Why an MRI costs $1,080 in America and $280 in France

[learningcurve]

Alrighty then, I will attempt learn something, hopefully without having my head bitten off. I will also try not to make any assertions for which I have no proof, simply because I just don't think I'm in the intellectual realm of some of the people (one in particular) in here.

Questions to G: with the example you linked of health care and how it worked some time ago; doesn't that just highlight the real problem with any social, political, economical theory at a very basic level? That is human intervention, human nature; I mean your governemnt, or any democratic government structure is suppposed to be "by the people, for the people" or something along those lines?

From reading this thread you are of the Austrian school of economic thought - am I right? If so is this true?

The Austrian praxeological method is based on the heavy use of logical deduction from what they argue to be undeniable, self-evident axioms or irrefutable facts about human existence.

If the above is true, what are the irrefutable facts about human existance? Other than purely biological/physiological instances i.e we all need to eat, sleep, shit etc, what is irrefutable about our existence that applies to absolutley evey individual on the planet without fail (excluding the biological/physiological)?


Is free market theory simply akin to an economic version of Darwinism? Simply a system of checks and balances that eventually evens itself out into a harmonious world where the market dictates everything? If it is, is it also prone to the idea of survival of the fittest, which if it wasn't for human intervention, would seemingly work to perfection in nature but seemingly brings the worst out in humans?


Last question - to actually enable the free market idea on a global scale, wouldn't that require eveyone to share the same ideas, beliefs, and mindset, much like a hive metality, which in itself would appear to be socialism at work?


Not so much an assertion but an assumption is that human intervention is the biggest problem with any theory as far as I can tell.


I apologise if my questions seem rather simplistic and I'm not tryingto troll. I am genuinely interested.

 

[JakeStratham]

2) Lose-Win

...

I'm a consumer and value my health. In your opinion, would market capitalism be more effective than state involvement when it comes to situations such as the scenario #2 one I referred to and if so, how?

Charlie, I can't do your post justice since I lack time. But I'll make a quick point.

State involvement doesn't guarantee your safety. Here's an example (bear with me) that demonstrates such:

Let's say your wife undergoes vaginal surgery to have a mesh implanted to fix her pelvic organ prolapse. Let's say the mesh fails (I won't get into mesh design, etc.), and starts moving through the tissue. It ends up poking into the vaginal canal, which you feel during sex.

Come to find out other women have had this problem. Thousands of other women. So you and your wife wonder, "How did this piece of shit ever get approved by the FDA?!"

You do some investigative work. You find out the FDA, which is there to safeguard the public's well-being (lol), approved it through its 510k premarket notification process. That means it didn't get tested on humans. It got fast-tracked. Moreover, all mesh devices are categorized as Class II, and get fast-tracked as long as they're similar to other mesh devices, even if the "predicates" get recalled (wtf?!).**

Moreover, the FDA itself has received several thousands of reports of this type of problem over the last few years. Further, you learn that the FDA can't actually afford to test this shit, so they get congress to pass the Medical Device User Fee Act.

What does it do?

It lets the FDA charge the mesh manufacturers for the testing. Recently, the FDA wanted to charge manufacturers $800+ million. The manufacturers haggled 'em down to $600 million (roundabout).

Here's the point: that's state involvement for you. Essentially, a monopoly on approving stuff that can affect your health. Frankly, I'd rather have 100 or 1,000 Consumer Reports doing it, all of them trying to do the best they can to please their customers.

The FDA? We're not the customers. In a lot of ways, the medical device manufacturers are the customers.


* I'm in a hurry, so I didn't proofread.

** The mesh stuff is true. Johnson and Johnson is already facing hundreds of lawsuits based on this event.

 

[charlie.simm]

How much of your information about product safety actually comes from government? When was the last time you checked a government website before buying a product?

I wasn't referring to the government's role when it comes to informing citizens. I was referring to the fact that businesses have to comply with certain regulations before actually starting to sell a product.

I'm not saying the government is more effective than independent review sites, I'm not saying it can get a message across (for example "product XYZ is bad for you") better than the media or certain websites. In fact, I'm convinced it can't.

If we're talking about issues which require flexibility, prompt reactions and so on, the government cannot compete with the private sector. Maybe mutant squirrels will attack Chicago in ten minutes. I guarantee that the media (TV, new media, you name it) will inform the population faster than any government agency. You'll probably see live footage on TV by the time the first bureaucrat has to approve the government's strategy for this specific issue.

The government sucks at most things, I agree.

What it doesn't suck at (in my opinion) are situations where its sheer size can be put to good use. National defense, for example. And that brings us right back to scenario #2, to the fact that businesses have to comply with certain regulations before actually starting to sell a product.

Again, if you value health, you would only buy brands that were certified by an authority you trust. It could be the Government of India, it could be the government of the USA, it could be GuerillaReviews. It could be someone doing free reviews and selling advertising, it could be direct subscription, it could be crowdsourced like Wikipedia using a real name identification system for accountability like Facebook uses.

Guerilla, I'm convinced you're an informed consumer.

I'm an informed consumer.

Most WF members are informed consumers.

But what about family members, what about our friends... what about the "sheeple" we love or at least care about?

I don't know about you guys but a lot of the people I love/care about aren't as informed as I am. In fact, a lot of them are downright ignorant. What about them?

Ok, they can search via Google.

Ok, they can read Amazon reviews.

... but most of them won't because they're ignorant, sheeple or whatever.

That's exactly why I think it's a good thing that in pretty much all civilized countries, companies need to comply with certain regulations before actually starting to sell a product.

Through its sheer size, the government is in a good position to enforce such rules in my opinion.

Are governments involved in way too many things atm? Yes.

Should their role be diminished? Yes.

Should they disappear altogether? In my opinion no. Why? Simply because when it comes to let's say national defense or situations such as the one I referred to, governments can make sheer size work in their favor.

Frankly, I'd rather have 100 or 1,000 Consumer Reports doing it, all of them trying to do the best they can to please their customers.

I agree with absolutely everything you wrote Jake.

Governments are unbelievably ineffective but unlike Consumer Reports or other players, at least they have the authority to ask companies to comply with certain regulations before actually starting to sell a product. That brings us right back to the scenario #2 situation and my "sheer size" argument.

 

[jdomaha]

No, healthcare systems in the UK, OZ, Canada, France etc are partially or totally state run and deliver a better overall service, for less than the US corporate alternative. They pay less per taxpayer and less as a percentage of GDP than the bloated corporate system in the states. Not sure why turkeys enjoy voting for Christmas so much.

There are plenty of examples of industries that have turned to shit when handed over to corporations who face no real competition and basically fuck the consumer for maximum profits, e.g. look at the railway systems in Europe. France has a state run rail system with a high speed 300kmh network which is cheap and efficient, the UK privatised train operators to allow "competition". Theres no high speed trains in the UK, several rail crashes due to negligence, the prices are eye wateringly expensive, but the heads of the rail companies make massive bonuses each year on top of fat corporate profits.

Private enterprise is awesome and can be very efficient, but if you hand what should be a public service corporations will sit on massive revenue streams and fuck the general public to make money.

Private enterprise is awesome and can be very efficient if the government stays out of the marketplace. This means government not doing favors for big businesses by creating false barriers to entry (which reduces competition for businesses already in place by eliminating possible new entries in markets). This also means government doesn't influence the marketplace by paying exorbitant wages to government workers.

France and Britain and all those other wonderful European countries had the fantastic benefit of having homogeneous populations. They are now losing that benefit. They're going to enjoy the wonderful diversity that America has been dealing with for the last half century. Welcome to the club, guys.

If you have a true free market, large corporations will not be able to just sit on massive revenue streams for long. They get slow. They get bureaucratic. They lose their edge in the marketplace and lose market share to smaller start ups. It happened to Microsoft, it happened to yahoo, it happened to media companies, it will happen to Google.

Small business will, in a free market, kick the living shit out of big business. The only thing big business is good at is monopolizing markets through government intervention.

 

[Moxie]

Taxation is not theft, it is the enforcement of property rights. When you voluntarily chose to live, work and earn income in a country owned (yup, owned) by a democratic majority, you enter into an agreement to submit to that country's laws and operating agreements. In the US the operating agreement is that profit generated is split between you and the tax payers.

You are misidentifying the act of being born on earth as voluntarily choosing to live in a "country." Hitler was democratically elected..

Where do you suggest the Amish go so they can avoid having rules they don't agree with forced upon them? The US might be one of the places where they can have the most freedom, but that doesn't mean we should ignore that they are doing things that they don't agree and only because they don't want to get locked in a cage.

Its not my problem that governments are widespread on planet earth, its yours. If you ever do build the idealistic society you describe (which you won't because honestly nothing in this discussion is even remotely practical),

Rape is widespread and will be in our lifetimes, but that doesn't mean it should be accepted.

 

[jdomaha]

Why?

I will go out on a limb and say that with the current state of affairs in the United States government (crony capitalism), that corporations currently in the business of the judicial system (mostly private prisons and jails) cannot be trusted. There would need to be a huge revamp of the way things are run in order for a market to be created.

With government entities handling the justice system, there will be at least some public oversight as long as we have a relatively free media. Private prisons are far too likely to get real messy, real fast.

Now if jails and prisons went from large monolithic 1 per city entities to smaller facilities that could compete with each other, then that might be a workable situation.

 

[Moxie]

France and Britain and all those other wonderful European countries had the fantastic benefit of having homogeneous populations. They are now losing that benefit. They're going to enjoy the wonderful diversity that America has been dealing with for the last half century. Welcome to the club, guys.

Last half century? Diverse immigration was a main factor in the development of the USA and is one of the primary things which gives it its identity. The great melting pot, etc.

 

[jdomaha]

Its not my problem that governments are widespread on planet earth, its yours. If you ever do build the idealistic society you describe (which you won't because honestly nothing in this discussion is even remotely practical), and that society flourishes, I expect that it would not be able to be protected without looking a lot more like real actual modern societies. Someone else will always have a bigger gun and your property rights WILL NOT be enforceable.

You guys can attack my position (and ad hominem me) all you want. I think some of you are very intelligent. I also think you're ideologues on these issues and subsequently are unable to be either practical or rational.

It'll become your problem when services collapse in your neck of the woods. Take a look at Greece and their current state of affairs as an example.

Our philosophies are eminently practical. They address the natural human traits that make us what we are. Libertarian and anarcho-capitalist philosophies address the tendency for humans to self-sabotage society by setting liberty as the pinnacle moral state/goal. If you have both freedom and liberty, everything else will fall into line.

The problem with liberty is that when people who lack the ability to contribute to the society in question outnumber the people who do have that ability.

A free society will always be able to out-produce and out-invest and out-research non-free societies. Technology wins arguments settled by force.

 

[jdomaha]

Your argument is like saying that a black slave born on a southern plantation 200 years ago voluntarily agreed to be ruled by his owner. Isn't it? If not, how so?

He has a point. There is no slave in the history of the world who did not choose to be a slave.

 

[advive]

In this free market world of yours, who would pay for military and police? If there is no mandatory taxes, where does military money come from?

 

[jdomaha]

If consumers value testing, they will pay for it. You don't need a government to do it because then you have an unaccountable monopoly controlling it, not susceptible to market forces like competition and fairness (anti-fraud, government bureaucrats have sovereign immunity, they cannot be prosecuted for doing a bad job) but controlled by political expediency.

Your mistake is a mistake a lot of people make. You assume that only the government can do something. Pixelo alluded to this. He was talking about public services stating that only the government can do them. I asked him why, but he hasn't replied yet.

The notion of an activist government is really only about 70 years old (post WWII). Before that, we had the gilded age and the industrial revolution without much government regulation or interference at all. Those were high times for economic prosperity and the beginnings of a middle class that wasn't totally dependent on agrarian living.


Really think about this. The only thing the government can do that you or I can't do, is use force against innocent people legally. There is nothing else the government can do that we can't do for ourselves.


Ever heard of Underwriters Lab or Consumer Reports? Have you visited any of the thousands of review websites like CNet and Anandtech on the web?

Have you ever read product and vendor reviews on sites like Amazon and eBay?

How much of your information about product safety actually comes from government? When was the last time you checked a government website before buying a product?


Again, if you value health, you would only buy brands that were certified by an authority you trust. It could be the Government of India, it could be the government of the USA, it could be GuerillaReviews. It could be someone doing free reviews and selling advertising, it could be direct subscription, it could be crowdsourced like Wikipedia using a real name identification system for accountability like Facebook uses.

It's not on free market advocates to have to prove every solution, or to show every answer. It is on statists to have to justify why the use of force against innocent people who want to live peacefully is justified. Why monopolies belong to government agencies, and private citizens cannot engage in those activities.

That said, the best answer is probably insurance. In a free market economy, people would subscribe to insurance programs, which would handle the downline certifications and testing of all sorts of products. In other words, there would be a master middleman, a Walmart for all of the consumer services you currently get from government, specifically those relating to health and safety. There may be dozens of these, and you would subscribe to the agency which best meets your needs at your price point. The super wealthy might need safety reviews on yachts, and poor people might need to know which 99 cent burger is safest to eat. These are all information problems which the digital paradigm in particular is fantastically suited to handle.

You're a horrible person and I will tell you why.

What you're not saying is that by making people responsible for their own choices in a free society, there will be people who make bad choices for any number of reasons - AND THEY OR PEOPLE AROUND THEM WILL SUFFER FOR IT.

What we really need is a society that keeps people from a) making bad choices or b) suffering the effects of their bad choices.

Any other kind of society just doesn't care about people. And that's terrible.

 

[tortuous]

This thread is aids... but I have a question for guerilla.

guerilla,

Have you ever been diagnosed with any disorder on the autism spectrum?.

This is a 100% serious question I have a personal interest in and I'm not trolling.

You can PM me instead of answering here if you want to answer.

Thanks

Tortuous.

Ps. Those who don't understand autism, the door is that way ->

Edit2: the position of my post is not in relation to any other post.

 

[okuma31]

You're a horrible person and I will tell you why.

What you're not saying is that by making people responsible for their own choices in a free society, there will be people who make bad choices for any number of reasons - AND THEY OR PEOPLE AROUND THEM WILL SUFFER FOR IT.

What we really need is a society that keeps people from a) making bad choices or b) suffering the effects of their bad choices.

Any other kind of society just doesn't care about people. And that's terrible.

i see what cha did there. /wink

 

[jdomaha]

Last half century? Diverse immigration was a main factor in the development of the USA and is one of the primary things which gives it its identity. The great melting pot, etc.

No, diversity wasn't what gave America strength or identity - it was the fact that so many Americans were on the same page. American traditions, culture and language were largely homogenized for most of our history. People came to America to be Americans. They did not come to be african americans, chinese americans, latin americans, etc.

Immigration was severely restricted for most of the United States' history. The immigration that was allowed was largely from western European countries. There were some fairly strong restrictions for who could even get in from those countries. They were medically screened. Mental defectives weren't allowed in. They had to speak English. They had to change their name.

Cultural diversity does not strengthen a society. It weakens it.

 

[jdomaha]

In this free market world of yours, who would pay for military and police? If there is no mandatory taxes, where does military money come from?

If the united states federal government disappeared tomorrow, what country would attack (what used to be) the united states and how?

During frontier times, sheriffs were paid out of the pockets of the local landowners.

Who pays for Iceland's military? They have no standing military, just a local force that provides assistance in times of need to stranded boaters and so on. A coast guard, basically.

If the united states just had a coast guard, how do you think that would affect taxes?

 

[advive]

That coast guard still has to be paid, and in cities today you don't have classical land owners. You have people owning apartments. Do you really think people paying individuals for protection would work? Can you see one neighbourhood attacking the other? Who resolves arguments. You'll have turf wars EVERYWHERE.

I agree that taxes would be a LOT lower without military and no one would probably attack but even for coast guard you need some sort of taxes. And what few people here are saying is that EVERYTHING would just work in this free market world. Everything would sort itself out, no need for any government involvement.

 

[jdomaha]

That coast guard still has to be paid, and in cities today you don't have classical land owners. You have people owning apartments. Do you really think people paying individuals for protection would work? Can you see one neighbourhood attacking the other? Who resolves arguments. You'll have turf wars EVERYWHERE.

I agree that taxes would be a LOT lower without military and no one would probably attack but even for coast guard you need some sort of taxes. And what few people here are saying is that EVERYTHING would just work in this free market world. Everything would sort itself out, no need for any government involvement.

What would they be arguing about, precisely?

A limited military could easily be paid by voluntary agreements paid by people with a stake in what they want protected, just as each state or city could negotiate with its neighbor for access to needed resources. Colorado would probably not worry too much about being invaded by China, I'd say, but they'd appreciate having access to the ocean-connected markets provided by California. Whatever Colorado wants from California would be balanced by whatever California wanted from Colorado.

Would you buy an apartment in a place that was lawless? Probably not unless you had no alternative. Lawless activity would drive property values through the floor and would ruin people who invested in that property. So you would reasonably assume that whoever owned an apartment complex would hire someone to provide security. And that secure apartment complex would be very popular if people valued security. And if the less-secure apartment complex next door wanted a piece of that action, they could beef up their security too. It would be a race to the top instead of a race to the bottom - which you get when government provides the desired result.

You know this already if you're browsing a gay webmaster forum like this. Websites that are seen as unsafe by their desired customer base go out of business or implement security measures to the point where they are attracting enough customers to be profitable.

 

[advive]

What about apartment complexes where each unit is owned by the people living in them? How do you force everyone to pay for this apartment complex protection? How do you stop people free-loading?

Who decides who gets the oil field, gold mine?

You mother fuckers are just crazy, need to come back to reality. Check what happened in Somalia when the government just disappeared.

Yes a lot of countries are becoming nanny states more and more and that's not good but what you people are suggesting is just crazy. you need to come back to reality.

 

[Moxie]

No, diversity wasn't what gave America strength or identity - it was the fact that so many Americans were on the same page. American traditions, culture and language were largely homogenized for most of our history. People came to America to be Americans. They did not come to be african americans, chinese americans, latin americans, etc.

Immigration was severely restricted for most of the United States' history. The immigration that was allowed was largely from western European countries. There were some fairly strong restrictions for who could even get in from those countries. They were medically screened. Mental defectives weren't allowed in. They had to speak English. They had to change their name.

Cultural diversity does not strengthen a society. It weakens it.

You're trolling or ignorant of basic American history. Language requirements weren't until 1940. Ethnic groups used to stick to their own kind, and the culture that goes along with that, WAY MORE than now. There are still communities in the US where the older people sit around with each other and speak in German, Polish, French, while their children and grandchildren watch the NFL and listen to Eminem.

Whereas now interracial marriage is at an all time high, an Irish American at one time wasn't just likely to only be friends with white people, but also to only be friends with their fellow Irish Americans.

Despite all the diverse groups and how much they kept to themselves, the US was built by them working, and the prospect of finding work was why many of them immigrated. The Chinese came to build the railroads for money, not because they wanted to immerse themselves in Edgar Allan Poe novels and wave around American flags.



CATO Institute Finds $180 Billion Benefit to Legalizing Illegal Immigrants | The Washington Independent

A new study from the libertarian CATO Institute concludes that legalizing the more than eight million undocumented workers in the United States would have significant economic benefits for the country, while simply enhancing border enforcement and applying restrictive immigration laws would actually hurt the U.S. economically.


Georgia's Harsh Immigration Law Costs Millions in Unharvested Crops - Megan McArdle - Business - The Atlantic

 

[jdomaha]

What about apartment complexes where each unit is owned by the people living in them? How do you force everyone to pay for this apartment complex protection? How do you stop people free-loading

Who owns the building and pays for general maintenance? Whoever owned the building could contract with any number of services that provide security. I'm sure once the federal, state, county and city police forces are slashed (once the US can't afford bloated benefits and pensions) that there will be considerable policing talent looking for someone who wants their services. I am sure that with a little research, parties who were interested in someone else providing security for their particular apartment could find someone suitable.

The idea that it couldn't be done without involuntary taxation is silly.

Who decides who gets the oil field, gold mine?

You mother fuckers are just crazy, need to come back to reality. Check what happened in Somalia when the government just disappeared.

Yes a lot of countries are becoming nanny states more and more and that's not good but what you people are suggesting is just crazy. you need to come back to reality.

How do we decide who gets the oil field or gold mine now?

Whose reality do I need to come back to? Yours? I'd say your reality isn't working out quite the way that you think it is. Ask the Greeks how coming back to reality is going for them right now.

Government didn't just disappear in Somalia. Somalia never progressed past a tribal system. I work with several Somalian refugees and our conversations have been interesting. According to them, it seems that there are some leaders of certain countries out there (one of which begins with a U and ends with an S) who meddle in the affairs of other countries in order to help friends who own large businesses with government contracts make huge profits.

Meddling involves picking a charismatic and sociopathic leader and giving him access to billions and billions of government aid (paid for by involuntary taxation) which inevitably goes towards arms and payoffs to tribal thugs to maintain strong-arm control of a region.