The US college system has struggled with contradictory aims since the GI bill boom:
* Providing a source for elite scientists, bureaucrats, etc. to serve specific public goods
* Educating the citizenry, as a public good for the democracy and economy
* Educating individuals who want to make themselves more marketable and prosperous
Elite research universities tend to emphasize the first two, with uniform tuition and no credit limits for undegrads and arts/sciences grad students; money-making professional programs business, law, and medicine exist in different schools with different tuitions and policies. They tend to have large endowments/tax bases to hire distinguished faculty, give financial aid and build infrastructure; and, they can draw considerable public funding for research with distinguished faculty.
OTOH, schools that rely on tuition to maintain cash flow have to worry about market forces and the monetary value of the degrees they issue.
The question raised by the article is, does this indicate a failure of US education? As it concludes, starting salary is really the only market signal for specific majors, and doesn't correlate well on the long-term. However, some people need the early cash.
Most universities try to strike a middle ground; this will continue to be a problem as long as people need money to subsist, i.e. for the foreseeable future.
Encryption itself is only useful for preventing data theft by clandestine means. Authorities with a warrant can threaten you with jail to make you give up the keys, and even less scrupulous forces can beat them out of you. You can destroy the keys, but then you'll really piss them off.
What you need is deniability, as in a steganographic filesystem. No one can ever prove that there is even anything there -- "Oh, I was just playing with it, I can reformat it if you want." Even better, embed data steganographically in standard data formats, like images.
It would be interesting to interpret the protection against self-incrimination to include data storage, i.e. your hard disk is an extension of your consciousness. Of course, this does not accord with the original aim of this right, which was to prevent false testimony/confessions induced by torture -- your hard disk exists apart from your "will."
Likewise, statistically, you will get in less than $15,000 worth of accidents in your life. Much less, probably about $5000. If you wouldn't, or it becomes obvious you are going to rack up more, they would raise your rates. This is correct. However, your lottery analogy is inapt. First, the risk of getting into an accident is far higher than the chance of winning a lottery. So, let's say you invest your $15000 instead of playing the lottery -- over one's life, it could grow to $50,000. However, this is not sufficient to self-insure, i.e. cover liability or one's own damages out-of-pocket, which could run into the $100k's -- your livelihood or family well-being could be devastated. Therefore, insurance is a good deal, because the insurer has a larger pot of money than you have.
On the other hand, if your fortune is diversified and runs into the many millions, you can self-insure for just about anything except a very expensive home. Most people can forgo life insurance if they have sufficient retirement savings -- if you die, these savings can just be willed to your dependents.
A next-generation battery that is safe and has 20x the energy density/mass would obviously revolutionize laptops. The desired spec is 4 kg and 1920 W-hr, with 5 min. bursts of 200 W. By comparison, 2 kg of laptop batteries hold ~100 W-hr and burst to ~100 W.
The real trick is to use adapt this technology to electric cars. The Tesla Roadster uses the same Li-ion tech as in laptops currently, so dropping the mass or extending the range by 20x would be fantastic. Moreover, the Tesla's battery pack can peak at 200 kW, so perhaps the DoD's spec is in fact conservative (200 W*(450 kg)/(4 kg)=22.5 kW).
If I get into a crash and seriously injure someone else or damage their property, I'm on the hook for ~$100,000, which would be catastrophic to my lifestyle thereafter. Instead, I pay $300/year for the rest of my life, which is ~50 years -- only $15,000.
You're looking at the money, instead of the value.
***
* Did you even try the health risk calculators? They'll give you an idea of how much your lifestyle really affects you. No sense debating about stuff that neither of us (ostensibly) are experts in.
* I think health insurance premiums should depend on lifestyle choices. I'm a motorcyclist, so I should pay more. My health insurer can always sue the at-fault party to recover costs, like auto insurers do now.
The OECD countries have maintained their standard of living by developing white collar industries, and moving blue collar labor offshore.
Now that India and China have closed the gap via their economic reforms, 2 billion more people are getting into line for white collar work, much faster than such work has expanded. Unlike all blue collar work, only some white collar work requires any infrastructure, so people in the Third World can get into the game if there is sufficient education and rule of law.
* The US healthcare system is not free market, so much as fascistic. It's a rat's nest of politicized regulation and taxes, costing $169 billion annually.
* Swiss healthcare features both universal care and private providers. It provides a means-tested entitlement to those who can't afford care, while allowing those who can afford it to choose competing private insurers. It does require everyone to have health insurance [*], but under this system, such a requirement works.
[*] This does offend my libertarian sensibilities, but I think it's utterly irresponsible for an individual to not have health insurance and force people to give them emergency care, lest they die in the streets.
It may be -- since the gov't owns the roads (largely out of necessity), there's no way for individuals to choose how much safety they want, so any profits are not efficiently allocated here. OTOH, insurance companies have no interest in paying out claims, so many US insurance companies do sponsor road safety. For example, the insurance industry's car safety ratings are far more demanding than the US gov't's.
Of course, the profits from investing in insurance companies (or anything) go into other things that are useful to people.
I have no problem with people having whatever insurance they want. I have a problem with the government requiring I purchase it from unaccountable and uncontrolled third parties merely to drive. First, insurance companies are accountable to their customers, who can choose among competitors. However, I will grant that the varying regulations between states/provinces makes life rough for the consumer.
Second, if you think insurance is a bad value for you, you can always demonstrate your ability to cover liability by buying a surety bond. If you are a good driver, you might get a good deal.
***
You have grossly underestimated the effect of lifestyle on these conditions -- look here, or here, for example.
To quickly summarize --
Heart disease: artheroscleroris is by far the most common cause of heart disease, and is largely preventable by reducing blood pressure and cholesterol through diet and exercise. Most other forms of heart disease share similar, preventable risk factors.
Cancer: diet, sun exposure and Vitamin D intake are very big factors as well.
I should add that some of the economic efficiency of the insurance industry goes in profits to the owners, who can then allocate that capital in other investments.
Of course owners of the system don't mind the system. Everyone can be an owner! Just call your broker.
80% of the population will come out behind, having spent a lot more than the cost anyone. Maybe 15% are, at the moment, slightly ahead, because they've recently had accidents, but I assure you that their higher rates over the next few years will put them back behind. And there's the 5% that regularly get in accidents so often that they will actually stay ahead of the curve, until they fall out of the system, because insurance companies only charge so much. The point of insurance is to protect one's self against catastrophic costs. I'm happy to pay $300/year into perpetuity in order to not have to pay $100,000 in damages in a bad accident, which of course is very unlikely to occur.
As for paying for bad drivers, I do pay for the payouts to others drivers who get into accidents -- obviously, that's how insurance works. But, an insurance company has no interest to keep on drivers who are high risks for future accidents (however their actuaries calculate it), because their competitors can drop them and charge lower rates while still making more money.
Like I said, almost all health care costs are not due to poor choices. They are infections or injuries or preventative medicine or cancer. Many of the 'poor choices' are, simply, not getting preventative medicine. Hmmm... over half of the most expensive diseases have significant lifestyle components: obesity, smoking, poor diet and stress.
And if you think the problem is 'the destitute' you haven't been paying attention. The destitute can show up, get care, and leave, without ever paying. They are only a problem for emergencies rooms that need to be overbuilt because they have people showing up with minor problems. Yup; the law could allow emergency rooms to turn them away (that's how it works in the Third World), but it would be unpalatable. I agree that there should be an insurance program for them, so they can get preventative and continuing care.
Health care and auto insurance are not exactly the same, precisely because of chronic health conditions.
Your point is well-made -- transaction costs are high. Now, in a free market some service is supposed to step in and streamline things, but that doesn't always happens, especially if there are static gov't regulations to work around.
Healthcare is a prime example. Someone calculated recently that, in the the US, regulation amounts to a $169 billion "drag" on the system. If you are ill, navigating the system is no picnic.
If return-on-investment is not a valid measure, what is? $500 billion dollars (more, with stateside spending) has cost >3000 more lives and has not made us any safer. Partly, we are not safer because the US was already very safe; mostly, Iraq has proved to not have any WMDs or sponsorship of terror, and the resulting chaos has fomented Islamic fundamentalism and terror.
* Rights
These are the facts at the federal level:
- Habeas corpus was suspended at a time without civil unrest. It's black letter in the Constitution, and the Supreme Court did grant the writ over the objections over the administration.
- As discussed, Real ID legislation has passed and merely awaits funding; to date, Bush has received funding for all his domestic security initiatives (TSA, DHS, etc.).
NYC has had filming permit process for 40+ years, however it's not coincidence that Rakesh Sharma was harassed only last year. This is not even counting the Nepali who was thrown in solitary for 3 months for accidentally photographing an FBI office.
* Caveat emptor is more palatable than gov't program, IMHO. Gov't programs are monocultural, so they won't meet everyone's needs (someone in a similar position to yours might actually have it worse); and, from lack of competition, often very inefficient. If you don't like wading through contract fineprint, there are consumer rating and protection services like Consumer Reports.
* As an investor, I don't mind insurance companies taking profits.
* I don't know about Canada, but in the US, at least, you aren't paying for bad drivers -- insurers aren't obligated to take on bad drivers, and they can charge whatever they want. If you can't afford insurance because your are judged high-risk, that's what the SR-22 surety bond provision is for -- basically, self-insuring.
The advantage of my system is that we don't have companies making absurd amounts of money off mandatory insurance. As an investor, I don't mind so much. As a customer, I take advantage of the competition.
It's amazing that people seem to have a problem with the government paying for other people's health care, but don't have a problem with the government paying for bad drivers. Or, to be more exact, the government requiring we pay a third party for bad drivers. In the US, at least, insurers aren't obligated to take on bad drivers -- this is what what the SR-22 surety bond provision is for. If a company wishes to, they can charge very high rates or offer bad service to high-risk drivers. So if you are insured, you aren't paying for bad drivers; if you don't like your rates, just move to a different company.
The disadvantage is that cars can cost a lot, so I wouldn't be adverse to putting some sort of total cap on the payment owed per-accident (Or maybe per-car. Maybe you must, at most, pay 5,000 per car you damage, regardless of the car's value.) and having the government cover the rest. Some people, I'm sure, would want the cap to, basically, be just the bond, getting rid of the loan altogether, but I don't think that's a good idea.(1) I see, so just have the liability underwriting done by the gov't instead of the insurance industry.
My reservations are that a) if the gov't decides I'm a bad driver for some reason, I won't have any recourse. Because the gov't is underwriting, they have an incentive to pull your license much faster than currently; b) it will probably end up costing the taxpayers in the long-run due to gov't inefficiency than a free market scheme.
***
I don't want to pay for others' poor lifestyle choices that result in high healthcare costs. I think the easiest way to do this is let the market set insurance rates. In the US, the system is broken because of the tax incentives given to employers. Perhaps, there might also be a means-tested gov't entitlement for the destitute to get care, as it's unpalatable for people to die in the streets (whereas, it's not as unpalatable to people go uninsured for driving and have auto collision debt).
I'm assuming because they only protect the people making the choice on whether or not to wear the seatbelt. Well, bringing potential weapons or explosives can effect people other than the ones carrying them on. And, if an airline permits this, then flyers can choose what risk level they want. People get on public transportation with people who are potentially packing knives, firearms and explosives as well.
So you agree that the law is mostly acceptable? I agree with the premise that the city has the right to prevent disturbances or traffic obstructions. The conditions are so restrictive, however, they will chill the First Amendment rights of artists, journalists and other individuals. This is the NYCLU's point, if you did indeed read the article.
[...] What, do you think they are trying to prevent Al Queda from filming training videos in the Big Apple? Precisely. Public videography and photography are being banned all over the country, presumably to prevent casing of "sensitive sites" and "police procedures."
"Liberal friends in Congress" = members of the Democratic party (who, regardless of your political beliefs, are liberal by definition). They have been arguing for years that the Department of Homeland Security and other protections from terrorist attacks are not adequately funded. Sorry, I assumed you had at least a rudimentary knowledge of politics in America. Yes. It's quite obvious that the two major parties are quite alike, though not always for the same reasons.
(Nice ad hominem.)
Yeah, its not like the KKK was able to stall civil rights efforts for nearly a century after the conclusion of the civil war through their terrorist actions. What could I have been thinking... The KKK were hailed as heroes among whites everywhere -- ever see Birth of a Nation? Many whites who were against slavery were also very much against miscegenation. The KKK weren't terrorizing anyone who mattered, i.e. the white constituency of policymakers in Washington.
Wow, you didn't do very well in history class, did you? [...] I have no quarrel with military tactics of the US in Iraq, so Sherman's March is irrelevant. The Constitution permits suspension of Habeas Corpus in times of civil unrest -- black letter. So I have no problem with Lincoln, but I do with Bush and his administration's treatment of peaceful US citizens.
(Nice strawman.)
No, tracking licensed drivers is going to be cheaper than a war. It shouldn't cost half a trillion. And throwing that much money at it won't do shit to help traffic safety. How is that relevant? My point is that a $500 billion dollar war has yielded even fewer results.
Thats not what I meant. It would be entirely irrational to drop everything we are doing and just concentrate on heart disease because it is the current most common cause of death. And, it would be irrational to spend $500 billion on cancer, while ignoring heart disease altogether.
Nope. The goal of terrorists is not to just kill as many people as they can. Precisely, because they know that people have irrational fears. To succumb to irrational fears is exactly what allows terrorists to win.
I agree. The problem is, you are a major part of that fear, even if you refuse to believe it. Governments have killed more of their own people over the course of history than all the wars ever put together. This is why the Bill of Rights exists, and should be defended ardently.
Wow, that was a quick self contradiction. I'm an authoritarian because I RTFA and know your paranoia is irrational? You're authoritarian because you think that abridging rights is a palatable solution to a non-existent problem.
"Ad hominem" is when you malign somebody on a basis irrelevant to the discussion. I call you intellectually dishonest because that's exactly what your non-arguments indicate.
I take the client's point of view, not the providers (look, insurance can easily be a racket, right?). Since most people live in one jurisdiction over time, and have licenses most of their lives, the series of utterly necessary short transactions involving various vehicles is one long commercial relationship that involves some invasion of privacy, and thus like a lifelong transaction, so I propose that a public monopoly can do a more convenient and accountable job in these long-term situations. * Racket?
* I move quite a bit, so I would like the freedom to choose among insurance companies based on their quality of service and differing rates in different areas (this is because actuarial assumptions vary).
* Insurance coverage can be transferred between providers, so there is no market failure involved. Public monopolies are used in situations where the product is excludable (people can be prevented from using it), but non-rival (competitors can subsist because of high startup costs or physical impossibility). The obvious examples are utilities, which are infrastructure-heavy and there is only so much room.
OTOH, if BC's insurance plan runs at a profit, I'll be impressed. It might be convenient for you personally, but it might cost you (or your fellow taxpayers) in other ways.
In your system (if I understand correctly), everyone gets bonded, and they have the option to buy private insurance to pay off bonds in case of a crash. Those who can't get insurance and get into a crash have to pay the bond back over time.
Currently, people buy insurance to pay for any liabilities directly, and those who can't get insurance because they have a bad track record, have to buy a private bond. Securing the bond and any payment plan is between the bond underwriter and the person.
In both cases, the gov't can revoke the licenses of repeat offenders.
Your quote:
Anyone who seriously makes an arguement against fiat currency simply betrays a lack of education. Or perhaps fiat currency isn't all it's cracked up to be? Can you defend it?
This is rather historically obvious. I'm not going to summarize 20th century history for you. It's not obvious to me at all. As I noted before, the US didn't even have a fiat currency until 1972. The Federal Reserve permitted the credit bubble of 1929.
Very well; let all banks turn over half their seed capital (or the current value plus interest) to a complementary credit union. After a set period of time, we can expose them to a democratic vote on their business practises. Huh? If customers can move their money in and out at will, what's the point of a vote?
I think it's time we close our discussion -- you are intellectually dishonest.
* C'mon, you forgot what you wrote about me having a "lack of education?" That's ad hominem; if you were rational, you would address my arguments and explain to me how I'm wrong. It might turn out that I'm not as well informed as you, but you can't assume that.
* Why makes you think that gov'ts have succeeded in softening business cycles, rather than creating them with monetary policy? The market is far more able to set interest rates by incorporating all available information, including commodities trading.
* An efficient market provides for the societal need in the majority of cases. For the reasons I explained, banking is no different. Banks and credit unions should compete on level ground -- may the best model win.
When public safety is in play (as it is in the case of airlines), the government often imposes its own restrictions. Its no different than them requiring your car meet certain safety restrictions before you drive it on public roads. The FAA can regulate the safety aspects of airlines that are not transparent to the public. This is the appropriate analogy to driving, where vehicles should be inspected for proper operation of controls (braking, fueling, etc.) so as not to risk others, and there should be laws against risky driving behavior like DUI or cell phones. OTOH, I don't think there should be seat belt laws for adults.
Your liberal friends in Congress disagree with you. I don't know what that means. In any event, what makes you think I'm liberal, and how does it matter to the correctness of my arguments?
Please just RTFA and then comment on what this law does or does not ban. [...] I have, and I agree with the NYCLU's assessment: the law goes far beyond preventing disturbances and blocked traffic. Why? Because of an irrational fear of terrorism.
Its just very telling that you thought 9-11 was the only terrorist incident in our country's history. And of course if you are going all the way back, you have to account for the many acts committed during the civil and revolutionary wars. None of those attacks killed thousands of people, but there certainly were many of them. The final count will be much more than 3000. This is disingenuous because 9/11 created a massive shift in public policy and public perception -- no other terrorist attack, including OK city, has done that. Therefore, only 9/11 counts. I don't think it's worth >$500 billion, a number of casualties greater than the original attack, and an abridgment of rights.
According to Wikipedia, ~5000 people died in lynchings from Reconstruction to the Civil Rights legislation of 1968. Interdicting these crimes was far more efficient, and done without abridging rights. AFAIK, no alleged KKK were thrown into a Gitmo-like facility, there was not RealID-like legislation, and no warrantless taps were submitted as evidence in federal civil rights cases.
Ok, first of all, we have also spent quite a bit of money and gone through many much greater inconveniences (getting a drivers license, obeying the speed limit, waiting in line at the DMV just to get my car registered, etc.) in the name of auto safety, and yet more people still die of cancer. And we spend lots of money and go through many inconveniences in an attempt to fight cancer, while more people still die of heart disease. First, I doubt that driver licensing infrastructure costs $500 billion. Second, most people fly far more often than go to the DMV. Otherwise, I agree, priorities are ass-backward to bad thinking.
Second, you can't judge the effects of something based solely on the number of lives taken. Terrorism isn't about generating a large body count, its about using fear to effect how people behave. [...] Why not? Is this not the very measure of how irrational the fear is, and to what degree that terrorists have achieved their objective?
[...] but its just as much making liberals such as yourself get paranoid and think everything the government does (even something as mundane as revising the permit rules for filming in a city) as part of a grand conspiracy to make us into a police state, and that anyone who stands against you must be a neo-Fascist who would take away all your civil liberties in the name of fighting terrorism. Not a grand conspiracy, but a climate of fear, which is largely irrational. And, if you do support taking away civil liberties, you might not be a fascist, but you are authoritarian; any restriction on speech or movement is inimical to a free, flourishing society. (Unlike you, I do not fallaciously apply labels.)
But in brief, modern economies need a money supply that can be adjusted to meet current conditions. Yeah, yeah, currency is the most traded commodity, velocity of money must be maintained constant to match the growth of the economy, etc. etc. This relies on the premise that liquidity is an unalloyed good; I disagree, because it can create credit bubbles, requiring the Fed (if it's even doing its job) to closely monitor macroeconomic indicators. Since these indicators are imperfect, the Fed artificially contributes to boom-recession cycles. Interest rates should be determined by the fundamentals of the market, using competing notes.
(How do you know my education level? Ad hominem arguments are fallacious.)
Credit Unions can and do provide all services banks do. Taxation isn't an issue. Corporate taxes apply mostly to profit, which is the issue. Credit Unions break even, returning any excess to their members. Banks are taxed on that percentage of revenue they embezzle from their members. Corporate taxes reduce the margins for shareholders, so that increases the price floor for a commercial bank's services. Credit unions can return all profits to their shareholders, i.e. the members.
I have no beef with credit unions. But they are nothing magical, and there is nothing wrong in principle with commercial banks. "Conflict of interest" exists in any market transaction where each party has its own bottom-line, and where to deposit your money is no different. There is no market failure here, because banking services are rival and excludable -- you can shop around, and move your money.
* The "whining" is that the gov't is overstepping its bounds. Carry-on size and contents should be up to airlines.
* Stopping police harassment and recovering seized property is a civil tort -- no lawyer provided. This is a real threat to the 1st amendment.
* Congress has a disturbingly good track record with post-9/11 legislation: Patriot Act, DHS, TSA, and wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have all been implemented. They require money, and it's been allocated.
* 9/11 killed 3000 people. Everything else on US soil has been an order of magnitude less (e.g., OK city), and the total is still less than the Iraq casualties.
Terrorism is much ado about nothing -- more people die every month of auto accidents. And yet, we've spent hundreds of billions of dollars on boondoggles, inconvenienced our lives, and chipped away at the Bill of Rights. Does this not matter to you, even as a matter of self-interest?
Slashdot Mirror
The US college system has struggled with contradictory aims since the GI bill boom:
* Providing a source for elite scientists, bureaucrats, etc. to serve specific public goods
* Educating the citizenry, as a public good for the democracy and economy
* Educating individuals who want to make themselves more marketable and prosperous
Elite research universities tend to emphasize the first two, with uniform tuition and no credit limits for undegrads and arts/sciences grad students; money-making professional programs business, law, and medicine exist in different schools with different tuitions and policies. They tend to have large endowments/tax bases to hire distinguished faculty, give financial aid and build infrastructure; and, they can draw considerable public funding for research with distinguished faculty.
OTOH, schools that rely on tuition to maintain cash flow have to worry about market forces and the monetary value of the degrees they issue.
The question raised by the article is, does this indicate a failure of US education? As it concludes, starting salary is really the only market signal for specific majors, and doesn't correlate well on the long-term. However, some people need the early cash.
Most universities try to strike a middle ground; this will continue to be a problem as long as people need money to subsist, i.e. for the foreseeable future.
Encryption itself is only useful for preventing data theft by clandestine means. Authorities with a warrant can threaten you with jail to make you give up the keys, and even less scrupulous forces can beat them out of you. You can destroy the keys, but then you'll really piss them off.
What you need is deniability, as in a steganographic filesystem. No one can ever prove that there is even anything there -- "Oh, I was just playing with it, I can reformat it if you want." Even better, embed data steganographically in standard data formats, like images.
It would be interesting to interpret the protection against self-incrimination to include data storage, i.e. your hard disk is an extension of your consciousness. Of course, this does not accord with the original aim of this right, which was to prevent false testimony/confessions induced by torture -- your hard disk exists apart from your "will."
http://www.consumerreports.org/
On the other hand, if your fortune is diversified and runs into the many millions, you can self-insure for just about anything except a very expensive home. Most people can forgo life insurance if they have sufficient retirement savings -- if you die, these savings can just be willed to your dependents.
A next-generation battery that is safe and has 20x the energy density/mass would obviously revolutionize laptops. The desired spec is 4 kg and 1920 W-hr, with 5 min. bursts of 200 W. By comparison, 2 kg of laptop batteries hold ~100 W-hr and burst to ~100 W.
The real trick is to use adapt this technology to electric cars. The Tesla Roadster uses the same Li-ion tech as in laptops currently, so dropping the mass or extending the range by 20x would be fantastic. Moreover, the Tesla's battery pack can peak at 200 kW, so perhaps the DoD's spec is in fact conservative (200 W*(450 kg)/(4 kg)=22.5 kW).
First of all, you don't understand insurance.
If I get into a crash and seriously injure someone else or damage their property, I'm on the hook for ~$100,000, which would be catastrophic to my lifestyle thereafter. Instead, I pay $300/year for the rest of my life, which is ~50 years -- only $15,000.
You're looking at the money, instead of the value.
***
* Did you even try the health risk calculators? They'll give you an idea of how much your lifestyle really affects you. No sense debating about stuff that neither of us (ostensibly) are experts in.
* I think health insurance premiums should depend on lifestyle choices. I'm a motorcyclist, so I should pay more. My health insurer can always sue the at-fault party to recover costs, like auto insurers do now.
The OECD countries have maintained their standard of living by developing white collar industries, and moving blue collar labor offshore.
Now that India and China have closed the gap via their economic reforms, 2 billion more people are getting into line for white collar work, much faster than such work has expanded. Unlike all blue collar work, only some white collar work requires any infrastructure, so people in the Third World can get into the game if there is sufficient education and rule of law.
Interesting times ahead.
* The US healthcare system is not free market, so much as fascistic. It's a rat's nest of politicized regulation and taxes, costing $169 billion annually.
* Swiss healthcare features both universal care and private providers. It provides a means-tested entitlement to those who can't afford care, while allowing those who can afford it to choose competing private insurers. It does require everyone to have health insurance [*], but under this system, such a requirement works.
[*] This does offend my libertarian sensibilities, but I think it's utterly irresponsible for an individual to not have health insurance and force people to give them emergency care, lest they die in the streets.
It may be -- since the gov't owns the roads (largely out of necessity), there's no way for individuals to choose how much safety they want, so any profits are not efficiently allocated here. OTOH, insurance companies have no interest in paying out claims, so many US insurance companies do sponsor road safety. For example, the insurance industry's car safety ratings are far more demanding than the US gov't's.
Of course, the profits from investing in insurance companies (or anything) go into other things that are useful to people.
Second, if you think insurance is a bad value for you, you can always demonstrate your ability to cover liability by buying a surety bond. If you are a good driver, you might get a good deal.
***
You have grossly underestimated the effect of lifestyle on these conditions -- look here, or here, for example.
To quickly summarize --
Heart disease: artheroscleroris is by far the most common cause of heart disease, and is largely preventable by reducing blood pressure and cholesterol through diet and exercise. Most other forms of heart disease share similar, preventable risk factors.
Cancer: diet, sun exposure and Vitamin D intake are very big factors as well.
Hypertension: does have a genetic component, but controllable environmental factors are the leading risk factor.
Trauma: choices like riding a motorcycle and not wearing seatbelts increases risk dramatically.
Of course, you don't have to believe the health risk calculators, Wikipedia or me -- ask your doctor.
I should add that some of the economic efficiency of the insurance industry goes in profits to the owners, who can then allocate that capital in other investments.
:)
Call your broker!
As for paying for bad drivers, I do pay for the payouts to others drivers who get into accidents -- obviously, that's how insurance works. But, an insurance company has no interest to keep on drivers who are high risks for future accidents (however their actuaries calculate it), because their competitors can drop them and charge lower rates while still making more money. Like I said, almost all health care costs are not due to poor choices. They are infections or injuries or preventative medicine or cancer. Many of the 'poor choices' are, simply, not getting preventative medicine. Hmmm
Health care and auto insurance are not exactly the same, precisely because of chronic health conditions.
Your point is well-made -- transaction costs are high. Now, in a free market some service is supposed to step in and streamline things, but that doesn't always happens, especially if there are static gov't regulations to work around.
Healthcare is a prime example. Someone calculated recently that, in the the US, regulation amounts to a $169 billion "drag" on the system. If you are ill, navigating the system is no picnic.
Our discussion boils down to two points:
* Cost
If return-on-investment is not a valid measure, what is? $500 billion dollars (more, with stateside spending) has cost >3000 more lives and has not made us any safer. Partly, we are not safer because the US was already very safe; mostly, Iraq has proved to not have any WMDs or sponsorship of terror, and the resulting chaos has fomented Islamic fundamentalism and terror.
* Rights
These are the facts at the federal level:
- Habeas corpus was suspended at a time without civil unrest. It's black letter in the Constitution, and the Supreme Court did grant the writ over the objections over the administration.
- The NSA surveilled US citizens without a warrant. The court ruled that it violated the First and Fourth Amendments; the ruling is stayed pending appeal.
- The US obtained private telecommunications data without a warrant. The court ruled that the relevant section of the PATRIOT act is unconstitutional, again because it violated the First and Fourth Amendments.
- As discussed, Real ID legislation has passed and merely awaits funding; to date, Bush has received funding for all his domestic security initiatives (TSA, DHS, etc.).
And changes at the local and state levels:
- NYC considered a ban on subway photography for reasons of terrorism (read the article). Even though the MTA relented, there have been incidents of MTA cops harassing photographers.
NYC has had filming permit process for 40+ years, however it's not coincidence that Rakesh Sharma was harassed only last year. This is not even counting the Nepali who was thrown in solitary for 3 months for accidentally photographing an FBI office.
- Similar harassment on the CTA.
- More on the harassment of street photographers.
- Last, but not least, the Ohio Patriot Act, which has clear violations of the First and Fifth Amendments.
A few things:
* Caveat emptor is more palatable than gov't program, IMHO. Gov't programs are monocultural, so they won't meet everyone's needs (someone in a similar position to yours might actually have it worse); and, from lack of competition, often very inefficient. If you don't like wading through contract fineprint, there are consumer rating and protection services like Consumer Reports.
* As an investor, I don't mind insurance companies taking profits.
* I don't know about Canada, but in the US, at least, you aren't paying for bad drivers -- insurers aren't obligated to take on bad drivers, and they can charge whatever they want. If you can't afford insurance because your are judged high-risk, that's what the SR-22 surety bond provision is for -- basically, self-insuring.
My reservations are that a) if the gov't decides I'm a bad driver for some reason, I won't have any recourse. Because the gov't is underwriting, they have an incentive to pull your license much faster than currently; b) it will probably end up costing the taxpayers in the long-run due to gov't inefficiency than a free market scheme.
***
I don't want to pay for others' poor lifestyle choices that result in high healthcare costs. I think the easiest way to do this is let the market set insurance rates. In the US, the system is broken because of the tax incentives given to employers. Perhaps, there might also be a means-tested gov't entitlement for the destitute to get care, as it's unpalatable for people to die in the streets (whereas, it's not as unpalatable to people go uninsured for driving and have auto collision debt).
(You may find this interesting.)
(Nice ad hominem.) Yeah, its not like the KKK was able to stall civil rights efforts for nearly a century after the conclusion of the civil war through their terrorist actions. What could I have been thinking... The KKK were hailed as heroes among whites everywhere -- ever see Birth of a Nation? Many whites who were against slavery were also very much against miscegenation. The KKK weren't terrorizing anyone who mattered, i.e. the white constituency of policymakers in Washington. Wow, you didn't do very well in history class, did you? [...] I have no quarrel with military tactics of the US in Iraq, so Sherman's March is irrelevant. The Constitution permits suspension of Habeas Corpus in times of civil unrest -- black letter. So I have no problem with Lincoln, but I do with Bush and his administration's treatment of peaceful US citizens.
(Nice strawman.) No, tracking licensed drivers is going to be cheaper than a war. It shouldn't cost half a trillion. And throwing that much money at it won't do shit to help traffic safety. How is that relevant? My point is that a $500 billion dollar war has yielded even fewer results. Thats not what I meant. It would be entirely irrational to drop everything we are doing and just concentrate on heart disease because it is the current most common cause of death. And, it would be irrational to spend $500 billion on cancer, while ignoring heart disease altogether. Nope. The goal of terrorists is not to just kill as many people as they can. Precisely, because they know that people have irrational fears. To succumb to irrational fears is exactly what allows terrorists to win. I agree. The problem is, you are a major part of that fear, even if you refuse to believe it. Governments have killed more of their own people over the course of history than all the wars ever put together. This is why the Bill of Rights exists, and should be defended ardently. Wow, that was a quick self contradiction. I'm an authoritarian because I RTFA and know your paranoia is irrational? You're authoritarian because you think that abridging rights is a palatable solution to a non-existent problem.
*slaps hand to forehead*
"Ad hominem" is when you malign somebody on a basis irrelevant to the discussion. I call you intellectually dishonest because that's exactly what your non-arguments indicate.
* I move quite a bit, so I would like the freedom to choose among insurance companies based on their quality of service and differing rates in different areas (this is because actuarial assumptions vary).
* Insurance coverage can be transferred between providers, so there is no market failure involved. Public monopolies are used in situations where the product is excludable (people can be prevented from using it), but non-rival (competitors can subsist because of high startup costs or physical impossibility). The obvious examples are utilities, which are infrastructure-heavy and there is only so much room.
OTOH, if BC's insurance plan runs at a profit, I'll be impressed. It might be convenient for you personally, but it might cost you (or your fellow taxpayers) in other ways.
In your system (if I understand correctly), everyone gets bonded, and they have the option to buy private insurance to pay off bonds in case of a crash. Those who can't get insurance and get into a crash have to pay the bond back over time.
Currently, people buy insurance to pay for any liabilities directly, and those who can't get insurance because they have a bad track record, have to buy a private bond. Securing the bond and any payment plan is between the bond underwriter and the person.
In both cases, the gov't can revoke the licenses of repeat offenders.
What is the advantage of your system?
I think it's time we close our discussion -- you are intellectually dishonest.
* C'mon, you forgot what you wrote about me having a "lack of education?" That's ad hominem; if you were rational, you would address my arguments and explain to me how I'm wrong. It might turn out that I'm not as well informed as you, but you can't assume that.
* Why makes you think that gov'ts have succeeded in softening business cycles, rather than creating them with monetary policy? The market is far more able to set interest rates by incorporating all available information, including commodities trading.
* An efficient market provides for the societal need in the majority of cases. For the reasons I explained, banking is no different. Banks and credit unions should compete on level ground -- may the best model win.
According to Wikipedia, ~5000 people died in lynchings from Reconstruction to the Civil Rights legislation of 1968. Interdicting these crimes was far more efficient, and done without abridging rights. AFAIK, no alleged KKK were thrown into a Gitmo-like facility, there was not RealID-like legislation, and no warrantless taps were submitted as evidence in federal civil rights cases. Ok, first of all, we have also spent quite a bit of money and gone through many much greater inconveniences (getting a drivers license, obeying the speed limit, waiting in line at the DMV just to get my car registered, etc.) in the name of auto safety, and yet more people still die of cancer. And we spend lots of money and go through many inconveniences in an attempt to fight cancer, while more people still die of heart disease. First, I doubt that driver licensing infrastructure costs $500 billion. Second, most people fly far more often than go to the DMV. Otherwise, I agree, priorities are ass-backward to bad thinking. Second, you can't judge the effects of something based solely on the number of lives taken. Terrorism isn't about generating a large body count, its about using fear to effect how people behave. [...] Why not? Is this not the very measure of how irrational the fear is, and to what degree that terrorists have achieved their objective? [...] but its just as much making liberals such as yourself get paranoid and think everything the government does (even something as mundane as revising the permit rules for filming in a city) as part of a grand conspiracy to make us into a police state, and that anyone who stands against you must be a neo-Fascist who would take away all your civil liberties in the name of fighting terrorism. Not a grand conspiracy, but a climate of fear, which is largely irrational. And, if you do support taking away civil liberties, you might not be a fascist, but you are authoritarian; any restriction on speech or movement is inimical to a free, flourishing society. (Unlike you, I do not fallaciously apply labels.)
(How do you know my education level? Ad hominem arguments are fallacious.) Credit Unions can and do provide all services banks do. Taxation isn't an issue. Corporate taxes apply mostly to profit, which is the issue. Credit Unions break even, returning any excess to their members. Banks are taxed on that percentage of revenue they embezzle from their members. Corporate taxes reduce the margins for shareholders, so that increases the price floor for a commercial bank's services. Credit unions can return all profits to their shareholders, i.e. the members.
I have no beef with credit unions. But they are nothing magical, and there is nothing wrong in principle with commercial banks. "Conflict of interest" exists in any market transaction where each party has its own bottom-line, and where to deposit your money is no different. There is no market failure here, because banking services are rival and excludable -- you can shop around, and move your money.
* The "whining" is that the gov't is overstepping its bounds. Carry-on size and contents should be up to airlines.
* Stopping police harassment and recovering seized property is a civil tort -- no lawyer provided. This is a real threat to the 1st amendment.
* Congress has a disturbingly good track record with post-9/11 legislation: Patriot Act, DHS, TSA, and wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have all been implemented. They require money, and it's been allocated.
* 9/11 killed 3000 people. Everything else on US soil has been an order of magnitude less (e.g., OK city), and the total is still less than the Iraq casualties.
Terrorism is much ado about nothing -- more people die every month of auto accidents. And yet, we've spent hundreds of billions of dollars on boondoggles, inconvenienced our lives, and chipped away at the Bill of Rights. Does this not matter to you, even as a matter of self-interest?