If Democrats ignore health-care polls, midterms will be costly

And Obama ran on McCain being a continuation of Bush.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/29/us/politics/29dems.html

DENVER — Barack Obama accepted the Democratic Party presidential nomination on Thursday, declaring that the “American promise has been threatened” by eight years under President Bush and that John McCain represented a continuation of policies that undermined the nation’s economy and imperiled its standing around the world.

 

And he was right. McCain would have continued Bush policies even more than Obama has (which is a little too much for my tastes).

barfo

 

So you agree with Obama as quoted in the NYT. He's not GW Bush, 'tis true. He's Jimmy Carter reincarnate.

 

Jimmy Carter aint dead yet, no need to reincarnate him. I think it is a little early to say who Obama will turn out to look like the most. But yes, I agree with that quote from Obama.

barfo

 

Of course not. But huge financial opportunity does cause innovation. And healthcare is going to continue to be a huge financial opportunity.

I think you are assigning me a position and an argument that I haven't made here. I don't recall complaining about wasteful defense spending.

That aside, I have no idea why you say that the government would have much weaker incentives to get healthcare right than defense. Most voters don't know or care how defense money is spent. Most voters will notice if their healthcare is messed up. It seems to me there would be considerably more pressure to get it right with healthcare.

So do you agree that healthcare reform will cut costs? If so, great, I am happy to concede that a smaller amount of spending on healthcare will lead to lower financial opportunity for innovators. On the other hand, if you don't actually believe that it will cut costs, then you can't really honestly complain about cost cutting, can you?

Like I said, I agree with that generally, but it is not an on-off switch. It's not all or nothing. It's not black or white. And innovation is not the one true good which must be maximized at the cost of all other variables.

barfo

 

Yes, but their market - cigarettes, is a huge market, and a huge opportunity for innovation. If you invent a cigarette that keeps the addictive properties of Altria's product, but leaves out the cancer, you'll be able to capture a large amount of money. The fact that Altria itself isn't innovative is pretty normal. It's just an extreme case of getting fat and lazy, but getting fat and lazy is something that happens to most successful companies.

Considering they have a monopoly, they are somewhat innovative within their restricted market. They don't invent new frisbees or self-warming socks, but for example a month or two ago my electric company replaced my meter with one that they can read remotely, eliminating the need for someone to tramp into my backyard every month. It is true, however, that I, not being an electric company, am barred from figuring out a cheaper way to deliver electricity and stealing their customers.

I don't agree that public utilities are akin to health care insurers though. There's a big difference between a monopoly and a regulated industry.

So the taxpayer thinks, hey, I wouldn't mind if my healthcare got worse, as long as my tax bill was a little lower? The taxpayer thinks, these long lines and shitty care suck, but I'll be damned if I'll pay a penny more to improve the service because others would benefit in addition to me? If that were true, wouldn't such systems die out instead of thrive? There wouldn't be any need for you to be concerned about 'takeovers' if the taxpayers aren't willing to fund the system.

That is a perfect reasonable point, and it is true that if the gummint over-regulates things it can kill innovation. I don't believe that is bound to happen, but it is a concern.

Right, so let's take the entire defense budget and put it into R&D. Also all social security payments, medicare, etc. In the long run that will be better for us. Assuming we survive the short run.

barfo

 

I think your info is out of date; ecigarettes are currently available for purchase in the US of A. It is true the FDA wants to ban it; so far they have been unsuccessful.

As a cigarette alternative, I think it falls a little short in the coolness factor. There's currently no motivation for 18 year olds to start using the things. Perhaps marketing could cure that deficiency, however.

I agree with that, in part. Certainly the no-selling-across-state-lines seems like a stupid regulation and should be abolished.

I'm not sure who the big fat guys are in this analogy.

Where we started this conversation was with the idea that people who live with these healthcare systems *like them*. You seem to be explaining why people don't like them. You may feel constrained that you don't get caviar, but apparently most people are ok with everyone getting a decent meal and no one starving, even if that limits their own choices a little.

barfo

 

I can certainly understand why you'd think that, and I don't rule out the possibility that you are right. Obviously, I'm a little more optimistic than you at least about the latter if not the former.

Those links don't actually seem to address the point you are making, although they are interesting.

I like that article - it has been brought up more than once here. I'd be completely fine with a much more radical reform like the article suggests. But radical reform is more than extremely unlikely.

The current reform proposal is quite limited by comparison. It's not a "takeover". Thus I don't see the reason for claiming the sky is going to fall if it is enacted.

barfo

 

Again, it's not black and white. It isn't the case that all innovation will stop if we pass health care reform. Their system will continue to exist. Maybe there will be marginally less innovation, but to claim innovation is just going to disappear is not realistic.

Similarly, Americans who protest any changes to their health care system are not necessarily rational either.

It's easy for you to see. I don't see them. I predict that if this passes, life afterwards will be very much the same as it was before. The sky will not fall.

Insuring 20 million more people (or whatever the number is) is immeasurable?

barfo

 

Again, you confuse insurance with actual health care. DC made his point very well that the uninsured get actual health care.

The Bill on the table is patently absurd on the face of it. It transfers $500B worth of cuts in medicare directly to insurance companies that don't provide health care (doctors, nurses, hospitals, clinics, etc. do).

You seem to be thrilled about paying higher taxes for some number of years in exchange for zero people getting any additional health care benefits. The taxes, again, go directly to the insurance companies, or will mask the size of the deficits without $.01 being spent on health care. This is typical past experience with taxes/programs running a surplus, like Social Security, where the trust fund has nothing but IOUs and the surpluses spent already.

There's no reason to conclude that with ever increasing deficits and debt payments that any of the money taxed will end up being spent on insurance. The net effect would be medicare starved for cash, richer insurance companies, no significant increased in the number insured (if at all), we'll be stuck paying higher taxes for no good reason, and much of those taxes will end up going to China to pay back the IOUs they bought from us to fund our absurd spending levels.

DC can run circles around me about economics subjects, but this is just plain common sense. We've all seen it in the news for over a year now, and for decades (regarding SS).

Maybe DC might comment on my suggestion, which is for govt. to simply hire doctors, open clinics and hospitals, and charge people what it costs for their procedures - plus a bit extra to pool to cover expensive procedures like heart surgery. Govt. already pays for education, so they may as well forgive (a portion of) doctors' loans if they work in the govt. clinics for some period of time at reduced wages. It wouldn't cost $1T+, nor would it mean govt. has to wait to get started. They already run something like it, the VA hospitals... Keep all the simple regulatory features of the Bill, like portability and ability to buy across state lines...

Finally, another obvious thing is that you see insurance company commercials on TV all the time. Telling you that if you switch to them, you'll save $X on your insurance. Auto. WTF? Insurance companies competing with one another for customers with downward pressure on the insurance rates? Why is that! Who's buying the insurance is the answer.

 

Of course. Then why are the rest of us paying health insurance? We should just drop our coverage and get it free like those lucky uninsured people, for whom nothing will change once they have coverage... right?

And those insurance companies will just pocket the entire $500B, right? None of it will be used to pay doctors, nurses, hospitals, clinics, etc.

That's so silly I bolded it. You honestly believe there is no difference between having health insurance and not having health insurance? Seriously?

Right, not one penny will be spent on healthcare. Sure. I think you've gone round the bend on this.

And look, what's that in the sky? Is it the sky?

Yes, SS has funding problems. If old people would just die faster, it would solve that problem. Luckily, with GOVERNMENT DEATH PANELS executing citizens, the healthcare takeover will eliminate that problem. With prejudice.

I actually think something like that already exists for rural areas. Don't have any idea how well it works.

Well, yes. The employer-based system is pretty stupid. But it seems we are stuck with it now.

barfo

 

If you don't have insurance, you pay the bill out of pocket or via a loan from the hospital (a lien actually). But you get your health care, for certain.

You can pay (directly or indirectly) for insurance for years while healthy and end up paying the same amount. Go figure.

Some of the $500B will be spent on health care, but not all. As it is now, all $500B will be spent on health care. Get it? Those insurance companies take about 8% of that $500B in profit, alone. Plus they'll pay salaries, bonuses, rent on buildings to house 5% (or whatever) more workers, etc., etc.

I know for sure that if this bill passes, the place to put your money is in pharmaceutical stocks, as they're certain to see at least 10% jump in revenues (no wonder they back this Bill).

 

Ok, I figure that's pretty much the definition of insurance. Some people will pay the insurance and not make any claims. Some will pay the insurance and have claims in excess of their premiums.

Well, that's certainly a more realistic view than not one penny on health care.

Interesting. Now you are arguing in favor of government run healthcare? I thought government run healthcare was evil incarnate. Now it's more efficient than private insurance? Fascinating.

Agreed. Let's get rid of private sector insurance. I'm totally on board with that.

How can that be? You've assured me that everyone who needs health care is already getting it, so why would any more drugs get consumed under the reform bill?

barfo