For Liberty(and pwnage) Ron Paul 2012 Part II

[G-Max]

Not a single country, but it should unify its standards of services, while you seem to favor a competition of standards, which doesn't make sense.

Yeah, Mod forbid that we try a bunch of different systems to see what works best

What exactly constitutes the US when you abolish every aspect of the federation?

Well, the fifty newly sovereign American nations, I guess. Why are we still talking about that? I never advocated it, I just used it to prove a point.

 

[Cutlass]

Is that even possible? I just can't imagine anything being more incompetent and wasteful than a Federal entitlement service.

Then you've never looked at the subject. The most conservative (politically) estimates on Medicare is that it has administrative costs 1/3 of the private sector. Social Security has outstandingly low administrative costs. The other programs are mostly state-federal and sometimes local cooperative enterprises, and it is the states and locals that are the efficiency problem.

 

[kochman]

Then you've never looked at the subject. The most conservative (politically) estimates on Medicare is that it has administrative costs 1/3 of the private sector. Social Security has outstandingly low administrative costs. The other programs are mostly state-federal and sometimes local cooperative enterprises, and it is the states and locals that are the efficiency problem.

That's true for medicare because they put the bulk of the work on the health care provider...

 

[Cutlass]

That's true for medicare because they put the bulk of the work on the health care provider...

The administrative costs are lower because there are less administrative costs. The private sector maximizes costs as a way to generate profits.

 

[kochman]

The administrative costs are lower because there are less administrative costs. The private sector maximizes costs as a way to generate profits.

As I said, there are less administrative costs because they force the provider to do the bulk of the work in order to get the money... talk to some doctors about it. They do a lot more for Medicare than general insurance, and get less for it... It puts a bigger burden on them than normal.

It is really odd that you are arguing that the Federal Gov is more efficient than the private sector in areas where they compete... since they can create laws/rules specifically to ensure such a thing in cases where on the surface it would appear that way (medicare).

I've worked in private sector, military, and civilian government...
By far, the civilian government side is the least efficient of the 3. It's not even close. The amount of waste that goes on is unbelievable (the military was bad too, but there were, generally speaking, more motivated individuals in the military.)

 

[Leoreth]

Yeah, Mod forbid that we try a bunch of different systems to see what works best

Standards are only useful when they are as widespread as possible, else there is no point in a standard. "Competing standards" just means that everyone is worse off and confused because there's just too much to convert and keep track of. You seem to assume that in the end a common standard will prevail and become universal, but that's far from guaranteed, and if it takes too long the damages caused in the meantime will greatly outweigh the benefits. That's not even taking into account people becoming accustomed to and sticking to inferior standards just for provincialist reasons.

Well, the fifty newly sovereign American nations, I guess. Why are we still talking about that? I never advocated it, I just used it to prove a point.

And that point was?

In fact, even if the Federal government completely ceased to exist, the states would just keep chugging along, creating their own post offices and issuing their own currencies and raising their own armies.

Paul isn't the one who's crazy...

That quote heavily implies that this would be no problem. It would be.

 

[G-Max]

The most conservative (politically) estimates on Medicare is that it has administrative costs 1/3 of the private sector. Social Security has outstandingly low administrative costs.

The private sector does not offer services that are quite comparable to Medicare and SS. Medicare does not work like health insurance; people do not earn interest on the money that they put into SS (although they can get way more money out than they put in if they were poor their whole lives and live a very long time).

The private sector maximizes costs as a way to generate profits.

That makes no sense. Costs cut into profits. Unless by "costs" you mean the prices charged to consumers, but then you're talking nonsense because a company that charges exorbitant prices will be driven out of business by a company that offers lower prices.

Standards are only useful when they are as widespread as possible, else there is no point in a standard. "Competing standards" just means that everyone is worse off and confused because there's just too much to convert and keep track of. You seem to assume that in the end a common standard will prevail and become universal, but that's far from guaranteed, and if it takes too long the damages caused in the meantime will greatly outweigh the benefits. That's not even taking into account people becoming accustomed to and sticking to inferior standards just for provincialist reasons.

Wait, you're talking about "standards" as in stuff like the metric system? My bad. I thought you were talking about different approaches to things like education. In that case, yes, you're right, but your point is completely irrelevant.

That quote heavily implies that this would be no problem. It would be.

Well, certainly having fifty different post offices would be a huge nightmare. But having fifty different approaches to education, or fifty different approaches to drug policy, would not be. That's why we have a constitution where the post office, the patent and trademark office, the currency, the military, etc. are the domain of the federal government, but education, drug policy, etc. are the domain of the states.

 

[Cutlass]

The private sector does not offer services that are quite comparable to Medicare and SS. Medicare does not work like health insurance; people do not earn interest on the money that they put into SS (although they can get way more money out than they put in if they were poor their whole lives and live a very long time).

Actually they offer exactly like Medicare and SS. They just don't do a good job of it, which is why the government programs as the difference between abject poverty and self sufficiency for most of America's elderly.

That makes no sense. Costs cut into profits. Unless by "costs" you mean the prices charged to consumers, but then you're talking nonsense because a company that charges exorbitant prices will be driven out of business by a company that offers lower prices.

It makes sense if you understand the concept of profits. As in revenue over costs. In health insurance maximizing costs maximizes revenue.

 

[Leoreth]

Wait, you're talking about "standards" as in stuff like the metric system? My bad. I thought you were talking about different approaches to things like education. In that case, yes, you're right, but your point is completely irrelevant.

I admit I was tempted to cite the metric system (but only as an example for someone clinging to an inferior system for nothing but thickheadedness ), but it's really beside my point. I am talking about education. I'm talking about industrial norms and I'm talking about monetary policy. I'm basically talking about everything where it's beneficial to have people or businesses from different regions stand on common ground, which, in this globalized world and in a country with a mobile population such as the US, is almost everything.

 

[ParadigmShifter]

I'd move to the first place that has signs in furlongs per fortnight.

 

[Leoreth]

I'd move to the first place that has signs in furlongs per fortnight.

You wouldn't find it because it's impossible to read the roadsigns in the four states you have to pass on your way.

 

[RobAnybody]

Actually they offer exactly like Medicare and SS. They just don't do a good job of it, which is why the government programs as the difference between abject poverty and self sufficiency for most of America's elderly.

Private companies don't offer the same thing as Medicare. The reason is that the government subsidizes 80-90% of the Medicare premium.

If a private company offered complete coverage to seniors, it'd cost, let's say $500 per month (it'd be more, I'm just picking a nice easy-to-chop-up number). The government provides $400 of those benefits for "free" (you know what I mean - the recipient paid for it all their life, but now pays nothing), leaving the recipient to cover the other $100 of their medical needs.

They can do this by either literally picking up the hospital bill for 20% of their claims, or some people buy Medicare Supplement plans, paying a monthly premum to cover anything the government doesn't.

The other alternative, & the point I'm getting to, is Medicare Advantage, where the government says the private company has to offer the exact same coverage as Medicare but then the government will pay the insurance company $390. The private company figures it'll only cost them $380 to do so, meaning the recipient gets the same $400 in benefits from before, the government saves $10, & the private company makes $10 in profit.

The recipient still needs to cover the extra $100, so they can buy a more expensive Medicare Advantage plan (you can offer better benefits than Medicare, but not worse) or pay the difference at the hospital, same as above.

All that was a long way of illustrating that private companies *can* offer the same benefits as the government & do it cheaper. The fact that 8.4 million seniors are enrolled in Medicare Advantage, the goverment wants to continue it, & the private companies want to continue it, means it's a win-win-win.

As this headline from the US Government Accountability Office says, Enrollment Increased from 2010 to 2011 while Premiums Decreased and Benefit Packages Were Stable.

 

[Crezth]

Is that even possible? I just can't imagine anything being more incompetent and wasteful than a Federal entitlement service.

Bitcoiners?

Nuclear weapons prevent war. Unless you're Iran, but Paul would actually address the legitimate grievances that they have against us instead of antagonizing them, so they'd only be a threat to Israel.

Nuclear war is A-OK if it's half-a-world away!

 

[G-Max]

Actually they offer exactly like Medicare and SS.

I'm not aware of any health insurance companies that charge on the basis of income rather than risk, and can take up to 2 years to pay the bills. I'm also not aware of any retirement companies that pay out at a constant rate regardless of how much you've put in or how much you want to withdraw - or that pay out to dead people. But hey, if you can provide examples, I'll happily concede the point.

It makes sense if you understand the concept of profits. As in revenue over costs. In health insurance maximizing costs maximizes revenue.

That makes no sense whatsoever.

I am talking about education. I'm talking about industrial norms and I'm talking about monetary policy.

Okay. Well, in that case, trying everything to see what works and what doesn't is infinitely more useful than the ability to go from one place to another and expect nothing to be different. A little bit of culture shock can even be good for a person.

Nuclear war is A-OK if it's half-a-world away!

More like "Nuclear war that doesn't involve us is not as bad as overthrowing the democratic government of Iran AGAIN and occupying a country with 3 times the population and 4 times the area of Iraq, and where, unlike Iraq, we won't be greeted as liberators"

 

[Traitorfish]

More like "Nuclear war that doesn't involve us is not as bad as overthrowing the democratic government of Iran AGAIN and occupying a country with 3 times the population and 4 times the area of Iraq, and where, just like Iraq, we won't be greeted as liberators"

Fixed, for accuracy's sake.

 

[G-Max]

Apparently you weren't paying attention to the news back in the spring and summer of 2003. We were greeted as liberators. Most of the violence throughout the occupation was Iraqis fighting each other instead of us. The Iraqi police asked to help us keep law and order (before Paul Bremer fired them). In Iran, the police would be fighting us instead (just like they did in Iraq after we fired them).

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Apparently you weren't paying attention to the news back in the spring and summer of 2003. We were greeted as liberators.

You serious?

 

[Crezth]

More like "Nuclear war that doesn't involve us is not as bad as overthrowing the democratic government of Iran AGAIN and occupying a country with 3 times the population and 4 times the area of Iraq, and where, unlike Iraq, we won't be greeted as liberators"

So you're OK with nuclear war as long as it doesn't involve us. The middle east nuking itself into radioactive slag is a preferable outcome to the U.S. invasion of Iran (not like there's a choice between the two, but I'm just running with it).

Apparently you weren't paying attention to the news back in the spring and summer of 2003. We were greeted as liberators.

No, I don't watch Fox News.

 

[Cutlass]

I'm not aware of any health insurance companies that charge on the basis of income rather than risk, and can take up to 2 years to pay the bills. I'm also not aware of any retirement companies that pay out at a constant rate regardless of how much you've put in or how much you want to withdraw - or that pay out to dead people. But hey, if you can provide examples, I'll happily concede the point.

Strawman. Health insurance is health insurance. At least at the administrative costs level. What Medicare does may be a little different, but on how they do it the main difference is that they do the same thing better.

That makes no sense whatsoever.

You just need to learn about how to figure profit. Health insurers function more like defense contractors and utilities than they do like competitive businesses. That is, Cost Plus Contracting. They're only able to get a certain percentage of profit on revenues. So their maximum possible profit comes from having maximum possible costs. They cannot raise their profits by cutting their costs.

 

[G-Max]

So you're OK with nuclear war as long as it doesn't involve us. The middle east nuking itself into radioactive slag is a preferable outcome to the U.S. invasion of Iran (not like there's a choice between the two, but I'm just running with it).

That's the basic idea, yes.

Health insurers function more like defense contractors and utilities than they do like competitive businesses. That is, Cost Plus Contracting. They're only able to get a certain percentage of profit on revenues. So their maximum possible profit comes from having maximum possible costs. They cannot raise their profits by cutting their costs.

Wow, that's messed up. Actually, that sort of paradigm sounds like it could only be the result of some government regulation or another...