[blackshoe]

kenberg, on 2013-October-10, 06:15, said:

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]

ArtK78, on 2013-October-09, 10:09, said:

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]

mike777, on 2013-October-11, 01:24, said:

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]

blackshoe, on 2013-October-10, 20:51, said:

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]

kenberg, on 2013-October-11, 06:46, said:

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]

kenberg, on 2013-October-10, 13:38, said:

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....e_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:

Quote

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]

y66, on 2013-October-13, 08:32, said:

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:

Quote

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.

[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]

blackshoe, on 2013-October-13, 09:55, said:

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

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:

Quote

"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!

[Trinidad]

blackshoe, on 2013-October-13, 09:42, said:

Patents distort the free market.

?!?

If there is one thing that can really be traded freely it is a patent. If you hold one, you can sell it to anybody who is interested and if you are interested in one you can buy it from the owner. Nobody will stop you.

The problem you have is that you are not willing to pay the market price for it. And then you conveniently call it a distortion of the free market.

I don't know whether you own some land somewhere, but your remark is as silly as saying that the deeds to register land ownership distort the free market. I can't build my dream house without buying the right to build it on a piece of land first. It's a distortion of the free market!

It is pretty simple:
- If you want intellectual property, you either buy it or you do the research and develop it yourself. Either way is fine, but it is going to cost money.
- If you want a piece of land, you either buy it or you take a lake, put in some dikes and windmills, and make it yourself. Either way is fine, but it is going to cost money.

What you want is for someone else to do the work and/or put in the money and then give the result for free to the rest of the world.

Rik

[hrothgar]

Trinidad, on 2013-October-13, 10:41, said:

?!?

If there is one thing that can really be traded freely it is a patent. If you hold one, you can sell it to anybody who is interested and if you are interested in one you can buy it from the owner. Nobody will stop you.

The problem you have is that you are not willing to pay the market price for it. And then you conveniently call it a distortion of the free market.

I rarely agree with Blackshoe on things economics, however, definitionally he is quite correct... Patents distort free markets.

Patents grant individuals the legal right to block others from engaging in production.
The fact that a patents can be traded and are temporary doesn't impact their core nature.

Some people believe that the benefits of patents outweigh the costs (I'm torn on the issue).
However, they are clear distortionary.

[mike777]

y66, on 2013-October-13, 10:36, said:

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


We are shocked!

very famous quote and one I wish was discussed more often. Note 40 years of evidence seems to have been worthless?


Can we just say the science of macroeconomics at this point in time is crap and close to worthless? AT the very least I wish there was more discussion and open to the point it may at the very least be bad science.


I am very much in favor of the rigor of the scientific method in the traditional sense when it comes to economics.

[Winstonm]

mike777, on 2013-October-13, 21:36, said:

very famous quote and one I wish was discussed more often. Note 40 years of evidence seems to have been worthless?


Can we just say the science of macroeconomics at this point in time is crap and close to worthless? AT the very least I wish there was more discussion and open to the point it may at the very least be bad science.


I am very much in favor of the rigor of the scientific method in the traditional sense when it comes to economics.

One can count on Mike to leave out the significant part of the quote :

Quote

"....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."

The data seems quite clear - remove the safeguards installed following the 1929 crash and after a period of years the same result occurs.

[Trinidad]

hrothgar, on 2013-October-13, 11:11, said:

I rarely agree with Blackshoe on things economics, however, definitionally he is quite correct... Patents distort free markets.

Patents grant individuals the legal right to block others from engaging in production.
The fact that a patents can be traded and are temporary doesn't impact their core nature.

Some people believe that the benefits of patents outweigh the costs (I'm torn on the issue).
However, they are clear distortionary.

That reasoning is like saying that traffic lights distort the free flow of traffic.

Rik