they seem determined to undermine the us democracy and shut the government down hurting employees and veterans.. what a despicable bunch, hope they get their asses kicked for what they are doing..
The gap has been closing due to some hard negotiation... this is with current law, the ACA included. Just a little more work and I think the gap can be closed. I think with some tough reform to Social Security, it can happen. This is why I'm a bull on the US economy, long term.
they seem determined to undermine the us democracy and shut the government down hurting employees and veterans.. what a despicable bunch, hope they get their asses kicked for what they are doing..
Shirely,
Did you read the entire Fox article you linked to? Did you read the May update I linked to and the July 2102 letter to the Speaker therein? It is at odds with the picture you are painting. From the CBO May 2013:
In March 2010, CBO and JCT projected that the provisions of the ACA related to health insurance coverage would cost the federal government $759 billion during fiscal years 2014 through 2019 (which was the last year in the 10-year budget window being used at that time). The newest projections indicate that those provisions will cost $710 billion over that same period. As shown in the figure below, the intervening projections of the cost of the ACA’s coverage provisions for those years have all been close to those figures on a year-by-year basis; of course, the 10-year totals have changed as the time frame for the estimates has shifted.
Those amounts do not reflect the total budgetary impact of the ACA. That legislation includes many other provisions that, on net, will reduce budget deficits. Taking the coverage provisions and other provisions together, CBO and JCT have estimated that the ACA will reduce deficits over the next 10 years and in the subsequent decade. (We have not updated our estimate of the total budgetary impact of the ACA since last summer; for that most recent estimate, see Letter to the Honorable John Boehner providing an estimate for H.R. 6079, the Repeal of Obamacare Act.)
https://www.cbo.gov/publication/44176
I find it interesting how Fox used a selective clip from the CBO paper in a way that might mislead the reader. The March CBO update was quoted as saying that the “ACA was projected last March to increase federal deficits by $1,131 billion.” Now, the average reader, not knowing the difference between accounting deficits and the Deficit might think the CBO was saying this would increase the Federal Deficit by $1,131 billion. It was talking about adding up the deficits side of the ledger from the act. It also talks about the other side of the ledger! The deficits are more than offset by savings and revenues as a result of the ACA. The CBO and the Fox article you quote say, in no uncertain terms, that the net result is a base-line reduction in the Deficit. Rather than trust Fox why not read the sentence they quote from the update they cite: http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/03-13-Coverage%20Estimates.pdf It is on page two. I ask only that you read the sentence before it and the rest of the surrounding paragraph. Would you say the quote from Fox might lead the average reader to think this was a discussion about the effect to the Federal Deficit?
The quotes you select above obfuscate whether it is the CBO speaking or Republican Senator Sessions being referenced from the Fox article. You might want to consider that it is not intellectually honest to add up the costs of a bill and present that as the only side of the ledger. There are also savings and revenues. That is how budgets work, as I'm sure you are aware.
they seem determined to undermine the us democracy and shut the government down hurting employees and veterans.. what a despicable bunch, hope they get their asses kicked for what they are doing..
Shirley, the letter from the Congressional Budget Office to the Speaker was earlier linked. In all the posts above you may have missed it. The CBO reports that when you add up the costs for the new programs, savings in the act, and new revenues included, the ACA will reduce deficits.
https://www.cbo.gov/publication/44176
Two imporant points though
Personally, I think the US outlook is great given the relative increase in the affordability of labour, the huge expansion of cheap domestic energy, the improvement in the consumer debt load, and the massive changes in spending and revenues that were worked out by the parties before the last election. I'm helping a Canadian company setup a manufacturing plan in the NE right now, precisly because of the energy and labour savings. This shutdown isn't helping things, I might add!
I was pretty gloom and doom on the USA a few years ago. I actually think it is on a great track for economic expansion over the next decade. But, truly, that is just the guess of an ignorant Canadian. I have to respect the Republicans, with whom I'm not ideologically aligned, for helping improve the fiscal outlook.
they seem determined to undermine the us democracy and shut the government down hurting employees and veterans.. what a despicable bunch, hope they get their asses kicked for what they are doing..
BizzyBee, great example of how to respectfully respond. Bring up the Great Realignment. It adds context while not negating her point.
BOTR- you are clearly erudite and well spoken. I appreciate reading your posts a great deal. But, comments like "objective facts trouble the right wing" are exactly what i'm talking about. Frankly, I think you are too smart, too good for low balls like that.
they seem determined to undermine the us democracy and shut the government down hurting employees and veterans.. what a despicable bunch, hope they get their asses kicked for what they are doing..
I'm sure my input is not welcome, but here it is: PLEASE STOP BEING SO NASTY!!
Nonjwspouce made a typo and/or her autocorrect changed her words. I do this all the time. A charitable reader could clearly see what word was meant and would read it accordingly. To question her ability to teach her children going way too far. I agree with tootired2care, it should be about the substance of your argument. We can disagree and discuss, sharpen our thoughts; this level of personal animosity, though, is unwelcome.
Nonjwspouce was noting that one poster mentioned how the Democrats are not talking about secession and yet, the story is different looking back in history to the antebellum years. It was very much a Democrat versus Republican issue. In fact, South Carolina immediately seceded BECAUSE the Republican Lincoln was elected President, as they had declared they would. The country was divided and that was reflected on party lines. It was Democrats arguing for a continued balance of slave states versus free states and the Republicans who stood for "free labour". In fact, it was a "radical" element in the party that was calling for emancipation. There are some interesting parallels between this and the current tea party movement.
It was a valuable addition to the conversation and did not deserve to be ripped apart for a simple error.
(DogGone steps down from his soap box and tries to look inconspicuous)
thought i'd start a thread discussing all the scriptures where the watchtower translation committee has taken liberties and abused verses they've translated in the nwt.. worst of all are the numerous places in the christian greek scriptures where 'jehovah' has been inserted where the tetragrammaton or any equivalent of it does not occur in any extant mss and where the context could just as easily mean, or even more likely mean, the identity being spoken of is jesus christ rather than the father.
although in many places out of the 237 in the nt where they have done this the identity is clearly or most probably the father (jehovah) as distinct from the son (jesus), there are dozens of occurrences where this is not the case.. here are a whole lot more scriptures abused by the translators of the nwt, copied from the freeminds website (article written j bowman, scholar):.
adding words.
Fair point. Just maybe the title could have been different. Shrug.
thought i'd start a thread discussing all the scriptures where the watchtower translation committee has taken liberties and abused verses they've translated in the nwt.. worst of all are the numerous places in the christian greek scriptures where 'jehovah' has been inserted where the tetragrammaton or any equivalent of it does not occur in any extant mss and where the context could just as easily mean, or even more likely mean, the identity being spoken of is jesus christ rather than the father.
although in many places out of the 237 in the nt where they have done this the identity is clearly or most probably the father (jehovah) as distinct from the son (jesus), there are dozens of occurrences where this is not the case.. here are a whole lot more scriptures abused by the translators of the nwt, copied from the freeminds website (article written j bowman, scholar):.
adding words.
It's just my opinion, but I think it is very irresponsible to start this thread before examining the new translation.
they seem determined to undermine the us democracy and shut the government down hurting employees and veterans.. what a despicable bunch, hope they get their asses kicked for what they are doing..
No one is arguing that the USA is not a Republic.
Some think that means it is not a democracy. As some learned writings point out, the USA is not a Democracy as in the system of government is not a Classical Democracy like Athens. It is still democratic, of course. It is still a democracy through a number of opportunities for the citizenry to participate equally in the selection of thier representatives. The selection of those in power is a public matter, aka a "res publica", aka a Republic.
Some, it seems, equivocate between the techincal definition of a Classical Democracy and a democracy. Understandable for a layperson, I suppose. Amazing the myth is so widespread. Ironic when those making this error accuse others of being idiotic, unschooled, etc.
they seem determined to undermine the us democracy and shut the government down hurting employees and veterans.. what a despicable bunch, hope they get their asses kicked for what they are doing..
MeanMrMustard,
Thank-you for your congratulations… I’m not looking forward to the sleep deprivation…
Thank-you, also, for your excellent post. It is certainly working my faculties.
Ha, I think you caught yourself there. I don’t think I pointed that out, and if I did, it was by accident. What I was going for in reference to your comment: “Food DOES normally conform to law of demand.” It left me thinking what you thought “normally” meant? And why “normally” doesn’t apply to healthcare?
That is why I mentioned that I had equivocated between a specific item and the category. I’m going to clarify that statement to get at what I mean. Food items normally do conform to the law of demand. Many healthcare items and many healthcare services do not. What do I mean by normally? Normally means absence a general famine. When there is not a famine the substitution effect takes over and reduces quantity. Tomatoes are too expensive so I buy apples. In many, but not all, cases the substitution effect is largely absent from healthcare items and services. If a bone marrow transplant is needed I cannot choose a hip replacement instead.
Why is the price of healthcare so high? Is it really the case that it is a special market, or does it just look that way if you ignore the government’s involvement?
It really is a special market. Many items and many services have highly inflexible demand and are not subject to the substitution effect. I’m not going to try to argue all the factors of why it is so high… I’m nowhere near knowledgeable enough to engage that debate. I’m arguing, though, that it is a special market. Government involvement can have favorable or unfavorable effects on the allocation of services, on pricing, and on quality of delivery. However, government involvement does not change the fundamentals I’m referring to. It can be a countervailing force, however.
The only situation I can think of where demand is highly inelastic (not even perfectly, just highly) is where there is a monopoly on a good or service. Like my previous illustration: the well owner has the monopoly.
Upon reading and rereading your post, I think that after giving an excellent explanation of inelastic demand you then fail to use it correctly. When economists routinely write about inelastic demand they are referring, as you noted, to “where the demand doesn’t change so much in relation to price.” Inelasticity of demand has an effect on market fundamentals and it doesn’t have to approach perfect inelasticity for this effect to be dramatic.
I agree that a monopoly distorts the market effect, of course, as you note in your illustration of the desert town. (A strange town legislature that would grant a monopoly to an essential service but fail to regulate it). It is convenient to your argument that the desert town suffered a monopoly due to government interference. However, it does not have to be so. Let’s take this same town with no government interfering in the control and distribution of the water supply. An individual puts the capital into digging the well. He then creates the distribution network to deliver the water. He has a natural monopoly due to being first to market and to the high barrier to entry for any competitor. It is not perfectly inelastic at any price point as people would, at extreme prices, take tankers to other towns, walk miles to get water, etc. Nevertheless, the market forces are distorted because there are no easy substitutes, the demand is highly inelastic. After all, in the free market this entrepreneur should and will charge what he or she can.
Now, I’m not creating a straw man here, I know you weren’t arguing that monopolies are only caused by governments. I merely wanted to illustrate where government interference is required in a market distorted by highly inelastic demand. (Note: we should not confuse inelastic demand and inelastic need. It does not have to be a need, as in our discussion, to distort the market)
Your monopoly illustration is analogous, as you suggest, to drug companies with patents on life saving medicine. (Side point: monopolies cause price distortions which cost the consumer more. However a monopsony can reduce prices as is widely seen in state run healthcare.)
But, all of this is beside the point. The inelasticity of the demand (quantity) presents a strong resistance to natural free market forces. It does not require a monopoly and does not require a lack of supplier choice for a given service or item. What is requires is a poor elasticity in the QUANTITY demanded despite any given price for a specific service or item. This is where I believe you err: “I would say you are right only because government subsidies necessarily discourage people from the activities that would make it elastic.” I agree that government subsidies discourage people from making sensible market driven decisions about healthcare which further compound the problem. Your story about your wife’s need is illustrative of the value of deductibles and copays in helping shape efficient consumer behavior. We are not as far apart as you might think.
However, although you made a smart price decision your wife’s demand was highly inelastic. At the end of the day, the demand was still 1. You had a choice of suppliers and a choice of prices. That did not mean you had elastic demand. Of course, given an inelastic demand you will still make a smart price choice. But, the quantity was not affected. You were not able to say, well, at that price I will just get a drug instead (see, I’ve learned about the restrictions on drugs for pregnant ladies!). I believe you are mistaking consumer choice in a given buying situation among prices and suppliers with the demand itself.
The central question is not whether we can ensure that there are market forces at play to ensure consumers make better price decisions (I believe the ACA encourages copays and deductibles???) but whether the market is special because, as I claim, it is subject to highly inelastic demand.
Inelastic demand is an effect even when there are choices of suppliers and prices. If you did not find a less pricy chiropractic service, in fact, if you found that all the others were 10% HIGHER you would go back to that practice and get the procedure. The sticker shock would be the same. Your power to negotiate a better price for the product would not be.
Market prices also drive the input costs. At the macro level, I believe the demand elasticity has a particularly strong effect on highly specialized inputs. I can’t pay my employees too much or the market will not bear the cost of our services. However, if the market was less elastic I could. I need my specialized team and so do my competitors. Wage costs could go up until this class of specialized folks were paid the most the market can bear. That occurs in efficient market dynamics too, but in a market distorted by inelastic demand for a highly specialized service (skill) or product that ceiling is much higher. It illustrates why the free market is not enough to produce efficient pricing when the forces are out of balance.
In fact, the more socialized you get, the more the price from the providers will rise - UNLESS you price fix by law and ration care.
I disagree. You might want to say “unless you price fix by law OR ration care”.… Even still, those nations with the most socialized healthcare frequently provide better outcomes for less cost per patient (or by GDP) than the US. Monopsonies are highly effective against natural monopolies and are also a counter weight to inelastic demand (IMHO).
My question is why? You can see the cause and effect, and you can see it will cause a glut in services and an increase in price. The last thing we want then is price fixing, which will mean shortages. When that occurs, as I stated in the first post, everyone will be covered, but not cared for. Where is the moral thrust in that?
I think you made a mistake there. A glut of services will cause a decrease in price. I think you meant that price fixing causes a decrease in services. We have seen this in Canada where some specialists move to the US where they can make more money and operate with greater freedom. Your point is valid. It is a good argument against a single “invisible” payer. I take your point. However, I counter that the argument that prices will naturally fall in a free market is incorrect due to the forces discussed above. In multi-decade live examples in country after country central price negotiations and fee schedules have NOT lead to poor outcomes.
The moral argument is that when there is scarcity of supply of something critical to live and limb the market is not a suitable moral arbiter for the allocation of products and services. It works for ipods not for heart transplants. I argue that morally, those with more money should not be the first entitled to healthcare. Of course, wealthy baby boomers will get plenty of hip replacements in a market driven system. However, the underprivileged child will not necessarily receive the needed treatment. I believe the moral duty is to remove "not" from that last sentence and it takes collective action to make that possible.
DogGone does not have all the answers. But, would you agree that this is a special market? Maybe, you do not like the options of a single payer, single insurer, individual mandate, etc; However, do you still feel the free market, absent government interference, will lead to reduced prices for items and services across the board in healthcare the way it does in fast food and home electronics?
they seem determined to undermine the us democracy and shut the government down hurting employees and veterans.. what a despicable bunch, hope they get their asses kicked for what they are doing..
Thanks BOTR. The difference is between a direct democracy and an indirect democracy, as you illustrate. Maybe it is easier for those of us in a constitutional monarchy to understand what a republic is?? That strange yarn that the US is a republic not a democracy is oft repeated. President Bartlett even said it on "The West Wing" once, so it is not just a notion of the Tea Party.
As an aside, the US does practice direct democracy with referendums/propositions on the state level from time to time. Does the US ever hold national referendums? They are very rare in Canada.
