Last week, Senator John McCain revived the Obamacare repeal idea with a declaration he would vote for repeal if the governor of Arizona backed the idea. The Governor backed the idea but Mccain reversed.
In the interim, Senator Susan Collins became the third Republican to oppose the measure.
Collins joins McCain and Rand Paul. Lisa Murkowski is on the fence and so is Ted Cruz. In short, it’s hopeless.
A last-ditch ObamaCare repeal effort by Republicans was all but dead on Monday after Sen. Susan Collins became the third Republican to oppose the measure.
Collins announced her opposition minutes after the Congressional Budget Office released an analysis predicting that millions would lose insurance under the proposal if it became law.
That was enough for Collins, who had long been seen as an almost certain ‘no’ vote on the measure.
She joins Sens. John McCain (Ariz.) and Rand Paul (Ky.) as GOP “no” votes. Republicans can only afford two defections and still muscle the bill through the Senate.
In a lengthy statement, Collins said the most recent ObamaCare repeal bill, which had been reshaped Sunday in an effort to win her over, “was as deeply flawed as its previous iterations.”She cited the CBO’s score as one of her reasons for opposing the legislation authored by GOP Sens. Lindsey Graham (S.C.) and Bill Cassidy (La.), while also criticizing its cuts to Medicaid, its weakening of protections for people with preexisting conditions and predictions by insurers, hospitals and other groups that it would lead to higher premiums and less coverage for people.
It’s not clear whether Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) will still try to hold a floor vote later this week, something some GOP donors and the White House may want to see just to get senators on the record.
The push came as Republicans faced a Sept. 30 deadline for passing ObamaCare repeal under special budget reconciliation rules that prevent Democrats from launching a filibuster.
One Word, One Question
One Word: Pathetic!
One question: What the hell game is McCain playing?
Bonus Question: What the hell game is Ted Cruz playing?
Yesterday, Politico reported Cruz opposes latest Obamacare repeal attempt. That link is from yesterday.
Today, Politico quotes Cruz: “We need to get the job done. We need to keep working at it until we accomplish the task. We need to use whatever procedural tools are necessary to honor the promise we made to the American people to repeal Obamacare.”
Is this a joke?
Mike “Mish” Shedlock
There is only one answer. Universal health care. Call it single payer, whatever, the federal government can afford it. As I have said previously the Federal government has a duty of care for all its people and healthcare is a big one. Vacating the field as has been attempted by the right wing is not on.
The economic argument alone outweighs the political. No individual has to pay for it. There can be private schemes for them who don’t mind paying. It’s common enough outside the US and at half the cost.
Single Payer cannot work in the US
There are no controls on anything
In Europe, doctor salaries, education costs (training doctors), drug prices etc etc are all controlled.
Think about what single payer will do here
It would be mandatory to have laws etc that make it work. There are no problems with having doctors on salaries for it. Here many doctors are in both the public and private system. IMO, it’s not the doctors it’s the pharmaceutical establishment. Don’t you think they have gone on long enough at the trough, getting fat at the public expense?
Becoming a doctor in the US Is prohibitively expensive. Eight to ten years of schooling, endless training and re-training… And despite what you may believe – and what is portrayed on television and in books, most doctors don’t make the money you imagine they make. And while the amount of education isn’t the same, becoming a real nurse is expensive as well.
If you put “controls” in place to limit what money doctors can make, the best candidates will no longer pursue it as a career. They will instead find a career where there are no controls.
And quality of medical care will suffer.
So then you will need to control that so you channel the right people into being doctors and nurses.
Eventually you will find you have to control everything.
And we all know how well that works.
That’s just wishful thinking. We don’t have a doctor drain here, which we would if your contention was correct.
Lindsey-Cassidy-CAIR, Obamacare by another sissy name fails?
That’s a win!
The nice thing about American’s cost focus is that universal healthcare will quickly turn to an efficient hospice operation for the majority of seniors and other high cost individuals.
All who can be profitably stripped of resources will be, and those not profitable will receive “dignity.”
Exactly, Mish. Take the UK’s NHS as an example. All of the doctors, nurses, orderlies, lab technicians, etc., are employees of the NHS. All of the property plant and equipment is owned by the NHS. The NHS can only spend on labor and capital that which it is allocated by the Parliament. That is why you have, in effect, healthcare rationing: there is a fixed supply of capital and labor to provide the medical services.
Single payer in the US would (will) be a disaster for the US because there is no such controls on the spending for capital and labor. The US single-payer system would be, in effect, “see the doctor and send us the bill”.
Yet It’s rated the best health service in the world. No1. Aus at No2. It’s pretty good out here as I can personally attest.
Who rates them?
Exactly.
Who rates them?
What are the criteria?
Are they measuring the same things in different countries? Do the data even exist in all the countries to compare? (e.g. — does infant mortality data mean the same thing in all the countries measured?)
How many of the criteria are objective, measurable and not subjective (e.g. — “how do you feel about…”)?
I’ve no idea who did the rating. It was in an article on Canada’s healthcare system in “The Conversation”. Considering all the flak the UK system gets it surprises it rated No1 As an Australian I can say it’s good enough here. I have had both hips replaced and it cost me nil. No such cost as $200 to visit the doctor. It’s free. The Gov’t tried to introduce a $5 co-payment per visit, but it failed to pass. It’s not necessary as I have said. A lot of people here go straight to emergency. That is not just a US phenomenon.
I think we all should know the greatest costs per patient are all at the terminal end of life care.
Wasn’t there some threat the US would have death squads in action with ACA?
You are correct. The average US person does not want to be told that they have to wait for care or for any tests or surgeries. Nothing but the best. They want it all, they want it now, and they do not want to pay for it. We’re a bunch or spoiled rotten little brats.
As long as the answer to the question “how much health care is everyone entitled to?” remains “Infinite”, the cost will continue to trend towards infinity.
Exactly! for all the hyperbole about healthcare cost and who shall pay, the one thing that is NEVER discussed is how much is a life worth? How much are we will to spend on ONE LIFE, because once we go there, then we have to work our way through “value judgements….who is worth more, a young educated person, or an old gang banger? Progressives want to pretend we are all equal but they are the first to prioritize.
Without a number, how can any legitimate decision…or even conversation happen.
…unless of course you believe as ejrh does, that the “money” comes infinitely from heaven.
I’m still waiting on my Obamabucks….they have YET to pay my rent or send me a new phone.
Since i’m going to be running the Bureau of Fair Health Distribution (BFHD) my price sheet is available for “How much care you’re entitled to”, in an easily downloadable PDF form, payable in gold (or bitcoin) to my third world country bank.
Get in early, and avoid the “Dignity” early-end-of-existence plan!
+ a million.
In every society virtually anywhere, doctors have been recruited from the absolute cream of the crop of young people. And they always work their butts off; as there is always some little extra that can be done to help someone just a little more. While it’s an intrinsically rewarding career, those guys expect to get remunerated for their efforts; and for forsaking what would almost inevitably be much greater opportunity for monetary compensation in other fields. At a very minimum, they expect their kids to have the opportunity to follow in their footsteps, as unimpeded as possible. Meaning access to as good schools as the country can provide. Which nowadays means living in “good neighborhoods.”
In Europe, the price of entry into a good neighborhood, is higher than a bad one, but not nearly the multiple it is in big American cities. And the difference in school quality is not nearly as pronounced either. Nor the difference in crime. All of which means, you can get away with paying doctors much less in Europe, without them falling below a standard most of them would consider the minimum for someone of their stature and hours put in.
And while nurses may generally be further from the pointy edge than doctors, the ever increasing complexity of technology in the medical field, are moving them in the same direction as well. Anyone who is a registered nurse, and who puts in the hours most of them do, could easily have gotten equally remunerative work in other fields demanding less always-on effort.
While neither of those groups mostly got into their field for the money, they do expect to be remunerated sufficiently to avoid problems associated with lack of a decent income. Affording to live close enough to work not to waste their life commuting being one. In the US, that is simply not close to possible, on the salaries most national health care systems pay in Europe.
Mish- The very politicians that are trying to overturn ObamaCare, HAVE a single payer HC plan. There are simple ways to have one without harming our existing, for-profit market. Look to Switzerland for one idea. Basic HC ins is mandated and everyone pays into the system dependent on their income. HC insurers cannot make a SF on this basic coverage and make all their profits on supplemental HC ins that most ppl add.
See, we can still have our gigantic regulated monopolies that hate price competition and our cake, too. No one has the right to bitch about costs while standing in the way of a fix. Throwing 20 million ppl off their HC coverage is about as dumb as denying climate change in the face of XOM’s shareholder vote.
Hal, what does “SF” stand for, if you don’t mind me asking?
The Doctors probably need higher compensation for their skill levels anyway…for the amount of time and money it takes they are poorly compensated in comparison to more useless professions like …financial advisors or some lawyers I know. The pharma companies are raking it in…and most of the time the drugs cause more problems than they solve. Anti-depressants, opioids,Anti-bacterials, fake placebos like Viagra…
May be single payer as default and private for those who can afford it, may be a way to go. Tax the private system and use the collections for default system. Sure, the default system will suck, but it will free up people from having to keep jobs just to have health insurance,
In any case, most of my friends are either highly paid with a health insurance that is in name only ( they have very high copay, not very low premiums and are mostly useless) or lowly paid with very good insurance. So things are not that great shakes anyway.
With this system, the doctors will start accepting cash and there will be a tiered system.
Also, the good doctors will go to private practice, while the bad ones will show up in the default system. But immigration can fix that issue since a lot of our doctors are from India anyway. There are a lot more where they came from. Plus, we will have a bunch of new schools that will be cheaper. Think Berkeley vs Stanford for engineering, for example.
Has this been suggested anywhere?
isn’t the so-called “public option”?
“the Federal government has a duty of care for all its people and healthcare”
Health care was traditionally provided the poor by religious orders as charity, before that option was abolished. Funding insurance companies is much more costly than simply funding charitable hospitals with a mandate to treat all comers. Why not charity, with generous contributions from government instead of subsidies to insurance companies? Single payer, which is really 350 million individual payers being taxed by central governments, was the Eastern European communist solution. Talk to some Eastern Europeans, and the idiocy and fraudulence of that Orwellian option becomes obvious.
Why? Because the federal government can pay without any cost to taxpayers!!! You have got to rid yourselves of the false idea that federal economics is like household economics. It’s complete bullshit that the fed is ever short of money. It’s a ruse to appease the top end of town who don’t want to do anything to help the rest of society. We are just here for them to mine.
Charity is a cop out, pure and simple. You can have some as a gesture but the heavy lifting is all down to the government.
“the federal government can pay without any cost to taxpayers!!!”
Then why tax 350 million people with the single payer option, if it is unnecessary? By your logic Obamacare taxes, mandates and IRS penalties are all a fraud and totally unnecessary. You make a good argument for a complete clean repeal of Obamacare.
“Charity is a cop out, pure and simple”
Is Ebenezer Scrooge your real name?
YES!!! The federal government is financially able to buy anything for sale. It has that power via the exclusive right to create the dollar in the Constitution. The dollar is a legal construct as are all our laws. They all come from nothing, aka “thin air”. There only has to be a debt and a dollar figure can be written into accounts at the Fed to match. So a simple typing exercise is all the effort required to buy the total cost of healthcare. Only political decisions by Congress can alter that and since Congress is basically incompetent we have the current impasse.
Charity is a cop out. Not by us but by the government. It can fix all the issues we are forced to do by charity. If we like charity, we can force Congress to match say $10 for every $1 we raise privately. Scrooge has nothing to do with it. We just have to know what we can do. But right now, from the comments here it’s clear we don’t know or understand monetary sovereignty and the power it can exert.
Why do you think taxes are revenue for a sovereign government? History is not relevant to this now. First Taxes have to come after spending. You can’t give your taxes to the government if they haven’t created the money already. It’s impossible. The government can pay without borrowing . They deliberately give the impression they have to sell bonds to raise money but that is a smokescreen. Congress requires bond auctions to match the deficit, but it’s just an accounting entry. Government bonds are actually investor deposits, corporate welfare. ETC ETC
@ejhr Someone still has to pay for the government’s spending. Either through taxation or inflation. The primary reason for keeping interest rates artificially low is so the government doesn’t have to tax to pay for all their promises. Who pays? Savers and people on fixed incomes. You know, grandma and papa, underfunded pension funds, and people close to retirement who have to keep money in the volatile stock market instead of safer investments like CDs.
Please read what I have just written earlier. Give up on the idea we use taxes. Taxes don’t pay for federal spending. They can’t anyway as explained also. Taxes have many purposes but raising revenue is not included. It’s not in the scope of this blog to explain it in detail. Just do your own homework and you’ll see. That’s how I got to understand. It’s not a secret.
The economy is a construct premised upon confidence. Confidence, at least initially, must be based upon something real…like a day’s pay for a day’s work. We all know that the government can print to infinity….we have watched it happen, but we also know (and THEY know) that if they go blatant on it…money from helicopters, the illusion will come crashing down. Their struggle currently is to prop up this construct with more delusion, but not to the point that everybody is forced to acknowledge it is a sham, and start running for the door.
We will see market manipulations that many bemoan as corruption to benefit the few, but government understands that they MUST keep the illusion alive. They have created paper gold and silver as a means to control supply and demand for PMs, as gold specifically is a direct threat to the dollar, and they see crypto currencies happening in the same way. We are seeing tons of new ones which gives crypto some credibility but also keeps it diluted in its total balance to the dollar. You can bet that once crypto is established and accepted, governments will take control of it. Gold was a problem as while they could “print” paper gold, gold etfs were never going to compete with the dollar, so to accept gold as currency meant that you had limited “printability”. Crypto on the other hand has infinite “printability” and no good way to monitor it.
Here is the fool you’ve been waiting for.
The fool is you, blindly ignorant with not a molecule of evidence in support. Try harder!
Ignore him. He’s in over his head and shouldn’t be commenting here.
“… the federal government can pay without any cost to taxpayers!!!”
The stupid is strong in this one.
Ignore the bullshit about “a government being able to borrow whatever they want without having to pay it back” and just think about the consequences of simply printing and injecting money into a system where only the money you print is “legal tender” by law.
The ignorance is super strong in this opinion!. Why don’t you try some facts to support your contention? Did I say a government is able to borrow without paying it back? No I said the government never needs to borrow. The fact it does is because it’s in thrall to the banksters. It can afford it though just the same except the bottom line blows out double or triple the cost if the Fed directly funded the work rather than letting the banks do it. So you have an unnecessarily deep bottom line all making money for the financial sector, which does not help the economy.
I also said the government creates currency by buying debt. It doesn’t “print” money, except banknotes. They can only create currency in response to debt. Do you worry about the $700 billion defence budget blowout? Do you worry about the $27Trillion spent by the fed on the GFC fallout? If not then that’s on the right path. No taxes were used to pay either of those sums. There wouldn’t have been enough to do so and they don’t have to, as I said.
More money in a system than products can only result in one thing: Prices for everything going up.
Nothing is necessarily worth more – an apple still offers x amount of calories and energy – but it appears to be “worth” more because there are more “dollars” (or whatever) in the system than apples…
In the good old days, excess money injected into a system was called “inflation” today the resulting rise in prices is called “inflation”
They changed the definition so they can control the perception.
But the problem remains the same.
“Why? Because the federal government can pay without any cost to taxpayers!!!”
Inflation due to FED money printing will be a cost to tax payers. The California legislature found that a state program would double the state budget. Sanders national plan would add a lot of inflation, with all the money that would be printed to pay for it.
States cannot create money They are like the rest of us, USERS of money. States do use taxes. The Fed can bail out the States if the federal politicians choose to do it. So your ideas are totally misformed. Sorry Ron.
States don’t create money but the do control what’s legal tender – at least according to the Constitution.
Read it for yourself.
The ability of the Federal Government to claim their paper legal tender was awarded by a judge
Does this also mean that the government can buy me that Ferrari, the big house and the shiny new motorhome I’ve been lusting over?
I’m so pleased that my delusions of having to WORK to pay for things is finally over! Just another bad dream that has been ended by progressive enlightenment.
God has been replaced by the all powerful federal government.
That was never abolished. The charities chose to sell out, literally, and begin taking money from the govt via medicare when it became available. In less than a generation they refused to care for people for free.
I was speaking more historically. The church charities did not sell out. For example, the church lands supporting the charity to the poor were confiscated by the state in England (one of the Henrys) and by the French Revolution 2 centuries ago in France.
We don’t need to use a single payer plan to implement universal coverage. What we need to do is find a plan that does not allow young, deadbeats to game the system as before the ACA. Everyone can have an accident of contract a major diseases and come under financial strain. That’s where we need basic, guaranteed health “care”, not just access.
When the poor and foolish use the ER and leave their costs for those of us who purchase HC insurance to pay, we all lost. It’s not a conservative idea to encourage deadbeats. That’s why despite their repeated denials, the Heritage Foundation came up with the individual mandate years ago in response to Hillary Clinton’s single payer plan.
“This came up at Tuesday’s Western Republican Leadership Conference Debate, where Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich tussled on the question:
ROMNEY: Actually, Newt, we got the idea of an individual mandate from you.
GINGRICH: That’s not true. You got it from the Heritage Foundation.
ROMNEY: Yes, we got it from you, and you got it from the Heritage Foundation and from you.
GINGRICH: Wait a second. What you just said is not true. You did not get that from me. You got it from the Heritage Foundation.
ROMNEY: And you never supported them?
GINGRICH: I agree with them, but I’m just saying, what you said to this audience just now plain wasn’t true.
(CROSSTALK)
ROMNEY: OK. Let me ask, have you supported in the past an individual mandate?
GINGRICH: I absolutely did with the Heritage Foundation against Hillarycare.
ROMNEY: You did support an individual mandate?
ROMNEY: Oh, OK. That’s what I’m saying. We got the idea from you and the Heritage Foundation.
GINGRICH: OK. A little broader.
ROMNEY: OK.”
https://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2011/10/20/how-a-conservative-think-tank-invented-the-individual-mandate/#1d84628f6187
Spoken like a true insurance company lobbyist or executive. You earned your ACA bonus dollars. Both Gingrich and Romney were rejected by the voters. The geographic majority of America favored Trump’s anti-ACA sentiments, and rejected Hillary’s doubling down on ACA penalties for those opting out. That is the real bottom line in politics, and why Obamacare is collapsing. The “deadbeats” voted their wallets, to minimize being fleeced. Self-interest rules in finance. A 100% ACA surcharge on your health insurance premiums would make up for the shortfall and take care of the uninsured. In other words, make every American who is already affording ACA buy a second equivalent policy for an uninsured person. That would solve the problem, and only those wealthy enough to pay would pay, and those who cannot pay would receive. The DNC would call that fair play.
It saddens me that people that can string a few sentences together, cannot see that single payer, is not a viable option. The UK has single payer and spends 85% of personal taxes raised to provide “universal” health care that STILL has to allocate these “limited” resources to prioritize treatment.
That is to provide health care to a population of 65 million, 55 million of which do not use hospitals and only need dental “check ups”.
The UK’s National Heath Service leaves thousands on waiting lists for months (sometimes years) to get what the state/NHS defines as “elective” treatments, simply because the demands of “accident and emergency”, geriatric and mental health care are so high and growing.
The UK spends 150 billion pounds (200 billion dollars) a year on its National Health Service. It has increased spending by 50% since 2006. There are no signs that the spiralling costs are abating, or that the demands from immmgration (net migration has added 0.5% a year to the population for the last fifteen years and contributed to a higher level of demand for health care (not alleviated by help from even more specialist medical immigrants).
The point is, health care is never free, no matter what system is used. Were the US to spend as much as the UK (even though the US is lampooned as the most expensive health care in the world) it would take 85% of income taxes of 1.8 trillion to gain a “lower than bronze obama care” treatment.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/March_2017_United_Kingdom_budget
http://www.nhsconfed.org/resources/key-statistics-on-the-nhs
http://www.migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/resources/briefings/long-term-international-migration-flows-to-and-from-the-uk/
https://www.thebalance.com/current-u-s-federal-government-tax-revenue-3305762
I do not want a central body of uqualified bureaucrats determining how much health care I shoud have, when I can get it and what level of treatment and after care is available.
The market (and yes, government regulations) will sort out the egregious behaviour of drug companies in (price gouging) drugs.
Libtard socialism via central planning and control with baby steps to full blown communism is not the answer. It has failed miserably. Single payer is a key part of libtard socialism. Socialism is a slow motion train wreck of annual 3% fiscal deficits until the wall of debt becomes so high it cannot be climbed (Japan long passed through this, Europe and the US are copying Japan).
It saddens me that nonsense like “The UK has single payer and spends 85% of personal taxes raised to provide “universal” health care that STILL has to allocate these “limited” resources to prioritize treatment.” is so common in the U.S.
The UK does not spend 85% of personal taxes on the NHS, and all resources have limits. If you have no healthcare your personal limit is a lot less than any British Citizen has, and frankly for most people in America, their limits are below what most European citizens limits are.
it is clear that you are one of those lazy loud mouths that doesn’t click on links.
the UK 2017/2018 budget has 175 billion of income taxes (first link)
the UK is budgeting to spend 150 billion on health care (still the first link)
150/175 = 85%
argue the facts – the NHS costs a fortune for substandard health care compared to the basic EU health care / sub-bronze US health care.
Have you even heard of NIC or VAT? Those are the taxes that support the NHS as well.
Here is a chart showing UK spending – as you will see health is 18% of the total. The deficit is L18B, so only in your world does that make 18% 85% of taxes. But you wanted your 85% headline so you only took one part of the tax income – those stats games might work of the dotards around here, but educated, intelligent people, you know the ones who vote for science and numerology (hint: don’t vote for orange clowns) will see through your nonsense.
https://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/chart_central.php?title=UK_government_expenditure&meta=government_expenditure
Plus, you try standing on a platform to abolish the NHS and replace it with the American model as a politician in Britain and see how far you get. My friends who are doctors in the NHS (yes, I actually know what I’m talking about) say that the most potent tool in fighting Tory policies is to compare them to the introduction of “American-style” healthcare – i.e. h/c only for the rich.
This libtard rubbish doesn’t even merit a reply, but suffice it to say the UK government is incompetently cutting back on healthcare spending because it erroneously thinks taxpayers are worried about the cost. It’s just another sin by neo-liberal policies.
you are not worthy of a reply, but since you are begging on the site of intellectuals, i will sell you a a t-shirt that epitomizes your libtard socialism
“do no work, pay no tax, print money”
idiot.
Evidence free. Your comment is the libtard rubbish. When ignorance wins ad hominem attacks abound. You are bereft of knowledge since you clearly cannot recognise it. You are a loser.
Not that we need to use a single payer plan to implement universal coverage, but if it were so bad, why did our Republican Senators vote to keep theirs a few weeks ago? They have a single payer HC plan just as our seniors do with Medicare.
Medicare is soooooo popular that conservatives have even been seen carrying signs saying “keep your government hands off my Medicare”. Make no mistake, we have the most profitable HC insurance industry in the world, but they do not focus on improving HC. They’re only there because we allow them a regulated monopoly.
We have a choice going forward. We can either sink with these unsustainable price increases for healthcare or come up with a way to rein in runaway costs by setting up an agency to slow the grow. Stop complaining about premiums, deductibles, co-pays and out-of-pockets costs unless you are ready to change our regulated monopolies.
The single payer for the USA Senate health plan is USA.gov. These high income Senators are the opens getting subsidized Obamacare. The poorest people buying their eggs, milk, cheese and bread from the Dollar stores to feed their families are paying the Obamacare penalties because $6,000 a year for a plan with a $10,000 deductible makes no sense. Hence, the poorest Americans whose Obamacare tax penalties are doubling every year are getting the biggest shaft in the ass from the DNC. It was that, not the Russians, that elected Trump.
This issue always brings out the worst lies. Single payer Healthcare systems in countries such as the UK, Australia, Canada etc cost around 11% of GDP vs 17% in the US. Any talk claiming outrageous costs of single payer are just false.
In addition, these systems cover everyone, while the US system does not cover 20-30% of the population.
As a result, health outcomes, longevity, and quality of life are all much higher in single payer countries as compared to the US.
There are indeed waiting lists in single payer systems, but these lists are primarily for non-essential or non life-threatening procedures. Serious problems are treated quickly, though there will always be the occasional exception, which is the argument you will hear from those who are against single payer. This argument, based on a few exceptions, is completely bogus. Again, just look at the much better outcomes in single payer systems.
The US will eventually get to a single payer system for everyone (not just politicians and the privileged few), but only after they try every stupid idea first. I give it around 20-30 years before they join the ranks of most civilized countries.
Nice to see a bit of sense!
I’m not in favor of a single payer system. People have to have to pay something for their care. Otherwise doctors offices will be full of people who have headaches and sore knees. I think all that needs to be done is put price caps on medical costs. Every new cancer drugs costs over $100k/yr. If the pharmaceutical industry wants a patent on their drugs, fine, but they need to accept price controls also. They can’t have a monopoly on a drug and charge whatever they want. It’s ludicrous that people in the US pay 10x what people in India and Mexico pay for the exact same drug.
It’s just a question of competence. Competence in managing the whole healthcare business. To that end you could study what happens in Canada or Australia where public and private health schemes are working together. The US doesn’t have to start from scratch.
If it’s a question of competence, then government is out. Government is basically an idiot. A lazy, overpaid, incompetent idiot. The VA is a perfect example of this. Fix nothing, do nothing but run TV commercials telling us how much they are “dedicated” to their work. Dedicated to empire building and fat pensions, yes. Work, no.
Do we deserve such a government, or not?
The FLAW.
Competence, corruption and accountability.
Progressives will never retreat from their collectivist mentality because the see no flaw in it, only flaws in its application…..completely ignoring the human aspect of social problems…power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.
It is part of the propagation of the Big Lie, that somehow those in government are more “moral” than those in business. Money is about power and there is nothing more powerful than government, so lets not kid ourselves. Most people in government are in it for themselves, just like everyone else. Either for the power and prestige, or for the security and benefits…..and then they have the NERVE to tell us how they have SACRIFICED in service to us.
Agreed. It’s big problem today. Is the USA more venally corrupt than Australia, or Canada or the UK? I wouldn’t think so but you make it sound worse.
And you can’t see the corruption, malfeasance and waste in our for-profit, private system that we relied on before the ACA? Do you know that hospitals throw away half of all the supplies they purchase? Half!
Check the out:
https://www.propublica.org/article/what-hospitals-waste
Hal, have you looked into how much our military wastes? How about our government in general? Given most government workers produce nothing useful for the vast majority of individuals, and actually impose hardship on many, it is hard to understand HOW government is NOT wasteful by simply existing. We except a certain level of waste and corruption as a part of humanity, but in the real world, consequences of such eventually turn up. The problem with government is there is no competing entity to force accountability, and they are left to their own devices until they fail. For many centuries that was handled by immigration, people leaving restrictive and oppressive regimes for those where they felt they would have the freedom to compete and achieve. That is quickly changing. Now immigration has changed from one of opportunity to achieve, to opportunity to obtain free stuff…education, socialist benefits. Do we really think we would see the massive inflow of immigrants to Europe if not for their generous social programs? Let us see how THEIR healthcare system stands up to this change.
If, as you assert, that the federal government has a duty to care for all its people and health care, then it is obvious that in that duty of providing health care it also has a duty to prevent harm to all its people through their individual and collective bad habits. And since you are a follower of MMT, then yes, the government will find it easy to pay for these services. Imagine that you are over weight. The federal government can create jobs for the unemployed by hiring individuals to monitor your eating habits and forcibly reduce your calorie intake. No more M&Ms or gummy bears for you, only good fresh and wholesome broccoli will be allowed as the meal of your choice. And since the federal government doesn’t need an income, since it can create wealth out of thin air (even our air must be healthy, no fat air for you) then no need for taxes. In fact, no need for any private enterprise, we can all work for the federal government making tooth paste, soap, food, automobiles that use renewable resources, and the like. There is that old saying in psychiatry that the neurotic builds castles in the air and the psychotic moves into them while the psychiatrist collects the rent.
Yes, indeed William. MMT does not pretend the government has to do all these nanny state actions. MMT is not political and your ideas are wholly political. MMT is not a label I like. The Reserve Bank of Chicago was more accurate to call it Modern Monetary Mechanics back in 1963. “Theory” is a loaded term. Some call it MMT = “Magic Money Tree”. but it’s just ignorance. No “tree” is needed, just a finger on a keyboard is all. Your parody is just a sign you haven’t “got” it. I suggest you bone up on it and see that it’s not a theory but a descriptor of the actual reality of macroeconomics. Look up Stephanie Kelton for a good introduction.
Actually, I have read quite a bit on MMT. Many of its assumptions are false and as a monetary theory it is false. You will disagree, of course. You have accepted all the assumptions without question so MMT will always be a “true” theory to you. By the way, MMT is political, don’t ever doubt that for a second. Your assertion about the duty for the state to care for the health of its people is an assertion that the state should be the “nanny”, it is the logical conclusion.
MMT is a lens through which to examine the reality of macroeconomics. So do tell, name a false proposition MMT puts forward. Don’t tell us you believe the mainstream that says the government has to borrow from the private sector and tax for its revenue, like a household?That the government debt is a burden our children will be saddled with Etc? That the government should balance the budget, or be in surplus? These are all false by the way. You don’t need MMT to know that.
You don’t seem to have understood MMT. Who were you reading?
The first wrong assumption is that government can and does create all the money (for MMT that would be fiat currency). But that is not in the least bit true. MMT goes on to ignore the law of supply and demand. The list keeps going. Most of the assertions given by MMT are smoke and mirrors. If you really believe that MMT can work then examine the economic policies of the USSR. Even communism could not make it work.
That was quick!, You flunked at the first question. Congratulations at defeating your self so soon. What I said was the government is empowered by the constitution to create the nation’s currency, the dollar. Banks didn’t create the dollar. They use it when they create credit. I assume you included bank money in your comment. ” The list keeps gong” is a cop out. How does MMT ignore supply and demand/ You can’t say.
It’s a false equivalence to bring in the USSR as they applied mainstream economics, never MMT. Venezuela’s problems are political, but if they understood MMT they would get out of trouble much sooner. Your understanding of MMT is abysmal.
I haven’t flunked anything. the inconsistencies in the MMT theory are multiple. It relies of false assumptions as the basis of its arguments. The fact that you seem unable to recognize such assumptions as false does not change them. Fact is, it’s not my job in life to teach you logic.
As far as the USSR, they really didn’t followed any mainstream economics. Remember, the government owned the means of production. They had, therefore, no means to measure GDP. Everyone worked for the government. The government issued all the internal currency (most nations did not accept the communist ruble), hence the government paid for all the products and services (except what was traded on the black market). No need for government debt since the government controlled all prices and all supply (with the exception of the black market). In monetary terms, that is your MMT system. As the population grew, the money supply expanded. And if the cost of imported commodities of foreign goods rose, then that inflation was covered by issuing more money through a rise in wages.
But what do we know about government controlled production and markets? There is no price discovery, one of the keys to supply and demand as well as the distribution of goods and services. I believe it was Mises who pointed out that the only reason why the USSR economic system last so long was that it could look to the industrial nations and their open market systems to compare their production and prices in its own country.
Now you wish to believe that “money” can be created out of thin air. The government never runs a deficit because it can print all the fiat money it wishes. But “money” is a medium of transaction or trade, and it is through that medium that it creates a store of value or future use as a medium of trade. A bar of gold has a store of value but unless is it recognized as a medium of transaction it is simply an asset like a bar of copper. So the simple printing of paper fiat is meaningless unless individuals and institutions believe it stores some value to be used in transactions. We have reach a point in the progress of mankind where credit has replaced “money”. When we earn a wage from exchanging our time in some labor for some unit of “money”, we are paid electronically. That store of value is transferred from our employer’s bank account to our bank account. For the most part, we have become a cashless society, most of out transactions occur electronically. But our government doesn’t issue the credit for the mortgage we take out to buy our houses, a bank or other financial institution does that service. A good many individuals use credit cards to purchase goods and services they use every day and then pay those credit cards off at the end of the month if they are financially responsible. Credit has become money, all those electronic ones and zeros are the new money source. And credit, when used like cash, becomes debt, something cash never becomes. The lines have become blurred. Government no longer is the issuer of money, banks now do it and have been doing it for a long time.
Well, you say, credit isn’t money! It certainly spends like money and is accepted as money and has, for the most part replaced money. MMT can’t address this problem, and it is a problem. Debt and money were two distinct things way back when. Now, with so much credit issued in the world, money has blurred into credit. Our governments no longer print bales of fiat currency and truck it over to Lockheed to buy a 35 billion dollar fighter, it used its credit card. You see, in a way our monetary system is morphing into a bastardized MMT system. Well, reality is a bitch and when we discover that debt must be repaid or defaulted then the game will be over.
As you say, it’s not my job to teach you reality economics. You can continue to follow the mainstream and stuff up the nation, well and truly. It’s certainly not a wish that money can be created out of thin air it’s a FACT and the government does it when it suits, such as for the GFC bail out. [$29Trillion] And the Government Always runs a deficit.
MMT, contrary to your fancy, is entirely FACT based. There is always room for interpretation by way of explanation. There’s not enough time in the day to detail all the distortions in your comment, so let’s just leave it at that.
Economics is not a science, never was and never will be. Unfortunately the holy grail of economics has been to create equations, much like physics, where one can plug in the numbers and out pops the answer. Economics is based on human behavior, not mathematical models. It does have laws and principles and theories. But there is no unifying structure. The “law” of supply and demand is considered a law because it is generally seen as something that works. It depends on a price discovery and price point (or points since supply and demand are usually spread over a wide population). But sometimes no matter what the price may be there may never be demand for a supply of some good or service. Economics has many of these type of laws that are not absolutes.
As for MMT, it is not fact based, never was and never will be. It is based on a few assumptions that are false. As a theory it is easy enough to falsify. Now you may believe that MMT is absolutely true and I say good for you. But belief is never proof. Every time i read articles on MMT they seem to be true until I examine the assumptions on which they rest their arguments. If you are unable to see the falsity of such assumptions, so be it. You have an investment in believing that MMT is true.
Did our government as well as others always run deficits? No. The idea of deficit spending, perhaps with the exception of the government of Louis XVI, is only a recent event in history. During World War Two FDR and Churchill both ran governments were the deficit spending was extreme. But War is a far different matter. But deficit spending does matter when it becomes habitual and ever increasing. It becomes a Ponzi scheme only we never know what the true value of money is. What would become of the price of gold if we could magically add a billion trillion ounces to the worlds supply? What if it became as common a silica in this world? Print enough one dollar bills (federal reserve notes) as there are grains of sand in the world and what would their collective and individual worth become? MMT says that there are no limits to the amount of new money that can be created. Common sense says otherwise.
Let’s start at the end comment. MMT does not say there are no limits to spending. They say the debt can be bought while there are assets and services for sale. You really need to get a grip. MMT is not what you say. It is based on what is reality., not some unproven theory!
It IS fact based and you have no evidence to say otherwise. Explain the false assumptions.[?] Show us you are in good faith and not just trolling. We agree economics is not a science, a social science maybe. The mainstream is full of silly assumptions, but MMT avoids them [such as humans behaving rationally] The algebra is purely a smokescreen to hide mainstream flaws. It’s not necessary.
You probably recall how the Queen embarrassed the worthies at the LSE -London School of Economics when she asked why they didn’t see the GFC coming. They had no answer. This is the mainstream. Be careful not to confuse it with MMT. It seems you are. Don’t rely on common sense. In economics that’s a trap. It’s often counterintuitive.
The idea of deficit spending is across the board. The mainstream fails to see that spending charges up the economy. They think saving is the way to go. But budget surpluses are simply a statement that the government has withdrawn through taxation a greater sum than it spent.
This requires the non government sector to spend up to balance the books. When Clinton has his budget surpluses he made it certain GWB would have a recession – in 1993. Remember?
Your comments are just hot air. Your “facts” are erroneous, yet you stick to them unwisely.
If I remember correctly, you advocated a single payer system that could be paid for with government funds. No tax money needed to offset such spending, a total free lunch. The amount of healthcare spending is approaching 20% of GDP, but hey, no matter. Now you say that MMT recognizes that there are limits to government spending through the creation of more money being created. So what is the break even point? Government “debt”, which you claim is not debt, is over 17 trillion dollars. So what is the upper limit? Obviously more spending by the government and the public, if I read your correctly, means more prosperity.
By the way, Clinton never had a “surplus”, debt was pushed into the government accounts by tricks that would land the public in jail for twenty years. Gosh, let us take the social security tax and put it into the general revenue and poof, we have a surplus. That was robbing Peter to pay Paul. As for budget surplus being due to the collection of more taxes rather than less spending, WTF? You keep telling me I don’t know what I am talking about and yet your “answers” make no sense.
Dear William Bean, Seems we are making progress. A WTF? is progress. MMT is a somewhat counterintuitive analysis of what really goes on in macroeconomics. The Central Bankers all know but won’t willingly say, since the politicians will curse them if they do.
Here’s a quote from the Federal Reserve Bank of St Louis;
“As the sole manufacturer of dollars, whose debt is denominated in dollars, the US government can never become insolvent, i.e., unable to pay its bills. In this sense, the government is not dependent on credit markets to remain operational”
Now here’s Ben Bernanke giving a talk’
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y7Xh0hY3-sM
He explains your query about government “debt”. He says that the money is an asset to the banking system and a liability to the Fed. I trust you comprehend [?]
I could list a lengthy article about the Clinton surplus if you want to see it?
Yes, a budget surplus is from the government current accounts. The “surplus” is the excess of money that would have balanced the budget, except it wasn’t spent. So the balance has to come from the private sector.
Is that enough to get started?
Ah, I love the Fed quote, quite divorced from reality. The assumption is that everyone will accept the US dollar as payment for “debt”, ie goods and services, Federal securities redemption, etc. This assumption is valid as long as the US dollar is the only game in town. It ignores that we live in a world where our financial transactions are often multinational. The acceptance of the US dollar for debt is subject to the belief in the reliability of the US government to repay its debt in real terms. Then we have the possibility that one day hyper inflation may occur. That is a condition where there is a loss in the Faith or belief that a currency is “worth” what the government says it is worth. The current example is Venezuela. Then we have that great assumption that it can’t happen here…until it does. It must be said that when a people lose faith in the perceived value of their government’s currency they move to rid themselves of it and exchange it for assets. We have plenty of examples from the past. So yes, there is a break point where even under your ideal of MMT the money or currency of a government becomes worthless. Hence, government spending is a concern sine excessive over spending can cause a government to reach that break point.
Of course it wasn’t Clinton’s surplus but rather belonged to Congress. And I’ve taken enough accounting courses in government accounting of various types to know that shifting funds around is very much like kiting checks. Social Security went from having its own separate income stream (as insufficient as that was for future payments to retirees) having to accept as payment special interagency bonds for monies borrowed against that trust fund. To wit, that agency has no trust funds, only government debt, IOUs, that are periodically cashed to pay the retirees. That is the reality of government money.
Government spend goes through two phases, what is appropriated and what is authorized. Congress may appropriate x quantity of money (from tax income or other sources such as borrowing – the treasury) but it may not always authorize the spending of X amount. It may authorize a smaller amount. Thus it has “cut” the budget. The fact that I may appropriate from my paycheck x amount to pay my mortgage and then actually pay a lessor amount does not mean that I have actually saved any money unless I put that money into a savings account. Congress doesn’t have a savings account at the treasury or the Fed. You really need a better understanding of government accounting. By the way, MMT is a monetary theory, not an analysts. Go back and read your history.
Given that gold coin was our first currency, did our government “create” gold? It was my impression that our folding money was directly attributable to gold and silver reserves held in vaults to back it. We understand that this is no longer the case, but your contention that government has the right and responsibility to “create” currency is not the same thing as creating MONEY. Currency is a promissory note promising that it is “worth” something. It is our government’s responsibility to ensure that the currency that it creates has actual VALUE. The Full Faith and Credit of the US government. Creating money from nothing at all would seem in direct violation of that promise.
You are correct, of course. You see, the problem with MMT is that the government creates this thing called money but it is really fiat. That means that the fiat currency is worth what the government says it is worth unless individual hold a different opinion as they do in Venezuela. Of course the other problem is that if your fiat currency, ie, money, is a store of value, then by increasing that supply of money you do not automatically keep that same store of value. MMT never addresses this problem, Demand of fiat always meets Supply because the government says it does. Fortunately we do not need to kill off a forest full of trees to “print” more fiat, we just increase our debt limit on our credit cards. Ones and zeros are so much more environmentally friendly.
Fiat is not a Problem with MMT. it just points it out. It’s what MMT does, point out the realities, not the stories and fables.
I’m sorry, just what does MMT point out about fiat money? Is it that fiat is not a problem because MMT assumes that the store of value stays the same no matter how much fiat is created? It that the reality? Or is it the assumption by MMT that government can print ass the fiat it needs to buy everything possible and crowd out the average consumer without causing inflation and shortages of goods and services? Is that your reality? If the government decided to buy ten million automobiles tomorrow, what would that do to the price of automobiles? Would the average consumer find himself priced out of the market? Or perhaps the government decided that everyone should have a minimum income of $100,000 each year. Just print the money (actually, mail out the EBT cards, same thing), and all will be well. What would be the new price of steak and pizza?
Well, it’s only fiat money, as MMT points out, not a problem, just a reality.
Your comment must have crossed mine at the same time.
Seriously if you have to ask such rudimentary questions it just shows you are a] . a troll or b] ignorant. Which is it?
I am neither. I ask the questions and you have no real answer. All you can do is to gainsay as an argument. I raise objections and you ignore them. You defend MMT like a religious adherent. You are not unusual in that regard. I have never found anyone who “believes”, and I use that word since MMT appears to be a belief system, to have an open mind. If I point out inconsistencies in their arguments, in the assumptions that MMT theory makes, I must be at fault because I do not properly understand MMT or economics. That is not a very convincing argument for the veracity of MMT theory.
Refer my previous answer.
Let me put it this way. Gold was with silver and copper/bronze the original metal money. It was the backing for the currency. However inflation meant that the gold coin had to rise in value or instead be minted to a lower gold content.. I believe because of that that currency was always fiat, by which the gold was valued to suit the currency. It’s highly unlikely the accounts were accurate enough to work purely on the metal content. So the “Full Faith and Credit” of the government predates the Nixon event.
Currency has zero value. It is just an accounting device, an IOU, to represent the value we assign to things like services and work. That’s why it just appears when we need to pay debts the government creates on our behalf. There is no violation of any promise unless the government starts behaving like Zimbabwe, and Venezuela today.. Hyperinflation is a political choice!
“Some call it MMT = “Magic Money Tree”. but it’s just ignorance.”
Modern money theory or modern money mechanics, is just another term for financial fraud.
1+1 has always equaled 2.
Every boom has ended in a bust. Every new boom, it is claimed it is different this time. It never is. The math never changes.
Why is the FED not simply dumping its balance sheet in one fell swoop? After all, it is only 4 trillion dollars. But they are going to start extremely slowly and creep up the amount each quarter. The problem is that for the FED’s action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. Modern Money Mechanics cannot change the laws of math. The Commodities and Futures Modernization Act didn’t modernize anything. It just put lipstick on a pig, to sell a financial scam to the public. That’s really what Modern Money Mechanics is, a scam. The laws of math have never changed.
The lie is never a hard sell when it is wrapped in something for nothing.
We will tax our employers for that which we need. We will tax corporations to fund our healthcare. It’s always the same. Free, either at someone elses expense or simply FREE due to modern math, miracle economics or simply money from heaven.
we understand the Magic Money tree. We have seen it at work…and we see what’s coming.
It’s NOT a Magic money tree. I explained it before. Read it again. PS you have NEVER seen it at work. You are just dreaming as to what its like.
Your ignorance is utterly complete. You have not a scintilla of evidence so you spout nonsense. Your math even doesn’t compute. Really quite arrogant too.
“Your math even doesn’t compute. Really quite arrogant too.”
1+1 ALWAYS = 2. It certainly does compute. Math is not arrogant. It just is what it is.
Describe the 1 and the second 1 and what is the 2? You may be saying 1+ 1 = 3 .how do you explain what are the laws or facts in 1, 1, and 2. Tell us what they represent.
Sure…the Govt can afford it. Why not? Just as it can “afford” all the other services it provides our citizens? Seen the debt or deficit lately? Have YOU paid our income taxes…I’m at 45% combined marginal rate right now….and the govt STILL overspends.
Our govt has a spending problem not a lack of revenue problem.
Not to mention that we have an excellent example of govt mucking with healthcare…the VA. Go read up on it. I experienced it firsthand. It’s an unmitigated disaster…and yet people like yourself think we should roll that out and mandate that to everyone.
Read my lips: PROVIDING HEALTHCARE IS NOT THE GOVT’S RESPONSIBILITY.
There. I said it.
You have your “facts” all screwed up, Sorry. The deficit spend involved with a UHC will cost LESS than it costs now. Deficit spending is how the economy expands and since there is an enormous fiscal gap you would need to blow $trillions before any excessive inflation results.
You still link taxes with federal spending. Forget it it’s false.
Providing healthcare IS the government’s responsibility. Just as it is with education and the military, police and the public infrastructure. What’s the matter with you guys? We only succeed as a nation when we cooperate and we elect a government to take our best interests as policy. Right now that’s hardly obvious, but that’s because we have the political picture totally screwed. Just the way the extreme right wants it. Is that you HH?
“Providing healthcare IS the government’s responsibility. Just as it is with education and the military, police and the public infrastructure. What’s the matter with you guys?”
Nothing. Rome went through its days of bread and circuses and it eventually collapsed. Somehow, you think it will be different this time.
Bernie Sanders touted Venezuela. Look at Venezuela now.
In the end we are all dead. Is that a worry for you? Rome failed because all dynasties fail. Rome actually lasted over 500 years. the US will fail much sooner. Rome grew while it expanded and sent back loot from its new provinces. It declined when it stopped expanding. Can you see a parallel with the USA and it’s expansion since WW2?
“Rome failed because all dynasties fail.”
Correct. Single payer is a dynasty as well. All systems fail. Every cycle has a waterfall decline phase at about the 180 degree mark. The laws of math always prevail.
That’s a bit of a stretch, saying a single event makes a dynasty. It doesn’t but FYI our dynasty is doomed, collapse is ordained. All we need is to know when, but same as knowing the date of our death, it’s something we don’t want to know. The x factor is that we live in a finite world and we cannot have infinite growth. Generally dynasties last 250 to 300 years, and so we are in the decadent end game now. SO, lets have fun for “tomorrow” we may die!
Ejh…we’ll agree to disagree. We are at a basic impasse here.
You fundamentally believe the govt has a requirement that it provide healthcare as a public service. I do not.
We’ll never get past that so we have nothing further to talk about on this issue.
I for one feel that USA Govt already tries to do too much and fails at too much and is bloated and expensive and provides sub-par products for the amount of resources it consumes. I have zero faith that a govt that cant successfully run a VA for its veterans or manage a postal service can efficiently run a national healthcare program.
You are a believer in govt. I am not.
Just walk into any DMV or interface with most any govt office and you’ll readily see what I mean.
Why oh why would I think these bureaucracies could effectively run and manage yet another massive entitlement program.
I’;ll say it again. The federal Govt has no place in medicine. None….not medicare. It’s unconstitutional to tax us and mandate we buy a product and then not call it a tax and then call it a tax, etc,etc. It’s a giant fraud plain and simple. ACA is obviously failing now and yet we feel …if we just add more money…MORE govt influence …more of gthe bad stuff…into medicine (or most any aspect of the economy) then it will miraculously become awesome.
We shall agree to disagree. I’m sure you are a smart person if you are reading this thread and I’m not a dummy either. Your stance is ideological…and I guess the same could be said about mine…but I just look at USA history of failing entitlement programs ..from Soc. security to SNAP to medicare to VA ….and its obvious to me these programs are NOT sustainable on their current or projected pathways. Financially they are not. Period. End of that discussion despite the fact that you may feel all those programs are in excellent financial shape…or maybe you simply dont believe that everything has actual REAL tangible costs and must be paid…even a country cannot incur debt forever. Dont believe me? Well check back in 10 years and we’ll discuss Japan, EU – Greece, and whatnot. You cannot spend more than you bring in over the long haul. And saying “just print more money”/devalue the currency is a sorry answer to that. Destroying peoples lifetime savings as collateral damage for a misguided new entitlement program doesnt sit well with me.
It’s quite OK to agree to disagree. I do believe we have government by the people for the people. I can’t see why you disagree with that. I agree government can be the problem, but when it’s been captured by vested interests, rather than just being incompetent. It’s a world wide problem and frankly our politicians are just not up to managing the complexity of todays world.
Still I don’t see why healthcare has to be a profit making exercise. Which is what you imply. The government has no role in any profit making venture. It can stay out of the way. but it can set up the infrastructure and the systems that allow businesses to make profit. But I draw the line at profit from basic education and healthcare [and jails]. These human rights don’t need tolls on them.
Government has NOT been captured by vested interests, it IS a vested interest, the largest in the world. Government for itself. According to you, they have the unrestricted POWER to create money…from nothing. Can you actually have anymore power than that?
Not exactly. There is still a pretence of representation of the population, but it has become such that voting just shuffles the cards without changing direction. So few actually vote it is no longer truly representative, just now represents vested interests. You have to be a millionaire to enter Congress and they need lots of financial support. so they sell out.
The government is certainly endowed with great power, all backed by force. Otherwise why would one pay tax? The fact they don’t spend your taxes is neither here not there. but they like to pretend they use it to avoid awkward questions, such as been aired on this blog.
“There is only one answer. Universal health care. Call it single payer, whatever, the federal government can afford it.”
Free market is the answer. Enforce 15 USC. Venezuela is not the answer.
Free market is no answer. You must be living in a dream world if you think a free market exists considering what cons are in progress already. and ready to infest any semblance of a free market. Hilarious.
There has been no free market in healthcare or much of anything else for many decades. To blame free markets for this disaster is rich indeed and destroys any credibility you attempt to create.
Where do you get your misinformation.? Your credibility is shot to pieces already when you repeat what I said but as a criticism of the non existent free market. We agree on that.
“Free market is no answer.”
Actually, it is the answer. A manipulated market always manipulates back, as for each action, there is an equal and opposite reaction.
Governments affordable college programs actually made it more expensive. Government’s affordable medical care made it more expensive.
Let’s just assume you are correct. Why does cost matter? It doesn’t to most of us as we are not paying for it. Look how the banksters make everything sourced from the government cost more and by a factor of 2 or 3. If cost mattered to the fed they would get quotes from contractors and tell them they do not have to visit a bank for loans, because the Fed can fund them direct. After all the government is not in the business of profit making. Any profits, such as from seigniorage, go straight to Treasury, and Treasury doesn’t spend it. The government ONLY spends new money, every time. Them’s the facts.
It certainly spends up big but the real economy is hardly affected because most of the money spent ends up in the financial sector and in the hands of the 1% rentier class. That’s where the economy has grown since 1980. The best the rest of us get is to mark time or decline.
We have had the Fed printing money out of thin air and it mostly went to the upper 1%. The people in this group typically have their insurance provided to them by their employers just like when Obama handed out waivers to specific companies and unions that don’t have to abide by ACA restrictions. This government only hands out free stuff for votes. They have never had the best interests of the country in mind.
Anyone that thinks the government will just print money for this massive handout is crazy. Free money brings massive inflation as we have witnessed by education costs. Anyone living in the real world today feels the wrath of inflation in everything we purchase thanks to the Feds monetary policies. The printing and free leverage is destroying this country and will only make things worse for those of us in the middle class.
When money is free and unlimited, the corruption will expand in every direction. Our government has proven itself completely corrupt when it comes to any government program.
Even though this new program that would handed this mess off to the states would have issues, it still would have given states the opportunity to bring prices down by putting restrictions on waste and fraud within their state. This will never happen under any federal program.
That’s not monetary policies. That political mischief. A separate discussion.
Don’t forget the Fed “prints” to buy stuff as and when it comes due. Calling it Free money is misleading . It’s all a payment for something. There is no reserve of loose change sitting in the fed or Treasury. It’s not unlimited either. There has to be something for sale. UHC is a good example.
ejhr2015, you argue like a 5 year old. Grow up!
You can talk. Evidence please! I am saying what many experts on macroeconomics not captured by vested interests have discovered. If you don’t have the wit to understand it”s not my problem. So Grow up yourself.
As I recall, John Law was “an expert on macroeconomics not captured by vested interests” and told the King of France (with all his autocratic power) that he could just print all the money he needed to address his nation’s bankruptcy back in the 1720’s.
Since you’re such an expert, would you please tell us how that situation turned out?
Ejhr, a government has no financial power unless people accept its currency as a medium of exchange. Public acceptance can be established using some combination of confidence and force, but willingness to accept the currency is not unbreakable even so. For evidence one need look no further than many failed states throughout history, including such examples as the Roman Empire.
It may be true that US dollars cannot trade hands in the economy unless they are first brought into existence by the US Government, but it is not the mere act of bringing dollars into existence that gives them utility as a medium of exchange. The US Government *requires* that taxes be paid in US Dollars and that gives them utility. I observe that, to the extent the US Government taxes dollars from the economy at a rate such that increase of currency in circulation does not exceed the increase in the size of *all* economies relying on US dollars as a medium of exchange, then the US dollar holds its value. To the extent increased dollar/debt issuance feeds increased economic production, the relationship can be a virtuous circle. To the extent government throws money away on unproductive uses it can be a vicious cycle because the new money in the system must either be extracted as taxes somewhere else or it dilutes the currency in circulation. That means higher taxes and/or higher inflation, so it behooves the government to spend money productively, no matter how much they spend.
As I see it, today’s US medical industry is disproportionately expensive for the productivity it supplies. Medicine is very much a tech industry, so the situation makes no sense when one looks at other tech industries such as computing. Medicine should be better and cheaper today than it ever has been. Why isn’t it? That’s the billion dollar question. Centralizing payment of the bill is not likely to help.
You are mostly correct. I have already said the government is coercive and can levy taxes which also mean we have to earn its currency in order to pay them. But I also say the government does not use tax money to raise revenue. It is said taxing takes money out of the system both to stop it overheating and to make space for it to spend on essential services etc.
As to why the system there is so dysfunctional it is surely a tribute to the plethora of vested interests braying for special treatment. The government just gives in.
All I hear is crickets…..just like I thought I would.
You’re an idiot.
You are in no position to decide. Your opinion is just a waste of space. Your crickets is probably tinnitus.
McCain would support single payer health care and mandatory chipping of most everyone if such a bill was up for vote.
Want a Better Health Care System? Check Out Japan
The country’s public-private hybrid gets good results at lower cost.
by Noah Smith
106
September 19, 2017, 4:30 AM PDT September 19, 2017, 1:59 PM PDT
https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-09-19/want-a-better-health-care-system-check-out-japan
==========
‘Medicare for all’ could be cheaper than you think
September 19, 2017 11.15pm EDT
Gerald Friedman – Professor of Economics, University of Massachusetts Amherst
https://theconversation.com/medicare-for-all-could-be-cheaper-than-you-think-81883
“Medicare for all” in Japan, may be cheaper than you think.
But Medicare for some in the States is as expensive as “Medicare for all” is in other countries.
Look it up.
We, who can imagine some pretty nice up-sides to “single payer”, must answer the question of why single payer in the States is so danged expensive.
I find it easy to guess good answers to this “danged expensive” question. But, I don’t know the answer.
Multiple payer is pretty danged expensive in the US too. So, I think I’d agree that getting costs under control would be step 1.
It’s expensive for two reasons. One is pharmaceutical costs. On average, it costs over 100k/yr to treat cancer patients. The other is malpractice. Doctors/hospitals have to do their job perfectly of face a multi million dollar lawsuit.
And PE firms that own a lot of hospitals need their shareholder value, too!
Okay, explain it to me.
My understanding is that one reason drug prices are so high is that foreign countries will not protect US drug patents. As such US drug companies are giving a steep discount or free to the rest of the world to prevent their drugs from being “knocked off”. I effect US consumers are being forced to subsidize the rest of the world. Regardless of what we might think of Big Pharma, if their patents are not protected and our government restrictions on development remain, they will not be producing much beyond aspirin.
we know they are using patents to artificially keep prices up, but how profitable are they? Are they using those artificially high prices to fund other drug developments, or simply taking the cash and run.
The thing is, this is a really big and complex issue that has a lot of factors involved. Different countries have different demographics, varying homogeneity, and financial limitations. How much of the world’s medical drugs, technology and expertise come from the US? And do we really think we can impose a socialistic healthcare system on a society as diverse and divided as America. For cost sharing to actually work requires trust and a belief in shared values. When people believe that a system is only constructed as another means of “gaming” it for personal gain, it is doomed to fail…and I believe THAT is America.
Lol. You miss the point that the Japs “fatten” themselves up with fish and healthy stuff rather than junk food. The American diet is a ticking time-bomb and the health-care system has a (much) bigger burden to shoulder.
“What the Hell is McCain Up To?”
Inexplicable votes by USA Senators should be examined from the angle of “You Scratch My Back and I’ll Scratch Yours.” Spend a few minutes browsing Robert Caro’s LBJ volume, “Master of the Senate,” on your next library visit and you will see how the modern USA Senate operates. By publicly siding with Democrats to preserve the disaster that is Obamacare, McCain “buys” Democrat support for his pet project, War against Russia (something Hillary, Schumer, the Democrat party and GOP elites are gung-ho for anyway). In previous eras, this was called “compromise.” Very simple vote trading, alliance formation. No rocket science, no great mystery. Also, McCain has said publicly that the Obamacare Lite bill is a fraud that in practical terms would only change the propaganda dynamic from Obamacare to Trumpcare to the detriment of the GOP.
War against Russia (likely nuclear) and Obamacare are a twin agenda beloved by the GOP elites and DNC. The GOP cannot even in the name of freedom do a separate repeal of the individual mandate whose IRS penalties most afflict the poorest Americans. The corrupt USA Senate is beyond redemption, for now.
If all Congress critters were on Obamacare, it would get fixed pretty quickly.
All the bought and paid for politicians are taking turns to keep Obama Care alive while blaming each other merely for political purposes.
Why wouldn’t they? The ACA is nothing but a gift to the healthcare industry that is making countless of billions each year. The industry has taken care of their minions in Congress and the Senate with rich perks, insider information and massive donations for reelection.
Trump wants to shut down Obama Care to deploy these massive resources more evenly throughout the economy to promote real growth again. But the Swamp has proved greater than him.
Since when do the politicians actually care about the masses? They have their special platinum health care plan that keeps them smuggly chugging along this bullshit and working towards their failing globalization project.
This BS will continue until the ACA folds upon itself and further damages the economy and destroys a lot of families.
What a waste of resources when considering that the US Health Care Industry spends substantially more than any other country in the world but delivers way, way less.
More importantly, failure to repeal the ACA has established the fact that the Government works not for the people who elect them into office, but for those the have the greatest financial control.
How come so many insurance companies have cut but back on ACA plan offerings if they’re so profitable?
I never stated that Insurance Companies writing healthcare for the Government ACA program are profitable.
As you well know, the insurance industry costs its products based on statistics. If statistics are manipulated to accommodate a Government Healthcare scheme, insurers find out soon enough that they are not making money and want to opt out.
You will also note that hospitals in the US overcharge Americans by about $10B every year well over and above the very high costs they charge for their services. While insurers try to avoid overbilling to stay profitable, much of the costs land up being paid by them anyway. This looting has cost the program to fail but no one seems interested in correcting the situation.
The culprit in this scheme are big Pharma, Hospitals and to some extent, health care providers.
I have heard of cases where hospitals have billed $10 for one Asprin pill provided to patients!
Nothing is for free.
Simply look at their stock charts and their stock buybacks. They have been printing money thanks to the insane deductibles that people must pay before they see any coverage.
Reblogged this on John Barleycorn and commented:
Mc Cain just needs to change parties.
As we’ve said for years, Obamacare was designed to fail, specifically to usher in single payer.
Now here we are. Hope you enjoy the suck.
The Republicans can’t even compromise with themselves. What a farce. A party dedicated to the believe that all govmint is bad shouldn’t really be surprised when they are not good at govminting. The rest of us aren’t. When they failed the simple task in 2009 “OK, what is your better plan than the ACA” it was obvious. They retorted at the time that the ACA was going to make the 2009 status quo worse. But since now we have had 8 years of the ACA nobody, even a majority of Republicans, want to go back to 2009 (no pre-existing condition protection, middle class parents having to pay for their kids H/C when they are at college, lifetime limits, kicking 10-20 million off Medicaid, etc.)
The ACA, (AKA Romneycare, AKA The Heritage Foundation Plan) was the Republican’s plan. When is 45 going to tweak it, stamp his name on it, and declare it the best health plan in the World!
Anyone paying attention knew that Obamacare was with us forever. The paradigm has changed. It was about promoting affordable healthcare and morphed into the federal government’s (taxpayers) obligation to provide healthcare.
As you point out in “preexisting conditions” is now a RIGHT that MUST be covered by everyone else.
Insurance changed the paradigm initially as what was once simple fee for service became collectivized risk pools, cost “sharing”, the costs of illness pushed upon the healthy. Once it became apparent that the “healthy” would simply opt out, we saw Hillary care come to fore where she proposed that the ONLY way healthcare was sustainable was to make it mandatory…force everyone to subscribe…and PAY. Of course this creates NO incentive for cost containment. Insurance itself incentivizes perverse choices, people who pay for healthcare demand “only the best”, and as costs spiral upward, become even more vociferous in their demands.
Conservatives, as usual, have allowed themselves to be bullied into a corner with claims of indifference or downright malice towards others, SIMPLY because they ask how much…can we afford it, does it actually work? Republicans have learned. Don’t attempt to reverse or even stop progressivism, only resist enough for optics. This serves both sides well. The left eventually ALWAYS gets what they want and the republicans always provide the boogie man who going to take all the candy away. Meanwhile desperate conservatives are left with supporting hypocritical shills as their only choice.
There once was a notion that people EARNED what they had and took pride in that. I think it is what built our country into prosperity. Hard work was admired.
Not so today. Instead we are now “entitled” to things never known to any life form in history. We have pulled it quite literally from our asses, simply promoting the idea that if we “just believe” strongly enough all things are possible. We can conjure free health care, and in doing so predict that ALL things shall soon be free.
Automation anyone?
Who OWNS the robots?
You may be surprised at how much I agree with you. However lets address the points:
1. You claim that people are forced to pay for H/C and this isn’t right. I don’t want to pay for a gold plated military – I think we could get by with a well armed citizenry, local militias (e.g. the National Guard), plus a small national Navy (a glorified Coast Guard really), plus a sufficient nuclear deterrent. I don’t need umpteen carrier fleets – why should I be forced to pay for a huge jobs and benefits program that I don’t use or want? We can protect ourselves on 10% of our current budget and it will stop foreign adventurism when our leaders want to play “soldiers”. However, I know that the guy in Alabama that gets cancer needs help and the kid who breaks his leg in Chicago needs a cast and if I pay into the system for everybody then one day when I or somebody in my family need more medical coverage than I can pay for at the time there will be insurance to cover me. But that only works if enough people pay enough of the time. If I only get insurance when I get ill then the premiums will equal the actual cost – that is insurance 101.
2. Costs are too high – completely agree – the insurance companies get more money when they cover higher value products, so they only want to fight costs at the provider level, not the top level. The providers want to charge as much as they can and since if you get in a car accident you don’t “Yelp” ambulance companies and choose the best value, you can get fleeced by local monopolies on services, etc. There is little or no value discovery in medicine so typical arguments about markets don’t apply – but they are good to lobbyists to feed politicians so they can should about “market solutions” and “freedom”, and then claim that any price controls are “socialist” the ultimate boogey word.
There are many ways that costs can be cut, but individuals, even acting as a market, can’t pull the levers of capitalism when it comes to drug prices, surgery, hospital bed costs, etc. The individual decisions are too infrequent and made under stressful circumstances where people just don’t ask “How much” or go get two or three quotes.
“More importantly, failure to repeal the ACA has established the fact that the Government works not for the people who elect them into office, but for those the have the greatest financial control.”
Wise words. I’ve always thought that the Tea Party-ers and the Bernie-Bros are two sides of the same coin, but that the big-money-in-government propaganda machine makes sure that they don’t unite against money in politics by deflecting them with social and racial issues to keep them at each other’s throats.
“Single payer” is a term used by the left because people are rightly wary of socialized medicine. But never doubt that is exactly what it is. It will be a short path from “Single payer” to long lines, longer waiting lists and a Federal gov’t that controls everything all the time. It is a lazy cowards way forward and it will turn the USA into Venezuela.
Or even worse: Germany.
Germany has a significant positive trade balance and a shrinking demographic. They can afford their “free healthcare” a bit longer….until the immigrants become fully entrenched.
Gimme back my high deductible if the only alternative is to become Germany.
No, it isn’t. That is a summary of the propaganda you have been fed. I’ve lived in two “socialized” medicine countries as well as the U.S. for considerable periods and with minimal additional insurance (e.g. BUPA) you can get your short lines, etc. – but most people don’t bother because the provides services are fine.
Try running on a ticket as a politician in Germany, Britain or even Canada on replacing their current system with the American model – even with the ACA – and you’ll be lucky to get 1% of the vote.
Nobody in the rich World looks at the American model and wants to apply it to their country. Because we have a gold plated service level for the elite the rich from around the World come to get their healthcare from our “Private Jet” level of care – but that isn’t available to any but the richest Americans either.
You want Single Payer….
A lot of folk in the Veteran Administration “single payer” system are dying for something different …
Don’t know if it is true or not, but I’ve been told that there is nothing in the laws that established the VA that prevents veterans from seeking healthcare in the private sector.
“…nothing in the laws that established the VA that prevents veterans from seeking healthcare in the private sector…”
That isn’t ‘single payer’.
Like our education system that stinks, we are forced to pay for it, and then turn around and pay for REAL education from private schools. Vouchers offered some choice….which is WHY they are so viciously attacked. Single payer education looks a lot like single payer healthcare would.
THIS NAILS IT.
seriously. Look no further..
If you feel our public education system is great…then you’ll LOVE single payer!!!!
I personally feel that ones health and education is ones’ own primary responsibility. I have no problem with the govt being a secondary (far secondary) backup…but govt should never have the primary responsibility for anyone’s healthcare or education…..
Odd that not many politicians run on abolishing the VA then? Surely if it is so bad the Vets will be crying out to have it taken away from them.
This bill smelled bad to me. Medicare expansion states were punished and these were basically states that voted Democrat in many cases. The concept of pre-existing condition protection which the RNC seemed to champion all throughout the Obama years was out the window.
It seems to me the Republican party is fractured with the freedom party wanting no Obama care and championing lower insurance costs versus the remainder of the Republican party who wanted pre-existing coverage and bought into the fact that Americans should all have access to health insurance. McCain and Collins are clearly in the latter camp. As for Cruz I can’t figure him out, he’s just against everything and Paul is too unpredictable.
I was shocked that health care came up again as I never saw the deep seated divisions in the Republican party on this issue even remotely addressed and repeating an action while expecting a different result is now joked about as the very definition of insanity.
The ACA is not a viable long term solution. Neither is what the republicans propose.
I find it insane that we argue over how to get insurance to pay for health care costs that we clearly can’t afford. Insurance costs are high because health care costs are high. Lowering health care costs should be the objective of legislation. Guess what? If we lower health care costs, insurance costs will go down too.
Who is the ‘we’ in ‘If we lower health care costs’?
That’s the problem, there are no entities in the current healthcare system to lower costs. The entire health care chain from petri dish suppliers to doctors to insurance companies all make MORE money if they keep costs high. Yes, they all claim to be working to cut costs but that is just rhetoric, cost go up every year much more than the rate of inflation.
The only entity that can rein in costs will be the government and they will put cost controls on all aspects of the health care chain. Everything from what a petri dish will cost to how much a doctor will be paid.
Agreed. They do cut costs though. Just not prices. Those keep going up. Because it is not a competitive market or industry.
Competition lowers cost. Wherever competition is not banned, costs decline. Wherever it is banned, cost inexorably rises. Health care, education and housing being the most glaring examples.
Get out of the way, and let every individual make whatever health care arrangement he fancies, utterly unimpeded, and costs will drop like a rock. Let anyone build any hospital or doctors office anywhere, and costs will drop further. Let anyone; doctors, nurses, pharmaceutical companies and pharmaceutical workers, build factories and houses anywhere, and costs will drop further still. The let patients do the same, and they can afford to spend more money on health care, instead of being forced to fork it over to rent seeking leeches. Again making health care more affordable.
It’s not as if health care, education and housing are some sort of weird, magical voodoo disciplines where somehow gravity works upwards and economic laws don’t apply. Just like anywhere else, if competition is restricted and replaced by political dictat, costs go up, efficiency and quality goes down, and the only beneficiaries are leeches feeding at the government through. OTOH, if competition is unimpeded, people will constantly seek out the cheapest, most efficient way to get the most care, education and housing for their money. Improving efficiency and quality over time. Always, everywhere and without a doubt in the world. Things ain’t any harder than that.
+1….THIS !
bravo…encore!!!!
“we” lower cost through free market competition….something as of yet not tried in the last century.
“we” make our own choices.
“we” decide what “we” want to pay.
Is it not odd that when looking at the billions spent on entertainment, that so few believe their healthcare, STAYING ALIVE, is worth paying for? Healthcare is one of the few really strong domestic economic industries we have left and all we can think about is killing it, putting government in charge and ALL that means.
Ultimately we are finding we can’t afford OURSELVES.
Think about that.
WHY is that?
Is it LACK of government intervention?
Is it healthcare workers being paid too much?
Is it Big Pharma gouging us for drugs that if not for them would not exist?
Who is responsible for our lives?
If healthcare is a right, for how long, how old?
Will it be decided by death panels, or simple democratic polling….if your demographic gets too small…too bad?
I really don’t think most people have thought about much of any of this. They simply here they are entitled and DEMAND.
“The only entity that can rein in costs will be the government”
Now THAT would be funny if not so tragic.
Name ONE thing that government has controlled costs on. ONE.
$20 trillion in debt and $4.5 trillion on the fed’s balance sheet. I’m surprised they have not already imprisoned every honest accountant in the country as a risk to the financial system (Dodd Frank)
On top of that, they have managed to figure a way to put a fee, charge or tax on virtually everything we see, taste or touch. Controlling costs…..come on now!
Health care costs are high in part because the insured have no incentive to shop for the lowest price service. there is no incentive in the system to look for lower priced MRI’s etc Believe I read somewhere that the health care costs that go up the least are things like plastic surgery and LASIK which are typically not covered by health insurance. We need higher deductibles and come up with a way for the sick to have an incentive to find cheaper procedures. Right now the price of an MRI is all over the map and bears no relationship to the quality of the procedure or the machine. There are other examples.
Beautifully stated
If we can afford to back education loans, home loans and automakers, among others, why couldn’t we offer low interest loans to people to pay their deductibles?
It is no absolute answer, but there are ways to work around the edges without simply forcing one group to pay for another. And as you say, pricing incentives are key, which large deductibles contributes to. I provide a HSA plan to my employees as our insurance has a large deductible and no copay. This should incentivize shopping for lower costs but sadly most won’t use the savings plan to protect themselves.
Anything to disrupt America and discredit that outsider, Trump.
McCain cares nothing about the health care system. This is 100% politics, and by that I mean, 100% turd games.
Rand Paul and Cruz are standing on principle, seeking a market place solution to the debacle of Obama Care. But those in congress who will agree with they are a very small minority, there is no hope.
As for the senate rules and the notion that this repeal must be done in “reconciliation”, or then must have 60 votes, that bunk. The filibuster is a dead rule. The Dems have stated they will no longer honor the filibuster when they get 51 votes.
McConnell is too tied to his handlers to do away with it now.
The solution? The states rejecting all non-Constitutional actions and laws, within their borders. Read up on the Kentucky and Virgina Resolutions
Remember kids, McCain thinks if you’re left to your own devices you’ll go out and spend your health care budget on magic beans!
Of course maybe he has a point: http://homeopathyusa.org
In short, it’s hopeless. Mish
So now you’ll focus on eliminating WELFARE FOR THE BANKS and by extension THE RICH – the cause of so many others NEEDING WELFARE?
The causes are
Central Banks
Govt
Public unions
I have written extensively about all of those
So where is your recommendation that all citizens be allowed accounts in fiat so that they can actually USE THEIR NATION’S MONEY besides grubby, unsafe, inconvenient physical fiat, aka “cash”?
Because that inability, as well as other government privileges for the banks, especially government-provided deposit insurance, means that the liabilities of the banks toward the non-bank private sector are largely a sham.
Or do you think that we can have honest accounting with largely sham liabilities?
I am not in favor of fiat at all,
How can anyone possibly not understand that?
You don’t have a choice.
I am not in favor of fiat at all, Mish
Not true. You are in favor of needlessly EXPENSIVE fiat (i.e. precious metal fiat, e.g. a gold standard) for the benefit of special interests including those who desire to profit from lazy, risk-free money hoarding via deflation. But progress requires taking risks, not sitting on a hoard of treasure like Smaug.
Besides, a true free market in private money requires inexpensive fiat for government use to avoid government favoritism toward any private money or private money form (e.g. commodity money, e.g. shares in equity, common stock).
For the record, I support a free market in currency.
Several thousand years of history shows people freely select gold when it is available. If they selected Bitcoin, I would not argue.
To say a free market requires fiat or that I support fiat is beyond idiotic.
You understand neither money nor my position.
I strongly suggest you read the free eBook “What has Government done with our money” by Rothbard before you make more silly statements.
So, unless we resort to anarchy (which would not last long anyway), fiat shall exist.
So the question remains: Should citizens be allowed to use their Nation’s fiat safely and conveniently or shall they remain slaves of private banks?
To say a free market requires fiat Mish
It does, so that government does not privilege any private money or money form such as, for example, your favorite shiny metals.
or that I support fiat is beyond idiotic. Mish
Fiat is anything the government accepts for taxes; it can inexpensive and work for the common good or be needlessly expensive (like $700 dollar hammers) and favor special interests.
Several thousand years of history shows people freely select gold when it is available. Mish
Then freely select it but don’t expect government to accept it for taxes or otherwise privilege it.
Btw, I’ve read Rothbard and learned basic accounting from his “The Mystery of Banking.”
Like I’ve said, I USED to be an Austrian but, according to them,
1) Liberty somehow requires government privileges for a shiny metal.
2) The banks cheat savers (true) but somehow they can’t see that they drive borrowers into debt too.
3) Deflation is good though it punishes the innocent.
4) Restitution for the thievery of the banks is impossible in real terms yet Steve Keen has shown otherwise.
5) Banks are reserve constrained so they believe in the reserve multiplier theory of bank lending. Nor have they understood debt-deflation, as you well know, with their constant cries of “Hyper-inflation!”
Nor have I ever seen an Austrian criticize positive interest/yields on inherently risk-free sovereign debt.
None of the above is an endorsement of Progressives, who, though typically smarter than the Austrians, are not at all ethical in their solutions (e.g. a Job Guarantee, as if the victims of theft should have to work for restitution!)
Totally wrong. I do not have time to debunk voluminous amounts of total nonsense. It is clear you do not understand Austrian economics AT ALL.
1) Liberty somehow requires government privileges for a shiny metal.
FALSE – Austrians believe in a free market for money they do expect it to be gold
2) The banks cheat savers (true) but somehow they can’t see that they drive borrowers into debt too.
FALSE – Banks do not cheat savers – Central Banks do via inflation and monetary Printing
3) Deflation is good though it punishes the innocent.
FALSE: Deflation punishes only those with excessive debt. Those with excessive debt punished themselves.
4) Restitution for the thievery of the banks is impossible in real terms yet Steve Keen has shown otherwise.
FALSE: Keen proposes to know what the correct rate of expansion of money should be. He doesn’t nor does anyone else. The idea that anyone can steer the economy is foolish.
5) Banks are reserve constrained so they believe in the reserve multiplier theory of bank lending. Nor have they understood debt-deflation, as you well know, with their constant cries of “Hyper-inflation!”
FALSE I do not believe in the money multiplier theory and have written about it many times.
Nor have I ever seen an Austrian criticize positive interest/yields on inherently risk-free sovereign debt.
Clearly, you can neither read nor think. For starters, sovereign debt is not risk-free. Ask Greece or Cyprus. More importantly, Ausurians would favor balanced budgets so there would not be sovereign debt in the first place.
You may have read a book, but you sure as hell did not understand it. You have an amazing propensity to be wrong about everything you say Austrians believe.
I do not have time to debate such nonsense repetitively. Your statement that progressives are typically smarter than Austrians is well into deep outer space Bizarro World mentality.
Mish
FALSE: Keen proposes to know what the correct rate of expansion of money should be. He doesn’t nor does anyone else. The idea that anyone can steer the economy is foolish. Mish
I was referring to Keen’s “A Modern Jubilee” – equal fiat distributions to all citizens with new credit restrictions to prevent bubbles.
Btw, if no one knows what the correct expansion rate of money is then why do you propose to limit fiat creation to the mining rate of gold (a gold standard) or worse eliminate* it via balanced Federal budgets?
Also btw, I’m not so much interested in debating you as in correcting a reformer I once believed in and STILL believe will ultimately come to the correct solutions – which, in my experience, neither the reactionary Austrians NOR the unprincipled Progressives can do.
*Assuming the central bank is stripped of its ability to create fiat except for its monetary sovereign.
Keen’s jubilee fixes no fundamental problems with anything. It does nothing about absurd pension promises, public unions, etc. and it makes preposterous assumptions about the need for growth targets and money supply numbers. It is absurd to think that someone possibly knows what those targets should be.
As far as progressives go, they are all economic illiterates whether they really believe in what they say or are making unprincipled statements to get elected. One way or another they are all frauds.
As far as Fiat goes, I get really irritated because there should not be fiat at all. I would eliminate it. The free market would select gold as it always has.
That aside, you and Keen both need to understand there is no benefit to having extra money whether by Fiat or not.
Case Against the Fed
https://mises.org/library/case-against-fed-0
Search for the word “optimum”
Rothbard: “Any quantity of money in society is optimal. Once a money is established, an increase
in its supply confers no social benefit.”
Keen understands the problem with debt. His proposed solutions are extremely lacking.
As far as Fiat goes, I get really irritated because there should not be fiat at all. I would eliminate it. Mish
And have government accept/use some currently popular private money or money form? But as soon as you do that, that CURRENTLY popular private money or money form now has a huge advantage over any FUTURE popular private money or money form in that it is now accepted/used by government.
So picking any private money or money form for government use destroys a free market in private money from that time onward or till government returns to using its own inexpensive fiat backed by the government’s legal monopoly on force.
The free market would select gold as it always has. Mish
To have a true free market in private money would require, for one thing, that central banks sell all their private assets, including their gold stocks, and be forever forbidden to buy private assets, including gold, again. As it is, gold has a non-free-market advantage in that central banks own it and might buy even more in the future.
To have a true free market in private money would require, for one thing, that central banks sell all their private assets, including their gold stocks, and be forever forbidden to buy private assets, including gold, again.
FALSE!!
I do not give a damn what banks do with deposits they have rights to.
If I deposit money and collect interest for a term, banks can lend it out for that term or do whatever they want with it, as long as there is no duration mismatch. So banks could do whatever the hell they want. But, the depositor (collecting interest) faces a risk the bank makes bad loans or bad investments. There is no deposit insurance in my world on loans or interest-bearing accounts. Banks would not be allowed to lend out money that is available on demand.
They could (and would) charge nominal storage fees. In other words, banks would be banks, not hedge funds.
Those seeking hedge fund activities would be told there are risks, and the deposits would not be guaranteed.
Rothbard: “Any quantity of money in society is optimal. Once a money is established, an increase
in its supply confers no social benefit.” Mish
I read that long ago and believed it for a while. But here’s some problems with a fixed money supply:
1) Those who do nothing with their money but hoard it risk-free are allowed to free ride (via price deflation) on the progress (e.g. lower prices and/or higher quality goods and services) created by those who invest, lend or otherwise put their money at risk. So a fixed money supply is anti-progress.
2) A fixed money supply with a growing population allows the old (those with the money) to cheat the young (those who need jobs) via wage deflation as more workers chase a fixed amount of money.
The concept of hoarding is ludicrous.
Who are you to tell people what they should do with their money?
If I deposit money and collect interest for a term, banks can lend it out Mish
It is impossible for banks to “lend out deposits” (unless they use vault cash) since deposits are not fiat itself, as they are at the central bank, but mere liabilities for fiat. Instead, when banks “lend” to the non-bank private sector they simply create new liabilities for fiat without eliminating any of their existing liabilities, be they on-demand liabilities (checking) or suspended or conditional liabilities in the case of savings accounts.
But here’s the kicker: Since, unlike the banks themselves, citizens may not have fiat checking accounts, the liabilities of the banks toward the non-bank private sector CANNOT BE REDEEMED except in the form of grubby, unsafe, inconvenient physical fiat or to a fiat savings account (e.g. US Treasury Direct) without debit or checking services where it will sit unable to be used until it is moved back to a bank.
So the liabilities of the banks toward the non-bank private sector are largely a sham. This is THE fundamental problem with banks, imo, the accounting is a fraud except among themselves and other account holders at the central bank and with the central bank itself.
So, to have honest accounting, it is imperative that citizens be allowed checking accounts at the central bank itself alongside those of the banks and for other privileges for the banks to be eliminated as well such as positive yields on the inherently risk-free debt of the monetary sovereign and government insurance of bank liabilities.
So let’s fix the accounting first. Who can argue against that? Moreover, with checking accounts at the central bank itself, bank runs against the ENTIRE banking cartel would be as convenient and safe as citizens transferring their deposits at a commercial bank, etc to their inherently risk-free checking (i.e. demand) accounts at the central bank itself via check or electronic transfer. And didn’t Rothbard say that bank runs are good? Then let’s make them easy and safe as needed market discipline, not just for individual banks, but for the entire banking cartel. Of course the central bank should also be forbidden from fiat creation for the banks as a means to escape that discipline.
Besides, I see nothing necessarily wrong with borrowing short to lend long so long as:
1) The banks are 100% private, i.e. not privileged by government.
2) deposits are 100% voluntary.
3) The depositors are fully informed of the risks.
Obviously, condition 2) is not met when citizens may not have fiat checking accounts of their own but must instead work through private banks, credit unions, etc. to pay bills, conduct business, etc or else be limited to using grubby, unsafe, inconvenient physical fiat for those purposes – as if that’s even feasible these days.
Moreover, if the entire private sector, including State and local governments, were allowed checking accounts at the central bank, those accounts would constitute a risk-free, 100% liquid payment system in addition to the at-risk, not-necessarily-liquid payment that must work through private banks, etc. Thus the economy would no longer be held hostage to the banks via a single payment system that must work through them.
Not enough Americans are impacted by O’Bamacare…or else there would be riots in the streets…keep the focus on Trump and athletes kneeling….the fact that Congress voted in their own plan for themselves and that no one gave a dar about that says it all…
Absolutely agree. Anyone that doesn’t have to buy Obamacare has no skin in this game. Until you have to fork over $800 plus a month with a $6000 deductible, then you have no clue how much financial pain the ACA is causing. I wonder how many people commenting actually are buying their own coverage. Just look at the national retailers stocks and that should give everyone a clue……………
I have a LOT of skin in the game .
I pay for others ACA (taxes) and yet dont use it.
Unversal Healthcare: VA meets DMV.
Go to HealthcareCanada’s website and search for “waiting.” They explain how the long waits before treatment are good and allow you to get your affairs in order before the big day. Further, there is no problem with waiting except that the waits are different in different provinces. It is a special Orwellian sort of creepy!!
Obama Care is just another shakedown with the medical cartel using the Federal Government as the heavy. It is all about making sure everyone pays up, not that everyone gets good care. No different from having to get your table cloths from a certain linen service if your restaurant is located in certain neighborhoods in certain cities. The mob will break your knees, the feds will lock you in a cage. There is no essential difference.
A national ‘informed’ debate is needed.
That or healthcare crapping unicorns.
My money’s on unicorns.
Offer people free shit with even the lamest of notions how that might work, and we will vote BIGLY for THAT! All people ask is that you show them respect by working at the lie, show some effort in it. This is what made Bill such a beloved president. Everyone knew he was full of shit, but he was so damned good at it, so smooth. You almost felt privileged to have been clipped by him.
From Karl Denniger,
“Notwithstanding any other provision in state or federal law, a person who presents themselves while uninsured to any provider of a medical good or service shall not be charged a price greater than that which Medicare pays for the same drug, device, service or combination thereof.”
plus
“Any bill rendered to a person in excess of said amounts shall (1) be deemed void, with all services and goods provided as a gift without charge or taxable consequence to said consumer but not deductible by said physician or facility from any income or occupational tax and (2) is immediately due to the customer in the exact amount presented as liquidated damages for the fraud so-attempted.”
This whole Industry is nothing more than price collusion stopping it
with the rule of law and prices drop at least 50%. !!! the rule of law
does not exist anymore in our republic.!!!!.
Therefore it will never be fixed, ever.
In many cases, the cost of paying cash vs the deductible is less. Case in point: my wife broke her elbow & needed a scan. The co-pay cost to us was $500 of the total bill of $750. I asked what the cash cost would be? $300 was the answer. Now if we can eliminate the $800/mo insurance tax/subsidy to the Ins. Co’s we could proceed to a real market solution.
Everything is such a farce, The “need” for a multi-billion dollar wall instead of a simple change to the US code on the hiring of aliens, “repeal” of the misnamed ACA, healthcare “reform” leaving the very causes of high medical costs in place, etc. When are voters going to finally realize that most of what they hear is absolute garbage and that they are NOT in charge and the deep pocket lobbies are?
The Graham-Cassidy Scam
25 Sep 2017 Karl Denninger
https://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?post=232414
Excerpt:
It appears that Graham-Cassidy, the latest “repeal and replace” load of nonsense out of the Republican Party, is doomed.
The option to pass such “one party only” supported bills expires on September 30th in the Senate. That’s when the reconciliation option runs out, at which point standard rules in the Senate apply — if there is a filibuster you need 60 votes to proceed, and obviously you won’t get them without at least some people crossing the aisle.
Graham-Cassidy, in summary, would take Medicaid and turn it into a block grant — in other words, a pile of cash to the states to allocate for health care however they wish. It does a handful of other things as well, including getting rid of the individual mandate, but the 900lb gorilla in the china shop is the block grant change.
This will do several bad things, and leaves open one potential good thing, which is why the bill is doomed.
The “bad things” include institutionalizing ridiculous health care spending on Medicaid. We currently blow crazy amounts of money on that program, and on health care generally. Turning it into a block grant simply moves the problem.
But it is in fact that moving of the problem that really scares people.
You see with block grants the money is the States’ to do with pretty-much as they wish. If they can provide a much better program for indigent people for less money then they get to pocket the rest of the cash, and it’s not a small amount of cash either!
This, in the end, is why it will not be passed — it would take just one state to decide to start enforcing anti-trust law or conditioning business licenses on posted prices and non-discriminatory billing and the entire house of cards that comprises the medical scam would come crashing down instantly.
Right now the states have little or no fiscal reason to do so when it comes to these two programs. They do have a reason to do it when it comes to their pension costs, but they can (and are trying!) to evade that decision by instead screwing the pensioners.
But if you take the billions that a state gets for Medicaid, turn it into a block grant, and the state can keep whatever it doesn’t need once it serves all its residents then there suddenly is a very powerful incentive to crash the cost of medical care in that state by 50-80%.
What you fail to understand regarding the wall is that it is a physical artifact, tangible. Whereas a bill or law, as we have seen most recently under Obama, can be interpreted, enforced or ignored at will. This is what killed the comprehensive immigration reform. Many understood exactly how this works as they saw it happen under Reagan, where laws were passed promises made and then BAM millions of now legalized citizens and millions more coming across the border unabated.
For those of us who care, we want the border fixed, illegal immigration stopped. We are not stupid. we know the wall SHOULD not be necessary to do this….but it IS, because we have a corrupt government. It’s a little thing $10 billion on a wall is chump change after what prolific “stimulus” spending we witnessed under Obama. Give us this one, okay?
“What you fail to understand regarding the wall is that it is a physical artifact, tangible.”
What you fail to understand is with no more JOBS waiting for them due to a simple change in the US code, any such change designated within the code itself as the sole responsibility of the POTUS, to eliminate a liability-exempting loophole employers can figuratively drive 10,000 20-ton tractor trailer rigs full of illegals through, most of them wouldn’t come here in the first place.
It’s the employers’ ability to hire illegals without fear of prosecution allowed by that loophole that’s THE core problem and THE place to fix it with merely a few ZERO COST word changes in the US code.
But, the reality of why that doesn’t happen and a wall doesn’t get built:
https://c1.legalinsurrection.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/Back-Breaking-600-LI.jpg
Couple of things.
I agree with your premise. BUT.
The draw for illegals is no longer jobs. And even though Joe Wilson was correct in yelling “you lie!” at Obama, we learned that yes in deed illegals WERE getting Obamacare….and a lot more. While it would be relatively easy to punish employers, there will little consensus from the swamp to punish illegals. We see a slow down in illegals but that is relative to Trump and would end with a Hillary. Regardless, laws can be enforced with discretion, whereas a wall would have to be removed.
McCain hates Trump so he puts his personal animus ahead of the nation AND his own constituents. That said, the so called fix that just failed was a loser for everyone but the very politicians who wrote it. The Reps & Dems really believe their BS & rhetoric. The election revolution has yet to really happen but it is a shame that tar & feathering has been outlawed.
The bill as is stands is for the health insurance industry, with Medicaid there to take the patients when the insurers don’t want them. Without Medicaid nobody wins. Medicaid is an asset confiscation program, not a free ride. Medicaid is the third rail, and logically you wake up to the expansion of Medicare to age 55, which helps insurers. The newly added HC recipients can pay through the SSN they will get when they turn 65(9). Expand Medicare, the HORROR! If the GOP would do that they might actually win a few elections legimately.
“Collins joins McCain and Rand Paul. Lisa Murkowski is on the fence and so is Ted Cruz. In short, it’s hopeless.”
It’s hopeless because the proposed ‘repeals’ only replace parts of Obamacare with some things that are no better.
They should start by repealing the individual mandate. This is the most obnoxious thing about Obamacare. Sure, spending is bad but the government wastes money on many other things. Once the individual mandate is repealed, they can start figuring out what can be paid for without it or watch it go bankrupt (preferably the latter).
They can’t. They fear the media…rightly so. Trump tried to show them courage, to go forward irrespective of incoming fire, but they capitulated. They still see Trump’s days numbered.
I see this as Iraq under Bush. The war was floundering because we were getting no support on the ground from Iraqis. The constant media drone from America was we were looking for a fast way out, do something quick and leave. The Iraqis had seen this before under the first Bush, telling them to stand up to Saddam, and we would support them….they did, and we didn’t. The Iraqis are not stupid and understood that if we were to abandon them after a brief success, they would be left to deal with the murderous aftermath. Recall the South Vietnamese slaughter after we pulled out…people begging for rides to escape what they knew was coming?
After Bush committed to a surge, then and only then, we received support from the Iraqis, which made all the difference.
I say all this because this is what I see in the republican congress. They do not believe that Trump will last, that his brashness and honesty is pissing off a lot of progressives and if they align with him…and he fails (as they all believe he will), they will be tarred with the same brush. They are people who care about survival above all else and have spent decades building their defenses against progressive media attacks. They discard ANY tainted republican instantly, unlike the democrats who will hold onto their turds forever. They publicly apologize for ANY remark, regardless of how innocent, that is proffered as “racist” or hateful in any way by the media. They shield themselves from attack because they have no other defense…they THINK. They will talk a big game…as they must to retain constituency, but seldom do anything of importance.
Trump is trying to give them backbone, but at the same time is illustrating their true nature. I believe this will be used against them in upcoming elections….without Trump having to say a word (but we KNOW he will).
“What the hell game is McCain Playing?”
McCain has just been told that prognosis of his own cancer is very grim. McCain is now voting (IMO) his conscious more than anything else. A person that is facing probable death sees things very differently than a person who is not.
In all these opinions about “Medicare for all”, I have seen no one comparing current Medicare vs Private insurance. Delivery of health care services paid by Medicare insurance are less expensive than private health insurance despite these handicaps:
1) They cover an older, sicker population
2) Medicare is not allowed price bargaining with pharma.
3) Another thing that is never discuss is the fallacy of free markets on the current private insurance driven system. Most Americans get private insurance today by way of their employers.
In this situation, the company pays about %60 to %80 of the premiums on behalf of the employee. This is actually income given to the employee tax free! (no it is not a company benefit. It is a benefit paid by the rest of the country that do not get insurance by their employers). BTW that is also a mandate since is not that the employer is free to spend that money on something else.
Private health insurance is not a viable business in a true market system. Health insurance companies sale a product that is neither needed nor desired by young people (in general). It is product, however, that is desired by the people they don’t want to sell to (the old, the sick, the pregnant and the ones with preexisting conditions)
The only reason that private health insurance survives (and makes money) is because of (3). Take that away and private health insurance will implode in a free market.
So, McCain’s healthcare costs are covered…
Health insurance can’t really work under any circumstances for long. Cost sharing without accountability will not contain costs as long as those costs can be reliably passed on. While the notion that forcing participation would eliminate some of the problems, it still does not address the fundamental issue of costs. Obamacare has been instrumental in consolidating hospitals and doctor groups in an effort to control costs, but ultimately it eliminates any remaining competition that would in anyway effect lower costs. Interventions to supposedly control costs have eliminated competition, which I believe is the only way a system of this size will EVER see meaningful cost savings. And as the government insists on “blank checking” this operation, cost will escalate forever.
Can we put a dollar amount on “entitlement”? WILL WE? If it truly IS an entitlement, then how can you. Entitlements can’t be denied….like government pensions.
We spend about $1T in national defense (inhabitants defense to be exact). Cost are never contained. Isn’t defense spending a cost sharing system? Since the function of the military is to defend the US population and its interest how is that different from a national health system (a health defense system if you will). Is national defense and entitlement? “Can we put a dollar amount on “entitlement”? WILL WE? If it truly IS an entitlement, then how can you. Entitlements can’t be denied”
See the problem is no the expense or the cost. Americans seem to be very content to spending whatever amount national defense demands (real or imaginary). So it seems that there is plenty of money for weapons to defend all but not for Drs and medicines to protect all
How much does America spend on entertainment? What VALUE do Americans put on healthcare? Seems to me most don’t want to spend ANYTHING on it, instead demanding the government provide it for free.
The system is broken, from top to bottom. Sure MIC is a big problem, as are soomany other programs. So why do we want to add one more BIG ONE?
There is no way any repeal can succeed using a system of insurance to pay for continuing costs of chronic medical care conditions. The costs are too great to spread over a population of subscribers no matter who pays the bill. I heard somewhere that the pre-exist condition removal from policies adds 15% alone to the policy cost. Yet all the debate has centered on just modifying who pays the insurance costs. Wherever the bills land will cause problems for the payer.
A sensible approach would have been to introduce a stream of legislation to correct the injustices in the current system and phase in more market principles. Start by eliminating employer advantaged health insurance tax policy and shift the tax write offs to the individual. Deregulating drug and treatments purchases. Force honest billing of medical treatments using antitrust and anti-fraud enforcement. Restrict insurance to cover unexpected medical emergencies only. This becomes possible as the cost of routine care drops from correcting faults in the current system.
These are a few ideas and they should all have been introduced since the failure of the ACA was first exhibited in 2013. Instead, symbolic votes, name calling and insults, and blame shifting for 5 years. I am not impressed with any of the excuses coming from either party and have equal disgust for both.
In a free market, each individual must decide. In anything ike what you describe, it will be someone else who decides. Why do we put so much faith in people to actually put our interests ahead of their own? Is THAT sustainable?
We can dream up all types of systems that in theory could work, if not for one common factor….US. We cannot derive a system of controls that eliminates the human traits of greed for power and money and something for nothing. Our modern economy epitomizes this mindset where those most revered are those who gamed the system, made massive amounts on very l\little labor and virtually nothing productive. People still trying to amass their fortune through hard work, sacrifice, frugality and diligence are to be shunned, pitied or mocked. Our “geniuses” are those who rode market trends to all time highs, not people who devoted their lives to curing cancer….and if they did, we would refuse to pay them anything over government mandated market price. If you could take a pill that would save your life, cure you of a dreaded disease, how much would it be worth? Would we demand it be free? would we insist that government seize said intellectual property for the good of mankind?
We have a class of people supposedly devoted to “saving the world” who have got filthy rich from largely doing nothing, so how would we hope to see medicine become a public service, researchers spending their entire lives to achieve something, only to think it would be taken for the public good.
Our health, our most precious thing on earth, and we collectively saying that it simply costs too much.
Of course any system has faults but our current way of doing things can and should be improved. Typical visit to GP for a ten minute visit = $200 , That’s $1000 an hour with a break. In about six weeks a GP generates enough billing to cover a nice yearly pay with benefits. The rest of the year pays the overhead. About 80% or so. Where does it go. Certainly not to fancy equipment, that’s billed extra. Most likely it ends up with administrative overhead to collect bills and negotiate with insurance. The insurance overhead does me no good as a customer seeking better health. But I must pay anyway or else be vastly over-billed as a cash customer. This could be fixed with legislation and result in cost dropping at least 50%. Really can’t see why we have to accept all the wasted money in the current system as necessary for health care. Why not have well paid medical staff and unemployed billing clerks.
Why is it that we seem to believe that when a system is failing, the only solution is to do more of what was already done to fix it…that FAILED.
At what point will we ever decide that maybe, just maybe, we were going at it all wrong from the start?
Look at education. We have been complaining about it for decades, holding our population ransom for ever higher taxes to supposedly fix it…yet, even though we are spending more on education than just about anyone else, the solution still is…more money. Could it be that it is the MONEY that is poisoning the system. AS cash flows in, it goes directly to graft and corruption, most of it in minority schools where people are scared to death to complain about spending, and as it fails is demands more and more of what is feeding the cancer.
What is failing about healthcare is cost sharing, the notion that we can always have someone else pay for our healthcare….and don’t lie to yourself. The ONLY reason we still buy insurance at these exorbitant rates is because we still believe it is cheaper than paying our healthcare costs direct. We see these remediated hospital bills for tens of thousands for a couple of hours service and it scares the shit out of us. Why do you think they do this? keeps us in line, keep paying those inflated insurance bills because it is STILL a good deal, right?
The doctors customers are NOT us, they are the insurance companies and while they all know its broken, they aren’t going to make waves to change it. The system perpetuates itself and government, through their infinite regulations have eliminated alternatives.
Once we commit to single payer government healthcare, there will be no backing out. We are already broke so we know healthcare will be rationed if it comes from the government, and most alternatives will be dead and gone.
Congress isn’t going to be on government health care anymore than the Queen of England sitting in an NHS waiting room, or John McCain waiting his turn for surgery in Arizona.
The rich and the politically connected in England have concierge doctors. The middle class and the poor have to wait in line for heavily rationed NHS “care”, unless an NHS committee decides your life isn’t worth saving, as they did with Charlie Gard.
What Obama supporter wouldn’t be happy to put their baby on the growing list of those killed by government health care?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-40356709
The rich and the politically connected in the USA have nothing to worry about. The best doctors will migrate into concierge medicine, just as they have in England and Canada. Bernie Sanders doesn’t rely on second tier doctors to care for his family, anymore than John McCain would wait his turn for brain surgery he doesn’t pay for.
They send out those statements with prices that nobody pays to scare us.
Holy crap! What if I didn’t have insurance??
Alex Spencer and madashellowell, you guys seem to be in violent agreement.
This whole issue makes me cranky. Just received EOB from insurance for a simple cholesterol blood test. Insurance allows payment of $20, doctor office lists $392 as their price but accepts the $20 for insurance co since they are in insurance co. network. So I have to pay $1200 each month for insurance in order to receive the real price of $20. The list price corresponds to nothing related to the cost of service and just represents a gaming of the system. The use of insurance in this case is entirely the result of existing incentives. Change the existing incentives from paying using insurance to paying with a charge or check and I simply need to hand out $20 for my test saving my $14,000 annual health (ripoff) insurance premium. The doctor gets the same amount either way. These kind of things could have been under debate and resolved over the seven years since ACA passed. It would have greatly helped to reduce costs even with ACA in place.
Ridiculous.
Obamacare repeal will continue, whether McCain / Cruz like it or not. Obamacare repeal will continue whether Pelosi likes it or not. To be blunt, given their ages, Obamacare repeal has more staying power than McCain and Pelosi combined (and Cruz and Ryan and all 545 losers in Congress).
Social justice warriors can throw temper tantrums all they want, but a country that is hundreds of trillions in debt cannot afford this nonsense. There is no money for “free” healthcare, and anyone who is an adult knows it.
Universal health care is failing all over the world because, as anyone who earned their kindergarten diploma knows, there is no such thing as a free lunch. Go ahead and protest. Go ahead and have your antifa rallies. Go ahead and threaten to hold your breath unless your mommy gives you a candy. There is still no such thing as a free lunch.
I don’t care how many laps around the sun McCain and Pelosi claim to have completed, they act like annoying 3 year olds. Just an embarrassment to the whole country. F all of Congress.
Tax reform is on hold until Obamacare gets repealed or until we get some adults in Washington. End of discussion.
More and more doctors are refusing to take new medicare patients, which means the baby boomers are going to start dying. Whine all you want, doctors are not slaves and have no obligation to work for free. Medicare doesn’t pay its bills — average time to get paid is already more than 14 months.
Just disgusting. Obama’s signature legislation is turning out to be the thing that destroys the US government.
“Universal health care is failing all over the world”
Can you provide facts on this? Or is this your “educated” opinion?
Can you name a country where it works without massive external subsidies? Even one case?
England and Canada both take massive oil royalties. Germany uses their mercantilist economy (they make trading partners pay for it). France is the biggest weapons dealer in the world.
Stop your lying. There is no free lunch loser
So I take that as a NO on your statement
I am saying that you aren’t smart enough to bother arguing with. I am saying that you don’t matter
As I said Carlos, just ignore him. He is just an angry old man.
Hey Mr. Medex [Medicated?] man. The whole system is subsidised, but not externally. Internally. Oil royalties are not necessary . The sheer spending on the system provides the economic boost to pay for itself as the spend goes into the economy and raises employment.etc Spending is where economic growth comes from.
This knowledge should be Econ101. Obviously you haven’t a clue.
I’m keen to be educated. When you talk about “internal” funding, I assume all foreign owned US Treasuries count as “internal”? Thank you
Sorry, that question doesn’t compute. Treasuries do not relate at all to the internal spend. By internal I mean the government buys its debts with its currency , by crediting consumer accounts in the Fed. That is entirely internal.
There is no point having any discussion with you. Your arguments (such that they can even be discerned) have been torn to shreds by I don’t know how many people and yet you still persist. Frankly, I don’t know why you even visit this blog when your views are so at odds with those of the author and most readers.
Do you see yourself as some kind of modern-day economic ‘missionary’ or something?
my arguments haven’t been torn to shreds at all. How ridiculous is that. They are almost every one an example of woolly thinking with little or no facts to support them. They just bounce off. It’s actually quite fun taking the mickey out of them . It’s the best they deserve
You are partly right in that I’ seem to be wasting my time and energy against such obtuse and ill informed opponents. I’m obviously the only one that bothers, but I think Mish’s site is basically a good one and is worth making the effort. I certainly agree with him most of the time. He is still wedded to the mainstream myths, but they are so evil in their pernicious effects it makes me determined to get change started at least. You don’t trust me, being a nobody, but all it will take is for someone you do trust to break ranks and suddenly you’ll all be believers!
Pray tell, what Mainstream, Myths am I wedded to?
Here you go;
The government must raise funds via taxation and or borrowing in order to spend. In other words government spending is limited by its ability to borrow or levy taxes.
With government deficits we are leaving our debt burden to our children
Government budget deficits take away savings.
Social security is broken. [a lot of that in this blog]
The trade deficit is an unsustainable imbalance that takes away jobs and output.
We need savings to provide funds for investment
It is a bad thing that higher deficits today mean higher taxes tomorrow.
In a nutshell this is mainstream belief.
Hey Carlos. You can’t believe anything Medex says. He just makes everything up. He’s an angry old man who wakes up in the morning and can’t wait to start spewing his venom on blog sites. Just ignore him.
Name the country that has universal health care without massive external subsidies or shut up.
Kindergartners learn there is no free lunch, and there is no reason to treat you like an adult if you can’t even pass kindergarten.
ÙK, Australia, Canada 11% of GDP vs 17% in US. Do you want more? Now go ahead with your lies. I can see your lack of understanding of even the simplest things.
All that you say is entirely political mischief. It is also ignorant and deliberately contrived to make it appear to be unaffordable. It is not unaffordable.Public ignorance is also contributing but at least we have the excuse we are not economics experts and those who are in the mainstream are selling out to vested interests. So who do you believe? Certainly not what we are led to believe, nor any politician or journalist or even pundit. We are all suffering under the mainstream lies.
Time to get off of the “Obama Care” aspect and get on with the real issue – HEALTH CARE DELIVERY COSTS IN THE U.S. But that would put too much light on the real stuff – Massive Costs for the Big Pharma, Hospital Chains, Insurance Companies – and away from people with virtually nothing……………..
Don’t forget….democrats forced ACA down our throats because they claimed we had a healthcare crisis….and where are we now???
If it was a crisis in 2009, what is it now? And how big of a disaster will this crisis enable?
Thank god they can’t control the weather….yet.
So if you get your insurance through your employer and they pay any part of the premiums I’m very sure that you will demand to taxes on that free money right? After all I can only assume that you are all for “free markets”
Well, as an employer, I pay 100% of my employees insurance, and yes, it is pretax, to the tune of about $830/month for each person, no copay and a $6500 deductible. Yes sir! I am WINNING!
So basically as an employer you get a tax cut and your employees get a full tax cut on the money you give them (indirectly) for insurance. So that is the system you are defending? Is that free market or are the taxes of others who don’t get this freebies being used as a hidden subsidy?
I’m confused. Are you suggesting that I LIKE ACA because the insurance payments are tax exempt? Seriously?
My insurance for my employees went UP 28% this month and you think that I’m getting an unfair break here? I have employees begging me to drop their insurance and give them the money as I can’t afford to give them a raise. They want to simply go back to the emergency room and dodge the bills. I had an employee who had a baby born with birth defects requiring lots of surgery, all prior to coming to work for me and he was complaining because they wanted him to pay 10% of the bill. He had NO insurance.
The whole system is wrecked with multiple layers of corrupt policies making any real fixes impossible without starting over.
I’m really not sure what your point is. You are complaining that employer based insurance is income tax exempt, while our rates have skyrocketed to pay for people who pay nothing or little at all.
Jon Dough — agree that health care COSTS are the problem, not some overpriced insurance scam named after a social justice warrior.
But there are too many people who think the criminal was entitled to be president based on her genitalia, so they want to focus on the Russian monster under their beds.
Uncle sam is bankrupt, millions of baby boomers will die early because healthcare COSTS will crowd out the better doctors. It already happened in Vermont, just like (former) Mayoer Bernie Sanders said it would. He knows it won’t work nationally, but he also knows he will get CongressCare, Obamacare is for the suckers.
The rich will have concierge doctors, the middle class and poor will get the doctors who aren’t good enough.
It didn’t have to be this way — the free sh!t army is to blame
More nonsense from medicated man.
Mish…. seriously you need to ban this sort of nonsense
It is impossible to ban nonsense.
Yes, his medications are out of control. Loves being a loser.
Here is ablog today which shows up the real nonsence;
I’m far from alone in railing against the evil idiocy of the mainstream brand of economics!
https://mythfighter.com/2017/09/26/how-applying-leeches-cures-anemia-and-other-libertarian-myths/
The reason this bill will not pass is because of the block grants to states. If a state is able to reduce the cost, it gets to pocket the difference, and with so many state pensions deep underwater, there is a huge incentive to lower costs. As soon as one state does it the horse is out of the barn and the monopolistic practices come to an end, which will cut costs in half very quickly. It’s easier and cheaper to bribe a few senators and congress people than bribing legislators in 50 states.
The only way our health care exploding cost bubble gets fixed is by enforcing EXISTING anti-trust laws and posting prices, which would immediately halt monopolistic price gauging that is the primary reason govt spending on health care has grown exponentially over 9% per year for over 30 yrs. Put that in your exponential calculator and it becomes obvious why we are in the final inning.
Come on for Christ sakes.
Illegal aliens are given free health care, compliments of the taxpayers, in California and from the other sides of their mouth everyone complains that health care costs are excessive?
An illegal alien can walk into an US hospital and get treated for the sniffle, free of charge. And we wonder where our health care dollars are going? lol.
This is like a watching a Mel Brooks movie.
Illegal immigrants get what retailers call a “five finger discount”
Just as retail stores charge paying customers for the costs of shoplifting, hospitals charge paying customers for the costs of treating no-pays (not just illegal immigrants)
Answering the question of what they are thinking:
They have been well paid; it’s nearly time to retire.
Can’t compromise the retirement plan and the schedule for the post-retirement party boat.
The UK government collects approximately £744 Billion in taxes and plans to spend £122 Billion on the NHS. The care is as good as can be gotten in the U.S., in other words excellent. That said, if you want a non-life threatening procedure – no matter how much pain you may be in – you just have to wait your turn. In crises such as a flu epidemic requiring hospitalization, you may not find a bed or it may be in an ambulance commandeered due to a lack of beds inside.
Doctors are hectored by the bureaucracy crazy to keep costs down. The latest example is the proposal that GPs consult a Board of physicians (who don’t know the patient or circumstances) before they will be allowed to send them to hospital. My particular favorite was a year or two ago when an investigation found that NHS management had put a bounty on terminal hospital patients of £60,000 each if the hospital would send said patients to a warehouse provided by the NHS. Said warehouse was not one that provided food or medication nor did it inform the patients’ loved ones of their whereabouts. Sixty-six thousand are reported to have perished in the experiment. Other things like the recent discovery that the bureaucracy tested previously untested drugs and crackpot theories of care on unsuspecting patients are not rarities as it struggles to meet an impossible goal. All in, the care is excellent, the doctors & nurses are first class but the price keeps rising and the very visible hand of government intervenes to defeat itself. Ironically, all of this is at about half the percentage of GDP we enjoy in the USA.
“Care is excellent”
“NHS killed 66,000 terminal patients in a Hospice scheme and paid hospitals for it” (paraphrase)
Excellent care is executed.
In the US if 66,000 terminally ill patients were without coverage they will also die. Your point?
The growing list of babies killed by England’s NHS system
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-40356709
And this doesn’t count cases where a committee of bureaucrats decided that a person (whatever age) simply wasn’t worth saving. England’s NHS runs exactly like the HMO rationing that US citizens say they won’t tolerate….
well, except for the fact that wealthy Brits avoid the NHS and have concierge doctors. NHS is for the middle class and poor only.
WTF??? Usually I am pretty good at recognizing sarcasm when I read it without needing the idiot “/sarc”. But I have to admit, you’ve got me stumped on this one, you’re really good!
NHS care is just as good as in the US, but if you’re in extreme but non-life-threatening pain you have to just wait your turn (weeks? months?) when you can walk into any urgent care or ER in the US and be taken care of that day.
NHS sent 66,000 terminal patients to a warehouse to die???
NHS doctors using “untested drugs and crackpot theories on unsuspecting patients are not rarities” but are still considered to be first-rate.
Yep, NHS care is the standard to shoot for! I’ll be LOLing until I find out otherwise.
I can’t decide if John J King was trying to be funny or sarcastic, or if he is just plain ignorant of the many on-going problems with NHS.
NHS costs are spiraling out of control, just as every other G7 country. England addresses this problem by rationing care by committee — this was the basis for HMO rationing in the US, which in case one has been smoking Obama dope, Americans rejected.
Every single British pharmaceutical company has their research facilities in the USA — because they can’t support them in England. England gets its healthcare research paid for by US citizens, the British system would have no advancements since WW2 if that were not the case.
And only a Berkeley graduate could be so stupid as to believe the Queen of England sits around an NHS waiting room for hours or has to wait months for an operation. Much like John McCain skipped to the front of the line to get his brain surgery paid for by taxpayers (not by McCain) — the Queen and political class in England does not slum it going to NHS.
Please attach a BBC article showing the Prime Minister sitting in a NHS waiting room… otherwise don’t bother claiming NHS works.
If you know any wealthy Brits, than you know England has TWO health systems. Concierge doctors for the rich, and the NHS for the middle class and the poor. The best doctors go where they can get paid, leaving the NHS dependent on doctors who aren’t good enough for the rich.
That is the system Bernie Sanders proposes. The top doctors will be concierge doctors for the rich and politically connected — everyday voters will get the scraps, and will pay dearly for it (and they will also pay for Congress’ concierge doctors).
@John King — “The UK government collects approximately £744 Billion in taxes and plans to spend £122 Billion on the NHS.”
Apparently you think the rest of the British government runs for free, and 100% of revenues can go toward “free” health care?
I really hope you were being sarcastic and are not so stunningly naive
We need to slash Obama Care so we can give massive corporations massive tax cuts and to purchase more bombs and bombers to get those global people in line for what we ( the elite? ) want. Expensive or not, the medical money does circulate within OUR ECONOMY, unlike the ordinance that explodes in some foreigners back yard and produces nothing but hate and “terrorism”…………………………
We have basically two perspectives on this.
One seeks an economic system that provides affordable healthcare, housing, etc
The other is an economic system where we strive to afford the best healthcare we can get.
I never wanted affordable housing or affordable food or even an affordable car. I wanted the opportunity to work to achieve the absolute best.
Government intervention is eliminating this choice. It is forcing those who are still willing to try for more to pay for those who will not or cannot. At what point will the cost for anything beyond base be so high only the very richest can afford it?
We are talking about perverse incentives, driving people downward rather than upward, towards the lowest common denominator. As people abandon work for what is free, supply of labor will shrink, driving costs upward….with no way to pay for it. The hope for technology and automation to displace our labor we must consider who will own this technology and at what price will THEY provide our services.
Socialism kills.
People who are bad at math love socialism for a while, until they run out of external subsidies (until they run out of other people’s money). Then the very same morons that forced socialism down everyone’s throats start whining that their system has failed — see Venezeula.
I hope the socialists in the US suffer more than their victims; I don’t hesitate to fire any of my employees that start with their entitlements. There are LOTS of people, many of them **legal** immigrants, who are killing themselves just to get an opportunity to better themselves and their family. Why waste a good paying job on an ungrateful socialist?
The Socialists are those whom the government bailed out in the GFC, bankers and the like. Why don’t you like socialists when you have shining examples to see?
Hello
There’s no sense talking about insurance until what is being insured is under control. I like to say I’m free market but after having a catastrophic accident and seeing the charges forget it. Such as 3x daily doctor visits for 2 months fromantic random doctors, average length 3 to 4 minutes, none really did anything it was hillarious bye. Average visit cost? $500.00. No kidding. No one’s getting affordable insurance with low deductibles for cheap with that kinda crap going on.
Hey Rob. Costs are better controlled in single payer systems in all the other developed countries. That is why they pay from 8-11% of GDP on health care, while the US pays over 17%. The US number is scheduled to hit 20% in a few years because costs are out of control. That’s pretty expensive when you consider that the US doesn’t even cover all its citizens.
Yeah all I know is that it’s crazy. It’s just a big profit machine. Never mind what it’s done to us. I’m not anywhere near qualified to offer solutions. At our current trajectory it’s just going to keep getting crazier until it all blows up. Like any other corporate monstrosity, they want every extra penny anyone has and that’s not even good enough. It’s disgusting.
John McCain is soon to meet his maker and he doesn’t want it to be Satan, lol