|
|
Wolfsburg
Promising
Known Hero
... the Vampire Doc
|
posted April 22, 2009 10:47 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Okay, you win!
Hehehe, I dont really think we are in competition here, I feel mostly as if we were all actively working for a better understanding of the world. And you are helping a bunch.
Quote:
For example, I have a heart deformity... This could cost a lot of money, by the time I grow up... What now? Are those companies now forced to cough up a lot of money on my part? Aren't you just taxing private companies more in order to not tax the people on that?
Its an interesting perspective Dagoth, but I think that by knowing they WILL have people with serious illnesses the insurance companies can redetermine their prices accordingly. Its lotery, and they are the ones determining the prices of the tickets.
They know very clearly that the number of perfectly healthy patients plus the ones with minimal, punctual diseases enormously surpluses the expensive diseases.
If the swiss government allowed health-companies to choose their clients according to disease profile, the individuals with a severe heart-condition would be f...d up. For they mean only one thing, money loss. What again, IMO, wonderfully illustrates that unrestraint profit and humanism are rarely compatible.
|
|
DagothGares
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
No gods or kings
|
|
posted April 22, 2009 10:54 PM |
|
|
Well, you only buy something if it benefits you. All profit comes from sales, so all profit benefits someone 
A sale with profit benefits all parties, as long as it's voluntary exchange.
Now, you are forcing companies to do unprofitable business, so this differs from taxes how? Sure, the companies are competing, so the prices are less, but isn't it unthinkable that in the end there will be one insurance company with a monopoly that could act like a government branch and actually just be the same as taxes?
____________
If you have any more questions, go to Dagoth Cares.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted April 22, 2009 10:55 PM |
|
|
JJ:
Quote:
Today, socialism might mean that the government holds the capital - money
Money is not capital! I already explained this to you back at CH.
Quote:
And should you come up with your favorite point, that no one must work, if they don't want to, I answer that no one must stay in society - they can pull out as well.
And how would that work under a global government? It's not like they can move away.
Wolfsburg:
As Dagoth said, I'm no anarcho-capitalist.
Quote:
Even people who fully support the free trade understand that a market logic has little application on the field of social well-fare.
I beg to differ.
Dagoth:
We can discuss anarcho-capitalism, if you are so inclined. It'd be a nice change - but that's more of a discussion for the liberal club.
Doom:
The payment for a job also depends on the number of people willing to do the job. So even if a job is physically strenuous, if there are a lot of people willing to do it...
Wolfsburg:
In my economics thread, Corribus plotted QLI with economic freedom. There was a rather strong correlation. 
Quote:
If the swiss government allowed health-companies to choose their clients according to disease profile, the individuals with a severe heart-condition would be f...d up. For they mean only one thing, money loss. What again, IMO, wonderfully illustrates that unrestraint profit and humanism are rarely compatible.
Well, of course that's one of the problems with insurance, which is one of the reasons I don't like the current American system, but if the companies weren't allowed to choose clients, then they'd still end up raising rates, because the people with problems would buy more insurance.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted April 22, 2009 11:07 PM |
|
Edited by Corribus at 23:07, 22 Apr 2009.
|
@Wolfsburg
In case you want to see it, here's the direct link to the analysis of quality of life vs. economic freedom that I did (about 2/3 down the page).
____________
I'm sick of following my dreams. I'm just going to ask them where they're goin', and hook up with them later. -Mitch Hedberg
|
|
Wolfsburg
Promising
Known Hero
... the Vampire Doc
|
|
posted April 22, 2009 11:23 PM |
|
|
@DagothQuote:
Now, you are forcing companies to do unprofitable business
No I am not. Again, they are the ones determining the prices, and these prices reflect the expected amount of very sick people within the country. Its simple maths. Trust me, if there is someone in Switzerland that has nothing to complain about are the insurance companies, they are well off.
@VassilevQuote:
quoting me:If the swiss government allowed health-companies to choose their clients according to disease profile, the individuals with a severe heart-condition would be f...d up. For they mean only one thing, money loss. What again, IMO, wonderfully illustrates that unrestraint profit and humanism are rarely compatible. Well, of course that's one of the problems with insurance, which is one of the reasons I don't like the current American system, but if the companies weren't allowed to choose clients, then they'd still end up raising rates, because the people with problems would buy more insurance.
Precisely. That means everyone will be paying more of their own money to assure all people with severe heart conditions will have proper management. Do you really think thats repreensible?
My father-in-law was one of the few swiss I met who would complain about how expensive insurance was. He died shortly of a very rare and agressive kind of T-cell lymphom, which demanded several months of intensive care, two marrow-transplantations ans millions worth of medical-care. Something he told me a bit before he passed away was that if he would make it, he'd never complain about insurance prices again.
He was happy that the average fellow swiss, like him, was paying that much money, so he could have this kind of attention in a moment of need. And the business IS profitable to everyone, inclding the company that payed those millions, they havent declared bankrupcy after his illness, quite the contrary.
|
|
DagothGares
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
No gods or kings
|
|
posted April 22, 2009 11:28 PM |
|
|
Quote:
No I am not. Again, they are the ones determining the prices, and these prices reflect the expected amount of very sick people within the country.
if you are forcing health insurance companies to jack up the price they may lose customers and they will make less profit.
____________
If you have any more questions, go to Dagoth Cares.
|
|
Wolfsburg
Promising
Known Hero
... the Vampire Doc
|
|
posted April 22, 2009 11:34 PM |
|
|
Oh, and almost forgot!
Thanks for the link to welfare economics, Vassilev, I'll read it with attention and disposition.
Thank you too for the link, Corribus. Same here. I'll dedicate some time reading it.
But you both are going to have to wait, I am a slow reader when it comes to those specific subjects in english and german, that are not medical in nature.
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted April 23, 2009 01:28 AM |
|
Edited by Corribus at 15:14, 23 Apr 2009.
|
Actually in rereading my analysis, I found that I made a slight weakness in the way the data is analyzed. As it stands, the slope of the correlation line is fairly meaningless since there's no point of reference. Therefore, it's not possible to really comment on the strength of the dependency. Even then it would be hard to evaluate it without knowing better what the minimum and maximum values for each variable means.
But the fact remains that there is a not-insignificant correlation between quality of life and economic freedom - provided you agree with the way those rather nebulous metrics were determined, of course.*
*there's a specific name for these types of variables in statistics and I'll be damned if I can remember it... worms must be eating my brain...
____________
I'm sick of following my dreams. I'm just going to ask them where they're goin', and hook up with them later. -Mitch Hedberg
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted April 23, 2009 01:34 AM |
|
|
Seems to me more like a tendency of a CHANCE rather than a correlation. The "exceptions" aren't exactly exceptions in this case, because averaging them makes no sense in this respect. For example there are so-called exceptions, not many, but still show proof that it is possible. Instead of averaging, maybe the reason the others aren't in the same boat is because of other factors that aren't taken in account. (for example, the difference between Italy & US in that chart)
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted April 23, 2009 01:56 AM |
|
|
Wolfsburg:
Quote:
Trust me, if there is someone in Switzerland that has nothing to complain about are the insurance companies, they are well off.
Of course they're well-off - people are being forced to buy from them! It's like Christmas come early for them. You can complain about the greedy insurance companies, but then you're forcing people to buy from them. Contradiction much?
Quote:
That means everyone will be paying more of their own money to assure all people with severe heart conditions will have proper management. Do you really think thats repreensible?
No, provided that all concerned enter the arrangement willingly.
Quote:
Something he told me a bit before he passed away was that if he would make it, he'd never complain about insurance prices again.
Something tells me the average Swiss would not be too happy about being forced to pay millions of dollars for someone's ultimately failed treatment.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Wolfsburg
Promising
Known Hero
... the Vampire Doc
|
|
posted April 23, 2009 02:17 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
Something he told me a bit before he passed away was that if he would make it, he'd never complain about insurance prices again.
Something tells me the average Swiss would not be too happy about being forced to pay millions of dollars for someone's ultimately failed treatment.
Careful there how you handle matters Vassilev, the "failed treatment" lived 1 1/2 years more than expected thanks to medical attention, enough to see his daughter getting married, traveled around, among others.
I may have a tough skin, but its still a person I loved dearly you're talking about.
If you picture yourself within this average group you describe, that is unhappy your money is being used for such cases, then we got nothing more to argue about. Only when you discover you are the next potentially "failed treatment".
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted April 23, 2009 02:20 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Only when you discover you are the next potentially "failed treatment".
I would not do anything I would not want others to do in a similar situation. I have no problem with my tax dollars going to education (although I do wish they would be spent more efficiently). I have no problem with benefiting from educational tax dollars. But I would object to being forced to pay for other people's treatment. Likewise, I would not want to force others to pay for me.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Wolfsburg
Promising
Known Hero
... the Vampire Doc
|
|
posted April 23, 2009 02:27 AM |
|
|
|
Then I guess you are in the right land. Just remeber to make sure you are not poor as well, in case it happens to you.
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted April 23, 2009 04:49 AM |
|
|
@TheDeath
Quote:
Seems to me more like a tendency of a CHANCE rather than a correlation. The "exceptions" aren't exactly exceptions in this case, because averaging them makes no sense in this respect. For example there are so-called exceptions, not many, but still show proof that it is possible. Instead of averaging, maybe the reason the others aren't in the same boat is because of other factors that aren't taken in account. (for example, the difference between Italy & US in that chart)
I'm sorry. I don't quite follow.
____________
I'm sick of following my dreams. I'm just going to ask them where they're goin', and hook up with them later. -Mitch Hedberg
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted April 23, 2009 09:44 AM |
|
|
Beware: Long post, most of it on QLI:
But first:
Quote:
JJ:
Quote:
Today, socialism might mean that the government holds the capital - money
Money is not capital! I already explained this to you back at CH.
Quote:
And should you come up with your favorite point, that no one must work, if they don't want to, I answer that no one must stay in society - they can pull out as well.
And how would that work under a global government? It's not like they can move away.
This is just a question of language, sorry.
I say "means of production" and "capital" due to my first language. What I mean is that there would be no private credit banking.
You could always go into some wilderness - Alaska, Siberia, continental Adrica, Brazil, China, Australia, Canada, you name it, build yourself some shelter; drop out.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
NOw, to QLI:
I would venture, that the QLI factors have some doutbful correlations.
"Life expectancy" is already a mix of lots of factors, like
1) medical supply
2) quality of nutrition
3) financial situation of "pensioneers" (if you get a minimal or no pension it will have ill effects on life expectancy)
4) working conditions
It's therefore pretty essential.
The unemployment rate doesn't say much - you may live quite nicely, unemployed, and you may be pressed to work, so "employment" is no worth in itself.
A better factor might be average length of continual employment, but there won't be data for that and even that is a bit meaningless.
Can we come up with something better?
CRIME RATE is a pretty ultimate happiness level indicator for overall happiness, since there's a double correlation:
a) crime in itself is equal to an unhappiness with the current situation, since it involves a high risk: it wagers (or risks) certain happiness for uncertain future happiness, you might say, which indicates that happiness isn't so great or that crime is seen as not very risky;
b) the higher the crime rate, the more insecure (and unhappy) people are since they feel threatened.
Obviously, though, even crime rate has to be taken carefully - a zero-freedom dictatorship may reduce crime simply by creating a massive and brutal police force, creating another form of unhappiness.
This can be adjusted by simply correlating the number of law enforcers to the population, and correlating that figure with the crime rate.
The correlation is a pretty easy one, since you'd expect that - leaving corruption out for a moment - the product of crimes and law enforcers should be equal: the lower the product of law enforcers and crimes (as a percentage of the whole population), the happier the people.
However, we also need the "corruption" factor, the number of inner-law crimes, so-to-speak, or "office-abuses/misuses per official".
So, for a QLI in my opinion we need:
1) Life expectancy
2) Crime rate (number od crimes in relation to population number); this may be based on a certain kind od crimes only.
3) Law enforcement rate (number of law enforcers in relation to population number).
4) Corruption rate (number of office misuses/abuses in relation to number of officials)
Which leaves a fifth factor, a question of economical well-being overall. For length of reading I'll leave the actual reasoning behind it out, but suffice to say that we want something that isn't reflected in points 1-4 already, but we still need a measure for "life as such", ACTUAL and ABSOLUTE measure of well-being.
I think, that this one covers it:
5) The number of hours the individual has to work for their immediate survival needs to be fulfilled (after deduction of taxes): average nutrition, average housing, average clothing.
Note, that the rest is covered by life expectancy and crime rate: if you need 2 hours per day to cover the base needs, you may work between none and 14 hours more for your pleasure, but whether that's really QUALITY is ultimately decided by how much good (or bad) it does for your health. On the other hand, if you have to work only 2 hours per day for your basic needs to be fulfilled it's obviously so much better than having to work for 10 hours to do so, since there is so much more spare time and spare time after fulfilling basic needs has a lot to to with freedom and quality of life.
Comments?
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted April 23, 2009 02:34 PM |
|
|
JJ:
Quote:
What I mean is that there would be no private credit banking.
But why would banks/the government make good loans, then?
Quote:
You could always go into some wilderness - Alaska, Siberia, continental Adrica, Brazil, China, Australia, Canada, you name it, build yourself some shelter; drop out.
But why would people do that? Why couldn't they just live in the same place they've always lived - just refuse to accept any of the social services?
But you have a point about QLI. For example, the fact that counts membership in a church or trade union as increasing your happiness... why? But I'm not sure to what extent crime rate could be used, because different countries criminalize different things. For example, the populace of two different countries could be doing exactly the same thing - but if more stuff is illegal in the first country than in the second, then the crime rate is going to be higher there.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted April 23, 2009 03:55 PM |
|
|
Quote:
JJ:
Quote:
What I mean is that there would be no private credit banking.
But why would banks/the government make good loans, then?
They set the general interest rate anyway (too lazy to look for the right word). Now, what do you mean with "good loan"?
Quote:
Quote:
You could always go into some wilderness - Alaska, Siberia, continental Adrica, Brazil, China, Australia, Canada, you name it, build yourself some shelter; drop out.
But why would people do that? Why couldn't they just live in the same place they've always lived - just refuse to accept any of the social services?
Because if they want to take part in a society they have to live by the rules of said society, try to change the rules or leave the society.
Quote:
I'm not sure to what extent crime rate could be used, because different countries criminalize different things. For example, the populace of two different countries could be doing exactly the same thing - but if more stuff is illegal in the first country than in the second, then the crime rate is going to be higher there.
Not necessarily. But if it was, it's an indicator one way or another - it doesn't matter whether the crime rate is high because the laws are too authoritarian or society is "rotten", both is negative, so it's got a hegative impact on QLI.
____________
"Nobody dies a virgin ... Life f*cks us all." - Kurt Cobain
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted April 23, 2009 04:04 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Now, what do you mean with "good loan"?
Loans that benefit both lenders (in this case, the taxpayers) and borrowers. If the interest rate is too much in favor of the lenders, of course, then there will be no loan. But what if it's too low?
Quote:
Because if they want to take part in a society they have to live by the rules of said society, try to change the rules or leave the society.
That's rather authoritarian, don't you think?
Quote:
But if it was, it's an indicator one way or another - it doesn't matter whether the crime rate is high because the laws are too authoritarian or society is "rotten", both is negative, so it's got a hegative impact on QLI.
But suppose a country would make murder, theft, embezzlement, etc. legal. Its crime rate would be very low! And yet it's hard to say that it'd have a high quality of life.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted April 23, 2009 04:44 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
Now, what do you mean with "good loan"?
Loans that benefit both lenders (in this case, the taxpayers) and borrowers. If the interest rate is too much in favor of the lenders, of course, then there will be no loan. But what if it's too low?
As I said, it's as it is now - the national bank gives the - how is it called in English - the leading interest rate? Which would simply be as it is now, except there was only the national bank.
Quote:
Quote:
Because if they want to take part in a society they have to live by the rules of said society, try to change the rules or leave the society.
That's rather authoritarian, don't you think?
Not at all. In fact it's complete liberty and in no way differenet from how it is now except that the actual rules would be different.
Quote:
Quote:
But if it was, it's an indicator one way or another - it doesn't matter whether the crime rate is high because the laws are too authoritarian or society is "rotten", both is negative, so it's got a hegative impact on QLI.
But suppose a country would make murder, theft, embezzlement, etc. legal. Its crime rate would be very low! And yet it's hard to say that it'd have a high quality of life.
Would kill life expectancy, though.
____________
"Nobody dies a virgin ... Life f*cks us all." - Kurt Cobain
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted April 23, 2009 10:36 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Which would simply be as it is now, except there was only the national bank.
Except private banks take a risk whenever they give out a loan. Not so for the government - if it's not paid back, or if it just proves unprofitable - no problem! Just raise taxes or print more money.
Quote:
In fact it's complete liberty and in no way differenet from how it is now except that the actual rules would be different.
Except now you can just move to a different country - you wouldn't have to abandon civilization.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
| |
|
|
This thread is pages long: 
