Insurance and Healthcare

[tengers]

Quote by: barnhardt2010 Maybe i should rephrase that to cancer incidence rate having nothing to do with healthcare systems. I dont really consider my doctor telling me everytime I see him to quit smoking as healthcare. Health education is a good thing but not necessarily most economically provided by healthcare professionals.

It is funny that I am engaged on this subject, in the sense that I have probably spent less on doctoring than anyone I know, or am likely to know. 40 years ago, a Scottish doctor introduced me to hydrogen peroxide in the jungles of Asia and I used that to cure colds, flu, coughs and all that stuff. I doubt if I go through a bottle of aspirin in 3 years. That said, my main interest is that neither the Bush, nor Obama administrations seemed to be addressing the main issue which is that something like 16% of our economy is being spent on health care and this figure keeps going up every year, both in dollars and as a percentage of GNP. Other nations get by on 8 to 10% and we should be able to do this as well. We are not competitive in many arenas because of this. Obama is correct to engage on the issue, but he should be trying to find a way to get by on $1.5 trillion instead of $2.5 trillion.

[barnhardt2010]

Quote by: tengers That said, my main interest is that neither the Bush, nor Obama administrations seemed to be addressing the main issue which is that something like 16% of our economy is being spent on health care and this figure keeps going up every year, both in dollars and as a percentage of GNP. Other nations get by on 8 to 10% and we should be able to do this as well. .

I suspect if you examined the US expenditures on personal automobiles, you would see the same discrepancy. I dont see any need for government to step in to stop people of means from spending more than they need to on personal transportation than I do for expenditures on health care. And if an automobile for everyone were the goal, I would want the government to help poor people by a modest, economical vehicle, instead of the government mandating that every one can only have an average sedan of the same price, and providing one of them to poor people.

[rmnunez]

Its strange how this governemnt spending thing works. The theory is that in "economies of scale" such substantial purchases as a government may make will result in proportionately substantial savings. In fact the case is always quite different. Today we read how the GAO reports the Department of Agriculture paid twice as much for ham and cheese than ordinary consumers do at the supermarket. I remeber those toilets seats the airforce bought for hundreds of dollars each, I guess they are special when the latrine is on a jet.

[tengers]

rmnunez and barnhardt, our problem is that this nation's finances seem to be firmly in the grip of bankers and corporate lobbyists who push borrowing, war, weapons, medicine and insurance far beyond our means to pay for it. It does not matter who is in office. Those are the big 5, all are out of control and have been for quite some time. This is the fundamental flaw in a Republic form of government. People can be bought and will pass legislation that funds their campaign. While California's politics are amusing, it is the only place where serious referendums seem to have slowed the juggernaut. American Capitalism clearly failed in 2007 and 2008. This failure was not because Capitalism is bad, it is because we are bad at Capitalism. We simply lack the fortitude to say no to anything of any consequence and are easily rolled by lobbyists.

[barnhardt2010]

Quote by: tengers rmnunez and barnhardt, our problem is that this nation's finances seem to be firmly in the grip of bankers and corporate lobbyists who push borrowing, war, weapons, medicine and insurance far beyond our means to pay for it. It does not matter who is in office. Those are the big 5, all are out of control and have been for quite some time. This is the fundamental flaw in a Republic form of government. People can be bought and will pass legislation that funds their campaign. While California's politics are amusing, it is the only place where serious referendums seem to have slowed the juggernaut.

Revealing that your desired model belongs to the State in worse finnancial condition than the other 49

Quote by: tengers American Capitalism clearly failed in 2007 and 2008. This failure was not because Capitalism is bad, it is because we are bad at Capitalism. We simply lack the fortitude to say no to anything of any consequence and are easily rolled by lobbyists.

American Economics failed, primarily due to government departures from capitalism

[barnhardt2010]

Quote by: rmnunez Today we read how the GAO reports the Department of Agriculture paid twice as much for ham and cheese than ordinary consumers do at the supermarket.

Thats paying twice as much as we would buying a couple pounds of Ham in the grocery store and the government bought $1.2 million worth of canned ham. CRAZY!

[barts]

Quote by: barnhardt2010 I suspect if you examined the US expenditures on personal automobiles, you would see the same discrepancy. I dont see any need for government to step in to stop people of means from spending more than they need to on personal transportation than I do for expenditures on health care. And if an automobile for everyone were the goal, I would want the government to help poor people by a modest, economical vehicle, instead of the government mandating that every one can only have an average sedan of the same price, and providing one of them to poor people.

Suggesting that health care and automobile ownership is analogous is ridiculous. Few people suffer, die, lose jobs, become unemployable, or go bankrupt because they can't buy a Lexus. And, in some cities like New York, London, and Paris there is universal, low cost transportation. It's called public transit and it's used by rich and poor in many cities because it's more convenient, at certain times, than private automobiles.

[barts]

Quote by: barnhardt2010 American Economics failed, primarily due to government departures from capitalism

I would welcome some expansion on that assertion. Depending on your take on capitalism, the United States government not only never departed from capitalism it made the US safe and profitable for capitalists. It essentially served the ordinary American up an a platter to make them easy pickings for big business. Now if your view of capitalism is that the American government should not have helped capitalist rape, plunder, destroy, and profit, then I agree with your assertion.

[lsbskins1]

Quote by: barnhardt2010 American Economics failed, primarily due to government departures from capitalism

I am deeply amused that this is the same kind of logic a dogmatic, Soviet style communist would use to excuse failure. We did not experience a failure of the system, we experienced a failure of adhering to system "purity". Cracks me right the hell up. especially considering we had 8 years of an executive who insisted on the least amount of "government involvement" possible.

[barnhardt2010]

Quote by: barts Suggesting that health care and automobile ownership is analogous is ridiculous.

Perfectly analagous to illustrate the only analogy I was making. An analogy that completely escapes you. Surprise , suprise.

[barnhardt2010]

Quote by: barts I would welcome some expansion on that assertion. Depending on your take on capitalism, the United States government not only never departed from capitalism it made the US safe and profitable for capitalists. It essentially served the ordinary American up an a platter to make them easy pickings for big business. Now if your view of capitalism is that the American government should not have helped capitalist rape, plunder, destroy, and profit, then I agree with your assertion.

The US mortgage finance market wasnt the result of free market competition. Government made credit both cheaper and more abundant than it ever would have been in a free market.

[barnhardt2010]

Quote by: lsbskins1 I am deeply amused that this is the same kind of logic a dogmatic, Soviet style communist would use to excuse failure. We did not experience a failure of the system, we experienced a failure of adhering to system "purity". Cracks me right the hell up. especially considering we had 8 years of an executive who insisted on the least amount of "government involvement" possible.

Nothing wrong with governemt involvement, in and of itself. In the case of the mortgage market, too much abundant, cheap credit was a recipe for disaster. A model dependent upon ever increasing home values that was unsustainable.

[barts]

Quote by: barnhardt2010 The US mortgage finance market wasnt the result of free market competition. Government made credit both cheaper and more abundant than it ever would have been in a free market.

Some would argue that the current financial "crisis" is a result of a highly deregulated financial industry. You don't agree? In one instance, the industry created exotic financial instruments that contained and obscured under collateralized loans. How did the government make the financial industry manufacture and sell what might best be described as fraudulent products? Surely, making shoddy products and selling them to deceived customers is the essence of the free market.

[tengers]

Quote by: barnhardt2010 Revealing that your desired model belongs to the State in worse finnancial condition than the other 49 American Economics failed, primarily due to government departures from capitalism

No, I think bankers have been firmly in charge of Government finances for quite some time. The flaw was the idea of lending for consumption enmasse. California exports more taxes than it imports. That is part of their problem.

[rmnunez]

borrowing, war, weapons, medicine and insurance

These apparently are not good things to spend as much money on as the government does. War and weapons are the same thing, its really "defense spending". I've read plenty of long arguments opposing that nefarious "military-industrial-complex" Eisenhower first mentioned so long ago. I don't know if its that bad, but it sure is expensive and a lot of that expense is in "overruns" where weapons "systems" are bid for and then completed (often decades later) with monumental price increases. There ought to be some system to prevent this from happening, I think the bids ought to be conditioned on no overruns and outside parties invited to compete if a bid wining contractor can't perform within budget.

Insurance is a big business and there is just too much of it and not really much service for what is being spent. In the typical case consumers end up paying for all sorts of insurance they find out when it comes time to collecting from their insurers, exceptions and special circumstances mean they've got no or less coverage than they thought they had. US consumers should realize common sense and reasonable prudence are about as good as it gets in reducing risk, that there is no guarantee everything will always be fine no matter what.

Borrowing is finance and when government spending is trillionaric, there's going to be some big borrowing. Credit and its financing is really the backbone of the US economy. Someone earlier posted about this "reserve" banking to explain how something like a tenth of the amount borrowed actually exists anywhere, this would imply that ten times as much as the government contemplates spending will somehow be generated in credit, this ought to help the economy quite nicely.

Medicine has a lot to do with healthcare and its insurance. Medicine includes pharmaceuticals and the entire health professional sector from nurses and doctors to clinicians and therapists. This is a big industry in the US which my doctor once refered to as populated by "educated hypocondriacs". I see a lot more ads on TV for medicines in the US than anywhere else. Online its all about Viagra, Cialis and Botox. There are huge profits in selling pills but some tremendous research and development costs before the first dime rolls in.

Last week, South Carolina Republican Senator Jim DeMint predicted the Obama plan would not pass Congress, and said such a failure could be Obama's "Waterloo," referring to the battle that effectively ended Napoleon Bonaparte's military career. Obama made direct reference to DeMint's predictions, and called on lawmakers to avoid the "politics of delay and defeat." Healthcare battle 'isn't about me': Obama

[barnhardt2010]

Quote by: barts Some would argue that the current financial "crisis" is a result of a highly deregulated financial industry. You don't agree? In one instance, the industry created exotic financial instruments that contained and obscured under collateralized loans. How did the government make the financial industry manufacture and sell what might best be described as fraudulent products? Surely, making shoddy products and selling them to deceived customers is the essence of the free market.

Since at its peak, Fannie and Freddie had over 80% of the market, turning mortgages into exotic financial instruments, and since there were not any regulations in place to be deregulated in the first place, I dont think its a very good argument. As well, there wasnt any regulation of these exotic financial instruments, since their creation in the 90s to be deregulated.

[lsbskins1]

And here we are, back on the derailed train. I'm sure any one of us would be glad to continue discussing the economic situation in the US, but not in this thread. Insurance and Health Care, Insurance and Health Care, Insurance and Health Care. That is our topic for this thread.

[Cruella]

Stick to the topic please. Further derailments will incur infractions.

DO NOT RESPOND IN THIS THREAD TO THE PRECEDING MESSAGE. Please contact a member of the staff privately if you have any questions.

[barts]

Quote by: barnhardt2010 Perfectly analagous to illustrate the only analogy I was making. An analogy that completely escapes you. Surprise , suprise.

Generally in communications the burden to be clear falls on the person who is making an assertion. If your analogy escapes me, and I'm a very highly educated individual, then the fault lies with your communication skills. Clearly, you have difficulty making your points.

[tengers]

Quote by: Billingsley “If private insurers say that the marketplace provides the best quality health care, if they tell us that they’re offering a good deal,” he asked, “then why is it that the government, which they say can’t run anything, suddenly is going to drive them out of business? That’s not logical.” - Barack Obama Does anyone else find this statement so staggeringly economically wrong that they cringe a bit? If so, why? If not, why? Billingsley.

Ok, we have gotten past GNP, Canada, WHO, cancer rates in the US, survival rates, government inefficiencies, Bart says, Barnhardt says, and so forth. I would propose the following:

1. Retain the private health care system for the 85% of the population that is covered..

2. Create a public healthcare for the 15% that are not covered that requires a mandatory deduction of 10% of salary up to $240/month. This policy will provide for basic healthcare with a $1500 deductible on 20 million workers, who earn on average maybe $30,000 per year. This will create a pool of $60 Billion (20,000,000 x $30,000 x10%). This sum divided by the 46,000,000 people not covered averages about $1,300 each, which is not very close to the $8,000 each that we currently average. So we need to close the gap and reduce our costs.

3. Set out to reduce health care costs in the nation using an incentive. The incentive is that if you don't use the health care system up to your allotted average of $8,000 per person, your insurer will issue you a credit for 50% of the savings, they will retain 10% and the 40% balance will be paid into the Government fund or it will cover the overrun, if full savings don't materialize. Assuming that people will take advantage of this, costs might drop $2,000 per person. This assumes that we can get our costs to be about 50% higher than Canada's $4,000 each. This will result in a total of $204 Billion being moved to the Government insurance pot (255,000,000 million people X $2,000 X 40% = $204,000,000.

Checking, we have $204 Billion + $60 Billion = $264 Billion. That works out to about $5,700 each for the uninsured. Place these folks on an incentive too. If they don't use their allotment, it will be credited against their deductible.

Close enough for state work. This is still more than I would spend, but at this point, get it over with.

Remember the movie Dave!