|
Post by Lord Chatterley on Apr 6, 2010 11:45:11 GMT -5
Presumably, life and death are non-absolutes too. Presumably? So nothing can be non-absolute unless everything is? I can't tell if you're actually buying this stuff or just chatting about what Rand might say. I hope it's the latter. It's not Rand - it's logic. The attack on absolutes is as ancient as Heraclitus and he was refuted by Aristotle in his Metaphysics and the Organon. Not everything is an absolute, but implicit in every proposition, including claims to skepticism, is an inherent assumption of truthfulness - otherwise you endorse the liar paradox. If Rand's statement about 'impossibility' and 'only' is false then the whole of Classical and Austrian economic theory is also false. That is one heck of a claim for anyone to make.
|
|
|
Post by matisse on Apr 6, 2010 12:29:05 GMT -5
Presumably? So nothing can be non-absolute unless everything is? I can't tell if you're actually buying this stuff or just chatting about what Rand might say. I hope it's the latter. It's not Rand - it's logic. The attack on absolutes is as ancient as Heraclitus and he was refuted by Aristotle in his Metaphysics and the Organon. Not everything is an absolute, but implicit in every proposition, including claims to skepticism, is an inherent assumption of truthfulness - otherwise you endorse the liar paradox. If Rand's statement about 'impossibility' and 'only' is false then the whole of Classical and Austrian economic theory is also false. That is one heck of a claim for anyone to make. Ummmm, you're kidding, right? If not, perhaps your Organon needs to get out more.
|
|
|
Post by E on Apr 6, 2010 14:39:51 GMT -5
All polititions should work for room and board plus job related expences nothing more. Because then, surely, only the most educated, competent people would battle for the position. I've actually long thought the pay should be greatly increased to discourage corruption and encourage better candidates.
|
|
Phil
Junior Member
![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star.png)
Posts: 82
|
Post by Phil on Apr 6, 2010 14:41:16 GMT -5
Sorry, but you are wrong. Bicycles most certainly are fully regulated in the USA. Dear Phil, Many, many thanks for that. I stand corrected. I had no idea that bicycle manufacture had been regulated in the US since 1978 when Jimmy Carter ![::)](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/eyesroll.png) was president - though I suppose I should have guessed. I particularly enjoyed this gem: Unbelievable. However, that new information does not alter the laws of economics - a general elevation in prices in any one sector of the market cannot be attributed to "greed based on need" nor "sheer profiteering on a captive audience." Greed and self-interest are virtues that serve to reduce the level of profit in any one sector of the market as I have already indicated. I sympathise with your plight and I do acknowledge that elevated prices can result as a consequence of local business malpractice, but elevated profits cannot be sustained in any sector of the market in the absence of government intervention and regulation. Hi LC, The laws of economics do not apply in this situation. Consumers set the prices of items by what they're willing to pay above and beyond the costs occurred to produce and market the items. If I were to go to the mall to buy jeans, I can comparison shop in a dozen or so stores that sell a number of different style jeans. I have the option to buy there, elsewhere, online, or to leave with no purchase. I do not need jeans to survive. The retailers know this, as well as know their competition, and they are forced to market those jeans at a price to entice me to buy. That price has to be both competitive with their competition and at a markup they're willing to take. Wheelchair sales do not work that way. Consumers don't drive these market prices. In the 1970s, the US Justice Department brought an anti-trust suit, later settled, charging Everest & Jennings (then the #1 seller of wheelchairs in the US) with monopoly practices that set prices of wheelchairs artificially high and squelched competition and innovation from other companies. Another example - Johnson & Johnson purchased a company called StimTech (producers of TENS units) in 1974. StimTech's founders later filed a suit against J&J in the 1980's saying that J&J bought the company to suppress TENS' growth as it was seen as a potential competitor to J&J's Tylenol. J&J had warehouses packed with TENS supplies that they refused to sell to the public, thus making TENS units unusable. StimTech's founders won the suit and J&J had to pay them $170 million. This is what happens when you let the fox guard the hen house. Unless you're planning on never leaving your bed or crawling around on the ground throughout your life, you need a wheelchair. There are no options other than what wheelchair you want/need. They know you need it, they and they alone (not the consumer) set the price, and they screw you. Period. It is not a voluntary purchase, you have to have it. It is a captive audience (purchasing under duress?) and they take full advantage of the situation.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 6, 2010 15:10:06 GMT -5
I haven't read this entire thread so I might be posting out of line. I used to curse all makers/sellers of any equipment for the disabled. The prices are inflated and seem only to try to take advantage of a captive market. But, then I thought about it. The makers of this stuff have the same manufacturing and operating costs of a traditional company. These costs are covered by the sales of the products. If company "A" and company "B" have the exact same costs and company "A" sells 1,000,000 units per year, they can afford to sell their items much cheaper than company "B" that only sells 50,000 units per year. We're a pretty small market. I don't know the figures but I'd bet my life that bicycles FAR outsell wheelchairs.
|
|
|
Post by doe on Apr 6, 2010 17:57:08 GMT -5
Has no one studied the economic effects of governmental intervention in private markets? Phil, you are very eloquently describing the third-party payer (whether that's a governmental entity or an insurance company) effect on prices. Someone more familiar with Medicare than me will have to look this up, because I can't sort through their impossible website; but I think their "allowable charge" for a basic manual wheelchair is around $2,000. That means that any wheelchair company can get paid $2,000 for a wheelchair, regardless of whether that wheelchair cost them $100 or $10,000 to produce. So guess what we have? A bunch of $100 wheelchairs that can't be had for less than $2,000, because Medicare (and by default, private insurance companies) pay that for them. Of course the companies are maximizing their profits, but it's because the government intervened and gave them the opportunity to do so. Alternatively, if we paid for them ourselves, we wouldn't stand for it. Lasik (laser eye correction) surgery is a prime example. That has never been paid by Medicare or most private insurance, as it's considered elective/voluntary. When they first came out with that, it cost around $3,000 per eye. To bring in more people, eye doctors figured out ways to cut the cost. Now, it's down to $1,000 or less per eye. The market worked: people had to write the checks themselves, so they went to the cheapest competent provider. The ones who were too expensive lost business, so they figured out how to lower prices, or they got out of that business and went back to the relatively "easy" money of treating Medicare-funded patients. I agree with you Jase, I think Government and third party intervention unduly inflates prices. I only have to look at the difference between the medical profession and other professions here where there is no such third party intervention. Also, demand for medical services will only increase over time with an ever aging population further adding to cost pressure. Just so you can compare, Lasik surgery here costs around $AUD6,500 for both eyes. The AUD is running at about 92 cents US today.
|
|
Phil
Junior Member
![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star.png)
Posts: 82
|
Post by Phil on Apr 6, 2010 18:11:04 GMT -5
I haven't read this entire thread so I might be posting out of line. I used to curse all makers/sellers of any equipment for the disabled. The prices are inflated and seem only to try to take advantage of a captive market. But, then I thought about it. The makers of this stuff have the same manufacturing and operating costs of a traditional company. These costs are covered by the sales of the products. If company "A" and company "B" have the exact same costs and company "A" sells 1,000,000 units per year, they can afford to sell their items much cheaper than company "B" that only sells 50,000 units per year. We're a pretty small market. I don't know the figures but I'd bet my life that bicycles FAR outsell wheelchairs. Yes, far more bikes are sold each year. But consider this: Marilyn Hamilton started Quickie wheelchairs in 1980. By 1986, Quickie had 26 million in annual sales and had merged (bought out) by Sunrise Medical. By 1990, sales exceeded 40 million a year. They're not eating cheap hamburger in 2010, trust me. ![:)](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/smiley.png)
|
|
Phil
Junior Member
![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star.png)
Posts: 82
|
Post by Phil on Apr 6, 2010 18:22:25 GMT -5
Has no one studied the economic effects of governmental intervention in private markets? Phil, you are very eloquently describing the third-party payer (whether that's a governmental entity or an insurance company) effect on prices. Someone more familiar with Medicare than me will have to look this up, because I can't sort through their impossible website; but I think their "allowable charge" for a basic manual wheelchair is around $2,000. That means that any wheelchair company can get paid $2,000 for a wheelchair, regardless of whether that wheelchair cost them $100 or $10,000 to produce. So guess what we have? A bunch of $100 wheelchairs that can't be had for less than $2,000, because Medicare (and by default, private insurance companies) pay that for them. Of course the companies are maximizing their profits, but it's because the government intervened and gave them the opportunity to do so. Alternatively, if we paid for them ourselves, we wouldn't stand for it. Lasik (laser eye correction) surgery is a prime example. That has never been paid by Medicare or most private insurance, as it's considered elective/voluntary. When they first came out with that, it cost around $3,000 per eye. To bring in more people, eye doctors figured out ways to cut the cost. Now, it's down to $1,000 or less per eye. The market worked: people had to write the checks themselves, so they went to the cheapest competent provider. The ones who were too expensive lost business, so they figured out how to lower prices, or they got out of that business and went back to the relatively "easy" money of treating Medicare-funded patients. I don't know what the Medicare & Medicaid guidelines are, but I do know that they're often spending more than 2K per unit. I also know a guy that has a 30K Permobile power chair from them. You're right in saying that having insurance (private or public funded) feeds into the problem. But what about supplies not covered? I don't see any market correction. And then there's vans, which can exceed 40K in equipment modifications for a quad driver. Medicare & Medicaid aren't involved in that.
|
|
|
Post by devogirl on Apr 6, 2010 18:28:19 GMT -5
Ugh, I can't believe I'm getting sucked into this discussion, but I gotta say wheelchairs and Lasik are not the same. Lasik has a HUGE potential market, that's why the price came down, once it seemed safe. Plus as you said it's totally voluntary. But as Phil said, a wheelchair is almost never voluntary, you usually need certain specific features, and you need it all the time. The number of buyers is tiny compared to the costs of development and production, so prices can never come down, even if there were no Medicare. There will never be an open market (or open-ish) for wheelchairs the way there is for bicycles and cars, because not enough people buy them. Also a significant percentage of the people who need wheelchairs couldn't afford to pay even a "market rate" whatever that might be, for various reasons (too old or too young to work, etc).
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 6, 2010 19:55:18 GMT -5
Trek bicycles is headquartered near me and I know several people who work there. They put A LOT of money into the R&D, marketing, etc. I have to believe wheelchair companies put in a similar amount of effort, respectively. $40 million in sales alone isn't really that much for a large company. Trek was well over $550 million last year. I would expect some money to be made by someone. I like helping people too but why should we assume that a company making products for disabled people should do it for nothing?
|
|
|
Post by E on Apr 7, 2010 0:32:15 GMT -5
$40 million in sales alone isn't really that much for a large company...I like helping people too but why should we assume that a company making products for disabled people should do it for nothing? If I own the $40 million in sales per year wheelchair company and my net is 5%, I'm making $2 million a year. The manufacturer of the Quickie brand, though, grossed $141.3 M in 2008 (http://www.answers.com/topic/sunrise-medical-inc) and Invacare grossed $1.7 billion in 09 (http://www.nasdaq.com/asp/ExtendFund.asp?selected=IVC&symbol=IVC). This isn't a tiny market where people are struggling to get by. I don't think they're "doing it for nothing".
|
|
|
Post by matisse on Apr 7, 2010 13:01:49 GMT -5
Ugh, I can't believe I'm getting sucked into this discussion, but I gotta say wheelchairs and Lasik are not the same. Lasik has a HUGE potential market, that's why the price came down, once it seemed safe. Plus as you said it's totally voluntary. But as Phil said, a wheelchair is almost never voluntary, you usually need certain specific features, and you need it all the time. The number of buyers is tiny compared to the costs of development and production, so prices can never come down, even if there were no Medicare. There will never be an open market (or open-ish) for wheelchairs the way there is for bicycles and cars, because not enough people buy them. Also a significant percentage of the people who need wheelchairs couldn't afford to pay even a "market rate" whatever that might be, for various reasons (too old or too young to work, etc). Yep. Sometimes "free market/competition" works well, sometimes it doesn't. A failure to acknowledge this, is what is annoying about those quotes from Rand and the associated philosophical meanderings above.
|
|
|
Post by Lord Chatterley on Apr 7, 2010 13:31:13 GMT -5
Hi LC, The laws of economics do not apply in this situation. Consumers set the prices of items by what they're willing to pay above and beyond the costs occurred to produce and market the items. If I were to go to the mall to buy jeans, I can comparison shop in a dozen or so stores that sell a number of different style jeans. I have the option to buy there, elsewhere, online, or to leave with no purchase. I do not need jeans to survive. The retailers know this, as well as know their competition, and they are forced to market those jeans at a price to entice me to buy. That price has to be both competitive with their competition and at a markup they're willing to take. Wheelchair sales do not work that way. Consumers don't drive these market prices. In the 1970s, the US Justice Department brought an anti-trust suit, later settled, charging Everest & Jennings (then the #1 seller of wheelchairs in the US) with monopoly practices that set prices of wheelchairs artificially high and squelched competition and innovation from other companies. Another example - Johnson & Johnson purchased a company called StimTech (producers of TENS units) in 1974. StimTech's founders later filed a suit against J&J in the 1980's saying that J&J bought the company to suppress TENS' growth as it was seen as a potential competitor to J&J's Tylenol. J&J had warehouses packed with TENS supplies that they refused to sell to the public, thus making TENS units unusable. StimTech's founders won the suit and J&J had to pay them $170 million. This is what happens when you let the fox guard the hen house. Unless you're planning on never leaving your bed or crawling around on the ground throughout your life, you need a wheelchair. There are no options other than what wheelchair you want/need. They know you need it, they and they alone (not the consumer) set the price, and they screw you. Period. It is not a voluntary purchase, you have to have it. It is a captive audience (purchasing under duress?) and they take full advantage of the situation. The laws of economics do apply to goods and services in limited supply and for which there is inelastic demand but the malevolence which you ascribe to companies operating in this sector of the market cannot account for a general elevation in prices [and profits.] As for Everest & Jennings- if they had set their prices 'artificially' too low then, presumably, they would have been open to the charge of squelching competition and innovation by dumping, according to who? - Judge Goldilocks who knows when prices are just right? Anti-trust laws are a classic example of arbitrary law - and arbitrary laws should not exist. The fact is, in the absence of government intervention, companies cannot enrich themselves by selling below the market-price - it's too expensive - nor can they enrich themselves by selling above the market-price - it draws in competition through the uniformity of profit principle.
|
|
|
Post by Lord Chatterley on Apr 7, 2010 13:33:51 GMT -5
Has no one studied the economic effects of governmental intervention in private markets? Apparently not! ![::)](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/eyesroll.png)
|
|
|
Post by E on Apr 7, 2010 14:04:53 GMT -5
I think we've lost track of something important in our discussion... ... those are some pretty awesome heels.
|
|