Obama: "I am an ardent believer in the free market."

[sandorski]

The term itself is usually damaging to a conversation due to its malleability. Any discussion about "free markets" is usually improved by a couple orders of magnitude if everyone on all sides would take a few minutes before jumping into the fray to actually clarify what it is they are construing the term to mean. Typically this doesn't happen, hence the yapping...

Pretty much. I usually put quotes around it to denote what the person I'm responding to seems to be saying. It's pretty hard not to draw some conclusions when people throw around the term and are flailing about some Regulation as if the World will end. I, like most people here, am a big supporter of Free Markets, but like "Free Education" or "Free Health Insurance", they ain't really Free in the absolutist sense.

 

[nonlnear]

Pretty much. I usually put quotes around it to denote what the person I'm responding to seems to be saying. It's pretty hard not to draw some conclusions when people throw around the term and are flailing about some Regulation as if the World will end. I, like most people here, am a big supporter of Free Markets, but like "Free Education" or "Free Health Insurance", they ain't really Free in the absolutist sense.

Even the nuances between shades of capitalism are significant enough to totally subvert a conversation. For example most corporate lobbyists who claim to advocate for "free markets" are straight up lying.

 

[her209]

The term itself is usually damaging to a conversation due to its malleability. Any discussion about "free markets" is usually improved by a couple orders of magnitude if everyone on all sides would take a few minutes before jumping into the fray to actually clarify what it is they are construing the term to mean. Typically this doesn't happen, hence the yapping...

Does "free market" do away with bankruptcy laws?

 

[nonlnear]

Does "free market" do away with bankruptcy laws?

Excellent example. To some yes it does, while to others it entrenches them as one of the defining pillars.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

Anarchist, why don't you provide a compelling and convincing defense of the free market in one of these threads instead of just complaining?

Why not refute the facts on health care and explain why real capitalist health care would be better than socialized medicine? I'll give you a side-by-side of the empirical facts to help you get started:

United States:

•17% of GDP and growing spent on health care
•Tens of millions uninsured or under-insured
•Insured people living in terror of losing their jobs and health insurance
•Hundreds of thousands of medical bankruptcies each year, many of whom had insurance
•Businesses burdened by insurance concerns and costs.
•Wealthy insurance executives (and a thriving yacht industry)

Nations with Real Socialized Medicine:

•Much smaller percentage of GDP spend on health care
•100% coverage
•Zero medical bankruptcies
•Often more doctors per capita
•A more content populace
•Businesses not burdened by insurance concerns
•Fewer wealthy insurance executives (oh noes! Whatever will happen to the yacht industry?)

OK. Now please explain to us why health care works better under real capitalism.

 

[imagine60]

Oh the free market where I can take your money and pay .5% interest and then loan it back to you at 20% and not be called a loan shark. Yeah baby! That's the one!

 

[imagine60]

WhipperSnapper. Great post. It is so nice to see someone back up a post with facts instead of grabbing things out of thin air.

 

[MotF Bane]

Oh the free market where I can take your money and pay .5% interest and then loan it back to you at 20% and not be called a loan shark. Yeah baby! That's the one!

Yeah, about that......

 

[CycloWizard]

OK. Now please explain to us why health care works better under real capitalism.

I know you didn't ask me, but I figured I'd chime in anyway.

1. What fraction of healthcare innovations are generated in those countries whose healthcare systems you would use as a model?
2. How many of those systems is sustainably funded?
3. How good is the treatment the patients receive?
4. How many of the best doctors in the world work in such systems?

Without looking up the numbers, I'll speculate on the answers based on my recent trips to Germany and the UK:
1. A very small fraction (which is why I was visiting those countries in the first place).
2. None. The German system is moving towards an American system every day, and the UK system is almost bankrupt.
3. Not bad, but not always great either. There are always exceptions, but the US generally has higher patient satisfaction than any other nation.
4. Almost none, nor are their hospitals as well equipped or staffed.

If you get an ocular tumor in Germany, your eye will likely be removed completely and you will receive a glass (or better) prosthesis. That is a disturbing surgery to watch, and I will never forget it. Wear sunglasses to avoid it at all costs.

 

[Fern]

Does "free market" do away with bankruptcy laws?

I wouldn't think so.

I'm not sure how the two are even related. I suppose you could say some of those in bankruptcy were on the losing side of the 'free market' - nobody wanted to buy their product.

Bankruptcy is just a 'collection mechanism', it can be used to enforce or prevent collections of amounts owed. I don't see how it's contrary to a "free market", it's just a tool used in any economy - free market or not.

Fern

 

[CycloWizard]

I wouldn't think so.

I'm not sure how the two are even related. I suppose you could say some of those in bankruptcy were on the losing side of the 'free market' - nobody wanted to buy their product.

Bankruptcy is just a 'collection mechanism', it can be used to enforce or prevent collections of amounts owed. I don't see how it's contrary to a "free market", it's just a tool used in any economy - free market or not.

Fern

It depends on how you define bankruptcy. If it's used as a safety net to mitigate risks at the expense of other players in the market (which the government would presumably tax to create the net), then it is interfering with the market.

 

[Fern]

It depends on how you define bankruptcy. If it's used as a safety net to mitigate risks at the expense of other players in the market (which the government would presumably tax to create the net), then it is interfering with the market.

It's not clear to me how bankruptcy "mitigate risks at the expense of other players in the market".

For one thing, strikes me as a person (individual or corporation) in bankruptcy has taken taken risks and lost. I.e., adverse consequence of risk is applied in bankruptcy, not alleviated.

But there are several types of bankruptcy, and those for individuals vs businesses.

1. Liquidation type. Generally the person losses everything as property is sold/liquidated to satisfy debt. However, depending upon state law an individual is allowed to keep some property. However I think the exemption for individuals is likely there for the states' benefit. States have no incentive to allow an individual to be driven into poverty and destitute, such persons then become supported by the state (welfare, WIK/foodstamps, Medicaid programs etc). In most states the amount of property exempt from liquidation is fairly immaterial too. I suspect a state like FL that allows all home equity to be exempt does so for it's own purpose. I.e., encourage people to move there. FL has no personal income tax and relies upon R/E & sales taxes. However, FL will take your home equity if you don't pay R/E taxes. So move your money down to FL and as long as long as you pay them, they'll let you keep it.

A big part of the bankruptcy rules are there for the protection of 'weaker' creditors, others that are 'stronger' could otherwise exert more pressure and unfairly collect to the detriment of other creditors.

2. Reorg type. This is basically a court approved repayment plan. Repayment generally comes from expected furture income. Some debt may be discharged, but that's to avoid forcing the business or person into a liquidation type above. That's in no ones' best interest. I believe the concept is that ultimately creditors get more collected under a reorg, if not then it would move to a liquidation.

If we didn't have bankruptcy laws per se, we would still have bankruptcies. It's just that it would be a much messier process as creditors scramble to collect amounts owed and fight amongst each other etc. I suppose people could literally be driven into the streets penniless w/o bankruptcy laws, and that might constitute some risk mitigation. But that mitigation is a byproduct of the state's interest and may therefor be viewed as immaterial.

Bailouts, OTOH, are big-time risk mitigation IMO (and should not have been done).

Fern

 

[WhipperSnapper]

I know you didn't ask me, but I figured I'd chime in anyway.

1. What fraction of healthcare innovations are generated in those countries whose healthcare systems you would use as a model?

I don't know. With the cost savings they have in terms of GDP, they could certainly fund some medical research if they wanted to. Maybe it's time for the U.S. to demand that other nations start paying royalties for medical advancements that are discovered in the U.S.

2. How many of those systems is sustainably funded?

I don't know, but they are spending much less as a percentage of GDP and in terms of American dollars per capita than we are. Perhaps they are misallocating other funds that they should use to fund health care, but the facts are that their expenditures are significantly lower than ours.

3. How good is the treatment the patients receive?

I haven't heard any stories about Europeans (who are terrified of our system) marching in the streets demanding American-style or capitalist health care. Those nations also seem to have life spans on par or better than ours.

I haven't heard any stories about people in European nations having their insurance rescinded on the day of their cancer surgeries. (Happens in the U.S.--great care, huh?) I haven't heard stories about tens of thousands of people dying in the UK or Sweden from lack of health insurance.

4. How many of the best doctors in the world work in such systems?

I have no idea. I don't see any reason why their doctors would necessarily be inferior to American doctors.

2. None. The German system is moving towards an American system every day, and the UK system is almost bankrupt.

Oh, they're going to love free market health care! Just love it!

3. Not bad, but not always great either. There are always exceptions, but the US generally has higher patient satisfaction than any other nation.

Are the tens of millions of unemployed and underemployed Americans satisfied? Are the hundreds of thousands of Americans (who often have insurance) who file for medical cost-caused bankruptcy every year satisfied? Are the would-be entrepreneurs who cannot leave their jobs to start their own small businesses satisfied? Are businesses that are being squeezed by health insurance costs satisfied? Are Americans who are having to pay more and more for health insurance satisfied?

It's possible to obtain more "satisfaction", but at what expense? It stands to reason that if you spend three times more money on your health care that you might receive faster and more comfortable treatment.

4. Almost none, nor are their hospitals as well equipped or staffed.

I'll take your word for it that the German hospitals aren't as well staffed. I have no idea how to evaluate who the best doctors are. (Since the Germans slaughtered all the Jews, perhaps they have fewer good doctors.)

If you get an ocular tumor in Germany, your eye will likely be removed completely and you will receive a glass (or better) prosthesis. That is a disturbing surgery to watch, and I will never forget it. Wear sunglasses to avoid it at all costs.

What happens in the U.S.? If you get an ocular tumor in the U.S. and don't have insurance what happens? (I suppose that you could just die if you never go to the doctor at all or go too late. This consistent with the Republicans' health care plan, don't get sick and if you get sick die quickly.)

As far as I know, Germany has a system of government-regulated private insurance, so it's also possible that they are suffering from unnecessary waste in their system.

 

[CycloWizard]

It's not clear to me how bankruptcy "mitigate risks at the expense of other players in the market".

For one thing, strikes me as a person (individual or corporation) in bankruptcy has taken taken risks and lost. I.e., adverse consequence of risk is applied in bankruptcy, not alleviated.

But there are several types of bankruptcy, and those for individuals vs businesses.

Right, which is why I said it depends on how "bankruptcy" is defined. If it is as I described it (i.e. society pays your debts when your venture fails), then it is flying in the face of the free market. In other words , I agree with the rest of your post.