How can billionaires be so stoopid?
DaveSchmidt said:
Abstract for the UMass study, released in November and referred to in the first video above, of the 2017 Medicare for All Act:
This study by PERI researchers Robert Pollin, James Heintz, Peter Arno, Jeannette Wicks-Lim and Michael Ash presents a comprehensive analysis of the prospects for a Medicare for All health care system in the United States. The most fundamental goals of Medicare for All are to significantly improve health care outcomes for everyone living in the United States while also establishing effective cost controls throughout the health care system. These two purposes are both achievable. As of 2017, the U.S. was spending about $3.24 trillion on personal health care—about 17 percent of total U.S. GDP. Meanwhile, 9 percent of U.S. residents have no insurance and 26 percent are underinsured—they are unable to access needed care because of prohibitively high costs. Other high-income countries spend an average of about 40 percent less per person and produce better health outcomes. Medicare for All could reduce total health care spending in the U.S. by nearly 10 percent, to $2.93 trillion, while creating stable access to good care for all U.S. residents.PDF of the study:
https://www.peri.umass.edu/economists/jeannette-wicks-lim/item/download/805_42f6acc20a83c79049e68b270e30ee43
Where the $5.1 trillion savings figure comes from in that study:
Following from our estimates, Health Consumption Expenditures would fall to 15.8 per- cent of GDP under Medicare for All, as of the 2017 economy. This would represent a dramat- ic decline in health care spending as a share of GDP for the U.S., but would still be substan- tially higher than the figures for all other large advanced economies. We conclude that further incremental improvements in service delivery under Medicare for All should enable U.S. health care costs to stabilize at around 15.8 percent of GDP, even after taking account of the rising cost pressures resulting from an aging population.
Based on these results, we can then develop a 10-year forecast of Health Consumption Expenditures under Medicare for All, and compare this forecast with the projection by CMS of Health Consumption Expenditures assuming that the U.S. continues operating under its existing health care system. We find that, over the decade 2017 – 2026, the cumulative savings through operating under Medicare for All would be $5.1 trillion, equal to 2.1 percent of cumulative GDP.
I honestly can't remember if he referred to the UMass study you quote from. But he definitely gave a misleading impression of the Mercatus center study.
The Mercatus study, which later in the video Kulinski says “admit(s) that Medicare for All would save $2 trillion over a decade.”
https://www.mercatus.org/system/files/blahous-costs-medicare-mercatus-working-paper-v1_1.pdf
More on the Mercatus study and the tug-of-war over its numbers, from Vox:
DaveSchmidt said:
The Mercatus study, which later in the video Kulinski says “admit(s) that Medicare for All would save $2 trillion over a decade.”
https://www.mercatus.org/system/files/blahous-costs-medicare-mercatus-working-paper-v1_1.pdf
If you read it out of context. Yes. This study was quoted in a very similar way in the Washington Post. The Washington Post fact checkers gave them 3 pinnochios.
terp said:
DaveSchmidt said:If you read it out of context. Yes. This study was quoted in a very similar way in the Washington Post. The Washington Post fact checkers gave them 3 pinnochios.
The Mercatus study, which later in the video Kulinski says “admit(s) that Medicare for All would save $2 trillion over a decade.”
https://www.mercatus.org/system/files/blahous-costs-medicare-mercatus-working-paper-v1_1.pdf
Glenn Kessler is hardly perfect.
So, what does the Mercatus study actually say?
terp said:
I mean you post the study. Did you actually read it?!?!
Don’t know what I did to earn the extra punctuation, but, yes, I gave it a quick read (not word for word). Then I read the Vox piece (word for word) and found it sensible and informative.
(this is my 3rd try at this post)
I think this take on Mercatus and Kessler is spot on
Glenn Kessler demonstrates the limitations of fact checking today. The question is: Does Bernie Sanders’ Medicare For All plan save money or cost money? Answer: it does both. According to a new Mercatus study, it would reduce the total cost of health care by about $2 trillion over the next decade. But since the federal government would be paying for it all, it would raise federal health care spending by $32 trillion over ten years. Given this, Kessler chides liberals for “cherry picking” the $2 trillion savings number when they tout this report.
This is ridiculous. Any national health care plan will raise federal spending considerably. It will also raise taxes considerably to pay for it, so the net cost to the federal budget is roughly zero. In return, patients and corporations no longer have to pay premiums or copays or out-of-pocket costs to insurance companies, so the net cost to individuals is, again, roughly zero. All of this is fundamental to any national health care plan. We can argue on the margins about whether the net costs are truly zero or just close to zero, but that’s about it.
So where’s the cherry picking? The Sanders plan will reduce overall costs $2 trillion. It will raise federal taxes by $32 trillion over ten years, but “to the extent that the cost of M4A is financed by new payroll taxes, premium collections, or other revenue increases, the net effect on the federal budget deficit would be substantially less.”
Indeed. If we assume that taxes will rise to make up for reduced premiums/copays/etc., the effect on the federal budget is a wash. If we assume that all of Sanders’ assumptions are correct—in particular that doctors will be paid at Medicare rates—overall health care spending will go down $2 trillion. On the other hand, if we assume Sanders is wrong and doctors will end up being paid more than Medicare rates, then overall spending will go up about $5 trillion.
Bottom line: The effect of Sanders’ plan on the federal deficit is, currently, unknown. The effect on the total cost of health care could be either -$2 trillion or +$5 trillion depending on whether you accept that M4A will do what it says and pay doctors at Medicare rates. That’s the whole report.
And yet touting the -$2 trillion number is “cherry picking” and rates three pinocchios. Give me a break.
it's fine to keep quoting those studies and argue the back and forth, however the population health benefits that never seem to be included are the $$ saved in catching serious illness and chronic conditions earlier so they're managed, thereby saving on later acute interventions.
And, as we learn from societies with more supportive wellbeing communities that do offer more universal access to health care, a population that feels more secure in wellbeing and health matters can be more creative, innovative and productive. (It's instructive to see which societies score well on the Happiness Index and why, and how this might correlate with growth in GDP over recent decades despite some very serious natural catastrophes or economic downturns). Resilience and personal optimism affect both personal health outcomes and national economics.
joanne said:
it's fine to keep quoting those studies and argue the back and forth, however the population health benefits that never seem to be included are the $$ saved in catching serious illness and chronic conditions earlier so they're managed, thereby saving on later acute interventions.
And, as we learn from societies with more supportive wellbeing communities that do offer more universal access to health care, a population that feels more secure in wellbeing and health matters can be more creative, innovative and productive. (It's instructive to see which societies score well on the Happiness Index and why, and how this might correlate with growth in GDP over recent decades despite some very serious natural catastrophes or economic downturns). Resilience and personal optimism affect both personal health outcomes and national economics.
actually, it's not fine. The argument should be about how best to implement national health care, not if we should or not. But as long as we have people like our billionaire duo - who are given respect far beyond what they deserve - poisoning the discourse with stupidity, it will be hard to get to that point.
well, our PM has decided it’s an excellent trading point to allow increased quotas of kava into the country -with no consultation, and reversing all previous policy on the matter - so I guess rich old white guys (especially) have the ear of Gd, and might really know best...?!
drummerboy said:
(this is my 3rd try at this post)
I think this take on Mercatus and Kessler is spot on
Glenn Kessler demonstrates the limitations of fact checking today. The question is: Does Bernie Sanders’ Medicare For All plan save money or cost money? Answer: it does both. According to a new Mercatus study, it would reduce the total cost of health care by about $2 trillion over the next decade. But since the federal government would be paying for it all, it would raise federal health care spending by $32 trillion over ten years. Given this, Kessler chides liberals for “cherry picking” the $2 trillion savings number when they tout this report.
This is ridiculous. Any national health care plan will raise federal spending considerably. It will also raise taxes considerably to pay for it, so the net cost to the federal budget is roughly zero. In return, patients and corporations no longer have to pay premiums or copays or out-of-pocket costs to insurance companies, so the net cost to individuals is, again, roughly zero. All of this is fundamental to any national health care plan. We can argue on the margins about whether the net costs are truly zero or just close to zero, but that’s about it.
So where’s the cherry picking? The Sanders plan will reduce overall costs $2 trillion. It will raise federal taxes by $32 trillion over ten years, but “to the extent that the cost of M4A is financed by new payroll taxes, premium collections, or other revenue increases, the net effect on the federal budget deficit would be substantially less.”
Indeed. If we assume that taxes will rise to make up for reduced premiums/copays/etc., the effect on the federal budget is a wash. If we assume that all of Sanders’ assumptions are correct—in particular that doctors will be paid at Medicare rates—overall health care spending will go down $2 trillion. On the other hand, if we assume Sanders is wrong and doctors will end up being paid more than Medicare rates, then overall spending will go up about $5 trillion.
Bottom line: The effect of Sanders’ plan on the federal deficit is, currently, unknown. The effect on the total cost of health care could be either -$2 trillion or +$5 trillion depending on whether you accept that M4A will do what it says and pay doctors at Medicare rates. That’s the whole report.
And yet touting the -$2 trillion number is “cherry picking” and rates three pinocchios. Give me a break.
The only way you could think that take is dead on is if you didn't read the report, and you didn't read the Kessler account. Mother Jones' take is intellectually dishonest as it mis-leads its readers into believing Kessler disputes the $2 Trillion savings only because it is going to add $32 Trillion to the budget. That is not what Kessler disputes.
Of course, you have to read the source materials to know this. You can't rely on acutely biased intermediaries for information as they are likely to propagandize.
If I were to question the intelligence of Bloomberg on topics such as this, yet struggle to navigate these shallow waters in the same thread, well I'd be embarrassed for myself.
joanne said:
it's fine to keep quoting those studies and argue the back and forth, however the population health benefits that never seem to be included are the $$ saved in catching serious illness and chronic conditions earlier so they're managed, thereby saving on later acute interventions.
And, as we learn from societies with more supportive wellbeing communities that do offer more universal access to health care, a population that feels more secure in wellbeing and health matters can be more creative, innovative and productive. (It's instructive to see which societies score well on the Happiness Index and why, and how this might correlate with growth in GDP over recent decades despite some very serious natural catastrophes or economic downturns). Resilience and personal optimism affect both personal health outcomes and national economics.
Will these improvements in health match our improvements in education since the founding of the Department of Education?
terp said:
drummerboy said:
(this is my 3rd try at this post)
I think this take on Mercatus and Kessler is spot on
Glenn Kessler demonstrates the limitations of fact checking today. The question is: Does Bernie Sanders’ Medicare For All plan save money or cost money? Answer: it does both. According to a new Mercatus study, it would reduce the total cost of health care by about $2 trillion over the next decade. But since the federal government would be paying for it all, it would raise federal health care spending by $32 trillion over ten years. Given this, Kessler chides liberals for “cherry picking” the $2 trillion savings number when they tout this report.
This is ridiculous. Any national health care plan will raise federal spending considerably. It will also raise taxes considerably to pay for it, so the net cost to the federal budget is roughly zero. In return, patients and corporations no longer have to pay premiums or copays or out-of-pocket costs to insurance companies, so the net cost to individuals is, again, roughly zero. All of this is fundamental to any national health care plan. We can argue on the margins about whether the net costs are truly zero or just close to zero, but that’s about it.
So where’s the cherry picking? The Sanders plan will reduce overall costs $2 trillion. It will raise federal taxes by $32 trillion over ten years, but “to the extent that the cost of M4A is financed by new payroll taxes, premium collections, or other revenue increases, the net effect on the federal budget deficit would be substantially less.”
Indeed. If we assume that taxes will rise to make up for reduced premiums/copays/etc., the effect on the federal budget is a wash. If we assume that all of Sanders’ assumptions are correct—in particular that doctors will be paid at Medicare rates—overall health care spending will go down $2 trillion. On the other hand, if we assume Sanders is wrong and doctors will end up being paid more than Medicare rates, then overall spending will go up about $5 trillion.
Bottom line: The effect of Sanders’ plan on the federal deficit is, currently, unknown. The effect on the total cost of health care could be either -$2 trillion or +$5 trillion depending on whether you accept that M4A will do what it says and pay doctors at Medicare rates. That’s the whole report.
And yet touting the -$2 trillion number is “cherry picking” and rates three pinocchios. Give me a break.
The only way you could think that take is dead on is if you didn't read the report, and you didn't read the Kessler account. Mother Jones' take is intellectually dishonest as it mis-leads its readers into believing Kessler disputes the $2 Trillion savings only because it is going to add $32 Trillion to the budget. That is not what Kessler disputes.
Of course, you have to read the source materials to know this. You can't rely on acutely biased intermediaries for information as they are likely to propagandize.
If I were to question the intelligence of Bloomberg on topics such as this, yet struggle to navigate these shallow waters in the same thread, well I'd be embarrassed for myself.
You've yet to explain how the Mercatus report has been distorted.
terp said:
joanne said:Will these improvements in health match our improvements in education since the founding of the Department of Education?
it's fine to keep quoting those studies and argue the back and forth, however the population health benefits that never seem to be included are the $$ saved in catching serious illness and chronic conditions earlier so they're managed, thereby saving on later acute interventions.
And, as we learn from societies with more supportive wellbeing communities that do offer more universal access to health care, a population that feels more secure in wellbeing and health matters can be more creative, innovative and productive. (It's instructive to see which societies score well on the Happiness Index and why, and how this might correlate with growth in GDP over recent decades despite some very serious natural catastrophes or economic downturns). Resilience and personal optimism affect both personal health outcomes and national economics.
That statement indicates that you don't understand the role, nor the overall funding from, the Dept of Education.
https://www2.ed.gov/about/overview/fed/role.html
Overview
Education is primarily a State and local responsibility in the United States. It is States and communities, as well as public and private organizations of all kinds, that establish schools and colleges, develop curricula, and determine requirements for enrollment and graduation. The structure of education finance in America reflects this predominant State and local role. Of an estimated $1.15 trillion being spent nationwide on education at all levels for school year 2012-2013, a substantial majority will come from State, local, and private sources. This is especially true at the elementary and secondary level, where about 92 percent of the funds will come from non-Federal sources.
That means the Federal contribution to elementary and secondary education is about 8 percent, which includes funds not only from the Department of Education (ED) but also from other Federal agencies, such as the Department of Health and Human Services' Head Start program and the Department of Agriculture's School Lunch program.
Although ED's share of total education funding in the U.S. is relatively small, ED works hard to get a big bang for its taxpayer-provided bucks by targeting its funds where they can do the most good. This targeting reflects the historical development of the Federal role in education as a kind of "emergency response system," a means of filling gaps in State and local support for education when critical national needs arise.
I shouldn't read it for you, but fine. The study looks at the plan w/ the assumptions that go into the plan and if those assumptions are true, it would save $2 Trillion dollars.
The Study then looks at the assumptions of the plan and finds them to be dubious. Essentially, the plan:
- Fails to account for the additional demand in healthcare services due to the additional people covered and the additional services covered.
- Assumes that healthcare providers will be compensated at the lower Medicare rates. This may reduce the supply of healthcare providers at the same time demand goes up(due to #1)
- Assumes that they can save a lot of $$ by negotiating drug prices and using more generics. But generics already make 85% of drugs sold, etc.
- Makes aggressive assumptions about savings in Administrative costs
- Assumes no increase in Long Term Services and Supports
But you know, they're probably wrong. Has the government ever under estimated the costs of its programs? That only happens always.
terp said:
joanne said:Will these improvements in health match our improvements in education since the founding of the Department of Education?
it's fine to keep quoting those studies and argue the back and forth, however the population health benefits that never seem to be included are the $$ saved in catching serious illness and chronic conditions earlier so they're managed, thereby saving on later acute interventions.
And, as we learn from societies with more supportive wellbeing communities that do offer more universal access to health care, a population that feels more secure in wellbeing and health matters can be more creative, innovative and productive. (It's instructive to see which societies score well on the Happiness Index and why, and how this might correlate with growth in GDP over recent decades despite some very serious natural catastrophes or economic downturns). Resilience and personal optimism affect both personal health outcomes and national economics.
That’s a different policy matter. There’s evidence in other places that social enterprise systems (for example) can spontaneously develop, regardless of any individual’s educational background, and pull in the required resources that lead to success.
I’m not going to head off on tangents, though, especially from other nations and cultures that aren’t viewed as sufficiently parallel to make a refined argument in this highly defined context work. 
(Greg Jericho makes a lot of sense; his Grogonomics columns demystify a lot of confused thinking)
terp said:
tom said:You want a policy that will take the property from other people in an effort to achieve some goals that you prefer. Is there a word for that? Covetous maybe?
terp said:Extreme inequality is bad for society. I'm not envious because it would be just as bad for society if it were me that was the billionaire.
Nice to see no envy or resentment here
Of course it would be better for me personally. But if I were to put that ahead of every other consideration I would be greedy.
I do not accept the premise that someone has an moral right of ownership to something, even if it was gained by gaming the system.
Suggested reading: the first couple of paragraphs of Dave Leonhardt's column this morning.
tom said:
terp said:I do not accept the premise that someone has an moral right of ownership to something, even if it was gained by gaming the system.
tom said:You want a policy that will take the property from other people in an effort to achieve some goals that you prefer. Is there a word for that? Covetous maybe?
terp said:Extreme inequality is bad for society. I'm not envious because it would be just as bad for society if it were me that was the billionaire.
Nice to see no envy or resentment here
Of course it would be better for me personally. But if I were to put that ahead of every other consideration I would be greedy.
So, if the government does a study and contends they have found a better use for your home, you'd be fine with them just taking it?
terp said:
tom said:So, if the government does a study and contends they have found a better use for your home, you'd be fine with them just taking it?
terp said:I do not accept the premise that someone has an moral right of ownership to something, even if it was gained by gaming the system.
tom said:You want a policy that will take the property from other people in an effort to achieve some goals that you prefer. Is there a word for that? Covetous maybe?
terp said:Extreme inequality is bad for society. I'm not envious because it would be just as bad for society if it were me that was the billionaire.
Nice to see no envy or resentment here
Of course it would be better for me personally. But if I were to put that ahead of every other consideration I would be greedy.
This happens all the time, and the government doesn't just take it - they compensate for the loss, which you know fully well. You're being obtuse.
drummerboy said:
terp said:This happens all the time, and the government doesn't just take it - they compensate for the loss, which you know fully well. You're being obtuse.
tom said:So, if the government does a study and contends they have found a better use for your home, you'd be fine with them just taking it?
terp said:I do not accept the premise that someone has an moral right of ownership to something, even if it was gained by gaming the system.
tom said:You want a policy that will take the property from other people in an effort to achieve some goals that you prefer. Is there a word for that? Covetous maybe?
terp said:Extreme inequality is bad for society. I'm not envious because it would be just as bad for society if it were me that was the billionaire.
Nice to see no envy or resentment here
Of course it would be better for me personally. But if I were to put that ahead of every other consideration I would be greedy.
No I'm not. Tom really seems to indicate that he doesn't believe in the morality of private ownership. It says it right there in bold.
You have simply restated my argument incorrectly.
The sentence I wrote was longer. Please work on your reading skills, for now you get a "D."
Anyway, of course there is no "moral right to ownership". What does that even mean? A moral right defined by the exchange of money? What?
There are rights given to us by our society, which includes limited, legal rights to ownership, not moral. But it's no more than that. And morality doesn't enter into it.
tom said:
The sentence I wrote was longer. Please work on your reading skills, for now you get a "D."
You did qualify, but your qualification seemed to indicate that you didn't support ownership even if the good was gained through gaming the system.
Feel free to explain that, but I assume'd it to mean that you feel as the very wealthy gain their wealth by gaming the system. Which is fine, but it's not much of a qualification.
drummerboy said:
Anyway, of course there is no "moral right to ownership". What does that even mean? A moral right defined by the exchange of money? What?
There are rights given to us by our society, which includes limited, legal rights to ownership, not moral. But it's no more than that. And morality doesn't enter into it.
Talk to tom. He brought it up.
Taking what other people own is wrong. It has been codified in our culture for millennia.
there's a lot of discussion of these issues in moral terms as if taxation is immoral confiscation or if it's immoral for people to have a vast amount of money. But these issues really aren't "moral" at all. There shouldn't be any moral argument attached to lowering or raising tax rates. Rates should be set at whatever level they need to be for a well-functioning society.
And is our country functioning optimally when there are millions of people barely living paycheck to paycheck while others people have more money than they can spend in ten thousand lifetimes? I would say that is not an optimally functioning economy.
For some perspective, Jeff Bezos is estimated to be worth $142.3 billion. In our nicely upper middle class town of Maplewood, where we are generally very comfortable compared to most working class people, the median income is estimated at $116,000 annually. In order for the average Maplewood family to earn Bezos's wealth, they would need to work for over 1.2 MILLION YEARS.
It's really only when you put those numbers into some kind of comparative framework can most people start to see how fantastically lopsided these numbers are. What is the argument for that kind of wealth concentration representing an optimally functioning economy? And why would it be "immoral" for the government to try to circulate some of the wealth of billionaires back through the economy to people who will spend it?
ml1 said:
there's a lot of discussion of these issues in moral terms as if taxation is immoral confiscation or if it's immoral for people to have a vast amount of money. But these issues really aren't "moral" at all. There shouldn't be any moral argument attached to lowering or raising tax rates. Rates should be set at whatever level they need to be for a well-functioning society.
And is our country functioning optimally when there are millions of people barely living paycheck to paycheck while others people have more money than they can spend in ten thousand lifetimes? I would say that is not an optimally functioning economy.
For some perspective, Jeff Bezos is estimated to be worth $142.3 billion. In our nicely upper middle class town of Maplewood, where we are generally very comfortable compared to most working class people, the median income is estimated at $116,000 annually. In order for the average Maplewood family to earn Bezos's wealth, they would need to work for over 1.2 MILLION YEARS.
It's really only when you put those numbers into some kind of comparative framework can most people start to see how fantastically lopsided these numbers are. What is the argument for that kind of wealth concentration representing an optimally functioning economy? And why would it be "immoral" for the government to try to circulate some of the wealth of billionaires back through the economy to people who will spend it?
Nobody is arguing that any kind of wealth concentration is optimal. I don't know what kind of wealth concentration is optimal. Nor do you.
I am arguing that it is immoral to take people's property. I would also argue that you, the people on this thread, AOC, Bernie Sanders, all are unfit to know how much of what someone's earns is your right to take towards whatever ends you have in mind.
Furthermore, I know you do not know how to manage an economy well enough to solve the problems you state in your 2nd paragraph. Historically, when these things are tried, they tend to make things worse.
You have this assumption that you, or AOC, or some politician who we can be sure has a heart as pure as the driven snow can solve all those problems. History has shown that the person with this knowledge and character to be elusive. A chimera if you will.
Featured Events
-
Stephen Whitty Presents - Hometown Movie Stars: The Celebrated Actors Of CHS
May 6, 2024 at 7:00pm
Sponsored Business
Promote your business here - Businesses get highlighted throughout the site and you can add a deal.
Advertisement
same ol' same ol'.
Show me a country with a successful, free market health care system.
We'll wait.