The Liberal Vision of the Marketplace

The WSJ asks:

If the exchanges are really marketplaces according to Liberals, why is choice limited to only products that the nanny state thinks are acceptable?
«1

Replies

  • See, this is an attempt to jumpstart things around here. Applause.
  • creekguycreekguy Senior Member Posts: 3,905 Senior Member
    Why is the choice of drugs or sexual activities or what a woman can do to her body limited to what conservatives think are acceptable?
  • creekguy wrote: »
    Why is the choice of drugs or sexual activities or what a woman can do to her body limited to what conservatives think are acceptable?

    Why does the left feel the need to resort to euphemism whenever Abortion comes up?
  • creekguycreekguy Senior Member Posts: 3,905 Senior Member
    "What a woman can do to her body" is a euphemism?
    There's also birth control, so the term encompasses both.
  • creekguy wrote: »
    Why is the choice of drugs or sexual activities or what a woman can do to her body limited to what conservatives think are acceptable?

    Nobody is touting a drug marketplace or an abortion marketplace and then saying no, you can't buy those.

    But even if you did have an appropriate comparison, the question would be - which conservatives? A libertarian would almost certainly say that drugs and ho's should be legal.
  • creekguy wrote: »
    "What a woman can do to her body" is a euphemism?
    There's also birth control, so the term encompasses both.

    Poor bid.

    Who says, outside of the Catholic Church, that a woman can't use birth control? The question is should somebody else be mandated to pay for it.
  • jbillyjbilly Senior Member Posts: 5,249 Senior Member
    Steven is it "my body my choice"....you don't get "my wallet my choice". How dare you!
  • Green Mt BoyGreen Mt Boy Senior Member Posts: 1,039 Senior Member
    Steven wrote: »
    The WSJ asks:

    If the exchanges are really marketplaces according to Liberals, why is choice limited to only products that the nanny state thinks are acceptable?

    You'd love it here in Vermont, Steven. Not only has the state set up an exchange, but all individuals and small businesses have to buy insurance through the exchange. Stated differently, by virtue of a statute passed in 2012 there is no off-exchange market.

    The thinking behind this relates to the vision our current Governor, Peter Shumlin, has of eventually establishing a publicly financed single payer system. By making individuals buy through the exchange it maximizes the amount of federal subsidies that come into the state, because apparently one can obtain those subsidies only by purchasing through an exchange. (I don't know if that is actually the case, but that is what I have heard Shumlin say.) The state can seek a waiver from the ACA in 2017 if it can show it can get the job done, i.e., have universal coverage, by other means. The plan is to seek such a waiver on the basis that the state has a publicly financed single payer system. Since the feds will be pumping money into the state to subsidize the purchase of health insurance by eligible individuals the state is going to propose that the feds help finance the state's single payer system with equivalent amounts.

    While not stated, I believe that another motive for prohibiting an off exchange market is to ensure that the state agency that is running the state's exchange is as big and robust as possible so it can pivot to running the single payer system when the time comes.

    The Governor and his staff have not figured out what to do with the fact that ERISA preempts the state from doing anything about the health benefits provided by employers who self insure. The state will probably want to levy a payroll tax on employers to help pay for the single payer system, but that would mean that the ERISA protected employers would have to pay twice if they want to continue to self insure, or stop providing a health insurance benefit. The Governor is hoping such employers will see the light and get on the single payer bandwagon, but the moment of truth on that is a ways off.

    I do not necessarily agree with all of this--I think a private health insurance system along the lines of the ACA is preferable to a system that is totally run by the government--but that is what is going on in Vermont.

    Also, I should mention that the feds have given the state over $200 million to help us set up our exchange. The state's population is only 630,000, and about 150,000 people will be buying/getting coverage through the exchange (note, about a third of the state's population is covered through our expanded Medicaid program). That is a lot of money for a small state.
  • FishTXFishTX Super Moderator Posts: 8,023 Senior Member
    Some insurers are also limiting the exchanges. USA Today has an article about big insurers pulling out.
    "We have to find someone who can not only fly this plane, but who didn't have fish for dinner."

    Crooow:This music would work better with women in bikinis shaking all over the place. I guess that's true of any music really.
  • dryfliedryflie Senior Member Posts: 1,442 Senior Member
    Steven wrote: »
    The WSJ asks:

    If the exchanges are really marketplaces according to Liberals, why is choice limited to only products that the nanny state thinks are acceptable?

    Please correct me if I'm wrong Steven, but I was under the impression that the Fed's developed a set of standards for the coverage they wanted met. If you (Mr Big insurance Company) agreed you played in that marketplace, if you did not agree you withdrew. So based on the demographics of a particular state sometimes you were in and sometimes out. I'm not aware of a case where a carrier was particularly excluded by the law.

    Perhaps I'm wrong.
    “The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness.” - John Kenneth Galbraith
  • EdBEdB Senior Member Posts: 2,933 Senior Member
    Why the hell does there have to be a marketplace for healthcare? Healthcare should be a birthright for all without the unnecessary middleman of insurance which is an impediment to millions of Americans receiving healthcare, let's get rid of insurance completely and institute universal healthcare. If we have to continue with the unecessary money system, pay for it with taxes or just print more money like we do to start our stupid wars.
  • FishTXFishTX Super Moderator Posts: 8,023 Senior Member
    EdB wrote: »
    Why the hell does there have to be a marketplace for healthcare? Healthcare should be a birthright for all without the unnecessary middleman of insurance which is an impediment to millions of Americans receiving healthcare, let's get rid of insurance completely and institute universal healthcare. If we have to continue with the unecessary money system, pay for it with taxes or just print more money like we do to start our stupid wars.
    I agree with you.
    "We have to find someone who can not only fly this plane, but who didn't have fish for dinner."

    Crooow:This music would work better with women in bikinis shaking all over the place. I guess that's true of any music really.
  • Scott ButnerScott Butner Senior Member Posts: 3,918 Senior Member
    Tell me a market where we DON'T have some degree of government vetting of acceptability -- whether it's toys, food, drugs, cars, commodities like chemicals, etc.....there are often government intrusions into what is an "acceptable" product, and what is not -- and in many cases, those government intrusions have served to improve or assure the public of the safety, efficiency, or efficacy of those products.

    so what's different about that, and the exchanges? In both cases, it's the private sector's role to compete within constraint that are provided to insure that some broader societal goal is met.

    to me, that's a big piece of the beauty of this nation: our willingness to allow markets to work, within constraints that encourage or incentive outcomes that are external to the markets.
  • dryfliedryflie Senior Member Posts: 1,442 Senior Member
    EdB wrote: »
    Why the hell does there have to be a marketplace for healthcare? Healthcare should be a birthright for all without the unnecessary middleman of insurance which is an impediment to millions of Americans receiving healthcare, let's get rid of insurance completely and institute universal healthcare. If we have to continue with the unnecessary money system, pay for it with taxes or just print more money like we do to start our stupid wars.

    Ed. most of us socialist liberals would love to see a single payer system without the insurance companies involved. The one problem I see is related to the value of Doctors. Any system, either insurance driven or Government managed would put pressure on doctors to control cost and this will inhibit quality care. However we all have to realize that the days when NOTHING separated a patient from the doctor are long gone and will never come back. We're a technologically driven community now where healthcare is prohibitively expensive for 99% of the public. And we want that care at any cost.

    So how do you transition from an employer based healthcare system (backed by insurance) to a single payer system without causing undo damage to our medical community? You can only do it by putting the proper value on a doctors services......Therein lies the next GOP/Dem battle.
    “The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness.” - John Kenneth Galbraith
  • EdBEdB Senior Member Posts: 2,933 Senior Member
    dryflie wrote: »
    Ed. most of us socialist liberals would love to see a single payer system without the insurance companies involved. The one problem I see is related to the value of Doctors. Any system, either insurance driven or Government managed would put pressure on doctors to control cost and this will inhibit quality care. However we all have to realize that the days when NOTHING separated a patient from the doctor are long gone and will never come back. We're a technologically driven community now where healthcare is prohibitively expensive for 99% of the public. And we want that care at any cost.

    So how do you transition from an employer based healthcare system (backed by insurance) to a single payer system without causing undo damage to our medical community? You can only do it by putting the proper value on a doctors services......Therein lies the next GOP/Dem battle.

    Since it looks like we will continue with this inadequate money system until it collapses from those inadequacies, let's just declare Medicare at 100% coverage instead of 80% available to every citizen from birth to death and pay for it by printing more money. Let the medical community decide what their proper value is, we do that for the military whenever we start our immoral wars, why not for healthcare.
  • dryfliedryflie Senior Member Posts: 1,442 Senior Member
    EdB wrote: »
    Since it looks like we will continue with this inadequate money system until it collapses from those inadequacies, let's just declare Medicare at 100% coverage instead of 80% available to every citizen from birth to death and pay for it by printing more money. Let the medical community decide what their proper value is, we do that for the military whenever we start our immoral wars, why not for healthcare.

    We can not all live on Fantasy Island Ed. Not enough room.
    “The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness.” - John Kenneth Galbraith
  • EdBEdB Senior Member Posts: 2,933 Senior Member
    We are living on Fantasy Island now, people just refuse to recognize it.
  • creekguycreekguy Senior Member Posts: 3,905 Senior Member
    Tell me a market where we DON'T have some degree of government vetting of acceptability --

    Guns? :rolleyes:
  • Tell me a market where we DON'T have some degree of government vetting of acceptability -- whether it's toys, food, drugs, cars, commodities like chemicals, etc.....there are often government intrusions into what is an "acceptable" product, and what is not -- and in many cases, those government intrusions have served to improve or assure the public of the safety, efficiency, or efficacy of those products.

    so what's different about that, and the exchanges? In both cases, it's the private sector's role to compete within constraint that are provided to insure that some broader societal goal is met.

    to me, that's a big piece of the beauty of this nation: our willingness to allow markets to work, within constraints that encourage or incentive outcomes that are external to the markets.

    Here's the Liberal for whom we've been waiting.

    Toys, food, drugs, cars, chemicals...these are regulated because they can be dangerous. How is selling a coverage without pregnancy coverage dangerous to a 35 year old single male?

    Here's a question for the nanny-staters: should we ban the sale of Barbie because of potential body image issues? How about GI Joe because it's war like?

    The other key misstatement here: "it's the private sector's role to compete within a contraint that are provided to insure some broader societal goal is met." Uh no LIberals, it's the government's role to constrain the free market when society might be hurt. Business doesn't exist to help the government meet some goal.
  • dryflie wrote: »
    Please correct me if I'm wrong Steven, but I was under the impression that the Fed's developed a set of standards for the coverage they wanted met. If you (Mr Big insurance Company) agreed you played in that marketplace, if you did not agree you withdrew. So based on the demographics of a particular state sometimes you were in and sometimes out. I'm not aware of a case where a carrier was particularly excluded by the law.

    Perhaps I'm wrong.

    No Al. The insurance companies that agreed to play - the minority - agreed to the rules. A pact with the devil doesn't make it a marketplace. And the point still holds, what "marketplace" exists where you are restricted to a product that the government says you can sell. That's no marketplace in any sense of the word; just liberal double-speadk
  • dryfliedryflie Senior Member Posts: 1,442 Senior Member
    Steven wrote: »
    No Al. The insurance companies that agreed to play - the minority - agreed to the rules. A pact with the devil doesn't make it a marketplace.

    "A pact with the devil" sounds like t-party double-speak.

    I think we both described the situation the same way but with different points of view.
    “The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness.” - John Kenneth Galbraith
  • yataheyyatahey Senior Member Posts: 5,605 Senior Member
    Funny stuff Steven. I pay taxes for schools but don't have any kids going to school. We have a society that dictates everyone pays something for the good of society as a whole. Who pays what and how much is the issue. Get used to it.
    "When the goin gets weird, the weird turn pro." Hunter S. Thompson
  • dryfliedryflie Senior Member Posts: 1,442 Senior Member
    Steven wrote: »
    Business doesn't exist to help the government meet some goal.

    True, but conversely Government does exist to insure businesses meet societies goals.
    “The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness.” - John Kenneth Galbraith
  • creekguycreekguy Senior Member Posts: 3,905 Senior Member
    Steven wrote: »

    Toys, food, drugs, cars, chemicals...these are regulated because they can be dangerous. .

    Maybe you're right, because various marketplace securities and other financial products are regulated. It turns out they can be dangerous.
  • Scott ButnerScott Butner Senior Member Posts: 3,918 Senior Member
    Steven wrote: »
    Business doesn't exist to help the government meet some goal.

    which is PRECISELY why we can't rely on solely on "markets" to meet societal goals. One function of government is to fill that gap. We create governments for the same reason we create corporations and other social institutions -- to accomplish collectively what we cannot accomplish individually due to resource constraints. Markets are clearly not giving us affordable, accessible health care -- and why should they? With 90% of the country's wealth in the hands of less than 10% of the population, there's much more incentive to provide outstanding care to those select few for whom cost is no object.

    And to answer your other question, no, we don't regulate markets ONLY "because people can get hurt" -- we regulate corporate fleet fuel efficiency, for instance, because significantly reducing dependency on foreign fuel requires in part that we use less petroleum, and vehicle efficiency is a major lever for doing that. And, it turns out, until very recently, every significant improvement in US fleet efficiency came as a result of regulations. I once sat on an expert's panel with a VP of General Motors who told me during a break in the panel discussion that fuel efficiency was #8 on the list of consumer priorities -- but it's a higher national priority (arguably whether YOUR car gets good mileage makes more of a difference to me, than whether or not it makes you feel younger or sexier -- yet those things were higher on the list of consumer priorities -- so much for market forces).
  • NZ IndicatorNZ Indicator Senior Member Posts: 10,106 Senior Member
    Steven wrote: »
    No Al. The insurance companies that agreed to play - the minority - agreed to the rules. A pact with the devil doesn't make it a marketplace. And the point still holds, what "marketplace" exists where you are restricted to a product that the government says you can sell. That's no marketplace in any sense of the word; just liberal double-speadk

    That and limited networks and choice of doctors. Some people will soon be surprised that the doctors they like to see aren't covered within the network offered by the carriers in the exchange.
  • Scott ButnerScott Butner Senior Member Posts: 3,918 Senior Member
    joekrz wrote: »
    That and limited networks and choice of doctors. Some people will soon be surprised that the doctors they like to see aren't covered within the network offered by the carriers in the exchange.

    and this is different than the status quo, HOW?

    I spent 29 years with the same employer. They changed plans that they offered on a few occasions. Each time, it was a shuffling of physicians that were within the network -- sometimes I'd keep my old doc, sometimes I woudln't. Always there were adjustments as the docs and the insurance companies battled it out to decide who was within the network, and who wouldn't play along.
  • yatahey wrote: »
    Funny stuff Steven. I pay taxes for schools but don't have any kids going to school. We have a society that dictates everyone pays something for the good of society as a whole. Who pays what and how much is the issue. Get used to it.

    This has nothing whatsoever to do with the point made - not surprisingly.
  • which is PRECISELY why we can't rely on solely on "markets" to meet societal goals. One function of government is to fill that gap. We create governments for the same reason we create corporations and other social institutions -- to accomplish collectively what we cannot accomplish individually due to resource constraints. Markets are clearly not giving us affordable, accessible health care -- and why should they? With 90% of the country's wealth in the hands of less than 10% of the population, there's much more incentive to provide outstanding care to those select few for whom cost is no object.

    And to answer your other question, no, we don't regulate markets ONLY "because people can get hurt" -- we regulate corporate fleet fuel efficiency, for instance, because significantly reducing dependency on foreign fuel requires in part that we use less petroleum, and vehicle efficiency is a major lever for doing that. And, it turns out, until very recently, every significant improvement in US fleet efficiency came as a result of regulations. I once sat on an expert's panel with a VP of General Motors who told me during a break in the panel discussion that fuel efficiency was #8 on the list of consumer priorities -- but it's a higher national priority (arguably whether YOUR car gets good mileage makes more of a difference to me, than whether or not it makes you feel younger or sexier -- yet those things were higher on the list of consumer priorities -- so much for market forces).

    When I'm president, I'll decide that tattoos are against society's needs. Photographing them will be illegal.

    Business doesn't exist to meet a societal goal - whether it be the end of racism, wealth re-distribution or what have you. Business exists to make money. When it does, it creates the greatest good for the most.
    The idea that a government can somehow appropriately direct business to achieve some perceived societal goal has been tried many times before and seems to always end in failure. The Liberals greatest achievement is that it can continuously convince a gullible public that this time is so very different.
  • dryflie wrote: »
    True, but conversely Government does exist to insure businesses meet societies goals.

    Really? I missed this in history class. Government exists to protect the natural rights of its citizens to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness (aka property).

    John Locke just groaned and turned over.

Leave a Comment

BoldItalicStrikethroughOrdered listUnordered list
Emoji
Image
Align leftAlign centerAlign rightToggle HTML viewToggle full pageToggle lights
Drop image/file
Magazine Cover

GET THE MAGAZINE Subscribe & Save

Temporary Price Reduction.

SUBSCRIBE NOW

Give a Gift   |   Subscriber Services

PREVIEW THIS MONTH'S ISSUE

GET THE NEWSLETTER Join the List and Never Miss a Thing.

Get the top Fly Fisherman stories delivered right to your inbox.