Audio of Obama lamenting lack of socialism in U.S.

Post Reply New Topic

When I was talking about why other people rejected it. I put forward these objections as stupid, but still as objections.


Right, and I am not beholden to an epistemological debate on this matter.


No. Orwell, you are just being stupid. The orthodoxy is the Keynesian-Neoclassical synthesis, some people are more Keynesian, in that they see price stickiness, market adjustments, etc, as important, others are more Neoclassical in that they think that the Neoclassical price theory models are basically valid, and not under a lot of problems. There aren't really work-arounds, to be honest, at least not without giving one body too much control over the economy.


Umm.... the fact that multiple organizations are possible within the same region, each of them capable of doing the same. So, it is sort of conceivably called polyarchism, however, the fact that these organizations are all finite and can all possibly die with the system remaining intact suggest that anarchism is a working name. In *any* case, what anarchist theories have you read? I don't mean some 16 year-old's ideas, but ideas from actual anarchists? I mean, traditional anarchism often just looks like a more decentralized form of direct democracy, rather than a society without government, but it is still called anarchism.


Unaware of their existence????? Are you crazy???? Everyone knows that drug peddling and gangs exist in certain areas, if the government didn't know, then the war on drugs must be an even *greater* waste than I expected. To say "unaware of their existence" is just wrong. I would have to disagree with you, and I don't see that you have a grasp on the situation.


And if it is the best result for both sides, then hand breaking might be a good option.


I don't think that Friedman is considered an idiot by members of his field, or has had a department put a disclaimer up about him due to his ideas, in fact, he is good enough to get a position as a law professor without background in the field and with his prior commitments to anarchism, and of course, he's published research on his ideas, which can be seen from his web page, which is more than any ID proponent can claim(but not more than anarchists can). In any case, actually, you shouldn't look towards Friedman, you should look towards Rothbard, as most anarchists are Rothbardian, and Rothbard is known for some questionable actions at times. In any case, Friedman mostly is just oft-cited because he's written one of the earlier books on the matter, however, there are a number of anarcho-capitalists worth mentioning, including Peter Leeson, who is known for his work on pirates, Bryan Caplan, who is known for his work on democracy, Randy Barnett, a professor of law at Georgetown University, many members of the Austrian school, and so on. I would really just say that the similarity you are drawing is actually fallacious, as anarchists are respectable researchers in economics and law, but ID proponents have violated a basic principle of science.


You wouldn't believe how stubborn I am. Most people have a difficult time conceiving it.


And you're not going to get monarchy either, and the world will work on whether or not we really care to take a part in it.


Why exist? Why??? WHY???????????? I dunno.

What, you say people only reject their beliefs because they aren't smart enough to understand or have a bias against them? I doubt it.


I seem to recall a Churchill quote to the effect that, if he asked five economists for their opinion on economic policy, he would get five different answers, unless one of them was Keynes, in which case there would be at least six different opinions. Economics certainly is not like the hard sciences or mathematics where a degree of certainty is possible and the opinion of experts in the field is pretty monolithic, economists are pretty well known for disagreeing with each other on a number of points. The work-arounds I was thinking of were along the lines of taking Keynesian policy out of the discretionary control of policymakers, negating the problem of giving one body too much control.


Different ones may conflict if they are fulfilling the same function in the same reason- how do you have multiple people providing police services without them conflicting with each other? It seems two law-providing bodies would be mutually exclusive, which is why the issue of jurisdiction and clear boundaries is an important one for intergovernmental relations. Also, economies of scale likely exist in several of these services.


OK, "unaware of their existence" is inaccurate, I meant more that the government is not capable of keeping track of these groups and, while it is probably aware that they exist, it likely does not know who specifically is involved or be fully aware of their activities.


AG, now you're just being stupid.


Sounds like a good idea, and I think the Mises Institute has some of his books available for free, which greatly increases the likelihood that I would bother reading them.


I think I've commented before that you seem to argue more for the sake of arguing than to actually prove a point. In any case, I'm confident you'll keep this going until I give up or WP shuts down.


But I'm not as much an iconoclast as you, so I'm happier with the status quo.


Why not?

People mostly accept or reject beliefs based upon their biases anyway.


Well, the issue is that economics is complex, so many people will see many different things even using the same analytical framework. The hard sciences are certain because they are typically simpler. Meteorology is a hard science full of uncertainty though.

Wait, are you arguing that politicians should deny themselves useful power, to engage in an activity that is actually considered theoretically valid? And you think *I'm* idealistic and have no connection to reality?


Easy, people appeal to one of these police providers, based upon coverage, and these police providers avoid conflict by trying to negotiate a settlement, just like insurance companies *already* do. Orwell, that's where you show the historical ignorance, as historically we've had multiple legal systems covering the same matters. Jurisdiction is less a matter of mutual exclusivity, more of property rights and contracts. In any case, I think you are imagining that law really consists of a bunch of cops patrolling neighborhoods(not the major form of law enforcement by far though), but rather law is usually a means of providing incentives for people not to engage in behavior that others find intolerable. Thus often it really focuses upon investigating past problems and preventing them and quickly responding to current problems. In any case, law in all societies is not a matter of "evil" men vs "good", but rather is a means by which to reduce damages caused by certain behaviors.


This information isn't *that* hard given how easy it is for researchers to infiltrate both the drug and the prostitution industries, and the fact that *everyone knows* about gangs.

You did it first, I just took you to the logical conclusion.


Did I also mention that I think Rothbard is a bit of a moron. You might like him, you probably think more like he does anyway.


That's good you know that.


Orwell, I know I am powerless to do anything, so there is no victory here.


Yo (know how to reduce the size of the o?)

Including you.


The uncertainty in meteorology is in being able to successfully apply it to making predictions about the future, not about fundamental issues of methodology. Don't even try to tell me that economics is more complex than biology, it isn't. And certain areas of physics and chemistry are quite complex as well. And if economics is complex enough that experts in the field don't understand it well enough to make consistent, useful suggestions, your claims that it is methodologically superior are hard to justify.


The specific workaround I referenced was to implement Keynesian policy through progressive taxation and welfare so that the idea of deficit spending during recession and budget surplus during boom is implemented without the issues of information and response that are typically a cited problem with Keynesianism. This wouldn't involve politicians giving up more power that they care much about so much as it would simply automate an unpleasant component of their job that tends to lower their popularity ratings anyways. There are, of course, other issues inherent to Keynesianism itself even after resolving problems of implementation.


And when they disagree? We currently have a governmental legal system to deal with any problems that arise in disputes between insurance companies, and besides that, some legal issues are somewhat more difficult to mutually agree on than a fender bender. What if I appeal to a police provider that does capital punishment for petty theft and you have one that only does restorative justice? That would seem to be a problem.


And different people have different standards of intolerable. Without an external standard that everyone must live by, you have chaos.


The "quickly responding to current problems" is likely to be rather difficult.


OK, but you're kind of missing the point. My argument from a few posts back still stands- it is nonsensical to blame government for gang violence, as government is uninvolved with those groups.


No, I pointed out that people who are permitted to choose their own legal system at will would likely do so relying on emotion and not make rational, utility-maximizing decisions.


From what I've heard, Rothbard is more highly regarded than Friedman, and certainly moreso than you. Are you implying that I am a moron?


I had my doubts for a while, but they are dispelled now.


Y0 Yes I do. But it's not quite as good as a real subscript.

Ok. Including you too. Shall we keep on destroying epistemology?


And economics tends to have massive methodological disputes? There are some on the borders, but still, not strongly so in the core. I am not saying that certain aspects of chemistry, biology, and physics are not complicated, however, the subject of economics deals with things on a large enough level as to cause difficulty and this is not hard to see. As for your final statement... um.... I don't see how this follows. "If subject X is complex, then those who study X must have a faulty methodology"??? Sounds ridiculous.


Orwell, politicians gain from bailouts, and there is too much power for them to give up on it, as this is how they enact their vision on society to a good extent, by deciding who to bailout and who not to. There are issues inherent to Keynesianism even after resolving these issues.


If necessary outside arbitration could be sought, provided by a source that both sides agree to be fair. If this happens, both sides will negotiate for something that both sides could settle with, all this is, is a problem of distributive negotiation where both sides will likely have to lose something, but much more to lose by not negotiating, and the ultimate process will likely be determined somewhat by the prospective losses both sides have to make from this matter.


Yes, they have different standards. This does not mean that we need an absolute external standard, this means that we need a means of dealing with these different standards of intolerable in an intelligent manner. And this can be provided by anarchy.


And the current system does this incredibly well? I think that there will be various competitive measures taken to deal with this, and in any case, a change in systems would be likely to put more pressure on police forces to respond in a responsible manner, as a number of people have their cop terror stories.


It is involved in that it makes the product illegal, and subject to some concerns about the dangers of outside sources, and prevents the possibility of more legitimate sales tactics, thus forcing strict territorialism.


What's the difference? Besides, in all likelihood it would work more as a contract issue rather than "for hire", which means that it would be a rational utility-maximizing decision.


I don't know who you are talking to, but Rothbard is often considered a crazy crank by those in the mainstream, who is recognized by even those who like him as occasionally being dishonest for the cause. Friedman is less popular certainly because he is not a part of the Austrian school or a major part of the libertarian movement but rather an independent iconoclast, I think that Friedman is held in better regard as a scholar, and his work seems better thought out from everything I have tried to read by either person.


You doubted me? HA HA HA HA HA HA!! !! ! I am one of those frightfully scary people who will do the insane thing you never would have expected any human being to ever do.


It still helps. That's the function, ok, I am not incredibly familiar with the details of this code.

Sure, and then we can go on to destroying worlds and reaving souls.


Economic imperialism seems hard to justify if you aren't able to understand the economic methodology well enough even to apply it to its own field.


Politicians get people pissed off at them from bailouts.


I already said this.


And when both sides can't agree that a source of outside arbitration is fair? Who's going to make them accept it?


I don't really see competition working very effectively there.


I think a mafia system is more likely to emerge than the happy-go-lucky kumbaya libertopia you're predicting. Of course, we'll never get to see in practice who was right.


I question your faith in humanity.


OK then, if Rothbard is such a moron why are you recommending his books?


I've got pretty low expectations of humans in general.

That's only my job.


Um... the issue has nothing to do with applying economic methodology, it has everything to do with the fact that massively complicated systems involving massively complicated systems end up being even more massively complicated, and thus one can come to all sorts of conclusions by emphasizing one element of the mess above the others.


People forget quickly, unions and other backers don't.



Umm... Orwell, they'll agree. If you are stuck between a terrible option and a less bad option, then agreement will happen for the less bad option, even if hammering out the details is a problem. Fighting is very costly, and unlike gangs, there will likely be even more solid incentives not to start violent actions, as gang members are usually underpaid(by market standards) and have a perverse incentive to start gang wars, however, anyone in charge of negotiating a case who started a war will certainly be likely to lose their job.

And I see cops that are excessively brutal, that are ineffective, and that are purposefully dick-ish, I don't see businesses or other parts of society behaving in such a manner.

The mafia were actually very respected in early Italy in which they emerged.


That's funny, I do the same to you.

What book of his did I recommend? If you are talking about this post: " In any case, actually, you shouldn't look towards Friedman, you should look towards Rothbard, as most anarchists are Rothbardian, and Rothbard is known for some questionable actions at times" I was comparing Rothbardians to IDers, because of Rothbard's nature.


No, low expectations I exceed.

You clearly take pride in your work.


If your methodology is unable to solve problems in the field it was developed for, you should give it more time to mature before using it to solve the rest of the world's problems. I mean, economic imperialism does not seem much different to me than those idiots who tried to apply principles learned from the natural sciences to the realms of social policy and political science, and the people who tried that are widely regarded today as hacks and jokes.


They've yet to endear themselves that much to the unions with this round of bailouts, and when they're tossing $700billion down the drain that will stay on the national debt for the next half century or more, people will tend to remember, especially with the rise of advocacy groups that oppose government waste. Also, politicians act for the short term, no farther than the next election cycle, and their opponent can always jog the people's memory with some well-placed attack ads. And besides, the bailout example is pretty dumb here because bailouts are not a common occurrence, especially not of this magnitude.


You grossly underestimate the idiocy of a lot of people, AG. Not everyone is the perfectly rational Homo Economicus.


You must not deal with a lot of businesses then. There are issues with our police that can and should be worked on, but I don't know many sane people who believe we would be better off without them entirely.


Whoop dee freakin' doo. Putin is very respected in Russia.


You're the one trusting people to play nice and act as rational utility maximizers.


And it's quite frustrating. I'm really not sure why I keep posting in this thread when the end result remains unaffected.

Pride is one of the deadly sins, so of course!


But Orwell, the problem with this inability has *nothing* to do with methodology. Saying it does is questionable. Not only that, but no other relevant field has a better methodology, most other fields have a methodology that is more subjective, and that is more contentious. Economic imperialism is significantly different than those attempts Orwell, and this is relatively acknowledged, as Gary Becker's work is not ignored but acknowledged and I have seen his ideas referenced in a book on social psychology, and economics and law is an increasingly popular path for law-schools to promote. Cliometrics is also well-acknowledged by historians, and I even read a history book for a class that referenced work by Robert Fogel on slavery. The fact of the matter is that economic imperialism actually really isn't, the economic methodology does not take a difference between the other matters and traditional economics research, nor *can* economics recognize this difference while remaining an authority on it's topic, given how economic relationships can be embedded in so many other elements of life.


Bush attempted to bailout the big 3, that's endearing. And I think what you are talking about is past bailouts, which endeared these people to financial investors. In any case, if this is not power politics, then how come this entire effort is well-known to be a waste now? Incumbents don't usually have to worry about being overthrown unless something *really* popular was done.


No, I really am not. Orwell, you don't even have much reason to say "diplomacy will fail here" it is just an assertion, and given that we are dealing with companies, which are usually highly rationalist, I don't see how this assumption is even that *large*.


I don't know a lot of people who are familiar with anarchist theory, or much beyond their noses. In any case, Orwell, a major aspect of companies is their focus upon customer satisfaction, they have a significant incentive to seek satisfaction.


So, my fault is trusting people to be selfish? Orwell, your attack on homo economicus really has very little bite to it. You are just saying "homo economicus is wrong!!" and that is meaningless. Homo economicus is correct enough to be useful, and where it is wrong there is behavioral economics, and neither force anarchism to be wrong. Bryan Caplan's critique of the government is actually based upon the latter.


I really don't know.

You're not Catholic, so the deadly sins should be meaningless to you. You're not even any form of theist; you rejected theology as a load of BS earlier in this very thread.


On what basis do you prove that economics has a better methodology than everything else? What other methodologies are you rejecting here? Economic imperialism is quite like those attempts, and just because it is respected now means nothing since those attempts were respected in their time. Economics is as good a field as any for pre-law, but I don't particularly give a rat's ass about pre-law.


And Bush isn't running for reelection. Throwing away $700billion is *really* unpopular. The argument wasn't about bailouts anyways but about whether problems in the implementation of Keynesianism can be overcome. I say they can, but Keynesianism still has issues that are independent of implementation.


I was under the impression we were discussing individuals, which tend to be considerably less rationalist than companies.


Odd how that works. Your ideas haven't gained much currency in the marketplace of ideas despite being around for some time and actively promoted, why is this? Right, well, most companies I've dealt with seem to fail at that to an astonishing degree, and that is not a unique experience. Certainly insurance companies are among the worst in terms of providing good customer service, and I believe you are the one advocating that police services be provided in a similar manner to insurance. If this is indeed the case, I will be forced to assume that you simply have never attempted to make an insurance claim.


I very often see people acting in ways that do not further their own interests, so homo economicus seems a flawed concept. People act irrationally enough that much of your analysis in regards to anarchism comes out suspect.


A question for the ages. As perplexing is why you will never give this up. There is no perceptible gain for you to make. Is this to assuage some psychological insecurity?

I've written a theological argument that theology was a bunch of crap before, it was based upon the notion that all scripture was inspired, but theologies by their nature must pick and choose certain verses to emphasize and leave out others, therefore theology was flawed.


Because economics has the most logical methodology. I am rejecting all other methodologies that seem relevant to the problem. In any case, I don't think that I know exactly what you are talking about with those attempts then. I was thinking about technocracy to be honest. In any case, neoclassical economics is partially based upon the methodology of physics, and that move wasn't terrible.


Bah, I don't think that anyone will even care. I still disagree with you, particularly given that Bernanke and Paulson were major factors in one of the worse thoughtout bailout ideas.


We were talking about policies for companies to negotiate through differing claims, I thought.


Haven't gained much currency? They've gained a significant amount of currency I'd say, given that the major founders of anarcho-capitalism were both in the mid-late 20th century. Heck, even Penn Jillette has admitted to leaning towards anarchism, and he's a significant popular figure. Interesting, a lot of companies I've dealt with have tended to go beyond what I'd expect. Wrong industries perhaps? Insurance companies aren't terrible, in any case, they are often cheated by people. In any case, this wouldn't be the same as insurance, nor is insurance the ideal system to use as a model given that most people's insurance is subsidized by their company, and over-subsidized at that due to some old government laws from WW2.


That depends on how you define their interests. In any case, this is based upon the notion "I very often see" which means it is subject to your subjective interpretations of the matter *anyway*. Orwell, people don't even really see, they instead have some small bits of sense data where they fill in the gaps with their own theory for reality, and this is simply because direct sensation is an impossibility due to it's exceedingly high cognitive demands. Not only that, but homo economicus as an assumption does not depend on perfect rationality, it depends on a significant amount of rationality, and it seems to me, that a large percent of the populace has purposive action.


As for why I never give up? That's a pillar of my being. An awesomelyglorious that gave up would not be an awesomelyglorious at all. In order to have essence, I must cling to some aspect of myself and hold tight despite the doubts. I clung to determination, for it will renew itself.

If theology were so easy to refute, it would have been long gone by now.


I was thinking more along the lines of social darwinism, eugenics, and a few other movements. Technocracy is not something I care about or am particularly familiar with.


Um... people definitely care. Throwing away this amount of money, for dubious gain, is pretty dumb, and even the general public realizes that. But that's not the argument was about anyways. You're good at finding tangents to argue on. I suspect you would find less success in a strictly focused debate.


Right, well, I have seen that fail on numerous occasions, and most generally the result is for me to get screwed by companies who don't feel like honoring claims.


You'll have to tell me which those are.


Yeah, again, I'm going to accuse you of never having attempted to file an insurance claim. They're a**holes, and it's not unique to one insurance company either.


It's the closest analogy you could give, so if you want to continue discussing the matter you'll have to make a better description. Regardless of whether insurance companies are subsidized, they benefit by denying claims, even legitimate ones when they can get away with it (and they can in many, many circumstances).


I thought the aspect of yourself you would wish to cling to would be awesomeness rather than determination. By your unwillingness to ever give up, you could have been a Spartan warrior in the Battle of Thermopylae. Those Spartans did not find their determination to renew itself, but rather to bring themselves to an end.

Orwell, theology denies the validity of logic whenever it picks and chooses. How do you refute something like that?


Social darwinism really has little to do with evolutionary theory and you know it, and evolutionary anthropology and psychology have become popular. Eugenics is also more of an ethical movement than a scientific one, it was not rejected upon scientific grounds so much as found repugnant.


They'll be upset, but I don't think they'd really rock the boat, particularly as they will all cheer when the recession gets over and forget about this anyway. The argument was about public choice. This isn't completely a random tangent, and I don't think that focus would be a major issue.


If they are violating their own contract, take them to court, purchase another service, do something else. In any case, I would really bet that there is some way out of the contract that the insurance company had in all likelihood.


I think there are more following that rule than the exception. The only groups I can really see actually tending to violate this would be financial services.


Umm... yeah, and so are banks trying to collect money. I know, there isn't this "Utopia Insurance Company" I never said there was.


Did I give it? I thought you gave it? I really wouldn't have analogized it. Yes, I know, insurance companies benefit by denying claims, in any case, I don't really see much evidence to show that insurance companies make most of their money from denying claims anyway. I also don't know the circumstances you dealt with, or anything of that nature. You are right, I haven't filed an insurance claim, I have never needed to. The only dealings I have had with the insurance company was filing for reduced monthly costs for car insurance through a special program, and talking to another person's car insurance company after a wreck, and in neither case were they unpleasant.


Determination is the first step to awesomeness. Those Spartans weren't as awesome as I am.

So you haven't refuted it? Then you can not so dismissively reject it.


Such ideas, while considered to be pseudoscience today, were much more highly regarded in the past, including by people who were supposedly educated in the relevant fields. Eugenics has been rejected on scientific grounds as well. The analogy I was drawing was that economic imperialism is likely to seem similarly foolish in hindsight.


Complete randomness can't be produced by humans, you should know that from stats. If focus would not be an issue, why do you always force debates into side issues rather than sticking with the main point?


Taking them to court is generally impractical, purchasing another service fails as others are similarly crappy. I had the issue of somehow ending up with less insurance coverage actually in effect after falling under an additional insurance plan without modifying the original one, as each simply tried to pass responsibility to the other and neither would ever pay up.


As merely one example (I could give dozens more): the insurance I fall under entitles me to get a new glasses prescription periodically. I did so once, and the insurance company simply never paid, claiming instead that it was the responsibility of another organization (it wasn't, and this was clear from the contracts). This occurred when I was 17. Over a year later, they still had not paid and the optometrist was (understandably) starting to get pissed about not being compensated for his services and beginning the process of taking legal action against my family for failure to pay, though we had paid everything we were obligated to pay. By this point, the glasses in question were an outdated prescription that needed replaced (indeed, according to the terms of the insurance I was entitled to a new pair of glasses on their dime, though in practice the optometrist would not have done this without getting paid for the prior pair). Actually, that pair of glasses was *broken* and I was still wearing it for almost a year. When we contacted the insurance agency yet again (I am leaving out the many occasions of contacting them and being assured that they would handle it) they noted that I was 18 and, on that basis, claimed that I was no longer covered despite the fact that the claim was filed while I was 17, and despite the fact that my insurance was still valid for several more years. They also refused to speak to my father on the subject because I was 18 (I had to explicitly tell them it was OK for my father to speak on my behalf) and they promised they would pay the doctor. They never did so, and we ended up footing the entire bill. This is not a unique case, similar things have occurred numerous times (more than I care to count) and it is not just insurance agencies that have done this either. There was a relatively recent incident involving the GM credit union and a refund for tickets from a defunct airline that was enough of a hassle to result in a decision to make a lifelong family boycott of all GM products. My dad has more horror stories than I do, and he could probably list at least a dozen corporations off the top of his head that have given him similar issues (we've got practically our own family blacklist).

In short, private corporations can be a b***h to deal with.


Lucky bastard. Trust me, you never want to.


In my experience, insurance companies are at their least abominable when dealing with car accidents. I'm aware of one favorable outcome involving a wreck, but that's when blame was *extremely* obvious and the other person was driving a company-owned vehicle that had extremely good insurance. Even then, the outcome was simply reasonable, it was what it should have been. It was outstanding in that it did not arouse in me or my father a burning desire to hunt down and murder the families of insurance agents.


The Spartans are pretty widely recognized as being badasses. Though with your stubbornness, your dismembered corpse would probably still be attacking Iranians today. Your avatar really should be of a mule rather than that smiley, but I don't think a mule would do justice to your level of tenacity. It truly does border on madness. You kind of remind me of this guy:
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2eMkth8FWno[/youtube]

Orwell, let me ask you a question: how can you refute theology? In any case, I don't see why I cannot dismissively reject a subject that you are already mischaracterizing(argument from God's marginal utility is a valid argument despite being questionable), and that I also show a significant level of familiarity with.


Well, to be honest, the issues really end up being the wrong application of the subject of evolution, not the application of the subject of evolution. Really though, to a great extent, these subjects have been shouted down rather than thoroughly refuted. To be honest though, I don't see how eugenics can be completely rejected, it isn't a scientific study, but rather an application of science, and it seems that if we can breed cattle, we can breed people to make them better(or remove some from the gene pool), although the latter would be more difficult to predict given the greater number of desirable traits we'd want to promote.


Umm..... "completely random" does not mean the statistical sense. In any case, I don't see how I can force a debate onto side issues if aspects of the main debate remain. The side issues can have some importance though, for example, I was debating with a friend about foundationalism in philosophy, and he brought up the idea that some things were just obvious, so I brought out dissenters (who were labeled to be insane), and of course, he argued that the insane were not valid given the workings of their mind, and this discussion then got onto the topic of whether insanity could be taken as a valid thing to assume. My argument was based upon the fact that illness cannot meaningfully exist without a preconceived notion of wellness which could only be objectively meaningful with a mind-independent teleology that people could universally access.


Well, right, a major issue involved here is going to involve competition, and the baseline measure of crappy. Right, ok.


As merely one example (I could give dozens more): the insurance I fall under entitles me to get a new glasses prescription periodically. I did so once, and the insurance company simply never paid, claiming instead that it was the responsibility of another organization (it wasn't, and this was clear from the contracts). This occurred when I was 17. Over a year later, they still had not paid and the optometrist was (understandably) starting to get pissed about not being compensated for his services and beginning the process of taking legal action against my family for failure to pay, though we had paid everything we were obligated to pay. By this point, the glasses in question were an outdated prescription that needed replaced (indeed, according to the terms of the insurance I was entitled to a new pair of glasses on their dime, though in practice the optometrist would not have done this without getting paid for the prior pair). Actually, that pair of glasses was *broken* and I was still wearing it for almost a year. When we contacted the insurance agency yet again (I am leaving out the many occasions of contacting them and being assured that they would handle it) they noted that I was 18 and, on that basis, claimed that I was no longer covered despite the fact that the claim was filed while I was 17, and despite the fact that my insurance was still valid for several more years. They also refused to speak to my father on the subject because I was 18 (I had to explicitly tell them it was OK for my father to speak on my behalf) and they promised they would pay the doctor. They never did so, and we ended up footing the entire bill. This is not a unique case, similar things have occurred numerous times (more than I care to count) and it is not just insurance agencies that have done this either. There was a relatively recent incident involving the GM credit union and a refund for tickets from a defunct airline that was enough of a hassle to result in a decision to make a lifelong family boycott of all GM products. My dad has more horror stories than I do, and he could probably list at least a dozen corporations off the top of his head that have given him similar issues (we've got practically our own family blacklist).

In short, private corporations can be a b***h to deal with. [/quote]
Governments can be too.

In any case, that first problem is actually one that insurance companies should never have been involved in. This is to say nothing about the contracts, only that it does not fall under the function of insurance. In any case, I tend to buy cheap products that I don't care much if they break, and get involved in more consumer-oriented industries.


Well, of course not. I hate involving other groups in my business.


Ah, ok.


Well, I figured that this smiley was the only thing abstract enough to get my stubbornness. I mean, no living thing could get my stubbornness, and I don't have a good picture of a revenant. Yes, I am the black knight.

Basic measure of doing what they say they will do without having to spend hours fighting them over it is a good measure of crappy. The competition is equally bad.


Yes they can. But merely privatizing everything does not make service perfect everywhere.


BS. I don't give a damn about your normative ideas of what insurance "should" do. A good is a good, and the contract specified what they would cover, and they refused to cover it. Glasses were in the policy. But if that example isn't good enough for you, how about the insurance refusing to pay for my anesthesiology when I got my wisdom teeth out? That was also covered in the policy. Actually, my dad caught the insurance company changing their quotes around to screw us over during that time- luckily he had recorded all of them and we eventually "won" that one. Anyways, there are people with worse stories than I have.



Really? Google is your friend.