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

FedEx's CEO on McCain, free trade and the tax bias against capital-intensive industries.

online.wsj.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 90 posts

Re: FedEx's CEO on McCain, free trade and the tax bias against capital-intensive industries.

#61

Post by mattmaroon »

walterk wrote: post #56
netcan wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Question. As a non American, I wonder what brings US to a (relatively) extreme position on Health. Technicalities aside, most places consider health as part of the suite of public responsibilities. Does a significant portion of the opposition to the public assuming responsibility for health also oppose the public assuming responsibility for education? I ask because it seems a close parallel.

I compare public responsibility for health to public responsibility for fire control. Fires can wreak havoc upon many beyond the fire's point of origin. It's also unprofitable to run a fire department, so given the public benefit, the public foots the bill for keeping a fire department. Health care isn't the same in that it can be a very profitable business, but because profits are tied to consumption of goods (e.g.,…

Somebody else's sickness has no effect on me in most cases. And in the ones in which it does, the CDC is there to help. Nobody would suggest that the government doesn't play an important role in protecting against epidemics, which is most analogous to your fire metaphor.

It's not up to the public to protect people from all of the bad things that can befall them. It's up to the public to ensure that people are not impeded when trying to help themselves.

Thus even most of us who are against public health care are in favor of reforms. Tort reforms, ending the perverse incentives.

Interestingly, most of our health problems in the U.S. seem to be due to political pressure caused by lobbying. Read In Defense of Food for a good review as to why our diet has shifted to where it is, and why it's almost certainly the problem. It illustrates that government cannot be counted on to ensure public health.

Re: FedEx's CEO on McCain, free trade and the tax bias against capital-intensive industries.

#62

Post by Prrometheus »

comatose_kid wrote: post #18
Prrometheus wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Match his tax bills more closely to his cash expenditures?

Just like the write off consumers receive when they buy goods, right?

Are you suggesting that companies should pay tax on their revenue, and not their earnings?

Re: FedEx's CEO on McCain, free trade and the tax bias against capital-intensive industries.

#63

Post by [deleted] »

mattmaroon wrote: post #48
Prrometheus wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is my unsupported opinion that economists have Bush fatigue just like everybody else, and are eager to see the regime of permanent deficits and trillion dollar wars out on the streets. Obama does appear at times to be thoughtful, and his advisors are centrists. I think economists are hoping for a second Clinton, which would certainly be better than a third Bush. I hope they are right. It is my unsupported opinion…

Right, and McCain, even without public health care, will lead to a bigger deficit than Obama. Economists really hate the Bush tax cuts (which McCain now supports making permanent) because they favor the non-working ultra-wealthy.

[deleted]

Re: FedEx's CEO on McCain, free trade and the tax bias against capital-intensive industries.

#64

Post by Prrometheus »

mattmaroon wrote: post #48
Prrometheus wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is my unsupported opinion that economists have Bush fatigue just like everybody else, and are eager to see the regime of permanent deficits and trillion dollar wars out on the streets. Obama does appear at times to be thoughtful, and his advisors are centrists. I think economists are hoping for a second Clinton, which would certainly be better than a third Bush. I hope they are right. It is my unsupported opinion…

Right, and McCain, even without public health care, will lead to a bigger deficit than Obama. Economists really hate the Bush tax cuts (which McCain now supports making permanent) because they favor the non-working ultra-wealthy.

>"Economists really hate the Bush tax cuts (which McCain now supports making permanent) because they favor the non-working ultra-wealthy."

I haven't seen that argument made. Perhaps you could link to it?

I have seen the tax cuts opposed on economic grounds because of the deficit. I have seen them opposed on philosophical grounds because the author believes the tax code should be even more "progressive". But I haven't seen that argument made based on economic reasoning.

Re: FedEx's CEO on McCain, free trade and the tax bias against capital-intensive industries.

#65

Post by netcan »

mattmaroon wrote: post #50
netcan wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Question. As a non American, I wonder what brings US to a (relatively) extreme position on Health. Technicalities aside, most places consider health as part of the suite of public responsibilities. Does a significant portion of the opposition to the public assuming responsibility for health also oppose the public assuming responsibility for education? I ask because it seems a close parallel.

We believe that health care is not a right but a privilege. The Constitution does not ensure the right to "life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, and $10 copays." Moreover, we believe that almost everything the government does, it does poorly. Schools would be a great case in point.

I actually meant that as a genuine question without meaning to discuss it but..

We believe that almost everything the government does, it does poorly

There is definitely some truth in that in a general sense. But it seems to me that it is really a technical side issue in this particular case. The efficiency costs/gains are debatable. Even if you think you see an answer, it's marginal. It largely depends on what you consider the 'output' of a healthcare system. If you take traditional public health indicators such as life expectancy at birth, rates of various avoidable deaths & such, as the output of healthcare systems, private health systems are generally 'less efficient.'

What I mean to suggest with the above line is that a lot of practical pieces of general world views & rules of thumb (Government should not provide services because it is inefficient) are taken to specific contexts regardless of their validity in these cases.

That's why I always find it very hard to believe that anti public health arguments are truly decided on technical grounds. This is a moral not a technical issue.

We believe that health care is not a right but a privilege.

I'm not sure if you were being sarcastic. But it does seem closer to the point. In other words, I have no duty to ensure you have healthcare. I have a duty to ensure you are not murdered, but not that you don't die from diabetes.

If you take what seems to be a current debate in US politics, it seems very fundamental & moral rather then technical: Assume the responsibility or try to enable more healthcare without assuming the responsibility.

I think most would probably agree that regardless of the tax regime & regardless of price of medical care (within possible levels), some people will be left without. Many people in fact.

Short of assuming responsibility for health, you are debating ways of getting the number of uninsured from 17% to 12% or 10% or some moral equivalent. Some people will be left out. But that's ok because they chose that or made a dumb mistake or had a fighting chance.

Re: FedEx's CEO on McCain, free trade and the tax bias against capital-intensive industries.

#66

Post by netcan »

mattmaroon wrote: post #60
njharman wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Healthcare falls under "life". Oh and quit talking for all Americans.

Humans lived for at least 250,000 years without HMOs. And I'm talking for Americans who are against public health care, which was who the question was addressed to.

That's right, it was addressed to you.

Re: FedEx's CEO on McCain, free trade and the tax bias against capital-intensive industries.

#67

Post by netcan »

yummyfajitas wrote: post #40
netcan wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Question. As a non American, I wonder what brings US to a (relatively) extreme position on Health. Technicalities aside, most places consider health as part of the suite of public responsibilities. Does a significant portion of the opposition to the public assuming responsibility for health also oppose the public assuming responsibility for education? I ask because it seems a close parallel.

The parallel is pretty weak. Publicly funded education is for children , while publicly funded health care would be delivered to adults. We also consider preventing sex with children to be a legitimate function of the government, while preventing sex with adults is a matter of personal privacy.

You think the reason that it's: healthcare no & education yes, is that education concerns children?

There are many aspects of children's wellbeing that the public does not concern itself with including to an extent child health.

BTW, the paedophilia laws are not really analogous. Sex with children is prohibited because it is considered rape. A child is considered unable to consent so it is non consensual. Non consensual sex is prohibited with adults too.

Re: FedEx's CEO on McCain, free trade and the tax bias against capital-intensive industries.

#68

Post by netcan »

DanielBMarkham wrote: post #52
netcan wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Question. As a non American, I wonder what brings US to a (relatively) extreme position on Health. Technicalities aside, most places consider health as part of the suite of public responsibilities. Does a significant portion of the opposition to the public assuming responsibility for health also oppose the public assuming responsibility for education? I ask because it seems a close parallel.

In general, the idea of "public responsibilities" is controversial. The country was founded so that the government would do the minimal amount necessary to insure the maximum amount of freedom. Freedoms don't mean anything unless they involve the ability to fail. As an example, any American can build their own airplane and attempt to fly it (in the right areas, such as a desert). Freedom to form a startup and make a…

2 more questions:

* Are there Americans that feel education should not be a public service?

* Are you saying that healthcare is seen as a public responsibility but not one that needs to be delivered by 'Government?'

Re: FedEx's CEO on McCain, free trade and the tax bias against capital-intensive industries.

#69

Post by yummyfajitas »

netcan wrote: post #67
yummyfajitas wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The parallel is pretty weak. Publicly funded education is for children , while publicly funded health care would be delivered to adults. We also consider preventing sex with children to be a legitimate function of the government, while preventing sex with adults is a matter of personal privacy.

You think the reason that it's: healthcare no & education yes, is that education concerns children? There are many aspects of children's wellbeing that the public does not concern itself with including to an extent child health. BTW, the paedophilia laws are not really analogous. Sex with children is prohibited because it is considered rape. A child is considered unable to consent so it is non consensual. Non consens…

Childrens health is a major responsibility of government. If a parent fails to keep their child healthy, this is child neglect, and the government steps in (often removing the child from the care of his/her parents). If a parent cannot afford medical care for their children, the government will pay.

There may be administrative differences between specific government programs in education and health care, but there is little public opposition to either one.

Re: FedEx's CEO on McCain, free trade and the tax bias against capital-intensive industries.

#70

Post by mattmaroon »

netcan wrote: post #65
mattmaroon wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We believe that health care is not a right but a privilege. The Constitution does not ensure the right to "life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, and $10 copays." Moreover, we believe that almost everything the government does, it does poorly. Schools would be a great case in point.

I actually meant that as a genuine question without meaning to discuss it but.. We believe that almost everything the government does, it does poorly There is definitely some truth in that in a general sense. But it seems to me that it is really a technical side issue in this particular case. The efficiency costs/gains are debatable. Even if you think you see an answer, it's marginal. It largely depends on what you c…

I don't think it's safe to measure various health care systems against each other. The prevailing theories these days seem to suggest that most of the problems are due to lifestyle. Diet, pollution, obesity, exercise levels, etc. all play a major part as well, and those have little to do with the health system. So I don't think it's safe to say that publicly funded health systems would work as well here as they do elsewhere.

Also, I always try to resolve arguments on practical grounds first. For instance, I feel that moral stances on drug laws are irrelevant, because the facts show that drug laws don't stop drug use, cause violent crime and many deaths of dealers/distributors, policemen and civilians. So even if you accept that drug use is immoral, just like with alcohol before it the laws still should not be on the books.

A law that has almost entirely negative effects is not a good law no matter what the moral justification.

Post reply on HN