Price fixing does not solve cost problems
posted at 9:30 am on October 21, 2009 by Ed Morrissey
Perhaps the leading economists of the US could convene a special remedial course for Congress to explain the difference between price and costs. One might have expected the political class to have learned that difference from the disastrous US effort to fix prices and wages in the 1970s during Richard Nixon’s term in office, but apparently not. Democrats hailed their new, revamped House version of ObamaCare and its $871 billion price tag, based on forcing more providers into existing Medicare reimbursement rates. They claim that this will keep costs low, which is absolutely incorrect (emphases mine):
House leaders have cut the cost of their health-care overhaul to around $871 billion over the next decade, Democratic sources said Tuesday night, and were working to line up votes for the package with the aim of bringing it before the full House early next month.
The $871 billion estimate — well under the $900 billion limit set by President Obama — is the latest of several versions scored by congressional budget analysts, according to a Democratic aide, speaking on condition of anonymity to discuss private talks. The measure would include a government-run insurance plan that pays providers at rates tied to Medicare, the aide added. That so-called “robust” public option is preferred by liberals because it would save the government money and could force private insurers to lower their own reimbursement rates, driving down the cost of health care overall.
But the idea is opposed by many conservative Democrats from rural areas, where Medicare rates are well below the national average. A new insurance plan that paid such low rates would be devastating to their communities financially, these Democrats say. Instead, they argue that any public plan should negotiate rates directly with providers, as private plans do.
Fixing prices does not lower costs. Let me repeat that: fixing prices does not lower costs. “Costs” are borne by providers, who get reimbursed by either consumers (in a rational market) or by third parties (American health care) for their goods and/or services. In a competitive market, providers have to set their prices at an attractive level in order to get business without missing out on profit opportunities, but their prices have to cover their costs — or they go out of business.
Not coincidentally, the latter is what happens when price-fixing is used. When government fixes the price of goods and services, it usually does so to mask costs, not reduce them. This is what Medicare has done for years, which is why doctors avoid Medicare patients now. When the fixed price becomes less than the actual cost to provide the service, the provider is forced out of business.
And what Medicare reimbursement schedule does the House use to show those cost savings, anyway? Would that be the schedule that will start dramatically cutting reimbursements over the next few years? Or will it use the Stabenow bill in the Senate that would eliminate those cuts, and which the Senate also ignored when calculating the cost of the Baucus bill?
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next »
pathetically ignorant..as usual. try econ 101.
right4life on October 21, 2009 at 2:01 PM
Oh wow, I should definitely try that. But please, explain why this is pathetically ignorant. I realize that I’m no economics expert like yourself, so some of the terms may go over my head, but give it your best shot!
Proud Rino on October 21, 2009 at 2:07 PM
You just don’t get it…the “cheap” product is because the government doesn’t pay taxes…and if they have to meet payroll, they don’t have to raise prices, just raise taxes on other industries to pay for the increase in cost.
Government can’t be part of the free market, they are exempt because they can establish tariffs, taxes, fees.
They can “give” health insurance to their employees out of a government fund.
Look at congress, their health care costs them $305 per year for specialized care. That is an on staff dentist, doctor, and specialists in any area. They will fly in a specialist or fly you to a specialist at no additional charge….$305 per year, now do you think private insurance can compete with that? Does your insurance have that coverage, no it would be impossible at most any price, and do you pay only $21 a month for you full coverage health insurance?
So you tell me, how can a private health insurance policy compete what the government gives away for $21 per month.
You tell us how the government is providing coverage so cheaply…then tell us how level the playing field is when competing with the government.
Remember, and you do but you won’t admit it, when private enterprise wanted to compete with Social Security, only 3% of your SS would be able to compete…and what did the government do? They prevented competition, by law.
Some “free market”….you are an idiot for believing that the government participates in a free market.
right2bright on October 21, 2009 at 2:08 PM
Market forces are relegated to supply and demand only. Government is not beholden to supply and demand for its survival as business is.
anuts on October 21, 2009 at 2:08 PM
LOL.
Proud Rino on October 21, 2009 at 2:09 PM
You get what you pay for.
And when you are also paying for stupid lawsuits, the medical bills goes ever higher.
Stop stupid lawsuits & healthcare will decrease somewhat immediately.
The professionals deserve to get paid well for their hard work.
Dr’s are fewer & farther between now bcs it costs so much to go to school for such a long time that they can make more $$ in the long run as an RN or even an X-Ray tech for God’s sake.
Badger40 on October 21, 2009 at 2:10 PM
Elmendorf says that tort reform would reduce the federal deficit $54 billion over the next ten years…..
http://hotair.com/archives/2009/10/10/cbo-tort-reform-would-save-54-billion-to-the-deficit.
Jimbo3 on October 21, 2009 at 2:11 PM
@ Proud Rino on October 21, 2009 at 1:54 PM
I’ve just gotten a hot press release from the Obama Administration that may help you understand, PR:
Troll Feeder on October 21, 2009 at 2:12 PM
I can’t compete with the govt.
They get to set the rules & then don’t ever have to play by them.
Kinda like that stadium in CA getting an environmental pass?
None of us get passes like that.
Have fun eating food all made in China.
Everything else is made there.
Our govt is making it impossible for anyone to make anything in this country bcs of all their taxes & rules.
We small producers of goods cannot make it in this anti-small business climate.
Badger40 on October 21, 2009 at 2:14 PM
uh you haven’t been able to deal with anything else I’ve said, all you do is lie and twist the terms of the debate.
its gotten to the point of casting pearls before swine.
you’re pathetically ignorant.
right4life on October 21, 2009 at 2:15 PM
Well either the government program isn’t sustainable, in which case insurance companies only need to wait out the storm for a few years (if even that), or the plan will become so unwieldy that people will pay ten times that $21 per month (I have no idea if any of your numbers are right and, since everything else you say is wrong, I assume this probably is too) just so they can visit the hospital.
If the government really can offer a better plan for cheaper than private companies can, then why shouldn’t we have single payer? I mean, I think single payer is a bad idea, but you have no faith in the free market at all.
I think a govt plan will be a lot like public schools or the post office – good for the people that need it, but virtually everyone who can afford to do so will upgrade.
Proud Rino on October 21, 2009 at 2:16 PM
Correct and not because of government prodding.
Nurse Practitioners are as well, but PAs and NPs see primary care patients, but the medical encounter itself is signed off by a physician and NPs and PAs can’t prescribe certain medications.
But primary care is not where you’re going to save money anyway. Primary care physicians are some of the lowest paid physicians in the first place and they already work with a number of PAs and NPs in most practices, which is why there are so few of them to begin with.
Cut compensation even lower and you’ll have less of them.
Another bad idea from the uninformed lawyers in the Obama team.
Here’s an idea, they’re all lawyers, how about they “reform” our crappy legal system? Law firms make an average profit of 14% vs. 3% for health insurance companies.
Who’s “greedy” now and who needs reform?
NoDonkey on October 21, 2009 at 2:16 PM
Or perhaps this:
Businesses have only one revenue stream with which to meet their obligations – payments from their customers.
The government in the same business has two revenue streams, and one of them is entirely unrelated to the business.
Thus, the government has no real reason to compete on price, or service, or anything.
Troll Feeder on October 21, 2009 at 2:16 PM
Most folks have a problem with monopolies and monopolistic business practices.
Why are they OK with it if the monopoly is the government?
Troll Feeder on October 21, 2009 at 2:17 PM
that is pathetically stupid. the government can always be cheaper…because its not bound by the market..DUHHHHHHHH
and ‘cheaper’ doesn’t mean it produces the product for less…only that it can offer it for less because the government doesn’t need to make a profit to survive…DUHHHHHHHH
right4life on October 21, 2009 at 2:18 PM
I see, so you can’t explain your argument, you just like to call people names. Well that’s fun too. You’re probably one of the people here I’ve called an idiot before – the difference between me and you is that I can actually back that up with an argument, and you just back up your namecalling with more namecalling.
Proud Rino on October 21, 2009 at 2:18 PM
Rush is enjoying the post
forest on October 21, 2009 at 2:21 PM
Is he enjoying how Ed doesn’t know what price fixing is?
Proud Rino on October 21, 2009 at 2:21 PM
I’ve explained it over and over and over…and you ignore it and keep posting the same pablum.
your argument is false. as has been pointed out to you over and over and over…and you keep making the same idiotic statements that have no basis in reality.
moron.
right4life on October 21, 2009 at 2:21 PM
Are you disagreeing with this? Seriously?
anuts on October 21, 2009 at 2:22 PM
Seriously, is Rush Limbaugh just reading internet comments on the radio? Why do you people listen to him? Can’t you do that on your own?
Proud Rino on October 21, 2009 at 2:22 PM
Ed, Rush is making you famous…
Seven Percent Solution on October 21, 2009 at 2:23 PM
Businesses that do not address the concerns of their customers generally lose those customers. Businesses have a direct profit motive for providing good customer service.
The government has little to no profit motive in any business into which it enters, because it has a second revenue stream (taxes, for the Proud Rinos among us) to provide support for its operations.
Exactly how responsive do you think any entity is going to be to its customers if there is no direct penalty for ignoring their concerns?
Troll Feeder on October 21, 2009 at 2:23 PM
El Rushbo just plugged this post.
uknowmorethanme on October 21, 2009 at 2:24 PM
Too bad another 15 million people just read Ed’s post…
… why don’t you jump up and down in the corner and yell “Look at me, LOOK AT ME!!!”
Seven Percent Solution on October 21, 2009 at 2:25 PM
None. But that doesn’t apply in this case because there is a direct penalty for ignoring their concerns: we have elections. We can vote out the dinguses who came up with the bad plan, and we can elect people who will get rid of that plan.
Proud Rino on October 21, 2009 at 2:27 PM
pathetically stupid AGAIN….you have no other alternative for first class mail.
and the very cost of keeping public schools afloat via taxes, keeps most people from being able to afford private schools.
and the government plan won’t be good for people. you cannot point to a government plan that is good for people. medicare shifts the costs and is bankrupt. many private doctors refuse to treat medicare patients because they don’t get reimbursed enough to make it worthwhile.
in other countries we see long waits for service, and people suffering and dying because they can’t get the care because the goverment has destroyed the free market in healthcare.
idiot.
right4life on October 21, 2009 at 2:27 PM
yeah just like they fixed medicare and social security.
pathetically stupid.
right4life on October 21, 2009 at 2:28 PM
Jimbo3 on October 21, 2009 at 2:11 PM
And how exactly is $54 billion over ten years .3% of $900 billion or so over ten years?
NoDonkey on October 21, 2009 at 2:29 PM
No, those are, in fact, the forces in the market, that’s correct. It’s just entirely irrelevant to my response to your earlier post.
Proud Rino on October 21, 2009 at 2:29 PM
@Proud Rino on October 21, 2009 at 2:27 PM
Like we vote out the folks who liberalled up the CIA, the Dept of Ed., the State Dept. etc?
Like the private insurance industry can survive for the years this would take?
Nice job ignoring every argument in all of the posts I and others have made.
You rock, Proud Rino. You da man.
Troll Feeder on October 21, 2009 at 2:30 PM
As you say Ed ___ Fixing prices does not lower costs.
By now you probably figured out the entire Democrat party is one continuous shuck and jive act — It’s all smoke and mirrors. With you as the target audience. Disgusting.
The reduction is what doctors used to earn, that is not costs. Which is why right now I can barely find one Medicare doctor for my 91 year old Aunty. And the doctor which does provide for her needs, says he is having to do it as an off the books charity direct to her.
Words, just words, trying to sell you a pig in a poke, ONE MORE TIME.
tarpon on October 21, 2009 at 2:30 PM
The Gov’t CAN’T provide a better product for cheaper. Unless they give it away for under cost. However, Socialism is the Gov’t having control over production. And as Margaret Thatcher told us, “The problem with socialism, it that eventually you run out of other people’s money.”
You think the public option would be like the Post Office or Public Schools. Two completely incompetent drains on the Treasury. I’m sold.
uknowmorethanme on October 21, 2009 at 2:30 PM
The Stinnie and Ninnie Comedy Show brought to you by George Soros and Mr. Nobel
bluegrass on October 21, 2009 at 2:30 PM
The 2 services you mentioned both suck.
As a public school teacher I know personally how govt $$ gets wasted on a daily basis.
I have a fancy $4,000 Smart Board in my room.
All I wanted was a regular chalk board.
They put chessy white boards in my room that have to be replaced ever few years bcs they stain & you can’t write on them anymore.
Chalk boards last basically forever.
But in the “name of progress” the school will spend $$ it does not have to teach things I can mostly teach with no technology.
The $$ is really wasted on the cadre of worthless administrators who delegate their job to teachers & others as the unspecified duties in the teacher’s contract.
My principal gets paid God knows how much to shop on the Internet & sub.
I know there are good admins out there, but I have never really met any in the 3 small schools I’ve taught in so far.
Govt-run enterprises are a WASTE of $$$$.
Period.
Badger40 on October 21, 2009 at 2:31 PM
That’s because a majority of the voting public really like medicare and social security and they don’t want to change them. But we’ve deregulated the airline industry, and that was for the most part successful. We deregulated the communications industry, and again, for the most part, that was successful.
Proud Rino on October 21, 2009 at 2:31 PM
Badger40 on October 21, 2009 at 2:31 PM
Burying your head in the sand to avoid the unpleasant truth is a wonderful political policy. Look how well it’s worked out!
uknowmorethanme on October 21, 2009 at 2:33 PM
Yes.
There are risks to any decision, including this one. I don’t think the insurance industry is going to collapse entirely. We still have private schools. We still have FedEx. GM is not beating all the other car companies now that it’s run by the government. Just because something is govt run doesn’t mean it can’t be beat – usually it’s the direct opposite.
Proud Rino on October 21, 2009 at 2:34 PM
Well you are right about the voting public.
They suck off the govt teat & don’t want that to change. And then they get worked up over govt-run enterprises.
The airline industry still sucks bcs of the impositions govt has put upon it.
I guarantee you if I had a choice on an airline to fly, I’d fly on the one with armed security guards who are ex-military.
We don’t need to govt sticking their noses into this crap-though I will say that businesses should really be left to police themselves.
But notice how for instance the USDA has delegated its job in inspecting MEAT.
Meat is no longer inspected where it is slaughter (where any contmaination ORIGINATES).
No.
They no let the slaughterers inspect THEMSELVES.
U
SDA inspects the little guy who gets his slaughtered product from the slaughterers, WHERE THE CONTAMINATION ORIGINATES.
So while it’s nice to not have lots of regs, some regs are needed on occasion.
Badger40 on October 21, 2009 at 2:35 PM
Eh, we’re no worse off than any other country right now.
Look, we need SS and Medicare reform desperately. I agree with that in both cases (although we’ll be able to skate with SS for a few more years, I think). But if you can’t convince the voters of that, then you’re not going to get that policy. Voters will vote for deregulation if you can convince them it’s a good idea. The fact that Republicans are either unable or unwilling to do so is their own fault.
Proud Rino on October 21, 2009 at 2:36 PM
Hey, Rush just read this one. Good going Ed.
Warner Todd Huston on October 21, 2009 at 2:36 PM
FIFM
Badger40 on October 21, 2009 at 2:36 PM
Quite possibly the dumbest argument President Obama tried to make over the entire course of the health care debate.
The USPS has a monopoly on first class mail and it’s still going broke. Way to try and float a moronic argument that had already been sunk.
BadgerHawk on October 21, 2009 at 2:38 PM
But at some point they have to let quality slide – again, does that sound like what we should do on healthcare?
After awhile, ‘Controlling costs’ or ‘ fixing prices’ or whatever term you want to use is going to cut into the quality of our healthcare.
Add to that the inherent inefficiency of government, and now you’re talking about a real detriment to the system.
Nobody reasonable can see that as an improvement to the healthcare system.
Juno77 on October 21, 2009 at 2:40 PM
No Donkey. The $54 million was the effect on the deficit over a ten year period. From the CBO report:
Table 1. Effects of Tort Reform on Mandatory Spending and Tax Revenues (in billions of dollars)
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2014 2019 Total 2010-2014 Total 2010-2019
Change in Mandatory Spending: 0 -0.7 -1.8 -3.2 -4.6 -5.4 -5.9 -6.0 -6.3 -7.0 -10.3 -41.0
Change in Revenues: 0 0.2 0.6 1.0 1.5 1.7 1.8 1.9 2.1 2.2 3.2 13.0
Net Effect on the Deficit: 0 -0.9 -2.4 -4.2 -6.1 -7.1 -7.7 -7.9 -8.4 -9.2 -13.5 -54.0
Sources: Congressional Budget Office; Joint Committee on Taxation.
[footnotes omitted]
Jimbo3 on October 21, 2009 at 2:40 PM
You’re now effectively arguing that we need a government run option because it will be less efficient. If it’s going to be tax-payer funder AND poorly run, why have it?
BadgerHawk on October 21, 2009 at 2:40 PM
?
So is your “LOL”-ing a contention that a government is only beholden to supply and demand? That can and will be addressed, but it wouldn’t make my assertion irrelevant; only wrong (which of course, it’s not).
anuts on October 21, 2009 at 2:41 PM
Do you want your kid going to a public school or no school at all?
Proud Rino on October 21, 2009 at 2:42 PM
FYI: The effect on total healthcare spend is estimated to be about double that: “CBO now estimates, on the basis of an analysis incorporating the results of recent
research, that if a package of proposals such as those described above was enacted, it would reduce total national health care spending by about 0.5 percent (about $11 billion
in 2009).” But the CBO doesn’t indicate how much of that reduction will be kept by insurance companies, doctors and hosptials and how much will be passed onto the consumers.
Jimbo3 on October 21, 2009 at 2:43 PM
I broke out my trusty $1 WalMart 4-function calculator. This is what I see:
$875B for current bill
+ 4 * $200B (they are collecting taxes now for 4 years prior to benefits)
+ $250B to doctors outside of the bill
+ $500B in Medicare cuts (anyone thinking this will actually happen needs professional help)
= $2,425B for 6 years
so, 10 / 6 * $2,425B
= $4 TRILLION for 10 years.
which is $899,096,197,040 in base 11.33 so, in a way, it is less than $900,000,000,000 if you ignore the different bases.
Jed_Eckert on October 21, 2009 at 2:44 PM
Ahhhh….the ‘public option’ argument. That’s quite a competetive choice you have there.
anuts on October 21, 2009 at 2:45 PM
The first ones in on a ponzi scheme generally do.
The suckers holding the bag at the end generally do not.
And some like it because there are no other alternatives and what difference does it make if they don’t like or want it? Not as if they can opt out and the whole mess is bankrupt anyway.
NoDonkey on October 21, 2009 at 2:47 PM
The 2 services you mentioned both suck.
As a public school teacher I know personally how govt $$ gets wasted on a daily basis.
I have a fancy $4,000 Smart Board in my room.
All I wanted was a regular chalk board.
They put chessy white boards in my room that have to be replaced ever few years bcs they stain & you can’t write on them anymore.
Chalk boards last basically forever.
But in the “name of progress” the school will spend $$ it does not have to teach things I can mostly teach with no technology.
–Badger, you’re probably in this situation because of the different types of budgets that schools and governmental entities have. My understanding is that schools receive funds from capital budgets and have to use them by the end of the budget period or lose the funds. Only certain things can be purchased from capital budgets (not textbooks, for instance).
Jimbo3 on October 21, 2009 at 2:48 PM
A private school, if I can afford it.
But address the point. The argument for a public option is that it will ‘compete’ with private insurers and provide equal services at lower cost to the consumer. Look at the USPS, an argument you brought up earlier in this thread. Look at GM, another argument you brought up.
You’re admitting that the government doesn’t actually run anything better than private industry. If that’s the case, why on earth would taxpayers ever support a government run option?
BadgerHawk on October 21, 2009 at 2:51 PM
@ NoDonkey on October 21, 2009 at 2:47 PM
That’s actually now called the Obama Option. The only two choices are the ones he states. There are no others, and no one else has ever offered any.
Troll Feeder on October 21, 2009 at 2:52 PM
I suspect most of it would be kept by insurers rather than passed down to consumers, at least initially. That’s why breaking down the artificial barriers between states is important also. Companies will (rightly) keep any additional profits if they have no competition incentive to lower their costs.
BadgerHawk on October 21, 2009 at 2:53 PM
BadgerHawk, the savings of tort reform in Texas have not been passed on to consumers, so I suspect you’re right.
Jimbo3 on October 21, 2009 at 2:57 PM
@NoDonkey on October 21, 2009 at 2:47 PM
The tort reform in Texas has reportedly resulted in a significant increase in the number of doctors here, however. So pricing may not adjust so quickly, but availability has improved.
Troll Feeder on October 21, 2009 at 3:02 PM
Maybe they wouldn’t. I guess we’ll see. I do think the government runs *some* things better than private companies do – the military, the fire department, the police, the government in general. I don’t want some private company deciding it’s not cost effective to keep my house from burning down.
But as to my point – if you can’t afford to put your kid in private school, your kid goes to public school. If you can’t afford private health care, you could have no health care, which is one option, or you could get a government plan.
And the government plan would SUCK. You’d have your share of doctors keen on public service, but most of them would be terrible, they’d be overworked, the lines would be interminable, and it would probably be considered a national joke.
But I still think it’d be better than nothing, and it would provide for millions of people. I think that’s a good thing.
Proud Rino on October 21, 2009 at 3:02 PM
Sorry. That was supposed to be a reply to Jimbo3 on October 21, 2009 at 2:57 PM
Troll Feeder on October 21, 2009 at 3:02 PM
If you aren’t taxed to pay for public schools, you have funds with which to send your kids to private school.
Which would be better than the something we have now, and would provide funds to millions of people.
But, whatever. That’s cool.
Troll Feeder on October 21, 2009 at 3:04 PM
BadgerHawk
Badger don’t bother w/PR. We’ve been going round and round w/it since 11 a.m. and it refuses to see the logic. It did’t know that the USPS has exclusivity on First Class Mail. So it changed the argument to the public school system. Now it doesn’t understand that you are basically being taxed twice if you send your kid to private school, b/c the public school system sucks! It is a child of infantile intellect and lazy arguments.
Jimbo is circuitous and still refuses to concede that Govt. shouldn’t be running anything b/c it ISN’T more efficient, but he at least can be somewhat coherent.
JAM on October 21, 2009 at 3:05 PM
Now we’re getting somewhere. Why would taxpayers want to subsidize a crappy service?
I agree that the idea of providing health insurance to everyone sounds great, but it simply cannot stand up to the factual reality. The money to fund it has to come from somewhere, and programs like these never shrink over time.
BadgerHawk on October 21, 2009 at 3:07 PM
Jimbo is circuitous and still refuses to concede that Govt. shouldn’t be running anything b/c it ISN’T more efficient, but he at least can be somewhat coherent.
–Jimbo doesn’t believe that a government-set or -negotiated price is the same thing as the government running something. Right now, for instance, the premiums for private insurance are set by state regulators. That doesn’t mean the government is running the insurance companies.
Jimbo3 on October 21, 2009 at 3:08 PM
Out of curiosity, what was your comparison reference?
anuts on October 21, 2009 at 3:08 PM
Yeah but the taxes are paid mostly by the wealthy – so poor kids wouldn’t be able to go to school at all, and the rich kids would have even more money and resources.
Gee, I can’t imagine that leading to any unpleasantness!
Proud Rino on October 21, 2009 at 3:09 PM
Go out and ask your neighbors how many of them want to get rid of public schools.
Proud Rino on October 21, 2009 at 3:10 PM
I went and read all the comments before I started posting. Rino’s argument has indeed shifted throughout the pages.
I like anyone who uses factual evidence in their arguments, which Jimbo does more than just about any poster here, so he’s ok in my book (even though I agree with him on almost nothing).
BadgerHawk on October 21, 2009 at 3:10 PM
Let’s see your evidence of that.
Proud Rino on October 21, 2009 at 3:11 PM
Thanks much, BadgerHawk. I’m glad to be allowed to post here as a “troll” of sorts.
Jimbo3 on October 21, 2009 at 3:14 PM
oh yeah…that might lead to street gangs….and even kids getting killed by being hit in the head with a big hunk of wood!!
glad we don’t have those problems now…I feel so much better!!!
right4life on October 21, 2009 at 3:17 PM
That’s quite the red herring. But since you asked; not a single person in my building has kids, so I’m guessing none of them would mind not paying taxes to support a union whose goals very often are not in line with the educational interests of the students in attendance.
If you want to make a grown up argument I’m all ears.
BadgerHawk on October 21, 2009 at 3:19 PM
yeah it doesn’t matter that we’re going broke…and that we’ll repay people with worthless money!!
its because government institutes these programs, and then doesn’t want to change them because it gives them POWER over people’s lives…and insures their re-election…get a clue…
healthcare would be just like social security…another failed government program that would make people dependent upon the govenment….and shifts the electorate further to the left…we end up with a socialist state…
right4life on October 21, 2009 at 3:20 PM
I had the second comment on this thread. My first two posts on this page quoted a comment of yours from Page 2 and another from Page 4.
And you’re first ‘argument’ where you asserted that Jimbo was right and everyone else was wrong (killer logic!) was shot down by Jimbo himself.
Indeed.
BadgerHawk on October 21, 2009 at 3:24 PM
You asked me why people would want to subsidize a crappy service. My answer: Well it depends on the service.
But by your own admission, the schools are a “crappy service” that Americans subsidize, so I asked you to ask your neighbors if they oppose paying taxes for public schools, and I’m guessing that most of them would be OK with it.
But if there were widespead support over defunding public schools, then surely some politician would have proposed the idea by now. But you don’t hear it, do you?
Proud Rino on October 21, 2009 at 3:25 PM
No problem. If all the ‘trolls’ were like you the comment threads would be pretty enlightening.
BadgerHawk on October 21, 2009 at 3:25 PM
Still waiting.
Proud Rino on October 21, 2009 at 3:26 PM
Sorry, was gone for awhile…
You do realize that Malpractice lawsuits are in STATE court, not Fed Court… so what State laws you have (like in Texas with TORT reform) will have a large impact on things like PAs.
I know that in the 13 years since I retired from the Navy, I have never gone to the Doctor, and not been treated BY a Doctor (California and Colorado).
And it IS a Legal condition which would force the Doctor to use an MRI even for someone whose insurance would not pay for it… they would have use it to confirm or rule out the diagnosis, or they would be in court so fast it would make their head spin (at least according to my neighbors wife… who is a Trauma Nurse at a major Denver Hospitals Emergency Room).
Romeo13 on October 21, 2009 at 3:32 PM
You still think that hospitals aren’t able to run themselves efficiently? That if Medicare(Govt) sets a price and that is a baseline, (which it is already for insurance) and that insurance pays that or near the same amt. that it will make hospitals find ways to save costs? I’m no hospital administrator (although I did sleep w/one at a Holiday Inn Express once! heh!) but I believe most hospitals are operating as efficiently as they possibly can already. That is an argument all of us have been making for at least 2 pages. I don’t want my MRI results read by someong in India. I don’t want one janitor for the entire hospital. I don’t want a PA making a big decision about treatment. Coughs and colds, bumps and scrapes, fine, but not diagnostics concerning possible larger issues. I don’t believe that you really are arguing sacrificing quality for these little cost saving measures. It simply isn’t logical. They already do these things in Great Britain and Canada as has been argued ad nauseum. They ration b/c they cannot pay the costs.
JAM on October 21, 2009 at 3:33 PM
While you’re waiting, perhaps you can indulge me in this:
anuts on October 21, 2009 at 3:35 PM
No, the Government has created a situation whereby we would have to pay TWICE (once through taxes, once through Tuition) to put our kids in Private school.
Most, like myself, cannot afford that. So the Government is forcing us through their TAX policy to put our kids in public school.
And they will do the same thing with Health Insurance. Because they will pay for parts of the “public option” through taxes… which you already pay… you will not be able to AFFORD the private option…
Most people cannot afford to pay twice, for the same service.
Romeo13 on October 21, 2009 at 3:37 PM
Hey pal, this is the program that has been in existence for decades…decades. The hospital was just upgraded last year at a cost of millions of dollars.
But you are correct, I did not report accurately the costs, I transposed the figures. The Office of Attending Physicians, charges $503 dollars per year, not $305, so you have unlimited coverage for a little over $40 per month.
And as far as “waiting out the government”…
Makes your argument a little foolish doesn’t it??? The one where private insurance can compete with government programs because if the gov is underpriced, it will eventually have to raise or go out of business…aren’t you the least bit embarrassed now?
right2bright on October 21, 2009 at 3:52 PM
Actually Romeo, about three times, since private is about half the cost of public education.
right2bright on October 21, 2009 at 3:54 PM
A perfect, exact response and definition…nothing more really needs to be said to Proud Rino, even he should understand that (but he won’t).
Well done…
right2bright on October 21, 2009 at 3:56 PM
LOL… notice its NAVY Doctors on call? ie… paid for by the Defense Department?
I could run a really cheap hospital too, if someone else had to pay for all the Doctors….
Romeo13 on October 21, 2009 at 3:57 PM
I remember wage and price freezes in the 70′s, it did not work then, no reason to believe it will work now.
What people like Proud Rino do not understand is that government lives off of working people, it does not turn a profit. They could just as easily demand the doctors work for minimum wage. After all, that would really cut costs wouldn’t it?
How about pro bono?
A good example would be a lot of the farm programs. The idea of a loan rate is to set a basic price. The loan rate is basically cost of production. The deficiency payment {or subsidy} is the difference between costs of production and market price. In years when the market prices are higher, the subsidies are lower. The original idea behind that had nothing to do with taking care of farmers, not really, it was designed to create an ample supply of cheap food for an ever growing urban population.
In health care if they try to implement a cost control, the end result will be more government support to keep people in business or face shortages. Same thing.
Terrye on October 21, 2009 at 4:10 PM
First of all, did they really suggest (demand?) that the public option be tied to the same price-fixing scheme that medicare is currently tied to? That would be the same medicare that is currently 400 BILLION in the red? And they insist this will LOWER COSTS? Do these idiots even listen to themselves talk anymore???
Secondly, this is unconstitutional on it’s face. There is no provision in the Constitution that allows the federal govt to force people to buy health insurance or to provide same, regardless of the need. None. I know that quaint little document means nothing to anyone (and I mean ANYONE) in washington dc anymore, just pointing it out.
runawayyyy on October 21, 2009 at 4:11 PM
If this is true, why aren’t the Democrats calling the state regulators evil capitalists protecting their profits, rather than making that charge against the insurance companies?
Terrye on October 21, 2009 at 4:13 PM
They will try to hide behind the commerce clause on this one, but I agree with you..this is not constitutional.
Terrye on October 21, 2009 at 4:14 PM
@Proud Rino on October 21, 2009 at 3:09 PM
Dunno what cesspit State you live in, but here abouts, schools are paid for via property taxes. Which hit rich and poor, renter and owner, in equal share.
So, no; any contention that follows from your assertion is invalid.
Troll Feeder on October 21, 2009 at 4:32 PM
Proud Rino on October 21, 2009 at 2:31 PM
Really? The majority of the working professionals I know would love to end both programs and let people keep the extra 15% of their income themselves.
I’d even be happy to continue paying the taxes and forgo the benefits if it would mean that I’d be the last generation to get screwed by these scams.
Troll Feeder on October 21, 2009 at 4:36 PM
Notice Proud Rino decided to “move along”…I guess the gov. free market, ain’t so free after all.
right2bright on October 21, 2009 at 7:37 PM
I find it interesting that dems feel that freezing prices in the private industry will fix budget problems but when it comes to federal budgets they won’t even consider a spending freeze. I know they are two different animals but the concept is similar
lwssdd on October 21, 2009 at 7:46 PM
right2bright: I know congress has excellent care way above the cost they bear, but according to this site,
http://public-healthcare-issues.suite101.com/article.cfm/health_care_for_the_us_congress#ixzz0UcUluQQa, Representatives pay about $300 per month, and Senators about $600.
amr on October 21, 2009 at 8:31 PM
You are correct, still a small amount…however for an additional $503 they have their own hospital with specialists at their beck and call….you didn’t read what I posted?
This is a top of the line hospital right in the capitol, manned by several doctors, dentists, and specialists.
If they need a specialists, they are provided for free, no extra charge.
The insurance you are talking about insures them, totally and they are allowed to have their own personal doctors at home.
So for a grand total of $650 per month, they have 100% medical care, with any specialist in the U.S. flown in at no charge, complete dental for no charge, eye care and glasses no charge, everything medical.
Google “Office of Attending Physician” and sit back and be awed at the expense and the depth of their care.
Sources said when specialists are needed, they are brought to the Capitol, often at no charge to members of Congress.
3.8 million dollars for only 204 who have signed up for the service…however, if you don’t sign up, you still get the service.
This is why they want us on our plan…and they don’t want anything to do with the plan they are forcing on us.
right2bright on October 21, 2009 at 8:51 PM
Is it okay to say that ObaMAO and the Dem-dominated Congress have swine flu. They have porked up their bills with political payoffs. Now they are trying to pass more pigs in a poke.
They are spending our money with these boondoggles and indebting future generations into dependency and bottomless debt. One has to wonder who profits from these shenanigans. It certainly isn’t the producers.
onlineanalyst on October 21, 2009 at 9:40 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next »