What do you see happening to your healthcare costs in the next few years

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

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?

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by detbuch

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

[scottw]

Originally Posted by detbuch

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....

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by detbuch

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

[The Dad Fisherman]

Originally Posted by spence

Only if you didn't need the health care.

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

[scottw]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

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....

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

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.

[scottw]

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.

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by scottw

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?

[The Dad Fisherman]

Originally Posted by scottw

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

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

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?

[spence]

Originally Posted by The Dad Fisherman

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

[spence]

Originally Posted by spence

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.

[The Dad Fisherman]

Originally Posted by spence

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?

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

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

[spence]

Originally Posted by The Dad Fisherman

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.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

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?

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by scottw

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

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by scottw

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

[The Dad Fisherman]

Originally Posted by spence

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

[scottw]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

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.....

[scottw]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

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

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

why?

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

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

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by scottw

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

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by scottw

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?

[spence]

Originally Posted by The Dad Fisherman

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.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

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.

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by detbuch

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?

[scottw]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

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?

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

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.