Thanks for chiming in! Your response clarifies a lot of things, and helps reassure participants.

I must be a nice guy?? You must be a load of fun at parties, I bet the neighbors love you.

That is funny. A difference of opinion based on personal experience and I am a douchebag???

I don't dispute that there is profiteering on every level of the health care system. Here is a dirty fact you may want to pull on some big boy pants and try and digest...

Insurance companies are in the business of MAKING MONEY. Right or wrong that is what a for profit business is supposed to do.

I don't know what stats you have nor do I care to read them. I am sure that they are at least somewhat valid. However health care costs what it costs. I have friends and family in Canada, England, Ireland and a few other countries with the idealized NIH model system and let me tell you it has some advantages over what we have.

#1 YOU HAVE COVERAGE. No matter what happens, employed or unemployed you have a health care infrastructure that will be there. AND you will not go broke or loose your house if an unexpected catastrophic injury or illness befalls you.

AND that is where everyone runs out of good things to say.

These systems are universal and total. What the proponents of them fail to realize is that they are universally lacking in health care options and totally under funded and lacking what is needed to serve the people in timely manner.

OH and just like the USA, all the government officials who oversee them and write them in to law and sell them as a great idea. They DON"T USE THEM. NOT ONE person who wrote in to law Obama care is using it.
Just like in Canada when the elite of that country, including a MP who needed surgery he WENT TO AMERICA and paid for it.

http://news.heartland.org/...ooses-us-health-care

ALSO these health care systems are far from free. Check out the tax rates.

Anyway, I will agree to respectfully disagree with your assessment.

Back to triathlon stuff.........

Sorry you did not comprehend what I wrote. I simple pointed out that these two industries were already highly regulated, yet still experienced a market failure. Society turns to these very same regulators and asks them for help. This is the exact same pattern since 1913. You said it yourself "regulations that came in response to said issues". It's a rinse and repeat.

I currently consult banks to make sure they are compliant with all said regulations. Many of the pre-recession regulations could have helped ease the severity of the recession. But those regulations were not enforced. They were known as 'glazed regulations'. We glazed over them. The Frank-Dodd act is pretty much a joke. It's comical I get paid to help train bank compliance departments. It's a paper regulation and in 10 years it will be a glazed regulations. However, community banks will take it up the tailpipe. If you're a tin-hat type person, Frank-Dodd could have been designed to hurt community banks to help consolidate the bigger banks. That's out there as well, but since the impact of FD hasn't been felt yet, many are watching this part closely.

The recession was caused by many factors: failed regulation, greedy homeowners and the incompetent Fed. There was also some unethical behaviors in the derivatives market, which could have been prevented if Brooksley Born had her way. I know a lot of people blame Bush for the recession, but that's just political bias speaking. Bush's policies were such a small factor. Expansionary fiscal policy direct at households have almost no teeth. Much like the recession, healthcare has many factors the cause the prices to increase: burden on regulation, tort law, tax exempt premiums, etc.

Healthcare and student loans have something in common: Government policies have removed all price sensitivity. When there is no price sensitivity, providers are free to charge what they want. In a class of 150 students, I had 1 student that new what he paid per credit hour. The patient only cares about deductible and the student only cares about the loan. Until this changes, costs will continue to increase in both industries. I don't blame healthcare providers or universities for increasing costs. I'd do the same thing. These places have no social responsibility to keep prices down. Removing price sensitivity also removes the choke collar on prices. Choke collar being competition.

There were better options to try before taking steps toward socializing our healthcare. I would have preferred true reform. Bring back price sensitivity (tort reform, remove tax exempt, open borders, etc). All ACA does is takes from one and gives to another. When this happens, you can't say society is better off.

Edit: I'm speaking from an economics perspective not a social perspective. I'm also not approaching this from a political perspective. I view both parties, and their followers, as cancer to our country.

---

_________________________________
The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design.

hahahahahahahhahahahahahaha, how cute

in other news, will you adopt me?! :-D

---

36 kona qualifiers 2006-'23 - 3 Kona Podiums - 4 OA IM AG wins - 5 IM AG wins - 18 70.3 AG wins
I ka nana no a 'ike -- by observing, one learns | Kulia i ka nu'u -- strive for excellence
Garmin Glycogen Use App | Garmin Fat Use App

Shoulda hooked a brotha up with sum band aids!!!

Why the fuck do we have a profit motive in the provision of health care? And why do you seem to accept it just as the way things have to be.


It's like me saying, "Right or wrong, bank robbers are in the business of grabbing money." So? What's your point? That that's acceptable?


Or can you imagine if we only had private security companies in the US and no police or army. Would you just say "Right or wrong, the police are in the business to make money"?


Or roads? "Right or wrong, the point of road builders is to make money. Duh."


Or basic education? "Right or wrong, the point of an elementary school is to make money!"




On the most fundamental measure: overall quality of health care as measured by general health outcomes, they outperform the US. Yes they lack options that very fortunate people in the US have so wealthy and powerful people will still come to our country.


But overall, they:
+ Outperform us in quality of outcomes
+ Are significantly cheaper
+ Drive fewer people to bankruptcy
+ Allow more flexibility in the labor market by disconnecting health care from specific employment, which helps works and small businesses. It's even good for the housing market by allowing people to move more easily.




But they're paid for with taxes. Ohhh, oooo, nooo. Omigod. At least we've got FREEDOM from higher taxes here in the US. We just pay insurance companies instead. Or go bankrupt in order to not die if we get cancer or have a serious accident.




And this is beyond stupid. Healthcare costs in the US are higher due to multiple actors in the system pushing costs on each other, which adds administrative costs. They are higher because we have multiple payers and total lack of transparency, which allows massive price gauging. You're said that yourself in regards to profiteering.


Those are the two core reasons healthcare costs per capita are so much higher than the the US.


If we had a single payer (the government) they could and would negotiate better prices with provides.


Oh, and thanks for pulling out the news about wealth/powerful people from other countries coming to the US for health care. A far more telling question would be to ask if regular (middle and lower-class) people from the US would willingly go to the UK or Canada for healthcare if they could be treated as citizens there. I think you know the answer to that.

---

http://www.jt10000.com/

Well said. You touched on all the points that sprang to mind for me.

I'd just leave it though to be honest. I realised as soon as I read his post this morning that I was banging my head against a brick wall and din't bother to reply.
You may as well explain it to your dog.

This is a first world sport, indulged in by first world people and read about by first world sport supporters.
(Like skiing, equestrian and F1)
So what are you doing here.
Go suck a lemon.

I'm not trying to single you out at all here. My comment is a blanket statement. The topic here is very sensitive to people. Some view the economics as irrelevant. That there is a social responsibility to provide healthcare. Others view it just the opposite.

My economics field is monetary policy and fiscal policy. My dissertation was on the business cycles. With that said, My secondary position is healthcare economics. Here's the problem with healthcare economics: nobody understands it. A lot of the stuff you mentioned in your quote is false information. Especially the outcomes, cheapers, etc. These points of arguments are common. What's interesting, when I've participated in formal debates on healthcare economics, the points you made NEVER get brought up. There are too many holes in them for an economist to use them as a foundation for their debate. I understand why you listed them. I understand why you believe them. I don't expect Joe Average American to research a field as complex as this. Thus you put a lot of weight into media reports.

Here's what I tell my students: I don't care if you agree or disagree with my viewpoint on economic policies. What I do care about is that you apply critical thinking to your position. When you read an article or see something on Facebook the first thing I want you to look for is the source. The second thing I want you to do is search for an article that counters the statement. Take in both sides, think about it and then make a decision.

---

_________________________________
The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design.

You're hanging out with the wrong economists or looking at the issue too narrowly. Which isn't surprising considering how wrong you are.


Spending http://www.oecd.org/...in-united-states.htm
Detail http://www.oecd.org/...ITED-STATES-2014.pdf


Example of an ecnomist writing about health care costs - government single payer vs private insurance
http://www.cbpp.org/research/comparing-public-and-private-health-insurance-for-children


These are legion. I know the chair of the CBPP. I've used data from the OECD for years. But thanks for the diss that the source of my info is Facebook. What's the source of yours? Assuming you're being truthful here, I'd be embarrassed if I was an economist and held your position on this topic.

---

http://www.jt10000.com/

I don't disagree with you on what people "should" get or what we all "deserve" And sadly people rarely get what they deserve.

I am just stating my perspective on the reality of how the system works. I am not saying people should not get health care in America. I just want someone to tell me how it can actually work in the manner that you want it to.

If you want to talk about the economics of an industry (healthcare) lets leave the ridiculous comparisons out like bank robbery. It is not illegal to perform health care services anywhere for profit. Robbing a bank is illegal everywhere.

You make a more realistic comparison regarding police protection and road infrastructure and basic education. Now I can get on the same page.

Guess what??? If you have an emergency and dial 911 in Greenwich Connecticut you will get help in probably under 3 minutes. If you live there and pay the HUGE property taxes your kids will be able to attend a well funded safe public school. AND if you drive through the area I think you find the roads and public infrastructure not lacking either.

Dial 911 in Baltimore right now, send your kid to a school in Slidell Louisiana or take a drive on a road in rural Maine and your mileage will vary greatly. Do people in Baltimore not deserve competent police?? Shouldn't children in every public school in the richest county in the world have the opportunity at a good education??? AND why when I drive on I 55 or I 10 and the minute I cross into Louisiana the SAME HIGHWAY turns from a first world interstate to a road resembling something in Iraq that has been strafed??

The contractors that bid to do road maintenance are out there doing what they do to make a profit BUT how often the road is maintained is based on the amount of money available in the tax base.
I know police departments and school do not make a profit. BUT the quality you get from either is directly proportional to the available tax base.

So once again right or wrong you DO have a "pay as you go system" for all the aforementioned systems you mentioned.

Fine, you got me there. I mis-used a single adjective and you rightfully called me out. But yet you conveniently left unaddressed my point as to why it's not a free market that you seem to cherish so much. You have not addressed how the laws are written the way they are written nor how laws are enforced the way they are enforced.

As you surely have noted, i called my points regarding financial regulations a response to your non-sequitor. I am glad that you deigned from your perch to lecture me about finanacial industry (setting aside if your position is correct). It would behoove you to address the main points about the broken laws written, the wholy lack of transparency in healthcare, etc (you know, the actual matters relevant to this discussion)


Fine, again my lax use of syntax. Medicare gets higher satisfaction compared to private insurance, according to survey of commonwealth fund. I'm not obligated to provide uou sources stating the the contrary, only to provide rebuttals against any points you make. As such, inspfar as i'm concerned, you are the one begging the question as you have failed to distinctly point out anything to back your assertion. Furthermore, you neglected to address that the VA gets high marks


Unless proven contrary, i tend to give weight to their business analysis. I also have trust the FT and The Economist, but it seems that these mainstream publications are lacking. Perhaps you would be kind enough to enlighten me and point me to a trustworthy publication for the layperson.



And here is where you are out of line. I made no assumption about how you are informed, and you sure as hell don't know an iota about me to pass judgment on how informed i am (not that what a professor at a second tier state university actually means much, but since you have no problem with the ad hominem and calling me uninformed amd label me as someone who only peruse the headlines, i think we all should know just how informed you are). To paraphrase that old quote, i've gotten berated by professors much more accomplished than you.

By the way isn't it a bitch that the internet captures things that you say years later? In a comment you posted about Obama supporters on The Daily Signal (owned by the Heritage Foundation), you state that they (Obama Supporters whom you characterize as ideologues) are "like religious people. No pevel of intellectual debate will ever counter the brain washing these people have received." I think i could speak for many that I can detect much critical thinking and nuance in your statement. Setting aside the fact that you seem to peruse publication supported by a highly partisan think tank (way more partisan than the WSJ, i might add), which really cast your aspersions regarding me in a different light, it seems that you are prone to ad hominem attacks but fail to deliver them with the erudition and wit a la W F Buckley. I will freely admit that i tend to be center left, but even I would know to take things from the Brookings institute with a grain of salt; furthermore, i would want to find out what Mercator, Cato, and other more conservative institue has to say. You however, seem to enjoy the echo chamber. And if you do indeed read stuff from Brookings, i apologize; then again, now that you are on the receiving end of an incorrect assumption, perhaps you'll tone down your antics in the future.

And with all that said (which i admit to be rhetorical purely for the purpose of going off tangent and casting doubt on just how critically you approach issues), you still havent addressed the fact that the health providers themselves are the ones making it impossible for patients to be well informed about pricing, etc.

PS. BIM!

Surprising at how wrong I am? You'd be embarrassed if you were in my position? Such cute statements. Especially since I made it clear I wasn't singling you out. So sensitive.

Did you research both sides of this? What costs are included or excluded from these charts (mainly implicit costs)? We most certainly have high costs, but why? What's driving it? Are you going to say government intervention has no blame in the higher costs? Are you going to say the legal structure has no blame in the costs? Are you going to say the tax structure has no blame in the costs? Are you going to really say that the profit motive is the only reason for the costs?

---

_________________________________
The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design.

But I am singling you out. People like you are apologists or contributors to the problems in our society such as healthcare costs being the largest reason for personal bankruptcy. You and people like you are the reason our system is so bad considering how much we pay for it.

You use remarkably simplistic framing - that people wanting a single payer system think that most of what the government doing now is right.

I said there were two main reasons for high costs - profit motive PLUS administrative friction in the system due to different actors trying to pass costs off on each other. Churn that makes money for people. But spin by asking me questions again.

---

http://www.jt10000.com/

There are at least a dozen examples of how to do it better in the world. You're not trying very hard if you can't find them.

But they don't fit with the profit motive of the people getting rich in the current system or with the morons/apologists for it.

---

http://www.jt10000.com/

What are you taking this so personal? lol

1. I asked for causation because that is a pretty important component to a debate. You then make a comment how I didn't respond, but how does one respond when their is no proof of causation. Wouldn't you agree that without proof of causation that all you really said was your opinion? I neither said you were right or wrong, I simply asked for causation so I could review your position and then formulate a retort.

2. Research the efficiency of medicare to private insurance. There is a lot of great research a papers on this topic. This one from Duke looks at both sides of the debate. Outside of that, I'm sure you can use Google Scholar to find journals on the topic.

http://jhppl.dukejournals.org/content/early/2013/02/11/03616878-2079523.abstract


3. I teased you on WSJ, don't be so sensitive. Before you embrace Economist, recall their FB banner was Hillary Clinton. They removed it due to so many people calling them out on it. They did put it back up last month but that was because it was on the cover. I'm a research and consultant. I don't really have time for mainstream news. Not saying that makes me better, just the way it is. I spend most of my time either reading journals or reading legislation. My clients expect me to know all regulations (for banking). Mainstream news sources are not designed for that type of use. FYI: USA ranks 46th in freedom of the press. Think about that every time you read an article. ;)


You're bolded point, sorry if I offended you. I was teasing you with ad hominem. :) My comment that you found, which is awesome you did that, is geared toward party loyalists. I despise people who call themselves republicans or democrats. Two reasons: I was an intern in DC for both parties (separate semesters). Seeing behind the curtain I learned just how corrupt the game is. Also learned just how much influence politicians have over the media. This was back in 1990's. Second: party loyalists put the party before the country. We see it everyday. Obama could come up with a fantastic policy, but GOP will reject it based on party affiliation (we saw the same when Bush was President).


As for doctors making it hard to quote prices, I'm not sure how to address that single point. I've never had a problem getting prices from my doctor. Something to think about as well is that many many patients don't care about the price. All they care about is what their deductible says on their health card. This is one of the mentalities that created the ugly monster we have today. (and it's happening in higher education now). I just had a physical last month and when I got my appointment reminder, the projected costs were listed. My dentist does this too, although it was more common already since many healthcare options didn't cover dental.


Here's my take on healthcare and I said it earlier: I would have preferred true reform instead of blanket coverage. I would have opened up the borders so insurance companies could compete nation wide. I would have reformed the legal structure so doctors didn't order 1000 different tests because they are afraid they would get sued. I would remove insurance from the employer and also remove the tax exempt status of premiums (switch to tax deductions). There's more but that's the jest of it. My default position is always smaller government.


Again, sorry I got your panties in a bunch. Certainly not my intent. If you want to debate more on this (Same to JT), just PM me. This thread has derailled from OP topic. lol.

---

_________________________________
The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design.

I had a similar experience in 2009 when I crashed at the Havasu Triathlon. A cop was there and he called the ambulance down the road to come attend me. I needed stitches to close the gash on my forearm. They bandaged me up but suggested if I could get to the local walk in clinic I would save a lot of $$. So I did and it was fine.

---

-Of course it's 'effing hard, it's IRONMAN!
Team ZOOT
ZOOT, QR, Garmin, HED Wheels, Zealios, FormSwim, Precision Hydration, Rudy Project

---

http://www.jt10000.com/

I concede that my contention was not nearly as well stated as I would have liked it and that i probably also over-reached. Contention withdrawn.

I see your point here as you are focusing on the term "efficiency" while I was contending on customer satisfaction. I was responding to your assertion that our government structure was not designed to handle nationalized programs, and your retort was focusing solely on the issue of efficiency. We seemed to be shouting over each other.

Point taken. Unfortunately it is the best available to me as a layperson. Also, I don't know anyone who would consider WSJ, Economist, and FT as "mainstream." The clientele of all three are distinctly not mainstream.


It is good to know that your doctors are up front about things, and I've been fortunate that mine have been, too. But that doesn't mean everyone does this. And most certainly, one doesn't ask about cost of care in an emergency. When I was in a crash and broke my teeth, they (as in the ER) had a dental surgeon check things out and pull a few roots. I actually protested as I didn't have dental insurance at the time. Little did I know that my insurance did cover dental problems due to accidents, which rendered my concerns moot. I also demanded to know if the surgeon who sowed up my face was in network and was told that ER charges should be covered. This didn't turn out to be true. In the end, I was charged with $19,500 for one night's stay (excluding the charges from the surgeon who sowed me up), but the actual negotiated price was much lower. More broadly, reports of significant variations in pricing of the same procedure are well known, and they actually can't be explained by cost of living index, etc.


Duly noted. It should also be noted that the position of decoupling insurance from employment and removing the tax exempt status aren't the domain of just economists favoring smaller government.