Tag Archives: Free Market

More On The Laws Of Economics

I’m reading an article for an upcoming post when I came across this:

We have a shortage of every kind of doctor, except for plastic surgeons and dermatologists.

It strikes me that plastic surgery and dermatology are both examples of medical “care” not subject to insurance and the accompanying government regulation.

And the prices of plastic surgery?

 

From the report:

Cosmetic surgery is one of the few types of medical care for which consumers pay almost exclusively out of pocket.  Even so, the demand for cosmetic surgery has exploded in recent years.  According to the American Society of Plastic Surgeons, 1.7 million cosmetic surgical procedures were performed in 2008.  That is more than 40 times the number performed two decades ago (for example, 413,208 in 1992).

Despite this huge increase, cosmetic surgeons’ fees have remained relatively stable.  Since 1992, medical care prices have increased an average of 98 percent. The price of physician services rose by 74 percent.  [See the figure.] The increase in the price of all goods, as measured by the consumer price index (CPI), was 53 percent. Yet, an index of cosmetic surgery  prices only rose only about 21 percent. Thus, while the price of medical care  generally rose almost twice as fast as the CPI, the price of cosmetic surgery went up less than half as much. Put another way, while the real price of health care  paid for by third parties rose, the real price of self-pay medicine fell.

When exposed to the free market, commodities and services will respond with cheaper prices and higher quality.

“You Didn’t Build That” – Out Of Context

Obama is taking a lot of heat for his comments in Virgina.  It was in that speech that he made the now infamous, “If you have a business, you didn’t build that.”  The republicans are going crazy with the clip, using it in every ad they can put on TV or the radio.  They’ve got it on Facebook and Twitter.  Obama saying that business owners didn’t build “that.”

And the left is going nuts over context.

First, I’ve always said that the remark IS out of context.  The president clearly was referring to roads and bridges when he mentioned “that.”

Second, this is politics.  These same people who are now fainting over context were no where to be seen when Romney was quoted as saying, “I like to fire people.”  No one was complaining about context when Romney’s comments on self-check out lines was doctored.  It is what it is.

Third, and this is the biggie for me, Obama BELIEVES the message that the republicans are pushing in the out of context quote.  Two months ago, if you were to ask Obama if he felt that businesses were built by their owners or with help from the government, he’d tell you that of COURSE it was built with the help of the government.  Heck, he’s saying that in the speech.

So, here are his remarks:

THE PRESIDENT:  Well, first of all, like I said, the only way you can pay for that — if you’re actually saying you’re bringing down the deficit — is to cut transportation, cut education, cut basic research, voucherize Medicare, and you’re still going to end up having to raise taxes on middle-class families to pay for this $5 trillion tax cut.  That’s not a deficit reduction plan.  That’s a deficit expansion plan.

I’ve got a different idea.  I do believe we can cut — we’ve already made a trillion dollars’ worth of cuts.  We can make some more cuts in programs that don’t work, and make government work more efficiently.  (Applause.)  Not every government program works the way it’s supposed to.  And frankly, government can’t solve every problem.  If somebody doesn’t want to be helped, government can’t always help them.  Parents — we can put more money into schools, but if your kids don’t want to learn it’s hard to teach them.  (Applause.)

But you know what, I’m not going to see us gut the investments that grow our economy to give tax breaks to me or Mr. Romney or folks who don’t need them.  So I’m going to reduce the deficit in a balanced way.  We’ve already made a trillion dollars’ worth of cuts.  We can make another trillion or trillion-two, and what we then do is ask for the wealthy to pay a little bit more.  (Applause.)  And, by the way, we’ve tried that before — a guy named Bill Clinton did it.  We created 23 million new jobs, turned a deficit into a surplus, and rich people did just fine.  We created a lot of millionaires.

There are a lot of wealthy, successful Americans who agree with me — because they want to give something back.  They know they didn’t — look, if you’ve been successful, you didn’t get there on your own.  You didn’t get there on your own.  I’m always struck by people who think, well, it must be because I was just so smart.  There are a lot of smart people out there.  It must be because I worked harder than everybody else.  Let me tell you something — there are a whole bunch of hardworking people out there.  (Applause.)

If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help.  There was a great teacher somewhere in your life.  Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive.  Somebody invested in roads and bridges.  If you’ve got a business — you didn’t build that.  Somebody else made that happen.  The Internet didn’t get invented on its own.  Government research created the Internet so that all the companies could make money off the Internet.

And now, finally, the press is getting around to going after Romney over the context of the quote that he’s using.  And his response?  Just like I’ve been saying.

LARRY KUDLOW: “Why do you think President Obama, what did he mean, if you’ve got a business, you didn’t build it, someone else made that happen? He claims it’s being taken out of context. What do you think it means? Do you think this is Obama anti-business, anti-entrepreneur? Or do you think maybe he has been treated unfairly?”

GOV. ROMNEY: “Well, just read the whole speech. I found the speech even more disconcerting than just that particular line. The context is worse than the quote. The context, he says, you know, you think you’ve been successful because you’re smart, but he says a lot of people are smart. You think you’ve been successful because you work hard, a lot of people work hard. This is an ideology which says hey, we’re all the same here, we ought to take from all and give to one another and that achievement, individual initiative and risk-taking and success are not to be rewarded as they have in the past. It’s a very strange and in some respects foreign to the American experience type of philosophy. We have always been a nation that has celebrated success of various kinds. The kid that gets the honor roll, the individual worker that gets a promotion, the person that gets a better job. And in fact, the person that builds a business. And by the way, if you have a business and you started it, you did build it. And you deserve credit for that. It was not built for you by government. And by the way, we pay for government. Government doesn’t come free. The people who begin enterprises, the people who work in enterprises, they’re the ones paying for government. So his whole philosophy is an upside-down philosophy that does not comport with the American experience. And if we want to get people working again–and that’s my priority–if we want to get people working again, we have to celebrate success and achievement and not demonize it and denigrate the people who have worked hard, who are smart, who have made the kinds of investments to build a brighter future.”

The context of the quote is worse than the quote.  Obama’s using the success of the business owner as a lever to force him to pay more taxes.  And he hides behind “they wanna give something back.”

You Didn’t Build That

More and more Americans are waking up to the core beliefs this man has.  He’s a big government statist.  He thinks he can spend your money better than you.  And he believes, honest to God believes, that government builds people and not the other way around.

Each one of these people represents a qualification of leadership and accomplishment that he doesn’t.

Obama: Government Invented The Internet

You might have heard by now that Obama gave a speech in Virgina.  And in that speech he made a statement.  He made a statement that individuals can’t claim credit for their successes.  Rather, they must acknowledge that what they have labored to craft is the result of the collective.  And, more importantly, that leading the way is the government.  After all, it invented the internet.

Right?

Maybe not.

Most people give credit to the invention of the internet to ARPANet, a DOD agency.

The Advanced Research Projects Agency Network (ARPANET) was the world’s first operational packet switching network and the core network of a set that came to compose the global Internet. The network was funded by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) of the United States Department of Defense for use by its projects at universities and research laboratories in the US. The packet switching of the ARPANET was based on designs by Lawrence Roberts of the Lincoln Laboratory.

But did ARPANet really invent the internet?  Not so fast say some:

In February of 1966 I initiated the ARPAnet project. I was Director of ARPA’s Information Processing Techniques Office (IPTO) from late ’65 to late ’69. There were only two people involved in the decision to launch the ARPAnet: my boss, the Director of ARPA Charles Herzfeld, and me.

Numerous untruths have been disseminated about events surrounding the origins of the ARPAnet. Here are some facts.

The creation of the ARPAnet was not motivated by considerations of war. The ARPAnet was not an internet. An internet is a connection between two or more computer networks.

-Bob Taylor

Interesting.

But if ARPANet didn’t create the internet, who, or what, did?

On further analysis we come up with at least five distinct theories, each of which can be credibly discussed. We state from the beginning that we do not personally see the theories as mutually exclusive – we have for many years believed in a multiple origins theory rather than a single point of invention one.

But the theories which need to be examined are:

1. Packet switching represents the origins of the Internet
2. The TCP/IP protocol represents the origins of the Internet
3. A range of telco-led activities from the 1960s represents the true origins
4. The birth of the Internet is best explained through a history of applications rather than the protocols
5. The range of inventions and activities emanating from Xerox Palo Alto laboratories, including Ethernet, represent the true beginnings.

All five theories are interesting.  Personally, I find theory 1 and 3 the most compelling with theory 3 possibly encompassing theory 3 almost completely.  Digital transmission and switching was accomplished in 1962, seven years before ARPANet claimed that accomplishment.    Further, the languages of the internet, C and Unix, were developed not by ARPANet but by AT&T.

Who knew?

In any event, what we CAN conclude is this:

So then, where and when did the Internet begin? The only thing historians seem to agree on is that it was not 1969, or the Pentagon, (or for that matter Al Gore). From there on, there is a wide divergence of views as to when, where, and by whom the Internet may have been invented.

Contrary to what Obama would have you believe, it wasn’t the government that created the internet, it was individuals engaging in business that invented the internet.

More Free Market Airline Style

I’ve mentioned in the past that the airlines are employing some unique methods in order to raise additional revenues while protecting passengers who may not wanna take part in higher fares.

One of those examples is paying extra for prime seats.  For example, I’ve pointed out that some airlines are experimenting with charging folks extra for aisle and window seats.

Personally, this makes great sense to me.  I absolutely LOVE not sitting in the middle seat and am willing to pay money not too.  Others, however, are not willing to pay additional fees in order to travel and are thus more than happy to trade a middle seat for money.

We all win.

Well, here’s another example:

…according to a survey by Airfarewatchdog.com, a fare-tracking site that found 16% of respondents were willing to pay to be at the front of the line when their flight lands. Of that group, 10% would pay $10 and 3% would pay as much as $20.

I’m traveling again this week and the example below really happened to me:

An early exit can also give fliers more time to make their connections. Airlines have gotten better at getting passengers to their destinations on time. In the first four months of this year, major U.S. carriers had an on-time arrival rate of 84.54%, their best performance for that period in 18 years, according to the Transportation Department’s Bureau of Transportation Statistics.

But even if their flight’s not delayed, passengers often have little cushion to make a connecting flight. Paying a few more dollars to be first off the plane could be an advantage, Hobica says.

I had one hour to get from my flight to my connection.  It appeared we were gonna be late and I’d rather have the extra time by being in front of the plane rather than in the back.  In this case, I didn’t have to pay extra [I would have], but I DID have to trade an aisle seat for a middle seat.  But I saved 17 rows.  And at 6 people per row, that’s a  lot of time.

Personally, I’m all for these free market measures that airlines use to spread the cost of flying to those who want the extras.

Grocery Barons: If Medical Care Delivery Were Like Food Care Delivery

Just got back from the grocery store.  It was 11:10 PM here in North Carolina.  I just finished working out at the YMCA.  I stopped to have a bite to eat and a beer at the local tap room and then decided I needed to pick up some things from the food store.

It was open.  Would be until tomorrow; they sell food 7×24.

The place was well lit, air conditioned and pleasant.  Music even.

Imagine, a warehouse that sells virtually anything you could wanna eat.  7×24.  On your way home.

Then I saw this:

Biscuits and eggs.  Taters and juice.  This would last my family of 4 two whole breakfasts.  That means for $6.99 I feed 4 people twice.  Or, if you carry the 1, eight people for seven bucks.

That’s less than $1 a meal.

Can you imagine what it would be like if we could sell medical care like we sell food?

Free Market: Airplane Style

How many times have I been flying and need to get off that plane to make my gate?  Plenty.  And how many times did I muse, “I’d pay $50 to be that first guy off?”

Again, plenty.

And, as is the case with me, I began to imagine a world where the seats in a plane could be offered on the open market.

Continue reading

Government Adds To The Cost Of Medical Care

One of the for profit hospitals in the Raleigh area is Wake Med.

WakeMed Health and Hospitals is a 870-bed healthcare system with multiple facilities placed around the metropolitan Raleigh, North Carolina area.  WakeMed’s main campus is located on New Bern Avenue in Raleigh, North Carolina. WakeMed serves multiple counties throughout the state and specializes in a variety of services including cardiology, neurology, orthopedics, high-risk pregnancy, children’s care, trauma, physical rehabilitation and critical care transport.

In addition to providing the above services they also have emergency rooms.  And being a for profit entity Wake Med is looking for ways to improve the efficiency of medical care delivery.  And they have a solution.

Continue reading

Capitalist Pigs

If you listen even just a little, you can pick up on one of the main complaints against the medical care delivery system here i the United States.  That the whole system is doomed to fail because we allow greedy asshole pigs to profit off the medical needs of our citizens.  For some reason, the fact that this doesn’t apply to food or clothes is a point that’s missed by those that scream we must nationalize health care.

The fact is this, when exposed to market forces, blueberries and shoes become less expensive and come with higher and higher degrees of quality.

I stopped by my local “Grocery Barron” outlet and was amazed to see this new advertisement.

The grocery store market is offering drugs that “cures” high blood pressure.  The cost?  $3.99 a month.  By the way, hypertension is the single #1 killer in the United States.  Number one.  Cured, blammo, for the crazy cost of 4 bucks.

After that is the program for diabetes medication.  The cost?

Nothing.

That’s right; free.  Diabetes medication carries no cost to the consumer.  The greedy bastards are offering life saving medication for free in the hopes that you’ll just come in a shop.

But wait, there’s more!

For the low low price of NOTHING you can now get antibiotics as well.

Blink.  Blink.

All of this will be delivered to you in less than 15 minutes while you shop in  conditioned warehouse for berries from Chili, chocolate from Switzerland, wine from France and sushi fresh from the sea.

Bastards!

Reducing The Cost of Health Insurance

One of the contributors to the price of medical care is the price of malpractice insurance.  And with a simple change in tort laws that price of malpractice has diminished:

RALEIGH – The state’s second largest medical malpractice insurer has cut its premiums in response to the effects of tort reform laws in North Carolina and other states as well as to put it on a more competitive footing.

Mag Mutual Insurance Co. has cut doctors’ premiums by an average of 7.4 percent for 2012, North Carolina Department of Insurance spokeswoman Kerry Hall says. The company calls 3 percentage points of that a “tort reform credit.”

There’s a whole bunch of ways top reduce the cost of medical care besides forcing young healthy people to buy a product they don’t want or even need.