Healthcare The Capitalist Way

[Era Might]

I'm not saying big business is necessarily "evil". Just that it's kind of inconsistent to praise big business and vilify big government. I probably agree with you in the sense that the ideal is somewhere in the middle. Government should provide something like welfare, but not to the extent that it takes over for private initiatives; it should complement them (aka subsidiarity). In the same way, it's nice if small and local business can still thrive in the midst of the conglomerates. I went to Borders music once, and their rap section was barely a few walls long; the rest of the store was pretty much rock. If I want a good, underground rap selection, I have to go to a local store like Newbury Comics.

Edited September 21, 2006 by Era Might

[Anomaly]

Like it takes no effort to build a Wal-Mart? Do you have any idea what it takes to start up a business?

Government has no competition. Whatever it does is devoid of any type of competition so it has no inherent culture to be efficient.

Business needs to be reactive to competition and efficient. Business is forced to be financially efficient to stay alive. We don't have buggy whip factories any more because people don't want buggy whips. Should we have stated that it was morally wrong to let buggy whip factories go bankrupt because we weren't buying whips? People got other jobs and the economic resources went to other industries or endeavors that generated jobs. That's the nature of capitalism. It adjusts and is reactive to market needs and demands (people's needs and demands).
There is always a need to balance regulation so that competition is protected so that efficiency can be established but not allow monopolies.

[Era Might]

I don't think I've said anything about anything being "morally wrong". Lounge Daddy's point was not about morality, but efficiency.

If big business is not a beauracracy, I don't know what is.

Take public and private schools for example. A private school is one school. All the administrators just have to deal with that one school. Public schools, on the other hand, are usually four or five different schools in one city (more in a big city). Those administrators have to deal with all those schools. Which school has better potential for efficiency and quality? Is a student more likely to get lost in beauracratic foibles in a public school system or in a single private school?

In the same way, theoretically, local business probably has more potential. But, for it to work, it has to have the support of the local community, and so long as big business provides ease, local communities aren't going to take the effort to establish a culture of local business.

[BullnaChinaShop]

[quote name='Era Might' post='1069396' date='Sep 21 2006, 03:28 PM']
If people supported local business the same way they supported Wal-Mart, the prices would be the same.
[/quote]

This is not true because Wal-Mart gets economies of scale in their purchasing of items with which to stock their stores that no independent store can compete with. The more of any given widget you buy the lower the price you have to pay per widget, which in turn allows you to sell that widget at a lower price. Purchasing widgets for 1 store as opposed to 3000 makes a big difference. It is this advantage that has allowed Wal-Mart to offer a wider variety of items at a lower price than independent stores.

[Era Might]

[quote name='BullnaChinaShop' post='1069433' date='Sep 21 2006, 04:20 PM']This is not true because Wal-Mart gets economies of scale in their purchasing of items with which to stock their stores that no independent store can compete with. The more of any given widget you buy the lower the price you have to pay per widget, which in turn allows you to sell that widget at a lower price. Purchasing widgets for 1 store as opposed to 3000 makes a big difference. It is this advantage that has allowed Wal-Mart to offer a wider variety of items at a lower price than independent stores.[/quote]
If we could stop the order of the world for a year, and everyone who shops at a big business shopped instead at a local business, then the deals made with Wal-Mart would be given to that local store, because that local store would be producing the same volume as the Wal-Mart branch which used to exist. The companies that provide the product could still provide at those low prices, because even though they are not providing the volume to Wal-Mart nationally, the volume remains the same, it's just being offered to the thousands of different stores throughout the country that serve the same purpose that Wal-Mart did, only they're each their own individual store focused locally rather than nationally.

But, obviously, it would take a great effort to turn ourselves into a small, local business people rather than big business. We're comfortable where we are, so we just accept the big business monopoly and go along with the plan. Hence, local business does not work.

Edited September 21, 2006 by Era Might

[BullnaChinaShop]

[quote name='Era Might' post='1069438' date='Sep 21 2006, 04:24 PM']
If we could stop the order of the world for a year, and everyone who shops at a big business shopped instead at a local business, then the deals made with Wal-Mart would be given to that local store, because that local store would be producing the same volume as the Wal-Mart branch which used to exist. The companies that provide the product could still provide at those low prices, because even though they are not providing the volume to Wal-Mart nationally, the volume remains the same, it's just being offered to the thousands of different stores throughout the country that serve the same purpose that Wal-Mart did, only they're each their own individual store focused locally rather than nationally.

But, obviously, it would take a great effort to turn ourselves into a small, local business people rather than big business. We're comfortable where we are, so we just accept the big business monopoly and go along with the plan. Hence, local business does not work.
[/quote]


That would only be true all the independent stores cooperated to buy all of a given item at the same time. Wal-Mart buys for 3000 stores at once. To get the same deal from a manufactureer of a product the independent stores would have to band together and order at once, which means they don't really stay independent.

[Era Might]

I think the suppliers would adapt themselves, because they would be shipping the same volume, it would just be spread out. They wouldn't be making less (because the local community would support local business just as it supported Wal-Mart); they would actually be making more, because local business would crop up all over the country.

[Aloysius]

everyone knows that I'm not a supporter of big business or big government in any way. BUT: in this particular instance big business is offering a very great good whilst eliminating our (perceived) need for a very great evil (big government health care)

this is a lot less evil than becoming dependent upon the government for health care... or for that matter becoming dependent upon big-business-insurance companies: $4 perscription meds without insaurance means you can afford them without being dependent on government or big business (except, to a certain degree (but a very very small one compared to what it would be to the state or insurance company) to wal-mart)

btw, I can fully support Era's idealist ideas in here as well. it can be done... and those local stores could all organize a sort of guild system to attempt to mimic big-business's efficiency while remaining local and independent.

[Anomaly]

[quote name='Era Might' post='1069438' date='Sep 21 2006, 03:24 PM']
If we could stop the order of the world for a year, and everyone who shops at a big business shopped instead at a local business, then the deals made with Wal-Mart would be given to that local store, because that local store would be producing the same volume as the Wal-Mart branch which used to exist. The companies that provide the product could still provide at those low prices, because even though they are not providing the volume to Wal-Mart nationally, the volume remains the same, it's just being offered to the thousands of different stores throughout the country that serve the same purpose that Wal-Mart did, only they're each their own individual store focused locally rather than nationally.

But, obviously, it would take a great effort to turn ourselves into a small, local business people rather than big business. We're comfortable where we are, so we just accept the big business monopoly and go along with the plan. Hence, local business does not work.
[/quote]Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha.

And if everyone on one side of the world jumped up and down at the same time, we would make the earth go off orbit.

There is not the efficiency to sell to 3,000 customers compared to 1 central customer. One manuf would have to ship out 3,000 seperate orders instead of 3,000. The 3,000 storew would have 3,000 UPS shipments instead of the order coming in on the weekly stock truck with tons of other various items the store sells.

It's not lazy comfort, it's efficient.

I have family and friends who own and run small retail business and/or work for large conglomerates. There is market for both, they just can't both do the same thing.

You don't have the depth of knowledge about business or retailing. Talk to some experienced friends and business owners of various opinions. I've known the guy who is the second generation owner of an independent pharmacy all my life. One of my cousins is the manager for the State of the pharmacies in a large grocery chain store. The commodity service is handled by the large store. If you are really sick, take unusual medicines, or a combination, then you go to the local pharmicist. The local guy also does protesthetics, rents wheel chairs, etc. He expanded his business. My cousin grew up in a rual town and his dad had the local pharmacy. My uncle refused to change what he sold and how he ran the store as the town grew and people wanted different stuff. He lost out to the chain pharmacy. It wasn't the chain's fault, he didn't want to change. As his business grew, he couldn't give the 'personal service' and became a quasi-discount store. If he re-oriented to a different market, he could have stayed in business with the value of his personal service. That's simplified, but it should give you a better idea.

[Era Might]

Yes, they would be making 3,000 separate shipments, but Wal-Mart still has to pay to get that product from their national center of distribution to the local branches. The independent local store would only have to pay extra for their own individual shipment. Wal-Mart, on the other hand, has to pay to get the product to their national headquarters, and THEN they have to pay to get that product to the local branches. They may pay less to the supplier, but they have that extra expense to distribute product among their branches; whereas the independent store is just paying to have the product taken from the supplier to their central location.

So even if the supplier charged more to ship to the independent store, that independent store doesn't have the costs that Wal-Mart does to ship the product to thousands of local branches, and so the difference in savings evens itself out.

Edited September 21, 2006 by Era Might

[Aloysius]

Exactly, if it's the stores paying the shipping, then everything can balance out. Wal-Mart pays all the shipping to get it to all of those locations, and must deduct that from the savings they offer; so too would these local stores do it.

of course, this doesn't account for the fact that these big-time suppliers would probably just raise their prices to these 3000 independent stores. there would have to be a guild system to mimic the same type of pressure Wal-Mart places on suppliers... ie if you don't give us this good deal then all the members of our guild of 3000 local independent stores will refuse to buy from you.

[Anomaly]

[quote name='Era Might' post='1069464' date='Sep 21 2006, 03:48 PM']
Yes, they would be making 3,000 separate shipments, but Wal-Mart still has to pay to get that product from their national center of distribution to the local branches. The independent local store would only have to pay extra for their own individual shipment. Wal-Mart, on the other hand, has to pay to get the product to their national headquarters, and THEN they have to pay to get that product to the local branches. The independent store isjust paying to have the product taken from the supplier to their central location.
[/quote]
Economy of scale. You take a fixed cost and spread it over multiple items. What it costs for a UPS guy to stop and drop off a box is much more than what 1 box costs to be sent with pallets of other goods in a semi-truck.

I don't want to really hurt your feelings, but you are arguing without sufficient knowledge of business or economics. Superficially it sounds good, but you ignore tons of fact that make up the real economics of business.

A small outfit cannot compete as a discount outlet with a large out-fit like Wal-Mart. If Wal-Mart was a monopoly, then why all the other grocery stores, mall stores, strip stores, etc? The other businesses operate in other more specialized markets. Some items are so common, they are called 'commodities'. If you want cheap jeans, you go to a place the specializes in cheap clotheing. If you want a suit, do you buy it from Wal-Mart? I don't think they even carry them. The economy of the scale they have to work on cannot afford the floor space for high margin, low volume goods. You go to MensWear, or JC Penney's, or a specialty store. Wal-Mart couldn't begin to compete with them. There are lot's of items that fall in the same category, otherwise one company would have taken over everything just based on competitive strength.

Business competition is organic, not monolithic. Certain responses to market needs have to be specialized to be efficient, while other responses is efficient in large scale only.

[Lounge Daddy]

ok – so is Wal-Mart the bad guy, or is it “big pharmaceutical” ?

I know the fad is to slam wal-mart for everything, and george bush for everything else – but the legal drug dealers, you have to admit, have been almost as criminal as big oil – and it is nice that finally one American retailer is in a position to call some shots on big pharmaceutical

and wal-mart is offering generic drugs to the un-insured at a great price
how cool is that!

And this same retailer has been setting up gas stations… will they target big oil next?
Oh, how I hope so

Will the left somehow blame wal-mart for offering discounted gas to us next? You can bet on stupidity from the left every time.

[Aloysius]

Wal-Mart is clearly the good guy here. While I do support and share Era's pipe dreams, in the real world this action by Wal-Mart is a great thing.

[Anomaly]

[quote name='Aloysius' post='1069481' date='Sep 21 2006, 04:18 PM']
Wal-Mart is clearly the good guy here. While I do support and share Era's pipe dreams, in the real world this action by Wal-Mart is a great thing.
[/quote]
Pipe dream?
More like a psilicybin hallucination.

I bet you buy gas from Citgo instead of BP or Exxon because they're smaller.

[annehladik]

[quote name='Aloysius' post='1069481' date='Sep 21 2006, 06:18 PM']
Wal-Mart is clearly the good guy here. While I do support and share Era's pipe dreams, in the real world this action by Wal-Mart is a great thing.
[/quote]
I think it's wonderful that Wal-Mart's endeavor will be helping many individuals afford their health care. I've treated many patients that have such a constant struggle paying for their medications that they may juggle which of several prescriptions they take a certain month. They'll neglect their blood pressure medicine one month, then their cholesterol medicine the next, et cetera. They do not qualify for government subsidy of their medicines, for any of various reasons, and many of them don't want to have to rely on the government for their welfare. But they also have a hard time taking care of their own health for any of a number of financial reasons. Are we really to argue that to make it easier for them to pay for their medicines is a bad thing? And how charitable is it, in reality, to imply that they should have to pay more to take care of themselves so that we may gain a sense of moral superiority over some nebulous concept of nefarious "big business?"

Edited September 21, 2006 by CameBackHome

[Sojourner]

I don't typically shop at Wal-mart, largely because there hasn't been one in a location convenient to me for quite some time. I don't think Wal-mart is inherently any more evil than any other big business ... and honestly, I think that litigation has done a good job of cleaning up many of the abuses big businesses are prone to (poor treatment of workers, unfair competition, etc.).

I'm not necessarily morally opposed to shopping at Wal-mart any more than I am morally opposed to shopping at Target or Meijer or any other big box. I do, however, think it is in a community's best interest to support local businesses when possible, and I try to do that when I can.

Honestly, since I'm now without prescription drug coverage for the first time in a long time, $4 generic prescriptions sounds really nice. If it were implemented up here ... heck, you might see me visiting mapquest to find my way to the nearest Wal-mart.

[quote name='Lounge Daddy' post='1069220' date='Sep 21 2006, 12:10 PM']
My prediction:
Socialists and liberal politicians and activists who would rather have us all on government welfare programs will complain that Wal-Mart is now pushing their pharmacy to unfairly push other pharmacies out of business – thus claiming again the “evils” of Wal-Mart and capitalism in general.
You might be able to buy generic prescription drugs for $4 rather than $10 - $30 at your local wal-mart store… insured or uninsured.
If this program works in Florida, and is opened to other states - this will be a great thing.
[/quote]
[url="http://news.monstersandcritics.com/business/article_1203639.php/Democrats_hail_Wal-Mart%60s_discounted_drugs"]Democrats hail Wal-Mart's discounted drugs[/url]

well maybe not [i]all[/i] liberal politicians

[homeschoolmom]

If my mom (age 70) could get all of her generic drugs at $4 a month each (she has a kitchen counter full), she would save hundreds of dollars a month. She's not in a "do I buy medicine or food?" situation, but it would be nice for her to be able to not worry about every penny.

[Era Might]

People seem to be misunderstanding.

My diversion had nothing to do with Wal-Mart offering cheap prescriptions.

I was responding to Lounge Daddy's comment about big business, and its relatedness to the conservative loathedness (is that a word?) of big government.

I think it's great that people will be able to buy cheap prescriptions. It beats organizing trips to Canada.

But then again, I think it's great that single mothers are able to apply for welfare.

[Lounge Daddy]

[quote name='Era Might' post='1069517' date='Sep 21 2006, 07:14 PM']
People seem to be misunderstanding.

My diversion had nothing to do with Wal-Mart offering cheap prescriptions.

I was responding to Lounge Daddy's comment about big business, and its relatedness to the conservative loathedness (is that a word?) of big government...
[/quote]

ok – a company answers to a peoples needs –as opposed to government dependency…
but you question these options?

yes you should be on the losing end of this discussion
and I hope like heck other with you are on the losing end of this
I want, and others want – the free market to bring cheep medicine long before the government to bring tax subsidized inefficient medicine…


long live free business