What do you see happening to healthcare
Will costs go down or up?
What could anyone do to solve the problem?

https://www.shrm.org/resourcesandtools/hr-topics/benefits/pages/2018-health-plan-premiums-forecast.aspx

I don't think Trump has a clue what he's doing. He's looking for an attaboy at his last campaign stop without any understanding how a system works. The lack of the individual mandate is going to send costs skyrocketing.

Someone said on the news this morning, Trump sure knows how to break things but he doesn't know how to fix anything.

Spence
I was kinda hoping this could not be about Trump or Obama, but about healthcare given where we are at and where people think we could or should go in their perfect world.
It could be a Libertarian world, Progressive, Authoritarian or whatever your little or large heart desires.

I think they will always continue to rise. If you can afford it you'll have more choices to purchase the health care plan you prefer from who you want. Hopefully in the future the choice of plans will expand and allow out of state purchase.

Med trend will average about 6.5% and RX trend will average about 11.3%.

until it changes back to a non profit model ... its going to go up its not about taking care of Americans its about making money and if your priced out the usual suspects will blame the sick person not the system.. or you hope to make it 65 where your insurance will bounce you back to the government because you cost to much ...

until it changes back to a non profit model ... its going to go up its not about taking care of Americans its about making money and if your priced out the usual suspects will blame the sick person not the system.. or you hope to make it 65 where your insurance will bounce you back to the government because you cost to much ...

Define "profit." Then tell us when health care here was non profit.

I

Someone said on the news this morning, Trump sure knows how to break things but he doesn't know how to fix anything.

He knew how to fix Hilary’s inevitability.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Med trend will average about 6.5% and RX trend will average about 11.3%.

That’s about right Paul.

We need some kind of pooling of risk to get healthy people into the system, for damn sure we need tort reform, not sure what else can help. This is the downside of increased life expectancy, combined with the demographic effect of the baby boomers. We will have huge numbers if old people, who can live into their late 90s but will need care and expensive drugs. Going to be a massive problem, no easy solution.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

until it changes back to a non profit model ... its going to go up its not about taking care of Americans its about making money and if your priced out the usual suspects will blame the sick person not the system.. or you hope to make it 65 where your insurance will bounce you back to the government because you cost to much ...

Profit margins among health insurers are around 6-7%. Not a big deal. Seeking profit provides a good incentive to avoid expensive waste, something that the public sector could stand a lesson on.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

We need some kind of pooling of risk to get healthy people into the system,
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
We had that, it was called the individual mandate, it was a Republican idea. Trump repealed it because it was passed under Obama.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

We had that, it was called the individual mandate, it was a Republican idea. Trump repealed it because it was passed under Obama.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Except it didn’t work. So we didn’t really have it. Too many opted out. We increased coverage, covered more people, covered more health events for more people, but didn’t get sufficient numbers of healthy people.

I have a liberal view on this. No one chooses to be born healthy, no one chooses to be born with lifelong health issues, so the proper thing is to pool the risk. We’re all in that together. No one should struggle financially for their entire life because they were born with a terrible illness. It’s bull#^&#^&#^&#^&.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Except it didn’t work. So we didn’t really have it. Too many opted out. We increased coverage, covered more people, covered more health events for more people, but didn’t get sufficient numbers of healthy people.
That's just not true. Numbers of uninsured plummeted to historic lows and near the CBO estimates. The issues had more to do with Republican led states denying the exchanges and more recently Trump gutting Federal funding. In states where it was embraced it was actually working nearly according to plan. Not perfect but heading in the right direction.

That's just not true. Numbers of uninsured plummeted to historic lows and near the CBO estimates. The issues had more to do with Republican led states denying the exchanges and more recently Trump gutting Federal funding. In states where it was embraced it was actually working nearly according to plan. Not perfect but heading in the right direction.

you are like a wind-up toy :boots:

That's just not true. Numbers of uninsured plummeted to historic lows and near the CBO estimates. The issues had more to do with Republican led states denying the exchanges and more recently Trump gutting Federal funding. In states where it was embraced it was actually working nearly according to plan. Not perfect but heading in the right direction.

"That's just not true."

Yes it is true. Costs skyrocketed because not enough healthy young people signed up. Sick people signed up in huge numbers, healthy people paid the fine and self-insured. That's why it failed miserably.

Profit margins among health insurers are around 6-7%. Not a big deal. Seeking profit provides a good incentive to avoid expensive waste, something that the public sector could stand a lesson on.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

That is profit not including the costs that physicians incur to count beans for insurance companies. When my brother closed his practice he had himself, a nurse practitioner, several rns and 6 people dealing with paperwork. Now the 6 people dealing with paperwork do not improve healthcare outcomes, and they are a cost.
Shuffling paper and counting beans makes insurance companies money 6-7% of all the paper they shuffle, and beans they count.

That is profit not including the costs that physicians incur to count beans for insurance companies. When my brother closed his practice he had himself, a nurse practitioner, several rns and 6 people dealing with paperwork. Now the 6 people dealing with paperwork do not improve healthcare outcomes, and they are a cost.
Shuffling paper and counting beans makes insurance companies money 6-7% of all the paper they shuffle, and beans they count.


I setup and fix those medical / practice management systems and the continual changes and updates that must be applied just for regulatory changes cost thousands per year at the practice level. Would be good to simplify that small cost of a business. There are a lot of hoops the practice runs thru just to formulate the paperwork to the INS co's whims and desire.

"That's just not true."

Yes it is true. Costs skyrocketed because not enough healthy young people signed up. Sick people signed up in huge numbers, healthy people paid the fine and self-insured. That's why it failed miserably.
Jim, you're just making thing up again. Uninsured among young adults dropped more than any other age group. Of course with Trump's changes this could change dramatically.

Makes a lot of sense to break something people depend on without any alternate plan.

Jim, you're just making thing up again. Uninsured among young adults dropped more than any other age group. Of course with Trump's changes this could change dramatically.

Makes a lot of sense to break something people depend on without any alternate plan.

Yes, numbers of uninsured dropped. Problem was, sick people had huge incentives to join, and healthy people had incentives not to join. That's why the math didn't work. Too many healthy people were better off paying the fine/penalty, rather than enrolling.

If it worked as swimmingly as you suggest, why did costs skyrocket? The ACA got a lot more people insured, sure. But the pooling of risk between healthy people and sick people, wasn't nearly sufficient. You can't prove that wrong by pointing out how many people signed up. The problem wasn't that too few signed up, the problem was too few healthy people signed up.

I think we need a system where the young/healthy people cannot opt out. We need their money to help pay for people who are sick through no fault of their own. The ACA attempted to do this. It gave an easy out to the healthy.

If it worked as swimmingly as you suggest, why did costs skyrocket?
You're making thing up again. Costs didn't skyrocket in fact the rate of increase slowed as was expected.

You're making thing up again. Costs didn't skyrocket in fact the rate of increase slowed as was expected.

You're right, people in the exchanges didn't see triple digit increases, I'm making it up. Companies didn't drop out of Obamacare when they realized they couldn't avoid big losses, nope, I made that up too.

"the rate of increase slowed as was expected"

Now who is making stuff up? Obama didn't sell this by saying "the rate of increase will slow", he said the typical family would save $2500 a year. Didn't happen. Not until the tax overhaul , that is.

Obama didn't sell this by saying "the rate of increase will slow", he said the typical family would save $2500 a year. Didn't happen. Not until the tax overhaul , that is.
The $2500 figure was a calculation around total savings. He may have misspoke by attributing it to premiums but was likely just reciting a talking point that wasn't clear.

Regardless, under the health care act actual savings have been estimated at closer to $3300 besting even the original $2500 mark.

Maybe we need to start electing CPAs instead of Lawyers, just a thought.
I would like to see a totally funded basic healthcare system that did primary care and the things we all need to live a reasonable life. You could also buy additional insurance to do things above and beyond what is available in the basic system.
How it is totally funded is a big question.
The other one is what is basic care and who decides that.
The way it currently works seems to me to be, people on government assistance get it paid for, the truly wealthy can just pay for it, the people in the middle are fine as long as they dont get a long term issue and lose their coverage because they cannot work or happen to get sick while for one reason or another they are uninsured. Of course most people in this country fall into the middle group.

The $2500 figure was a calculation around total savings. He may have misspoke by attributing it to premiums but was likely just reciting a talking point that wasn't clear.

Regardless, under the health care act actual savings have been estimated at closer to $3300 besting even the original $2500 mark.

Sure, the average family is seeing price decreases for comparable coverage. Right. Price savings that exceed the $2,500 estimate, because as usual, Obama under-estimated his own brilliance.

My insurance company doesn't sell health insurance, but we sell liability insurance to companies that sell health insurance. Costs are up, not down. You don't cover more people, and cover more health-related risks like pre-existing conditions, while seeing costs decrease. I'm not making that up, that's arithmetic.

Maybe we need to start electing CPAs instead of Lawyers, just a thought.
I would like to see a totally funded basic healthcare system that did primary care and the things we all need to live a reasonable life. You could also buy additional insurance to do things above and beyond what is available in the basic system.
How it is totally funded is a big question.
The other one is what is basic care and who decides that.
The way it currently works seems to me to be, people on government assistance get it paid for, the truly wealthy can just pay for it, the people in the middle are fine as long as they dont get a long term issue and lose their coverage because they cannot work or happen to get sick while for one reason or another they are uninsured. Of course most people in this country fall into the middle group.

"Maybe we need to start electing CPAs instead of Lawyers, just a thought"

A brilliant thought. Sincerely, boy that would help.

Sure, the average family is seeing price decreases for comparable coverage. Right. Price savings that exceed the $2,500 estimate, because as usual, Obama under-estimated his own brilliance.
The savings is net. If costs are estimated to rise 5 thousand and they only rise 2-1/2 thousand you would see a savings even though costs are still increasing.

The savings is net. If costs are estimated to rise 5 thousand and they only rise 2-1/2 thousand you would see a savings even though costs are still increasing.

That sounds like the same logic my wife uses when she says she “Saved” us money when she bought chit we didn’t need because it was “ On Sale”
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

That sounds like the same logic my wife uses when she says she “Saved” us money when she bought chit we didn’t need because it was “ On Sale”
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

That is exactly what he's saying. And it's as absurd in the case of healthcare, as it is when the missus says it.

That sounds like the same logic my wife uses when she says she “Saved” us money when she bought chit we didn’t need because it was “ On Sale”
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Only if you didn't need the health care.

A bunch of data collected by various organizations about healthcare in the world' and yes, you should always take things with a grain of salt. So, don't get locked into the one that agrees with your philosophy, but feel free to contribute.
I saw this nugget in one of them, not sure how the math was done: Even though the U.S. is the only country without a publicly financed universal health system, it still spends more public dollars on health care than all but two of the other countries.
https://www.healthsystemtracker.org/chart-collection/health-spending-u-s-compare-countries/#item-average-wealthy-countries-spend-half-much-per-person-health-u-s-spends
http://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/issue-briefs/2015/oct/us-health-care-from-a-global-perspective
https://www.forbes.com/sites/physiciansfoundation/2018/04/09/u-s-health-outcomes-compared-to-other-countries-are-misleading/#613a591d1232

I would like to see a totally funded basic healthcare system that did primary care and the things we all need to live a reasonable life.

How much do you guess you would have to pay for an insurance policy that paid for all the things needed for you to live a reasonable life?

How much do you guess you would have to pay for an insurance policy that paid for all the things needed for you to live a reasonable life?

Where?
Pick a nation the data is out there
I’d like to see us bring the costs down to the midpoint of developed countries rather than The highest
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

How much do you guess you would have to pay for an insurance policy that paid for all the things needed for you to live a reasonable life?

it's really hard to get an answer to a question around here....

How much do you guess you would have to pay for an insurance policy that paid for all the things needed for you to live a reasonable life?

1000
And I’ll pose the same question back to you and Scott since you have the correct answer in mind
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Only if you didn't need the health care.

would it make more sense to you if i said she bought shoes.

1000
And I’ll pose the same question back to you and Scott since you have the correct answer in mind
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

if that is $1000 "per year" that is approximately what my car and life insurance costs and I can't remember the last time I made a claim for car ins...or life...obviously......you want a lot for a very little= health insurance for $83 a month...you want unlimited visits, no co-pay and free meds too?...my answer is I'd like to pay for what I want and need from a competitive market....

The savings is net. If costs are estimated to rise 5 thousand and they only rise 2-1/2 thousand you would see a savings even though costs are still increasing.

Out of curiosity, what are you afraid would happen to you, exactly, if you just admitted what everybody knows, that Obama was wrong? That he was simply wrong? I don't think he lied, I think he genuinely believed that the ACA would bring costs down by $2500 a year, just as he said the stimulus plan would keep unemployment under 8% (it rose over 10%). But he was wrong.

There's no spin, no context, nothing immoral...these guys are charged with looking at the data to make predictions. Sometimes they are right, sometimes they are wrong (like Bush with WMDs).

I promise you, that if you said "Obama blew that one", nothing bad will happen to you, no harm will come to either you or Obama.

seems all these sanctuary cities are having big homeless problems...=...tax and fix


May 14

By Matt Day and Daniel Beekman
Seattle Times staff reporters

After a weekend of high-stakes negotiations between Seattle City Council members and Mayor Jenny Durkan, the council voted unanimously Monday to tax the city’s largest employers to help address homelessness.

Starting next year, the tax will be $275 per employee, per year on for-profit companies that gross at least $20 million per year in the city — down from a $500-per-head proposal that Durkan threatened to veto.


The city declared a homelessness state of emergency in late 2015. A point-in-time count last year tallied more than 11,600 homeless people in King County and one in 16 Seattle Public Schools students is homeless.

“We have community members who are dying,” Councilmember Teresa Mosqueda said before the 9-0 vote. “They are dying on our streets today because there is not enough shelter” and affordable housing.

if that is $1000 "per year" that is approximately what my car and life insurance costs and I can't remember the last time I made a claim for car ins...or life...obviously......you want a lot for a very little= health insurance for $83 a month...you want unlimited visits, no co-pay and free meds too?...my answer is I'd like to pay for what I want and need from a competitive market....
It's really hard to get a straight answer around here. Does your answer mean you would like to not need insurance, or is it some imaginary competitive price?
Healthcare costs per capita in developed nations including public funds average around $5000 per year, we pay twice that of which over $4000 is public funds. So my answer of $1000 to your question is actually a total cost of $5000 one way or another. Switzerland has a competitive system (private insurance) and they come closest to our costs, but because they also have some government controls are less expensive.
Here is the question in case you forgot.
How much do you guess you would have to pay for an insurance policy that paid for all the things needed for you to live a reasonable life?

Starting next year, the tax will be $275 per employee, per year on for-profit companies that gross at least $20 million per year in the city — down from a $500-per-head proposal that Durkan threatened to veto.


In Spenceland they are saving businesses money....yay

And that savings will be passed on to the consumers in the form of a price increase....yay again
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Out of curiosity, what are you afraid would happen to you, exactly, if you just admitted what everybody knows, that Obama was wrong? That he was simply wrong? I don't think he lied, I think he genuinely believed that the ACA would bring costs down by $2500 a year, just as he said the stimulus plan would keep unemployment under 8% (it rose over 10%). But he was wrong.

There's no spin, no context, nothing immoral...these guys are charged with looking at the data to make predictions. Sometimes they are right, sometimes they are wrong (like Bush with WMDs).

I promise you, that if you said "Obama blew that one", nothing bad will happen to you, no harm will come to either you or Obama.
I don't think he blew either of them. The ACA was working as intended, if the conservative states would have embraced the exchanges it would have worked even better. We'd have a great platform to increase competition and get frivolous lawsuits into Federal courts...

As for the unemployment, again you're just reciting talking points. The Bush recession was deeper than projected. You're an actuarial Jim, you know that economic modeling isn't perfect and actual performance can't be measured until after it occurs.

What strikes me as odd is that you're still hung up on this stuff and ignoring the very real issues we have going on today. We have a President who's distancing our allies, pushing us closer to war, engaging in senseless trade policy and using the position to enrich himself.

But hey, you have a few extra dollars in your paycheck so it's all ok right?

In Spenceland they are saving businesses money....yay

And that savings will be passed on to the consumers in the form of a price increase....yay again
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Well, no. Regardless Seattle does bring about an interesting situation. Successful businesses have driven housing costs through the roof and as a result the poor are increasingly homeless. What do you do about that?

Median home in Seattle is now 777k

What strikes me as odd is that you're still hung up on this stuff and ignoring the very real issues we have going on today. We have a President who's distancing our allies, pushing us closer to war, engaging in senseless trade policy and using the position to enrich himself.
Haha, forgot Russia.

Well, no. Regardless Seattle does bring about an interesting situation. Successful businesses have driven housing costs through the roof and as a result the poor are increasingly homeless. What do you do about that?

Median home in Seattle is now 777k

I can't afford a house in Boston, you know what I do......I don't live in Boston.


and that comment has nothing to do with the take on Spencenomics.


and the minimum wage in Seattle is that Utopian $15 an hour that was supposed to fix all financial ills, why isn't it working?

Successful businesses have driven housing costs through the roof and as a result the poor are increasingly homeless. What do you do about that?

Median home in Seattle is now 777k

rich liberals should adopt the homeless

I can't afford a house in Boston, you know what I do......I don't live in Boston.
Yes, because most homeless are in control of their situation.

It's really hard to get a straight answer around here. it was a pretty straight answer...what did you not understand?Does your answer mean you would like to not need insurance didn't say that, or is it some imaginary competitive price
are competitive prices imaginary?
Healthcare costs per capita in developed nations including public funds average around $5000 per year, we pay twice that of which over $4000 is public funds. So my answer of $1000 to your question is actually a total cost of $5000 one way or another. Switzerland has a competitive system (private insurance) and they come closest to our costs, but because they also have some government controls are less expensive.we have no government controls?
Here is the question in case you forgot.
How much do you guess you would have to pay for an insurance policy that paid for all the things needed for you to live a reasonable life?

so you'd like the public to give you $4000 per year for your healthcare?

so you'd like the public to give you $4000 per year for your healthcare?
We here in the USA currently pay more than 4K per capita for healthcare with tax dollars.
I just want our total expenditures per capita to be in the middle of comparable countries
Not 30% more than the next highest.
I think tax deductions do not count in those numbers but are also a real cost
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

so you'd like the public to give you $4000 per year for your healthcare?

And you still can’t answer the question
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Yes, because most homeless are in control of their situation.

So then why bring up a median house price of $770k....would the homeless be better off if the median house price were $350k, that they could swing?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

And you still can’t answer the question
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I don't believe that there is some fixed monthly/yearly number that everyone should pay for their healthcare....you were asked because you seem to think that there is.....

I just want our total expenditures per capita to be in the middle of comparable countries

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

why?

I don't think he blew either of them.

that was pretty funny

As for the unemployment, again you're just reciting talking points.

Spence...you are the KING of reciting talking points

We have a President who's distancing our allies, pushing us closer to war, engaging in senseless trade policy and using the position to enrich himself.

started drinking this early?

But hey, you have a few extra dollars in your paycheck so it's all ok right?

he should just mail it to Pete for his healthcare

I don't believe that there is some fixed monthly/yearly number that everyone should pay for their healthcare....you were asked because you seem to think that there is.....
That's because you are not old enough to need it.
Your time will come:D

I don't believe that there is some fixed monthly/yearly number that everyone should pay for their healthcare....you were asked because you seem to think that there is.....
Do you think a total free market system would produce what you want?
Would you eliminate all controls and supports?
Do you think health insurance is unnecessary?
Would healthcare providers need to be certified in any way?
Are we getting rid of lawyers also?
Would health care providers do a credit check before performing any services? "He's broke, toss him out the door"
Who would pick up the bodies?
How much do you think it would cost per capita for your idea of healthcare?

So then why bring up a median house price of $770k....would the homeless be better off if the median house price were $350k, that they could swing?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Because the rapid gentrification pushes people down with no where to go. It's not the only reason but it's a big part.

It's really hard to get a straight answer around here. Does your answer mean you would like to not need insurance, or is it some imaginary competitive price?

I would like to not need insurance. I would like to pay an actually competitive price. Both of those likes require an actually free market.

But, since we live in a highly regulated market, the notion of "price" is degraded more akin to a tax rather than being a competitive marker for self regulation as used in free market business models. In our current politically driven system, price is driven by regulatory costs and political wish fulfilments.

And we have made even our regulated, political system worse by centralizing control in a national system rather than dispersing it to competitive state models.

Healthcare costs per capita in developed nations including public funds average around $5000 per year, we pay twice that of which over $4000 is public funds. So my answer of $1000 to your question is actually a total cost of $5000 one way or another.

Comparisons to other countries is not useful if all the differing factors which make up the unique character of each country are not part of the calculation. We are larger than most countries. We are more significantly affected by cultural and racial differences. We have far more open borders. We have greater economic disparities and different ways per locality to deal with them. Almost everything here costs more for varying reasons . . . just for starters . . .

Switzerland has a competitive system (private insurance) and they come closest to our costs, but because they also have some government controls are less expensive.

Switzerland's population is less than that of New York city. It is fairly racially and culturally homogenous. Political differences are not as diverse and polemical as ours. Negative social factors such as crime and poverty are far less consequential. Its population, business entities, and government don't have to fund the various researches required to create new technologies and cures, etc. . . . Yet it can tap into the productions and creations of countries such as the U.S.


Its privatized health care system is good and far less politically messed with than ours, and would be a kind of model for us even without a mandate--as expressed by the Forbes article I posted in your "Let's discuss something really simple, Health Care" thread.


Here is the question in case you forgot.
How much do you guess you would have to pay for an insurance policy that paid for all the things needed for you to live a reasonable life?

I knew you referred to Health Care when you said "all the things needed for a reasonable life." But my question actually referred to ALL the things you would need for you to live a reasonable life--food, shelter, clothing, transportation, leisure activity, and so forth. ALL those things impact overall health. Some are even more fundamental to life than health care, and most are in more constant demand than health care.

Why do we want to insure health care over those other things? Cost? Isn't the cost of health care made more expensive when it is insured by a third party such as wealthy insurance companies or the government--especially when that third party becomes more and more universal? Aren't the cost of ALL those other things made more affordable because they are not universally paid for by a rich third party? How much would you have to pay an insurance company or the government so that either would in turn pay for ALL those other things you need to live a reasonable life? Is health care really that different?

And if some procedure is so rare that the cost to provide it is prohibitive, perhaps each individual state, by vote, could create state clinics to make the service available to its people.

Getting the federal government out of it would be a first step to lowering costs, in my opinion. I think it would be more financially feasible to have 50 "Switzerlands" than one behemoth, overspending, and dictatorial State.

I knew you referred to Health Care when you said "all the things needed for a reasonable life." But my question actually referred to ALL the things you would need for you to live a reasonable life--food, shelter, clothing, transportation, leisure activity, and so forth. ALL those things impact overall health. Some are even more fundamental to life than health care, and most are in more constant demand than health care.

Why do we want to insure health care over those other things? Cost? Isn't the cost of health care made more expensive when it is insured by a third party such as wealthy insurance companies or the government--especially when that third party becomes more and more universal? Aren't the cost of ALL those other things made more affordable because they are not universally paid for by a rich third party? How much would you have to pay an insurance company or the government so that either would in turn pay for ALL those other things you need to live a reasonable life? Is health care really that different?

And if some procedure is so rare that the cost to provide it is prohibitive, perhaps each individual state, by vote, could create state clinics to make the service available to its people.

Getting the federal government out of it would be a first step to lowering costs, in my opinion. I think it would be more financially feasible to have 50 "Switzerlands" than one behemoth, overspending, and dictatorial State.
You only missed a couple questions on my last post
Do you think a total free market system would produce what you want?
Would you eliminate all controls and supports?
Do you think health insurance is unnecessary?
Would healthcare providers need to be certified in any way?
Are we getting rid of lawyers also?
Would health care providers do a credit check before performing any services? "He's broke, toss him out the door"
Who would pick up the bodies?
How much do you think it would cost per capita for your idea of healthcare?

Do you think a total free market system would produce what you want?
Would you eliminate all controls and supports?
Do you think health insurance is unnecessary?
Would healthcare providers need to be certified in any way?
Are we getting rid of lawyers also?
Would health care providers do a credit check before performing any services? "He's broke, toss him out the door"
Who would pick up the bodies?
How much do you think it would cost per capita for your idea of healthcare?

are you and Spence drinking together today?:cheers2:

You only missed a couple questions on my last post
Do you think a total free market system would produce what you want?

Yes.

Would you eliminate all controls and supports?

Our government's duty toward a free market is to ensure its freedom by prosecuting practices that corrupt and strangle market freedom. Other "controls" and "supports" tend to capture the market into a governmental or political system wherein the government more uniformly directs the market rather than protecting it, and thereby diminishes the competitive nature of a free market needed to make price a signal to manage costs rather than just a form of tax which raises costs.

Do you think health insurance is unnecessary?

Insurance is not necessary. But it is a useful commodity for the buyer if it gives him an advantage over those who are uninsured, and, especially if, it does not artificially drive up cost. That is, when the cost of care is determined by individual consumers' ability to pay, then collective insurance costs and premiums are affordable. If too many people are "insured," then health care provider costs will reflect the insurance company's (or the government's) ability to pay rather than the individual out of pocket ability to pay. In which case the price for care would eventually rise beyond the individual's ability to pay out of pocket (or credit). And would keep on rising as government continued to try to regulate the system with new controls which tried to keep costs down.

In effect, there is the paradox that insurance is useful when it provides an advantage. But it becomes onerous when everybody is insured. First, it is no longer an advantage because everyone else has it. Second, because costs rise significantly when they are based on government's and or corporations' ability to pay rather than individual ability to do so. And third, government reaction to rising costs is to regulate the health care market, which raises costs, which inspires new regulations, and continues in a spiral of continuing rise in the cost of health care.

Would healthcare providers need to be certified in any way?

A market is not free if the trade is not fair. A seller taking good money for service not worth the money, or worse, is physically harmful to the buyer, is a coercive tactic. A useful function of government is to assure that the market is free of corruptive and coercive tactics.

Are we getting rid of lawyers also?

Why?

Would health care providers do a credit check before performing any services? "He's broke, toss him out the door"

If someone could afford to pay high insurance premiums, he would probably be able to pass a credit check. For those who are that poor we've always had charities and pro-bono services. Large charitable organizations used to be on file with hospitals to pay for needy cases. State services have always existed to assist the poor. This goes continuously all the way back to the colonial days when the truly needy were given sustenance.

Who would pick up the bodies?

You could if you care so much.

How much do you think it would cost per capita for your idea of healthcare?

A lot less than it does with our current system.

A lot less than it does with our current system.
Can you point out a working example of the system you propose?

are you and Spence drinking together today?:cheers2:
I thought you and Detbuch were, you each keep replying to posts to the other one. I was cutting you some slack assuming you were daydrinking.

Can you point out a working example of the system you propose?

I'm not proposing a system. I'm proposing that the federal government significantly get out of health care. I'm proposing that the individual states create whatever regulations are needed, and that those regulations protect a free market in health care.

Can you point out an example of what you think I propose doesn't work?

Because the rapid gentrification pushes people down with no where to go. It's not the only reason but it's a big part.

Why on earth are you worried about the homeless in Seattle? Seattle is a very Progressive city. No way that homelessness will exist there. The supposedly homeless in Seattle should be asked "How is your life suffering because of progressive policy?"

Why on earth are you worried about the homeless in Seattle? Seattle is a very Progressive city. No way that homelessness will exist there. The supposedly homeless in Seattle should be asked "How is your life suffering because of progressive policy?"

The progressive liberal utopia of Connecticut, is also an epicenter of income inequality, where the zillionaires of Westport and Greenwich live next-door to unimaginable poverty in Bridgeport.

The progressive liberal utopia of Connecticut, is also an epicenter of income inequality, where the zillionaires of Westport and Greenwich live next-door to unimaginable poverty in Bridgeport.

Still far far better than all those conserv. states where they can't even pay their teachers decent salaries and have to have high school grads teach school.

I'm not proposing a system. I'm proposing that the federal government significantly get out of health care. I'm proposing that the individual states create whatever regulations are needed, and that those regulations protect a free market in health care.

Can you point out an example of what you think I propose doesn't work?

Apparently, no country is foolish enough to try it.

Still far far better than all those conserv. states where they can't even pay their teachers decent salaries and have to have high school grads teach school.

I doubt that income inequality is better in those states. We weren't talking about average income, or teacher income, we were talking about income inequality. That is a huge issue in CT, because it's a byproduct of hard-core liberalism.

High school grads teaching school? Where is that?

One conservative state that people are moving to in huge numbers is NC. They pay their teachers poorly, which is one reason why taxes are low. But they still get people to apply for teaching jobs, and if you do 5 minutes of research before deciding what town to live in, you can get great public schools.

Paul, here in CT we pay teachers very well (despite what they claim), and we give them insane benefits (despite what they claim). There is an upside to that, sure, as talent often goes where the money is. There is also a downside (in addition to the cost). You can run the risk of drawing people to the profession who are only attracted by the pay, benefits, and time off. That is not a profession where you want people who are only casually interested in the underlying work. You need people who are answering a call to teach.

When I was a student in public schools in CT, teacher pay was barely above poverty. Yet we got great, certified teachers, not high school grads. Then I went to a Catholic high school, where teachers were paid even less. Again, I had amazing teachers. It's a total fallacy to claim that unless we bankrupt ourselves to pay them well, that no one will teach except for illiterate criminals. It's demonstrably false.

I doubt that income inequality is better in those states. We weren't talking about average income, or teacher income, we were talking about income inequality. That is a huge issue in CT, because it's a byproduct of hard-core liberalism.

When I was a student in public schools in CT, teacher pay was barely above poverty. Yet we got great, certified teachers, not high school grads. Then I went to a Catholic high school, where teachers were paid even less. Again, I had amazing teachers. It's a total fallacy to claim that unless we bankrupt ourselves to pay them well, that no one will teach except for illiterate criminals. It's demonstrably false.
Hard-core liberalism made CT a suburb of NYC? How did the people of Fairfield County make other people poor?
Are you sure teachers even deserve to be paid? Or should they own their own schools so they can make a profit, then it would be OK to make whatever they can.

Still far far better than all those conserv. states where they can't even pay their teachers decent salaries and have to have high school grads teach school.

Is it? How much better would lower income folks be with a lower tax burden?

Is it? How much better would lower income folks be with a lower tax burden?

Sure is. If you look at many stats, the evil liberal states rank far better than the conserv. utopian states. Things like quality of life, education, health care access, public safety, crime, life expectancy, environmental health, housing rates, etc. Those come at a cost - higher taxes.

Would the poor fare better w/a lower tax burden - I don't think so as the stats indicate there are less "ills" in the higher tax states.

Would Jim, you and I fare better in a low income state - prob. yes.

I heard that in Utah (which has a severe teacher shortage) they hired teachers w/a college degree. The person who said that also said you could teach w/o a degree if you have 5 years of relevant experience - which I don't think is a bad idea.

One conservative state that people are moving to in huge numbers is NC. They pay their teachers poorly, which is one reason why taxes are low. But they still get people to apply for teaching jobs, and if you do 5 minutes of research before deciding what town to live in, you can get great public schools.
And their d... uppity teachers are walking out
http://www.charlotteobserver.com/opinion/article211234489.html
https://www.cnn.com/2018/05/08/us/north-carolina-may-16-teacher-protest/index.html

Apparently, no country is foolish enough to try it.

Actually, we were foolish to depart from that "system" and switch to federal government control. As we "progressed" through the switch, prices skyrocketed.

Advances in medicine occurred before the switch, and would have continued probably even faster and better without the switch. And the competition between states would have created varieties from which to choose. And it would have helped to preserve our constitutional "system" rather than helping to destroy it. And individual freedom of choice as well as freedom in general would have been sustained.

Hard-core liberalism made CT a suburb of NYC? How did the people of Fairfield County make other people poor?
Are you sure teachers even deserve to be paid? Or should they own their own schools so they can make a profit, then it would be OK to make whatever they can.

No, you misinterpreted my post about. I was not saying liberalism caused the fabulously wealthy enclaves of Fairfield County, that was great luck for the state of CT. I'm saying liberalism is directly responsible for the other side of income inequality, the extreme poverty, and for the loss of much of the middle class. Highly progressive areas tend to attract large numbers of wealthy people who can afford the taxes that accompany liberalism, and also large numbers of people who want to live off liberal welfare. The middle class fall through the cracks and go elsewhere. That's why you have income inequality, you have people at both extremes, not a lot of folks in the middle.

Are you sure teachers even deserve to be paid? Or should they own their own schools so they can make a profit, then it would be OK to make whatever they can.

Not sure what made you think I don't think they should be paid (I taught public school for a short time in CT). They should be paid an amount that is reasonable to fund via reasonable taxes.

What I said, and it's demonstrably true, is that lower compensation doesn't always mean a lower quality of education.

Is it? How much better would lower income folks be with a lower tax burden?

The problem with that, is that liberals feel that the state knows better than these people, how to best spend their money.

Is it? How much better would lower income folks be with a lower tax burden?

Also, the cost of living is lower ("more affordable") in those lower taxed states, so lower salaries can be sustained more easily.

And their d... uppity teachers are walking out
http://www.charlotteobserver.com/opinion/article211234489.html
https://www.cnn.com/2018/05/08/us/north-carolina-may-16-teacher-protest/index.html

Fine. let them walk out, and I bet for every teacher that quits, the town gets 10 applications from fresh college grads eager to land their first job. Do you have any data to suggest that they can't fill open teaching positions in the Carolinas? I'd bet the farm that's not true.

Sure is. If you look at many stats, the evil liberal states rank far better than the conserv. utopian states. Things like quality of life, education, health care access, public safety, crime, life expectancy, environmental health, housing rates, etc. Those come at a cost - higher taxes.

Would the poor fare better w/a lower tax burden - I don't think so as the stats indicate there are less "ills" in the higher tax states.

Would Jim, you and I fare better in a low income state - prob. yes.

I heard that in Utah (which has a severe teacher shortage) they hired teachers w/a college degree. The person who said that also said you could teach w/o a degree if you have 5 years of relevant experience - which I don't think is a bad idea.

Paul, how do you explain the fact that CT is always among the nation's leaders in population exodus? CT offers an amazing quality of life if you can afford it. Many people are deciding that it's not worth the cost, that the Carolinas offer a better bang for the buck.

And that's based on today's taxes, which we know aren't anywhere near enough to fund the debt that's coming soon. So even though most of the debt is off the balance sheet in unfunded IOUs. we're still losing productive citizens. What's going to happen when these debts come due, which is around the corner?

"Would Jim, you and I fare better in a low income state - prob. yes. "

There are upper middle class areas in NC and SC where I can enjoy a comparable quality of life, for far lower cost. You refer to them as "low income states" to disparage the entire state. I'm not saying I want CT to turn into all of NC or SC. But we can learn lessons from the parts of NC and SC that are working so well, like the suburbs of Charlotte, which is the banking capital of the US. They are building $450k houses as fast as they can be put up, and it isn't meth heads who are buying them. The population exodus has been a disaster for tax revenue.

Fine. let them walk out, and I bet for every teacher that quits, the town gets 10 applications from fresh college grads eager to land their first job.
That makes sense, let's stuff the schools with first timers learning on the job with no experienced mentors.

That makes sense, let's stuff the schools with first timers learning on the job with no experienced mentors.

Glad to see you're not making assumptions or anything. First, the citizens of places like the Carolinas have freely chosen (unlike the masochists in CT) to live with low taxes, and to pay public servants accordingly.

Second, the teaching profession has plenty of grizzled, burnt-out veterans, and the students might benefit by replacing them with eager rookies bursting with energy and enthusiasm and new creative ideas.

Third - "no experienced mentors" - show me the data that says that there aren't any experienced teachers left.

Paying teachers poverty wages isn't ideal. Nor is what we have here in CT, where we have promised them benefits that can never, ever be delivered.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/health/wellness/states-with-the-highest-obesity-rates/ss-AAwNlzL?li=BBnb7Kz#image=18

Obesity rates - just saw this.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/health/wellness/states-with-the-highest-obesity-rates/ss-AAwNlzL?li=BBnb7Kz#image=18

Obesity rates - just saw this.

Any fat bastards that think its the states fault they are fat, raise there hands. :hihi:

Nope, that one is on me and my love of Craft Beer and BBQ

http://www.msn.com/en-us/health/wellness/states-with-the-highest-obesity-rates/ss-AAwNlzL?li=BBnb7Kz#image=18

Obesity rates - just saw this.

And that's because of politics, not culture? So if healthy people move from CT to NC, they can expect to become obese?

Come on Paul. That doesn't come close to making any sense.

Bash the Carolinas all you want, and there are plenty of legitimate things to bash them with. I don't like NASCAR or hunting either. The fact is, huge numbers of upper middle class New Englanders are moving there, and most don't come back. And the reason is, it turns out that you can have all the good things about our quality of life, without having to overpay for them.

Any fat bastards that think its the states fault they are fat, raise there hands. :hihi:

Nope, that one is on me and my love of Craft Beer and BBQ

But that's the very core of liberalism - nothing is your fault, and only the state can save you from yourself, and from the predatory practices of the craft breweries and BBQ joints. It's stupefying that anyone would think that obesity rates are tied to politics. Think how much you have to reject the notion of free will, to blame obesity on the state.

If all behavior is determined by politics, what does it say to you, Paul, that the crappiest and most dangerous cities in the country, are overwhelmingly liberal cities? Chicago, Baltimore, DC, Hartford, Bridgeport? Is all that drug use, fatherlessness, and crime, the result of liberalism? Or does that connection only exist when bad things happen in conservative places?

There are plenty of places in NC where I would never want to live (there are also plenty of places in CT where I would not want to live). But there are some places in NC that offer a high quality of life, with a low cost of living. Please name me one single place in CT that has a high quality of life, with low low taxes. You can't. Because we haven't been able to pull that off, but NC has. Ask the real estate agents and real estate developers.

[QUOTE=Jim in CT;1142743]And that's because of politics, not culture? So if healthy people move from CT to NC, they can expect to become obese?

Come on Paul. That doesn't come close to making any sense.

QUOTE]

Republicans policies tend to entrench poverty, and obesity and poverty often go together. The Republican-dominated states where obesity rates are the highest are states where there is more poverty, weak unions, people who lack health insurance and a strong opposition to the ACA. Also, opposition to food stamps, school meals and spending $ on education (to teach students about nutrition - don't eat cheetos vs fruit)

There is more to it then poverty, lack of health insurance and inadequate access to healthy food and obesity can’t be blamed only on the conserv. policies (plenty of overweight people in liberal cities) but stats show obesity is the conserv. states and those conserv. policies make the problem worse.


Any ranking of obesity has conserv. states at the top and liberal states at the bottom. That is not solely blaming states only noting it is a part of the problem. As an actuary you have to see a correlation.

[QUOTE=Jim in CT;1142743]And that's because of politics, not culture? So if healthy people move from CT to NC, they can expect to become obese?

Come on Paul. That doesn't come close to making any sense.

QUOTE]

Republicans policies tend to entrench poverty, and obesity and poverty often go together. The Republican-dominated states where obesity rates are the highest are states where there is more poverty, weak unions, people who lack health insurance and a strong opposition to the ACA. Also, opposition to food stamps, school meals and spending $ on education (to teach students about nutrition - don't eat cheetos vs fruit)

There is more to it then poverty, lack of health insurance and inadequate access to healthy food and obesity can’t be blamed only on the conserv. policies (plenty of overweight people in liberal cities) but stats show obesity is the conserv. states and those conserv. policies make the problem worse.


Any ranking of obesity has conserv. states at the top and liberal states at the bottom. That is not solely blaming states only noting it is a part of the problem. As an actuary you have to see a correlation.

"Republicans policies tend to entrench poverty, and obesity and poverty often go together. "

You are desperately grasping at straws. Anyone who would suggest that politics determines obesity for a significant percentage of the citizenry, is a maniac.

"The Republican-dominated states where obesity rates are the highest are states where there is more poverty, weak unions, people who lack health insurance and a strong opposition to the ACA."

Unions? UNIONS keep people skinny?

OK, I had my laugh for the day, I think we are done now.

[QUOTE=Jim in CT;1142743]And that's because of politics, not culture? So if healthy people move from CT to NC, they can expect to become obese?

Come on Paul. That doesn't come close to making any sense.

QUOTE]

Republicans policies tend to entrench poverty, and obesity and poverty often go together. The Republican-dominated states where obesity rates are the highest are states where there is more poverty, weak unions, people who lack health insurance and a strong opposition to the ACA. Also, opposition to food stamps, school meals and spending $ on education (to teach students about nutrition - don't eat cheetos vs fruit)

There is more to it then poverty, lack of health insurance and inadequate access to healthy food and obesity can’t be blamed only on the conserv. policies (plenty of overweight people in liberal cities) but stats show obesity is the conserv. states and those conserv. policies make the problem worse.


Any ranking of obesity has conserv. states at the top and liberal states at the bottom. That is not solely blaming states only noting it is a part of the problem. As an actuary you have to see a correlation.

"Any ranking of obesity has conserv. states at the top and liberal states at the bottom. That is not solely blaming states only noting it is a part of the problem. As an actuary you have to see a correlation."

As an actuary, if I ever dared to say out loud that state politics plays any meaningful role in people's weight, they'd kick me out of the association and never let me work again, and they'd be right to do so.

Again, if what you say is true (and it isn't, bit let's pretend), I'd bet that liberal states have more abortions, more drug use, more violent crime, poverty, fatherlessness, infidelity, divorce. If conservatism causes obesity, do you concede that liberalism causes the problems I listed? Can't have it both ways.

Some good reading here:

The red states all have significantly lower life expectancy than blue states, owing to much higher incidences of diabetes, obesity, stroke and heart disease.
Red states have much higher rates of uninsured citizens, death, food stamp recipients and Medicaid recipients
The 10 poorest states in the nation are all red states and 97 of the 100 poorest counties are in red states.
The median income is much lower in red states than in blue states.
State funding per student is much lower in in red states.
The top 10 states that practice corporal punishment are red states.
The percent of the population with college degrees is lower in red states than in blue states.
Red states have a higher percentage of population abusing drugs.
The rate of traffic related fatalities is higher in red states.
The incidence of alcohol-related driving fatalities is higher in red states.
Of the 12 states with the highest murder rates, 10 are red states.
Of the top 10 states with the highest teenage pregnancy rates, nine are red states.
Of the top 15 states with the highest per capita execution rate, 13 are red states.
The incarceration rate is much higher in red states.
Property crimes rates are higher in red states than in blue states.
Divorce rates are significantly higher in red states.
Abstinence-only sex education is more prevalent in red states, which accounts for the fact that of the states with the highest teenage pregnancy rates, nine of the top ten are red states.
There are significantly more white supremacists hate groups in red states than in blue states.


Violence
http://editions.lib.umn.edu/smartpolitics/2009/09/16/red-states-have-higher-crime-r/

Divorce
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25032268

Teen Pregnancies
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/map_of_the_week/2012/09/teen_births_map_shows_conservative_states_have_mos t_teen_moms_.html

Pornography
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-human-beast/200903/why-conservatives-spend-more-pornography

Best states for woman.
https://wallethub.com/edu/best-and-worst-states-for-women/10728/

Some good reading here:

The red states all have significantly lower life expectancy than blue states, owing to much higher incidences of diabetes, obesity, stroke and heart disease.
Red states have much higher rates of uninsured citizens, death, food stamp recipients and Medicaid recipients
The 10 poorest states in the nation are all red states and 97 of the 100 poorest counties are in red states.
The median income is much lower in red states than in blue states.
State funding per student is much lower in in red states.
The top 10 states that practice corporal punishment are red states.
The percent of the population with college degrees is lower in red states than in blue states.
Red states have a higher percentage of population abusing drugs.
The rate of traffic related fatalities is higher in red states.
The incidence of alcohol-related driving fatalities is higher in red states.
Of the 12 states with the highest murder rates, 10 are red states.
Of the top 10 states with the highest teenage pregnancy rates, nine are red states.
Of the top 15 states with the highest per capita execution rate, 13 are red states.
The incarceration rate is much higher in red states.
Property crimes rates are higher in red states than in blue states.
Divorce rates are significantly higher in red states.
Abstinence-only sex education is more prevalent in red states, which accounts for the fact that of the states with the highest teenage pregnancy rates, nine of the top ten are red states.
There are significantly more white supremacists hate groups in red states than in blue states.

That is surely because all those rich liberals threw the fat, drunk, abusive, illiterate deplorables out of their blue states.

Some good reading here:

The red states all have significantly lower life expectancy than blue states, owing to much higher incidences of diabetes, obesity, stroke and heart disease.
Red states have much higher rates of uninsured citizens, death, food stamp recipients and Medicaid recipients
The 10 poorest states in the nation are all red states and 97 of the 100 poorest counties are in red states.
The median income is much lower in red states than in blue states.
State funding per student is much lower in in red states.
The top 10 states that practice corporal punishment are red states.
The percent of the population with college degrees is lower in red states than in blue states.
Red states have a higher percentage of population abusing drugs.
The rate of traffic related fatalities is higher in red states.
The incidence of alcohol-related driving fatalities is higher in red states.
Of the 12 states with the highest murder rates, 10 are red states.
Of the top 10 states with the highest teenage pregnancy rates, nine are red states.
Of the top 15 states with the highest per capita execution rate, 13 are red states.
The incarceration rate is much higher in red states.
Property crimes rates are higher in red states than in blue states.
Divorce rates are significantly higher in red states.
Abstinence-only sex education is more prevalent in red states, which accounts for the fact that of the states with the highest teenage pregnancy rates, nine of the top ten are red states.
There are significantly more white supremacists hate groups in red states than in blue states.


Violence
http://editions.lib.umn.edu/smartpolitics/2009/09/16/red-states-have-higher-crime-r/

Divorce
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25032268

Teen Pregnancies
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/map_of_the_week/2012/09/teen_births_map_shows_conservative_states_have_mos t_teen_moms_.html

Pornography
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-human-beast/200903/why-conservatives-spend-more-pornography

Best states for woman.
https://wallethub.com/edu/best-and-worst-states-for-women/10728/

amazing that despite all that, they can't build $450,000 houses fast enough, in the Carolinas or the suburbs of Nashville.

Paul, instead of pointing to studies, try answering this...please point to some principles that you and I would both agree are conservative principles, that would cause people to be fat, unhealthy, poor, etc.

As to income, our median income in CT is very high. Some of that, probably much of that, has absolutely nothing to do with politics, and everything to do with how lucky we are to have beautiful waterfront real estate that is close to Manhattan.

"Of the 12 states with the highest murder rates, 10 are red states"

Break it down by city, please.

I pity all those upper middle class people moving south in droves They must really be stupid.

And that's because of politics, not culture? So if healthy people move from CT to NC, they can expect to become obese?

Come on Paul. That doesn't come close to making any sense.

Bash the Carolinas all you want, and there are plenty of legitimate things to bash them with. I don't like NASCAR or hunting either. The fact is, huge numbers of upper middle class New Englanders are moving there, and most don't come back. And the reason is, it turns out that you can have all the good things about our quality of life, without having to overpay for them.

jim people are moving but not in the numbers you think or the area and the reason have been very constant

When we look just at movers into North Carolina, Virginia is the most common sending state: nearly 29,300 individuals moved to North Carolina from Virginia between 2012 and 2013 according to the 2013 American Community Survey. Florida was second, with just under 26,000 individuals moving from Florida to North Carolina. New York is third, with 24,300 individuals moving from New York into North Carolina over the same time period.



Also poverty and low wages result in higher obesity rates (its not the only factor )

A new study has found that minimum-wage employees are more likely to be obese than those who earn higher wages, adding to growing evidence that being poor is a risk factor for unhealthy weight.

amazing that despite all that, they can't build $450,000 houses fast enough, in the Carolinas or the suburbs of Nashville.


I pity all those upper middle class people moving south in droves They must really be stupid.

50-60 years ago they were building them as fast as they could in the NYC, Boston and Jersey suburbs. They must have been getting out of the liberal cities to the conservative suburbs.
Not all change is due to liberal politics, most of the people i know that moved south did it for warmer weather. Some did it for opportunity.

amazing that despite all that, they can't build $450,000 houses fast enough, in the Carolinas or the suburbs of Nashville.

Paul, instead of pointing to studies, try answering this...please point to some principles that you and I would both agree are conservative principles, that would cause people to be fat, unhealthy, poor, etc.

As to income, our median income in CT is very high. Some of that, probably much of that, has absolutely nothing to do with politics, and everything to do with how lucky we are to have beautiful waterfront real estate that is close to Manhattan.

"Of the 12 states with the highest murder rates, 10 are red states"

Break it down by city, please.

I pity all those upper middle class people moving south in droves They must really be stupid.

The median price of homes currently listed in North Carolina is $259,000 while the median price of homes that sold is $187,300.

The median price of homes currently listed in Connecticut is $315,000 while the median price of homes that sold is $239,100.

sure you can get a lot of house down there but a truck cost the same a gallon of gas isn't much cheaper a gallon of milk cost the same . some taxes are less but its still about wages

50-60 years ago they were building them as fast as they could in the NYC, Boston and Jersey suburbs. They must have been getting out of the liberal cities to the conservative suburbs.
Not all change is due to liberal politics, most of the people i know that moved south did it for warmer weather. Some did it for opportunity.

the southern state Gentrification is due in large part to liberals and their money

https://www.salon.com/2016/06/17/5_surprising_cities_where_gentrification_is_displa cing_the_poor_partner/

http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-south-culture-wars-20160420-story.html

jim people are moving but not in the numbers you think or the area and the reason have been very constant

When we look just at movers into North Carolina, Virginia is the most common sending state: nearly 29,300 individuals moved to North Carolina from Virginia between 2012 and 2013 according to the 2013 American Community Survey. Florida was second, with just under 26,000 individuals moving from Florida to North Carolina. New York is third, with 24,300 individuals moving from New York into North Carolina over the same time period.



Also poverty and low wages result in higher obesity rates (its not the only factor )

A new study has found that minimum-wage employees are more likely to be obese than those who earn higher wages, adding to growing evidence that being poor is a risk factor for unhealthy weight.

CT isn't losing huge numbers of employees, but it's losing the ones we can't afford to lose. CT is continually ranked in the top 5 of population exodus.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/rexsinquefield/2016/05/23/25-years-13-billion-lost-connecticut-income-tax-continues-to-fail/

50-60 years ago they were building them as fast as they could in the NYC, Boston and Jersey suburbs. They must have been getting out of the liberal cities to the conservative suburbs.
Not all change is due to liberal politics, most of the people i know that moved south did it for warmer weather. Some did it for opportunity.

50-60 years ago, CT was a cheap place to live, and called "land of steady habits". We had a value proposition back then. Not anymore.

"Not all change is due to liberal politics"

Sure, weather is part of it. But other cold states aren't lagging population growth like CT is. Cost if living is a huge factor. I could move to NH tomorrow, get almost the same house in a town with similar schools, and enjoy tax savings of $900 a month, every month., for the rest of my life. And the cost difference between NH and CT is increasing, not decreasing. That is a fortune an absolute fortune.

The median price of homes currently listed in North Carolina is $259,000 while the median price of homes that sold is $187,300.

The median price of homes currently listed in Connecticut is $315,000 while the median price of homes that sold is $239,100.

sure you can get a lot of house down there but a truck cost the same a gallon of gas isn't much cheaper a gallon of milk cost the same . some taxes are less but its still about wages

"The median price of homes currently listed in North Carolina is $259,000 while the median price of homes that sold is $187,300."

Look in the Charlotte suburbs, BOOMING places like Waxhaw and Fort Mill SC. And remember, a 187k house down there, costs a lot more up here. Can't just compare dollars. Have to compare apples to apples. I'm not wrong. You want me to be wrong, I get that.

Let's have a fair comparison.

The median price of homes currently listed in North Carolina is $259,000 while the median price of homes that sold is $187,300.

The median price of homes currently listed in Connecticut is $315,000 while the median price of homes that sold is $239,100.

sure you can get a lot of house down there but a truck cost the same a gallon of gas isn't much cheaper a gallon of milk cost the same . some taxes are less but its still about wages

According to raltor.com, the median listing price in southeast Charlotte (one of the hottest areas in the country), is 425k. Look at the house I listed, 5 br brick colonial, 3400 sf on a perfectly manicured 0.6 acres, awesome public schools (I know Waxhaw), property taxes are less than 500 a month? Would be close to double that in the Hartford suburbs. That's why people are moving there. CT is no longer worth the premium you have to pay.

https://www.realtor.com/realestateandhomes-detail/8600-Samantha-Ct_Waxhaw_NC_28173_M67219-02349

WDMSO, Paul -

I agree completely that there are places in the south that are nothing but fried twinkies and trailer parks, places I would never raise my kids. It's a different culture, no question.

But there are places in the Carolinas and Tennessee, that aren't like that at all. Entire cities that are booming, $450k houses selling like hotcakes, being bought by northern transplants who want all of the things that make life nice (pretty neighborhoods, cute towns, great schools, healthy activities for kids, restaurants, good healthcare), and a much lower price. In other words, if you do 5 minutes of homework, you can find a town in the suburbs of Charlotte or the suburbs of Nashville, that look and feel and work like great New England suburbs, with southern taxes. We now know it's possible.

I know a handful of cities like that in the Carolinas and Tennessee. There are exactly zero cities in Connecticut that have the CT quality of life and southern taxes. Not one. Zip.

I'm not saying that every town in the south is as nice as CT at a lower cost. But there are some places like that. That is indisputable. Why aren't we trying to emulate that?

If I'm wrong, and there are towns in CT that offer a comparable quality of life with much lower taxes, please let me know where they are?

Not all of NC is better than all of CT. Posting studies comparing entire states, is off topic. But there are specific areas with similar quality of life, at far less cost. That is called "winning". I can't fathom why we aren't screaming for that here, and I think the reason is that the media and those who run the state, never stop saying that in general, CT has a lot of advantages over those states. They talk about the worst places in those states, but that's not where people are moving.

Are the ten poorest states really Republican? Apparently not:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/markhendrickson/2012/06/07/are-the-10-poorest-u-s-states-really-republican/

There are so many variables in these state by state comparisons that making broad overall judgments by one statistic is beyond stupid.

Here's another example from another point of view:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2015/01/04/solved-why-poor-states-are-red-and-rich-states-are-blue/#631224291d60

That makes sense, let's stuff the schools with first timers learning on the job with no experienced mentors.


Actually - when I worked 4 years in a RI K-12, most of the hardest working teachers were the young ones - not the ones corrupted by the system.

Are the ten poorest states really Republican? Apparently not:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/markhendrickson/2012/06/07/are-the-10-poorest-u-s-states-really-republican/

There are so many variables in these state by state comparisons that making broad overall judgments by one statistic is beyond stupid.

Here's another example from another point of view:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2015/01/04/solved-why-poor-states-are-red-and-rich-states-are-blue/#631224291d60

I bet the top 20 poorest large Cities are all Democrat

I bet the top 20 poorest large Cities are all Democrat as a result of Conservative Policies

:rotf2:

tax savings of $900 a month, ???? how do you figure that

I could move to NH tomorrow

the roads are nicer too...was up there visiting a customer the other day....leaving Mass where the road looked like someone bombed it, as soon as I hit the NH line, the road was pristine....go figure?

The median price of homes currently listed in North Carolina is $259,000 while the median price of homes that sold is $187,300.

The median price of homes currently listed in Connecticut is $315,000 while the median price of homes that sold is $239,100.

sure you can get a lot of house down there but a truck cost the same a gallon of gas isn't much cheaper a gallon of milk cost the same . some taxes are less but its still about wages

Beer is cheaper, dining out is cheaper, property taxes are waaaaaay cheaper. Vehicles last longer because they don’t rot out from all the salt on the roads in winter. Spring starts in February vs June up here :hee:
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

the roads are nicer too...was up there visiting a customer the other day....leaving Mass where the road looked like someone bombed it, as soon as I hit the NH line, the road was pristine....go figure?

Yeah, but they suck at plowing them :hihi:
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

tax savings of $900 a month, ???? how do you figure that

It's a simple calculation, actually. There is zero state income tax in NH, and there is zero state sales tax in NH. I know exactly what I pay in state income tax, and I can make a good estimate of what I pay in state sales tax. That's my tax savings. That savings is reduced by the fact that local property taxes would be a bit higher.

We looked at a nice house in Sunappee, NH. Tax savings would be $900 a month in my pocket. And that does NOT include the impact of limited deduction of state/local taxes, which increases what I would save by moving to NH. And it doesn't take into account the certainty that CT will be increasing taxes again and again, to try to fund the union pensions. The cost differential between CT and NH (currently $900 a month for me) is increasing, not decreasing.

$900 a month in my pocket, just based on today's taxes. Plus, the University of New Hampshire costs residents $7,000 less a year, than UCONN does. For my 3 kids, that would add up to a savings of $84,000. 84 grand in my pocket, on top of the 900/month.

It's a fortune, an absolute fortune. I could retire years earlier if I moved to NH.

What do you think?

the roads are nicer too...was up there visiting a customer the other day....leaving Mass where the road looked like someone bombed it, as soon as I hit the NH line, the road was pristine....go figure?

and somehow, their flagship public university (UNH) is $7,000 less a year for residents, than UCONN. Despite having no state income tax and no state sales tax.

Amazing.

Here's how they do it. 7 years ago, the chief of police for the UCONN campus (whose job is to manage 15,000 college students 8 months a year, and who does nothing 4 months a year), made more than the top cop in New York City (whose job is to watch over 8 million people). Also, there are retired UCONN professors with annual pensions over $200,000 a year. Read that again. They don't allow that kind of insanity in New Hampshire.

Beer is cheaper, dining out is cheaper, property taxes are waaaaaay cheaper. Vehicles last longer because they don’t rot out from all the salt on the roads in winter. Spring starts in February vs June up here :hee:
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Houses also cheaper.

Houses also cheaper.

Yep, I could sell my house in mass, buy a bigger house in NC and put about $100k in the bank to help supplement my retirement.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Yep, I could sell my house in mass, buy a bigger house in NC and put about $100k in the bank to help supplement my retirement.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

NC is high on my list - you?

NC is high on my list - you?

Yep, the wife and I have been down a few times since our daughter is down there in school. Everything we’ve seen we’ve liked. Last time we spent a couple of days in the Asheville area. Beautiful out there.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Yep, the wife and I have been down a few times since our daughter is down there in school. Everything we’ve seen we’ve liked. Last time we spent a couple of days in the Asheville area. Beautiful out there.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Hey, you suggested a BBQ joint in Greensboro to me (going down in July), I lost the note I made, can you remind me the name of the place?

I gather you like BBQ as I do. I live in central CT, there is a national BBQ chain (60 or so locations) called Mission BBQ, they do a lot for military, police, and FD in their areas. One is opening near my house in a few weeks. At all their locations, at noon, everyone stops what they're doing and sings the Star Spangled Banner, pretty cool. Hear the food is pretty good too.

Quote:
Originally Posted by detbuch
I'm not proposing a system. I'm proposing that the federal government significantly get out of health care. I'm proposing that the individual states create whatever regulations are needed, and that those regulations protect a free market in health care. Can you point out an example of what you think I propose doesn't work?

Pete F reply "Apparently, no country is foolish enough to try it.

It's not about a country trying it. "Countries" doing it are government controlled market models. Free market models of all sorts and categories, not just medical care, have not only been tried, they work better and are usually the first model which is then followed by various government attempts at regulating costs and just about everything else--which usually results in overall costs going up.

As far as free market surgical procedures go, Lasik and cosmetic surgery prices not only are far less costly than the highly government controlled health care procedures, they have gone down due to competition. And there are some private surgical and medical clinics that do not take Medicare or Medicaid, and who advertise prices which are far below standard hospital prices: http://kfor.com/2013/07/08/okc-hospital-posting-surgery-prices-online/

And, as far as "country" or government run health care goes, Singapore and
Switzerland are probably the two best and they are far closer to free market than the others. The more market oriented health care is, the better and less costly it is.

Quote:
Originally Posted by detbuch
I'm not proposing a system. I'm proposing that the federal government significantly get out of health care. I'm proposing that the individual states create whatever regulations are needed, and that those regulations protect a free market in health care. Can you point out an example of what you think I propose doesn't work?

Pete F reply "Apparently, no country is foolish enough to try it.

It's not about a country trying it. "Countries" doing it are government controlled market models. Free market models of all sorts and categories, not just medical care, have not only been tried, they work better and are usually the first model which is then followed by various government attempts at regulating costs and just about everything else--which usually results in overall costs going up.

As far as free market surgical procedures go, Lasik and cosmetic surgery prices not only are far less costly than the highly government controlled health care procedures, they have gone down due to competition. And there are some private surgical and medical clinics that do not take Medicare or Medicaid, and who advertise prices which are far below standard hospital prices: http://kfor.com/2013/07/08/okc-hospital-posting-surgery-prices-online/

And, as far as "country" or government run health care goes, Singapore and
Switzerland are probably the two best and they are far closer to free market than the others. The more market oriented health care is, the better and less costly it is.
Switzerland is first in the world for healthcare costs per capita

Quote:
Originally Posted by detbuch
I'm not proposing a system. I'm proposing that the federal government significantly get out of health care. I'm proposing that the individual states create whatever regulations are needed, and that those regulations protect a free market in health care. Can you point out an example of what you think I propose doesn't work?

Pete F reply "Apparently, no country is foolish enough to try it.

It's not about a country trying it. "Countries" doing it are government controlled market models. Free market models of all sorts and categories, not just medical care, have not only been tried, they work better and are usually the first model which is then followed by various government attempts at regulating costs and just about everything else--which usually results in overall costs going up.

As far as free market surgical procedures go, Lasik and cosmetic surgery prices not only are far less costly than the highly government controlled health care procedures, they have gone down due to competition. And there are some private surgical and medical clinics that do not take Medicare or Medicaid, and who advertise prices which are far below standard hospital prices: http://kfor.com/2013/07/08/okc-hospital-posting-surgery-prices-online/

And, as far as "country" or government run health care goes, Singapore and
Switzerland are probably the two best and they are far closer to free market than the others. The more market oriented health care is, the better and less costly it is.
Actually Switzerland's healthcare looks a lot like Obamacare, except the insurance company can't make a profit on it.

Swiss are required to purchase basic health insurance, which covers a range of treatments detailed in the Swiss Federal Law on Health Insurance (German: Krankenversicherungsgesetz (KVG); French: la loi fédérale sur l’assurance-maladie (LAMal); Italian: legge federale sull’assicurazione malattie (LAMal)). It is therefore the same throughout the country and avoids double standards in healthcare. Insurers are required to offer this basic insurance to everyone, regardless of age or medical condition. They are not allowed to make a profit off this basic insurance, but can on supplemental plans.[3]

The insured person pays the insurance premium for the basic plan up to 8% of their personal income. If a premium is higher than this, the government gives the insured person a cash subsidy to pay for any additional premium.[3]

I just read a very interesting viewpoint on this subject.

Matt Jones, I live in VA United States. I've lived in Thailand.
Updated Sep 26, 2017
Because America has now become less than a country; it’s currently a rat race. The idea of paying more tax to have another fellow human being covered is so out of place they can’t imagine it without wincing. Saying that other folks should take their own risk and for the poor to go die in the street, however, does not make an American flinch as many commentators do here. All things considered, Americans don’t deserve any more humane system than what they currently have. Like Gore Vidal said: American never learned. This is the least-christian Christian country. They have chosen it to be like this.

Even a developing country like Thailand has a universal coverage for everyone. I lived in Thailand for a long time before moving to America, and I have seen their healthcare system transformed into the envy of the developing world— they became the first country in Asia to eliminate HIV transmission from mother to child in 2016, showing the world that AIDS can be defeated in a few generations from now. How did a low middle income country like Thailand achieve this? - considering also that they have had many military coups over the years. I have pondered this puzzle and in the end the answer is quite simple: Thailand is a buddhist society and the mentality of people there is quite passionate toward the poor and the weak. The universal healthcare was introduced there as a populist program in 2002. Naturally, it was the poor who benefited from it the most. The program was initially criticized by the rich and the middle classes. But after having seen how it had saved many poor lives, nobody dared to say in public that the health scheme needed to be repealed. I think their Buddhist culture plays a great role in shaping the public consensus regarding the UHC. For the Thais, medicine is a profession based more on sacrifice and compassion; it’s not a business. Instead, every successive government, whether conservative or liberal, came and improved upon it - making it more efficient and better. Public research funds were earmarked each year to keep improving the health scheme.

For America’s Republican politicians, on the other hand, being Americans is all about “taking risk”, forming tight upper lip and working hard for oneself. So if you were born poor and sickly, then it’s too bad. If you get old and sick without enough saving, then you just fail in an American way. If you have this sort of heartless politics or a cankerous system of belief, something like a UHC will never happen. But what are the root causes of American failure in this regard?

America believes almost blindly in the market and in the market solution of its healthcare inadequacy. Too many Americans believes that private investments and businesses can do everything better than a government. Ironically, this reduces the role of politicians to mere pawns for private lobbyists. Politicians don’t run America; they run a PR service for the richest companies. Expensive healthcare is only one of the symptoms of this madness. Economists are employed to cook up evidence and reports in order to show that government can’t do a project as well as private companies could. The only goal is to keep the government from actually participating and providing important public services to the people.

America’s faith in the market is so blind that it is the only country in the world that passed a law prohibiting the government to negotiate the price with drug companies and healthcare providers. Thus, even though the government is a huge spender of healthcare, it cannot use that bargaining power to negotiate the price for American citizens. So much for America’s faith in the market. They’d say: “we will wait until someone finds a way to make it cheaper and more efficient.” So people are dying in anticipation of a right “market model”? Tragically, the only market-based incentive that the insurance companies have is to dump more and more expensive claim-dodging paperwork traps on their customers.

But there is no such thing as a market solution to health care — unlike other goods and services, patients cannot refuse to buy healthcare (or pay to see a doctor) because it’s too expensive and wait until it becomes cheap enough, or even safe enough; and healthcare consumers include children and people with no income, with no buying option. Human being cannot be reduced to mere consumers. We will go on believing that we are the richest country and the most technologically advanced country on earth. But our kids will die uninsured in the street.

If you look everywhere in America, public services and infrastructures are crumbling. Metro and subways in DC, New York and other big metropolises are almost not running anymore; and these are public transportation in some of the world’s richest cities. It’s an international scandal. New research says the American political system disfavors public transportation improvement projects because “it is seen as welfare”. It’s the same logic that led to mass privatization during the Thatcher regime in the UK: people deserve improved infrastructures only if private companies can make profits from them, otherwise, it’s socialism.

If you apply the same logic to public school, you’d instantly understand why it has become so bad. To get a decent education, American kids are forced to take huge loans and go to ultra-expensive private schools. If you want to be schooled, you have to be in debt. The wealth of this richest of countries never reached the public hands.

“Everybody is laughing at us”, Trump would say. And it’s true. Who wouldn’t like to laugh at this circus called America.

I just read a very interesting viewpoint on this subject.

Matt Jones, I live in VA United States. I've lived in Thailand.
Updated Sep 26, 2017
Because America has now become less than a country; it’s currently a rat race. The idea of paying more tax to have another fellow human being covered is so out of place they can’t imagine it without wincing. Saying that other folks should take their own risk and for the poor to go die in the street, however, does not make an American flinch as many commentators do here. All things considered, Americans don’t deserve any more humane system than what they currently have. Like Gore Vidal said: American never learned. This is the least-christian Christian country. They have chosen it to be like this.

Even a developing country like Thailand has a universal coverage for everyone. I lived in Thailand for a long time before moving to America, and I have seen their healthcare system transformed into the envy of the developing world— they became the first country in Asia to eliminate HIV transmission from mother to child in 2016, showing the world that AIDS can be defeated in a few generations from now. How did a low middle income country like Thailand achieve this? - considering also that they have had many military coups over the years. I have pondered this puzzle and in the end the answer is quite simple: Thailand is a buddhist society and the mentality of people there is quite passionate toward the poor and the weak. The universal healthcare was introduced there as a populist program in 2002. Naturally, it was the poor who benefited from it the most. The program was initially criticized by the rich and the middle classes. But after having seen how it had saved many poor lives, nobody dared to say in public that the health scheme needed to be repealed. I think their Buddhist culture plays a great role in shaping the public consensus regarding the UHC. For the Thais, medicine is a profession based more on sacrifice and compassion; it’s not a business. Instead, every successive government, whether conservative or liberal, came and improved upon it - making it more efficient and better. Public research funds were earmarked each year to keep improving the health scheme.

For America’s Republican politicians, on the other hand, being Americans is all about “taking risk”, forming tight upper lip and working hard for oneself. So if you were born poor and sickly, then it’s too bad. If you get old and sick without enough saving, then you just fail in an American way. If you have this sort of heartless politics or a cankerous system of belief, something like a UHC will never happen. But what are the root causes of American failure in this regard?

America believes almost blindly in the market and in the market solution of its healthcare inadequacy. Too many Americans believes that private investments and businesses can do everything better than a government. Ironically, this reduces the role of politicians to mere pawns for private lobbyists. Politicians don’t run America; they run a PR service for the richest companies. Expensive healthcare is only one of the symptoms of this madness. Economists are employed to cook up evidence and reports in order to show that government can’t do a project as well as private companies could. The only goal is to keep the government from actually participating and providing important public services to the people.

America’s faith in the market is so blind that it is the only country in the world that passed a law prohibiting the government to negotiate the price with drug companies and healthcare providers. Thus, even though the government is a huge spender of healthcare, it cannot use that bargaining power to negotiate the price for American citizens. So much for America’s faith in the market. They’d say: “we will wait until someone finds a way to make it cheaper and more efficient.” So people are dying in anticipation of a right “market model”? Tragically, the only market-based incentive that the insurance companies have is to dump more and more expensive claim-dodging paperwork traps on their customers.

But there is no such thing as a market solution to health care — unlike other goods and services, patients cannot refuse to buy healthcare (or pay to see a doctor) because it’s too expensive and wait until it becomes cheap enough, or even safe enough; and healthcare consumers include children and people with no income, with no buying option. Human being cannot be reduced to mere consumers. We will go on believing that we are the richest country and the most technologically advanced country on earth. But our kids will die uninsured in the street.

If you look everywhere in America, public services and infrastructures are crumbling. Metro and subways in DC, New York and other big metropolises are almost not running anymore; and these are public transportation in some of the world’s richest cities. It’s an international scandal. New research says the American political system disfavors public transportation improvement projects because “it is seen as welfare”. It’s the same logic that led to mass privatization during the Thatcher regime in the UK: people deserve improved infrastructures only if private companies can make profits from them, otherwise, it’s socialism.

If you apply the same logic to public school, you’d instantly understand why it has become so bad. To get a decent education, American kids are forced to take huge loans and go to ultra-expensive private schools. If you want to be schooled, you have to be in debt. The wealth of this richest of countries never reached the public hands.

“Everybody is laughing at us”, Trump would say. And it’s true. Who wouldn’t like to laugh at this circus called America.

Matt Jones's mind is full of biased opinions and low in facts other than distorted notions posing as facts. And he doesn't seem to understand the role of government in supporting a free market rather than distorting it into a big government/business complex, which is what he actually criticizes as if that complex is a free market.

Actually Switzerland's healthcare looks a lot like Obamacare, except the insurance company can't make a profit on it.

A huge difference. If the insurance companies were not allowed to make a profit, they, including AARP, would not have supported it, and it would not have passed.

Swiss are required to purchase basic health insurance, which covers a range of treatments detailed in the Swiss Federal Law on Health Insurance (German: Krankenversicherungsgesetz (KVG); French: la loi fédérale sur l’assurance-maladie (LAMal); Italian: legge federale sull’assicurazione malattie (LAMal)). It is therefore the same throughout the country and avoids double standards in healthcare. Insurers are required to offer this basic insurance to everyone, regardless of age or medical condition. They are not allowed to make a profit off this basic insurance, but can on supplemental plans.[3]

The insured person pays the insurance premium for the basic plan up to 8% of their personal income. If a premium is higher than this, the government gives the insured person a cash subsidy to pay for any additional premium.[3]

As I said--"as far as "country" or government run health care goes, Singapore and Switzerland are probably the two best and they are far closer to free market than the others. The more market oriented health care is, the better and less costly it is.

They are both highly market based plans which include a few government mandates which benefit the poor. The Swiss plan could work here without the buying mandate and some other minor changes--we are vastly different than Switzerland and Singapore (demographically, politically, culturally, immigration-wise, size of population and land to govern, constitutionally, etc.). Here are two articles of interest:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2011/04/29/why-switzerland-has-the-worlds-best-health-care-system/#637d799e7d74

http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2012/03/09/the-myth-of-free-market-american-health-care/#a2878252e878

I posted above the Oklahoma surgery clinic (there are others including general care clinics) as an example of free market health care where prices are far lower than standard hospital prices for the same procedures. I also mentioned that other surgeries that are not supported by insurance or government subsidy such as Lasik and cosmetic surgery whose prices are way lower than insurance/government mandated procedures are and in which prices have even gone down due to market competition.

As I said--"as far as "country" or government run health care goes, Singapore and Switzerland are probably the two best and they are far closer to free market than the others. The more market oriented health care is, the better and less costly it is.

They are both highly market based plans which include a few government mandates which benefit the poor. The Swiss plan could work here without the buying mandate and some other minor changes--we are vastly different than Switzerland and Singapore (demographically, politically, culturally, immigration-wise, size of population and land to govern, constitutionally, etc.). Here are two articles of interest:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2011/04/29/why-switzerland-has-the-worlds-best-health-care-system/#637d799e7d74

http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2012/03/09/the-myth-of-free-market-american-health-care/#a2878252e878

I posted above the Oklahoma surgery clinic (there are others including general care clinics) as an example of free market health care where prices are far lower than standard hospital prices for the same procedures. I also mentioned that other surgeries that are not supported by insurance or government subsidy such as Lasik and cosmetic surgery whose prices are way lower than insurance/government mandated procedures are and in which prices have even gone down due to market competition.
Try it when you have a heart attack feel free to test the “free” market with your life and financial well-being on the line
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Try it when you have a heart attack feel free to test the “free” market with your life and financial well-being on the line
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

this is why we can't have a rational discussion ....

this is why we can't have a rational discussion ....
Saying that free market pricing for non essential elective medical procedures is a good example for how to provide healthcare is not rational.
I still would like an example of a country where the unorganized healthcare system is in place and working, other than the USA with the highest healthcare costs in the world.

Saying that free market pricing for non essential elective medical procedures is a good example for how to
provide healthcare is not rational.

I gave you an example, and said there were others, of "essential elective medical procedures" being provided by the Oklahoma clinic in which free market prices were way lower than in the highly regulated and controlled standard hospital prices.

My references to Lasik and cosmetic surgery (not what you refer to as "essential procedures") were examples of surgical procedures which are not highly regulated and which therefor have to compete on the open market. So prices are controlled by free competition and are far lower than if those procedures had to conform to costly government regulatory control. Do you believe that Lasik would be less expensive if it were provided under the same regulatory and insurance circumstances as hernia surgery?

You seem to assume that there cannot be a market based system of emergency care. Yes there can. The free market is not only good at responding to vanity and pleasure, it is just as good at responding to necessity.

I still would like an example of a country where the unorganized healthcare system is in place and working, other than the USA with the highest healthcare costs in the world.

Why by country? How about by individual providers such as the Oklahoma clinic that I mentioned? There may well be such individual providers in other countries. I haven't researched that.

Hip replacement costs
• $6,757 in Spain
• $7,685 in South Africa
• $15,465 in New Zealand
• $16,335 in the United Kingdom
• $17,112 in Switzerland
• $19,484 in Australia
• $29,067 in the United States
As far as other providers in other countries, you can save more than enough to travel and stay for the recovery period in many places.
10 to 20K will put you up very nicely.
That won't help you if you have a heart attack here, will it?
That won't help people who need primary care and cannot afford to go.
When they end up in the emergency room for issues that could have been dealt with in the early stages by a primary care physician and the costs end up shifted because they cannot pay, who does that help?
In our current somewhat freemarket system (actually the closest to your dream among developed nations) healthcare certainly is not inexpensive, though it can be for a lucky person who never has insurance and never has a need to use it.

Saying that free market pricing for non essential elective medical procedures is a good example for how to provide healthcare is not rational.
I still would like an example of a country where the unorganized healthcare system is in place and working, other than the USA with the highest healthcare costs in the world.

do you ever read the stuff you write?

you are like a wind-up toy :boots:

it's really hard to get an answer to a question around here....

if that is $1000 "per year" that is approximately what my car and life insurance costs and I can't remember the last time I made a claim for car ins...or life...obviously......you want a lot for a very little= health insurance for $83 a month...you want unlimited visits, no co-pay and free meds too?...my answer is I'd like to pay for what I want and need from a competitive market....

seems all these sanctuary cities are having big homeless problems...=...tax and fix


May 14

By Matt Day and Daniel Beekman
Seattle Times staff reporters

After a weekend of high-stakes negotiations between Seattle City Council members and Mayor Jenny Durkan, the council voted unanimously Monday to tax the city’s largest employers to help address homelessness.

Starting next year, the tax will be $275 per employee, per year on for-profit companies that gross at least $20 million per year in the city — down from a $500-per-head proposal that Durkan threatened to veto.


The city declared a homelessness state of emergency in late 2015. A point-in-time count last year tallied more than 11,600 homeless people in King County and one in 16 Seattle Public Schools students is homeless.

“We have community members who are dying,” Councilmember Teresa Mosqueda said before the 9-0 vote. “They are dying on our streets today because there is not enough shelter” and affordable housing.

rich liberals should adopt the homeless

so you'd like the public to give you $4000 per year for your healthcare?

I don't believe that there is some fixed monthly/yearly number that everyone should pay for their healthcare....you were asked because you seem to think that there is.....

why?

he should just mail it to Pete for his healthcare

are you and Spence drinking together today?:cheers2:

:rotf2:

the roads are nicer too...was up there visiting a customer the other day....leaving Mass where the road looked like someone bombed it, as soon as I hit the NH line, the road was pristine....go figure?

this is why we can't have a rational discussion ....

do you ever read the stuff you write?

Yes and what you write also

Yes and what you write also

some great stuff in there!

Hip replacement costs
• $6,757 in Spain
• $7,685 in South Africa
• $15,465 in New Zealand
• $16,335 in the United Kingdom
• $17,112 in Switzerland
• $19,484 in Australia
• $29,067 in the United States
As far as other providers in other countries, you can save more than enough to travel and stay for the recovery period in many places.
10 to 20K will put you up very nicely.
That won't help you if you have a heart attack here, will it?
That won't help people who need primary care and cannot afford to go.
When they end up in the emergency room for issues that could have been dealt with in the early stages by a primary care physician and the costs end up shifted because they cannot pay, who does that help?
In our current somewhat freemarket system (actually the closest to your dream among developed nations) healthcare certainly is not inexpensive, though it can be for a lucky person who never has insurance and never has a need to use it.

The Oklahoma clinic which is basically a free market model that I posted in this thread, in response to you, lists a hip replacement full out the door cost, including exams and hospital stay, at $15,499. That beats your Switzerland, UK, Australia costs, is comparable to New Zealand (but would be a lot more expensive there if you add the cost of getting and staying there--which also would raise the Switzerland, UK, and Australia costs more also) and would be competitive with your Spain and South Africa costs when you include travel to and staying in those countries as well. And it beats the hell out of US typical hospital costs that insurance and government would have to pay. The clinic accepts insurance. It has payment plans, and accepts credit cards.

The Oklahoma clinic which is basically a free market model that I posted in this thread, in response to you, lists a hip replacement full out the door cost, including exams and hospital stay, at $15,499. That beats your Switzerland, UK, Australia costs, is comparable to New Zealand (but would be a lot more expensive there if you add the cost of getting and staying there--which also would raise the Switzerland, UK, and Australia costs more also) and would be competitive with your Spain and South Africa costs when you include travel to and staying in those countries as well. And it beats the hell out of US typical hospital costs that insurance and government would have to pay. The clinic accepts insurance. It has payment plans, and accepts credit cards.

this can't be true...there is NO way that a free market hip is better....or cheaper...than a government hip....government does EVERYTHING better and cheaper and more efficiently

The Oklahoma clinic which is basically a free market model that I posted in this thread, in response to you, lists a hip replacement full out the door cost, including exams and hospital stay, at $15,499. That beats your Switzerland, UK, Australia costs, is comparable to New Zealand (but would be a lot more expensive there if you add the cost of getting and staying there--which also would raise the Switzerland, UK, and Australia costs more also) and would be competitive with your Spain and South Africa costs when you include travel to and staying in those countries as well. And it beats the hell out of US typical hospital costs that insurance and government would have to pay. The clinic accepts insurance. It has payment plans, and accepts credit cards.
IF this is a successful business model, why is it not repeated in other places?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

IF this is a successful business model, why is it not repeated in other places?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I believe their are other clinics like this one which is completely owned by its doctors. There are also clinics modeled on this one that provide medical services other than surgery.

The main problem in expanding this model is government. Many states require proof that there is a need to establish a medical facility if an entrepreneur wants to do so. The boards that determine that are staffed by administrators of current hospitals (who pour in donations to political campaigns and are crony benefactors of government regulations) and who are not, understandably, friendly to competitors who provide services at fractions of fees that crony capital hospitals do.

Apparently, Oklahoma doesn't have that requirement. And it does have other clinics, as I mentioned, who provide other, general, medical services other than surgery. The surgery clinic gets patients from other states and Canada who have found out about it.

So it would seem based on this clinic, that your opinion is that horizontal and vertical integration is not a viable method of reducing costs and providing better service. Most businesses would disagree with that, sounds like health care is special.

So it would seem based on this clinic, that your opinion is that horizontal and vertical integration is not a viable method of reducing costs and providing better service. Most businesses would disagree with that, sounds like health care is special.

now you sound like Spence....

now you sound like Spence....

I'll just add that to the whole list of critical thinking you've exhibited in this thread.

I'll just add that to the whole list of critical thinking you've exhibited in this thread.

cool...thanks for keeping track...that's a Spencism too! "critical thinking"

cool...thanks for keeping track...that's a Spencism too! "critical thinking"

I think it came way before Spence and the internet. I think this paragraph is quite applicable.
The earliest documentation of critical thinking are the teachings of Socrates recorded by Plato. Socrates established the fact that one cannot depend upon those in "authority" to have sound knowledge and insight. He demonstrated that persons may have power and high position and yet be deeply confused and irrational. He established the importance of asking deep questions that probe profoundly into thinking before we accept ideas as worthy of belief.

Socrates established the fact that one cannot depend upon those in "authority" to have sound knowledge and insight.

.

can't argue with that....

So it would seem based on this clinic, that your opinion is that horizontal and vertical integration is not a viable method of reducing costs and providing better service. Most businesses would disagree with that,

On what basis do you assume that that is my opinion?

If you want larger, corporate business entities, horizontal and vertical integration strategies can reduce costs, but not necessarily better service. Nor is it a given that the savings in cost will be reflected in lower prices. Rockefeller's Standard Oil Co. was very successful using those strategies, so much so that it drove out competitors and delivered high quality product at low prices to the consumers. But Big Government thought that was unfair so preferred to crony-up with his failing competitors and bust up his monopoly. That crony capitalist move saved those that couldn't compete with Rockefeller, and drove up prices.

What we have in U.S. Health Care is a corporatist model using vertical and horizontal integration AS WELL AS a crony symbiotic relation with government. However, rather than passing on any savings those strategies garner it, the Health Care cartel actually uses the destruction of competition those models afford it to RAISE prices to the consumer. Especially when the consumer is represented by third party insurance or government payers. The corporatist model might actually work for it AND THE CONSUMER if the government would stay out of market competition and if that competition led to a giant health care corporation or two or three, and the government let them monopolize health care. Given what the government did to Standard Oil, it is doubtful that the government would let an unfettered, unregulated health care corporation monopoly to exist. Especially since government control is more of a goal than lower, competitive, free market prices.

And the cartel can use government regulatory power to eliminate free market competition, which leads to lots more money for all the willing participants . . . including the government bureaucracy--at the expense of the consumer.

A mostly unregulated corporate health care market along with, as well, mostly unregulated, free market, insurance companies (which would not be rescued from failure by government bailout) could lead to far lower prices, a la Standard Oil.

But I thought you didn't like corporatism. That you bemoaned the disappearance of small business and of the middle class. The Oklahoma City Surgery Clinic is a small business model that I thought you would like. It is not afraid of competition. It doesn't try to stifle it with horizontal and vertical integration in order to monopolize its product. In fact, its mission is that others will copy its model throughout the U.S. There are, BTW, other such clinics in other states including Virginia, New York, and California. Dismantling the ACA and having an actually free market insurance system would help to blossom free market clinics to compete with the American Hospital cartel.

sounds like health care is special.

Making it "special" makes it expensive. Marketing it like most everything else, including necessities such as food and shelter, would lead to affordable prices in the coming years.

Just went on this site you see on TV GOOD RX my insurance is not covering a med my wife takes 40mg doxycline they want to change her to the generic called oracea its 1825.00 for 90 day supply with out insurance the non generic is guess what 1825.00 for a 90 day supply

in Canada the price for 100 pills of tetracycline is under $50. this is a 50-year-old antibiotic

2013 According to a U.S. House committee investigating price hikes in several generic drugs, the average wholesale price of 500 tablets in October 2013 was $20. Seven months later, the average wholesale price for the same amount was $1,849, an increase of more than 8,000 per cent.

just another example of big business fleecing of America

You can get them in Canada
1700+ is a good price for driving and staying over a night
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

You can get them in Canada
1700+ is a good price for driving and staying over a night
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device


fortunately I belong to one of those public sector the unions who account for only 10% of the work force the the right loves to hate mostly because I have better benefits AKA Health insurance ...

I felt bad for those with out insurance before the ACA was passed and now since Trump isn't do a thing now and this is only one 50 year old drug.. But I honestly had no idea of the real costs I should say the price gouging and profit taking of the industry as a whole... is a crime

it Just re enforces my believe health care is a right not a choice ... its not a choice that The wealthiest 1 percent of American households own 40 percent of the country's wealth... But its not in the constitution thats the rights argument .... yep they will die with their guns because they cant pay to live longer to use them.... ironic

fortunately I belong to one of those public sector the unions who account for only 10% of the work force the the right loves to hate mostly because I have better benefits AKA Health insurance ...

You are wrong about why the "right" thinks Public sector unions are a bad idea. Ironically, the "right" agrees with the "left's" biggest icon, FDR, on why it is a bad idea. This has been discussed a few times on this forum, but you seem to have a tin ear to anything that contradicts your Marxist orientation. Your narrow mind-in-the-Progressive bubble can only believe that the "right" loves to hate, rather than understand where it's coming from.

I felt bad for those with out insurance before the ACA was passed and now since Trump isn't do a thing now and this is only one 50 year old drug.. But I honestly had no idea of the real costs I should say the price gouging and profit taking of the industry as a whole... is a crime

That's what happens when the free market is strangled by crony regulation.

it Just re enforces my believe health care is a right not a choice

What does this mean? A right to what? Someone else's labor? We all have the right to our neighbor's labor? This could be an enlightening discussion--if you care to have it. I doubt that you do.

... its not a choice that The wealthiest 1 percent of American households own 40 percent of the country's wealth... But its not in the constitution thats the rights argument .... yep they will die with their guns because they cant pay to live longer to use them.... ironic

That is a messy stream of consciousness lacking in reasoned choice of words and thought. In other words, incoherent.

Just went on this site you see on TV GOOD RX my insurance is not covering a med my wife takes 40mg doxycline they want to change her to the generic called oracea its 1825.00 for 90 day supply with out insurance the non generic is guess what 1825.00 for a 90 day supply

in Canada the price for 100 pills of tetracycline is under $50. this is a 50-year-old antibiotic

2013 According to a U.S. House committee investigating price hikes in several generic drugs, the average wholesale price of 500 tablets in October 2013 was $20. Seven months later, the average wholesale price for the same amount was $1,849, an increase of more than 8,000 per cent.

just another example of big business fleecing of America

So - let's apple to apples here.

You state Doxycline generic Oracea $1800 for 3 month supply yet you compare it to Tretracycline, a different drug, in 100 pills for $50.

Doxycline is kindasorta Oracea but not Tretracycline and a 90 day supply usually does not equate to 100 pills. This is a Word Salad.

What is the equivalent of Oracea, 90 Day Supply, in Canada? Still probably a lot cheaper in Canada. It is also a lot cheaper as a pet medication (not saying or insinuating anything mean - purely open discussion). So yes, Big Pharma is gouging here under the top cover of Congress.

This is normally where I would ask where this is Trump's Fault but he wasn't pres in 2013. Congress and both parties have been screwing this up for a while now.

IMO in today's society you should be able to purchase most non-controlled medications anywhere you choose. Of course it would be "caveat emptor".

What is the equivalent of Oracea, 90 Day Supply, in Canada? Still probably a lot cheaper in Canada. It is also a lot cheaper as a pet medication (not saying or insinuating anything mean - purely open discussion). So yes, Big Pharma is gouging here under the top cover of Congress.

This is normally where I would ask where this is Trump's Fault but he wasn't pres in 2013. Congress and both parties have been screwing this up for a while now.
Big Pharma's lobbyists rewrote the regs for congress
Eliminated the ability of drug companies to have sales reps wine and dine prescribers, Hint while this purportedly made it so the doctors didn't push certain drugs it actually saved the companies money.
They dumped the money saved into those stupid adds pushing drugs and raised prices since Congress made it so they could not negotiate pricing.

Big Pharma's lobbyists rewrote the regs for congress
Eliminated the ability of drug companies to have sales reps wine and dine prescribers, Hint while this purportedly made it so the doctors didn't push certain drugs it actually saved the companies money.
They dumped the money saved into those stupid adds pushing drugs and raised prices since Congress made it so they could not negotiate pricing.




Certainly agree with you on the Congress and Big Pharma lobbying part ; )

Let's eliminate all lobbying, corporate, Union, etc - and Term Limits

From The Grumpy Economist
https://johnhcochrane.blogspot.com/
Single payer sympathy?
A July 30 2018 Op-Ed in the Wall Street Journal, titled "The tax and spend health care solution"
Why is paying for health care such a mess in America? Why is it so hard to fix? Cross-subsidies are the original sin. The government wants to subsidize health care for poor people, chronically sick people, and people who have money but choose to spend less of it on health care than officials find sufficient. These are worthy goals, easily achieved in a completely free-market system by raising taxes and then subsidizing health care or insurance, at market prices, for people the government wishes to help.
But lawmakers do not want to be seen taxing and spending, so they hide transfers in cross-subsidies. They require emergency rooms to treat everyone who comes along, and then hospitals must overcharge everybody else. Medicare and Medicaid do not pay the full amount their services cost. Hospitals then overcharge private insurance and the few remaining cash customers.
Overcharging paying customers and providing free care in an emergency room is economically equivalent to a tax on emergency-room services that funds subsidies for others. But the effective tax and expenditure of a forced cross-subsidy do not show up on the federal budget.
Over the long term, cross-subsidies are far more inefficient than forthright taxing and spending. If the hospital is going to overcharge private insurance and paying customers to cross-subsidize the poor, the uninsured, Medicare, Medicaid and, increasingly, victims of limited exchange policies, then the hospital must be protected from competition. If competitors can come in and offer services to the paying customers, the scheme unravels.
No competition means no pressure to innovate for better service and lower costs. .....
...

As usual, I have to wait 30 days to post the whole thing. It synthesizes some of my earlier blog posts (here here here) on how cross subsidies are worse than straightforward, on budget, taxing and spending.

Let me here admit to one of the implications of this view. Single payer might not be so bad -- it might not be as bad as the current Medicare, Medicaid, Obamacare, VA, etc. mess.

But before you quote that, let's be careful to define what we mean by "single payer," which has become a mantra and litmus test on the left. There is a huge difference between "there is a single payer that everyone can use," and "there is a single payer that everyone must use."

Most on the left promise the former and mean the latter. Not only is there some sort of single easy to access health care and insurance scheme for poor or unfortunate people, but you and I are forbidden to escape it, to have private doctors, private hospitals, or private insurance outside the scheme. Doctors are forbidden to have private cash paying customers. That truly is a nightmare, and will mean the allocation of good medical care by connections and bribes.

But a single provider than anyone in trouble can use, supported by taxes, not cross-subsidized by restrictions on your and my health care -- not underpaying in a private system and forcing that system to overcharge others -- while allowing a vibrant completely competitive free market in private health care on top of that, is not such a terrible idea, and follows from my Op-Ed. A single bureaucracy that hands out vouchers, pays full market costs, or pays partially but allows doctors to charge whatever they want on top of that would work. A VA like system of public hospitals and clinics would work too. Like public schools, or public restrooms, you can use them, but you don't have to; you're free to spend your money on better options if you like, and people are free to start businesses to serve you. And no cross-subisides.

Whether we restrict provision with income and other tests, and thus introduce another marginal disincentive to work, or give everyone access and count on most working people to choose a better product, I leave for another day. It would always be an inefficient bureaucratic problem, but it might not be the nightmare of anti-competitive inefficiency of the current system.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q2jijuj1ysw

Wow, that's some hard hitting investigative journalism. They should have consulted with Veritas, could have helped with production quality.

Wow, that's some hard hitting investigative journalism. They should have consulted with Veritas, could have helped with production quality.

Wow, you're lack of actual substantive criticism supports, by default, Crowder's humorous "investigative journalism." Well done.

Trailer Park Boys go to the doctor
Apparently you’ve never been to an American emergency room on a weekend with a non critical health issue
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Trailer Park Boys go to the doctor
Apparently you’ve never been to an American emergency room on a weekend with a non critical health issue
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Yes, I have. Canada is supposed to be better. Apparently not. I never experienced any of the things these guys went through.