Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Hidden Cost of Privatization

ineteconomics.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 174 posts

Re: The Hidden Cost of Privatization

#121

Post by subverter »

bjl wrote: post #109
subverter wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's also assuming the costs would stay the same, which they wouldn't if government stopped intervening. With lower costs, more people could afford to pay for healthcare out-of-pocket, which would reduce the amount of voluntary money necessary to cover those who truly need it.

>which they wouldn't if government stopped intervening. That's a very strong assumption, and I see no reason to believe its true.

Look at health care costs pre- and post-1965. They began increasing in 1965 with the passage of Medicare and Medicaid, and have continued to increase as more and more government regulations have been added since.

Re: The Hidden Cost of Privatization

#122

Post by subverter »

maxerickson wrote: post #117
subverter wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Child labor is complex subject that we should avoid getting into here. The reason I added my disclaimer is because my argument is about cheaper goods, not any particular way they happen to be produced.

The banality of saying that cheaper goods are good is impressive and doesn't have much to do with the argument rayiner was making.

Then perhaps I misunderstood his/her argument.

If I look at it strictly in terms of child labor, there's nothing stopping those opposed to child labor from leaving Virginia and/or discriminating against products made there. Just as we can today with products produced by brands that we know use child labor.

Re: The Hidden Cost of Privatization

#123

Post by boomboomsubban »

subverter wrote: post #97
boomboomsubban wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So are you in favor of a law so they can't discriminate on who they help? As if you are, it's an optional tax played for by people who aren't fully aware of the need. And if you aren't, better not tell anyone about your differences, you might die if the coke distributor knows you drink Pepsi or if the church knows you're gay.

No, in fact, the ability for these institutions to choose who they help is key. A business being able to choose to help only its own workers makes it possible to even help them in the first place. If they had to help anyone , it wouldn't be feasible. Same for a church or any institution. Being able to discriminate is important; it's not a dirty word. Now before you go and doomsay about all sorts of discrimination hap…

>Case in point: most of the major tech companies.

The ones that have recently faced age discrimination suits, criticism for the lack of diversity in their employees, and a whole range of reports of terrible conditions in their manufacturing plants? For some bizarre reason, I'm sceptical.

>And if one did, would you really want to be associated with them and/or have them paying for your healthcare

When compared to dying or living with severe health problems, absolutely. This entire thing is about unexpected healthcare costs, I may not have the ability to shop around for the most ethical choice.

Re: The Hidden Cost of Privatization

#124

Post by subverter »

frgtpsswrdlame wrote: post #115
subverter wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's also assuming the costs would stay the same, which they wouldn't if government stopped intervening. With lower costs, more people could afford to pay for healthcare out-of-pocket, which would reduce the amount of voluntary money necessary to cover those who truly need it.

Have you ever considered that your beliefs are utopian in nature? That if we give over everything to the market things won't just solve themselves? Besides healthcare costs are lower in countries where the government intervenes more than ours does disproving the point.

I try to keep an open mind. I don't believe things will just solve themselves, nor do I think the market is the perfect solution. I do believe, however, that it's a better solution than government intervention, and we haven't found a superior solution.

Also, source for your second assertion?

Re: The Hidden Cost of Privatization

#125

Post by bjl »

subverter wrote: post #103
Decathect wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They died in the accident, leaving behind a critically injured spouse and their kids. The medical bills for any one of the surviving parties dwarf the net assets of the deceased. Who pays the remainder?

There are already solutions available when there's no counter-party or the counter-party is unfit. i.e., uninsured motorist insurance, life insurance, etc. And who's to say the extended family or community wouldn't step up to cover their expenses?

Or, instead of depending on utopic ideals and discredited economic theories, we can just make people buy liability insurance if they want to drive a car.

Re: The Hidden Cost of Privatization

#126

Post by harryh »

subverter wrote: post #118
harryh wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Universal healthcare works in various countries because everyone is forced to participate. Everyone pays into the system, everyone gets care when they get sick or are injured. A US state can't do this on it's own because they can't force everyone to participate and they can't reject entrants from outside. In the Virginia/Maryland example Maryland would face an exodus of healthy and productive people who want lower ta…

They can't? How do they force everyone to pay state/local taxes? I doubt states would find it difficult to enforce participation. On "unbridled state to state migration", I already covered that. Maryland would have to face the real cost of providing universal healthcare, and residents would have to decide whether it's still worth it to live there. Many sick people would decide that it's not, and choose to stay put in…

Maryland would have to face the real cost of providing universal healthcare

The point is that they would have to face much more than the real costs of providing universal health care because they would have to provide care to a lot of people that never paid into the system due to migration.

Re: The Hidden Cost of Privatization

#127

Post by TheCoelacanth »

sharemywin wrote: post #89
TheCoelacanth wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What exactly do you think is "broken" when a worker gets higher pay? In the Broken Window Fallacy story, the total wealth in the system is decreased when the window is destroyed. In this example, no wealth is destroyed, it is just distributed differently. If you believe that wealth has a decreasing marginal utility as you become more wealthy, the more even distribution where the worker is paid more has a higher overa…

"decreasing marginal utility" I know I'm bastardizing the meaning but it got me thinking about Elon Musk versus "prototypical lotto winner that loses everything" you could certainly argue that he is using his wealth(as well as others) to benefit society, ie. mars, electrification of transportation, etc.

But if you count that then you also have to count the billionaires spending money lobbying to be allowed to continue pumping carbon into the atmosphere or for more bombs to be built. If you start using that method of calculating utility, I wouldn't be surprised if the marginal utility is actually negative at some point.

Re: The Hidden Cost of Privatization

#128

Post by subverter »

bjl wrote: post #119
subverter wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To quote you above[1]: > That's a matter of opinion. To be clear, I am not one who is in favor of rolling back gay marriage. But you cannot logically say > Oppressing others isn't something that should be allowed to happen, period while in the same breath calling for the oppression of those you disagree with. It's an inconsistent position using the same argument you're railing against. [1] https://news.ycombinator.co…

Good thing the paradox of tolerance has been solved for over a century! Now if only we could get the message out to people like you that seem to delight in ignoring centuries of philosophical discussion on this topic.

I'm not ignoring it, I just don't think it makes sense. "I'm tolerant of everyone except those I view as intolerant." In other words, you're intolerant of those you disagree with.

I believe true tolerance is respecting that everyone can have their own opinion/worldview. We can certainly disagree and have a good discussion about it, but nobody should be forcing their opinion/worldview on others who don't agree.

Re: The Hidden Cost of Privatization

#129

Post by throw2016 »

Things like universal health care will become non issues when the country evolves from being a collective of economic interests with identity rooted purely in individual wealth and status to a country with a sense of collective identity that sees no conflict in having everyone's back and building a healthy educated society.

Individual excellence is as important as common structures and a collective sense of purpose and direction, no one achieves anything in a vacuum and one can't simply negate the other.

Collectivism is not about getting everyone down but raising everyone up at least to a basic acceptable standard and level of opportunities, so that anyone with the skills and talent can soar and not just those with privileged upbringing and backgrounds.

Re: The Hidden Cost of Privatization

#130

Post by frgtpsswrdlame »

subverter wrote: post #124
frgtpsswrdlame wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Have you ever considered that your beliefs are utopian in nature? That if we give over everything to the market things won't just solve themselves? Besides healthcare costs are lower in countries where the government intervenes more than ours does disproving the point.

I try to keep an open mind. I don't believe things will just solve themselves, nor do I think the market is the perfect solution. I do believe, however, that it's a better solution than government intervention, and we haven't found a superior solution. Also, source for your second assertion?

>Also, source for your second assertion?

It's well established, just google it.

Post reply on HN