Top-Down v. Bottom-Up - Economics 101
Let’s discuss the different economic theories mentioned in the Democratic National Convention speeches and which will come up in the Republican National Convention- Top-Down and Bottom-Up Economics.
Top-Down Economics is basically what we’ve been doing since Ronald Reagan’s infamous Trickle-Down Economics.
The theory goes like this - if you give corporations tax breaks and they make big profits they will choose to be generous with their employees, increasing their pay and benefits. This helps the economy overall.
Bottom-Up Economics works exactly opposite. That theory goes like this - if employees are paid more and their benefits are great they are more productive and more creative, thus making the company more profitable and competitive. The more profitable and competitive the company is the better for our overall economy.
I’ll juxtapose two companies everyone knows so you’ll get a clear idea of how each policy effects YOU and then you can decide whether you think top-down or bottom-up is best for your family and better for the over-all economy.
I’ll use Wal-Mart and Google and I’ll use layman’s terms.
Wal-Mart is currently the largest retailer in the entire world. Right now. Despite everything you hear on the news about how terrible our economy might be Wal-Mart isn’t really hurting.
According to The International Herald Tribune, Wal-Mart’s Net income rose 4 percent to $4.096 billion for its fourth quarter ending Jan. 31, 2007, from $3.94 billion a year earlier. That’s in one quarter (3 months) - not one year.
Now I’ve heard that when Sam Walton was alive he operated with the notion that he should take care of the employees who work so hard for him.
But, today Wal-Mart, with all its profits is ALSO one of the biggest users of our welfare dollars because it chooses not to pay its employees enough to eat food and live in shelter.
YOU, The American Taxpayer, “paid a total annual welfare bill of $2.5 billion for Wal-Mart’s 1.2 million US employees in 2003,” according to Inside the Leviathan by Simon Head.
“Less than 40 percent of its employees [had healthcare coverage] in 2003 and 2005—substantially below the average for other large employers and direct competitors; In 2005, a Wal-Mart worker with a family of four would have to pay health care costs equal to 30 percent of their income before receiving most benefits, according to The Center for a Changing Workforce report on Wal-Mart’s use of our Medicaid and SCHIPS tax money.
“Five percent of [Wal-Mart’s] Associates are on Medicaid compared to an average for national employers of four percent. Twenty-seven percent of Associates’ children are on such programs, compared to a national average of 22 percent. In total, 46 percent of Associates’ children are either on Medicaid or uninsured.”
Wal-Mart regularly lobbies Congress to NOT raise the minimum wage on the grounds that it would infringe on corporate profits. It also regularly lobbies Congress so that it won’t have to provide health coverage to its employees. McCain says lowering their tax obligation will improve the economy.
It will improve Wal-Mart’s economy because their employees can only afford to shop at Wal-Mart and we’re paying for their employees’ food stamps and healthcare - but will it improve YOUR economy?
My question is - at what billion or trillion dollar mark is Wal-Mart going to feel it has “enough profits” to take care of its employees expenses’ rather than leaving the burden on us - middle-class tax payers?
Conversely, let’s look at Google.
Google, from everything I’ve read, operates from the idea that its employees are the most creative and productive when they are financially secure with great pay, great benefits.
With great pay and great benefits none of the burden is on the tax-payer to pay for fundamental necessities and they have enough money to spend anywhere they like. That’s fantastic for the economy and the tax payer.
Google doesn’t lobby Congress to maintain the minimum wage below the poverty level, because they don’t see any benefit to paying their employees minimum wage. They believe they get the most productivity and creativity out of their employees by paying them more money.
Google even allows employees 20% of their worktime to work on independent projects. Why? Working on their own projects, checking their email, designing the church newsletter or the their kids’ soccer schedule breeds creativity and Google knows they will benefit economically from that.
Benefits abound at Google: They have free gourmet health-conscious cafeterias - hungry employees can’t think. They take care of those pesky chores and time sucks like car washes and oil changes, hair cuts, they pay $500 for takeout food for the first month after your family welcomes a baby, they have a gym, masseuse, a laundry mat, child care and doctors onsite to make their employees’ lives easier.
Google regularly tops the #1 charts for best places to work, including Fortune Magazine’s AND regularly tops the charts for growth and profits - which, is great for everyone’s overall economy - not just theirs.
Look around - does it look like Google’s bottom-up policy’s are hurting their bottom line or increasing it?
Why does Wal-mart not pay their employees enough to live?
Because we, the middle-class taxpayers, let them.
In political science both top-down and bottom-up economic theories have creditbility.
But, in real life - which one makes most sense in the way it’s playing out in our current economy?
This election when we’re talking about the economy and taxes it’s really going to come down to this question - do you want to pay for Wal-Mart to make profits and simultaneously refuse to pay their employees enough to live on?
Vote for John McCain if you think that’s our country’s best bet.
If you think Wal-Mart’s tax margins are “good enough” to start imposing some regulations on how little they are allowed to pay their employees then vote for Barack Obama.
When we raise the minimum wage, require corporations to offer family medical leave insurance and institute universal health insurance that takes families OFF welfare and THAT saves us taxes.
Would you rather be in the “middle” of a top-down or a bottom-up economy?
Which world do you want to live in - a Google World or a Wal-Mart World?
Tags: #dnc08, barack-obama, election-2008, john-mccainRelated Stories
POSTED IN: Fabulous Politics, Fabulous Work Life Balance, Fabulously Cheap
32 opinions for Top-Down v. Bottom-Up - Economics 101
that girl
Aug 28, 2008 at 9:44 am
THis is great..really informative. I couldn’t agree more.
I guess my only question is how much do you raise the minimum wage so that lower income families really feel it? A slight raise might push them riiiiiight over the line of no assistance,..but does that mean they can make it? I can honestly say, no. If a family is recieving and extra $200 a month, but just lost their $350 of food stamps, their medicaid, and their assistance in other areas, it’s going to hurt them.
Also, Wal-mart likes to shuffle employees..so that more people stay at part-time status, and therefore can’t get benefits.. Wal-Mart could improve our economy by giving people well-paid, full time, benefit package jobs.
Aaron
Aug 28, 2008 at 10:47 am
I’ll touch up on a couple of points, but I will let you know, I’m a critic of Wal-Mart just like many others. However, there are economic misconceptions we need to straighten out.
First off, and this is just a small footnote before I begin, Google and Wal-Mart are two separate industries. Google hires the best and the brightest, meaning a higher skill set. What would the incentive to work hard in not only school, but reaching for the top, if you could just comparable benefits at Wal-Mart.
Anyways, a couple of points here:
Top Down Economics -
It isn’t an issue about choosing to be generous, that has nothing to do with it. What they are choosing to do is to invest in things that make more money, which will “trickle down” to promoting employees to better positions, while hiring more people to replace them, and others to help with the increased work load.
Bottom Up Economics -
Really, the answer to this is that you should be paid based on what you contribute and the worth the market puts into that. Isn’t that only fair?
I agree with bottom-up to an extent, periodically, but most companies would go broke by creating a mini-Xanadu for their employees. Perhaps they could lower taxes, and companies could make way for such luxuries, hmmm?
Wal-Mart’s Currect Profit -
Wal-Mart is doing better these last few quarters because during economic woes and recessions, statistically and historically, people are more frugal so they buy “cheap”. Plus, with gas the way it is, why bother spreading your business around to several area stores and save some gas. I’m not saying that’s what we should do, but I just wanted to clairify the profit.
Benefits -
Just a reminder, benefits are a lure to hire the best people, but wouldn’t you know that there is a move in the feds to the tax them as income.
Minimum Wage -
Ok, I’m confused, you stated that “When we raise the minimum wage, require corporations to offer family medical leave insurance and institute universal health insurance that takes families OFF welfare and THAT saves us taxes.”
How does that save us taxes?
-A
Tracee Sioux
Aug 28, 2008 at 11:25 am
They are two separate industries, but both have a huge impact on our national economy.
It saves us taxes because we stop subsidizing Wal-Mart’s employee overhead with our tax dollar. Currently, we are subsidizing their health care and their food stamps and all other social services.
That costs us tax dollars. A great deal of tax dollars actually.
In a very real economic sense Wal-Mart is simultaneously one of the biggest drains on our welfare system AND boasts the one of the largest profits in the country.
It’s an example of how Top-Down economics isn’t really working for our nation’s economy, but against.
Also, I fundamentally disagree with the idea “that you should be paid based on what you contribute and the worth the market puts into that. Isn’t that only fair?”
People who work contribute. Period. Service workers contribute. Writers contribute. What we are paid is not a reflection of who deserves reward for work. We have a right and an obligation to understand that “The Market” prays to one God -it’s own PROFIT. (Not to be confused with a good economy for the overall country.)
Just because “The Market” places a low value on teachers doesn’t reflect their contribution - or their worth - and NO I don’t think that’s “fair.”
that girl
Aug 28, 2008 at 12:00 pm
AMEN! Teachers, firemen, policemen, EMT’s nurses, hell, even garbage men,..aren’t we thankful for their contribution on a very REAL level?
that girl
Aug 28, 2008 at 12:05 pm
As far as the tax breaks for Wal-Mart, give me a break.
Now, if you were talking about giving small businesses tax breaks so that they might survive the higher min. wage shift, that’s totally different, but I think the point here is that Wal-mart should, oh, I don’t know…um..use a tiny little bit of THEIR OWN PROFIT to treat their own workers better.
Tracee Sioux
Aug 28, 2008 at 2:39 pm
Teachers don’t make a lot of money - “The Market” doesn’t value them.
But, they have a VERY real monetary impact on our economy. The less educated people are the less competitive we are in the global economy, especially in areas of science and technology.
Google understands this and in Barack Obama’s book, the Audacity of Hope, the CEOs explained that if we don’t come to our senses and invest in making ourselves competitive through education they won’t be able to fill their positions. They can’t find enough engineers - especially women and minorities. Lots of corps are seeking qualified foreign engineers. Lots of corps are moving overseas to countries that have a more qualified technological workforce.
Conversely, if consumers/taxpayers save 50 cents on chicken at Wal-Mart every week and then subsidize millions in payroll obligations for Wal-Mart are the consumers/taxpayers actually SAVING money or buying into false advertising?
The Politics and Money Carnival - Edition 9
Sep 2, 2008 at 12:38 pm
[…] Sioux presents Top-Down v. Bottom-Up - Economics 101 posted at Blog […]
The BoBo Carnival of Politics Sep 7, 2008 | The BoBo Files
Sep 7, 2008 at 8:09 am
[…] Sioux presents Top-Down v. Bottom-Up - Economics 101 posted at Blog Fabulous, saying, “A voter-friendly examination of top-down vs. bottom-up […]
The Inaugural BoBo Carnival of Politics - Sep 7, 2008 | Driving the Left Loony -The Bobo Files
Sep 8, 2008 at 2:09 am
[…] Sioux presents Top-Down v. Bottom-Up - Economics 101 posted at Blog Fabulous, saying, “A voter-friendly examination of top-down vs. bottom-up […]
Carnival of the Liberals #73 « Redonkulous Redundancy
Sep 9, 2008 at 5:50 pm
[…] do with the RNC, then I suggest you read these pieces on economics which I found to be quite good. Top-Down v. Bottom-Up - Economics 101 by Tracee at BlogFabulous gives us the choice between working at Walmart or Google; personally, I […]
Hitting the virtual midways « Millard Fillmore’s Bathtub
Sep 11, 2008 at 3:29 am
[…] Convention issue, with commentary about Republican vice president-nominee Sarah Palin. And more serious stuff, […]
Whitey
Sep 18, 2008 at 11:01 pm
There are serious issues with your analysis. The premise is flawed - supply side economics posits that individuals and corporations will be more likely to invest with lower marginal tax rates. Nothing about generosity to workers. It comes down to who you think will most effectively allocate capital.
Most minimum wage jobs are transitory. I would wager that most people reading this worked for minimum wage at one time or another, and now are well above the poverty line.
Let’s say Wal-Mart tried to follow your model to the extreme and redistributed all of its profits to its employees. At it’s current profitability it could add $45,000 to all of 2 million employees annual salary. Problem solved? Not so fast - it still wouldn’t be close to the $100K+ compensation packages of the Google employees. Now that Wal-Mart is non-profit, it’s stock would be worth exactly ZERO. Over $240 billion in shareholder value wiped out. That would put a dent in a few 401K plans…
Did you ever consider the benefits of Wal-Mart’s competitive drive for a profit? A great distribution system and scale that allows for lower prices for the end customer. They happen to pay people what the going rate is for unskilled labor. We all benefit from the lower prices.
What you are advocating is Marxism. It doesn’t work. Here’s why:
1) People are some combination of greedy and lazy. This doesn’t mesh with a world where everyone gets paid the same regardless of effort. I wish this was different, but human nature was shaped by millions of years of brutal evolution.
2) Governments cannot effectively set prices for anything - labor or goods. We all know how that worked out for the USSR. Free markets work.
Tracee Sioux
Sep 22, 2008 at 11:13 am
hear that Witney? That’s the “free market” imploding on its own self. Incapable of self-regulation.
Geezerpower
Oct 1, 2008 at 12:21 pm
Excellent take on Reaganomics vs Bottoms Up economics. Personally I would like to take the bottom right down to the grass roots, and return free enterprise to the people. If we can get together to build a 300 mpg automobile through cottage industries, then so be it. Why not rebuild the whole Neoconservative infested corporate government from the very bottom,…If we can find it…G:
Geezerpower
Oct 1, 2008 at 12:26 pm
Apologies for my above geezerpower link. This one is spelled correctly and should work…):
DJ
Oct 29, 2008 at 7:27 am
Bad comparison, Google employees about 10,000 worldwide who are highly skilled, whereas Wal Mark employees over 1.4 million who mostly are unskilled.
Dee
Nov 1, 2008 at 1:19 pm
I think you’re confusing the issue by posing business examples to explain how this theory plays out in the government. It’s good business to pay a competitive wage and offer benefits to attract and motivate employees. It works because employees learn that the their employer rewards high performance. I guess that’s what you’re calling the “bottom up” model.
But it doesn’t follow that a government handout will have the same effect on motivation. What would a government handout motivate you to do? Is it going to make you work harder, put in longer hours because you expect a reward for your efforts? No. It teaches you that rewards are not tied to effort and it DE-motivates.
So, bottom up = good business, but BAD government.
Tracee Sioux
Nov 1, 2008 at 2:37 pm
Who’s talking about a hand-out?
Walmart takes the hand-out in this scenario by asking the American people to foot the bill for their health insurance because they don’t provide health insurance for their own employees.
They don’t feel like it.
They can afford it, but they don’t want to “reward” them for not being the smartest workers on earth? Is that what you’re implying?
Walmart - the largest retailer in the entire world is taking a government handout. I agree that sucks. I guess having to buy health insurance would be a “de-motivator” for Walmart?
Dee
Nov 1, 2008 at 11:45 pm
If you want to understand how top down and bottom up economics works in terms of government and taxes, you have to get away from the Walmart vs. Google discussion. Workers have a relationship with their employees such that they provide effort for which the employer rewards them. Employers structure their reward systems in a way that maximizes employee productivity while providing shareholder value. If they reward too little, they lose employees. If they reward too highly, shareholder value suffers. It’s really that simple.
Government doesn’t have an employer/employee relationship with the people it governs. We don’t labor on behalf of the government. Government is more like a service provider for its citizens. We pay them to provide us services like defense, interstate highways, etc. Obviously, it’s become a lot more complex than that, but if you understand that government is simply a service provider, you can see how foolish it is to think that a government can grow an economy from the bottom up.
Tracee Sioux
Nov 3, 2008 at 8:49 am
No it’s not.
Our government governs our business practices.
The major difference between parties is how they think business practices should be governed and taxed.
Bottom-up government focuses on education and best benefit of the middle-classes - Democrat.
Top-down government focuses on profit and the best benefit of Mega-Corporations - Republican.
Dee
Nov 3, 2008 at 11:58 am
Well, for starters, I don’t agree that “the major difference between parties is how they think business practices should be governed and taxed.” It’s a difference, of course, but our differences on foreign policy and social issues are, for many of us, more important. And even within the limits of economic policy, there are important issues that are unrelated to business regulation and taxation.
But setting that aside, let’s say, for the sake of argument, that you’re correct that bottom up government focuses on education and best benefit for the middle classes. How does that focus reveal itself in business regulation? How exactly does government intervene in business decisions to impact education and whatever you define as ‘best benefit to the middle class’? I don’t see it. While businesses certainly deal with mountains of government regulation, the focus of that regulation isn’t education. You might argue that regulations such as Title VII and OSHA benefit the middle class, but those benefits aren’t limited to the middle class. So again, how does this so-called ‘bottom up’ focus play out?
Look, I too have a BS in political science, so you and I have something in common. But I also have an MA and PhD in Industrial/Organizational Psychology. Which means that in addition to my understanding of political systems, I also know how business uses pay and benefits to manage productivity and motivation. And I spent my working years in one of those ‘mega-corporations’ that you seem to scorn, so I know how things work in corporate America. And I’m telling you, your attempt to contrast bottom up with top down economic policy, using WalMart and Google as examples, reveals some very fuzzy thinking on your part.
I suggest you look into some of Reich’s writings on this topic to help clarify your thinking.
Tracee Sioux
Nov 3, 2008 at 1:36 pm
You know what? If you still think “profit as the only motive” is good for the global and US economy in the face of our current economic crisis - then God bless ya.
Myself, I Baracked the vote. And tomorrow I’m hoping to find out that the majority of America doesn’t share your stubborn insistence that “deregulation” is good for a sound economy.
Because I don’t want my company controlling my ability to purchase health insurance, for one.
Because I fear corporate control over my life (ability to buy health insurance on the open market, for instance) more than I fear government regulation requiring companies to operate under sound business practices and treat their employees well. And it appears to me - in the face of our current crisis - that more regulation is what mega-corps need not less. They certainly do not appear to have had a broad and long-term thinking approach in the last 8 years of deregulation.
I also don’t feel that running an entire economy on CREDIT is a wise choice. It’s a house of cards, bound to collapse.
I’ve seen no indication that John McCain or Sarah Palin - or any other Republican for that matter - want to acknowledge their part with their “deregulation” policies in this current crisis.
Evidently you don’t either. Which is fine. I don’t need you to. In fact, if you need it I’ll say, “wow you might be right, especially since you’ve trumped me with your higher education and your mountains of professional experience.” Fine. No, really no sarcasm intended. “You might be right.”
But, this election I can’t - in good conscience - elect people who don’t take responsibility for what, in my view, is causing economic collapse - deregulation, greed, lack of foresight, profit as our only motive and operating our businesses on credit instead of actual money. I see this as Republican Top-Down policy. So, I’m not voting for them.
I’m voting for Democrats - who also see the benefit, in fact the necessity, for us to stay globally competitive in business by providing more education funding not less - again, short term thinking on Republican’s part. More education funding - I would define as Bottom UP.
I don’t resent ALL corporations. Just the ones who operate from a “profit as our only motive” ideology like Walmart. Unlike Google who is motivated by innovation and treats employees accordingly. I don’t need you to get it or to agree. I really don’t.
Go in peace and vote your conscience.
Brian
Nov 5, 2008 at 4:56 pm
You seem to ignore that labor is an economic resource that employers basically bid on to have at their companies. That is why a highly skilled job at Google comes with high compensation, benefits, stock options, and perks. On the other hand an unskilled job at Walmart (e.g. Greeter) is paid a somewhat low hourly wage.
If a Greeter at Walmart isn’t working out then Walmart can either put them in another position more suitable to their skills, or they can terminate the employee and hire someone else with very little risk to the company.
On the other hand if Google loses a software engineer that is capable of developing their next generation search algorithims it could put them behind their competitors, and possible out of business if it loses market share or if their technology is replaced by some other revolutionary search engine service (much like how they unseated Yahoo).
Now do you understand what is meant by the “value” an employee brings to a company and why all people are not paid the same?
Now should Walmart terminate the Greeter who isn’t working out? Of course they should. They would be doing the employee a favor. It is not working out for the employer and not working out for the employee. The employer can hire someone else who is possibly a much better Greeter (employment), and the employee can move on to something that suits their skills (in other words do something they are good at) where they will be much happier and hopefully better compensated (more employment).
Also, if a Walmart employee feels that they are under-valued then they should offer their skills in the labor marketplace and get a job that pays them more of what they think they are worth. In other words — don’t work at Walmart. Go work somewhere that places a higher value on the skills you have to offer. Last time I checked Walmart was not Alcatraz and employees are free to come and go as they please.
For example, say all of the Greeters at Walmart decided that the company was not valuing their skills properly and quit and got jobs at Target and Home Depot for better pay and benefits. If Walmart was unable to hire Greeters at their current level of compensation then they would have to increase the compensation they pay greeters in order to attract the labor they need to their company. Or they could go without Greeters. Or maybe replace the Greeters with robots or whatever they felt was the best use of their resources. This should be a decision made by Walmart and not the government.
What you describe in your article is not economic theory, it is social engineering theory. Efficient resource allocation is economics, fairness is a social issue.
What “bottom up” supporters don’t understand is that pointing the blame for the country’s social ills at business/employers and forcing them to pay more for low-grade labor is not the definition of fairness. Actually, what it will accomplish is the relocation of capital and companies elsewhere.
One observation is what “bottom up” supporters say is an economic problem is actually a social problem and is a byproduct of the last big social project the U.S. took on — the Great Society which has generated an entitlement mentality in the country (e.g. free healthcare, minimum wage, etc.).
I’m not sure that the answer to resolving issues caused by government social engineering is more government social engineering.
Also raising taxes has never improved an economy and never will. Based on the “multiplier effect” it is unnecessary for the government to raise taxes because they already get a part of every economic transaction (e.g. income taxes, sales taxes, capital gains taxes) so evenutally they will get all of the money it just depends on how many cycles of economic activity they want to enable. That is one of the reasons why “supply side” economics grows economies and always will.
Another observation is that the financial problems that governments and people face are not due to any particular economic model it has to do with spending. You will always have a poor financial condition if you consistently overspend more than your income or tax revenue. Governments and people need to live within their means (or improve their means). There are things you would like to do, and then there are things you can do.
The government would be better off encouraging people to improve their skills and education therefore generating a more highly skilled work force (high skills = higher compensation), and stop telling people with low-grade skills that they are entitled to “more”.
Anair
Nov 6, 2008 at 7:55 am
Do you think all employees will choose to be “more productive and more creative”?
Imagine if Google hired the kind of people that work at Wal-Mart and give them more money and more free time. Do you expect greater productivity and innovations from Google?
Anair
Nov 6, 2008 at 8:01 am
If we raise the taxes on Google, Do you think they will be able to continue making all their employees financially secure with great pay, great benefits?
Anair
Nov 6, 2008 at 8:10 am
Will everybody vow to never support bottom-up economics again if Obama tries it and it fails miserably?
Tracee Sioux
Nov 6, 2008 at 3:26 pm
Only if you’re willing to concede that extreme capitolism has already been tried and failed during the Bush years. :)
Brian
Nov 6, 2008 at 4:02 pm
Tracee — What past failures are you blaming on capitalism? Terror attacks, hurricanes and disaster relief (or lack thereof), affordable housing?
Is it a failure of capitalism that governments and people spend more than they have?
Is it a failure of capitalism that some people may not have enough education, training, and skills to make enough money to having some sort of permanent housing, food, and health insurance?
What was so extreme about the capitalism in the Bush years from the capitalism in the Clinton years? It would appear to me that the capitalism in the Clinton years with the .COM boom was probably more extreme.
Anair –We don’t even have to try it to know that it will fail. Its been tried in many places most notably the U.S.S.R. and other totalitarian countries. Keynes said himself that the best environment for his theories were totalitarian societities that implement central planning.
Tracee Sioux
Nov 6, 2008 at 4:23 pm
I’m blaming our current economic crisis on extreme capitalism.
I’m not against capitalism - just extreme capitalism. I’m not a socialist, I don’t run a non-profit (though it would be a great way for me to make a killing).
I’m in favor of “regulated capitalism.”
I love liberty. I see no difference in my being subject to a government than being subject to a corporation. Frankly, I’d prefer the government - I have a vote there and can even run for office. That’s actual power.
Being subject to a corporation is a much less liberating or powerful position to be in - health insurance companies choosing my doctor, medication, etc. as the example. Thankfully, that is about to change. I might be more inclined toward “capitalist principle” when my health isn’t a stomping ground for profit.
I take it you’re not going to concede then that extreme capitalism has been a practical failure.
OK. Well. We disagree then. Which is fine cause I assume we both believe in Democracy which seems to be holding up.
Brian
Nov 6, 2008 at 8:16 pm
Tracee — I welcome the debate and I’m hoping I might learn something.
You repeated that you feel that “extreme capitalism” has caused problems but you haven’t provided any examples (maybe I’m supposed to just know — that it is a given — but I don’t think it is and that’s why I’m asking for examples).
IMO you have much more freedom dealing with a corporation than you have with the government. You have a huge choice when it comes to corporations. If you don’t like a certain corporation then don’t buy their products or services. Spend your money somewhere else. If you want a vote in a corporation you can buy stock — or not.
Insurance companies don’t choose your doctor — you do. Any HMO has hundreds of in-network doctors for you to choose from and if you want to go anywhere then you can choose a PPO instead of an HMO or go the CDR (consumer directed healthcare) route. If a specific health insurance benefit is important to you then you can choose your employer, or decide not to participate in a company sponsored program and roll your own healthcare. What choice would have in a government run one-size-fits-all universal healthcare program? Your dollars are your vote and you can direct them anyway you want too.
Why should a reasonable profit be taboo in the healthcare industry? Profit motive creates competition, and competition creates innovation and quality products — competition is what makes companies meet peoples needs. Is healthcare supposed to be banned from profit because it deals with life and death? Isn’t that were you want the most innovation and consumer orientation?
Should funeral directors be able to make a profit or is that improper because of the emotion and vunerability of the loss of a loved one? Well it is competition that makes one funeral home better than the other.
I know what you mean about making a killing with a non-profit corporation. Many non-profit corporation’s do very well under the guise of “we don’t make any money” which really means they just make sure they don’t have any money left over.
I will gladly make any concession regarding “extreme capitalism”. I’m just waiting to hear a more concrete sales pitch on the subject.
Tracee Sioux
Nov 7, 2008 at 8:53 am
This is where you and I disagree - that our current health care system provides patients with choices. I don’t think employers will be offering health benefits - they want out. Which is fine. As long as I and everyone else can buy it on the open market without discrimination for a fair and reasonable price.
I expounded on our current crisis and how I think it’s caused by extreme capitalism. Banks stopped caring whether people paid their bills because they sold them for a profit before they were due. I believe the consumer and corporation had an implied agreement prior to this that the consumer and the entire economy should have been able to rely on. More on that here in Bank Crash 101 - which should answer your question. http://www.blogfabulous.com/bank-crash-economics-101/
I’ve had to change Dr.s several times - at the detriment to myself and my family - because insurance company no longer covers that provider.
I’ve also had my medication chosen for me.
Consumers do not experience choice in the current health care situation.
Nor to I take offense to profit.
I take offense to profit at the cost of health. As in you’re willing to put my health at risk for your profit. As a patient I expect my health to be the number one top priority. Period. And if insurance companies don’t agree then we can vote them out and look for a new system in which we can achieve health before profits.
I expound on how I think my health and care factoring about 5th in our current system here: http://www.blogfabulous.com/leaches-medical-inflation/
Another thing… « Dolc3simplicity’s Weblog
Nov 15, 2008 at 8:42 am
[…] Found another bloggers’ insight on this topic. It kind of helps in explainin a better way what was in my last post. She used Google vs the necessary evil:Wal-mart. Here it is: http://www.blogfabulous.com/top-down-v-bottom-up-economics-101/ […]
Have an opinion? Leave a comment: