Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: Soul Crusher on November 22, 2011, 06:22:03 AM
-
Romney: "No, I just know it's the nature of politics. People trying to cast their opponent in a less than favorable light. And I know that health care is one of those issues. The Massachusetts healthcare plan. But don't forget, this healthcare plan was something we learned about from the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank. Even Newt Gingrich supported the idea of an individual mandate, insisting on personal responsibility. Now, what we did isn't perfect. Some parts of it worked, some didn't, some things I change. But it's not like it was a liberal idea. It was a conservative concept. I'm proud of the fact we did something that worked with our state consistent with the Tenth amendment. I'm also proud of the fact that I'm out there saying I'll get rid of ObamaCare. I know why it's bad. I know how it's different than what we did and why it needs to be taken off the books of the US -- of the entire nation."
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2011/11/21/romney_health_care_individual_mandate_is_a_conservative_concept.html
-
LOL At mitt, topping out at 22 to 25% in every poll... trying to tie that albatross of oromneycare to Newt :)
LOL harder at repubs who have to choose between this d-bag and the piggish lying lobbyist Newt, because they're too blind to look at Ron Paul, because daddy hannity tells them not to.
-
LOL At mitt, topping out at 22 to 25% in every poll... trying to tie that albatross of oromneycare to Newt :)
LOL harder at repubs who have to choose between this d-bag and the piggish lying lobbyist Newt, because they're too blind to look at Ron Paul, because daddy hannity tells them not to.
Mitt Romney is obama-lite.
I can't believe how tone deaf and out of step he is.
-
Too bad Mitt is going to be the candidate who gets the nod.
-
Too bad Mitt is going to be the candidate who gets the nod.
agreed. they'll hold their nose and vote for him in the primary because hannity and rush will 'settle' for Mittens.
Mitt has great ground infrastructure. It's like the shitty race car driver who buys up all the pit teams to walk off the job during the race.
He can drive that nascar (no mobama) track at 35 mph while everyone boos, but everyone else will run out of gas (cash).
Then, of course, you nascar voting fans will talk about how mitt is the greatest conservative since reagan :)
-
Romney: "No, I just know it's the nature of politics. People trying to cast their opponent in a less than favorable light. And I know that health care is one of those issues. The Massachusetts healthcare plan. But don't forget, this healthcare plan was something we learned about from the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank. Even Newt Gingrich supported the idea of an individual mandate, insisting on personal responsibility. Now, what we did isn't perfect. Some parts of it worked, some didn't, some things I change. But it's not like it was a liberal idea. It was a conservative concept. I'm proud of the fact we did something that worked with our state consistent with the Tenth amendment. I'm also proud of the fact that I'm out there saying I'll get rid of ObamaCare. I know why it's bad. I know how it's different than what we did and why it needs to be taken off the books of the US -- of the entire nation."
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2011/11/21/romney_health_care_individual_mandate_is_a_conservative_concept.html
LOL
333 - why are you mad a Mitt for telling the truth
Obamacare = Romneycare = Heritiage Foundation idea which was created and supported by Repubs as a response to Hillarycare
-
LOL
333 - why are you mad a Mitt for telling the truth
Obamacare = Romneycare = Heritiage Foundation idea which was created and supported by Repubs as a response to Hillarycare
I could care less where this crazy ass scam came from - its dead wrong.
Mandate = slavery.
-
I could care less where this crazy ass scam came from - its dead wrong.
Mandate = slavery.
why are you mad that Romney is telling you where the idea came from ?
If you think the mandate = slavery you have no idea what slavery is
-
why are you mad that Romney is telling you where the idea came from ?
If you think the mandate = slavery you have no idea what slavery is
He's not mad at Romney for telling him where the idea came from... He's mad at Romney (and others) for supporting the idea.
-
He's not mad at Romney for telling him where the idea came from... He's mad at Romney (and others) for supporting the idea.
Romney and others (aka - Republican establishment) created the idea
and now he's mad at Romney for being honest about it?
-
Romney and others (aka - Republican establishment) created the idea
and now he mad at Romney for being honest about it?
You must be either stupid or blind. It's not about Romney being honest about who created the idea. It's about being mad at Romney (and the Republican establishment) for supporting the idea in the first place!
-
You must be either stupid or blind. It's not about Romney being honest about who created the idea. It's about being mad at Romney (and the Republican establishment) for supporting the idea in the first place!
why wouldn't they support it?
It's THEIR IDEA
-
why wouldn't they support it?
It's THEIR IDEA
The Republican grassroots isn't the same as the Republican establishment. The only reason why the Republican establishment triumphs is because they're seen as electable and the lesser of two evils in this center-right nation.
-
The Republican grassroots isn't the same as the Republican establishment. The only reason why the Republican establishment triumphs is because they're seen as electable and the lesser of two evils in this center-right nation.
IMO - the Repubs would still be in favor of the mandate if only Obama hadn't adopted their idea
any time Obama gets on board with a Republican idea the Repubs are suddenly against it.
It's got nothing to do with whether it's a good or bad idea and only to do with opposing whatever Obama or the Dems are in favor of
-
Straw - the Taxpayers are now in hock to GM to the tune of about 26 Billion Dollars. Lets say they are about to go under again - would you favor the govt compelling every american to by a corvette or a Tahoe to make GM viable again?
-
why wouldn't they support it?
It's THEIR IDEA
Do you agree with every idea conjured up by Brookings inst?
-
IMO - the Repubs would still be in favor of the mandate if only Obama hadn't adopted their idea
any time Obama gets on board with a Republican idea the Repubs are suddenly against it.
It's got nothing to do with whether it's a good or bad idea and only to do with opposing whatever Obama or the Dems are in favor of
Well your opinion is your opinion - but as a Republican myself, I know that I opposed the individual mandate BEFORE Obama. And I also know that this was one reason why Romney did not win the Republican nomination for the 2008 election (along with his flip flops on abortion and gun rights).
-
Do you agree with every idea conjured up by Brookings inst?
I have no idea what they've conjured up
I do know that the Newt was in favor of the individual mandate before Romneycare even existed.
I do know that, at one time, both Newt and Romney were in favor of an individual mandate
I guess if they were in favor of something so simple and now are against it we can't really trust their judgement on other decisions either
-
IMO - the Repubs would still be in favor of the mandate if only Obama hadn't adopted their idea
any time Obama gets on board with a Republican idea the Repubs are suddenly against it.
It's got nothing to do with whether it's a good or bad idea and only to do with opposing whatever Obama or the Dems are in favor of
Oh Please. I dont believe that the govt should be telling people what to do. You, like the nanny stater you are - love the idea of the govt running your life.
-
I have no idea what they've conjured up
I do know that the Newt was in favor of the individual mandate before Romneycare even existed.
I do know that, at one time, both Newt and Romney were in favor of an individual mandate
I guess if they were in favor of something so simple and now are against it we can't really trust their judgement on other decisions either
Hence why I am voting for Ron Paul 1 Bachmann 2.
BTW - Obama flip flopped on the mandate as well.
-
I have no idea what they've conjured up
I do know that the Newt was in favor of the individual mandate before Romneycare even existed.
I do know that, at one time, both Newt and Romney were in favor of an individual mandate
I guess if they were in favor of something so simple and now are against it we can't really trust their judgement on other decisions either
And we agree with you!! That's why people such as 33 and myself oppose Newt and Romney!
-
Oh Please. I dont believe that the govt should be telling people what to do. You, like the nanny stater you are - love the idea of the govt running your life.
The problem is all of these bullshit things.
No one is against the premise of insurance companies having to allow pre-existing conditions and no one would be against guaranteeing children having access to insurance, or people being on their parents insurance a little longer.
It's all the business mandates that the people are upset by.
-
The problem is all of these bullshit things.
No one is against the premise of insurance companies having to allow pre-existing conditions and no one would be against guaranteeing children having access to insurance, or people being on their parents insurance a little longer.
It's all the business mandates that the people are upset by.
When you compel someone to by something - without any cost control whatsoever - the prices will unvariably skyrocket like you have never seen.
-
Straw - the Taxpayers are now in hock to GM to the tune of about 26 Billion Dollars. Lets say they are about to go under again - would you favor the govt compelling every american to by a corvette or a Tahoe to make GM viable again?
horrible comparison
when someone doesn't have transportation am I required to pay for them to be moved from point A to point B
If someone without health insurance get's injured or sick I (and you and every other Repub, Dem, Independent, etc..) has to pay to cover them (our insurance premiums included a "premium" to cover uninsured people)
That's why Newton was so much in favor on individual responsibility
As I've said on this board MANY times before I'd be in favor of a one time "opt out" for all the die hards who "know" they don't need insurance but they NEVER get an oppoortuntyt to get back in
I would have no problem with that
-
horrible comparison
when someone doesn't have transportation am I required to pay for them to be moved from point A to point B
If someone without health insurance get's injured or sick I (and you and every other Repub, Dem, Independent, etc..) has to pay to cover them (our insurance premiums included a "premium" to cover uninsured people)
That's why Newton was so much in favor on individual responsibility
As I've said on this board MANY times before I'd be in favor of a one time "opt out" for all the die hards who "know" they don't need insurance but they NEVER get an oppoortuntyt to get back in
I would have no problem with that
BS - we are all on the hook for GM losses so my analogy is perfect.
BTW - should the Govt be able to mandate that people buy a certain amount of veges?
-
The problem is all of these bullshit things.
No one is against the premise of insurance companies having to allow preexisting conditions and no one would be against guaranteeing children having access to insurance, or people being on their parents insurance a little longer.
It's all the business mandates that the people are upset by.
yeah and when you look at the details you see that most people who can't afford insurance would have low cost options made available to them and would also be exempt for any penalty for not having insurance.
The mandate/penalty would only apply to those people who can afford insurance but choose not to have it and I have a solution for them with the one time "opt out"
you "opt out" and you never have access to the program and never have a penalty.
You're still free to purchase private insurance on your own or choose to participate in an employee sponsored plan but you don't have the option to forego medical insurance and then get access to the program once you (inevitably) become sick or injured
-
-
BS - we are all on the hook for GM losses so my analogy is perfect.
BTW - should the Govt be able to mandate that people buy a certain amount of veges?
Being on the hook for GM is the same as being on the hook for Iraq, Afghanistan, The Bush Tax Cuts, etc....
No one can cause me financial harm if they don't have a car
Someone (such as yourself at one time or Corporate Persons such as Wal Mart) who choose not to have insurance are requiring the rest of society to pay for your health insurance.
if You don't have a car it doesn't cost me an extra cent
btw- the gov SHOULD promote the consupmtion of veggies and should STOP promoting (and subsidizing) the consumption of beef, dairy and corn products
the long term effect of that simple change would probably save of billions of dollars (if not hundreds of billions) in health care expense
-
Being on the hook for GM is the same as being on the hook for Iraq, Afghanistan, The Bush Tax Cuts, etc....
No one can cause me financial harm if they don't have a car
Someone (such as yourself at one time or Corporate Persons such as Wal Mart) who choose not to have insurance are requiring the rest of society to pay for your health insurance.
if You don't have a car it doesn't cost me an extra cent
btw- the gov SHOULD promote the consupmtion of veggies and should STOP promoting (and subsidizing) the consumption of beef, dairy and corn products
the long term effect of that simple change would probably save of billions of dollars (if not hundreds of billions) in health care expense
Why cant I pay out of pocket for medical services?
-
Why cant I pay out of pocket for medical services?
I'm assuming you can, but that shit is expensive.
-
and, at that time, what was Obama promoting as an alternative to the mandate
I'm sure you have that video and it's probably in the segment preceding the point where your clip started
can you tell us what his option at that time was?
-
Why cant I pay out of pocket for medical services?
Why do you think you can't?
-
I'm assuming you can, but that shit is expensive.
Why is that?
-
Why do you think you can't?
Because if there is a mandate - i have to pay out the ass for expensive BS insurance that covers all sorts of bullshit I will NEVER EVER possibly need.
-
Why is that?
I don't know... It's been expensive as long as I've been alive.
Obama certainly didn't do that.
-
Why is that?
no one is stopping you now or in the future from paying for health care costs of out of pocket
-
I don't know... It's been expensive as long as I've been alive.
Obama certainly didn't do that.
Schiff has done a lot on this. When the govt started getting involved in this shit - prices skyrocketed because the govt became on the major payors of health care. Providers could charge higher and higher prices and get away with it and order all sorts of tests and bullshit because the patient was not paying for it directly.
Same crap with school loans.
The pricing mechanism has gotten way out of control because of the govt intereference in the market.
The areas that are freeist you keep getting lower prices and better quality and vice versa w the govt.
The US govt regulated how Apple made its ipad - how much do you think it would cost?
-
Schiff has done a lot on this. When the govt started getting involved in this shit - prices skyrocketed because the govt became on the major payors of health care. Providers could charge higher and higher prices and get away with it and order all sorts of tests and bullshit because the patient was not paying for it directly.
Same crap with school loans.
The pricing mechanism has gotten way out of control because of the govt intereference in the market.
The areas that are freeist you keep getting lower prices and better quality and vice versa w the govt.
The US govt regulated how Apple made its ipad - how much do you think it would cost?
Do you not think that the provider is also partly to blame?
Follow me here.
If I am a surgeon, let's say... And I charge 2,000.00 for a procedure.
The government becomes the primary payer... Why do I then get the right to start charging 20,000.00 for the same procedure just because the government is the payer?
I don't understand how that's logical.
The government took over payments, so I am entitled to charge more?
-
Because if there is a mandate - i have to pay out the ass for expensive BS insurance that covers all sorts of bullshit I will NEVER EVER possibly need.
you don't have to change one damn thing that you're currently doing
-
Do you not think that the provider is also partly to blame?
Follow me here.
If I am a surgeon, let's say... And I charge 2,000.00 for a procedure.
The government becomes the primary payer... Why do I then get the right to start charging 20,000.00 for the same procedure just because the government is the payer?
I don't understand how that's logical.
The government took over payments, so I am entitled to charge more?
That is the symptom, not the problem. If the patient had to negotiate directly with the provider - he/she could not get away with that.
I see old people who abuse medicare like you cant believe - its wrong! Many wealth seniors use Medicare like a day at the park and everyone has to pay for it.
The pricing mechanism has gotten distorted.
Additionally - state govts are also fucking up the system. For example in NYS where i live - you cant have a catastrophic type plan, and everyone gets forced into crazy expensive shit that mandates coverage on stuff most people will ever need!
-
you don't have to change one damn thing that you're currently doing
Clueless. You have no fucking clue about this, or anything else for that matter.
-
Clueless. You have no fucking clue about this, or anything else for that matter.
you've got to be joking or completely misininformed
if you have insurance now then nothing will change for you
you keep doing what you've always done only your insurance has limits on how much they can raise your premium, and limits on how they can restrict your access to healthcare
that's it
nothing changes for you except for the better
-
That is the symptom, not the problem. If the patient had to negotiate directly with the provider - he/she could not get away with that.
Why not? If you need to get an operation, you're gonna pay to save your life... Even if you're in debt for the next 500 years.
People get huge bills with no insurance already because they have no insurance and have to pay the bill.
I see old people who abuse medicare like you cant believe - its wrong! Many wealth seniors use Medicare like a day at the park and everyone has to pay for it.
The pricing mechanism has gotten distorted.
Additionally - state govts are also fucking up the system. For example in NYS where i live - you cant have a catastrophic type plan, and everyone gets forced into crazy expensive shit that mandates coverage on stuff most people will ever need!
This may be true, but don't most people get the insurance they feel they have to get?
Would you have less coverage if you had an opportunity?
I've got kids and I don't know if I would take that chance.
When I was single, I had no insurance... Didn't need it, but with kids, yeah, I'm protecting them as best as possible.
If we get rid of health insurance mandates, can I also get rid of auto insurance mandates too?
:)
-
Why not? If you need to get an operation, you're gonna pay to save your life... Even if you're in debt for the next 500 years.
People get huge bills with no insurance already because they have no insurance and have to pay the bill.
This may be true, but don't most people get the insurance they feel they have to get?
Would you have less coverage if you had an opportunity?
I've got kids and I don't know if I would take that chance.
When I was single, I had no insurance... Didn't need it, but with kids, yeah, I'm protecting them as best as possible.
If we get rid of health insurance mandates, can I also get rid of auto insurance mandates too?
:)
You are not forced to drive or buy a car.
-
Okay guys, basic economics.
The supply of health care is what economists call "inelastic," meaning that the supply is more-or-less fixed: a large increase in demand calls forth only a very small increase in supply, meaning that prices have to increase drastically in order to equilibrate (balance-out) supply and demand. Why? Because there are only so many doctors, nurses, hospitals, clinics, hours in the day to treat people, etc. etc. It's very, very difficult to expand the supply for health care, since that essentially means sending people to school for at least 8 years, and that's not counting all the other shit people have to do in order to become MDs.
Anyway, government intervention via Medicare, Medicaid, tax breaks, mandates, etc. end up pushing the demand for health care upwards... but since the supply is relatively inelastic, the prices for health care have to skyrocket in order to call forth the additional supply necessary to supply the few people who otherwise would not have had access to health care.
If the government got out of the health care market, then health care prices would fall drastically. That is what economists call a "demand-side solution." Though this might prevent SOME people from getting necessary health care, for the most part it would eliminate unnecessary health care expenditures that people make because they don't face the cost of doing so (this is the problem with third-party insurance).
However, there is also a "supply-side solution:" remove all of regulations which are choking off health care supply. Licensure laws and regulations limiting where and how many hospitals are built are good examples of this.
Government plans such as Obamacare and single-payer systems throw fuel on the fire... They increase demand while doing NOTHING to expand supply. The result is even higher costs for health care, which either end up being paid through government (and thus higher taxes with a premium for all the inefficiencies found in government) OR they end up being paid indirectly by individuals, via waiting lists and so forth.
-
You are not forced to drive or buy a car.
In the US, unless you live in NYC, Chicago, Philly, DC, or Boston, you HAVE to drive to get anywhere... like work.
All of these Occupiers that are sitting around have no jobs and probably are carless... the worker bees of society have to drive.
-
In the US, unless you live in NYC, Chicago, Philly, DC, or Boston, you HAVE to drive to get anywhere... like work.
All of these Occupiers that are sitting around have no jobs and probably are carless... the worker bees of society have to drive.
False - the owner of the car has to have insurance, not the driver. you can get a drivers' license without getting insurance.
-
-
STRAW - WTF IS SO HARD FOR YOU TO UNDERSTAND ABOUT THIS?
-
[ Invalid YouTube link ]
-
333 - I don't waste my time watching any video you post
I've learned from experience that it does't matter what is in the video but only what you believe you saw/heard
If you want to tell me what you see/hear in the video then I will respond
-
THIS is basically what Schiff is saying:
Okay guys, basic economics.
The supply of health care is what economists call "inelastic," meaning that the supply is more-or-less fixed: a large increase in demand calls forth only a very small increase in supply, meaning that prices have to increase drastically in order to equilibrate (balance-out) supply and demand. Why? Because there are only so many doctors, nurses, hospitals, clinics, hours in the day to treat people, etc. etc. It's very, very difficult to expand the supply for health care, since that essentially means sending people to school for at least 8 years, and that's not counting all the other shit people have to do in order to become MDs.
Anyway, government intervention via Medicare, Medicaid, tax breaks, mandates, etc. end up pushing the demand for health care upwards... but since the supply is relatively inelastic, the prices for health care have to skyrocket in order to call forth the additional supply necessary to supply the few people who otherwise would not have had access to health care.
If the government got out of the health care market, then health care prices would fall drastically. That is what economists call a "demand-side solution." Though this might prevent SOME people from getting necessary health care, for the most part it would eliminate unnecessary health care expenditures that people make because they don't face the cost of doing so (this is the problem with third-party insurance).
However, there is also a "supply-side solution:" remove all of regulations which are choking off health care supply. Licensure laws and regulations limiting where and how many hospitals are built are good examples of this.
Government plans such as Obamacare and single-payer systems throw fuel on the fire... They increase demand while doing NOTHING to expand supply. The result is even higher costs for health care, which either end up being paid through government (and thus higher taxes with a premium for all the inefficiencies found in government) OR they end up being paid indirectly by individuals, via waiting lists and so forth.
-
False - the owner of the car has to have insurance, not the driver. you can get a drivers' license without getting insurance.
Unless you are my kid or immediate family I'm not letting you drive my car anyway.
You are being extreme about this and it's not really helpful.
-
Unless you are my kid or immediate family I'm not letting you drive my car anyway.
You are being extreme about this and it's not really helpful.
Its not extreme at all. Its a huge distinction.
-
Okay guys, basic economics.
The supply of health care is what economists call "inelastic," meaning that the supply is more-or-less fixed: a large increase in demand calls forth only a very small increase in supply, meaning that prices have to increase drastically in order to equilibrate (balance-out) supply and demand. Why? Because there are only so many doctors, nurses, hospitals, clinics, hours in the day to treat people, etc. etc. It's very, very difficult to expand the supply for health care, since that essentially means sending people to school for at least 8 years, and that's not counting all the other shit people have to do in order to become MDs.
Anyway, government intervention via Medicare, Medicaid, tax breaks, mandates, etc. end up pushing the demand for health care upwards... but since the supply is relatively inelastic, the prices for health care have to skyrocket in order to call forth the additional supply necessary to supply the few people who otherwise would not have had access to health care.
If the government got out of the health care market, then health care prices would fall drastically. That is what economists call a "demand-side solution." Though this might prevent SOME people from getting necessary health care, for the most part it would eliminate unnecessary health care expenditures that people make because they don't face the cost of doing so (this is the problem with third-party insurance).
However, there is also a "supply-side solution:" remove all of regulations which are choking off health care supply. Licensure laws and regulations limiting where and how many hospitals are built are good examples of this.
Government plans such as Obamacare and single-payer systems throw fuel on the fire... They increase demand while doing NOTHING to expand supply. The result is even higher costs for health care, which either end up being paid through government (and thus higher taxes with a premium for all the inefficiencies found in government) OR they end up being paid indirectly by individuals, via waiting lists and so forth.
what proof can you supply to show that the supply of healthcare is inelastic?
I do find the argument that access to healthcare (i.e. Medicare, Medicaid and you should also include the largest access point - which is employer sponsored healthcare plans) increases demand kind of interesting. I think the CEO of Whole Foods was trying to make the same argument, basically that when you give employees access to health insurance then their use of health services rises.
Is the point of this argument that if we eliminated health insurance (again, you must included employer sponsored plans in this) then health care costs would go down because many fewer people would be able to afford health care.
Is that the basic argument?
btw - if you have a problem with regulation then why not address one of the biggest causes of rising costs, which is lack of competition due to the legal monopoly enjoyed by insurance companies via the McCarran-Ferguson Act of 1945. Just getting rid of that would foster competition and almost certainly drive down costs
-
Inelastic supply... a HUGE price increase is necessary in order to marginally increase the quantity supplied:
(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-GLwPSLeF6kI/TanPNrDkOfI/AAAAAAAAA2E/NHaeowZy7SM/s1600/inelastic-supply-rise-demand.jpg)
THAT is a perfect description of the health care market, because of how long it takes and how costly it is to train new doctors, nurses, specialists, etc. AND how difficult it is to open up new hospitals due to government regulations. The government exacerbates the problem even more by increasing demand via Medicare, Medicaid, health insurance mandates (on the state level, for example mandates requiring that drug addiction treatment be covered), and tax loopholes which encourage third-party insurance (your employer pays for your health insurance -> you don't bear the costs -> you spend more on health care than you would otherwise). The result is that a whole lot of people are spending other people's money on health care that isn't all that necessary, and that's locking out of the market people who can't afford necessary health care.
And what's the government's solution to this? Increase health care demand even MORE by insuring those who don't have it... This will lead to even more skyrocketing prices.
The only REAL solution is to free up supply by cutting out government regulations/restrictions while decreasing demand by cutting out government subsidies (both direct and indirect) which increase demand for less necessary forms of health care.
-
what proof can you supply to show that the supply of healthcare is inelastic?
How many years does it take to train a new MD? What does it take to open a new hospital?
Answer these questions and you'll see what I mean.
I do find the argument that access to healthcare (i.e. Medicare, Medicaid and you should also include the largest access point - which is employer sponsored healthcare plans) increases demand kind of interesting. I think the CEO of Whole Foods was trying to make the same argument, basically that when you give employees access to health insurance then their use of health services rises.
Is the point of this argument that if we eliminated health insurance (again, you must included employer sponsored plans in this) then health care costs would go down because many fewer people would be able to afford health care.
Is that the basic argument?
Not eliminating health insurance per se, but eliminating the third-party provision of insurance. If you buy health insurance on your own, then you still bear the costs of your health care expenditures to a degree. If your employer or your government buys you health insurance, then you bear none of the costs so you have an incentive to spend as much as possible.
btw - if you have a problem with regulation then why not address one of the biggest causes of rising costs, which is lack of competition due to the legal monopoly enjoyed by insurance companies via the McCarran-Ferguson Act of 1945. Just getting rid of that would foster competition and almost certainly drive down costs
I'm not familiar with that law, but I do know that states restrict health insurance competition to a great degree - that is a problem, but it's a problem that needs to be dealt with on the state level.
-
How many years does it take to train a new MD? What does it take to open a new hospital?
Answer these questions and you'll see what I mean.
Not eliminating health insurance per se, but eliminating the third-party provision of insurance. If you buy health insurance on your own, then you still bear the costs of your health care expenditures to a degree. If your employer or your government buys you health insurance, then you bear none of the costs so you have an incentive to spend as much as possible.
I'm not familiar with that law, but I do know that states restrict health insurance competition to a great degree - that is a problem, but it's a problem that needs to be dealt with on the state level.
some quick thoughts and then I'm out the door but I'll check back later today
you've given a concept of inelasticity but no proof of it's actual impact on the cost of healthcare
do you have any info on the difference in admin costs (and profit) btw a source like Medicare and a private HMO and it's impact on rising costs?
don't the marjorty of people with health care have it provided by their employer (with some sharing of the costs). Doesn't this also cause an increase in demand. if this is true (and I'm not saying it is) then doesnt' employer sponsored healthcare actually exacerbate the problem even more than Medicare (which people pay into their entire lives)?
-
some quick thoughts and then I'm out the door but I'll check back later today
you've given a concept of inelasticity but no proof of it's actual impact on the cost of healthcare
It is impossible to actually measure elasticity of supply, we can only make 'guesstimates'. A supply curve represents how much of a given resource would have been supplied at a given level of prices and demand. You can only know what that number is if you're "at" that number in prices/demand. You cannot know (in real life) what the entire supply curve is.
So our best guesstimate regarding the health care market is that it is inelastic... why? Because it takes about a decade and thousands of dollars in college costs (this is not counting the FULL opportunity cost) to train a new MD. It can even take longer for other types of doctors. Then there are very byzantine government restrictions on how many hospitals are built and where they are located. There's a lot more which I cannot call off the top of my head.
do you have any info on the difference in admin costs (and profit) btw a source like Medicare and a private HMO and it's impact on rising costs?
don't the marjorty of people with health care have it provided by their employer (with some sharing of the costs). Doesn't this also cause an increase in demand. if this is true (and I'm not saying it is) then doesnt' employer sponsored healthcare actually exacerbate the problem even more than Medicare (which people pay into their entire lives)?
Yes, employer-paid health insurance exacerbates the problem. That is because a third party pays for your health insurance, so that third party is responsible for the costs you incur.
And why do we have this system of third party health insurance in this country? Because of the tax code. Employers get a tax credit if they buy health insurance for their employees. However, if the employers decide to drop the health insurance and instead pay out those benefits in the form of salary/wage increases, then the employees would be taxed more. Thus, it's better to include health insurance as part of the employment package than just paying a straight salary/wage.
Then there's also the problem of health insurance mandates... states mandate that health insurance cover all sorts of things, from pregnancy to HRT to alcoholism treatment. This increases demand for health care, much of which could be unnecessary.
This way you end up with a system where individuals don't face the costs that they incur and thus have no incentive to limit themselves... this pushes demand up, and in a market with inelastic supply, this causes prices to skyrocket. This, in turn, locks people out of the market who otherwise would be able to afford certain medical procedures - but now can't because prices are too high due to high demand.
What needs to happen on the demand-side is an end to Medicare, Medicaid, the state-level health insurance mandates, tax loopholes favoring employer-paid health insurance, etc. This will lower demand for unnecessary health care procedures, which will dramatically bring down the price. The lower price will allow a lot of people who weren't able to afford health care before to be able to pay for the health care they need now.
Of course, in any free market system there will be some people who will not be able to afford what they need... but that is something that is not only a mainstay of free markets but of the reality of economics. Not everyone can have access to scarce resources. The issue here is figuring out how to allocate those scarce resources in the best possible manner - and a free market system does exactly that. What we have now is a broken system which increases demand unnecessarily and thus leads to a poor allocation of health care resources. By attacking the root of the problem and introducing free market health care, more poor people and more people with pre-existing conditions would be able to afford the health care they need. It's as simple as that.
-
Really, it's indisputable that the supply of health care is inelastic. When it takes 10 years and thousands of dollars to train a new MD, the supply of health care can't be anything but inelastic.
This, of course, wouldn't be a problem that could be solved EXCEPT for two things:
1) Government artificially limits health care supply through restrictions lobbied for by special interests (e.g. licensure laws and the AMA).
2) Government artificially increases health care demand via mandates, Medicare, Medicaid, and tax loopholes.
-
Really, it's indisputable that the supply of health care is inelastic. When it takes 10 years and thousands of dollars to train a new MD, the supply of health care can't be anything but inelastic.
This, of course, wouldn't be a problem that could be solved EXCEPT for two things:
1) Government artificially limits health care supply through restrictions lobbied for by special interests (e.g. licensure laws and the AMA).
2) Government artificially increases health care demand via mandates, Medicare, Medicaid, and tax loopholes.
Bingo - its not really that more complicated than that.
-
so quickly reading through this last responses I can't figure out what "problem" is being addressed here
is it the problem of the high cost of health care (which If I understand correctly is being driven up by access to health care via health insurance)?
Is the "solution" to eliminate health insurance so that very few people could afford health care leaving the fortunate few who can afford it with lower costs?
I brought up the McCarran-Ferguson Act which the House voted to repeal in 2010 with a vote of 406 t0 19 (that's pretty damn amazing bipartisan support) but it went nowhere in the Senate (not sure why). In most states we have one or two companies that control 90% of the market. Simply eliminating the anti-trust exemption would probably help a lot in lowering health care costs
-
Romney: "No, I just know it's the nature of politics. People trying to cast their opponent in a less than favorable light. And I know that health care is one of those issues. The Massachusetts healthcare plan. But don't forget, this healthcare plan was something we learned about from the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank. Even Newt Gingrich supported the idea of an individual mandate, insisting on personal responsibility. Now, what we did isn't perfect. Some parts of it worked, some didn't, some things I change. But it's not like it was a liberal idea. It was a conservative concept. I'm proud of the fact we did something that worked with our state consistent with the Tenth amendment. I'm also proud of the fact that I'm out there saying I'll get rid of ObamaCare. I know why it's bad. I know how it's different than what we did and why it needs to be taken off the books of the US -- of the entire nation."
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2011/11/21/romney_health_care_individual_mandate_is_a_conservative_concept.html
Selling out to be pres nothing new :-X
-
Romney doubles down on argument that state health mandate is 'conservative'
By Julian Pecquet - 12/21/11 12:15 PM ET
http://thehill.com/blogs/healthwatch/politics-elections/200793-romney-doubles-down-on-argument-that-state-health-mandate-is-conservative
Requiring people to have health insurance is "conservative," GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney told MSNBC on Wednesday, but only if states do it.
The argument aims to improve Romney's appeal to Republican voters concerned about the healthcare reform plan he signed into law as governor of Massachusetts in 2006. The Massachusetts law contains an individual mandate similar to the one in President Obama's healthcare law, which conservatives despise.
"Personal responsibility," Romney said, "is more conservative in my view than something being given out for free by government."
"There were two options in my state," he said. "One was to continue to allow people without insurance to go to the hospital and get free care, paid for by the government, paid for by taxpayers."
"The best idea is to let each state craft their own solution because that's, after all, the heart of conservatism: to follow the Constitution," he said.
The Supreme Court is set to rule next year on whether a federal mandate is constitutional.
States' right to require their citizens to have health insurance isn't in question, but state mandates are equally unpopular. Fourteen states have already passed laws or constitutional amendments banning individual mandates, and another four — Florida, Wyoming, Alabama and Montana — have similar measures on their ballot next year.
-
Free Republic
Browse · Search Pings · Mail General/Chat
Topics · Post Article
Skip to comments.
Mitt Romney....VAT Tax?
Big Government ^ | 12-23-2011 | Dan Mitchell
Posted on December 24, 2011 7:01:22 PM EST by ak267
There’s been a lot of discussion about Mitt Romney’s appeal – or lack thereof – among supporters of limited government. To put it mildly, many libertarians and conservatives are underwhelmed by his less-than-stellar record on healthcare, his weakness on Social Security reform, his anemic list of proposed budget savings, and his reprehensible support for ethanol subsidies.
Notwithstanding this dismal track record, some advocates of free markets argue that anybody would be better than Obama.But that’s not necessarily the case.
Economic history shows that the burden of government often expands the most under Republicans, with Nixon and Bush (either one) being obvious examples.
On the other hand, even a skeptic like me has admitted that Romney’s record in Massachusetts is difficult to assess because he was governor of a very left-wing state and he had to deal with a state legislature with heavy Democratic majorities.
That being said, there’s a new development that suggests Romney may be an unacceptable alternative to Obama.
In an interview with the Wall Street Journal, he basically said he is willing to consider a value-added tax for the United States. Here’s the relevant passage.
(Excerpt) Read more at biggovernment.com ...
Oh fucking hell no!!!