[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by saden1

Try as you may you still can't land an effective punch Joe, you really need to work on your lower/upper body strength.

Fine, then let’s break this down a bit - shall we? In the response to CRedskinsRule which I asserted was dismissive and self-righteous, you mockingly claimed as irrelevant the relationship of economic choices made by individuals and charities in the health care market and their effect on health care costs. Further, you asserted that CRedskinsRule’s response was foolish and that your approach was much more grounded in reality (“I recognize that I am a wishful thinker but damn if I'm more of wishful thinker than you lot”) followed by an assertion, without any limitations, that Adam Smith’s concept of the “invisible hand” of the market place was non-existent.

Tired of your dismissive demeanor towards legitimate theories of which you personally disapprove, I responded by challenging you to state why self-interested market reactions by private individuals are irrelevant in the health care market.

In answering my challenge as to why you believed as such, you first disabuse the thought that such choices will have any effect on lower income individuals (“How does the invisible hand help Aunt Jane avoid medical bankruptcy or help Uncle Joe get his two kids, himself and his wife covered whilst making $10 an hour”). It appears obvious to me, in accordance with the economic principles of the “invisible hand”, that finding a way to allow market forces to lower costs should be the first priority of any health care plan as this will greatly affect both the amount Aunt Jane will initially need pay for her care and the ability of the government to intervene and help both Aunt Jane and Uncle Joe.

To dismiss market forces as you do and their effect in the health care market, ultimately results in a health care system that provides goods and services but is divorced from the historical market forces. Such an attempt is doomed to failure because of the complex nature of the underlying economic transactions (i.e. – all the costs and risks associated with being able to provide health care goods or services, the general disadvantage held by the purchaser of health care goods and services, and the wide variety of knowledge of the health care field held by the purchasers of those goods and services). Attempting to resolve these complex economic transactions, with an eye towards providing the most and best health care services, while ignoring the theory that mass self interest by private parties acts to lower costs for all parties is both short sighted and ignorant.

Next you raise the one legitimate, responsive point in your answer by asserting that the government’s actions in the 60’s through direct wealth transfer actions (the Pilot Food Stamp Program 1961-1664, Food Stamp Act of 1964, Social Security Act of 1965) and indirect wealth transfer programs (Economic Opportunity Act of 1964, Public Works and Economic Development Act of 1965, Vocational Rehabilitation Act of 1965) had a significant effect on the poverty level. So we are clear, I concede this as responsive because it directly addresses Slinging Sammy33’s question “What do my taxes pay for?” In part, they pay for the alleviation of mass poverty. This effect, irrespective of the social justice aspect, has many laudatory market effects – it increases the number of consumers; it creates a more diverse field of consumers; it lessens the incentive for criminal behavior by those unable to achieve economic subsistence within the parameters of the market; and it infuses wealth into the system that otherwise may have sat outside the system as unused excess. Thus, while I am in sympathy with the limited government philosophy of both Slinging Sammy33 and CRedskinsRule, I do not ascribe to their overall bare bones application of the same.

In making the concession, I ask this question - is it unexpected that the direct and indirect wealth transfers of the 1960’s (taking from the rich and giving to the poor) would result in fewer poor? Surely you would concede that this is the expected result of even the most inefficient of wealth transfers. Barring corruption by the middleman (i.e. the government), transferring wealth, directly or indirectly, to those below the poverty line has the inevitable result increasing the wealth of poor and, thus, raising them above the poverty line.

Unfortunately, you follow this legitimate response to Slinging Sammy33’s question with a walk off the reservation.

CRedskinsRule original statement was not an assertion that not that “invisible hand” was a cure all for economic woes. Rather, as I indicated above, my quote of CRedskinsRule asserts that: 1) individuals and charities are better than government at solving society’s ills; and 2) in the health care market, the consideration of market forces generated by individual choices will yield a better result than an attempt to resolve the matter through comprehensive wealth transfers enacted by an interventionist government that is divorced from traditional market forces.

According to you “It was pretty obvious to me that [CRedskinsRule] shitted on the first part of the quote with the second part.” You preface this statement with a series of irrelevant questions. There is no assertion by me or, I believe, by CRedskinsRule, that government has no role in the health care market place or that the “invisible hand” is the cure for all society ills. Rather, as I believe one of his earlier posts indicated, and to differing degrees, he and I both agree that government has a role in the market place - this would include the health services market place. At the same time, both of us (and Slinging Sammy33) would suggest that government intervention, alone and without consideration of existing market forces, cannot resolve the complex economic problem of providing the maximum health care to the maximum number of people. In fact, the point of CRedskinsRule's statement (I believe), is that an attempt to do so would result in waste, inefficiency and, ultimately, a failed system.

And just so we are clear and you don’t accuse me of avoidance – irrelevant though they may be - I will answer your multiple questions as why the “invisible hand” has not wiped out poverty despite the increased wealth generated by the system. Simply – because it cannot. In any population of normal human beings, market forces based on private self interest alone will always create an unbalanced market as, inevitably, some (many) flawed humans will confuse irrational greed with legitimate self-interest. In part to check this inherent flaw, governments appropriately regulate market forces. Although in doing so, they cannot thoroughly eliminate the flaw without also eliminating the beneficial market force. The consideration and balancing of private market forces when crafting economic solutions to complex economic problems, however, is necessary and cannot be ignored simply because it is not a cure-all.

To demonstrate the foolishness of your questions concerning the “invisible hand’s" failure to cure all societal ills – Answer me this:

“Given that [government intervention] has been [greatly increased since LBJ’s original “War on Poverty”] why hasn't [government intervention] improved our poverty rate since the 70's even though [the government is spending] significantly [more in real terms on social services]? Do we have to give [government intervention] more time? How long do you expect us to wait? In the mean time how do you expect these people below the poverty line to afford health insurance?” [As to the last, I believe that, through Medicaid, those below the poverty line already receive basic health services including (as Schneed10 has pointed out) preventive care coverage].


Along those lines, during the campaign, you consistently asserted that the wealth transfers endorsed by Obama as they related to health care constituted your position on the matter. Obama has now endorsed radical legislation in the health care field involving significant direct and indirect wealth transfers. I ask you now - with faint hope that you will answer the direct questions asked:

1) Is the legislative health care package currently before Congress as endorsed by Obama, consistent with the health care solutions outlined in his campaign?

2) Do you endorse that legislative health care package?


Finally, Saden, does repeating my name, Saden, throughout your argument, Saden, somehow increase the intellectual acuity of your argument, Saden, while somehow, Saden, magically rendering mine less valid? Or was this, Saden, just an attempt by you to highlight the humor, Saden, in your already comical response? (Saden)