Obamacare cost...

[woot]

Quick interlude: The reason I still frequent this board is because I live in a left wing echo chamber. I've never been a democrat, but I have considered myself more-or-less liberal for some time. The last few years I've been feeling a pull toward the center. So I love this board because it's a place where I can get a diversity of opinions on important matters. No really. It's not always pretty, but there are a lot of really smart people on here and my views have frequently been moderated by what I've read here.

Anyway, threads like this are frustrating. I honestly don't have a strong opinion about Obamacare, but when I see VC defending it clearly and rationally, only to be rejoined with the parroting of right-wing marketing slogans, I don't know what to think. I certainly can't assume that VC must be right since he's the only one explaining an actual position, but it makes me wonder whether the conservatives responding arrived at their views honestly and willfully or whether they arrived at their views by soaking up the very bumper-sticker lines they insist on parroting to others. Perhaps this could explain why his discussion on bias in the news was met with either denial or silence -- a lot of folks don't want to admit that they actively avoid the consumption of media that might challenge their beliefs.

Doesn't it get boring having your political beliefs determined by a political party? At the very least, I'm surprised that the current trend (in some circles) of assuming everything coming from either party is bullshit hasn't caught on at all here.

[Uncle Ted]

I will say this. Obamacare is a very flawed bill. It is flawed because of what strong liberals did to it in the House, but also because it has a lot of Conservative ideas in it (intended to draw the GOP into bipartisan negotiations/compromose/participation - silly Obama, that was never going to happen). The exchange is a GOP idea straight from Heritage.

What?!? Very flawed? I thought it was a "big f'ing deal"...

How could a "big a f'ing deal" be very flawed?

And the exchange is the best part about Obamacare. It means I can get heath insurance only when I need it. Sure, I might have to pay some extra "taxes" but that is a heck of a lot cheaper than paying for health insurance all the time. Now you are telling me that was a republican idea?!? Republicans don't come up with good ideas.

[imanihonjin]

I will say this. Obamacare is a very flawed bill. It is flawed because of what strong liberals did to it in the House, but also because it has a lot of Conservative ideas in it (intended to draw the GOP into bipartisan negotiations/compromose/participation - silly Obama, that was never going to happen). The exchange is a GOP idea straight from Heritage.

What the...how the....are you serious? They didn't include anything for republicans. In case you forgot democrats pushed this thing through without any republican support and they didn't need republican support. No republican republican even voted for the stupid bill, so if the dems were trying to placate the republicans and none voted for the bill how in the world can anything that is in the bill be blamed on republicans. You are a strange creature VC....perhaps the potatoes in Rexburg need to be examined.

[Eddie]

Quick interlude: The reason I still frequent this board is because I live in a left wing echo chamber. I've never been a democrat, but I have considered myself more-or-less liberal for some time. The last few years I've been feeling a pull toward the center. So I love this board because it's a place where I can get a diversity of opinions on important matters. No really. It's not always pretty, but there are a lot of really smart people on here and my views have frequently been moderated by what I've read here.

Anyway, threads like this are frustrating. I honestly don't have a strong opinion about Obamacare, but when I see VC defending it clearly and rationally, only to be rejoined with the parroting of right-wing marketing slogans, I don't know what to think. I certainly can't assume that VC must be right since he's the only one explaining an actual position, but it makes me wonder whether the conservatives responding arrived at their views honestly and willfully or whether they arrived at their views by soaking up the very bumper-sticker lines they insist on parroting to others. Perhaps this could explain why his discussion on bias in the news was met with either denial or silence -- a lot of folks don't want to admit that they actively avoid the consumption of media that might challenge their beliefs.

Doesn't it get boring having your political beliefs determined by a political party? At the very least, I'm surprised that the current trend (in some circles) of assuming everything coming from either party is bullshit hasn't caught on at all here.

I get what you're saying. I hope I don't come across as someone parroting either party's lines.

The vast majority of my participation in this thread has simply been to state that anecdotally I know of a number of businesses that have cut employee hours to keep them below the minimum for requiring health insurance. While having some kind of medical care for people is probably a good thing. I don't think this is working out quite as was planned. I still stew about Pelosi telling us that we needed to pass the dumb bill in order to see what was in it (seriously - is that her approach with all bills? "Hey - here's another one. Let's sign it into law and see what it is!")

I find myself mostly as you describe - fairly moderate. But coming to center from the other direction. And in all reality I don't trust either political party at this point. I think they are both MUCH more interested in getting into power and staying there than they are in actually doing anything to improve life for the American people.

[Goatnapper'96]

Not really. That is not the argument. Actually, I could use your argument to support my point. So American worker productivity is up and has been going up for years (I could add a nice graph of this if you like). Wages have been in decline since the late 1970s. Now the Health Insurance many workers, putting in those 10 hours and not the 8, is being called "elitist" and "excessive." All in a period when corporate profits are nearing record levels in many cases (something someone else here falsely denied).

What is the incentive to keep working at all if you are like most hard-working Americans? Maybe those workers will just go on welfare, it is better than getting screwed over in their productive work. The American system works when it incentivizes workers - to want to do more and related when the resulting economic gaps aren't too large. This is what Thomas Paine argued back in the day (the part of Paine's argument that Glenn Beck conveniently ignores), it is what deTocqueville saw in the 1820s in comparing America to Europe (his summary argument, with which he opens - there was a "general economic equality..."). It is what Roosevelt fixed after the Guilded Age which is the foundation of a lot of the economic and global success of the US in the 20th Century. It is even what a gun-regulating, Social Security/Medicare fixing, greater taxes on higher incomes, Russian enemy talking, Republican President understood in many ways in the 1980s. You may know him, his name was Reagan.

Today, as I said above, we have a revisionist and very perverse view on these things. I do agree that we should incentive work even more, health care access/insurance is a great place to start, and then lets talk wages for that productive work.

The people responsible for the productivity increases have higher wages. The fact of the matter is that the middle middle class is going away. Liberals point to this and claim that the good jobs for the hardest working Americans have been lost to corporate dividends yaddayaddayadda. The fact of the matter is that the middle class still comprises the same % of the US economic class as it always had. It gets the same % of GDP that it always has. However, the center of the middle class has gone away, or is going away. However, that portion has migrated either to the upper middle class or the lower middle class in equal %s. I dispute your notion that those responsible for productivity gains are not being fairly or justly compensated. Those that are learning to leverage technology are moving ahead and those who are not are falling behind, but lets not pretend that there are insurmountable challenges in front of those middle class workers that are not moving up, unless I have significant more faith in the ability of most humans than you.

As far as the health care bill it is flawed because it fails to properly address what is driving health insurance through the roof- the actuall cost of health care. It seeks to only attempt to increase coverage - a worthwhile goal. It does so at the expense of employment opportunities - a bad idea driven by those fixiated on their endstate of increasing coverage. It will make a bigger mess of an already big mess.

[imanihonjin]

Quick interlude: The reason I still frequent this board is because I live in a left wing echo chamber. I've never been a democrat, but I have considered myself more-or-less liberal for some time. The last few years I've been feeling a pull toward the center. So I love this board because it's a place where I can get a diversity of opinions on important matters. No really. It's not always pretty, but there are a lot of really smart people on here and my views have frequently been moderated by what I've read here.

Anyway, threads like this are frustrating. I honestly don't have a strong opinion about Obamacare, but when I see VC defending it clearly and rationally, only to be rejoined with the parroting of right-wing marketing slogans, I don't know what to think. I certainly can't assume that VC must be right since he's the only one explaining an actual position, but it makes me wonder whether the conservatives responding arrived at their views honestly and willfully or whether they arrived at their views by soaking up the very bumper-sticker lines they insist on parroting to others. Perhaps this could explain why his discussion on bias in the news was met with either denial or silence -- a lot of folks don't want to admit that they actively avoid the consumption of media that might challenge their beliefs.

Doesn't it get boring having your political beliefs determined by a political party? At the very least, I'm surprised that the current trend (in some circles) of assuming everything coming from either party is bullshit hasn't caught on at all here.

I am not exactly sure what you are talking about....VC just calls stuff slimy, ideological, and then spouts some crap about the income gap being higher now than it ever has. He isn't adding a thing or defending anything any more than any of the other mindless drivel that occurs on this board day in or day out.

[VirginiaCougar]

The people responsible for the productivity increases have higher wages. The fact of the matter is that the middle middle class is going away. Liberals point to this and claim that the good jobs for the hardest working Americans have been lost to corporate dividends yaddayaddayadda. The fact of the matter is that the middle class still comprises the same % of the US economic class as it always had. It gets the same % of GDP that it always has. However, the center of the middle class has gone away, or is going away. However, that portion has migrated either to the upper middle class or the lower middle class in equal %s. I dispute your notion that those responsible for productivity gains are not being fairly or justly compensated. Those that are learning to leverage technology are moving ahead and those who are not are falling behind, but lets not pretend that there are insurmountable challenges in front of those middle class workers that are not moving up, unless I have significant more faith in the ability of most humans than you.

As far as the health care bill it is flawed because it fails to properly address what is driving health insurance through the roof- the actuall cost of health care. It seeks to only attempt to increase coverage - a worthwhile goal. It does so at the expense of employment opportunities - a bad idea driven by those fixiated on their endstate of increasing coverage. It will make a bigger mess of an already big mess.

I agree with a few of the things you state, and strongly disagree with others. The data shows the decline of the middle class overall. Its pretty clear and not as you state:





I also find pretty immoral the argument that tries to separate the increased productivity from those who actually provided the productivity. It is a very slippery slope to start talking about those supposedly "responsible" for the productivity and those who actually did it. I do not see a moral, philosophical, or more important economic justification to support that argument.

I think the earlier numbers below for CEO vs. average worker pay make sense and are reasonable. The latter numbers are unjustifiable nor supportable, I would argue. I do find it interesting that the trends in wages, inequality, and these CEO numbers all have fairly similar tragectories.



If you shave off the top 10%, the remaining 90% of Americans have an average salary of only 30K - think about that for a bit. 90 percent of us. That isn't the model of American success throughout our history. Bottom line is that historically, America has done better when income is more equally distributed, when there are benefits like health care, etc. It even benefits the wealthy more, something that you guys tend to forget.

Where I do agree with you is that Obamacare does address access but not costs very well. It is a flaw. There are some cost measures in the legislation, but it isn't its primary function, which is problematic. The primary reason for that is that the real cause of decades of cost increases are caused by the larger market elements of our health care system and fundamental inelasticity within it. If Republicans pitched a fit over their own ideas on access being applied in Obamacare, it would be the apocalypse to deal with the real cause of the cost increases. I suspect we will of necessity be forced there - hopefully it is before it bankrupts us all.

[imanihonjin]

I agree with a few of the things you state, and strongly disagree with others. The data shows the decline of the middle class overall. Its pretty clear and not as you state:






I also find pretty immoral the argument that tries to separate the increased productivity from those who actually provided the productivity. It is a very slippery slope to start talking about those supposedly "responsible" for the productivity and those who actually did it. I do not see a moral, philosophical, or more important economic justification to support that argument.

I think the earlier numbers below for CEO vs. average worker pay make sense and are reasonable. The latter numbers are unjustifiable nor supportable, I would argue. I do find it interesting that the trends in wages, inequality, and these CEO numbers all have fairly similar tragectories.



If you shave off the top 10%, the remaining 90% of Americans have an average salary of only 30K - think about that for a bit. 90 percent of us. That isn't the model of American success throughout our history. Bottom line is that historically, America has done better when income is more equally distributed, when there are benefits like health care, etc. It even benefits the wealthy more, something that you guys tend to forget.

Where I do agree with you is that Obamacare does address access but not costs very well. It is a flaw. There are some cost measures in the legislation, but it isn't its primary function, which is problematic. The primary reason for that is that the real cause of decades of cost increases are caused by the larger market elements of our health care system and fundamental inelasticity within it. If Republicans pitched a fit over their own ideas on access being applied in Obamacare, it would be the apocalypse to deal with the real cause of the cost increases. I suspect we will of necessity be forced there - hopefully it is before it bankrupts us all.

Again I love how the problems in the bill all come back to the idea that somehow the Republicans are to blame. Never mind the fact that not one republican voted for the bill. One would think that Democrats should own this bill for all of its positives and negatives.

I also love the pretty graphs that do nothing to explain the causation of the pretty pictures presented. Relying on correlation alone to draw conclusions about causation is a dangerous exercise.

Lastly, you state that when income is more equally distributed it benefits the wealthy more....what a strange statement and contradicts the picture you and others paint of the selfish greedy CEOs and wall street types. If redistribution benefits the wealthy more then why in the world wouldn't they hand over 100% of their paycheck to get that bigger distribution you promise?

[snowcat]

Bottom line is that historically, America has done better when income is more equally distributed,...

or, perhaps income is more evenly distributed when America does better. Correlation? Causation?

I employee both skilled and unskilled labor. I pay well above minimum wage for entry level unskilled labor. Why, because the labor market in area requires a higher rate to get the kind of employees I desire. I increase pay regularly as a means of incentive and retention. Why, because the cost to hire and train new employees outweighs the cost of higher wages.

In my experience improving the economy leads to improving wages, not the other way around.

[Omaha 680]

I agree with a few of the things you state, and strongly disagree with others. The data shows the decline of the middle class overall. Its pretty clear and not as you state:

I also find pretty immoral the argument that tries to separate the increased productivity from those who actually provided the productivity. It is a very slippery slope to start talking about those supposedly "responsible" for the productivity and those who actually did it. I do not see a moral, philosophical, or more important economic justification to support that argument.

I think the earlier numbers below for CEO vs. average worker pay make sense and are reasonable. The latter numbers are unjustifiable nor supportable, I would argue. I do find it interesting that the trends in wages, inequality, and these CEO numbers all have fairly similar tragectories.

If you shave off the top 10%, the remaining 90% of Americans have an average salary of only 30K - think about that for a bit. 90 percent of us. That isn't the model of American success throughout our history. Bottom line is that historically, America has done better when income is more equally distributed, when there are benefits like health care, etc. It even benefits the wealthy more, something that you guys tend to forget.

Where I do agree with you is that Obamacare does address access but not costs very well. It is a flaw. There are some cost measures in the legislation, but it isn't its primary function, which is problematic. The primary reason for that is that the real cause of decades of cost increases are caused by the larger market elements of our health care system and fundamental inelasticity within it. If Republicans pitched a fit over their own ideas on access being applied in Obamacare, it would be the apocalypse to deal with the real cause of the cost increases. I suspect we will of necessity be forced there - hopefully it is before it bankrupts us all.

Over the past couple of weeks you have written long screeds on minimum wage and now income equality. This explains a lot to me about your view of economics and wealth creation in general.

[imanihonjin]

Over the past couple of weeks you have written long screeds on minimum wage and now income equality. This explains a lot to me about your view of economics and wealth creation in general.

But, but, but Thomas Paine and de Tocqueville.

[il Padrino Ute]

Yeah...me too. I work for an organization that survives based on government contracts. Three years ago our contract amount was cut, but our expected output was not. It's been at least that long since anyone has had a raise, and benefits have been cut to make up the difference from increasing costs elsewhere. Don't tell me business profits are up. I haven't seen it.

Very few of the people I work with and none of the people I supervise make 43k or more a year. Yet the are having benefits cut too.

I agree with whoever said that whatever laws are passed should be honored by all. With few exceptions. Health care is not an example of something I believe should be one of those exceptions. So they realize it sucks enough that they want no part of it, but still think it so great that we should all be required to participate?

B.S.

Why should anyone in government jobs be given exceptions? They're allegedly working for the people.

[beefytee]

I love this graph! Nothing like scaling it to the top 1% to make the other lines look flat. So much useful data there!

[ERCougar]

Insured white males in suburban neighborhoods get worse medical care.

Cardiac has been hitting this point for a while and I agree with him that there are segments of healthcare where third-party paying does not lead to better healthcare (emergency services being a glaring exception ). When you base an electrician's pay on how many outlets he can install, you shouldn't be surprised to see a lot more outlets than you need.

[statman]

I've always known that costs'of drugs in the US was on the high side, but last week I had a real Eye-opener. I was up in Victoria, BC on business, and on a whim, I asked at a local Walmart Pharmacy how my insulin and other diabetes supplies would cost (my son has type 1). He uses Humalog in a pump, so I asked for the cost of all that stuff, as well as about the cost of Lantus, the longer acting insulin he used to take as a basal dose. what I found out was kinda ugly. across the board, we pay more here (out of pocket) with insurance than it would cost up there without. About twice as much. And that goes for the Humalog and Lantus as well as all the testing and pump supplies. And none of it requires a script up there, so there's no $250 bill for the endocrinologist every three months. Apparently endocrinologists up there monitor patients blood sugar using the wireless functionality built into pumps and monitors. You make sure the data is up to date from your hardware, tell your PC to send the info to your endocrinologist, and they get a small fee each month for monitoring your blood sugar levels, testing compliance and dosing regemine. They need to see you only annually if all those things are in check. For those who have their blood sugar under control, it seems like a pretty smart way to go,,,