The irrational nature of Libertarianism

[Wild Cobra]

If that was the only place I could afford treatment, you bet I would go to such a hospital, if the alternative woudl be to go untreated.

That is the way the free market works.

Such a hospital would always have a lower cost structure than one who took people who couldn't pay.

So instead, it appears you want to mandate that all hospitals have a higher price structure. That would be the effective outcome, wouldn't it?

[RandomGuy]

So instead, it appears you want to mandate that all hospitals have a higher price structure. That would be the effective outcome, wouldn't it?

What I "want" in this case is not really relevant as it turns out.

But:
I do happen to support denying life-saving care to people being made illegal.

FYI:

Sec. 311.022. DISCRIMINATION PROHIBITED IN DENIAL OF SERVICES; CRIMINAL PENALTIES.
(a) An officer, employee, or medical staff member of a general hospital may not deny emergency services because a person cannot establish the person's ability to pay for the services or because of the person's race, religion, or national ancestry if:

(1) the services are available at the hospital; and
(2) the person is diagnosed by a licensed physician as requiring those services.

(b) An officer or employee of a general hospital may not deny a person in need of emergency services access to diagnosis by a licensed physician on the hospital staff because the person cannot establish the person's ability to pay for the services or because of the person's race, religion, or national ancestry.

(c) In addition, the person needing emergency services may not be subjected to arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable discrimination based on age, sex, physical condition, or economic status.

(d) An officer, employee, or medical staff member of a general hospital commits an offense if that person recklessly violates this section. An offense under this subsection is a Class B misdemeanor, except that if the offense results in permanent injury, permanent disability, or death, the offense is a Class A misdemeanor.

(e) An officer, employee, or medical staff member of a general hospital commits an offense if that person intentionally or knowingly violates this section. An offense under this subsection is a Class A misdemeanor, except that if, as a direct result of the offense, a person denied emergency services dies, the offense is a felony of the third degree.

http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.u...htm/HS.311.htm

I am fairly sure all states have similar provisions.

If you do not want cost shifting, get rid of this law.

You must be prepared to accept that a hospital may decide to let someone bleed to death.

Are you ready to accept that might happen to be your child?

[Poptech]

So, yes, it is generally immoral to let someone bleed to death in an ER.

Morality is subjective so no determination can be made using this argument.

What do you do about a hospital that does that? What if it is good for business?

Such a hospital would be able to offer much lower cost treatment, because they wouldn't have to bear the costs of treating people who can't pay.

If a hospital does do that, then people will not wish to use that hospital. It is the same argument for food companies "poisoning" you without an FDA. There is a vast difference between refusing any treatment due to lack of ability to pay with letting someone bleed to death.

[Poptech]

I agree we need to keep some regulations in place, by we do have way too many.

PopTech...

If you are talking about removing all restraints of a marketplace, I disagree. Do you realize you are appearing as the "anarchist" type libertarian?

Laissez-faire has nothing to do with anarchism. Laissez-faire still include a cons utionally limited government that provides for defense and the court system.

[RandomGuy]

Morality is subjective so no determination can be made using this argument.


If a hospital does do that, then people will not wish to use that hospital. It is the same argument for food companies "poisoning" you without an FDA. There is a vast difference between refusing any treatment due to lack of ability to pay with letting someone bleed to death.

Morality may be subjective, but does not prohibit populations from generally agreeing on what is, or is not, moral.

Indeed, we have to do this all the time. Determinations can, and are made, just because you might not like the implication, does not make it otherwise.

Your analogy does not hold in this case.

Poisoned food is directly incimal to life. Providing health care is directly supportive of life. A food company that sells cheap, but poisoned food, is not the same as a hospital that provides cheaper care, but refuses to treat people who can't pay.


So, determinations can be made, and your analogy fails.

Moving on...

[Poptech]

If that was the only place I could afford treatment, you bet I would go to such a hospital, if the alternative woudl be to go untreated.

That is the way the free market works.

Such a hospital would always have a lower cost structure than one who took people who couldn't pay.

That is not how a free market works as you are missing the important part of my argument which removes all licensing and regulation, allowing for competing facilities much more easily and more inexpensively. Your current system supports cartels and monopolies. My system would see many more low cost clinics and smaller hospitals. I would also abolish all taxation relating to providing and receiving healthcare.

[RandomGuy]

Laissez-faire has nothing to do with anarchism. Laissez-faire still include a cons utionally limited government that provides for defense and the court system.

State governments have determined that this cost shifting takes place.

This is not the federal goverment, but rather state cons utions.

All 50 states have some version of this law.

Do you think they should be repealed to prevent this cost-shifting?

[RandomGuy]

That is not how a free market works as you are missing the important part of my argument which removes all licensing and regulation, allowing for competing facilities much more easily and more inexpensively. Your current system supports cartels and monopolies. My system would see many more low cost clinics and smaller hospitals. I would also abolish all taxation relating to providing and receiving healthcare.

Ok, how would your system prevent cartels and monopolies?

Tell me how to solve resource asymetry.

[johnsmith]

That is not how a free market works as you are missing the important part of my argument which removes all licensing and regulation, allowing for competing facilities much more easily and more inexpensively. Your current system supports cartels and monopolies. My system would see many more low cost clinics and smaller hospitals. I would also abolish all taxation relating to providing and receiving healthcare.

You should bring your system to the people....they deserve to hear it....no more spurstalk.com, it's a waste of your intelligence.....scream it from the rooftop Poptech!!!!

[Poptech]

Morality may be subjective, but does not prohibit populations from generally agreeing on what is, or is not, moral.

You cannot have it both ways. If this "morality" is universally accepted why would the staff of hospitals which are part of this view of morality let people bleed to death? This false argument is made all the time. People like to present their specific view of "morality" which may share similarities to other's view but greatly differ on many issues as the only view or "morality".

Poisoned food is directly incimal to life. Providing health care is directly supportive of life. A food company that sells cheap, but poisoned food, is not the same as a hospital that provides cheaper care, but refuses to treat people who can't pay.

Using this argument, non-poisoned food is directly supportive of life but again you are changing the argument. Pay for what treatment exactly? Why should a hospital be forced to treat those who's conditions are caused from overeating and not exercising? Why should I pay for my neighbor's irresponsible behavior?

[RandomGuy]

You should bring your system to the people....they deserve to hear it....no more spurstalk.com, it's a waste of your intelligence.....scream it from the rooftop Poptech!!!!

For health care I am all about what works.

Our current system, does not.

Obamacare will not fix it, and neither, in my opinion, will pure free market solutions.

That said, if something can be shown to be reasonably possible and might work, I am for trying it.

[RandomGuy]

You cannot have it both ways. If this "morality" is universally accepted why would the staff of hospitals which are part of this view of morality let people bleed to death? This false argument is made all the time. People like to present their specific view of "morality" which may share similarities to other's view but greatly differ on many issues as the only view or "morality".


Using this argument, non-poisoned food is directly supportive of life but again you are changing the argument. Pay for what treatment exactly? Why should a hospital be forced to treat those who's conditions are caused from overeating and not exercising? Why should I pay for my neighbor's irresponsible behavior?

I don't think many doctors would allow someone to die if they had no money, regardless of whether it would be illegal.

I was wondering how much force of law should be put behind it.

Legal or not, doctors treating patients without being paid shifts costs.

This is, in essence, socialism.

One cannot fully escape the actions of others. It is imply not possible to run a functioning society where every individual is completely insulated from the bad actions of others.

This is why we have police, at the most basic level.

Meh. Whether it meets your defintion of moral is irrelevant. Doctors would do treat people anyway. Costs get shifted.

That isn't my argument.

How do you prevent the cost shifting?

A store selling bread has to charge paying customers for those who grab a loaf and make it out the door.

BAM! Cost shifting.

How would your system prevent this?

[Poptech]

Ok, how would your system prevent cartels and monopolies?

Tell me how to solve resource asymetry.

Cartels require government intervention to be maintained. Monopolies are an irrational boogie man, the irony being that government regulation create monopolies. Was just having the government enforced AT&T better than our current telecommunication choices? For a monopoly in the healthcare market to exist in a Laissez-faire system they have to be offering healthcare that is affordable and superior to anyone else. Without all the licensing and regulations that only benefit big business, smaller players have no restrictions entering the healthcare market.

Is it cheaper and easier for a small business or a large corporation to deal with licensing and regulations?

[RandomGuy]

FWIW:

I am an insurance expert here, and quite familiar with the subject.

[RandomGuy]

Cartels require government intervention to be maintained.

A cartel of sufficient resources would have the ability to sue in civil avenues any potential rival. It seems this statement is not really reasonable.

This would only require enough goverment to enforce the courts' determination.

Do you want to get rid of the courts?

[Poptech]

State governments have determined that this cost shifting takes place.

This is not the federal goverment, but rather state cons utions.

All 50 states have some version of this law.

Do you think they should be repealed to prevent this cost-shifting?

I believe all laws attempting to regulate markets should be repealed. I do not believe attempting to analyze a government distorted industry of cartels and monopolies can produce information that reflects upon anything but these distortions.

[johnsmith]

FWIW:

I am an insurance expert here, and quite familiar with the subject.

Are you really? I may have to start just IM'ing you because no one at my ing company can answer any questions for me.

Oh, and just last week I had my first little Johnsmith, though it's a she, so I guess she's a janesmith....so I have a lot of ing questions.

[Poptech]

A cartel of sufficient resources would have the ability to sue in civil avenues any potential rival. It seems this statement is not really reasonable.

This would only require enough goverment to enforce the courts' determination.

Do you want to get rid of the courts?

Sue for what? Provide an example of a cartel that was able to be maintained without government assistance.

[RandomGuy]

Monopolies are an irrational boogie man, the irony being that government regulation create monopolies.

Monopolies are historical facts.

You can't say they are boogie men, without telling me how they would be avoided in a purely free market system.

Large companies that got large enough to corner any market would be large enough to do quite a few things that would be anti-compe ive without any govermental regulation at all.

Hiring away key players from a small company, for example.
Accepting prices at deep losses where smaller rivals are operating to drive them out of business.

How would your system keep this from happening?

[RandomGuy]

Sue for what? Provide an example of a cartel that was able to be maintained without government assistance.

A sufficiently large company can pay a sufficiently talented lawyer to sue for just about anything.

I cannot provide an example, just as you cannot provide proof that cartels would not exist in whatever system you would propose. It seems reasonable to me that lawyers and courts would exist, and they would be abused if enough money was at stake. If you think this is not reasonable, tell me now it is not.

What system are you proposing, exactly?

[RandomGuy]

Are you really? I may have to start just IM'ing you because no one at my ing company can answer any questions for me.

Oh, and just last week I had my first little Johnsmith, though it's a she, so I guess she's a janesmith....so I have a lot of ing questions.

I am indeed, although this is the internet. Take my word for what you think it is worth. You have seen me here enough to have a decent measure, I would say.

Congrats!

[RandomGuy]

Times' up.

Project deadline looming. Argh.

[Poptech]

I don't think many doctors would allow someone to die if they had no money, regardless of whether it would be illegal.

I was wondering how much force of law should be put behind it.

I don't either and have seen no evidence of any such behavior being remotely common practice. Which is why I do not see the need for the law.

Legal or not, doctors treating patients without being paid shifts costs.

This is, in essence, socialism.

It is only socialism if it is government mandated. Charity hospitals providing these services for free is not socialism.

One cannot fully escape the actions of others. It is imply not possible to run a functioning society where every individual is completely insulated from the bad actions of others.

This is why we have police, at the most basic level.

With healthcare you are making me financially responsible for the bad lifestyle choices of my neighbor. With the police I am paying them to protect me from other's bad behavior.

Meh. Whether it meets your defintion of moral is irrelevant. Doctors would do treat people anyway. Costs get shifted.

That isn't my argument.

How do you prevent the cost shifting?

A store selling bread has to charge paying customers for those who grab a loaf and make it out the door.

BAM! Cost shifting.

How would your system prevent this?

Managing cost shifting is a part of doing business and in some cases can only be minimized. Medicare and Medicaid are a form of cost shifting that is making healthcare more expensive for everyone else,

Why is Medical Care so Expensive? (Hans F. Sennholz, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus of Economics)

I would thus also eliminate medicare and medicaid.

[Poptech]

Monopolies are historical facts.

You can't say they are boogie men, without telling me how they would be avoided in a purely free market system.

Your historic facts all involve government intervention. So I take it you also support the Post Office?

Large companies that got large enough to corner any market would be large enough to do quite a few things that would be anti-compe ive without any govermental regulation at all.

This is an economic fallacy.

Hiring away key players from a small company, for example.

Why would you want to prevent someone from getting a better job?

Accepting prices at deep losses where smaller rivals are operating to drive them out of business.

This is an economic fallacy. Can you provide an example?

How would your system keep this from happening?

I have no idea how to keep economic fallacies from happening.

[Poptech]

A sufficiently large company can pay a sufficiently talented lawyer to sue for just about anything.

There would have to be a law they could sue about. Large companies frequently sue using government regulations against their compe ion.

I cannot provide an example, just as you cannot provide proof that cartels would not exist in whatever system you would propose. It seems reasonable to me that lawyers and courts would exist, and they would be abused if enough money was at stake. If you think this is not reasonable, tell me now it is not.

What system are you proposing, exactly?

I do not claim cartels could not exist in a laissez faire system, rather they could not last long. What you are concerned with legal abuse though relates to a company using the regulatory environment against their compe ors. Without these regulations they could only sue for things like theft.