fucked up system designed to get as much taxpayer money into the hospitals, docotors, insurnace companies hands as is possible, but start throwing some of them frauds in jail for a few years and make it not so worth while for the cheaters/liars/frauds to cash in.

I didn't address this. Hate to break it to you, but it isn't "fraud" and throwing as much money as possible at people. In fact, Medicaid often doesn't completely cover costs of providing service.

They do things like this though. They'll take a drug like Adderall not get around to adding it to the generic formulary for a year (and it's STILL not covered), but they'll pay five times that for the brand name only. Private insurance took no more than five days to do what Medicaid didn't get around too.

Speaking of drugs, how about $2k for a months worth of Oxycontin brand name? All the patient has to do is ask the doc to write for brand only and there you go. Most private insurances would pay for the generic, again at about a fifth the price since it's the equivalent med.

And then we have the wonderful way eligibility is handled. If you make 5 dollars over the limit per month, you lose all benefits. No sliding scale. Nothing. You get tossed. Why? Because half a century ago that's how it was implemented. They haven't gotten around to making any changes. Can't rush them.

So the system sucks, pays for things it never should, doesn't cover people it should, pays people to pound out puppies, and on and on.

Fifty years of this, and it's beyond out of control.

What do the pols say? That they WILL NOT address the issue. "Reform" consists of adding more people to a broken system.

 

[rchiu]

You gotta laugh at the socialist anandtech member's attempt to push their agenda in the name of consumer rights.

The truth is, they don't give a damn about what's good for consumer, all they care about is their agenda. Is monopoly bad for the consumer? sure it is, so is big government and government control. The key is finding the middle ground.

The OP and article cites a few example of big companies and people believe the US is run by monopolies? Come on, how naive can people be. In this day and age, people have lots of choice because the easy access to info. You just need to go online and you can do all the comparison shopping you want. If you don't like American company prices, you can buy Chinese, Japanese or European. And if you cannot find the price you want, you can use substitute, drink orange juice if you find milk too expensive. If you cannot find substitute or alternative, don't use it is it's not a necessity. For those that are necessity, no alternative and no substitute, yes government regulates it, look at telecoms.

There is a reason why US doesn't regulate certain industry, products. And relative to other countries around the world, I'd say the US has pretty decent balance.

All these socialist crying for more government regulation is not thinking about consumer rights because their idea will only incur more cost, higher prices without adding any benefits to consumers. Keep in mind government is run by politicians and lawyers with no experience, no idea how business is run. You really want those people to set rules on how business should work?

Let those socialists write their blogs, just don't take it seriously.

 

[piasabird]

The federal government should have broken up some of the parts of Microsoft. However, they choked and did not have the guts to uphold the law. The stupid Federal Government kept stretching out the trial wasting millions of taxpayers dollars then gave Microsoft a slap on the wrist.

 

[nobodyknows]

You don't know what the CDC does do you? No, clearly you don't. Administer vaccinations? Oh, BTW we had all lots of all H1N1 injections recalled. Every one.

Strike One.

What was the stuff I recieved then? Being on a high risk group I got the H1N1 Vaccine and the month previous I went down and had the regular flu shot?

LOL, I never said they did the actually administering of the vaccines, but they had to coordinate the production and delivery of the drug so it could be administered. That's just you and your need to put words into my mouth to bolster your lies and half-truths.

Sorry, but you'll have to excuse me for not wasting my time addressing the rest of your lies. Well, I assume they're just more lies. I never bothered reading past your first lie.

 

[nobodyknows]

I didn't address this. Hate to break it to you, but it isn't "fraud" and throwing as much money as possible at people. In fact, Medicaid often doesn't completely cover costs of providing service.

They do things like this though. They'll take a drug like Adderall not get around to adding it to the generic formulary for a year (and it's STILL not covered), but they'll pay five times that for the brand name only. Private insurance took no more than five days to do what Medicaid didn't get around too.

Speaking of drugs, how about $2k for a months worth of Oxycontin brand name? All the patient has to do is ask the doc to write for brand only and there you go. Most private insurances would pay for the generic, again at about a fifth the price since it's the equivalent med.

And then we have the wonderful way eligibility is handled. If you make 5 dollars over the limit per month, you lose all benefits. No sliding scale. Nothing. You get tossed. Why? Because half a century ago that's how it was implemented. They haven't gotten around to making any changes. Can't rush them.

So the system sucks, pays for things it never should, doesn't cover people it should, pays people to pound out puppies, and on and on.

Fifty years of this, and it's beyond out of control.

What do the pols say? That they WILL NOT address the issue. "Reform" consists of adding more people to a broken system.

So you agree that the health care industry is being totally corupted by the "for profit only" mentality.

We could change that if we wanted to, but you don't want to, all you want to do is bitch and moan about how any change is going to make things worse. In other words, OBSTRUCT.

 

[Anarchist420]

You are not very knowledgable abotu the theory of your own country. This falls under "democracy", the people have a say over it through their vote. Ther right to 'petition the governemnt'.

"A democracy is nothing more than mob rule where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine" ~Thomas Jefferson.

The CDC works pretty well, and better than the alternatives the right would try under their ideology.

Suppose two people in a room like the CDC, 1 doesn't. All three still have to fund it or they get thrown in jail.

That doesn't apply to the government 'monopolies'. The CDC isn't out to gouge higher profits. But the ignorant right can't get that - or take it to a thread about the government issue.

Government agencies are monopolies; FDA for example. They make so many mistakes, it's ridiculous; for something that people are required to pay, they should damn well be perfect. There could be competition, lives saved, and more jobs in food and drug research if it weren't for the FCC. Plus drugs wouldn't have to be approved.

FCC, another example. They cost businesses and the tax-payer a lot of money by requiring them to ship and delay their products for approval, plus things are already tested. They also have no business outlawing profanity over the air.

The people who work for the CDC are in it to make money. Besides, while the CDC isn't out to make profits, you're required to pay them. I'd rather it be optional to pay someone to do research and them make a profit.

So the government is responsible for well more than half the monopolies. They have their own, or they subsidize, in one way or another, a private company by endlessly issuing patents, bailouts, the Fed's banking cartel, and regulations.

The corporations love the FDA, because they know the FDA will make regulations that help give them an unfair advantage.

 

[Anarchist420]

The federal government should have broken up some of the parts of Microsoft. However, they choked and did not have the guts to uphold the law. The stupid Federal Government kept stretching out the trial wasting millions of taxpayers dollars then gave Microsoft a slap on the wrist.

I would argue that microsoft is a product of the state. Sure they pay a ton of corporate tax, but they have so many patents it's ridiculous.

If it weren't for IP laws, then other companies could make operating systems with Microsoft's patented features, and sell them for cheaper.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

So you agree that the health care industry is being totally corupted by the "for profit only" mentality.

We could change that if we wanted to, but you don't want to, all you want to do is bitch and moan about how any change is going to make things worse. In other words, OBSTRUCT.

Er, everything I quoted was due to your precious government health care. We aren't "corrupted" WE AREN'T ALLOWED TO DISPENSE THE CHEAPER MEDICATION BECAUSE MEDICAID IS A CLUSTER".

We don't make more dispensing the brand than the generic because we get paid a flat fee.

So the biggest government plan around is screwed, the politicians you want to have take over won't reform it, and it's the "for profit" mentality? Don't skip your meds, it's really bad for you.

As for the other things, I provided links, but if you were to look you couldn't call them lies, since it's all over the news.

It took you all this time to come up with a reply that makes you look even more foolish?



Oh for others, (because he can't bear to know the facts), Google on recalls, and you'll see a ton done over the last few months, the most recent being done the other week.

Also for others (because he doesn't understand that typing "administered" in medical parlance means administered as in given) the CDC is research oriented, and they do a good job. Of course doing research isn't the same as practicing medicine, but after all, he thinks that losing almost two billion to save 155 million is a good deal.

 

[Craig234]

I would argue that microsoft is a product of the state. Sure they pay a ton of corporate tax, but they have so many patents it's ridiculous.

If it weren't for IP laws, then other companies could make operating systems with Microsoft's patented features, and sell them for cheaper.

Well, baby bear, getting rid of patents is too little protection for the people who put their time in to inventing something, for the people who pay for that to happen. That means we don't get the inventions.

Now, your daddy, papa bear, goes too far when he extend patent protectionspast the legitimate reward for encouraging invention, into pure greed/proft based on the holders' ability to buy political influence.

So who has it it right, the balance? Wait for it...:

Your momma.

 

[Anarchist420]

Well, baby bear, getting rid of patents is too little protection for the people who put their time in to inventing something, for the people who pay for that to happen. That means we don't get the inventions.

Now, your daddy, papa bear, goes too far when he extend patent protectionspast the legitimate reward for encouraging invention, into pure greed/proft based on the holders' ability to buy political influence.

So who has it it right, the balance? Wait for it...:

Your momma.

^^^BS^^^

 

[nobodyknows]

Er, everything I quoted was due to your precious government health care. We aren't "corrupted" WE AREN'T ALLOWED TO DISPENSE THE CHEAPER MEDICATION BECAUSE MEDICAID IS A CLUSTER".

Yes it is and who is making the money off that cluster____? The health care industry obviously. Do you think they pay their lobbyists and contribute to canidates out of the goodness of their heart? They slip all these little things in unbeknown to most of the people.

Hell, they don't have a heart, just a blackhole of greed. It's my opinion that 90% of the healthcare industry suffers from the same mindset.

 

[nobodyknows]

Oh for others, (because he can't bear to know the facts), Google on recalls, and you'll see a ton done over the last few months, the most recent being done the other week.

lmao OFF AT YOUR DISHONEST LYING ASS. You tried to make it sound like nobody got their H1N1 but I WAS HERE TO CALL YOUR LYING ASS ON IT, SO FUCK OFF.

http://pediatrics.about.com/b/2009/12/15/h1n1-recall.htm

.H1N1 Recall
Tuesday December 15, 2009
At first glance, news that 800,000 doses of the H1N1 vaccine were being recalled will likely get many parents worried. Is there something wrong with the vaccine? Will it make their kids sick?

Fortunately, the H1N1 vaccine is still considered to be a safe vaccine, but some lots are being recalled because routine stability testing has found that they aren't as potent as they are supposed to be. This includes four lots of Sanofi Pasteur's pediatric H1N1 vaccine in 0.25 mL pre-filled syringes that were distributed last month.

Since there are no concerns about the safety of the vaccine and many of the children who got the recalled vaccine will likely still need a second dose of H1N1 vaccine, this is one recall that parents don't need to be too concerned about. Even if a child got two doses of recalled vaccine, these recalled vaccines are still thought to be strong enough to protect kids from the swine flu.

Did your child get a recalled vaccine? Your pediatrician will be able to soon learn if they have had any recalled H1N1 vaccine in their office and which patients they gave it to. Many will likely notify parents, even though no action is required by the parent, if their child received a recalled vaccine.

Also keep in mind that the vaccine in the H1N1 recall (800,000 doses) is a small part of the overall number of H1N1 vaccine doses that are now available (86 million), so you can still get your kids a swine flu vaccine, even after they remove the recalled doses.

I tried to put your low life, lying ass on my ignore list but since you're an administrator it wouldn't let me. That needs to be fixed, that or you need dressed down about your lying, misleading, half truths... one or the other, I don't care which.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Yes it is and who is making the money off that cluster____? The health care industry obviously. Do you think they pay their lobbyists and contribute to canidates out of the goodness of their heart? They slip all these little things in unbeknown to most of the people.

Hell, they don't have a heart, just a blackhole of greed. It's my opinion that 90% of the healthcare industry suffers from the same mindset.

So why does private industry allow approved generics when the government (remember, those you support against those who are "greedy") allow a less expensive product to be dispensed when they are equivalent?

GOVERNMENT has this screwed up, it's clearly their irresponsibility at work, and you try to blame everyone else for it. Then you complain that we don't want reform when I've been beating the dead horse about medicaid for just about forever and how (in this thread most recently) it needs reform. That the politicians have had FIFTY YEARS AND MORE to do something significant, and they REFUSE?

News flash - it's a nightmare for us and the patient, but the GOVERNMENT WON'T DO ANYTHING ABOUT IT.

Show us on the doll where I touched you.