close

Privacy guaranteed - Your email is not shared with anyone.

Welcome to Glock Talk

Why should YOU join our Glock forum?

  • Converse with other Glock Enthusiasts
  • Learn about the latest hunting products
  • Becoming a member is FREE and EASY

If you consider yourself a beginner or an avid shooter, the Glock Talk community is your place to discuss self defense, concealed carry, reloading, target shooting, and all things Glock.

Coburn: Defunding ObamaCare strategy 'not intellectually honest'

Discussion in 'Political Issues' started by muscogee, Oct 24, 2013.

  1. Here's the crux of the matter. This is a quote attributed to him in the article...

    The part in bold really reveals something interesting.

    Unrestricted market forces only really work well when you're talking about a market that has lots of options and features a good or commodity that's very elastic.

    There are a few markets where an unregulated market simply won't work because you have various externalities involved, or, as in the case of healthcare, it's almost perfectly inelastic.

    This is the crux of the problem between "Librulz" and "Conservatives" on this issue. Conservatives don't often grasp that one size fits all, pseudo free market solutions aren't appropriate in all cases, and Liberals don't often care what something costs because they view an ROI analysis to be completely inappropriate when you're measuring human life.

    The funny (and sad) thing is that a ROI analysis actually shows that "Socialized" medicine pays off in spades because healthy workforces where people don't have their healthcare tied to employment are much more productive. Businesses do better because they're not providing the benefits, and there's less absenteeism and turnover in their workforce.

    The take home point is, free markets only work when both parties have something to offer the other. In healthcare the providers have the customer over a barrel. This effectively means the market breaks down.
     


  2. aircarver

    aircarver Ride Continues Silver Member

    We don't care about the BS ..

    ... It's going to happen.

    .
     
  3. SJ 40

    SJ 40

    13,317
    2,995
    Jan 17, 2011
    Vermont
    So sayeth one of the many Mambie Pambiecans. SJ 40
     
    Last edited: Oct 24, 2013
  4. RussP

    RussP Moderator

    33,409
    2,795
    Jan 23, 2003
    Central Virginia
  5. RussP

    RussP Moderator

    33,409
    2,795
    Jan 23, 2003
    Central Virginia
    Options, elastic, that's good. I like. I understand. :thumbsup:
    Not good...
    True.
    Why/how does a company not providing healthcare benefits affect absenteeism and turnover?
    Unless there is a master guarantor of service monitoring the quality, really all aspects of service coming from the providers, right?
     
  6. There was a link to it off the Real Clear Politics page. It's less than a month old. Nitpicking again?
     
    Last edited: Oct 24, 2013
  7. Tom Coburn? Ye know not that of which ye speak.
     
  8. RussP

    RussP Moderator

    33,409
    2,795
    Jan 23, 2003
    Central Virginia
    My apologies, it's 28 days old.

    Perhaps I should have said it is a "February" old. :cool:
     
  9. The part I put in bold is really an important point. Some industries absolutely must be regulated as you just alluded or they just rape their customers. Not because they're evil, but because corporations exist to make a profit and return dividends to their shareholders, and if they can increase profit by increasing rates without the danger of losing significant numbers of customers, they will. It's been happening for years.
     
    Last edited: Oct 24, 2013
  10. You're right. They're not evil. They're heartless, literally. They only want to insure people who don't need insurance. It's more profitable.
     
  11. where exactly has this paid off ?
     
  12. RussP

    RussP Moderator

    33,409
    2,795
    Jan 23, 2003
    Central Virginia
    If they use the healthcare wisely and properly.
    So you are saying that often people stay with a company because of the benefits. During the period of "I'm just here for the benefits," performance may not be at peak quality. Management requires improved performance. Employee doesn't like the job, still only does minimum +. Is that the friction you're talking about?
    But, if the insurance attaches to the individual, or to the family, not the employment, employees could move about between companies as freely as they wish? Is that your point? Wouldn't that create volatility, uncertainty in the market?

    What then would an employer offer to attract and retain employees so that they can produce/provide goods/services at values that attract clients and customers, earning profits that attract investors?
     
  13. RussP

    RussP Moderator

    33,409
    2,795
    Jan 23, 2003
    Central Virginia
    So, now that they must insure everyone, how are they going to remain profitable?
     
  14. Pay, better working conditions, etc. Labor will always be one of the bigger costs associated with business, but we've had a problem with wages falling while simultaneously, profits rising for decades so a correction is probably in order. Again, the labor market working as it should.
     
  15. If they remain profitable, how are the people who really need insurance going to be able to afford it? Imagine where the country would be if we followed the same paradigm with transportation, fire protection, police protection etc.
     
  16. series1811

    series1811 Enforcerator. CLM

    Nothing like hearing people who have never run a successful business, tell you how your businesses will work.

    What could go wrong?
     
  17. Lethaltxn

    Lethaltxn

    6,323
    447
    Mar 23, 2010
    Texas
    I bet they slept at a holiday inn.
     
  18. RussP

    RussP Moderator

    33,409
    2,795
    Jan 23, 2003
    Central Virginia
    How does Obamacare treat/handle insurance company profits?
    Do you even understand your interrogative statement?

    If a government operates at a profit, it is called a surplus. Remember 1998 - 2001? Those were years where the government operated at a profit.

    Are you not in favor of a government operating with a surplus?

    How about just a break even, a balanced budget?

    Are you in favor of a mandatory balanced budget?

    A country operating with spending less than receipts is very, very, very good.