Ina LANDSLIDE, House repeals Obamacare

[Foxfyre]

If there is a profit to be made, somebody will come up with a product and/or services at a price people are able to pay. And healthy, honest competition between profit earning entities never forces prices higher.

In this instance, it can. The reason, of course, is that the actual service you're after isn't provided by your insurance company (unless you happen to be in an integrated care network). Your insurance company is merely a payer; health care itself is provided by the aptly-named providers. The price of those health care services is set through a negotiation between a provider and every payer who seeks to have that provider in its network. So, for example, a hospital will have a chargemaster containing every service available and representatives of payer and provider alike will sit down and agree on reimbursement rates for each one.

These reimbursements (i.e. prices) aren't absolutes, however, as 1) they are periodically re-negotiated and 2) different payers will likely negotiate different rates (this isn't true in Maryland, the only state that currently has an all-payer rate setting system). So what does that imply? Smaller insurers have less leverage in negotiations with providers because they can offer fewer patients; as a result they're less able to get favorable reimbursements, which in turn means they have to pass on their costs in the form of higher premiums.

Similarly, as you dilute the insurance market (er, increase healthy, honest competition between insurers) you're in fact empowering providers relative to payers. Which gives them more power to set the prices of what they're selling. And that's something that will ultimately show up in the premiums of the insurers who have to accept those reimbursement rates.

In picture form:

Putting it into its simplest terms, anything the government mandates re commerce and industry or in matters that affect commerce and industry, an artificial threshhold unrelated to the free market will be created. The more the government becomes involved, the less effectively the free market can work. (This principle is included in every Economics 100 class worth its salt.)

Further, once those with unchallengable power become involved, the temptation to increase tinkering with the system for one's personal advantage is way more than many will be able to resist. And it is way too tempting for others to take advantage of the graft and corruption that invariably will become part of the equation.

But left to their own initiative with sufficient freedom, there will always be people looking for ways to prosper and who will see a way to do that by providing products and services that others want and are willing and able to pay for. And those who provide the better products and services at the most attractive price will be the ones who prosper more. People's desire to prosper becomes a powerful incentive to be creative, innovative in order to provide the most attractive product to the consumer.

And that is why a private healthcare industry as opposed to a government run one will be far superior and far less costly and far more affordable.

 

[Flopper]

You seem to put full faith in the number government feeds you Flopper. I prefer to put faith in those who have nothing to gain or lose but who want to get it right.

The CBO works for Congress, not the administration and is nonpartisan. The CBO's purpose is to give Congress the true cost of proposed legislation. You will rarely find anyone in Congress in dispute with the CBO, however Boehner seems to be the exception.

Incident, I would like to read one of those independent analysis of the cost.

Spend some time poking around the Hoover Institute, Cato, Heritage Foundation and other think tank operations staffed with PhD ecnomists and other experts. Avoid politcally motivated commentators like the plague if you want the real skinny. But some can be instructive in giving you sources and links to do the research yourself.

I wish I could share your confidence in the CBO, but honestly even they admit their numbers are only as good as those furnished to them by the U.S. Congress. They are not permitted to add any numbers or subtract any numbers, but they have to use the numbers they are given and they have to calculate them according to way they are told that things are going to be. If Congress says that they wil cut Medicare by 20%, that is the scenario CBO is required to work with. Everybody--CBO, every member of Congress, and the janitor in the apartment building down the street know that will never happen. But CBO has to do their calculations as if it will just the same.

And yes, I have heard a high ranking member from the CBO explain this in some detail.

If Congress says tax revenues will increase by X percent, CBO has to take it on its word about that. And so on and so forth.

There is something in the leftist I believe that wants to embrace and believe in a government that is committed to doing good and accomplishing good things.

And then there is the rest of us who are so jaded, skeptical, and untrusting of motives in government most especially when we've done our homework and realize how much our elected leaders are in it for themselves and nobody else.

It makes it even difficult to debate the topic because the emotional attachments get in the way.

It is good and right and necessary for the solvency of the country to deep six Obamacare. And then I hope our leaders have the intestinal fortitude to do what they really can do to make things better and then just stop. Don't do anything else. And let the free market work.

So, you don't believe the CBO and you have no other independent analysis to refute the CBO. Are you suggesting the Heritage Foundation, one of the nation’s leading conservative think tanks or the Cato Institute, the think tank of fiscal conservatives are non-biased and independent?

The information the CBO uses in their analysis is public record and is available to left and right wing groups to perform their own analysis. The CBO does a lot more than just add numbers up supplied by the administration. The administration has to justify those numbers and demonstrate to the CBO that the information provided is realist. If the CBO did not function in this manner, they would not have the respect congress and would not be trusted to provide realist costs of proposed legislation which is there reason for existence.

Congressional Budget Office - Health Care

 

[Greenbeard]

Putting it into its simplest terms, anything the government mandates re commerce and industry or in matters that affect commerce and industry, an artificial threshhold unrelated to the free market will be created. The more the government becomes involved, the less effectively the free market can work. (This principle is included in every Economics 100 class worth its salt.)

Free market? I thought we were talking about health insurance companies?

Anyway, "simplest terms" aside, the point stands. Breaking up insurance markets doesn't automatically lower premiums due to the way that private payers and private providers interact. It's simplistic thinking applied to a more complicated issue.

 

[HUGGY]

The political expression of altruism is collectivism or statism, which holds that man’s life and work belong to the state—to society, to the group, the gang, the race, the nation—and that the state may dispose of him in any way it pleases for the sake of whatever it deems to be its own tribal, collective good.


What's wrong Fakey? Can't stand to be told what YOU really are at heart?

That's certainly Ayn Rands spin on the definition of the term.

I would more than welcome the opinion of someone who actually lived through and escape from communism. Ayn Rands point of view trumps yours.

I would welcome the opinion of someone living in and escaping from communism on the subject of living in and escaping from communism. Living in the United States...where we have come from..where we should be headed...not so much.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

That's certainly Ayn Rands spin on the definition of the term.

I would more than welcome the opinion of someone who actually lived through and escape from communism. Ayn Rands point of view trumps yours.

I would welcome the opinion of someone living in and escaping from communism on the subject of living in and escaping from communism. Living in the United States...where we have come from..where we should be headed...not so much.

Considering you don't live in nor have ever lived in a communist country your point is not valid. Ayn Rands is.

 

[JakeStarkey]

T posts: "The political expression of altruism is collectivism or statism, which holds that man’s life and work belong to the state—to society, to the group, the gang, the race, the nation—and that the state may dispose of him in any way it pleases for the sake of whatever it deems to be its own tribal, collective good. // What's wrong Fakey? Can't stand to be told what YOU really are at heart?"

Are you really that simple? We, the People, have the right to organize our government by consent of the people through the election of our representatives. We have done so. Minority rights are protected. In no way shape or form what you suggest is happening. Your rights are protected, but you don't understand that you are part of a society, not an individual living on an island. We are governed by the Rule of Law not Rule of Man. Are you really that simple?

 

[Flopper]

That's certainly Ayn Rands spin on the definition of the term.

I would more than welcome the opinion of someone who actually lived through and escape from communism. Ayn Rands point of view trumps yours.

I would welcome the opinion of someone living in and escaping from communism on the subject of living in and escaping from communism. Living in the United States...where we have come from..where we should be headed...not so much.

There have been calls from several scholars for an independent appraisal of what the US is doing right and what it's doing wrong, by studying other countries monetary, taxing, and social services policies. However, that requires that we admit that we might have something to learn from the rest of the world, which might be pretty hard to sell to the Right.

 

[HUGGY]

I would more than welcome the opinion of someone who actually lived through and escape from communism. Ayn Rands point of view trumps yours.

I would welcome the opinion of someone living in and escaping from communism on the subject of living in and escaping from communism. Living in the United States...where we have come from..where we should be headed...not so much.

Considering you don't live in nor have ever lived in a communist country your point is not valid. Ayn Rands is.

I am not interested in basing my outlook of this country on the reactionary ramblings of an escapee of Soviet Russia. MY Opinion has far more weight than Rands. My relatives are the ones that fought for and won our right to persevere. It is MY obligation to carry their wishes into the future. Ayn has no such obligation or motivation. YOU can choose any source for your foundation. Don't presume my point is not valid or cannot be defended. This is just the internet Sparky...you have no way of testing my resolve...much to my chagrin...

 

[Foxfyre]

I would more than welcome the opinion of someone who actually lived through and escape from communism. Ayn Rands point of view trumps yours.

I would welcome the opinion of someone living in and escaping from communism on the subject of living in and escaping from communism. Living in the United States...where we have come from..where we should be headed...not so much.

There have been calls from several scholars for an independent appraisal of what the US is doing right and what it's doing wrong, by studying other countries monetary, taxing, and social services policies. However, that requires that we admit that we might have something to learn from the rest of the world, which might be pretty hard to sell to the Right.

The USA has traditionally gone out to find and import great thinkers, innovators, expertise. That's how we got the bomb ahead of Germany--we imported their scientists along with all their expertise to work on ours.

But the one thing I as an American patriot am absolutely committed to--we should do things the way that are right for Americans so long as that does not violate the unalienable rights of others. This country was created and designed to be unique and different from all the rest. We would be the first people in the history of the world that would identify and recognize unalienable rights of the people and give those supremacy over any other. We would be the first people in the history of the world who would design a government for the purpose of securing and defending those rights against all within and without who would violate them, and then the people would govern themselves.

We did not WANT to be like other nations though of course every American and every new immigrant has added to the sum of knowledge, experience, and culture that has created a uniquely American culture.

I don't want to be like anybody else. I want to be the America that our Founders wanted us to be.

 

[NYcarbineer]

You seem to put full faith in the number government feeds you Flopper. I prefer to put faith in those who have nothing to gain or lose but who want to get it right.

And that would be? Name a private organization without an agenda that essentially does the work the CBO does but does it in a more trustworthy manner.

 

[Foxfyre]

You seem to put full faith in the number government feeds you Flopper. I prefer to put faith in those who have nothing to gain or lose but who want to get it right.

And that would be? Name a private organization without an agenda that essentially does the work the CBO does but does it in a more trustworthy manner.

Sure.

Here's just a few:

American Enterprise Institute
Brookings Institution
Bruton Center
Cambridge Energy Research Associates
Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
Cato Institute
Center for Economic Policy Analysis
Center for Economic and Policy Research
Center for Full Employment and Price Stability
Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS)
Century Foundation
Committee for Economic Development
Conference Board
Council on Foreign Relations
Economic Policy Institute
Economic Research Council (London)
Employment Policy Foundation
Economic Strategy Institute
Freedom Forum
Heritage Foundation
Institute for International Economics
Jerome Levy Economics Institute
Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies
Kiel Institute of World Economics
National Bureau of Economic Research
National Center for Public Policy Research
Progressive Policy Institute
RAND
Rochester Center for Economic Research
Theoretical Research Institute
United for a Fair Economy
Urban Institute
Washington Institute for Policy Studies

One correction to your premise though. I have never said that the CBO is untrustworthy. I have no way of knowing that one way or the other. I have said that the CBO is constrained by the requirement to use whatever Congress or its subsidiaries gives the CBO to use. If Congress says there will be a 10% tax cut, CBO is required to use that number. If Congress says there will be a 50% shift in allocations, the CBO is required to use that number. The CBO is not allowed to factor in history or probability or track records.

None of the independent groups have such constraints.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

I would welcome the opinion of someone living in and escaping from communism on the subject of living in and escaping from communism. Living in the United States...where we have come from..where we should be headed...not so much.

Considering you don't live in nor have ever lived in a communist country your point is not valid. Ayn Rands is.

I am not interested in basing my outlook of this country on the reactionary ramblings of an escapee of Soviet Russia. MY Opinion has far more weight than Rands. My relatives are the ones that fought for and won our right to persevere. It is MY obligation to carry their wishes into the future. Ayn has no such obligation or motivation. YOU can choose any source for your foundation. Don't presume my point is not valid or cannot be defended. This is just the internet Sparky...you have no way of testing my resolve...much to my chagrin...

So your family members have better observasion of what is wrong with communism than someone who actually live through it? Do tell.
What you are doing and I use this as an example
Saying those who liberated the nazi death camps have a better insight of how living conditions were than those who survived them. Just because they help liberate them.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Considering you don't live in nor have ever lived in a communist country your point is not valid. Ayn Rands is.

I am not interested in basing my outlook of this country on the reactionary ramblings of an escapee of Soviet Russia. MY Opinion has far more weight than Rands. My relatives are the ones that fought for and won our right to persevere. It is MY obligation to carry their wishes into the future. Ayn has no such obligation or motivation. YOU can choose any source for your foundation. Don't presume my point is not valid or cannot be defended. This is just the internet Sparky...you have no way of testing my resolve...much to my chagrin...

So your family members have better observasion of what is wrong with communism than someone who actually live through it? Do tell.
What you are doing and I use this as an example
Saying those who liberated the nazi death camps have a better insight of how living conditions were than those who survived them. Just because they help liberate them.

Or those African Americans in North Carolina who still have to live with semi-secret klansters?

 

[The T]

I am not interested in basing my outlook of this country on the reactionary ramblings of an escapee of Soviet Russia. MY Opinion has far more weight than Rands. My relatives are the ones that fought for and won our right to persevere. It is MY obligation to carry their wishes into the future. Ayn has no such obligation or motivation. YOU can choose any source for your foundation. Don't presume my point is not valid or cannot be defended. This is just the internet Sparky...you have no way of testing my resolve...much to my chagrin...

So your family members have better observasion of what is wrong with communism than someone who actually live through it? Do tell.
What you are doing and I use this as an example
Saying those who liberated the nazi death camps have a better insight of how living conditions were than those who survived them. Just because they help liberate them.

Or those African Americans in North Carolina who still have to live with semi-secret klansters?

Tell us Fakey if American Slaves lived under Communism?

Nice try at obfuscation. You remain irrelevant.

 

[JakeStarkey]

African American slaves lived under capitalists. Good for you, T.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

I am not interested in basing my outlook of this country on the reactionary ramblings of an escapee of Soviet Russia. MY Opinion has far more weight than Rands. My relatives are the ones that fought for and won our right to persevere. It is MY obligation to carry their wishes into the future. Ayn has no such obligation or motivation. YOU can choose any source for your foundation. Don't presume my point is not valid or cannot be defended. This is just the internet Sparky...you have no way of testing my resolve...much to my chagrin...

So your family members have better observasion of what is wrong with communism than someone who actually live through it? Do tell.
What you are doing and I use this as an example
Saying those who liberated the nazi death camps have a better insight of how living conditions were than those who survived them. Just because they help liberate them.

Or those African Americans in North Carolina who still have to live with semi-secret klansters?

I wouldn't know jake unlike you I don't have any family members who are members of a white supermist group.

 

[thereisnospoon]

I am not interested in basing my outlook of this country on the reactionary ramblings of an escapee of Soviet Russia. MY Opinion has far more weight than Rands. My relatives are the ones that fought for and won our right to persevere. It is MY obligation to carry their wishes into the future. Ayn has no such obligation or motivation. YOU can choose any source for your foundation. Don't presume my point is not valid or cannot be defended. This is just the internet Sparky...you have no way of testing my resolve...much to my chagrin...

So your family members have better observasion of what is wrong with communism than someone who actually live through it? Do tell.
What you are doing and I use this as an example
Saying those who liberated the nazi death camps have a better insight of how living conditions were than those who survived them. Just because they help liberate them.

Or those African Americans in North Carolina who still have to live with semi-secret klansters?

North Carolina has WHAT?!!! care to post a few links to prove that?
Or is this just another drive -by post of yours unsupported by any fact?
BTW, I live here. And trust me NC is the liberal bastion of the South.
in fact for the first time in 110 years the GOP has a majority in the State House and State Senate. A very small majority.
So please, feel free to expound on your vast knowledge of the Old North State.

 

[The T]

African American slaves lived under capitalists. Good for you, T.

And it was completely (say it with me Fakester...W R O N G )

See? I knew ya could.

 

[JakeStarkey]

African American slaves lived under capitalists. Good for you, T.

And it was completely (say it with me Fakester...W R O N G )

See? I knew ya could.

I am glad you could admit it was wrong.

 

[Neotrotsky]

T posts: "The political expression of altruism is collectivism or statism, which holds that man’s life and work belong to the state—to society, to the group, the gang, the race, the nation—and that the state may dispose of him in any way it pleases for the sake of whatever it deems to be its own tribal, collective good. // What's wrong Fakey? Can't stand to be told what YOU really are at heart?"

Are you really that simple? We, the People, have the right to organize our government by consent of the people through the election of our representatives. We have done so. Minority rights are protected. In no way shape or form what you suggest is happening. Your rights are protected, but you don't understand that you are part of a society, not an individual living on an island. We are governed by the Rule of Law not Rule of Man. Are you really that simple?

Organize, you mean within the constraints of the Constitution. Sad, how so many forget that......


The biggest problem with collectivism of any form is the means not necessary the goals or ends. If ones describes the "ends" as everyone having what they need to survive. All politicians try to claim that is what they are doing for the masses.

There are many in the US who claim to be socialists or claim to want the same ends with little understanding or care of the means on how to achieve those goals. They just know we must achieve those goals, at any cost. Which is where the problems come in....

The fundamental problem is the overbearing intrusion of the gov't. History has shown us that time after time. It is, if you will. the "nature of the beast".

Regardless or what political jargon one wants to put on it, it is the "size" of the gov't. Dismantling of the free market system by any kind of gov't will always end in the erosion of individual economic and personal freedom.

No matter how good the intentions. It is cliche but true, the "road to hell is paved with good intentions". How far ones goes done the road is the problem.

Unless, of course you want to argue that the left will get it right this time
--------


Our Founding Fathers based our society on Locke's political philosophy of the individual and individual property rights and that any "social contract" with a gov't is created by the transfer of some these rights by the people.

Of course, for the "great" social planners of our society this has proven inconvenient at times. Thus, you see for many, the attempt to pretend such choices do not exist. Therefore, things like "Statism does not exist" is a common defense or attempts to equate the most banal of gov't functions (eg postal service) with the larger and more intrusive gov't functions that they so desire. There is even the naive belief by some that somehow they will be able to "control" the gov't to stop the erosion of individual rights...

Good luck with that one

Ask the German Jews how those laws and elections worked out for them in the Weimar Republic. They were protected too at one time, on paper.
-----------



Jake, it really is surprising how out of the mainstream you are sounding of late

-believing the General Welfare Clause can be used by itself for generating legislation
-believing that statism does not exist anywhere in the world
-believing that Rousseau had a greater influence on the founding of this nation than Locke
-believing that the Tenth Amendment does not exist or matter, such a reckless view of the Constitution
-believing that the Commerce Clause can be used to justify any Federal gov't intrusion
-the apparent use of resources that are outside the mainstream


The US is just not ready for this kind of extreme thinking on your part.
No doubt seeing a rejection of the manifestation of the "Rousseau way" last election must have really brought that point home to you.

Jake, the US is just not ready for such out of the mainstream thinking like yours.