surreal and more surreal

[kenberg]

Like Ken, I'm fed up with this nonsense. I am, and have been most of my adult life, a registered Republican. The reason for that is that the stated goals and I ideals of no other party matched my own as closely as theirs. But stated goals aside, what the Republican Party is now showing, by their actions, their goals and ideals to be, no longer matches mine, not even close. That would make me a Democrat, I suppose, if that were my only other choice. Fortunately, it's not. I can be a Libertarian, or an Independent, or even a Communist, if I so desire. Or I can have no political party at all. I can be a party of one.

 

I suppose that registering as a Republican gives some "support" of some kind to the Party - they can say "see? look how many Republicans there are". If we want to express displeasure with what they're doing, one way is to to de-register. If enough Republicans do that, maybe the ones remaining will wake up. Or maybe not.

 

There is a danger, I think, in "I'll never vote again for a Republican, even if I think he's the best candidate for the job". Many decry the two party system, saying it's not flexible enough. It seems to me that whether or not that's true, a one party system would be worse.

 

I understand yor cautionary advice, seconded by PO. Actually, no one here cares a fig anyway. This is a heavily Democratic state and I have been gerrymandered into a Democratic district. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:MD-8.jpg

[Winstonm]

AFAICS, any time the government says "you will buy X product, or you will be fined," however that fine is implemented (a tax penalty in this case), and whatever choices you may have as to versions of X, you can throw any claims of "free market" right out the window. Not to mention any of the hundreds of other ways in which the government ensures that the health care market is not free.

 

Fine. We will play your game and say any market not 100% free cannot be considered free in any sense.

 

So, now we amend the above to say that "the Affordable Care Act fosters competition among healthcare providers within the market."

[Thiros]

I understand yor cautionary advice, seconded by PO. Actually, no one here cares a fig anyway. This is a heavily Democratic state and I have been gerrymandered into a Democratic district. See http://en.wikipedia....i/File:MD-8.jpg

 

Opened up the link and was treated to what looked like a picture of an elephant cub fondling a sea horse, which, in turn, was humping the right foreleg of a giant turtle.

 

Somewhat amusing and slightly disheartening, but hardly surprising.

[barmar]

AFAICS, any time the government says "you will buy X product, or you will be fined," however that fine is implemented (a tax penalty in this case), and whatever choices you may have as to versions of X, you can throw any claims of "free market" right out the window. Not to mention any of the hundreds of other ways in which the government ensures that the health care market is not free.

From Wikipedia:

A free market is a market structure which is not controlled by a designated authority. A free market contrasts with a controlled market or regulated market, in which government policy intervenes in the setting of prices.

So while the ACA requires you to purchase health insurance, it's still a free market. Insurers get to set their prices, and consumers get to choose among them. That choice is what generally defines a free market.

 

The ACA does put restrictions on the types of plans insurers can offer -- they have to cover a specified list of treatments, they can't turn customers away because of preexisting conditions, etc. But that's not much different from the kinds of regulations we have in other industries, like FDA inspections of food or approval of drugs, or SEC oversight of investment firms.

[kenberg]

Opened up the link and was treated to what looked like a picture of an elephant cub fondling a sea horse, which, in turn, was humping the right foreleg of a giant turtle.

 

Somewhat amusing and slightly disheartening, but hardly surprising.

 

I have thought a little more about this. I am a registered Democrat. What, I ask, is the legitimate meaning of that choice? The state is not entitled to know how I vote. If they insist on knowing, I am entitled to give a false repsonse to a question that is none of their business. It follows that the correct interpretation of registering as a Democrat is that I wish, for whatever my reason, to vote in the Democratic primary. That's the full meaning, and nothing else.

 

So: Once the district has been successfully redrawn so that the winner of the Democratic primary will be the winner of the general election, it follows, does it not, that a Repu8blican who wishes to have some say in who represents him should register to vote in the Democratic primary. Similarly, in districts with artificial borders that virtually guarantee a Republican victory, a Democrat who wishes to have a say in who represents him should register to vote in the Republican primary.

 

 

This has always seemed to me to be like flying a false flag, but upon reflection I think it isn't. A Republican registering "as a Democrat" should not be seen as claiming to be a Democrat. It's his own business, not the state's, which position he favors. He is only saying that he wishes to vote in the Democratic primary, and that is being both truthful and, given the facts on the ground, sensible.

 

Of course mischief is possible, but it's not inevitable. Back a bit, I think in one of the Carolinas, the Republicans managed to get some poor oaf on the Democratic ballot. I think they had to help him spell his name, or some such. Of course this is wrong. What I am suggesting is more along the lines of a voter saying "All right, you clever guys win. You have rigged it so that our representative will definitely come from party X. In that case, I wish to vote in the primary of party X". This is not so much subverting democracy as coping with the fait accompli that it has been subverted. The inetention would be not sabatoge, the ultimate victory of party X would be accepted as inevitable, the purpose would be to have one's vote make a difference.

[PassedOut]

So: Once the district has been successfully redrawn so that the winner of the Democratic primary will be the winner of the general election, it follows, does it not, that a Republican who wishes to have some say in who represents him should register to vote in the Democratic primary. Similarly, in districts with artificial borders that virtually guarantee a Republican victory, a Democrat who wishes to have a say in who represents him should register to vote in the Republican primary.

That certainly makes sense to me.

 

Where I live, the district is now closely divided. Whichever primary I choose, I'll be unable to vote for some candidates in the other party that I'd like to see on the ballot. It comes down to figuring out who I think is most likely to make it on anyway and who is not, and my track record on that is not too good.

[y66]

I have thought a little more about this. I am a registered Democrat. What, I ask, is the legitimate meaning of that choice? The state is not entitled to know how I vote. If they insist on knowing, I am entitled to give a false repsonse to a question that is none of their business. It follows that the correct interpretation of registering as a Democrat is that I wish, for whatever my reason, to vote in the Democratic primary. That's the full meaning, and nothing else.

 

So: Once the district has been successfully redrawn so that the winner of the Democratic primary will be the winner of the general election, it follows, does it not, that a Repu8blican who wishes to have some say in who represents him should register to vote in the Democratic primary. Similarly, in districts with artificial borders that virtually guarantee a Republican victory, a Democrat who wishes to have a say in who represents him should register to vote in the Republican primary.

 

 

This has always seemed to me to be like flying a false flag, but upon reflection I think it isn't. A Republican registering "as a Democrat" should not be seen as claiming to be a Democrat. It's his own business, not the state's, which position he favors. He is only saying that he wishes to vote in the Democratic primary, and that is being both truthful and, given the facts on the ground, sensible.

 

Of course mischief is possible, but it's not inevitable. Back a bit, I think in one of the Carolinas, the Republicans managed to get some poor oaf on the Democratic ballot. I think they had to help him spell his name, or some such. Of course this is wrong. What I am suggesting is more along the lines of a voter saying "All right, you clever guys win. You have rigged it so that our representative will definitely come from party X. In that case, I wish to vote in the primary of party X". This is not so much subverting democracy as coping with the fait accompli that it has been subverted. The inetention would be not sabatoge, the ultimate victory of party X would be accepted as inevitable, the purpose would be to have one's vote make a difference.

 

If citizens are duty bound to cast votes that determine election outcomes then yes it follows that, in districts in which the only election that matters is the dominant party primary, citizens have an obligation to vote in that primary.

[kenberg]

I have thought a little more. Why must we register as Democrats or Republicans in order to vote in the primary of our choice? Surely we could enter the private voting chamber and select which primary we wish to vote in. For that matter, I don't see why we should not be allowed to vote in the Democrstic primary for governor and the Republican, or Libertarian, or Socialist, or the Whatever, primary for Senator. I guess the argument is that we should not be allowed last minute changes. Why not? We are allowed last minute changes in who we vote for and on how we vote on referenda. Hmm, my spell checker prefers referendums. Anyway, spelling aside, I really don't see the point of requiring us to list our affiliation, or lack of it, with the state. Is there any state that allows the voter to make his preference, as to which primary he will vote in, known only to the machine?

 

Switching hats. I was at Starbucks drinking coffee and reading USA today, with opinions on whether or not the debt ceiling will be raised. One opinion" "If it isn't, the voters will see to it that nobody is re-elected". Sounds right to me.

[billw55]

Switching hats. I was at Starbucks drinking coffee and reading USA today, with opinions on whether or not the debt ceiling will be raised. One opinion" "If it isn't, the voters will see to it that nobody is re-elected". Sounds right to me.

I wish it were true that legislative choices had strong feedback in the following elections. Sadly it is not. In reality, the vast majority of voters just vote their party, eyes ears and brain closed tight. For now, the "undecideds" can swing a minority of races, but both parties are working hard to eliminate even that with gerrymandering.

[FM75]

For those of you who have bought into the argument that the exchanges will foster competition from insurers, you should give this a read.

 

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-10-06/exchanges-will-raise-u-s-health-care-costs.html

 

Multiple sources of a product is a necessary condition for competition, but not a sufficient one. There is a reason for the Sherman Anti-trust Act. If we can learn from history, though, it is clear that explicit collusion is not the only route to uncompetitive markets - and that is for markets where people have a choice not to purchase.

[blackshoe]

I have thought a little more about this. I am a registered Democrat. What, I ask, is the legitimate meaning of that choice? The state is not entitled to know how I vote. If they insist on knowing, I am entitled to give a false repsonse to a question that is none of their business. It follows that the correct interpretation of registering as a Democrat is that I wish, for whatever my reason, to vote in the Democratic primary. That's the full meaning, and nothing else.

Perhaps, perhaps not. I had a friend (he passed away a few years ago) who was a registered Democrat. If you knew him, you knew that wasn't him. Asked why, he said "I want to know what my enemy is up to". After all, whichever party you register in will send you all kinds of stuff about what they're up to.

 

I don't recall that he ever voted in the Democratic primary, though he may have done so.

[mike777]

There is no loss for tax purposes. Only income not realized. The hospital has its expenses, which it deducts in the usual course. As far as the income lost because the patient cannot pay its bill, there is no loss for income tax purposes. The only reason there would be a deductible loss would be if the hospital were to recognize the amount billed as income, which is not the case for a business (or an individual) reporting under the cash-basis method of accounting.

 

Many years ago, when I was a teenager, I worked for my father in his dental practice, handling the books. He would often ask me why he couldn't deduct the fees charged but not paid by some patients that did not pay their bills. I told him it was because there was no loss. If you don't receive the income, there is nothing to deduct. IN fact yoy may find deductions that exceed the fee that was never paid.

 

 

There is a loss, a real loss. As an owner you would understand this. As a keeper of the books you should know this. For example a lawyer works but is not paid by her client. It is still a bad debt and bad debts do go on the books when it comes to debit and credits and the value of the business. As for tax law he should still be able to deduct some of his expenses even if he was never paid. For example rent, utility, other. To say there is nothing to deduct was just not best to say :) IN fact a good tax lawyer should find a ton of stuff to deduct even without payment. For example your fee. :)

 

 

I fully grant tax law is another universe and a different set of books.

 

People forget there are more than one set of books and more than one accounting law.

[ArtK78]

There is a loss, a real loss. As an owner you would understand this. As a keeper of the books you should know this. For example a lawyer works but is not paid by her client. It is still a bad debt and bad debts do go on the books when it comes to debit and credits and the value of the business. As for tax law he should still be able to deduct some of his expenses even if he was never paid. For example rent, utility, other. To say there is nothing to deduct was just not best to say :) IN fact a good tax lawyer should find a ton of stuff to deduct even without payment. For example your fee. :)

 

 

I fully grant tax law is another universe and a different set of books.

 

People forget there are more than one set of books and more than one accounting law.

Mike, a word of advice.

 

Don't make comments about subjects that you clearly do not understand.

[kenberg]

Perhaps, perhaps not. I had a friend (he passed away a few years ago) who was a registered Democrat. If you knew him, you knew that wasn't him. Asked why, he said "I want to know what my enemy is up to". After all, whichever party you register in will send you all kinds of stuff about what they're up to.

 

I don't recall that he ever voted in the Democratic primary, though he may have done so.

 

Part of my thinking is that a political party, or anyone, really should not be able to go to the government and find out which party, if any, I have signed up for. They cannot find out who I voted for, or at least I hope that they cannot. It seems to me to be pretty much the same for which party I sign up for.

 

But also, I don't really like saying "I am a Democrat". I don't mind at all saying that I voted for Obama, I voted against the intruction of state run casinos, I voted for this and against that, I just prefer not to label myself. I am a liberal? Maybe, maybe not. I favor assistance to those in need, but many conservatives believe the same, and we can talk about how best to help. And who gets help.

 

I first voted in 1960 in Minnesota. I am unsuccessfully trying to remember if we even had primaries and if so, what the voting rules were. I am pretty sure that I never had to declare a party preference until I moved to Maryland in 1967. I am not positive of this, but it's the way I remember it. I see it as more to my liking, and more empowering, to say "I am a voter" rather than "I am an X voter", whether X is Dem, Rep, or something else.

[blackshoe]

Part of my thinking is that a political party, or anyone, really should not be able to go to the government and find out which party, if any, I have signed up for. They cannot find out who I voted for, or at least I hope that they cannot. It seems to me to be pretty much the same for which party I sign up for.

 

But also, I don't really like saying "I am a Democrat". I don't mind at all saying that I voted for Obama, I voted against the intruction of state run casinos, I voted for this and against that, I just prefer not to label myself. I am a liberal? Maybe, maybe not. I favor assistance to those in need, but many conservatives believe the same, and we can talk about how best to help. And who gets help.

 

I first voted in 1960 in Minnesota. I am unsuccessfully trying to remember if we even had primaries and if so, what the voting rules were. I am pretty sure that I never had to declare a party preference until I moved to Maryland in 1967. I am not positive of this, but it's the way I remember it. I see it as more to my liking, and more empowering, to say "I am a voter" rather than "I am an X voter", whether X is Dem, Rep, or something else.

Oh, I agree with you. :-)

 

One of the problems I see with the "two party system" is that, at least here in NY, the two major parties have a choke hold on the voting system. If you look at a typical ballot, even when there are "third parties" on it, their listed candidates are the same candidates as are listed for one or the other of the major parties, at least for the major offices. The major parties control the order parties are listed on the ballot, they disallow voting in the primary of a party for which one is not registered, they allow one to register for only one party, and so on and on. And in the end, our "representatives" don't represent us, they represent the party, which has its own agenda and purpose, separate from that of "the People", even though they will claim otherwise.

[barmar]

I have thought a little more. Why must we register as Democrats or Republicans in order to vote in the primary of our choice? Surely we could enter the private voting chamber and select which primary we wish to vote in.

20 states have open or semi-closed primaries. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_primaries_in_the_United_States

 

The benefit of closed primaries is to prevent raiding. Suppose there's no contest in one primary (as when there's an incumbent who is the presumed nominee). Everyone in that party could vote in the other primary, nominating the candidate with the least chance of winning the general election.

[y66]

What free markets look like on Bizarro World:

 

Asthma — the most common chronic disease that affects Americans of all ages, about 40 million people — can usually be well controlled with drugs. But being able to afford prescription medications in the United States often requires top-notch insurance or plenty of disposable income, and time to hunt for deals and bargains.

 

Pulmicort, a steroid inhaler, generally retails for over $175 in the United States, while pharmacists in Britain buy the identical product for about $20 and dispense it free of charge to asthma patients. Albuterol, one of the oldest asthma medicines, typically costs $50 to $100 per inhaler in the United States, but it was less than $15 a decade ago, before it was repatented. Rhinocort Aqua, a prescription drug that was selling for more than $250 a month in Oakland pharmacies last year costs under $7 in Europe, where it is available over the counter.

 

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention puts the annual cost of asthma in the United States at more than $56 billion, including millions of potentially avoidable hospital visits and more than 3,300 deaths, many involving patients who skimped on medicines or did without.

 

“The thing is that asthma is so fixable,” said Dr. Elaine Davenport, who works in Oakland’s Breathmobile, a mobile asthma clinic whose patients often cannot afford high prescription costs. “All people need is medicine and education.”

 

... Unlike other countries, where the government directly or indirectly sets an allowed national wholesale price for each drug, the United States leaves prices to market competition among pharmaceutical companies, including generic drug makers. But competition is often a mirage in today’s health care arena — a surprising number of lifesaving drugs are made by only one manufacturer — and businesses often successfully blunt market forces.

 

Asthma inhalers, for example, are protected by strings of patents — for pumps, delivery systems and production processes — that are hard to skirt to make generic alternatives, even when the medicines they contain are old, as they almost all are.

 

The repatenting of older drugs like some birth control pills, insulin and colchicine, the primary treatment for gout, has rendered medicines that once cost pennies many times more expensive.

 

“The increases are stunning, and it’s very injurious to patients,” said Dr. Robert Morrow, a family practitioner in the Bronx. “Colchicine is a drug you could find in Egyptian mummies.”

 

Pharmaceutical companies also buttress high prices by choosing to sell a medicine by prescription, rather than over the counter, so that insurers cover a price tag that would be unacceptable to consumers paying full freight. They even pay generic drug makers not to produce cut-rate competitors in a controversial scheme called pay for delay.

 

Thanks in part to the $250 million last year spent on lobbying for pharmaceutical and health products — more than even the defense industry — the government allows such practices. Lawmakers in Washington have forbidden Medicare, the largest government purchaser of health care, to negotiate drug prices. Unlike its counterparts in other countries, the United States Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute, which evaluates treatments for coverage by federal programs, is not allowed to consider cost comparisons or cost-effectiveness in its recommendations. And importation of prescription medicines from abroad is illegal, even personal purchases from mail-order pharmacies

Source: The Soaring Cost of a Simple Breath by Elisabeth Rosenthal

[Winstonm]

What free markets look like on Bizarro World:

 

 

Source: The Soaring Cost of a Simple Breath by Elisabeth Rosenthal

 

Well, you can never be too careful. First, Canadian Lortab; next, Stalin in the White House.

[y66]

From Wonkbook: The shutdown is a total disaster for the GOP by Ezra Klein and Evan Soltas:

 

Thursday's Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll hit the Republican Party like a bomb. It found, as Gallup had, the Republican Party (and, separately, the Tea Party) at "all-time lows in the history of the poll." It found Republicans taking more blame for the shutdown than they had in 1995. It found more Americans believing the shutdown is a serious problem than in 1995.

 

Even worse for the GOP is what the pollsters called "the Boomerang Effect": Both President Obama and Obamacare are more popular than they were a month ago. Obamacare in particular gained seven points. (More poll highlights here).

 

It's hard to overstate the magnitude of the GOP's strategic failure here: Obamacare's launch has been awful. More than a week after the federal insurance marketplaces opened, most people can't purchase insurance on the first try. But Republicans have chosen such a wildly unpopular strategy to oppose it that they've helped both Obamacare and its author in the polls.

 

This could've been a week when Republicans crystallized the case against Obamacare. Instead it's been a week in which they've crystallized the case against themselves.

 

And for what? In 2011, when Republicans last tried serious hostage taking, they managed to drive down both their numbers and President Obama's numbers. But even if they could manage that now -- and while the NBC/WSJ and Washington Post/ABC News polls both showed some improvement in Obama's numbers, an AP poll showed deterioration -- this isn't 2011.

 

In 2011, President Obama was going to be on the ballot against a Republican candidate who wasn't involved in the mess in Washington. The congressional GOP's kamikaze mission made sense as a way to aid an outsider challenger like Mitt Romney. But Obama won't be on any more ballots. Congressional Republicans will be. At this point, it's not a kamikaze mission.

 

It's just suicide.

[blackshoe]

Patents distort the free market.

[y66]

So do monopsonies. And so do government regulations as I think you may have mentioned. This is why, as The Trinidad said many posts ago, it is necessary to strike a balance and why people who place their faith in "unfettered free markets" are misguided.

[blackshoe]

"Fettering" free markets causes problems, so we should "strike a balance" and not allow unfettered free markets? Yeah, that makes sense. :blink: :blink:

[y66]

Think of it like feathering. Birds, pilots and ski jumpers do this all the time to maintain stability and avoid crashes. But not like feathering your cap.

[hrothgar]

"Fettering" free markets causes problems, so we should "strike a balance" and not allow unfettered free markets? Yeah, that makes sense. :blink: :blink:

 

It is well established by theory, experimentation, and - not least - practical experience that unfettered free markets also cause problems.

There are entire branches of economics devoted to explaining these basic issues.

 

This is so fundamental to the study of economics that it is included in first semester introductory economics.

[y66]

From an exchange between Alan Greenspan and Henry Waxman after the collapse of the financial system in September 2008:

 

"I have found a flaw. I don't know how significant or permanent it is, but I have been very distressed by that fact. I made a mistake in presuming that the self-interests of organizations, specifically banks and others, were such as that they were best capable of protecting their own shareholders and their equity in the firms."

 

"In other words, you found that your view of the world, your ideology, was not right, it was not working," Waxman said.

 

"Absolutely, precisely. You know, that's precisely the reason I was shocked, because I have been going for 40 years or more with very considerable evidence that it was working exceptionally well."

We are shocked!