The 8 biggest economic lies

[Mav88]

medicare is one of the most popular programs the government runs. after having 4 parents go through it i can say it works very well. it needs to be reformed to make it more cost effective but not destroyed. it should be means tested. something should be done about the huge cost of end of life care where huge expense is incured for a futile attempt to keep a terminal person alive. those things are easily fixable if those dam republicans would stop screaming "death panels" at any hint of someone making a decision to stop treatment.

"one of the most popular programs" wtf thinker, there are only 3 major entitlement programs ... run a thought experiment- Let's say I declare a program that gov't will pay for your lunch, how popular do you think that might be? How about I simply offer that the gov't write everyone a $500K check, think that would be popular? Hey Socrates, no shit it's popular . The question is not whether it is popular, it is whether it is moral and sustainable. My point about Reich is that the left will not even question those points, hence the absolutely assinine sophistry about costs.

Do you understand we are all terminally ill? If not heart transplant at 80, how about none at 70? How about no full code at all over 70? Think about it, it is completely aribitrary yet liberals keep insisting on medicine for all as a right that is self obvious. You will suffer some and you will die, I guarantee it and Robby Reich's programs cannot save you.

I do agree that death panel scares were stupid. Death panels have existed since we walked the earth, they used to be called families.

as to medicare price setting. it does exactly the same thing as every insurance company does. it sets a rate its thinks fair and offers it out. doctors are free to decline if they feel they can do better without medicare. completely voluntary.
insurance companies do the exact same thing. i have blue cross. there are many doctors who are not in the blue cross network because they refuse to accept the rate blue cross will pay. if you use those doctors you have to pay the difference. exactly like medicare.
you just seem to have a thing about anything government. i suspect too much time listening to glen beck types?

Medicare does not do the same thing as private insurance, which pays more on average for a given service for one thing. Medicare does not decide what is 'fair', you are seriously lacking in education on that. Medicare simply performs rationing based upon their budget, it's all bean counting. As a 'thinker' you should know that 'fair' is an unworkable concept in the real world anyway, you are showing your immaturity by your lack of sophistication.

You seem to think that any entitlement program, no matter how economically disasterous and immoral, is just a great idea. You must be spending too much time listening to the Robert Reich types. I would think someone calling themselves 'free thinker' would at least not parrot the ideas of small minded people like Reich.

 

[Lucrum]

So far I'm still with Mav88 on this one...

 

[Mav88]

Two excellent points in my opinion. Re the first, is it Oregon that allows physician assisted, planned death for terminally ill patients, at the patients direction of course? This is available in the Netherlands also, as far as I'm aware. What a great help that would be to many who are dying in pain and just want to end their lives peacefully. I believe this is a fundamental right that all of us should enjoy, but sadly don't.

Small fraction of people want suicide...but if you want to save money by not treating terminally ill in the final stages by offering them a quick and easy death -whatever that is, then you must agree that we should also not treat all prisoners, illegals, children of illegals, fetal alcohol syndrome babies, smokers, fat asses, alcoholics, drug addicts, and people over 85.

On the second point, many insured by the Blues are unaware that the Blues (supposedly non-profit!!!) negotiate discounted rates with both physicians and hospitals, and this is the reason for the different payout "in network" and "out of network".

Unfortunately the way this was implemented was fraudulent, and may still be in some states. The blues were basing patient billing on the non-discounted charge and not revealing to patients that the actual charges were less. Thus the patient was billed for 20% of the non-discounted charge when 20% of the actual charge would have been less. Significantly less in some cases. The Blues were sued in many States and lost every suit. However because insurance is exempt, by long standing Federal law, from anti-trust, and restraint of trade regs and other Department of Commerce regulation, they had to be sued in each State separately. I'm not sure that all States pursued them. Perhaps someone here knows.

You mean that some insurance company acted badly? No way, Gee I guess that makes it all ok for the gov't to bankrupt us into poverty with social welfare.

Do you really need anecdotes about how terrible government can be? Really? are you that damned niave?

In fairness, I should point out that most policies allow for regular reimbursement rates on out of network services in emergencies and in non-emergency situations where an equivalent treatment is not available in network, so long as the out of network service is pre-approved. Some companies require that any non-emergency hospitalization be pre-approved or they will not reimburse the full amount. Even in emergency admissions, some require that approval be obtained within a fixed number of hours after admission, or the reimbursement rate is decreased. There are seemingly endless hurdles to receiving full reimbursement in much of the health insurance industry. Many are living the nightmare that is the U.S. medical services delivery system everyday of their lives. These insurance hurdles are a huge annoyance to physicians as well.

...and yes there are no hurdles with government and all runs so much better. Anecdotally I have had both private and public health insurance when I was in the military. The bureaucratic problems and quality were much worse in the government system in my experience. Couple that with no choice and less recourse for incompetance and you get a very inferior product.

 

[Free Thinker]

Quote from Mav88:

"one of the most popular programs" wtf thinker, there are only 3 major entitlement programs ... run a thought experiment- Let's say I declare a program that gov't will pay for your lunch, how popular do you think that might be? How about I simply offer that the gov't write everyone a $500K check, think that would be popular? Hey Socrates, no shit it's popular . The question is not whether it is popular, it is whether it is moral and sustainable. My point about Reich is that the left will not even question those points, hence the absolutely assinine sophistry about costs.

Do you understand we are all terminally ill? If not heart transplant at 80, how about none at 70? How about no full code at all over 70? Think about it, it is completely aribitrary yet liberals keep insisting on medicine for all as a right that is self obvious. You will suffer some and you will die, I guarantee it and Robby Reich's programs cannot save you.

I do agree that death panel scares were stupid. Death panels have existed since we walked the earth, they used to be called families.




Medicare does not do the same thing as private insurance, which pays more on average for a given service for one thing. Medicare does not decide what is 'fair', you are seriously lacking in education on that. Medicare simply performs rationing based upon their budget, it's all bean counting. As a 'thinker' you should know that 'fair' is an unworkable concept in the real world anyway, you are showing your immaturity by your lack of sophistication.

You seem to think that any entitlement program, no matter how economically disasterous and immoral, is just a great idea. You must be spending too much time listening to the Robert Reich types. I would think someone calling themselves 'free thinker' would at least not parrot the ideas of small minded people like Reich.

boy you sure are a dumb ass for being such a smart ass. what are you 20 years old?
your rantings are so convoluted i will just touch on a few of your points.
1. the government runs hundreds of "programs"
2. so taking care of our poor elderly is immoral now?
3. we are all terminally ill. how quaint a concept.
4. on one hand you say let them all die theo you complain because sombody might make a decision to stop treatment. try thinking before you speak.
5. medicare tries to set a fair price.doctors are free to take it or leave it. if no doctors accepted that price what would happen? if medicare gets all of the procedure done with the number of doctors that accept that rate what is that signaling the market? such a simple concept for thinking people. why so hard for you?

 

[bigarrow]

Quote from Lucrum:

So far I'm still with Mav88 on this one...

Why, all he does is blabbering. A lot of talk with almost no substance. Kind of like Herman Cain talking about his 999 tax plan.

 

[Covertibility]

Quote from Eight:

Reich is a pos... from the article:

" 3. Shrinking government generates more jobs. Wrong again. It means fewer government workers – everyone from teachers, fire fighters, police officers, and social workers at the state and local levels to safety inspectors and military personnel at the federal. And fewer government contractors, who would employ fewer private-sector workers. According to Moody’s economist Mark Zandi (a campaign advisor to John McCain), the $61 billion in spending cuts proposed by the House GOP will cost the economy 700,000 jobs this year and next. "

He does not admit to the notion that public sector jobs are paid for by the private sector and that if there are too many public sector jobs there won't be private sector tax payments to fund it all [as is the current situation with the US public sector]...

Our current POTUS is of the same mindset.. they must believe in the Credit Fairy or something. For my entire life Liberals have remained in fantasyland with regard to how their programs are to be funded...

He's talking about running austerity programs. If ya continue to outsource private jobs, then yes, funding will be a problem.

 

[Mav88]

boy you sure are a dumb ass for being such a smart ass. what are you 20 years old?

Thanks, I always thought I looked younger than my age

your rantings are so convoluted

too complicated for the thinker I see

i will just touch on a few of your points.

you always just 'touch' topics

1. the government runs hundreds of "programs"

irrelevent to what I said

2. so taking care of our poor elderly is immoral now?

You said " ...something should be done about the huge cost of end of life care where huge expense is incured for a futile attempt to keep a terminal person alive"
Why you goddamn Hitler clone

3. we are all terminally ill. how quaint a concept.

Happens to be true for anyone older than 19, your body is decaying into the death state right now. Oh wait, did I assume too much about your age?

4. on one hand you say let them all die theo you complain because sombody might make a decision to stop treatment. try thinking before you speak.

"They" all die no matter what I do because nature made humans mortal, but I never made any statement to that effect. At least read before you post, I've given up asking you to think much.

5. medicare tries to set a fair price.

No, they do not, they simply set a price based upon what their budget says they can spend and if they think they can get enough doctors to perform whatever. Fair has nothing to do with it, cost is all that matters.

doctors are free to take it or leave it. if no doctors accepted that price what would happen?

Then the patient will not receive treatment- duh

if medicare gets all of the procedure done with the number of doctors that accept that rate what is that signaling the market?

special pleading at its finest! welcome to liberaland folks- where government programs meet your every need, where nobody has to feel guilty, nobody hurts, everyone gets cash and we are all the same.... {start the john lennon}

 

[piezoe]

Mav, take a valium and chill for a while.

 

[Random.Capital]

Quote from Mav88:


Reich's position is that Medicare and Medicaid are not major drivers of the budget deficit, even though their numbers say otherwise...

The numbers absolutely do not say otherwise. Both SS and Medicare have, for almost all of the past 30 years, run surpluses.

That the surpluses were blown on other things is a condemnation of general fiscal policy, not Medicare.

 

[MKTrader]

Wow, some fallacies and bad assumptions here...but hey, this is ET.

As for Medicare having a lower admin cost and being more efficient, not so fast. By law, Medicare patients are the elderly and disabled. Private insurance only has a small % of these patients. So we're already in major apple/orange territory. Sure, Medicare can play accounting tricks and spread their administrative costs over their huge base of actual health care costs. However, if you break it down to cost-per-person, they're more expensive that private plans.

As for the bigger picture, we have nothing even close to a free market in health care. The whole employer-provided health care is just another bad idea from the FDR era. There's very little price discipline. Just pay your little $35 co-pay and don't worry that the doc down the street charges twice what an M.D. six blocks away does. But we all pay for these inefficiencies.

There are also a ridiculous number of regulations that strangle the system. I have a friend completing a Ph.D. in economics (one of the few who isn't a brainwashed Keynesiot), and he can rattle off dozens of absurd medical regs from memory. In some cases, bureaucrats have created completely arbitrary rules that "feel" good but make an utter mess of the system. In other cases, regulators get duped by special interest groups, just like on Wall St. This will only get worse as we add to the army of regulations/regulators.

As for doctors simply refusing Medicare, yeah, some do. However, this can only go so far in the system we have right now. It's really a cop-out to doctors "just don't accept Medicare" on a really large scale.

There are a few examples of relatively free market in medical care. Lasik is one. It's not covered by insurance--you pay out of pocket--and not as heavily regulated as many procedures. As a result, the price has fallen since the 1990s while the technology has improved.