The Problem with Health Care in the US is....

[EyeKhan]

I'm thinking of this in regards to recent proposed 'fixes' of Medicare and Medicaid. Is simply cutting the budget for these programs so that less can be spent a fix for the problem? It seems the ever increasing cost of health care is the problem, and if so, simply spending less tax dollars on providing it to poor and elderly people isn't going to fix that. It will maybe help align the Govt's spending with the last decade's tax cuts, but that's not necessarily what's in the best interests of the nation's citizens.

Now that I think of it, is this current discussion over gutting entitlement programs in order to keep the tax rates low the "starve the beast" strategy bearing fruit? Is that plan to destroy the country's social safety nets actually working?

[Loki]

Yes, the real problem with healthcare is not that its cost is increasing by over 10% per year but because the evil Republicans want to starve the government of funds.

[Aimless]

Yes, the real problem with healthcare is not that its cost is increasing by over 10% per year but because the evil Republicans want to starve the government of funds...

... instead of addressing the problem of ridiculous costs. We can only speculate as to why.

[LittleFuzzy]

... instead of addressing the problem of ridiculous costs. We can only speculate as to why.

I told you why it would happen back when Congress was first considering health care reform. Because the shiny "primary" legislation has already been passed.

[EyeKhan]

Loki has not heard of "starve the beast." Loki does not know the difference between cutting the funding of something deemed too expensive and attempting to reduce the expense of something that requires too much funding. Loki prefers sarcasm and hyperbole to straight forward discussion.

[Nessus]

Loki has not heard of "starve the beast." Loki does not know the difference between cutting the funding of something deemed too expensive and attempting to reduce the expense of something that requires too much funding. Loki prefers sarcasm and hyperbole to straight forward discussion.

When championing the cause of Gordon Gekko, it's easier to pre-empt dissent with ridicule.

[Loki]

Loki has not heard of "starve the beast." Loki does not know the difference between cutting the funding of something deemed too expensive and attempting to reduce the expense of something that requires too much funding. Loki prefers sarcasm and hyperbole to straight forward discussion.

Do you realize that we're spending more (as percentage of GDP) than we have at any point in our history except for WWII and possibly WWI? And do you realize that our GDP doesn't go up 10+% a year? What do you suppose happens when the major expenses go up by 10% a year, while revenue goes up 3% a year?

[EyeKhan]

Do you realize that we're spending more (as percentage of GDP) than we have at any point in our history except for WWII and possibly WWI? And do you realize that our GDP doesn't go up 10+% a year? What do you suppose happens when the major expenses go up by 10% a year, while revenue goes up 3% a year?

Loki likes to ask questions for which he desires no answers.

[Loki]

Loki likes to ask questions for which he desires no answers.

Chaloobi is a partisan hack whose only interest is to have his views reaffirmed by others.

[Dreadnaught]

I'm thinking of this in regards to recent proposed 'fixes' of Medicare and Medicaid. Is simply cutting the budget for these programs so that less can be spent a fix for the problem? It seems the ever increasing cost of health care is the problem, and if so, simply spending less tax dollars on providing it to poor and elderly people isn't going to fix that. It will maybe help align the Govt's spending with the last decade's tax cuts, but that's not necessarily what's in the best interests of the nation's citizens.

Now that I think of it, is this current discussion over gutting entitlement programs in order to keep the tax rates low the "starve the beast" strategy bearing fruit? Is that plan to destroy the country's social safety nets actually working?

I don't think this is part of a starve the beast strategy. The beast is already almost out of food[debt].

My view is evolving towards the government not trying to address costs and subsidies all at once. We should stop offering guaranteed subsidies of the healthcare industry, then work on potential legislative solutions to reducing healthcare costs.

[EyeKhan]

I don't think this is part of a starve the beast strategy. The beast is already almost out of food[debt].

Yes, but much of that debt was caused by GW's very large and unnecessary tax cuts during a healthy economy. Isn't that the way Starve the Beast is supposed to work? Conservatives recognize they can't dismantle (the very popular) social programs without a fiscal crisis, so they create (or ensure a much more severe) fiscal crisis by depriving the government of funds with (also very popular) tax cuts. So when the shit hits the fan - like two long, expensive wars, a series of unprecedented corporate bailouts, and a prolonged recession keeping tax revenues down (all at the same time) - you can actually put forth legislation to cut funding for Medicare and Medicaid, regardless of the cost of medical care, and not only will it not be politicial suicide, but it will be actually be considered.

My view is evolving towards the government not trying to address costs and subsidies all at once. We should stop offering guaranteed subsidies of the healthcare industry, then work on potential legislative solutions to reducing healthcare costs.

I think in the end, the health care industry is going to have to first become less wasteful, but that won't be enough. They will have to accept generally less pay per job and less profit.

[LittleFuzzy]

Yes, but much of that debt was caused by GW's very large and unnecessary tax cuts during a healthy economy.

Uh, the economy wasn't healthy. It wasn't as bad as now, but it was never doing much more than limping along throughout his presidency.

[Dreadnaught]

Yes, but much of that debt was caused by GW's very large and unnecessary tax cuts during a healthy economy. Isn't that the way Starve the Beast is supposed to work? Conservatives recognize they can't dismantle (the very popular) social programs without a fiscal crisis, so they create (or ensure a much more severe) fiscal crisis by depriving the government of funds with (also very popular) tax cuts. So when the shit hits the fan - like two long, expensive wars, a series of unprecedented corporate bailouts, and a prolonged recession keeping tax revenues down (all at the same time) - you can actually put forth legislation to cut funding for Medicare and Medicaid, regardless of the cost of medical care, and not only will it not be politicial suicide, but it will be actually be considered.

Candidly, Bush's tax cuts didn't break the fisc. Bad spending policies and expensive wars did. Government revenues increased pretty steadily because, as we've discussed before, the connection between tax cuts and government revenues isn't linear.

[EyeKhan]

Loki doesn't understand Chaloobi, or much of anything else. But some day Loki will be out of school and into real life.

[Nessus]

Loki doesn't understand Chaloobi, or much of anything else. But some day Loki will be out of school and into real life.

Heavens forbid, I hear it can be unpleasant outside ivory tower academia, brrr!

[EyeKhan]

Heavens forbid, I hear it can be unpleasant outside ivory tower academia, brrr!

Its bad in some ways, good in others, like anything else in life.

[Loki]

When he'll feign moral outrage at economic policies knowing that their only moral failing is that they hurt his bottom line.

[EyeKhan]

Loki doesn't understand Chaloobi, but Loki does like to attack.

[littlelolligagged]

Loki doesn't understand Chaloobi, but Loki does like to attack.

You did attack Icky first. Maybe Icky shouldn't have responded, but don't act like he started it.

[EyeKhan]

You did attack Icky first. Maybe Icky shouldn't have responded, but don't act like he started it.

I view his hyperbolic sarcasm, used to ridicule what he has attempted to position my ideology as, to be an attack. I treated his comments with the same respect he gave mine.

Yes, the real problem with healthcare is not that its cost is increasing by over 10% per year but because the evil Republicans want to starve the government of funds.

[EyeKhan]

Yes, fun how perspective changes with the extremes, no? The tech bubble crash was bad for anyone invested in tech stocks (guilty ) but nothing like what happened since 2007..... The DOW reached its 14k+ high, what, late in 2006/ early 2007? Then crashed down to 6k by late 2008? At one point I was down about 60% of my retirement savings at the same time the house I'd just bought lost a third of its value - almost all my down payment equity - and the old house I still owned was on sale for less than I bought it for 12 years prior. On top of that my company was in the process of firing people all around me! The thrashing I took in 2000 was nothing compared to that.

[Loki]

You're judging the health of an economy by indicators that ignore future obligations and problems? That would explain a lot about your ideology.

[EyeKhan]

You're judging the health of an economy by indicators that ignore future obligations and problems? That would explain a lot about your ideology.

Loki draws conclusions about people from the questions he asks before they answer them. That is because Loki is not interested in a discussion, just attacking.

[GGT]

The problem(s) with US healthcare are

(1) It costs more than in any other industrialized nation
(2) An over-use of expensive technology that doesn't necessarily improve outcomes
(3) The private insurance industry's monopoly on the sector
(4) Legislators catering policy to special interest groups (insurers)
(5) Being penny wise but pound foolish about education and prevention
(6) A tiered system that means care based on income or employment
(7) Defining insurance as care, and coupling insurance to employers
(8) Reluctance to admit we don't have the best system, just the most expensive and fractured
(9) Successes in longevity creating a moral dilemma no one wants to talk about
(10) Exorbitant fees for specialists, and fee-for-service reimbursements
(11) Not enough activism from within the medical community (AMA)
(21) Too many middle men

[LittleFuzzy]

I'm thinking of this in regards to recent proposed 'fixes' of Medicare and Medicaid. Is simply cutting the budget for these programs so that less can be spent a fix for the problem? It seems the ever increasing cost of health care is the problem, and if so, simply spending less tax dollars on providing it to poor and elderly people isn't going to fix that. It will maybe help align the Govt's spending with the last decade's tax cuts, but that's not necessarily what's in the best interests of the nation's citizens.

Now that I think of it, is this current discussion over gutting entitlement programs in order to keep the tax rates low the "starve the beast" strategy bearing fruit? Is that plan to destroy the country's social safety nets actually working?

The cost is already too high and rising too fast AND, if the government isn't spending too much on it, it soon will be. The first option is a fairly predictable consequence of the second option. The ever-increasing cost of health-care was the problem, and still is a massive part of the problem, but the more some people *of which you are one of the foremost advocates on here* push for universal coverage *which SOMEONE has to pay for* the more the significant size of government expenditures in that area becomes a problem in its own right.

[EyeKhan]

The cost is already too high and rising too fast AND, if the government isn't spending too much on it, it soon will be. The first option is a fairly predictable consequence of the second option. The ever-increasing cost of health-care was the problem, and still is a massive part of the problem, but the more some people *of which you are one of the foremost advocates on here* push for universal coverage *which SOMEONE has to pay for* the more the significant size of government expenditures in that area becomes a problem in its own right.

I support universal coverage, no question about it. Everyone should have access to the health care system, especially preventative health care.

Also, I am all for addressing the currently too high and still rising costs of health care. However, I don't regard increased rationing of health care services as a solution to that rising cost. It is one solution to the budget problem, but that's all.

[GGT]

It's more of a moral and philosophical dilemma, as I see it. The US would rather spend TRILLIONS on wars and feeding the weapons and quasi-military industries *or oil* , or lose BILLIONS of revenue by giving international mega-corporations and super duper wealthy their tax breaks, than spend a few MILLION on universal (non-biased) health care.

[Loki]

It's more of a moral and philosophical dilemma, as I see it. The US would rather spend TRILLIONS on wars and feeding the weapons and quasi-military industries *or oil* , or lose BILLIONS of revenue by giving international mega-corporations and super duper wealthy their tax breaks, than spend a few MILLION on universal (non-biased) health care.

A few million? Seriously?

[Dreadnaught]

Your numbers are off.

[GGT]

Fine. For all the ass hair braiders here.......explain the reverse. Explain why it's "better" to spend Trillions or Billions funding Wars or propping up chosen dictators, than it is to spend Trillions or Billions on education, healthcare, infrastructure for our own citizens.