Single Payer

[MoValley John]

The vast majority of both Keynesian and Austrian economists recognize that price controls do not work in the long term (and rarely in the short term), and almost universally result in the opposite of the desired effect: Artificially elevated prices.

Guess when price controls were implemented in the chart below?

I've posted this graph in other threads. Prices exploded exactly at the same time as medicare was enacted. Costs jumped at every instance the government attempted to "fix" medicare.

[I_Vector_Wu]

Oh my God. I can't even fathom how lost you are. It would take pages and pages of text just give you the slightest glimpse of what shareholders bring to the table.

I will add this, if shareholders didn't bring VALUE, and if shareholders didn't absorb RISK, no corporation would be public. Oh, and stock price has everything to do with a corporation's ability to borrow and operate. But no, shareholders bring nothing.

I think it's time for me to have a drink.

Okay help me understand here, I'm confused and I haven't even been drinking. I assume we are talking about large publicly traded companies since the topic is big money and healthcare. I buy 100 shares of Disney Corporation from my discount broker, how have I added "value" to the House of Mouse? Are you talking about Initial Public Offerings where you provide capital in exchange for a slice of ownership (shares)? IPO company gets cash from investors, you get shares in exchange. After that, all day to day trading in the secondary market has very little impact on the company barring news that moves the stock price.

Regarding stock price, it's mostly irrelevant, dot.com anyone? Apple trades at $157 and has about $250 billion on the books, Tesla trades around $360 and is burning through cash, to which would you lend your hard earned money?


Signed,
The Mooch (from 3 weeks ago

[MoValley John]

Okay help me understand here, I'm confused and I haven't even been drinking. I assume we are talking about large publicly traded companies since the topic is big money and healthcare. I buy 100 shares of Disney Corporation from my discount broker, how have I added "value" to the House of Mouse? Are you talking about Initial Public Offerings where you provide capital in exchange for a slice of ownership (shares)? IPO company gets cash from investors, you get shares in exchange. After that, all day to day trading in the secondary market has very little impact on the company barring news that moves the stock price.

Regarding stock price, it's mostly irrelevant, dot.com anyone? Apple trades at $157 and has about $250 billion on the books, Tesla trades around $360 and is burning through cash, to which would you lend your hard earned money?


Signed,
The Mooch (from 3 weeks ago

Your 100 shares don't mean squat, but your hundred shares, along 2,000,000 other guys that buy 100 shares helps elevate and stabilize the stock price. Individually, you do little, collectively, you do a lot. If Disney stock collapses, it will affect how they can do business. Again, your hundred don't mean anything, but Disney's decisions have to consider you because you act similarlly to the other 100 share investors. All of them.

As far as Tesla vs. Apple, you buy as much Apple as you can and dabble in Tesla with money you can lose. You are managing risk and hoping for a home run. If and when Tesla can mass produce an affordable, dependable electric car for the masses, you just got rich. That said, I'd avoid Tesla.

[I_Vector_Wu]

A 2016 article I found on the drivers of health care costs:


http://www.gfoa.org/sites/default/files/GFR081626.pdf

Unfortunately, the “spend-more-buy-less” situation is
not the only catalyst for rising health-care costs in the
United States. Other, more traditional challenges — waste-
ful spending, prescription drug cost,
advances in medical technology —
also play a role, exacerbated by an
aging workforce, unhealthy lifestyles,
high administrative costs, and ser-
vice provider consolidation that cre-
ates an apparently insurmountable
climate of cost growth.

Conclusion:

This kind of cost growth is not
inevitable; clear and striking dif-
ferences exist in the U.S. rate and
that of other industrialized nations.
Observers might assume that the high
costs in the United States are related
to higher capacity (an ability to do
more for patients) or greater utilization
(patients electing to purchase more health care than their
peers in other countries). They might also assume the higher
spending totals produce a superior level of care. But some
findings contradict this belief. Research conducted by the
Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development
(OECD) Health Division (2006) found that the United States
fared poorly when compared against 30 other industrialized
nations with market economies. Take the number of physi-
cians per capita for instance. The OECD found that the United
States had 5.8 physicians per capita, while the OECD median
was 5.9, suggesting a roughly equivalent doctor to population
ratio.
2
The OECD median for average hospital stay is almost
two days longer than that of the United States, suggesting a
higher utilization of hospital beds. Taken together, these find-
ings seem to suggest that the United States simply has higher
prices for similar goods.

[MoValley John]

Buy the rumor sell the fact

[jdshock]

The current government spending is 1.4 trillion dollars per year on healthcare. The proposed "universal" healthcare by Bernie Sanders, where you don't pay a nickel at the doctor (just pay in taxes) is 1.4 trillion per hos economist. How can this be? How is it possible that the government is currently spending 1.4 trillion dollars and not insuring everyone, when someone has a plan to insure everyone for the exact same amount? Is it possible that his economist understated the cost? Is there some trick to lowering costs if you add another 250,000,000 people to Medicaid/Medicare?

I said it's probably more expensive.

But yes, the trick is that you get large administrative efficiencies.

[wufan]

I said it's probably more expensive.

But yes, the trick is that you get large administrative efficiencies.

Let's say that bringing in the other 250 million people under the umbrella, costs $4000 in adittional health costs. That's half what some other countries spend per person. That's 1 trillion dollars in spending. The administrative increases are a net zero. Does that sound like the right amount?

[jdshock]

Let's say that bringing in the other 250 million people under the umbrella, costs $4000 in adittional health costs. That's half what some other countries spend per person. That's 1 trillion dollars in spending. The administrative increases are a net zero. Does that sound like the right amount?

No. I've said that two different times at this point.

But that wasn't your argument. Your argument was that "if the government is so efficient, why wouldn't they be doing X." I pointed out that even if the government is efficient, it might not have passed this bill for other reasons. I'm not particularly interested in debating the new point about what the exact government cost is because I don't know. A lot of people have a lot of different estimates.

[wufan]

No. I've said that two different times at this point.

But that wasn't your argument. Your argument was that "if the government is so efficient, why wouldn't they be doing X." I pointed out that even if the government is efficient, it might not have passed this bill for other reasons. I'm not particularly interested in debating the new point about what the exact government cost is because I don't know. A lot of people have a lot of different estimates.

My actual argument was that you can't say the government is efficient if the proposed single payer costs the exact same amount as the what it costs to insure 1/4 of the people. That's inefficiency. The counter argument is that single payer costs way more than what the proponents of it say it will cost. So, two possible conclusions:

1. The government is inefficient; therefore adding more government power would add inefficiencies.

2. Single payer is expensive; therefore we must weigh the benefit of single payer vs current strategies to come to a value based solution.

When you agreed with conclusion 2, the next logical step is to determine what the actual cost/value is. You can't make that determination without agreeing on cost; hence I was pushing for a mutual cost agreement so we could discuss value.

My initial claim, way back, is that if single payer can provide more value, i.e. Same standard of care at lower cost, then I could get on board. Some cost savings have been proposed, so I'm trying to vet that out. I need numbers to that.

[ShockCrazy]

My actual argument was that you can't say the government is efficient if the proposed single payer costs the exact same amount as the what it costs to insure 1/4 of the people. That's inefficiency. The counter argument is that single payer costs way more than what the proponents of it say it will cost. So, two possible conclusions:

1. The government is inefficient; therefore adding more government power would add inefficiencies.

2. Single payer is expensive; therefore we must weigh the benefit of single payer vs current strategies to come to a value based solution.

When you agreed with conclusion 2, the next logical step is to determine what the actual cost/value is. You can't make that determination without agreeing on cost; hence I was pushing for a mutual cost agreement so we could discuss value.

My initial claim, way back, is that if single payer can provide more value, i.e. Same standard of care at lower cost, then I could get on board. Some cost savings have been proposed, so I'm trying to vet that out. I need numbers to that.

1. Does not necessarily follow. The current government healthcare system can be both relatively inefficient, AND gain from expanding coverage. For example, right now Medicaid and Medicare already has to negotiate with providers, adding more people under the coverage does not change or increase this load. There are likely other areas where this is the case as well.

[Kung Wu]

I've posted this graph in other threads. Prices exploded exactly at the same time as medicare was enacted. Costs jumped at every instance the government attempted to "fix" medicare.

What happened in 1965 that caused our healthcare spend to ultimately spiral out of control?

[pinstripers]

What happened in 1965 that caused our healthcare spend to ultimately spiral out of control?

immigration?

[Kung Wu]

immigration?

Careful, I almost had to clean my monitor.

[pinstripers]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_and_Nationality_Act_of_1965

[MoValley John]

Medicare was signed into law on July 30th, 1965. The passage of medicare and subsequent fixes to medicare had a direct correlation to the explosion in health care costs.