Should Certain Goods Be Excluded From the Free Market?: Philosophy Forums

Philosophy Forums » Philosophy of Politics and Law » Should Certain Goods Be Excluded From the Free Market? » Should Certain Goods Be Excluded From the Free Market?

Should Certain Goods Be Excluded From the Free Market?
Is it ethical to exclude certain goods from the free market?

Page: 1 2 3

Should Certain Goods Be Excluded From the Free Market?

unrealist42
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 06, 2003
Location: City of Dreams

Total Topics: 10
Total Posts: 2253

Posted 10/18/09 - 12:39 PM:	#21
I just started a thread on US healthcare since it seemed to be high jacking a number of threads here. I will give a little historical perspective of how the US health care system came about in my next post there.

JagerJagger
It Is What It Is

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 19, 2006
Location: New Jack City

Total Topics: 8
Total Posts: 102

Posted 10/18/09 - 10:33 PM:	#22
Caldwell wrote: My analogy isn't weak, and it doesn't make it weak just because you say so. Brush up on your skills in argumentation before you get into a debate. A brain surgery of aneurysm can cost up to 500,000 because of the amount of specialists, medical technician, facility, medical equipments, and procedures needed to work on a patient. What drives up the price of such medical care is the hospital costs. The hospital needs to operate profitably or it closes down. The same with other goods and services. So, your questioning profit as ethical, etc. needs a lot of work or you have no argument to say. Once again, you're having a little trouble trying to understand the entire point. So maybe you should brush up on your reading skills before you try to criticize my argumentation skills. My question is: should certain good be excluded from the free market? This doesn't mean that nobody can make a living off of providing a skill. But it does question whether or not the actual procedure should be affected by the ebb and flow of free market fluctuation. This would of course mean that some procedures would need to be subsidized and regulated by the government in order for hospitals to not be forced to shut down. And to get back to my original question, would these procedures be better off if they were not subject to the ebb and flow of the free market. So yes, your analogy is weak because it does not pertain to the question I am asking. You're trying to accuse me of criticizing profit and then accusing me of being so naive as to think that a hospital performing expensive surgeries can exist simply on luck and volunteerism. But that is not what I am saying - that is what you are saying in order for you to put forth a tired and worn out capitalism vs. socialism debate that has absolutely nothing to do with what I am talking about but is easy for you to make irrelevant analogies for. It really sucks that this type of pre-framed argument has to pervade every discussion that involves health care in America.
"The people saw the opening and rushed for it euphorically." - Paul

JagerJagger
It Is What It Is

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 19, 2006
Location: New Jack City

Total Topics: 8
Total Posts: 102

Posted 10/18/09 - 10:40 PM:	#23
Hamandcheese wrote: Prove it. Even though if you read my last post I explained why I am for a single payer health care system, I find your history here to be dubious. Your explanation for why health was non-profit is based on a rhetoric and dichotomy that derives from out current political debates, and is not contextual to the time period your talking about. In other words, your understanding of history is hopelessly biased by a contemporary reading of the issue. It would be like framing a discussion of affirmative action through the ages with the terminology of the 1990s. It just doesn't work. I know hardly anything about the history of health care insurance, but unrealist's comment about insurers being nonprofit back in the day (1920's) has some merit according to this article: http://www.slate.com/id/2161736/
"The people saw the opening and rushed for it euphorically." - Paul

Caldwell
Zuleiha's owner

Usergroup: Moderators
Joined: Apr 18, 2006
Location: Crawl space

Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 2224

Posted 10/19/09 - 11:32 PM:	#24
JagerJagger wrote: It really sucks that this type of pre-framed argument has to pervade every discussion that involves health care in America. Yeah, it sucks doesn't it? It sucks when people like you just hate it when others debate your views over something like health care. I mean, gosh, it should be clear, right? It should be the default position that everyone just agree with your view just because you framed your question within the "free market" economics. Uhm, no. "Free market" debate is not over yet, and yes you will get people disagreeing with your view. Live with it. Once again, you're having a little trouble trying to understand the entire point. So maybe you should brush up on your reading skills before you try to criticize my argumentation skills.[/quote Ah no. I am fine with what I said previously. [quote]My question is: should certain good be excluded from the free market? This doesn't mean that nobody can make a living off of providing a skill. But it does question whether or not the actual procedure should be affected by the ebb and flow of free market fluctuation. This would of course mean that some procedures would need to be subsidized and regulated by the government in order for hospitals to not be forced to shut down. And to get back to my original question, would these procedures be better off if they were not subject to the ebb and flow of the free market. Yes, sir, I hear you loud and clear. Should certain goods be excluded from the free market? I gave you my answer in my very first post, and everything else is subject to the fluctuations of the "free market". Yes, even procedures like saving lives because the costs of goods and services, like salaries of surgeons and nurses, and hospital equipments are also subject to free market fluctuations. A (business) operation must have a costing method, and must do a profit and loss calculation, in order to continue to operate. And if you say some procedures would need to be subsidized and regulated by the government, are you insinuating that 1) in a "free market", it means there are no government regulations? (Answer: there are government regulations in free market, sir), and 2) are you from another planet to not know that when the government "subsidizes" something, it uses taxpayers money and it must pay what the businesses charge the government? Are you saying that if person A doesn't pay for his or her hospital bill, then the government pays for it, and god knows where the money comes from, maybe grown as a hedge and clipped once and in a while? So yes, your analogy is weak because it does not pertain to the question I am asking. You're trying to accuse me of criticizing profit and then accusing me of being so naive as to think that a hospital performing expensive surgeries can exist simply on luck and volunteerism. But that is not what I am saying - that is what you are saying in order for you to put forth a tired and worn out capitalism vs. socialism debate that has absolutely nothing to do with what I am talking about but is easy for you to make irrelevant analogies for. And no, don't accuse me of "capitalism vs. socialism". I came here to criticize your view, period. It's you that isn't clear on what you're really asking. Edited by Caldwell on 10/20/09 - 02:19 AM

JagerJagger
It Is What It Is

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 19, 2006
Location: New Jack City

Total Topics: 8
Total Posts: 102

Posted 10/20/09 - 04:53 PM:	#25
Caldwell wrote: Yeah, it sucks doesn't it? It sucks when people like you just hate it when others debate your views over something like health care. I mean, gosh, it should be clear, right? It should be the default position that everyone just agree with your view just because you framed your question within the "free market" economics. Uhm, no. "Free market" debate is not over yet, and yes you will get people disagreeing with your view. Live with it. I am sure you are an intelligent person, but you want to be correct so bad that you're jumping to conclusions that have nothing at all to do with anything I have said. First of all, I haven't argued a position in this thread. That is because I do not yet have a position and that is why I posited the question. You obviously think I have been arguing passionately for a position because you like to read things that are not really there in order for you to make irrelevant, pre-canned comments that don't pertain to anything. All I did was criticize your analogy when you facetiously suggested said that maybe food should be excluded from the free market because it is necessary for one's survival. I said it was a poor analogy. It was and I explained why. You then accused me of criticizing "profit". Makes no sense. Caldwell wrote: Yes, sir, I hear you loud and clear. Should certain goods be excluded from the free market? I gave you my answer in my very first post, and everything else is subject to the fluctuations of the "free market". Yes, even procedures like saving lives because the costs of goods and services, like salaries of surgeons and nurses, and hospital equipments are also subject to free market fluctuations. A (business) operation must have a costing method, and must do a profit and loss calculation, in order to continue to operate. And if you say some procedures would need to be subsidized and regulated by the government, are you insinuating that 1) in a "free market", it means there are no government regulations? (Answer: there are government regulations in free market, sir), and 2) are you from another planet to not know that when the government "subsidizes" something, it uses taxpayers money and it must pay what the businesses charge the government? Are you saying that if person A doesn't pay for his or her hospital bill, then the government pays for it, and god knows where the money comes from, maybe grown as a hedge and clipped once and in a while? I never said that there are not government regulations in a free market and I never denied that subsidizing costs would need taxpayer money. I have no clue whatsoever where you got that from out of anything I have said. This is yet another example of you arguing with non-existent comments your imagination has told you I have made. Caldwell wrote: And no, don't accuse me of "capitalism vs. socialism". I came here to criticize your view, period. It's you that isn't clear on what you're really asking. You're not criticizing my view. You're merely transcribing the health care "debate" you watched on Fox News. I came here to try to see some views that are NOT part of that vacuum of idiocy. If I am not mistaken, you believe I live in a fantasy world in which health care can be free for everybody and doctors and nurses will work for free and still pay bills and make a nice living and then birds will sing and flowers will bloom. That's not what I have said but I forgive you for being confused. But because you have that paranoid fervor which makes you think I want Dr. Marx to be running the health care industry, I'll indulge your left-wing conspiracy preoccupation and try to get this back on track: If mandatory health care costs were subject to price controls and then paid for in part through government subsidization, is this better than leaving them open to price fluctuation on the free market?
"The people saw the opening and rushed for it euphorically." - Paul

Caldwell
Zuleiha's owner

Usergroup: Moderators
Joined: Apr 18, 2006
Location: Crawl space

Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 2224

Posted 10/20/09 - 11:58 PM:	#26
JagerJagger, I am sorry to say that I underestimate your poor reading comprehension and your inability to understand your own posts and Opening post. For this, I am leaving you in your own confused world. One advice, stop dropping names like "Fox News" to discredit your opponent, nor accuse them of misunderstanding what you are saying.

JagerJagger
It Is What It Is

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 19, 2006
Location: New Jack City

Total Topics: 8
Total Posts: 102

Posted 10/21/09 - 06:09 AM:	#27
Caldwell wrote: JagerJagger, I am sorry to say that I underestimate your poor reading comprehension and your inability to understand your own posts and Opening post. For this, I am leaving you in your own confused world. One advice, stop dropping names like "Fox News" to discredit your opponent, nor accuse them of misunderstanding what you are saying. I would really appreciate it if you showed me where I criticized a "profit" system, where I said I don't believe there are government regulations in a free market, where I said I don't believe government subsidies are paid for with tax money, where I passionately argued for and defended an ideal economic system for health care, and any other statements I didnt make but you accused me of making anyways. You've made a lot of insane insinuations solely based on me saying this: JagerJagger wrote: However, I am questioning the ethical value of keeping something like health care a profit-driven product. Is it wrong to "profit" off surgeries people need? When there is profit involved, there is inherently a price that is greater than necessary. It's literally profiting off the sick. Looked at that way, it appears that it would be ethically wrong. I did not say this to mean that a surgeon can't make a living from doing what a surgeon does. I only wanted to question keeping a service like a needed surgery a profit-driven product is ethical. I didn't say it was right or wrong. I said it appears to be. And this was meant to bring up a possibility of a different method - exactly which, I do not know as there are many to debate - but not a method in which a surgeon does not make money. I should have better explained that it was the lack of price controls on medical procedures that appears to be wrong. As for a different model, it might be possible to price-fix health care services to avoid fluctuation and pay a percentage with subsidies. Some countries do this, believe it or not, so it is not a fantasy-land scenario. It is also possible to keep a functioning service off the free market where the employees make money - as is the case with national militaries and local police, to name a few. Again, I have not argued for a certain way - I've only questioned the best ethical way. But your analogy about profiting off food being ethically wrong didn't fit because somebody might need a $500,000 brain surgery to live, but nobody will ever need a $500,000 plate of food to survive. They're different things because there is no cheaper substitute for the brain surgery but there is a cheaper substitute for the $500,000 plate of food. I am sorry that me pointing that out to you made you so angry. So before you accuse people of being less intelligent than you or being unable to understand what they themselves have said, I would suggest taking a little more time to read what they wrote and think before you start throwing out accusations and irrelevant arguments. It might be a boost for your self-esteem to name-call on the internet, but it's annoying for me to read when I am trying to have a decent discussion on this forum.
"The people saw the opening and rushed for it euphorically." - Paul

wuliheron
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 02, 2003
Location: Newport News, Va

Total Topics: 15
Total Posts: 4156

Posted 10/23/09 - 11:12 AM:	#28
JagerJagger wrote: In the US, one of the big arguments surrounding health care is that the health industry, in order to be effective, MUST be a profit-oriented business as profit is the only way quality can be maintained. I don't believe this is an absolute truth - although it is in a lot of cases. So, starting from the point that not every good or service needs to be profit-oriented in order to maintain quality , are there goods that ought to be excluded from the free market/profit-creating sector? I am especially wondering about health care, drugs, prostitution, and weapons (both small weapons and big, war weapons). Why not let people buy their own personal nuclear cruise missles and point them at the white house? How about allowing drug dealers to sell heroin to elementary school kids? Why not allow prostitutes to service clients in public places and spread STDs? The US healthcare system is steadily becoming a two tear system with the wealthy going to expensive hospitals that have a fifty percent lower mortality rate than the rest. This system is not merely driven by supply and demand within the US either, roughly a quarter of their profits are from patients who are not US citizens, but come here to receive the most advanced medical care in the world today. Note I said advanced medical care, the system is not just set up to encourage quality medical care, but to encourage the best medical care possible. In essence the problem is no different than any other economic problem in the US today. Whenever possible, profit driven companies export jobs to countries where costs are lower and import goods from countries where production costs are lower. When that isn't possible, they find ways of maximizing profit through the use of high technology here at home and through exploiting the poor by promoting legistlation that promotes low wages and discourages unionization. As a result, many americans are now also going to different countries to seek cheaper medical care and, increasingly, buying drugs over the internet from countries where they are cheaper. Of course, drug companies are lobbying to stop this loss of revenue while health insurance companies lobby to prevent the creation of a national healthcare system. Weapons are the single largest manufactured export of the US, and domestic sales are a huge part of their profits as well. However, even the weapons manufacturers are not crazy enough to let just anyone buy a cruise missle, they might end up using it on them! Likewise, drug manufacturers are not crazy enough to allow the legalization of drugs like marijuana because, again, that would cut into their profits. As it is, they are attempting to control the distribution of herbal medicines. In short, any solutions to such problems must address the underlying economic system or they are doomed.

unrealist42
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 06, 2003
Location: City of Dreams

Total Topics: 10
Total Posts: 2253

Posted 10/23/09 - 01:53 PM:	#29
Those are not economic problems, they are political issues. As long as vested interests have more influence in congress than the people this will continue.

wuliheron
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 02, 2003
Location: Newport News, Va

Total Topics: 15
Total Posts: 4156

Posted 10/23/09 - 02:44 PM:	#30
unrealist42 wrote: Those are not economic problems, they are political issues. As long as vested interests have more influence in congress than the people this will continue. Tell me what isn't a political issue! These are arguably both political and economic issues.

Page: 1 2 3

Sorry, you don't have permission to post. Log in, or register if you haven't yet.