Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : A US National Health Care System? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lane3 who wrote (24284)	7/19/2012 4:06:34 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 42652

I wasn't being overly technical, just using the normal meaning of the term. When you use some other definition it creates confusion. I think that confusion was behind much of the conversation starting here Message 28272095 Technically even in a centralized socialist system, the central payer "underpaying" isn't really an example of price controls, but I was trying not to be over technical on that one, effectively you get price controls since no one can pay more. If no one can pay more simply because there is no market outside the central payer, then its "technically not price controls, but I'd accept someone calling it that. If other people directly buying is actually prohibited, then I might not use "price controls", finding "prohibition" more accurate, but "price controls" would also fit. The government could use actual price controls (either directly controlling prices, or by paying less and forbiding others to pay at all), and some do (many do to at least a limited extent, most do if you include regulating monopoly utilities). But just being careful about what it itself pays is a very different thing. I'm extremely against price controls (except perhaps for regulated monopolies and even that set up, considered as a whole, is often dubious), but I'm all for governments acting frugally. It is true that they can overdo the frugality in terms of what they offer for a certain item or service, to the point where they have problems getting what they want (or people depending on the federal program have problems getting what they want, for example many doctors not taking Medicaid patients), and I guess that's what you where calling price controls. It would be better (not so much as a matter of principle but for practical reasons) to save money by just trying to buy fewer things or pay for less support or coverage for people in government programs, then to try to cover almost everything but not fund the program enough to afford that coverage.