HealthCare Thought Experiment
Sep 28, 2009 General Nonsense |
Before you complain that I'm a socialist who wants to take away your freedoms and your money, what follows is just a thought experiment. I start with the premise that the government of the United States, against all odds, declares universal healthcare a basic right.
Obviously no one has figured out how to pay for universal healthcare in a way that society can swallow. So today's thought experiment imagines that ALL options are on the table except raising taxes, just to make this interesting.
As President Obama has pointed out, there might be some savings involved with covering everyone. At the moment, two-thirds of all bankruptcies are caused by medical bills. If that problem goes away, society saves a bundle.
If we assume a so-called single payer option goes into effect, which means the government offers an insurance program in competition with private insurers, we could eventually see some drops in prices. If you prefer keeping your private insurance company, the only change you would see is a lower bill.
A big benefit of universal healthcare insurance is job mobility. At the moment, lots of people stay at suboptimal jobs because switching jobs would mean losing healthcare for themselves or their families. That's a huge drag on economic efficiency. I suppose wages might creep up if people feel more freedom to job hop, and there would be some extra training involved for all the fresh meat, but on balance I'm guessing job mobility is a boost to the economy, and potentially a big one.
Another economic benefit from universal healthcare coverage is that doctors can catch problems early, before they become more expensive to treat. That's a winner all around.
A big downside of insuring everyone is that in the short run there wouldn't be enough doctors to go around. One solution is to recruit qualified doctors from overseas. If they can pass the same tests as American doctors, they're in. I have to think we'd have plenty of doctors in that case. Then the shortage becomes the problem of other countries.
Next, we legalize doctor-assisted euthanasia, under strict medical guidelines. A disproportionate amount of healthcare costs go toward the last few months of life, when the patient is getting very little bang for the buck. I don't know anyone who wouldn't want the option for himself.
Then we require junk food to be labeled like cigarettes, and make it a national priority to decrease our exposure to unhealthy food. People still have to eat, so perhaps the fast food outlets could make the same profit from offering convenient food that is healthy, even if it isn't as tasty and addicting. The government could bully or legislate unhealthy foods out of our diets if it needed to.
Next, the government could start to push the benefits of exercise. And I don't mean the hand-waving they do now. I mean a serious push, until couch potatoes start feeling like flag burners. Exercise could become a matter of national pride.
The government could tax cigarettes into the realm of novelty. Remember, this is the imaginary world of the thought experiment. If universal healthcare is mandated, and you don't want to wait ten months to see a doctor like you do in Canada (allegedly), then society has to make some hard choices.
The government could also require your doctor to treat patients by e-mail, as my HMO already does. That probably saves 10% on patient visits right off the top. Once hi def cameras are more ubiquitous, you should be able to e-mail photos of your bruises and suspicious moles to your doctor too. And I have read that there is a lot of progress in various types of home medical monitors that can send info to your doctor. That should help.
Imagine also that employers who offer health insurance have to treat cohabitation just like marriage. If you're shacking up with someone, you have the option of being on their insurance plan, no further questions asked. Employers currently don't discriminate against married employees even though their families cost extra to insure. This simply extends that benefit to non-traditional familes.
I can also imagine a loosening of the rules for what a Nurse Practitioner can do without a doctor's direct supervision. Between the Internet and a Nurse Practitioner, patients can eliminate a lot of doctor visits.
Most of what I mentioned here is thoroughly impractical because of lobbyists, morons, bad leadership, superstition, and our addictions to unhealthy behavior. It's just interesting to imagine what universal healthcare would look like if it were a constitutional right and raising taxes was off the table.
Obviously no one has figured out how to pay for universal healthcare in a way that society can swallow. So today's thought experiment imagines that ALL options are on the table except raising taxes, just to make this interesting.
As President Obama has pointed out, there might be some savings involved with covering everyone. At the moment, two-thirds of all bankruptcies are caused by medical bills. If that problem goes away, society saves a bundle.
If we assume a so-called single payer option goes into effect, which means the government offers an insurance program in competition with private insurers, we could eventually see some drops in prices. If you prefer keeping your private insurance company, the only change you would see is a lower bill.
A big benefit of universal healthcare insurance is job mobility. At the moment, lots of people stay at suboptimal jobs because switching jobs would mean losing healthcare for themselves or their families. That's a huge drag on economic efficiency. I suppose wages might creep up if people feel more freedom to job hop, and there would be some extra training involved for all the fresh meat, but on balance I'm guessing job mobility is a boost to the economy, and potentially a big one.
Another economic benefit from universal healthcare coverage is that doctors can catch problems early, before they become more expensive to treat. That's a winner all around.
A big downside of insuring everyone is that in the short run there wouldn't be enough doctors to go around. One solution is to recruit qualified doctors from overseas. If they can pass the same tests as American doctors, they're in. I have to think we'd have plenty of doctors in that case. Then the shortage becomes the problem of other countries.
Next, we legalize doctor-assisted euthanasia, under strict medical guidelines. A disproportionate amount of healthcare costs go toward the last few months of life, when the patient is getting very little bang for the buck. I don't know anyone who wouldn't want the option for himself.
Then we require junk food to be labeled like cigarettes, and make it a national priority to decrease our exposure to unhealthy food. People still have to eat, so perhaps the fast food outlets could make the same profit from offering convenient food that is healthy, even if it isn't as tasty and addicting. The government could bully or legislate unhealthy foods out of our diets if it needed to.
Next, the government could start to push the benefits of exercise. And I don't mean the hand-waving they do now. I mean a serious push, until couch potatoes start feeling like flag burners. Exercise could become a matter of national pride.
The government could tax cigarettes into the realm of novelty. Remember, this is the imaginary world of the thought experiment. If universal healthcare is mandated, and you don't want to wait ten months to see a doctor like you do in Canada (allegedly), then society has to make some hard choices.
The government could also require your doctor to treat patients by e-mail, as my HMO already does. That probably saves 10% on patient visits right off the top. Once hi def cameras are more ubiquitous, you should be able to e-mail photos of your bruises and suspicious moles to your doctor too. And I have read that there is a lot of progress in various types of home medical monitors that can send info to your doctor. That should help.
Imagine also that employers who offer health insurance have to treat cohabitation just like marriage. If you're shacking up with someone, you have the option of being on their insurance plan, no further questions asked. Employers currently don't discriminate against married employees even though their families cost extra to insure. This simply extends that benefit to non-traditional familes.
I can also imagine a loosening of the rules for what a Nurse Practitioner can do without a doctor's direct supervision. Between the Internet and a Nurse Practitioner, patients can eliminate a lot of doctor visits.
Most of what I mentioned here is thoroughly impractical because of lobbyists, morons, bad leadership, superstition, and our addictions to unhealthy behavior. It's just interesting to imagine what universal healthcare would look like if it were a constitutional right and raising taxes was off the table.
Votes: +16
Comments
User Name: tkwelge
Oct 5, 2009
+1
Let's see here, in the middle of the worse recession of my lifetime (I'm 23) I work 4 days a week delivering pizzas (i only work more than 8 hours one day a week) and I still make ends meet pretty well. Granted, I live in Texas (the only state still worth a damn other than Virginia, but I like to think that we are the more relevant of the two), but I'm still able to afford healthcare, to live in an apartment with just one roommate and his girlfriend (I pay a larger percentage of the rent than either of them), to drive a car, and to type this blog comment on a quad core (octo if you count the virtual cores) computer hooked up to a 42 inch plasma screen television (high def with proper cables of course). Capitalism, what an Fing atrocity! Oh the humanity!!!!
User Name: tkwelge
Oct 5, 2009
0
"How does employer-sponsored health care hurt job mobility?"
FOr every entrepreneur "freed from the shackles of his former job" there will be about 20 people who decide that they can work less and produce less now that the government is paying for their healthcare costs. Most of us here at the lower end of the income scale work to live. We don't live to work. I would in fact work less if I didn't need the money. Any government assistance simply allows people to work less, leading to even lower productivity and even less resources to be redistributed. The power of the market is that people have to input things to take things out. If they get healthcare without having to pay for it, why should they work any harder than they have to?
FOr every entrepreneur "freed from the shackles of his former job" there will be about 20 people who decide that they can work less and produce less now that the government is paying for their healthcare costs. Most of us here at the lower end of the income scale work to live. We don't live to work. I would in fact work less if I didn't need the money. Any government assistance simply allows people to work less, leading to even lower productivity and even less resources to be redistributed. The power of the market is that people have to input things to take things out. If they get healthcare without having to pay for it, why should they work any harder than they have to?
User Name: tkwelge
Oct 5, 2009
0
"How does employer-sponsored health care hurt job mobility? Here is a simple example:
You currently have a job that covers healthcare for your family, including your spouse who has around $50k/year medical bills due to a chronic condition. You find the job boring, and have a great idea for starting a new company. Your options:
1. Stay with your boring job, keep your health insurance
2. Start your new company, become an entrepreneur, find new health insurance.
Now, under #2, how much do you think that will cost? Well, since your spouse has around $50k/year medical bills, they're likely to charge a minimum of $70k/year. Think that's going to influence your decision? Also, under #2, your former health insurer will be really, really happy. It simply makes no sense that you are required to change insurance when you change jobs. Furthermore, if your current doctor doesn't work with your new insurance company, you need to change doctors.
Whether you're starting the next Google or a taco truck, this is a major issue. People who have high family health care costs find it difficult to switch jobs.
(yeah, i know under COBRA you can buy your former company's policy at their rates for 18 months, but after that you're starting anew)"
Duh! Of course free healthcare simplifies things for the individual. That's missing my point entirely. I'm discussing the effect on the economy based on the actions of individuals who are insulated from risk by the government. In the example you've provided, you're basically saying that the government should subsidize the risk of entrepreneurs. Maybe that is a good idea in some cases, but if you let people start businesses without bearing the full risk, a lot of economic waste occurs. Instead of risk being born by entrepreneurs, it will be born by the government. "I might not make enough money" is an Fing great reason for NOT starting a business. We can't all start our own company and be successful. Resources are limited and the more that go towards businesses, which would be failing without the government's assistance, the less that can be used for purposes that produce more value than they cost. WHy does nobody else here understand this amazingly simple point?
You currently have a job that covers healthcare for your family, including your spouse who has around $50k/year medical bills due to a chronic condition. You find the job boring, and have a great idea for starting a new company. Your options:
1. Stay with your boring job, keep your health insurance
2. Start your new company, become an entrepreneur, find new health insurance.
Now, under #2, how much do you think that will cost? Well, since your spouse has around $50k/year medical bills, they're likely to charge a minimum of $70k/year. Think that's going to influence your decision? Also, under #2, your former health insurer will be really, really happy. It simply makes no sense that you are required to change insurance when you change jobs. Furthermore, if your current doctor doesn't work with your new insurance company, you need to change doctors.
Whether you're starting the next Google or a taco truck, this is a major issue. People who have high family health care costs find it difficult to switch jobs.
(yeah, i know under COBRA you can buy your former company's policy at their rates for 18 months, but after that you're starting anew)"
Duh! Of course free healthcare simplifies things for the individual. That's missing my point entirely. I'm discussing the effect on the economy based on the actions of individuals who are insulated from risk by the government. In the example you've provided, you're basically saying that the government should subsidize the risk of entrepreneurs. Maybe that is a good idea in some cases, but if you let people start businesses without bearing the full risk, a lot of economic waste occurs. Instead of risk being born by entrepreneurs, it will be born by the government. "I might not make enough money" is an Fing great reason for NOT starting a business. We can't all start our own company and be successful. Resources are limited and the more that go towards businesses, which would be failing without the government's assistance, the less that can be used for purposes that produce more value than they cost. WHy does nobody else here understand this amazingly simple point?
User Name: hdragomir
Oct 4, 2009
0
It's amazing how most of what you said is already implemented in, hang on, Romania!
Save for the fast-food notices, we do all that. And somehow, we get by.
Save for the fast-food notices, we do all that. And somehow, we get by.
User Name: shandrew
Oct 2, 2009
0
How does employer-sponsored health care hurt job mobility? Here is a simple example:
You currently have a job that covers healthcare for your family, including your spouse who has around $50k/year medical bills due to a chronic condition. You find the job boring, and have a great idea for starting a new company. Your options:
1. Stay with your boring job, keep your health insurance
2. Start your new company, become an entrepreneur, find new health insurance.
Now, under #2, how much do you think that will cost? Well, since your spouse has around $50k/year medical bills, they're likely to charge a minimum of $70k/year. Think that's going to influence your decision? Also, under #2, your former health insurer will be really, really happy. It simply makes no sense that you are required to change insurance when you change jobs. Furthermore, if your current doctor doesn't work with your new insurance company, you need to change doctors.
Whether you're starting the next Google or a taco truck, this is a major issue. People who have high family health care costs find it difficult to switch jobs.
(yeah, i know under COBRA you can buy your former company's policy at their rates for 18 months, but after that you're starting anew)
You currently have a job that covers healthcare for your family, including your spouse who has around $50k/year medical bills due to a chronic condition. You find the job boring, and have a great idea for starting a new company. Your options:
1. Stay with your boring job, keep your health insurance
2. Start your new company, become an entrepreneur, find new health insurance.
Now, under #2, how much do you think that will cost? Well, since your spouse has around $50k/year medical bills, they're likely to charge a minimum of $70k/year. Think that's going to influence your decision? Also, under #2, your former health insurer will be really, really happy. It simply makes no sense that you are required to change insurance when you change jobs. Furthermore, if your current doctor doesn't work with your new insurance company, you need to change doctors.
Whether you're starting the next Google or a taco truck, this is a major issue. People who have high family health care costs find it difficult to switch jobs.
(yeah, i know under COBRA you can buy your former company's policy at their rates for 18 months, but after that you're starting anew)
User Name: rbgos
Oct 1, 2009
+1
@WATYF:
First off - nice trick, adding VAT to income tax, makes it look a bigger contrast, because the casual reader will compare that big number to their income tax rate alone without VAT (especially as you don't mention that you've included VAT in your number)
Second - you can't simply add those numbers. To take the example of Austria (50% top rate tax, 20% VAT, apparently giving your '70%' figure) - if you've already paid 50% in income tax, you've only got 50% of your income to spend on goods and services. Even if all those goods and services are liable to VAT at 20%, you can only spend 10% of your TOTAL income on VAT. So the combined rate is 60%, not 70%.
Third - I didn't find evidence in a quick check, but all these apparently high rates of tax will be top rates - paid only by the highest earners, and only on earnings above a certain threshold. Most won't pay this rate at all, and those that do will not be paying that rate on their entire income.
I'll agree that some of these rates do look excessive (58% top rate in Denmark does seem extreme, even if it does only apply to a minority). But in the UK we manage to fund our NHS fine on much lower rates of tax, so it must be possible.
First off - nice trick, adding VAT to income tax, makes it look a bigger contrast, because the casual reader will compare that big number to their income tax rate alone without VAT (especially as you don't mention that you've included VAT in your number)
Second - you can't simply add those numbers. To take the example of Austria (50% top rate tax, 20% VAT, apparently giving your '70%' figure) - if you've already paid 50% in income tax, you've only got 50% of your income to spend on goods and services. Even if all those goods and services are liable to VAT at 20%, you can only spend 10% of your TOTAL income on VAT. So the combined rate is 60%, not 70%.
Third - I didn't find evidence in a quick check, but all these apparently high rates of tax will be top rates - paid only by the highest earners, and only on earnings above a certain threshold. Most won't pay this rate at all, and those that do will not be paying that rate on their entire income.
I'll agree that some of these rates do look excessive (58% top rate in Denmark does seem extreme, even if it does only apply to a minority). But in the UK we manage to fund our NHS fine on much lower rates of tax, so it must be possible.
User Name: WATYF
Oct 1, 2009
-1
@rbgos
You really didn't even bother to look it up? You just assumed my numbers were wrong, just because you didn't "think" they were?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_rates_of_Europe
Add Personal Income Tax VAT.
There are several in the 70% range.
WATYF
You really didn't even bother to look it up? You just assumed my numbers were wrong, just because you didn't "think" they were?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_rates_of_Europe
Add Personal Income Tax VAT.
There are several in the 70% range.
WATYF
User Name: rbgos
Oct 1, 2009
+3
"The reality is, huge taxes would be necessary to make what you're proposing even conceivable and human nature would make it infeasible (to someone who's actually using their brain). This is what we see in Europe and Canada. This is why we see supply shortages (long waits) and high taxes (in the 70%'s in some European countries)..."
WTF??? Where do you get your information from?
For the record: In the UK your first $9,656 is tax free, the next $55,680 is taxed at 20%, anything over that at 40%. There is also 11.8% National Insurance (Social Security) on earnings between about $9,000 and $55,000. VAT (equivalent to GST) is 15%, but excludes groceries, childrens clothes and some other stuff. Nothing is taxed at anything like 70%, and nor is it in any other European country that I'm aware of (apart from specific products that are highly taxed to dissuade use, i.e. tobacco, alcohol, road fuel).
There are waiting times for some non-emergency treatment, but if you don't like this you can still buy insurance, and it's MUCH cheaper than US health insurance.
But, and here's the clincher, EVERYBODY GETS THE HEALTHCARE THEY NEED, WHEN THEY NEED IT, REGARDLESS OF HOW RICH OR POOR THEY ARE. No-one is ever in a position where they won't go to a doctor because they can't afford it. Nobody goes with a condition untreated because they bought a cheapo insurance policy they didn't fully understand that doesn't cover that condition. No-one finds they can't get insurance, or insurance becomes very expensive, because of a pre-existing medical condition. In Europe this is considered a fundamental principle of life in a civilised and developed country, and is entirely beyond question. We wouldn't have it any other way.
And where do you get the idea our economies are collapsing??? We were doing just fine, thank you, at least until a bunch of American banks collapsed and brought down the world economy with them, after they traded mortgages to people who couldn't afford to pay them (probably because their health insurance was so expensive, or they'd gone broke because they had to pay for treatment they weren't insured for...).
WTF??? Where do you get your information from?
For the record: In the UK your first $9,656 is tax free, the next $55,680 is taxed at 20%, anything over that at 40%. There is also 11.8% National Insurance (Social Security) on earnings between about $9,000 and $55,000. VAT (equivalent to GST) is 15%, but excludes groceries, childrens clothes and some other stuff. Nothing is taxed at anything like 70%, and nor is it in any other European country that I'm aware of (apart from specific products that are highly taxed to dissuade use, i.e. tobacco, alcohol, road fuel).
There are waiting times for some non-emergency treatment, but if you don't like this you can still buy insurance, and it's MUCH cheaper than US health insurance.
But, and here's the clincher, EVERYBODY GETS THE HEALTHCARE THEY NEED, WHEN THEY NEED IT, REGARDLESS OF HOW RICH OR POOR THEY ARE. No-one is ever in a position where they won't go to a doctor because they can't afford it. Nobody goes with a condition untreated because they bought a cheapo insurance policy they didn't fully understand that doesn't cover that condition. No-one finds they can't get insurance, or insurance becomes very expensive, because of a pre-existing medical condition. In Europe this is considered a fundamental principle of life in a civilised and developed country, and is entirely beyond question. We wouldn't have it any other way.
And where do you get the idea our economies are collapsing??? We were doing just fine, thank you, at least until a bunch of American banks collapsed and brought down the world economy with them, after they traded mortgages to people who couldn't afford to pay them (probably because their health insurance was so expensive, or they'd gone broke because they had to pay for treatment they weren't insured for...).
User Name: tkwelge
Sep 30, 2009
0
" @ tkwelge Sep 30, 20009
the thumbs down i gave (#4) is due to the assumption that people are lazy arses who'll tolerate boring jobs even when they are finally unshackled from sub-optimal or truly intolerable employment by access to truly effective & truly accessible portable health insurance. then there's the assumption that people can only be motivated to work for $$. the further assumption is that $$ is the best compensation or even the only compensation for work."
It's not that people are lazy, it's just that they balance work with their free time, so as to maximize their quality of life. Plus, who are these people who are "shackled" to a crappy job because of health care? What makes the alternative choices "better" jobs, especially since they don't offer health care, or even the money to cover health care costs as part of its compensation? I mean, the market allocates a certain amount of compensation for certain types of labor for a reason. Offering universal health care won't make the labor force more productive. It will allow people to work in less productive jobs simply because they won't require the extra compensation to pay for their healthcare. Scott's description of labor mobility misses the point of labor markets entirely. I'm simply saying that you can't have your cake and eat it too. Universal healthcare may be the right thing to do, but it sure will have economic impacts that will probably be negative. Skewing the labor/compensation markets is one of those impacts.
the thumbs down i gave (#4) is due to the assumption that people are lazy arses who'll tolerate boring jobs even when they are finally unshackled from sub-optimal or truly intolerable employment by access to truly effective & truly accessible portable health insurance. then there's the assumption that people can only be motivated to work for $$. the further assumption is that $$ is the best compensation or even the only compensation for work."
It's not that people are lazy, it's just that they balance work with their free time, so as to maximize their quality of life. Plus, who are these people who are "shackled" to a crappy job because of health care? What makes the alternative choices "better" jobs, especially since they don't offer health care, or even the money to cover health care costs as part of its compensation? I mean, the market allocates a certain amount of compensation for certain types of labor for a reason. Offering universal health care won't make the labor force more productive. It will allow people to work in less productive jobs simply because they won't require the extra compensation to pay for their healthcare. Scott's description of labor mobility misses the point of labor markets entirely. I'm simply saying that you can't have your cake and eat it too. Universal healthcare may be the right thing to do, but it sure will have economic impacts that will probably be negative. Skewing the labor/compensation markets is one of those impacts.
User Name: ammbd
Sep 30, 2009
-1
@ tkwelge Sep 30, 20009
the thumbs down i gave (#4) is due to the assumption that people are lazy arses who'll tolerate boring jobs even when they are finally unshackled from sub-optimal or truly intolerable employment by access to truly effective & truly accessible portable health insurance. then there's the assumption that people can only be motivated to work for $$. the further assumption is that $$ is the best compensation or even the only compensation for work.
the thumbs down i gave (#4) is due to the assumption that people are lazy arses who'll tolerate boring jobs even when they are finally unshackled from sub-optimal or truly intolerable employment by access to truly effective & truly accessible portable health insurance. then there's the assumption that people can only be motivated to work for $$. the further assumption is that $$ is the best compensation or even the only compensation for work.
User Name: tkwelge
Sep 30, 2009
+1
wikipedia says:
"Including spending for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, Homeland Security, and Veteran's Affairs, defense spending was approximately $800 billion, or 32% of 2008 tax receipts"
So during war time, defense spending is 32% of tax RECEIPTS. Also, since most military spending occurs at the national level, it appears bigger than if you took it as a percentage of state and national spending. And as I said, most of this money is not going to the "military industrial complex" but to civil servants and soldiers paychecks and health benefits as well as R&D. I'm all for shrinking the cost of the military and finding ways for it to save money, but I just don't like the way that people like you say things to make it look as if the US is some sort of military dictatorship.
"Including spending for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, Homeland Security, and Veteran's Affairs, defense spending was approximately $800 billion, or 32% of 2008 tax receipts"
So during war time, defense spending is 32% of tax RECEIPTS. Also, since most military spending occurs at the national level, it appears bigger than if you took it as a percentage of state and national spending. And as I said, most of this money is not going to the "military industrial complex" but to civil servants and soldiers paychecks and health benefits as well as R&D. I'm all for shrinking the cost of the military and finding ways for it to save money, but I just don't like the way that people like you say things to make it look as if the US is some sort of military dictatorship.
User Name: tkwelge
Sep 30, 2009
0
"Bottom line, the total government expenditures on the military are more than half of the entire federal budget."
I question the validity of your numbers. I'm pretty sure that more studies are needed, and similar tricks could be used to show that we pay more for other programs. For example, most of "education" spending comes from the state level, so it appears that we don't spend that much education when you only look at the National budget. Conversely, most military spending comes from the national level, making it appear more costly as most people only really look at the national budget rather than every little state budget. Plus, in your own points, you show that most of military spending isn't bombs and tanks but personnel and benefits. If you're the kind of person who believes that the government can "create" jobs or support people's benefits, you should love the military. Also, like NASA, we benefit from lots of R&D that starts out supplying equipment for military tactics, then turns into something that makes civilian's lives more practical. It's really all perception, but I'd still like to see a real analysis of the numbers that you mentioned.
I question the validity of your numbers. I'm pretty sure that more studies are needed, and similar tricks could be used to show that we pay more for other programs. For example, most of "education" spending comes from the state level, so it appears that we don't spend that much education when you only look at the National budget. Conversely, most military spending comes from the national level, making it appear more costly as most people only really look at the national budget rather than every little state budget. Plus, in your own points, you show that most of military spending isn't bombs and tanks but personnel and benefits. If you're the kind of person who believes that the government can "create" jobs or support people's benefits, you should love the military. Also, like NASA, we benefit from lots of R&D that starts out supplying equipment for military tactics, then turns into something that makes civilian's lives more practical. It's really all perception, but I'd still like to see a real analysis of the numbers that you mentioned.
User Name: tkwelge
Sep 30, 2009
-1
I don't know why I got so many thumbs down.
Scott's argument: Universal healthcare will lead to more job mobility, because people won't be "stuck" in a job to pay for their healthcare.
My argument: That's like saying if we had universal housing, people would not be "stuck" in a job to pay for their mortgage. The truth is, that universal healthcare would make the cost of living appear artificially small, thus leading to people working less and taking lower paying jobs than they otherwise would have to take. The effect on the economy would be less people working and more people working in less productive jobs. How am I wrong!!!??? Pls tell me before you just give me three thumbs down.
Scott's argument: Universal healthcare will lead to more job mobility, because people won't be "stuck" in a job to pay for their healthcare.
My argument: That's like saying if we had universal housing, people would not be "stuck" in a job to pay for their mortgage. The truth is, that universal healthcare would make the cost of living appear artificially small, thus leading to people working less and taking lower paying jobs than they otherwise would have to take. The effect on the economy would be less people working and more people working in less productive jobs. How am I wrong!!!??? Pls tell me before you just give me three thumbs down.
User Name: webgrunt
Sep 30, 2009
0
catbert_rules Sep 28, 2009
webgrunt said:
"The US government's biggest expenditure by far is the military."
Not according to the facts.
For national defense = 616 billion
--end quote--
Catbert, you forgot the peripheral and other hidden military spending. Military pensions and benefits for retired military personnel are not counted in military spending. A lot of it is hidden under "foreign aid" as well--the military blows up a government building in Iraq, then they have to rebuild it (which costs a lot more) with foreign aid money.
I've actually seen some stats which included all salary and benefits paid to soldiers as "payouts to individuals" and not included under military spending, with the implication that "payouts to individuals" are mostly welfare benefits.
There are other ways military spending is hidden, as well. Homeland security, the "war on terror" (which itself is over $160 billion not counted in the military budget) and military payments from other government departments (estimated at $120 to $150 billion) are all part of the military even if they aren't counted. Then there's the interest on all the money borrowed to pay for the wars. Google "hidden military spending" for more info.
Bottom line, the total government expenditures on the military are more than half of the entire federal budget.
webgrunt said:
"The US government's biggest expenditure by far is the military."
Not according to the facts.
For national defense = 616 billion
--end quote--
Catbert, you forgot the peripheral and other hidden military spending. Military pensions and benefits for retired military personnel are not counted in military spending. A lot of it is hidden under "foreign aid" as well--the military blows up a government building in Iraq, then they have to rebuild it (which costs a lot more) with foreign aid money.
I've actually seen some stats which included all salary and benefits paid to soldiers as "payouts to individuals" and not included under military spending, with the implication that "payouts to individuals" are mostly welfare benefits.
There are other ways military spending is hidden, as well. Homeland security, the "war on terror" (which itself is over $160 billion not counted in the military budget) and military payments from other government departments (estimated at $120 to $150 billion) are all part of the military even if they aren't counted. Then there's the interest on all the money borrowed to pay for the wars. Google "hidden military spending" for more info.
Bottom line, the total government expenditures on the military are more than half of the entire federal budget.
User Name: WATYF
Sep 30, 2009
-2
Scott... your thought experiments are getting more and more ridiculous in their disconnect from reality. You might as well be saying, "Let's imagine a world where everything is free and everyone is a millionaire". It makes no sense.
You said, "Most of what I mentioned here is thoroughly impractical because of lobbyists, morons, bad leadership, superstition, and our addictions to unhealthy behavior."
No... most of what you mentioned is thoroughly impractical because it is economically and sociologically ignorant.
You derailed your entire thought experiment from the get-go by saying that we should assume that no taxes will be raised. That's like telling someone to go get you some milk, and then telling them not to go to the store or a cow or goat or dairy farm or anywhere else that you can actually GET MILK.
Do you think there is any scenario under which you can boost demand through the roof and boost supply through the roof without ALSO boosting costs through the roof? Did you pass economics 101? The costs necessary to keep the supply high enough to meet the demand would be enormous. And that's just the basics. The nuances make your ideas sound even more absurd.
You don't even explain how job mobility is a boost to the economy. Why? Why would no incentive to stay where I am be a benefit to my employer? And you talk about taxing cigarettes and putting warnings on bad food? Really? EVERYONE knows cigarettes kill them and still MILLIONS of people smoke them. What makes you think warnings have any effect on people when it comes to vices? And how would exercise become a matter of national pride? Because the government would deem it so? And why use taxes and warnings? Why not just outlaw everything that harms people. Make it illegal. That's the most logical/efficient way to deal with it. (more on that later).
The reality is, huge taxes would be necessary to make what you're proposing even conceivable and human nature would make it infeasible (to someone who's actually using their brain). This is what we see in Europe and Canada. This is why we see supply shortages (long waits) and high taxes (in the 70%'s in some European countries) and dropping GDP's and declining innovation and expansion. This is (one reason) why their economies are slumping (or have been slumped for years/decades) and why some of them are finally starting to pull away from this method.
For the record, your next day's post on China really demonstrates how you can think like this. If you view humans as an object to be owned by the government, then you can do with them as you wish (i.e. "whatever benefits the State"). You can control their actions and movements and decisions, and ultimately their lives. I just don't understand why you stop at a certain point. You say you're not superstitious, so you really should consider taking your views to their logical conclusion. Humans should be eliminated when they are no longer a benefit to society. Once they become a drain on the system, they should be "liquidated" (organs farmed, possessions returned to the state, etc). I'd really be interested in hearing a non-superstitious reason why this shouldn't happen.
WATYF
You said, "Most of what I mentioned here is thoroughly impractical because of lobbyists, morons, bad leadership, superstition, and our addictions to unhealthy behavior."
No... most of what you mentioned is thoroughly impractical because it is economically and sociologically ignorant.
You derailed your entire thought experiment from the get-go by saying that we should assume that no taxes will be raised. That's like telling someone to go get you some milk, and then telling them not to go to the store or a cow or goat or dairy farm or anywhere else that you can actually GET MILK.
Do you think there is any scenario under which you can boost demand through the roof and boost supply through the roof without ALSO boosting costs through the roof? Did you pass economics 101? The costs necessary to keep the supply high enough to meet the demand would be enormous. And that's just the basics. The nuances make your ideas sound even more absurd.
You don't even explain how job mobility is a boost to the economy. Why? Why would no incentive to stay where I am be a benefit to my employer? And you talk about taxing cigarettes and putting warnings on bad food? Really? EVERYONE knows cigarettes kill them and still MILLIONS of people smoke them. What makes you think warnings have any effect on people when it comes to vices? And how would exercise become a matter of national pride? Because the government would deem it so? And why use taxes and warnings? Why not just outlaw everything that harms people. Make it illegal. That's the most logical/efficient way to deal with it. (more on that later).
The reality is, huge taxes would be necessary to make what you're proposing even conceivable and human nature would make it infeasible (to someone who's actually using their brain). This is what we see in Europe and Canada. This is why we see supply shortages (long waits) and high taxes (in the 70%'s in some European countries) and dropping GDP's and declining innovation and expansion. This is (one reason) why their economies are slumping (or have been slumped for years/decades) and why some of them are finally starting to pull away from this method.
For the record, your next day's post on China really demonstrates how you can think like this. If you view humans as an object to be owned by the government, then you can do with them as you wish (i.e. "whatever benefits the State"). You can control their actions and movements and decisions, and ultimately their lives. I just don't understand why you stop at a certain point. You say you're not superstitious, so you really should consider taking your views to their logical conclusion. Humans should be eliminated when they are no longer a benefit to society. Once they become a drain on the system, they should be "liquidated" (organs farmed, possessions returned to the state, etc). I'd really be interested in hearing a non-superstitious reason why this shouldn't happen.
WATYF
User Name: Kingdinosaur
Sep 29, 2009
-4
There's an easier way to pay for universal healthcare: ship everyone who believes in universal healthcare to Canada (britian, cuba, whatever) and put land mines along the US-Canada border to prevent people from coming back. Canada foots the bill and the people who get shipped north now have prime real-estate as soon as global warming kicks in full swing.
Seriously though, if you believe that universal healthcare is so important, why not just move to an english speaking country that already has it? Why force it on people who don't want it? Freedom to choose and liberty means other people have a right to make their own decisions even if you don't like them.
Furthermore why not first try to find ways of lowering the high costs of medicine such as tort reform and innovations to reduce the cost of medicine and medical equipment, particularly for chronic illnesses.
Seriously though, if you believe that universal healthcare is so important, why not just move to an english speaking country that already has it? Why force it on people who don't want it? Freedom to choose and liberty means other people have a right to make their own decisions even if you don't like them.
Furthermore why not first try to find ways of lowering the high costs of medicine such as tort reform and innovations to reduce the cost of medicine and medical equipment, particularly for chronic illnesses.
User Name: JMaguire
Sep 29, 2009
+5
So much of the problem we face is in spending. The medical industry layered with overspending. I found an article in which 23 different medical professionals from various areas and practices were interviewed, and at least half of them, individually, commented on the gross over spending of the medical, and pharmaceutical industries.
http://www.ourblook.com/component/option,com_sectionex/Itemid,200076/id,8/view,category/#catid107
Many people are afraid of regulation, but the medical industry could certainly benefit from a good dose of regulating. And I couldn't agree more with finding a way to assimilate information and communication technologies.
http://www.ourblook.com/component/option,com_sectionex/Itemid,200076/id,8/view,category/#catid107
Many people are afraid of regulation, but the medical industry could certainly benefit from a good dose of regulating. And I couldn't agree more with finding a way to assimilate information and communication technologies.
User Name: namenotavailable
Sep 29, 2009
+1
As an outside observer its actually quite amusing to see the passion (putting it mildly) that you American's have over these issues.
Is this really that complicated?
How about this, as the supposed greatest country in the world you should be able to provide healthcare to all your citizens.
Each person, going by there social security number, gets a certain amount of free healthcare per annum. Say $500 per annum (example figure only) of free healthcare for whatever you want. (nothing fancy like rolling it over or transferring it, possibly have unused credit as a tax deduction but anything fancy leads to abuse) and if you go above that you A) either pay for it yourself or B) apply to have additional costs covered. Yes this would mean a bureaucratic decision . But is it really that hard to make the correct decision between giving more healthcare to a lifelong smoker who does this every year or to someone who hasn't gone over their allocation once and needs it because they broke their leg.
Maybe the health credits you have could build up over time so 10 years of no claims would give you $5,000.
If you wanted something more then the public optionc stop mooching and get private healthcare, ie health insurance or pay for it yourself.
Is it really this complicated?
Is this really that complicated?
How about this, as the supposed greatest country in the world you should be able to provide healthcare to all your citizens.
Each person, going by there social security number, gets a certain amount of free healthcare per annum. Say $500 per annum (example figure only) of free healthcare for whatever you want. (nothing fancy like rolling it over or transferring it, possibly have unused credit as a tax deduction but anything fancy leads to abuse) and if you go above that you A) either pay for it yourself or B) apply to have additional costs covered. Yes this would mean a bureaucratic decision . But is it really that hard to make the correct decision between giving more healthcare to a lifelong smoker who does this every year or to someone who hasn't gone over their allocation once and needs it because they broke their leg.
Maybe the health credits you have could build up over time so 10 years of no claims would give you $5,000.
If you wanted something more then the public optionc stop mooching and get private healthcare, ie health insurance or pay for it yourself.
Is it really this complicated?
User Name: tkwelge
Sep 29, 2009
-5
"A big benefit of universal healthcare insurance is job mobility. At the moment, lots of people stay at suboptimal jobs because switching jobs would mean losing healthcare for themselves or their families. That's a huge drag on economic efficiency. I suppose wages might creep up if people feel more freedom to job hop, and there would be some extra training involved for all the fresh meat, but on balance I'm guessing job mobility is a boost to the economy, and potentially a big one."
If they offered you 10 dollars an hour but no health coverage, nobody would take the job, because the return on labor would be too low for people who required 10 dollars an hour plus health coverage to live, but with universal, guaranteed health care, more people would sit in these less productive jobs, because they wouldn't need more compensation to cover health care costs. In other words, more people will sit in lower paying, less productive jobs, because they won't NEED more money. Like if the government guaranteed you healthcare, housing, and food, you'd really only need to work another 15 hours a week to pay for your entertainment. Thus less workers inputting resources and services into the economy combined with similar or higher levels of consumption. I mean, did you not thing about this for 10 minutes, Scott!?!?!?
If they offered you 10 dollars an hour but no health coverage, nobody would take the job, because the return on labor would be too low for people who required 10 dollars an hour plus health coverage to live, but with universal, guaranteed health care, more people would sit in these less productive jobs, because they wouldn't need more compensation to cover health care costs. In other words, more people will sit in lower paying, less productive jobs, because they won't NEED more money. Like if the government guaranteed you healthcare, housing, and food, you'd really only need to work another 15 hours a week to pay for your entertainment. Thus less workers inputting resources and services into the economy combined with similar or higher levels of consumption. I mean, did you not thing about this for 10 minutes, Scott!?!?!?
User Name: tkwelge
Sep 29, 2009
-2
"A big benefit of universal healthcare insurance is job mobility. At the moment, lots of people stay at suboptimal jobs because switching jobs would mean losing healthcare for themselves or their families. That's a huge drag on economic efficiency. I suppose wages might creep up if people feel more freedom to job hop, and there would be some extra training involved for all the fresh meat, but on balance I'm guessing job mobility is a boost to the economy, and potentially a big one."
If they offered you 10 dollars an hour but no health coverage, nobody would take the job, because the return on labor would be too low for people who required 10 dollars an hour plus health coverage to live, but with universal, guaranteed health care, more people would sit in these less productive jobs, because they wouldn't need more compensation to cover health care costs. In other words, more people will sit in lower paying, less productive jobs, because they won't NEED more money. Like if the government guaranteed you healthcare, housing, and food, you'd really only need to work another 15 hours a week to pay for your entertainment. Thus less workers inputting resources and services into the economy combined with similar or higher levels of consumption. I mean, did you not thing about this for 10 minutes, Scott!?!?!?
If they offered you 10 dollars an hour but no health coverage, nobody would take the job, because the return on labor would be too low for people who required 10 dollars an hour plus health coverage to live, but with universal, guaranteed health care, more people would sit in these less productive jobs, because they wouldn't need more compensation to cover health care costs. In other words, more people will sit in lower paying, less productive jobs, because they won't NEED more money. Like if the government guaranteed you healthcare, housing, and food, you'd really only need to work another 15 hours a week to pay for your entertainment. Thus less workers inputting resources and services into the economy combined with similar or higher levels of consumption. I mean, did you not thing about this for 10 minutes, Scott!?!?!?
