Right.
So, if the regulations proposed were to depress wages, for whatever reason, how do we ensure not only enough people enter the field, but that they are the people best suited for it?
SO if that isnāt a fair question, then we need to examine the policy proposed to ensure that doesnāt happen.
admitted that it had been a mistake to force homeownership on people who could not afford it. Renting, he said, would have been preferable. Now he tells us.
NOBODY was forced. 0 people were FORCED into homeownership. The govt loosened the requirements to qualify for these loans, and mortgage companies were more than happy to jump on it.
Iām not saying the govt didnāt have a hand, but as beans stated above, there were a stupid amount of factors that played into this. And the mortgage companies that made a killing on these loans sure didnāt feel forced into those luxury cars and nice houses.
If we came up with the best way humanly possible to provide everyone healthcare then you would need to make sure that the conditions needed to do just that were met. So if wages were going to be a possible monkey wrench in that plan, you would make it so that wages would not be a problem. But we are looking at two different issues: providing healthcare and healthcare providers.
I generally agree, but that is separate from securities market regulation generally which promotes transparency, accuracy of information, and more trust in markets, which improves liquidity and availability of capital. The securitization garbage was a real mess and aided and abetted by bad government policy, but that was different than a market regime for disclosures, etc.
So investment companies couldnāt offer an SNP500 index fund without government intrusion?
Offering up the financial markets as proof government can make things better is odd. Thereās literally a revolving door of graft and corruption between the SEC and the investment banks. They write the rules and then take 7 figure jobs to go help banks/firms get around them.
I mean, sure. But you donāt get one without the other.
And honestly, outside of literally living too far away, I think the āmake sure people have access to healthcare, and make sure it doesnāt bankrupt them when they need itā is the easy part of the policy choice.
The difficult choice is how to do that, and have the least negative unintended consequences. Effect on providers is part of that.
No one can offer anything for sale on such markets without jumping through disclosure hoops, and anyone that invested in someone that didnāt jump through those hoops is a idiot. A fool and his money I guessā¦
People are always going to be people. Government is nothing more than a group of people. ANd this is an unfortunate negative consequence.
That said, the horseshit that is these people cheatingās negative effects, are out weighed by the positives of the regulations in the market.
Nothing will be perfect, and an unregulated market would just have different people doing this same thing, just a different way. Greed is real, lol.
But weāre getting off track, and ultimately we agree more than we disagree when it comes to government involvement. Itās just I understand that once companies get large enough they get just as shitty and corrupt as government (they just donāt own as many guns and jail cells), same thing with unions, charities so on and so forth. Religionās too. Anything with power and resources will have evil people flocking to take part in getting some of that power.
What are the alternatives? The problem with utilities is the delivery (pipes and wires). Governments decided that they only want to deal with 1 entity for permitting and everything else. So the government decides how much money they let that company make and that company does the bare minimum to keep customers from rioting.
The poles out in the sticks here are from 1948. Every time the wind blows we lose power (probably 6-10 times per year). We canāt go buy electricity from anyone else (works on homemade fusion generator lol).
Well not People, Democrats. 
His desire to continue his practice would constrain him from āgoing rogue.ā
Unfortunately, the ER doctor is not on your insurance plan.
This is correct. And I for one have no problem with it (outside of a single-payer context). The govt should be in the business of providing Chevy care. You want Cadillac care? Pony up for it.
I merely took the logic of the free market and applied it (in extremis) to healthcare delivery. And all of your belittling hasnāt impacted its logic/implications one bit.
Good, then we are in agreement that a free-market approach is not appropriate for HC delivery, which was the starting contention in this derail.
Do you see how you are conflating two things here? (I have bolded them to help you find them.)
Indeed. And with respect to HC delivery, thank God for the distortion. (Distortion is not always a bad thing. For example, can you imagine the song In-A-Gadda-Da-Vida without it?)
A free market. In the context of govt intervention v no govt intervention.
Nah, the real problem with utilities is if left unchecked they can decide who gets to keep their pulse.
Youāre proving my point.
But just like I stopped responding to TB about this nonsense, Iām stopping here. Continue on with histrionic garbage all youād like. Iām done with it.
Humility is in short order around here.
[quote=āEyeDentist, post:4205, topic:229190ā]
Good, then we are in agreement that a free-market approach is not appropriate for HC delivery[/quote]
I would not agree to that as written. Words matter.
I do however agree with the point (Iām inferring) youāre trying to make.
Not really though, outside of pure mental masturbation.
At this point government is so entrenched, the pullout would be pointless, and the companies too big for them not to be able to crush any sort of meaningful (non regional) competition.
Your original question is tough to answer honestly. People can go through the thought exercise all they want. Iāve done it plenty of times. But there is no way to prove it, and to change course now would likely be an unmitigated disaster depending on whoās running the companies in question.
You used to get a tank of gas for a nickel as well and Iām guessing those house calls didnāt feature things like radiation, CAT scans, etc. did they? Things change, technology advances, and attempting to act as if you made health care a completely free market that doctors wouldnāt charge is ludicrous. So without government doctors will spend a ton of years going to school but then get out with all that knowledge and be cheaper than owning a small general goods store again?
Start that society and if youāre right I bet everyone moves there and they are all insanely happy. I look forward to getting a triple bypass from a house call because hey doctors used to make house calls!
@thunderbolt23 and I had a small discussion related to this a few weeks ago related to anti-trust laws and how there are a lot of industries that have become Oligopolies with a significant amount of power. They donāt behave like free-market competitive markets.
Never said we couldnāt let free people buy their own electricity. Just that government only wanted one set of wires per neighborhood.
I never said itād be free or cheap. Where are you going with this? Because itās complicated we need government involved?
Someone asserted that doctors would gouge people and act unethically in a free market. Iām sure some would. But we have doctors acting unethically now. Prescribing opiates to addicts and other nonsense.
Peopleās results of the thought exercises is what will inevitably shape and form the majority of their opinions. Imo, it should be tough to answer. Itās a tough question.
Iām talking specifically about whether or not govt intervention is āneededā in utilities. Do we allow human nature to run its course and suffer the potential drawbacks of a free market utility system with the tradeoff being (hopefully) a better industry without so much govt interference?
Or do we accept that human nature, in the industries that have the power to decide life and death (here, specifically, utilities only for arguments sake) is too much of a burden for society to bare?
Correct, and they use government regulation (some intention, and some unintentional) to price out anyone who otherwise would try and compete.
Fair enough