Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
Jaybro
Social climber
Wolf City, Wyoming
|
|
You really don't get it Lois. You don't even know what you already know.
|
|
stevep
Boulder climber
Salt Lake, UT
|
|
Actually, the "no-exclusions" part of the bill does prevent rating-up and charging more for medical conditions. It basically switches everything to what is called modified community rated. Meaning they can neither deny you or charge a lot more because of a pre-existing condition.
Hypothetically they could charge everyone alot more, but that's a little less likely as someone could swoop in an offer a cheaper plan without assuming any greater risk. There would be more protection against this with a public option, but I'd be pretty surprised to see rates skyrocket across the board.
|
|
JEleazarian
Trad climber
Fresno CA
|
|
LEB,
Removing profit from the system creates false economy. Profit represents the return on investment. When the government's proposed investment makes no profit, you're really saying that the people get zero return on their investment. It is, quite simply, a cost that doesn't get factored into the equation, but a real cost nonetheless.
John
|
|
bvb
Social climber
flagstaff arizona
|
|
In that case nothing but money is ever meaningful to you and you will never understand the basis of this discussion.
fattrad. dude. p0wned, ftw!
|
|
JEleazarian
Trad climber
Fresno CA
|
|
LEB, I think your example of the truck driver hanging off a cliff errs when you immediately conclude that this is not effective from a profit perspective. What costs and benefits do you analyze when concluding that this is "obviously" unprofitable?
If the heroic effort to save the life of this driver results in many others dying, then I could see an argument that this is unprofitable (although if I were the dangling driver, I would probably think differently). I suspect, though, the calculus you cite uses the wrong measure of cost. Cost to an economist is the opportunity foregone. If the rescuers have no other opportunity for rescue other than this one, the cost in economic terms is quite minimal, and the benefit exceedingly great.
Now, back to health care. When we who oppose the Democrats' plan (whatever it is in its secret "conference" committee) say that eliminating profit from the equation leads to erroneous calculations, we mean that the public must measure the money spent on this bill against all other possible uses of the money. From your comments about discretionary income, you do exactly the same thing.
I like to test my first-year microeconomics students with this question. A state [you know which one!] proposes to fund universal child care with a tax on those whose income exceeds one million dollars annually. Does this proposal cost anything to those making less than one million dollars annually? The answer, of course, is yes, because the proviso that the money be used for one purpose excludes all of the other possible uses of the money. This imposes a cost in the lost opportunity to potentially use that money on something better.
Again, I think we're arguing more over terminology than methodology.
John
|
|
JEleazarian
Trad climber
Fresno CA
|
|
"In that case nothing but money is ever meaningful to you and you will never understand the basis of this discussion."
I can't speak for fattrad, but to me, money is a surrogate for every other possible use of resources. Whenever you spend money on one item, you necessarily exclude its use for everything else. In that sense, we'd all better care about money in public expenditures.
John
|
|
michae1
Gym climber
san jose
|
|
there are a lot of opinion's here , what i would like to know is Has anyone read the bill?
and why doe's it have to be 2000 pages long? before anyone votes on it in washington they should
have to read it and any other bill that they are going to vote on , just my opinion
|
|
Jaybro
Social climber
Wolf City, Wyoming
|
|
"Maybe, it is YOU who does not get it. If what apogee is saying is correct - this health care reform is getting more and more watered down."
Gee, Lois, who do you think watered it down besides you and your votes? take some responsiibility already! This is YOUR work . Don't tell me you don't already know this....
Fatty what about ripped honemasters our age, who get saved by the gamma knife, like that one we both know in Mammoth? I'd rather my tax money went to that than a missile, I would pay for it out of pocket, if I could.
Lois, you do realize that you are whining about the efficacy of something you purport to oppose? Right?
really, think before you post!
|
|
JEleazarian
Trad climber
Fresno CA
|
|
LEB,
I'll quickly try to put this in economic terms, then (cowardly) ignore the discussion because I have several billable matters to which I must attend in the next few hours.
Economists define a good or service that, by general agreement, everyone must have for a society to be just as a "merit good." Examples include some minimum amount of food, clothing, shelter, education and health care. The market cannot provide merit goods properly for the reason you state (no profit) but also for another reason: freeloaders. If we do not involve government to provide merit goods, many people can do nothing, thinking the generosity of others will solve the problem.
I think everyone on this forum sees some amount of health care as a merit good in that sense. The questions become:
1. How much health care? This is fattrad's point. There are certain, basic services, procedures and medications to which we need to limit the governmental assistance. Everything else should be on one's own nickel.
2. How do we provide that minimal health care efficiently? This is where we disagree over things like: (a) Should all health care providers of "basic services" be paid by the government, or privately?; (b) would a "public option" provide essential health care at less cost (including in the cost calculations a proper accounting of lost profit)?; (c) How do we decide what constitutes "basic services" and what is optional, since technology changes constantly?; (d) How do we provide the optimal encouragement for innovation? These questions form about half of the real controversy here.
3. How do we pay for this? This forms the other half of the real controversy, and appears to be the stumbling block of the current Democratic House and Senate members. The Senate Democrats want to tax "luxury" plans, but their definition of "luxury" hits too many middle-class (and particularly unionized employee) health benefits for the House Democrats' comfort. The House Democrats' want to tax "the rich," but their definition of "the rich" will hit too many middle class people for the Senate Democrats' comfort. If anything kills this bill, this will be it. The Democrats have spent their political capital telling Americans that someone or something (i.e., "cost savings") else will pay for all this. Unfortunately, the "cost savings" are now generally acknowledged to be a phantom, and the necessary number of "someone elses" too great for political comfort.
There you have my economic and political analysis in a nutshell. Now I need to earn some profit of my own. In the meantime, thanks for indulging me.
John
|
|
apogee
climber
|
|
"A state [you know which one!] proposes to fund universal child care with a tax on those whose income exceeds one million dollars annually. Does this proposal cost anything to those making less than one million dollars annually?"
You actually use an example like that in your classes, John? Isn't there a rule against inserting political biases into the classroom? (I'm being facetious.)
It strikes me as ironic that conservative, capitalistic economists will dismiss the fact that the costs of not having that healthcare will trickle down to all levels of society, but when the talk is of tax cuts to benefit those same 1% income earners comes up, the rationalization is about 'trickle down' benefits to the masses.
|
|
Norton
Social climber
the Wastelands
|
|
As I posted a few weeks ago, the healthcare bill is available online.
The Senate version can be read here: http://www.opencongress.org/senate_health_care_bill
The House version is also available, and has been for quite a while.
This is the FIRST time that any major legislation has been so widely
transparent and so easily accessible to the public.
This is called "transparency". Promised, and now delivered.
I have read the bill, all of it.
I encourage everyone to exercise their freedom and rights as Americans
and to not take anyone's word on the bill. Read it yourself.
Yes, it is a large bill, it is lot of legislation.
Want a physically smaller bill, then work to elect more Republicans who
will oppose it, and work to have it repealed. Contribute to the GOP!
|
|
Norton
Social climber
the Wastelands
|
|
Once again the Great Predictor, Fatty, is spewing at the mouth.
He has been predicting military attacks on Iran for years, none has occurred
He is now stating as fact that the healthcare bill is "dead".
Is Fatty willing to put his money where his mouth is this time?
How much do you want to bet against the bill being passed, Jeff?
|
|
apogee
climber
|
|
Cripes, fattrad, will you please stop the repetitive 'gamma knife/biotech drug' argument? It's really, really, really tired by now.
|
|
apogee
climber
|
|
Yeah, I know, fattrad, we all know, now.
|
|
Jaybro
Social climber
Wolf City, Wyoming
|
|
Sis, you're basing your whole whine on right wing Dogma, and nothing, at all, to do with events in the real world. Of course no one can have a rational discussion with you. You come from the position that you are always right, whatever it is that jumps into your head on a given day1
i am, flattered that you stole my line about the party's being indistinguishable, though!
|
|
apogee
climber
|
|
"...now I see it is hopeless, she is blind, it has been proven over and over again..."
Easy there, F...Lois has made progress...give her a bit of credit. Just a little. Baby steps, man...baby steps.
|
|
stevep
Boulder climber
Salt Lake, UT
|
|
I've read some of the bill, as several of the software products I manage will be affected by it.
First of all, the assumption that new drugs or procedures will only be developed in a for-profit environment is bogus. Lots of great stuff has been and continues to be developed in non-profit university settings. And in not-for-profit hospitals.
And yes John, the Senate does have a pretty wacky take on opposing taxing the rich to pay for this. I think the cut-off is $200K. Maybe only in San Francisco and New York would that be considered middle-class.
|
|
Ken M
Mountain climber
Los Angeles, Ca
|
|
http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/349/8/768
Results In 1999, health administration costs totaled at least $294.3 billion in the United States, or $1,059 per capita, as compared with $307 per capita in Canada. After exclusions, administration accounted for 31.0 percent of health care expenditures in the United States and 16.7 percent of health care expenditures in Canada. Canada's national health insurance program had overhead of 1.3 percent; the overhead among Canada's private insurers was higher than that in the United States (13.2 percent vs. 11.7 percent). Providers' administrative costs were far lower in Canada.
Between 1969 and 1999, the share of the U.S. health care labor force accounted for by administrative workers grew from 18.2 percent to 27.3 percent. In Canada, it grew from 16.0 percent in 1971 to 19.1 percent in 1996. (Both nations' figures exclude insurance-industry personnel.)
Conclusions The gap between U.S. and Canadian spending on health care administration has grown to $752 per capita. A large sum might be saved in the United States if administrative costs could be trimmed by implementing a Canadian-style health care system.
|
|
apogee
climber
|
|
I'm curious why there continues to be so much talk about a PO, now that the bill that is in committee has been completely stripped of anything that resembles it, and there seems to be a possibility that the bill itself could tank altogether.
I have been as loud a proponent of a PO as any of you have, but it seems like it's time to move on. Do we keep bringing this up out of nostalgia, or is there something afoot that I'm just not aware of?
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!