Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I would advise you to arm yourself with a basic understanding of economics and a knowledge of the facts before you proceed to accuse me of having fuzzy math.
Why Health Insurance Dergulation Ain't Enough (Universal Health Care - Change.org) (http://healthcare.change.org/blog/view/why_health_insurance_dergulation_aint_enough - broken link)
With the small businesses, I would like for a group of small businesses to be able to pool together to get lower rates. A big reason why larger businesses are able to get lower prices for health insurance is because they employ more people and it's a larger pool to spread the risk.
It would be nice if small businesses were able to set up a partnership with certain doctors and pay them a fee every month or year to see their employees. The small business could purchase catastrophic care for all their employees and pay in cash for the family doctor visits and things of that nature. Even if this goes on, their rates can still increase if say an employee has a premature baby that racks up a huge hospital bill.
I saw this in a DVD that PBS put out. It was a case of two families that had a premature baby. In one case, the dad worked for Microsoft and Microsoft pays a huge costs of health care costs for their employees. With the other family, the mother was employed by a small business. Both babies racked up millions in medical bills. It didn't make a big difference to Microsoft but with the small business, it raised their premiums so much they had to consider a new health insurance company.
I think it's wrong for some health insurance companies to stipulate that doctors can't see patients that pay in cash or else they'll lose their contract with the insurance company.
Here in my state, from the town hall meetings, most small business owners want SOMETHING to help them with health care costs. They want to offer their employees health care and some of them can't because of the costs. Others are swallowing the costs and their profits are suffering as a result.
I think most of the older people are concerned about cuts in Medicare and fear their care is going to be compromised. It would be nice if they cared about ALL the citizens of the U.S. and not just the older ones but let's not even go there. Plus you have the idiots who talk about getting government hands off of Medicare not even realized Medicare is a government program.
Some argue they "paid into the system" but they don't realize they're taking more out of the system than they put in.
It doesn't sound counter intuitive at all. I'm libertarian when it comes to a lot of things but health care isn't one.
Only comment beyond i'm definitely in agreement would be about the article you posted.
I tend not to agree with the author and here is why
His overall point may have some validity, but i do not think it is correct. It misses a lot of the bigger picture. Perhaps the medical insurance companies are not raising their overall cost to reflect the state mandates and regulations. However, i think he's wrong, because insurance companies offer coverage based on what amounts to a highly sophisticated guessing game and their goal is to maximize profits and reduce cost. They really do not have an absolute science or crystal ball attempting to figure out future claim expenses. I think his article misses what may amount to insurance companies spreading the of overall cost of regulations in one state to their consumers in another state. If they face higher cost via regulations in one state, why wouldn't they pass that on to a state, that does not have those same regulations? This could explain the difference. Remember medical insurance privately is still operated as a collective pool, so spreading all risk/cost is extremely important to maximizing profits.
For instance if i operate a medical insurance company I know the following;
1. What states offer the highest median incomes (i can charge the highest premiums)
2. What states offer the highest level of regulations (raising cost on me and reducing margins in that state, which can have the unintended effect of forcing me to raise cost in another state with fewer regulations. I have to pass the total cost and loss of margins off somewhere)
3. I also have a team of actuaries that run all kinds of numbers based on each states working population demographic etc(which helps me make hypothetical, sophisticated guesses, on which state could be more costly, based on the health tendencies and claim history etc)
It is possible these companies are willing to take on plans in states with larger working populations, higher incomes, and higher Regulations to maximize profit. It is equally likely due to regulations in New York for example Blue Cross may pass some of this cost off to its consumers in New York and a few other states where regulations are not as costly.
It is quite possible less regulated states see higher premiums, because of the regulatory cost in other states. Similar to sin taxes on goods in one state and the illegal importation of them into another state.
If every state had the exact same regulations then we could compare apples to apples, but the authors conclusion leaves a lot to be desired.
It is a general rule that for a service like medical insurance, buyers pay all or the majority of the cost associated with government regulations, whether that is in the state where higher regulations exist or in a state where there is fewer regulations etc...(companies are very sophisticated at spreading risk and cost)
Companies have realized that consumers have an inelastic demand for medical services or at least those that can pay for it will pay anything to get it.....and those that can afford it will pay top dollar for more services etc (but even this is not really true)
This is also why i agree and disagree with the heritage study link you referenced and at the same time I find it extremely contradictory. At the far end it agrees there is a limited amount of medical services that can be provided, but at the same time it makes light of the fact, that the reason we enjoy a large number of services is because we are willing to pay much more for them) - at some point these two points end up destroying each other and pushing one or another out of the market - end result someone loses
then we go back to the age old argument (pardon the pun), but this is why the elderly in our country can enjoy to afford the payment for extra services (IMO).
They are not bearing the cost of these expensive surgeries or procedures. You know who is bearing the cost? Yep you guessed it in my opinion someone much younger and healthier, who is not demanding an equal percentage of the cost he/she pays for the scarce resource of health-care/services he/she does not use....... If everyone used health care services to the same exact extent how would companies make a profit? Or in other words if we all used more than we put into the private insurance system in claims, how would the private insurers ever make a profit? Clearly insurance pools only work when you can get a larger number of individuals to pay more for something then they actual use. If this was not the case there would be no money in insuring people. On the other end of the scale there are obviously those that greatly benefit from the non-use of these individuals and are able to demand more services and pay the higher cost for these services etc (up until they price out the majority of people supporting their expensive behavior and abuse of the pool)
This certainly induces producers (hospitals and specialist) to continue to innovate and offer more goods at a higher price. However the pricier the services and the more coverage demanded of medical insurers to cover these expensive (sometimes unnecessary procedures) the more prices increase for coverage. Now we have the problem of unintended effects due to pooling resources and some taking out more than they put in. The ultimate result is they end up pushing the very individuals that are helping to support their expensive habits out of the market, because of the price increase.
I would advise you to arm yourself with a basic understanding of economics and a knowledge of the facts before you proceed to accuse me of having fuzzy math.
His overall point may have some validity, but i do not think it is correct. It misses a lot of the bigger picture. Perhaps the medical insurance companies are not raising their overall cost to reflect the state mandates and regulations. However, i think he's wrong, because insurance companies offer coverage based on what amounts to a highly sophisticated guessing game and their goal is to maximize profits and reduce cost. They really do not have an absolute science or crystal ball attempting to figure out future claim expenses. I think his article misses what may amount to insurance companies spreading the of overall cost of regulations in one state to their consumers in another state. If they face higher cost via regulations in one state, why wouldn't they pass that on to a state, that does not have those same regulations? This could explain the difference. Remember medical insurance privately is still operated as a collective pool, so spreading all risk is extremely important to maximizing profits.
For instance if i operate a medical insurance company I know the following;
1. What states offer the highest median incomes (i can charge the highest premiums)
2. What states offer the highest level of regulations (raising cost on me and reducing margins in that state, which can have the unintended effect of forcing me to raise cost in another state with fewer regulations. I have to pass the total cost and loss of margins off somewhere)
3. I also have a team of accuracies that run all kinds of numbers based on each states working demographic etc(which helps me make hypothetical, sophisticated guesses, on which state could be more costly etc)
It is possible these companies are willing to take on plans in states with larger working populations, higher incomes, and higher Regulations to maximize profit. It is equally likely due to regulations in New York for example Blue Cross may pass some of this cost off to its consumers in New York and a few other states where regulations are not as costly.
It is quite possible less regulated states see higher premiums, because of the regulatory cost in other states. Similiar to sin taxes on goods in one state and the illegal importation of them into another state.
If every state had the exact same regulations then we could compare apples to apples, but the authors conclusion leaves a lot to be desired.
It is a general rule that for a service like medical insurance, buyers pay all or the majority of the cost associated with government regulations, whether that is in the state where higher regulations exist or in a state where there is fewer regulations etc...(companies are very sophisticated at spreading risk and cost)
Companies have realized that consumers have an inelastic demand for medical services or at least those that can pay for it will pay anything to get it.....and those that can afford it will pay top dollar for more services etc (but even this is not really true)
This is also why i agree and disagree with the heritage study link you referenced and at the same time I find it extremely contradictory. At the far end it agrees there is a limited amount of medical services that can be provided, but at the same time it makes light of the fact, that the reason we enjoy a large number of services is because we are willing to pay much more for them) - at some point these two points end up destroying each other and pushing one or another out of the market - end result someone loses
then we go back to the age old argument (pardon the pun), but this is why the elderly in our country can enjoy to afford the payment for extra services (IMO).
They are not bearing the cost of these expensive surgeries or procedures. You know who is bearing the cost? Yep you guessed it. In my opinion someone much younger and healthier.......
This certainly induces producers (hospitals and specialist) to continue to innovate and offer more goods at a higher price. However the pricier the services and the more coverage demanded of medical insurers to cover these expensive (sometimes unnecessary procedures) the more prices increase for coverage. Now we have the problem of unintended effects due to pooling resources and some taking out more than they put in. The ultimate result is they end up pushing the very individuals that are helping to support their expensive habits out of the market, because of the price increase.
I think those who can afford all those expensive surgeries, treatments, stints, etc end up raising the price for those of us who can't afford it.
Of course as the Cato article also mentioned, people are more likely to consume expensive health care services if they know someone else is footing the bill.
I'm for ending the tax breaks for companies that provide the "Cadillac plan" of health care plans.
Quote:
The single most important step policymakers could take to make reform work is to scale back the tax exclusion on employer-provided healthcare insurance for those with very expensive healthcare plans. This would raise lots of money to pay for insuring the uninsured, and it would also force higher-income households to shop for care more carefully.
There is no bigger expenditure in the tax code than the exclusion for employer-provided health insurance, which will cost the U.S. Treasury approximately $155 billion next year. For context, allowing homeowners to deduct mortgage interest will cost the Treasury less than $110 billion. Reasonably scaling back the tax exclusion could easily raise as much as half the cost of insuring the uninsured. Moreover, the tax savings would increase at about the same pace as the cost.
Without the tax break, large health insurance packages would be less attractive to employers and their employees. Higher-income households would feel the cost of consuming health care more directly. This would create more health care shopping, in turn forcing providers to price more competitively. The principal economic failing of the nation's health care system is that big consumers of health care don't directly feel the cost of their decisions. This would change if there weren't a tax benefit attached to expensive health care packages.
Scaling back the tax exclusion may be politically difficult, however. A reasonably good alternative, which has gained some traction in the recent debate, would be a tax on expensive insurance policies paid by insurance companies and/or firms that offer them to their employees. This wouldn't be as effective as directly raising the tax burden on those who consume lots of health care, but it would be worthwhile.
Good guess. As I already stated, I don't read super long posts on CD. What the repubs have or have not done is completely irrelevant to the points I made when I answered your question.
Look, it's very simple. Right now government spending makes up about 30% of our national GDP. If you add health care which is about 18% that gives you 48%. The ultimate goal for the public option is to ultimately have a government run system. Even many public option proponents have admitted this.
No true libertarian is for giving the government control of half of our economy. (I seriously doubt you are really a libertarian)
You can give me ten paragraphs of talking points all you want. It will not change the simple facts.
Jdevelope, I know reading is fundamental, so I'll condense my question based on your request
1. Please point out or name at least two consecutive Presidential Administration in the last 100 years in which the Government Budget decreased in size from administration to administration-(for quick reference CBO budgets are widely available for each administration going back to 1840. Also if you did not know or were unaware congress approves all executive budget request)
At what point in the past 110 years can you actually point out or apply true libertarian principles to the Federal Government and Congressional spending?
2008- Government Outlays Totaled 2.2 Trillion Dollars
2008- GDP totaled 14.2 Trillion Dollars
Yes, i would agree, you have not only an inability to or difficulty in reading, but also a serious inability to do basic 4th grade division
I honestly, was not even going to bother to respond, but my tolerance for individuals like you is completely maxed out at this point (but you're certainly free to have any opinion you'd like to imagine as fact).
BASIC 4th GRADE MATH
2.2/14.2 = 15% of GDP
However, i will add that in the future due to the cost of Social Security and Medicare, government outlays are expected to increase to 25-30% of GDP by 2020. However, it could potentially be more, it could potentially be less, at this point in time these are estimates and GDP could be higher or it could be lower etc
I'm not going to bother validating any thing you said in relation to me being a libertarian.
I can not believe I'm about to waste this much time on this post.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dorock99
Jdevelope, I know reading is fundamental, so I'll condense my question based on your request I read plenty when the author is a reputable and credible source. You are just a poster on CD. Why would I spend time reading your incredibly long and factually incorrect (see below) posts?
1. Please point out or name at least two consecutive Presidential Administration in the last 100 years in which the Government Budget decreased in size from administration to administration-(for quick reference CBO budgets are widely available for each administration going back to 1840. Also if you did not know or were unaware congress approves all executive budget request) We have not ever had a Libertarian as president. Whether a previous administration decreased the budget or not is irrelevant to whether a public option is inline with Libertarian thought.
At what point in the past 110 years can you actually point out or apply true libertarian principles to the Federal Government and Congressional spending? This does not change libertarian principles.
2008- Government Outlays Totaled 2.2 Trillion Dollars Incorrect. And if I remember you saying you were an investment banker, that is a scary thought. Actually I don't believe it because even an undergrad in Finance or Econ 101 wouldn't be so ignorant.
So let me explain it to you. GOVERNMENT spending is made up of FEDERAL, STATE, & LOCAL spending. In 2008:
Federal spending was: 2.201 Trillion
State spending was: 1.235 Trillion
Local spending was: 1.548 Trillion
TOTAL GOVT SPDG: 4.984 Trillion
Total U.S. government expenditures for 2008 were 4.984 Trillion. Anyone who doubts this can look it up for themselves.
2008- GDP totaled 14.2 Trillion Dollars Correct, 14.264 Trillion to be precise
Yes, i would agree, you have not only an inability to or difficulty in reading, but also a serious inability to do basic 4th grade division. So apparently you should not only take issue with your colege economics professor but you should also take issue with your 4th grade math teacher.
I honestly, was not even going to bother to respond, but my tolerance for individuals like you is completely maxed out at this point (but you're certainly free to have any opinion you'd like to imagine as fact).
Likewise pal.
BASIC 4th GRADE MATH
2.2/14.2 = 15% of GDP And this means nothing since 2.2 is INCORRECT
Correct 4th GRADE MATH
4.984/14.264 = 34.94%
So excuse me, 35% not 30%. That would take the grand total from $48% to 53%.
However, i will add that in the future due to the cost of Social Security and Medicare, government outlays are expected to increase to 25-30% of GDP by 2020. However, it could potentially be more, it could potentially be less, at this point in time these are estimates and GDP could be higher or it could be lower etc.
I'm not going to bother validating any thing you said in relation to me being a libertarian. You may call yourself a libertarian but you do not share the libertarian philosophy. Frankly I really don't care what you are.
I guess you think we spend our whole lives on this site.....
Is that your best response? Some folks just can't admit when they are wrong. Dorock99 has posted in other forums today, but realized he had made himself look ignorant in this thread and abandoned it. A thread HE STARTED.
Spend our whole lives on this site? I have posted 442 times. You have posted 4,572 times. Give me a break.
I can not believe I'm about to waste this much time on this post.
-Irrelevant to the discussion
Quote:
Originally Posted by jdevelop2
I read plenty when the author is a reputable and credible source. You are just a poster on CD. Why would I spend time reading your incredibly long and factually incorrect (see below) posts?
-Irrelevant to the discussion (note you're posting an a debate site, so the above paragraph does a great job of showing your mastery of contradiction.)
Quote:
Originally Posted by jdevelop2
We have not ever had a Libertarian as president. Whether a previous administration decreased the budget or not is irrelevant to whether a public option is inline with Libertarian thought.
This is a false statement. Correction we have had Libertarian Presidents in the past. We have yet to have a Libertarian President apply "true" Anarchist Libertarian theory to all aspects of American life. Any educated person should know that there is no absolute theory and they all build on one another, so there is no point in which an absolute theory is practically applied to every aspect of individuals lives. (If this were not true the United States of America Would not exist at all!) Also you fail to account for different branches of Libertarianism. For instance Milton Friedman is much different than Ayn Rand, but both considered themselves libertarians. What differs between the two is their view of coercion and limited government. You show an extreme lack of a strong educational background on libertarianism, so it is a wonder how you could even consider yourself one.
Thomas Jefferson - Considered a libertarian, because he was highly influenced by Libertarianism during the enlightenment period. (Most constitutional libertarians these days are now referred to as Jeffersonian Libertarians etc)
James Madison
Quote:
Originally Posted by jdevelop2
Incorrect. And if I remember you saying you were an investment banker, that is a scary thought. Actually I don't believe it because even an undergrad in Finance or Econ 101 wouldn't be so ignorant.
Extremely petty insult that holds no weight, because I highly doubt you could hold my jock strap on your best day, in undergrad or on the trading desk, so the insult while petty is completely irrelevant to the discussion. Just adds to inability to stick to debate and cloud us with your inferiority complex.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jdevelop2
So let me explain it to you. GOVERNMENT spending is made up of FEDERAL, STATE, & LOCAL spending. In 2008:
Federal spending was: 2.201 Trillion
State spending was: 1.235 Trillion
Local spending was: 1.548 Trillion
TOTAL GOVT SPDG: 4.984 Trillion
This would mean, the U.S. government would run HALF of the U.S. economy.
Correct, 14.264 Trillion to be precise
Yes, you are correct, but you stated the following the US GOVERNMENT (FEDERAL, not state or local) would run Half of the US economy. My argument had nothing to do with State/Local government spending or how total government spending represented by (G) in the GDP formula related to the spending by both the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, and Sate and Local governments!!! WHO GIVES TWO CRAPS ABOUT STATE/LOCAL SPENDING THEY ARE NOT THE ENTITIES WHO WILL SPEND THE TAX MONEY TO FUND UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE. IF THEY WERE GOING TO BE THE CHIEF SPENDING BENEFICIARIES OF THE NEW TAX THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT WOULD NOT BE INVOLVED AND THE TAXES AND MONEY WOULD GO DIRECTLY TO THE STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS to SPEND ON HEALTH-CARE AS THEY SEE FIT!
HOWEVER, THIS HAS NOT BEEN PROPOSED SO SEPARATING OUT THE SPENDING OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT AND HOW MUCH IT IS LIKELY TO INCREASE IS CRUCIAL TO THE ARGUMENT! THE UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE TAX IS NOT GOING TO BE SPLIT AND SHARED BETWEEN THE FEDERAL GOV AND STATES LIKE INCOME TAXES!!! IT IS MOST LIKELY GOING TO BE JUST LIKE SOCIAL SECURITY TAX, THE STATES WON"T SEE A DIME OF IT! (Except maybe in the form of higher overall tax revenue from Federal Government spending in the private sector to provide services to people)
The fact that i actually have to spell that out for you is extremely troubling. Any person with a reasonable level of intelligence would have deducted that from this thread. Seriously, what a dishonest attempt to make yourself feel better. I have been putting strict emphasis on pointing out just the spending of the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT in relation to GDP especially for Universal Heath-Care. The argument of this entire thread has centered around FEDERAL GOVERNMENT SPENDING and a LIBERTARIAN PERSPECTIVE ON A FEDERAL GOVERNMENT SPONSORED HEALTH INSURANCE PLAN. I EVEN WENT TO THE EXTENT OF SAYING THAT I WISH THE GOVERNMENT SHARED SOME OF THE POWER IN TERMS OF PROVIDING STATES WITH ADMINISTRATION OF IT. HOWEVER THAT HAS NOT BEEN SUGGESTED BY CONGRESS TO MY KNOWLEDGE.
For you to point out something that is not germane to the conversation and act as if you discovered gold is ridiculous, but to then insult me and completely miss the point of me separating out the Federal Governments Outlays reveals an extreme lack of intelligence on your part. Its like me making a Social Security Thread and attributing the the Social Security Tax to State/Local Government Spending. THEY'LL NEVER TOUCH THE MONEY. WHAT POINT WOULD IT DO ME COMPARING TOTAL GOVERNMENT SPENDING TO GDP. IF THE SPENDING AND TAX PRIVILEGES ARE GOING STRICTLY TO ONE ENTITY OF THE EQUATION??????
Quote:
Originally Posted by jdevelop2
So apparently you should not only take issue with your college economics professor but you should also take issue with your 4th grade math teacher.
Correct 4th GRADE MATH
4.984/14.264 = 34.94%
So excuse me, 35% not 30%. That would take the grand total from $48% to 53%.
Refer to the above response. I'll give you benefit of this being correct in total government expenditures (Federal, State, and Local), but it is not germane to the argument of a Federal Government Run Health Insurance Plan, in which there has been no indication that it will increase the spending powers of State and Local governments. Is there plans of sharing the new tax money between the FED AND STATES?
Quote:
Originally Posted by jdevelop2
You may call yourself a libertarian but you do not share the libertarian philosophy. Frankly I really don't care what you are.
Sure, i welcome your opinion and invite you to debate it, but please answer me the following.
Are you a libertarian? If so what principles do you apply to being a libertarian? (Only a village idiot would assume a theory or philosophy is absolute and does not present elements of extremism and moderation when it is practically applied)
Last edited by dorock99; 09-05-2009 at 04:32 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
