So -- Why does healthcare cost so damn much? (warning: novel-length post)

[milohimself]

pj, your example is a prime case study of why the idea of unlimited individual liberty is a pipe dream. There's no such thing.

There's only one Denny's within a reasonable driving distance of where I live. Say this franchise decided individually to allow its patrons to smoke anywhere on the premises. Others taking their individual liberty to smoke has now infringed on my individual liberty to go get a moons over my hammy in a reasonably safe environment.

 

[utvolpj]

pj, your example is a prime case study of why the idea of unlimited individual liberty is a pipe dream. There's no such thing.

There's only one Denny's within a reasonable driving distance of where I live. Say this franchise decided individually to allow its patrons to smoke anywhere on the premises. Others taking their individual liberty to smoke has now infringed on my individual liberty to go get a moons over my hammy in a reasonably safe environment.

weren't you just extolling the virtues of educating the people to make better food choices?

and yes, if a business made the choice to go smoke free and still had good food they would be fine. Of course businesses seem too scared to make a choice that might lose them 3 customers in a day. Forcing the nanny state on the people does no one any good

 

[utvolpj]

Amen. One of my fears of "academia" stems from a history professor who one day claimed to be a libertarian and the next claimed the federal government should ban smoking in all public places because, "the states won't do it themselves". I'll never forget that. How could a Phd in history be so confused about his own political orientation?!!

many are just Dems/Repubs who don't like the label

 

[milohimself]

weren't you just extolling the virtues of educating the people to make better food choices?

and yes, if a business made the choice to go smoke free and still had good food they would be fine. Of course businesses seem too scared to make a choice that might lose them 3 customers in a day. Forcing the nanny state on the people does no one any good

Fine, say it was some other restaurant where I was having a spinach salad. Whatever.

Consider the economics of the situation though, and game theory -- hypothetically, there are no smoking regulations. Businesses can ban them if they want, but pretend there's a Denny's and a Shari's in fairly close proximity. They are both toying with the idea of banning smoking, but if Shari's does it alone, all the smokers go to Denny's which booms and Shari's loses market share. Conversely, they could both ban smoking at the same time, but then they lose a share of smokers.

Game theory applies to pharmaceutical industry here as well: As I mentioned, we are one of only two highly developed countries on the planet which allow direct to consumer drug advertising. The drug advertising business has both a large impact on the bottom line and what the consumer pays for the drugs, as well as creates artificial demand. Nobody wants to drop this cost, though, because they all know that reducing or removing market voice through this means would probably be a death sentence. So, this western-style saloon standoff continues.

Still, you have not come up with a response as to how allowing smoking infringes on the liberties of others, and that's because it absolutely does.

The absolute fact of the matter is that most decisions somebody makes on a day to day life will go on to effect somebody else at some point. When somebody knowingly eats themselves into a state of obesity and incurs that average of $70-80k additional costs in medical care over the span of their shorter lives, that almost always comes back on the rest of us.

When you wanna smoke in any restaurant that will allow it, that means somebody else now no longer has the liberty to be a patron of that restaurant and avoid second hand smoke.

Complete individual liberty is a myth.

My grandma used to have a good saying that "your liberty ends where the other person's nose begins." (works quite literally in this case, PS IB4 jackasses making "Sounds like your grandma was a socialist!" remarks)

The question then becomes what is the government's involvement, and for me, how can it be effectively minimized? I firmly believe that decision-making happens mostly in the realm of financial incentive and social context. There are ways to go about this with minimal or no government involvement.

 

[utvolpj]

so you're ok with infringing on one group's liberty through legislation but not another using market forces?

And it absolutely does not infringe on another's rights. You have to make a conscious choice to be affected by the second hand smoke in a restaurant. Much different than the case you're making that it is completely unavoidable.

in your example, who's to say the 1 restaurant that chose to go smoke free wouldn't gain customers they otherwise wouldn't have because of their stance? Give me a choice of similar places and I would pick the smoke-free one every time. Of course that's my choice which has been removed from the equation

 

[n_huffhines]

Fine, say it was some other restaurant where I was having a spinach salad. Whatever.

Consider the economics of the situation though, and game theory -- hypothetically, there are no smoking regulations. Businesses can ban them if they want, but pretend there's a Denny's and a Shari's in fairly close proximity. They are both toying with the idea of banning smoking, but if Shari's does it alone, all the smokers go to Denny's which booms and Shari's loses market share. Conversely, they could both ban smoking at the same time, but then they lose a share of smokers.

Game theory applies to pharmaceutical industry here as well: As I mentioned, we are one of only two highly developed countries on the planet which allow direct to consumer drug advertising. The drug advertising business has both a large impact on the bottom line and what the consumer pays for the drugs, as well as creates artificial demand. Nobody wants to drop this cost, though, because they all know that reducing or removing market voice through this means would probably be a death sentence. So, this western-style saloon standoff continues.

Still, you have not come up with a response as to how allowing smoking infringes on the liberties of others, and that's because it absolutely does.

The absolute fact of the matter is that most decisions somebody makes on a day to day life will go on to effect somebody else at some point. When somebody knowingly eats themselves into a state of obesity and incurs that average of $70-80k additional costs in medical care over the span of their shorter lives, that almost always comes back on the rest of us.

When you wanna smoke in any restaurant that will allow it, that means somebody else now no longer has the liberty to be a patron of that restaurant and avoid second hand smoke.

Complete individual liberty is a myth.

My grandma used to have a good saying that "your liberty ends where the other person's nose begins." (works quite literally in this case, PS IB4 jackasses making "Sounds like your grandma was a socialist!" remarks)

The question then becomes what is the government's involvement, and for me, how can it be effectively minimized? I firmly believe that decision-making happens mostly in the realm of financial incentive and social context. There are ways to go about this with minimal or no government involvement.

The point is the restaurant owner is the guy who decides. He is the only one with rights as far as smoking in the establishment goes. You don't have a "right" to eat at somebody's diner, so whether it's smoking or non-smoking, nobody's rights are infringed.

Denny's can open 2 restaurants (one smoking, one non), or do like they did in the old days and have a smoking section that's designed in a manner where the non-smokers are unaffected.

 

[n_huffhines]

so you're ok with infringing on one group's liberty through legislation but not another using market forces?

And it absolutely does not infringe on another's rights. You have to make a conscious choice to be affected by the second hand smoke in a restaurant. Much different than the case you're making that it is completely unavoidable.

in your example, who's to say the 1 restaurant that chose to go smoke free wouldn't gain customers they otherwise wouldn't have because of their stance? Give me a choice of similar places and I would pick the smoke-free one every time. Of course that's my choice which has been removed from the equation

Not a smoker, and I despise smoking, but I also recognize that smokers are probably the group most discriminated against in America.

 

[droski]

The point is the restaurant owner is the guy who decides. He is the only one with rights as far as smoking in the establishment goes. You don't have a "right" to eat at somebody's diner, so whether it's smoking or non-smoking, nobody's rights are infringed.

Denny's can open 2 restaurants (one smoking, one non), or do like they did in the old days and have a smoking section that's designed in a manner where the non-smokers are unaffected.

completely agree. i likely wouldn't go to any place that allowed smoking inside, but that's the free market at work. the argument i've heard is that this is to protect to employees, not the customers. of course you don't have to chose to work at a smoking restuarant.

 

[g8terh8ter_eric]

You felt like education wasn't a big deal, specifically a medical degree. I never called you a fool, but the shoe certainly does fit doesn't it?

PS: Please do not fornicate with any of my animals.

Find where I said that education wasn't important, you won't.

Secondly, you want to come at me with a generalization that I'm not smart or uneducated, your barking up the wrong damn tree bub.

I think the best thing for me to do at this point is ignore your ass, because I really don't want to get banned. Your sorry ass sure isn't worth it. Peace.

 

[milohimself]

so you're ok with infringing on one group's liberty through legislation but not another using market forces?

And it absolutely does not infringe on another's rights. You have to make a conscious choice to be affected by the second hand smoke in a restaurant. Much different than the case you're making that it is completely unavoidable.

in your example, who's to say the 1 restaurant that chose to go smoke free wouldn't gain customers they otherwise wouldn't have because of their stance? Give me a choice of similar places and I would pick the smoke-free one every time. Of course that's my choice which has been removed from the equation

My point was more along the lines that infringement on liberty is an unavoidable fact of life to some extent.

Again, in that case, I no longer have the ability to choose to go get a moons over my hammy (or spinach salad or whatever) and choose to do so in a healthy environment because a restaurant owner already chose to let people smoke and people chose to smoke there.

There was no legislation there, only market forces, yet I am unable to make my first choices because other people made their first choices. How is this any more moral than a majority voting to outlaw smoking in certain businesses through representative government?

Re: the economic discussion of it, this turns into yet another example of endless back and forth "what ifs?" that one could get into. I feel my example demonstrating the idea that complete individual liberty is entirely mythical was sufficient, and I welcome any explanation as to why imposing value through market forces is morally better than doing so through representative government.

 

[milohimself]

completely agree. i likely wouldn't go to any place that allowed smoking inside, but that's the free market at work. the argument i've heard is that this is to protect to employees, not the customers. of course you don't have to chose to work at a smoking restuarant.

Without the legislation, many low-level workers would have had no choice. Telling them to "get better jobs" isn't viable, because there always has to be somebody to work those ****ty jobs.

Now the norm is that low-level workers have to go out of their way to work at places which allow smoking indoors while smokers only have to go slightly out of their way to smoke.

 

[g8terh8ter_eric]

Not a smoker, and I despise smoking, but I also recognize that smokers are probably the group most discriminated against in America.

As a former smoker, I was never discriminated against while I did it. Sure, I was relegated to go elsewhere to do the deed, but after I quit, I now understand why. There are reasons, beyond the medical ones, that smoking shouldn't be allowed in some atmospheres, especially family style restaurants.

 

[utvolpj]

My point was more along the lines that infringement on liberty is an unavoidable fact of life to some extent.

Again, in that case, I no longer have the ability to choose to go get a moons over my hammy (or spinach salad or whatever) and choose to do so in a healthy environment because a restaurant owner already chose to let people smoke and people chose to smoke there.

There was no legislation there, only market forces, yet I am unable to make my first choices because other people made their first choices. How is this any more moral than a majority voting to outlaw smoking in certain businesses through representative government?

no your first choice is to avoid the smoke. That makes your second choice for you. Prioritize what you need and spend accordingly

Re: the economic discussion of it, this turns into yet another example of endless back and forth "what ifs?" that one could get into. I feel my example demonstrating the idea that complete individual liberty is entirely mythical was sufficient, and I welcome any explanation as to why imposing value through market forces is morally better than doing so through representative government.

it's no more sufficient that everything thrown against it. You think legislation is the answer (at least in this case) while others have shown the market works as it should.

using the market gives the individual consumer a choice. Using gov't does not

As a former smoker, I was never discriminated against while I did it. Sure, I was relegated to go elsewhere to do the deed, but after I quit, I now understand why. There are reasons, beyond the medical ones, that smoking shouldn't be allowed in some atmospheres, especially family style restaurants.

why not? Who forces you to eat at this family-style restaurant? Is there not another that will accept your money and protect you from smoke?

 

[BigPapaVol]

Find where I said that education wasn't important, you won't.

Secondly, you want to come at me with a generalization that I'm not smart or uneducated, your barking up the wrong damn tree bub.

I think the best thing for me to do at this point is ignore your ass, because I really don't want to get banned. Your sorry ass sure isn't worth it. Peace.

I'm not looking it up, but you've told me far more than once that the library can provide all the education you need. You rolled up all Matt Damon on me. You just forgot that book listings aren't a part of the resume process.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

 

[milohimself]

To reel it back in, that is one of the extreme few examples where I do buy government legislation as being the appropriate course of measure, but for the most part I do believe in market forces shaping the way we do things. Bottom up, community by community. But there is absolutely an interplay between communities happen to build and the course of action that market forces go to take once that is in place.

 

[droski]

Without the legislation, many low-level workers would have had no choice. Telling them to "get better jobs" isn't viable, because there always has to be somebody to work those ****ty jobs.

Now the norm is that low-level workers have to go out of their way to work at places which allow smoking indoors while smokers only have to go slightly out of their way to smoke.

you always have a choice. there are plenty of professions that aren't great for your health (coal miner, taxi driver, etc) and people still take the jobs.

 

[milohimself]

no your first choice is to avoid the smoke. That makes your second choice for you. Prioritize what you need and spend accordingly



it's no more sufficient that everything thrown against it. You think legislation is the answer (at least in this case) while others have shown the market works as it should.

using the market gives the individual consumer a choice. Using gov't does not



why not? Who forces you to eat at this family-style restaurant? Is there not another that will accept your money and protect you from smoke?

So why should the smokers get both first choices and I should not?

 

[droski]

all in all i'm in favor of the law only because i hate smoke and therefore it makes life nicer, but i still think we should allow people to do it if they want.

 

[n_huffhines]

My point was more along the lines that infringement on liberty is an unavoidable fact of life to some extent.

Again, in that case, I no longer have the ability to choose to go get a moons over my hammy (or spinach salad or whatever) and choose to do so in a healthy environment because a restaurant owner already chose to let people smoke and people chose to smoke there.

There was no legislation there, only market forces, yet I am unable to make my first choices because other people made their first choices. How is this any more moral than a majority voting to outlaw smoking in certain businesses through representative government?

Re: the economic discussion of it, this turns into yet another example of endless back and forth "what ifs?" that one could get into. I feel my example demonstrating the idea that complete individual liberty is entirely mythical was sufficient, and I welcome any explanation as to why imposing value through market forces is morally better than doing so through representative government.

Liberty and choice are not synonymous. Someone may reduce my choices without limiting my liberty.

 

[g8terh8ter_eric]

I'm not looking it up, but you've told me far more than once that the library can provide all the education you need. You rolled up all Matt Damon on me. You just forgot that book listings aren't a part of the resume process.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

So, now paying for an education, somehow trumps people who do it a lot cheaper?? Knowledge is knowledge, no matter how you get it. There are plenty of people who go to the best institutions this country has to offer, yet they are still dumb as bricks in the common sense department. You get out what you put in, no matter where you go.

 

[droski]

So why should the smokers get both first choices and I should not?

the rich people get the first choice too for $100 a plate restuarants. such is life. i bet most restuarants wouldn't go back to smoking sections and most bars would.

 

[n_huffhines]

So why should the smokers get both first choices and I should not?

They don't. Restaurant owner gets first and only choice because it's his/her property.

 

[utvolpj]

So why should the smokers get both first choices and I should not?

you set your own priorities in life and decided which went to #1. You are no less free with your life

 

[droski]

So, now paying for an education, somehow trumps people who do it a lot cheaper?? Knowledge is knowledge, no matter how you get it. There are plenty of people who go to the best institutions this country has to offer, yet they are still dumb as bricks in the common sense department. You get out what you put in, no matter where you go.

even though i strongly disagree that you can learn as much at home as in an university lost in your argument is how the employer is supposed to determine who the better employee potentially is. going to an elite school and doing well seperates you from your peers. and yes on average that person is harder working and smarter i.e. a high achiever. raw intelligence doesn't mean squat if you don't do anythingn with it.

 

[rjd970]

all in all i'm in favor of the law only because i hate smoke and therefore it makes life nicer, but i still think we should allow people to do it if they want.

This is where I am. It should be up to the establishment to allow/disallow smoking. If they want your business and you don't smoke, they need to change. Government should stay out of it.