RE: The truth about those against the Affordable Health Care law?

RE: The truth about those against the Affordable Health Care law? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

Yachtie -> RE: The truth about those against the Affordable Health Care law? (4/3/2012 1:33:26 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl As group after group bought up and closed down hospitals, making their group bigger and badder, setting prices skyrocketing. How do you now dissolve those? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Columbia/HCA What do you do with a corporation like that? This is who is setting the prices. This is who is ensuring that people cannot afford health care. Why are they doing that? Because it's profitable. What made it profitable? Government! You remove any and all government subsidy in healthcare and allow people to purchase insurance, if they desire, from whatever source they prefer. Prices would tumble in short order. The same would happen to college education. Remove all government subsidy and permit students to include edu loans in bankruptcy. How many banking institutions would provide (mega) loans to students pursuing worthless degrees if not for those loans being guaranteed by government? Since they are guaranteed they can rise with impunity. Come on now, what's a degree in Women's Studies worth on the open market these days? You really do need to learn what drives costs.

mnottertail -> RE: The truth about those against the Affordable Health Care law? (4/3/2012 1:39:24 PM)
banking actually makes no real loans on edu, they are 100% government backed, thats why you cant bankrupt them. Richard M Nixon begain the unraveling of real cost effective healthcare with his sellout to his buddy Kaiser, thru HMO. Once paying for uncare became legal, it was all set for the bobsled to hell.

tazzygirl -> RE: The truth about those against the Affordable Health Care law? (4/3/2012 1:48:01 PM)
quote: You remove any and all government subsidy in healthcare and allow people to purchase insurance, if they desire, from whatever source they prefer. Prices would tumble in short order. LOL You will have to show proof that they will tumble. Because, working in that field, I know they will not.

slvemike4u -> RE: The truth about those against the Affordable Health Care law? (4/3/2012 1:54:37 PM)
Articles of faith(conservative articles anyway) need no such proof tazzy. They just are,they exist despite all evidence to the contrary. Now I will offer proof of my assertion.Conservative mantra : "Lower taxes and you increase revenue" Now we all know that is just so much bullshit....but it is a conservative article of faith....hence it is true [8\|]

Yachtie -> RE: The truth about those against the Affordable Health Care law? (4/3/2012 1:55:16 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl quote: You remove any and all government subsidy in healthcare and allow people to purchase insurance, if they desire, from whatever source they prefer. Prices would tumble in short order. LOL You will have to show proof that they will tumble. Because, working in that field, I know they will not. Just basic economics. The more dollars chasing after limited goods/services > the greater the cost (prices get bid up). Gov't subsidy (increasing $$$ available) skews the $$$ chasing after healthcare. This is Econ 101.

Musicmystery -> RE: The truth about those against the Affordable Health Care law? (4/3/2012 2:03:05 PM)
quote: Just basic economics. The more dollars chasing after limited goods/services > the greater the cost (prices get bid up). Gov't subsidy (increasing $$$ available) skews the $$$ chasing after healthcare. This is Econ 101. It really isn't basic economics. People don't consume health care the way they consume coffee or bath towels. And people without insurance tend to forego (for economic reasons) preventative care and good health practices (good nutrition is also cost dependent), ending up in the emergency room with $10,000 angioplasties that could have cost a few hundred a year instead. And so we buy only the expensive stuff, letting the preventive care and early intervention care go. That's not cost effective. If your model were correct, countries with universal health care would have higher health care costs. They don't--we do, and by wide margins. That's for a number of reasons, many unrelated to insurance, yes. But the point remains--it's not the basic economics you're trying to make it.

Yachtie -> RE: The truth about those against the Affordable Health Care law? (4/3/2012 2:13:35 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: slvemike4u Now I will offer proof of my assertion.Conservative mantra : "Lower taxes and you increase revenue" Now we all know that is just so much bullshit....but it is a conservative article of faith....hence it is true [8\|] Actually, it has been proven that taxes, as in revenue, exist within a pretty set range. Lowering taxes increases economic activity. This in turn adds to available jobs which returns the taxes lost in the tax decrease. Increasing taxes is the converse. Jobs lost but revenue stays about neutral. It is possible to raise taxes enough that revenue could plunge, as money flees elsewhere. Lower taxes enough and money comes ashore seeking the better climate. The problem is not tax revenue, it's increasing spending beyond what taxation provides. There are only two places for government to get that increase needed. More taxes (see above) or deficit spending (stealth taxation; debased currency). Welcome to the new normal.

PatrickG38 -> RE: The truth about those against the Affordable Health Care law? (4/3/2012 2:17:00 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery quote: Just basic economics. The more dollars chasing after limited goods/services > the greater the cost (prices get bid up). Gov't subsidy (increasing $$$ available) skews the $$$ chasing after healthcare. This is Econ 101. It really isn't basic economics. People don't consume health care the way they consume coffee or bath towels. And people without insurance tend to forego (for economic reasons) preventative care and good health practices (good nutrition is also cost dependent), ending up in the emergency room with $10,000 angioplasties that could have cost a few hundred a year instead. And so we buy only the expensive stuff, letting the preventive care and early intervention care go. That's not cost effective. If your model were correct, countries with universal health care would have higher health care costs. They don't--we do, and by wide margins. That's for a number of reasons, many unrelated to insurance, yes. But the point remains--it's not the basic economics you're trying to make it. Very well said.

tazzygirl -> RE: The truth about those against the Affordable Health Care law? (4/3/2012 2:31:36 PM)
quote: Just basic economics. The more dollars chasing after limited goods/services > the greater the cost (prices get bid up). Gov't subsidy (increasing $$$ available) skews the $$$ chasing after healthcare. This is Econ 101. People will get sicker before seeking care. Care will costs more. Cuts will be in personnel and procedures and closures of hospitals and care centers. Costs to the consumer will remain the same or rise as a direct result of reduced use.

slvemike4u -> RE: The truth about those against the Affordable Health Care law? (4/3/2012 2:32:06 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Yachtie quote: ORIGINAL: slvemike4u Now I will offer proof of my assertion.Conservative mantra : "Lower taxes and you increase revenue" Now we all know that is just so much bullshit....but it is a conservative article of faith....hence it is true [8\|] Actually, it has been proven that taxes, as in revenue, exist within a pretty set range. Lowering taxes increases economic activity. This in turn adds to available jobs which returns the taxes lost in the tax decrease. Increasing taxes is the converse. Jobs lost but revenue stays about neutral. It is possible to raise taxes enough that revenue could plunge, as money flees elsewhere. Lower taxes enough and money comes ashore seeking the better climate. The problem is not tax revenue, it's increasing spending beyond what taxation provides. There are only two places for government to get that increase needed. More taxes (see above) or deficit spending (stealth taxation; debased currency). Welcome to the new normal. I rest my case...the conservative article of faith has just been asserted. Despite the proof that the Bush years gave us the article is still true......lol,you can not make this shit up.Maher is right ,conservatives live in a bubble,one which filters all contrary information....lol,too fucking funny.Too sad,way too sad [&o]

tazzygirl -> RE: The truth about those against the Affordable Health Care law? (4/3/2012 2:33:25 PM)
Its another example of the push to insist that trickle down works. In theory, it should. In reality, it never will.

slvemike4u -> RE: The truth about those against the Affordable Health Care law? (4/3/2012 2:35:31 PM)
Marxism works too tazzy....in theory [:)]

Yachtie -> RE: The truth about those against the Affordable Health Care law? (4/3/2012 2:39:52 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery People don't consume health care the way they consume coffee or bath towels. Sure they do. Consumption is consumption. Food because you need to eat. Entertainment because you enjoy it. Gas because you use it. Education because you believe it will aid you. The various components of healthcare is just a basket of products, no different from pork bellies or various Starbuck's coffees; though healthcare is currently highly skewed by government intrusion into the marketplace.

Musicmystery -> RE: The truth about those against the Affordable Health Care law? (4/3/2012 2:46:04 PM)
quote: Actually, it has been proven that taxes, as in revenue, exist within a pretty set range. Lowering taxes increases economic activity. This in turn adds to available jobs which returns the taxes lost in the tax decrease. Increasing taxes is the converse. Jobs lost but revenue stays about neutral. It is possible to raise taxes enough that revenue could plunge, as money flees elsewhere. Lower taxes enough and money comes ashore seeking the better climate. Actually, it has been assumed, and proven false. The Lauffer Curve policies were based on an assumption we knew where that crest point was...and we didn't. Economic activity increased...as it is now. Jobs did not follow as predicted...just as now. The taxes on that increased income did not offset the revenue loss...just as now. In fact, the opposite of your model has transpired. Taxes have been cut and cut for twelve years, and the economy is growing only modestly, jobs are coming back only at an extremely slow pace, and revenue is not rolling in. True, if taxes were jacked up through the sky, it would chill the economy and jobs. But that's not where we are. Because people believe in the tax-cut magic money fantasy, we keep doing what doesn't work, making things worse. EVEN worse, the authors of the magic money tax-cut plan balanced the books with borrowed money---again making things continually worse.

Musicmystery -> RE: The truth about those against the Affordable Health Care law? (4/3/2012 2:47:07 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Yachtie quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery People don't consume health care the way they consume coffee or bath towels. Sure they do. Consumption is consumption. Food because you need to eat. Entertainment because you enjoy it. Gas because you use it. Education because you believe it will aid you. The various components of healthcare is just a basket of products, no different from pork bellies or various Starbuck's coffees; though healthcare is currently highly skewed by government intrusion into the marketplace. No, they don't. Go open that ECON 101 text you touted a few posts back and look up elasticity of demand.

Yachtie -> RE: The truth about those against the Affordable Health Care law? (4/3/2012 3:06:48 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery Economic activity increased...as it is now. Jobs did not follow as predicted...just as now. The taxes on that increased income did not offset the revenue loss...just as now. In fact, the opposite of your model has transpired. Taxes have been cut and cut for twelve years, and the economy is growing only modestly, jobs are coming back only at an extremely slow pace, and revenue is not rolling in. Quite so. But reducing taxes to spur economic activity is sound though is not the be all end all of it. Such is but a component of a healthy economy. True, if taxes were jacked up through the sky, it would chill the economy and jobs. But that's not where we are. Not yet. Because people believe in the tax-cut magic money fantasy, we keep doing what doesn't work, making things worse. Would raising taxes make things better? If yes, why? EVEN worse, the authors of the magic money tax-cut plan balanced the books with borrowed money---again making things continually worse. There you have put your finger on a root of the problem. Unfortunately you could not tax enough to balance the books. What else you got?

Musicmystery -> RE: The truth about those against the Affordable Health Care law? (4/3/2012 3:10:22 PM)
LOL. OK there. Because "you can't tax enough to balance the books," you tout lowering taxes even though we agree this just made matters worse by borrowing to cover the shortfalls when the magic money didn't materialize. We had found a good balance. We had prosperity. Then we cut taxes...and the deficit soared again.

Yachtie -> RE: The truth about those against the Affordable Health Care law? (4/3/2012 3:36:41 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery No, they don't. Go open that ECON 101 text you touted a few posts back and look up elasticity of demand. Are you implying that healthcare is inelastic (changes in price have a relatively small effect on the quantity of the good demanded - Wiki)? Sure, when costs are shifted away from the individual; costs can rise dramatically with no appreciable change in demand. High costs can be handled to a point via cost shifting (includes private insurance as regulated today). But what if costs were born by the individual with no subsidy at all? Would costs have any bearing on quantity demanded? (lets leave private insurance out for now) If so, would healthcare be elastic (changes in price have a relatively large effect on the quantity of a good demanded)? Remove that subsidy and now costs are to market; elastic. Fewer dollars chasing available healthcare. This lowers costs which in turn allows for demand to rise, which in turn creates a healthy industry, not a sick one based on subsidy. edit: demand is skewed on the one hand via cost shifting (becomes artificially high), whereas rising demand without subsidy is reflective of a healthy market.

Yachtie -> RE: The truth about those against the Affordable Health Care law? (4/3/2012 3:38:25 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery LOL. OK there. Because "you can't tax enough to balance the books," you tout lowering taxes even though we agree this just made matters worse by borrowing to cover the shortfalls when the magic money didn't materialize. We had found a good balance. We had prosperity. Then we cut taxes...and the deficit soared again. It's not a tax problem we have. It's a spending problem.

mnottertail -> RE: The truth about those against the Affordable Health Care law? (4/3/2012 3:44:49 PM)
It is a tax problem and a spending problem. Regarding elasticity or inelasticity, people die at the same rate and get cancer with our without insurance. but we are talking about affordable healthcare, not really insurance. If we examine a suit of clothes, there isnt much time needs to be spent on socks.

Page: << < prev 3 4 [5] 6 7 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875