So -- Why does healthcare cost so damn much? (warning: novel-length post)

[n_huffhines]

What I'm getting at here is that this was a great example of a fundamental rift between market demand (or lack thereof) and what people actually wanted. Of course, the same thing could be said of legislation the other way.

Except for rare instances like the one mentioned, smoking at a bar was the status quo.

Since legislation has passed so easily in so many areas, it's obvious that people wanted it. Here, the market was unable to change the status quo on its own based on demand.

And what I'm saying is consumers express their TRUE demand by what they do, not what they say. If I prefer a bar with red walls, a stuffed Giraffe, and a zebra pool table I'm not going to get it, but I'll be fine with a regular bar. Maybe a lot of people think that's a cool idea, so they support a law requiring it. That doesn't mean there was a true demand for it. That doesn't make it efficient policy.

 

[justingroves]

I'm living proof sweet tea doesn't make you fat

 

[milohimself]

why save it? Seems the personal responsibility idea fits well here



yes but it has nothing to do with this unless your automatically assume full employment for the population. And I think you're mixing it with natural to make the point (it's been a while and you have the books in front of you)

It's been a while since I've taken econ courses :lol:

Milton Friedman put forward the idea that a rate of unemployment above full employment, where able-bodied workers are without jobs in frictional situations or due to classical unemployment must be maintained to curtail inflation. Basically, millions of people without jobs and millions more making too little to afford a decent standard of living is necessarily for the strength of the dollar.

are people allowed to starve to death in the streets after 5 years?

If you want to put it that way. I'm just telling you what the law is, and that is people are not allowed to receive cash assistance for more than five years in their lifetime. I can cite this any number of ways if you'd like.

People on TANF know this, they are taking in this income knowing full well that the "gravy train" isn't unlimited.

do people in MS have the info to tell them that the foods they choose to eat will make them fat? Do they have the common sense to know their 300lb mother and grandmother ate sweet tea, soda, fried and fast foods and that was the cause of their obesity and health problems?

It's a mix. In the OP, I mentioned the USA Today poll that said 89% of people said they had healthy diets.

As I said with the smoking stuff, this is clearly a case where the status quo needs to be smashed. Ideally, McDonald's, BK, KFC, Popeye's, Sonic, A&W, Chik-fil-A and the like would be losing a whole lot of business.

The market will not dismantle the way things are, it will only perpetuate it; people want what they've always had and what their mother and grandmother had, and if that's what they want then that's what the market will deliver.

being able to take the info and willingly change their lifestyle is the difference. Call it what you want but it all boils down to individual choices

It does. I've maintained that and said it multiple times this whole thread. I mentioned that people in Europe are far healthier than we are and make better day to day health and diet decisions than we do.

Does that mean Europeans are on the whole smarter and more responsible than Americans are? I hope not!

I don't know about states out that way or if it was federal, but here, if there's a restaurant with more than 15 locations (IIRC) then that restaurant is legally obligated to provide a nutrition label for everything they serve and make it plain at the point of sale, and to put the number of calories on the menu directly next to that item. The result? So far, fast food and places like Chipotle are having decreased sales, while revenues at local groceries are up, and it will start paying dividends in health soon.

 

[utvolpj]

If you want to put it that way. I'm just telling you what the law is, and that is people are not allowed to receive cash assistance for more than five years in their lifetime. I can cite this any number of ways if you'd like.

People on TANF know this, they are taking in this income knowing full well that the "gravy train" isn't unlimited.

you can cite it but it really doesn't mean much unless you can show that after 5 years these people are left to fend for themselves without gov't help. If not the the 5yr limit doesn't truly exist

It's a mix. In the OP, I mentioned the USA Today poll that said 89% of people said they had healthy diets.

As I said with the smoking stuff, this is clearly a case where the status quo needs to be smashed. Ideally, McDonald's, BK, KFC, Popeye's, Sonic, A&W, Chik-fil-A and the like would be losing a whole lot of business.

The market will not dismantle the way things are, it will only perpetuate it; people want what they've always had and what their mother and grandmother had, and if that's what they want then that's what the market will deliver.

the people drive the market with their choices. Having the gov't step in to change it is a very dangerous game and not one I'm willing to play

It does. I've maintained that and said it multiple times this whole thread. I mentioned that people in Europe are far healthier than we are and make better day to day health and diet decisions than we do.

no you've said personal responsibility must be looked at inside social contexts. That removes a large chunk of what it actually is.

Does that mean Europeans are on the whole smarter and more responsible than Americans are? I hope not!

I don't know about states out that way or if it was federal, but here, if there's a restaurant with more than 15 locations (IIRC) then that restaurant is legally obligated to provide a nutrition label for everything they serve and make it plain at the point of sale, and to put the number of calories on the menu directly next to that item. The result? So far, fast food and places like Chipotle are having decreased sales, while revenues at local groceries are up, and it will start paying dividends in health soon.

if they are making choices that make them healthier and enjoy life more then yes they are smarter. Smarter people make smarter choices.

 

[milohimself]

One's health is directly correlated with one's educational attainment. National Poverty Center | University of Michigan
The federal government has had a negative effect on education, so not only did the fed's involvement with healthcare in 1965 increase its cost but the fed's involvement in education has worsened the health of many of our citizens. The fed gov't is our enemy!

There are many other countries where the federal government plays a much larger role in education than they do in the US, yet educational attainment is higher and health outcomes are better.

Milo said -



What I am saying is that people who approve and want to be taken care of by a welfare state (therefore pro-welfare state) are more than likely to be unhealthy that those who do not want to be taken care of.

I'd like to see a breakdown of people who want a welfare state and want to be taken care of layered against the charts you had earlier. Just seems to me to be a no brainer.

States which have less support for welfare programs tend to have the poorest outcomes while states which have more robust welfare programs tend to have better health outcomes.

Keep in mind, this is NOT number of welfare recipients but states which feature a better "safety net" so to speak.

And what I'm saying is consumers express their TRUE demand by what they do, not what they say. If I prefer a bar with red walls, a stuffed Giraffe, and a zebra pool table I'm not going to get it, but I'll be fine with a regular bar. Maybe a lot of people think that's a cool idea, so they support a law requiring it. That doesn't mean there was a true demand for it. That doesn't make it efficient policy.

If a few people think a law is a good idea, it won't pass. It has to get at least a broad base of support, more than that, anti-smoking legislation was vastly supported. I still haven't seen any reconciliation between the way the voting happened and why non-smoking bars were virtually non-existent before the law happened.

Clearly people wanted to change the status quo; if they didn't, the law would never have passed as easily as it did. The market did not provide for this to happen, but voting did.

I'm living proof sweet tea doesn't make you fat

Bastage. :lol: I have to keep a lasso on my diet in order to keep from getting fat.

 

[utvolpj]

There are many other countries where the federal government plays a much larger role in education than they do in the US, yet educational attainment is higher and health outcomes are better.

what country pays more per student than the US?

States which have less support for welfare programs tend to have the poorest outcomes while states which have more robust welfare programs tend to have better health outcomes.

Keep in mind, this is NOT number of welfare recipients but states which feature a better "safety net" so to speak.

the unhealthiest states are the ones getting the most federal assistance

If a few people think a law is a good idea, it won't pass. It has to get at least a broad base of support, more than that, anti-smoking legislation was vastly supported. I still haven't seen any reconciliation between the way the voting happened and why non-smoking bars were virtually non-existent before the law happened.

Clearly people wanted to change the status quo; if they didn't, the law would never have passed as easily as it did. The market did not provide for this to happen, but voting did.

so the national polls about an issue like gay marriage are wrong and the elections really show what the people want? The fact is these votes are very poorly attended so the few that want their voice heard are the ones getting it done. It absolutely does not mean it reflects the will of all the people

 

[milohimself]

you can cite it but it really doesn't mean much unless you can show that after 5 years these people are left to fend for themselves without gov't help. If not the the 5yr limit doesn't truly exist

What more do you need than citation? I've seen it happen. Depending on what state you're in, once you hit that time limit on cash assistance, they'll help you with career placement but if you try and get checks their response is "tough ****" and that's whether or not you've got kids.

the people drive the market with their choices. Having the gov't step in to change it is a very dangerous game and not one I'm willing to play

If you remember any of my posts in this thread, I have repeatedly been asking how you accomplish this with a minimal amount of top down legislation.

no you've said personal responsibility must be looked at inside social contexts. That removes a large chunk of what it actually is.

if they are making choices that make them healthier and enjoy life more then yes they are smarter. Smarter people make smarter choices.

pj, this goes against some very basic, near-universally accepted psychological and sociological ideas that one's thought process does not take place inside a bubble. If that is the case, it thereby denies any effect socio-economic status has on somebody's thought process which implies some sort of genetic (NOT HEREDITARY) superiority.

Okay, so we agree that Europeans are by and large smarter and more responsible when it comes to diet and lifestyle because they have better outcomes. But if you deny that this happens because of socio-economic conditions and social context, and happens only by individual cases of individual decision-making, that thereby implies that Europeans are smarter than Americans are because they just are.

pj, we clearly have an issue with individual responsibility, thusly health, etc in this country and if you don't persistently ask why then you're never going to figure it out and then we're all ****ed.

 

[n_huffhines]

Clearly people wanted to change the status quo; if they didn't, the law would never have passed as easily as it did. The market did not provide for this to happen, but voting did.

I don't think we are going to see eye-to-eye on this. My Mom has no interest in ever going to a bar. The fact that she would vote to ban smoking in bars means NOTHING as far as demand goes. A vote open to all cannot accurately capture the demand of bar patrons.

"You vote with your dollars" is a philosophy I try to live by, and it's true. If I cast a ballot, I'm basically paying lip service, but if I actually pay for something I'm making a much stronger statement. Before the non-smoking laws were passed, people voted with their dollars to support smoking bars. You did it, and I did it, even though we preferred to be in a non-smoking environment.

 

[utvolpj]

What more do you need than citation? I've seen it happen. Depending on what state you're in, once you hit that time limit on cash assistance, they'll help you with career placement but if you try and get checks their response is "tough ****" and that's whether or not you've got kids.

do those people die in the streets or do they get a job to feed their family? Could that have been accomplished in the previous 5 yrs?

there are also multiple exemptions that someone willing to work the system could easily find

If you remember any of my posts in this thread, I have repeatedly been asking how you accomplish this with a minimal amount of top down legislation.

you don't, people get smarter or they die. It's not that simple but honestly I'm getting to the point where it should be. I'm tired of the gov't trying to legislate the stupidity out of people when all it does is add to the problem.

pj, this goes against some very basic, near-universally accepted psychological and sociological ideas that one's thought process does not take place inside a bubble. If that is the case, it thereby denies any effect socio-economic status has on somebody's thought process which implies some sort of genetic (NOT HEREDITARY) superiority.

and I said it counts but should lead any person of average intelligence to the revelation that what the people around me are doing will kill me and I need to try something different. Until people realize that then no amount of help will do any good. As we've all agreed, the info is all out there for anyone who wants it. Maybe the Europeans just grasped that a generation or 2 earlier

pj, we clearly have an issue with individual responsibility, thusly health, etc in this country and if you don't persistently ask why then you're never going to figure it out and then we're all ****ed.

not all of us. Again, personal responsibility

 

[shortgameVol]

People adapt to their environment, they don't change it on their own and demand goes from there.

Some remember that I was in Japan for a little over a month back in '08, and I lost 10 lbs when I was over there just because of diet (I probably sweated a bit of that out as well, it was 90-100*F and Florida humid the whole time I was there). I still managed to get McDoland's a time or two (or "Makudonarudo" as they pronounce it) but modest meals of rice, pork, fish and buckwheat noodles were what was easiest to get.

Funny

Back in the early and mid 90s, I had to go over there several times a year to NTC. Some trips lasted a few days and some lasted a couple of weeks, but on nearly all of them, I lost weight due to the reasons you stated above. The fat people in Japan are few and far between because of that rice, fish, soup and pork diet.

 

[tigervol9802]

There are many other countries where the federal government plays a much larger role in education than they do in the US, yet educational attainment is higher and health outcomes are better.


States which have less support for welfare programs tend to have the poorest outcomes while states which have more robust welfare programs tend to have better health outcomes.

Keep in mind, this is NOT number of welfare recipients but states which feature a better "safety net" so to speak.


If a few people think a law is a good idea, it won't pass. It has to get at least a broad base of support, more than that, anti-smoking legislation was vastly supported. I still haven't seen any reconciliation between the way the voting happened and why non-smoking bars were virtually non-existent before the law happened.

Clearly people wanted to change the status quo; if they didn't, the law would never have passed as easily as it did. The market did not provide for this to happen, but voting did.


Bastage. :lol: I have to keep a lasso on my diet in order to keep from getting fat.

I am talking welfare recepients.

 

[milohimself]

what country pays more per student than the US?

The vast majority of colleges in Europe are nearly or entirely state-funded. Here, if you want a Master's or PhD, you prove yourself smart enough and motivated enough and take on a mountain of debt along the way. If you live in Europe, you prove yourself smart enough and motivated enough and you get your degree.

Now does our system provide by and large the best schools in the world? Yes. Is this because of privatization? Not entirely, but largely. I'm not saying one way is better than another, just saying how it is.

the unhealthiest states are the ones getting the most federal assistance

No, the states with the most recipients of federal assistance are the unhealthiest. Look to 2009, notice which states were the ones to cut welfare benefits as unemployment rose?

The less healthy states also happened to be the fastest ones to put welfare on the chopping block, while healthier states actually increased welfare rolls and did more to provide food stamps.

 

[utvolpj]

The vast majority of colleges in Europe are nearly or entirely state-funded. Here, if you want a Master's or PhD, you prove yourself smart enough and motivated enough and take on a mountain of debt along the way. If you live in Europe, you prove yourself smart enough and motivated enough and you get your degree.

Now does our system provide by and large the best schools in the world? Yes. Is this because of privatization? Not entirely, but largely. I'm not saying one way is better than another, just saying how it is.

you're talking about masters and PhD programs while I'm just talking about basic HS education. We spend more than everyone and are still lagging behind. That is why the claim of others being simply smarter is valid.

No, the states with the most recipients of federal assistance are the unhealthiest. Look to 2009, notice which states were the ones to cut welfare benefits as unemployment rose?

The less healthy states also happened to be the fastest ones to put welfare on the chopping block, while healthier states actually increased welfare rolls and did more to provide food stamps.

that's not what I was discussing. The states receiving the most money back from the federal gov't (as a % of their input) are the unhealthiest. The % change doesn't really explain much since they already have fewer on the rolls anyway so any increase looks bigger. When you're already receiving a huge amount it's really hard to ask for more.

 

[milohimself]

do those people die in the streets or do they get a job to feed their family? Could that have been accomplished in the previous 5 yrs?

Who knows, there's been a relatively small amount of statistic and record keeping done with this crowd. In so far as the sociology community can tell, they typically go on to get jobs and support themselves at a below-poverty level and their kids end up going on to repeat the cycle; basically, cold turkey has accomplished nothing.

there are also multiple exemptions that someone willing to work the system could easily find

Kinda. They get case workers which are part of the whole process anyways. These people are state employees, which I disagree with; I think this part should be privatized, because there have proven to be severe problems in this area.

you don't, people get smarter or they die. It's not that simple but honestly I'm getting to the point where it should be. I'm tired of the gov't trying to legislate the stupidity out of people when all it does is add to the problem.

It sounds like you are looking at the issue is if top-down government or complete deregulation are the only options; this is not the case.

and I said it counts but should lead any person of average intelligence to the revelation that what the people around me are doing will kill me and I need to try something different. Until people realize that then no amount of help will do any good. As we've all agreed, the info is all out there for anyone who wants it. Maybe the Europeans just grasped that a generation or 2 earlier

And why do you think they did that?

not all of us. Again, personal responsibility

Only if you want to go live as a hermit off the land. If not, you're in the same boat with the rest of us no matter how much you don't want to be.

I am talking welfare recepients.

There's really no hard data on this; I'm referring to some studies done by my current prof. between UF and Portland St, which included about 600 people in either state. Ostensibly there is no correlation between the health of welfare recipients and those who would or would not prefer to be on it, poor health is equally common among all of them, as it is due to environmental factors by region and socio-economic status.

 

[milohimself]

you're talking about masters and PhD programs while I'm just talking about basic HS education. We spend more than everyone and are still lagging behind. That is why the claim of others being simply smarter is valid.

So you believe that people in other countries are simply born smarter and that's the end of it? Or that somebody from Connecticut will likely be smarter than somebody from Louisiana only because they were born in Connecticut?

that's not what I was discussing. The states receiving the most money back from the federal gov't (as a % of their input) are the unhealthiest. The % change doesn't really explain much since they already have fewer on the rolls anyway so any increase looks bigger. When you're already receiving a huge amount it's really hard to ask for more.

What it clearly demonstrates is the regions of the country more willing to put cash assistance on the chopping block are also unhealthier.

States receive block grants for TANF based on statistical need. The gov't goes "you have x amount of people living below the poverty line" with some other qualifications and gives them the money.

When you live in Florida or Mississippi, and you're below the poverty line, your state gets a larger block grant but you get less cash assistance on an individual basis than you do in New York or Massachusetts or Washington. At the same time, if you're a welfare recipient in New York or Massachusetts or Washington, you're more likely to work your way of welfare, stay off welfare and be healthier.

 

[droski]

they aren't smarter. their parents give a crap far more on average.

 

[milohimself]

they aren't smarter. their parents give a crap far more on average.

Okay... Keep that thought process rolling... Why do their parents care more than the ones here?

 

[droski]

Okay... Keep that thought process rolling... Why do their parents care more than the ones here?

lack of sense of entitlement. education is also thought of as the only way to get ahead. also you are expected to take care of your parents in those countries so it's self serving and more pressure is put on the kids to succeed. it has it's negative aspects though. some would argue too much pressure.

 

[utvolpj]

Who knows, there's been a relatively small amount of statistic and record keeping done with this crowd. In so far as the sociology community can tell, they typically go on to get jobs and support themselves at a below-poverty level and their kids end up going on to repeat the cycle; basically, cold turkey has accomplished nothing.

so what did the 5yrs give them? Absolutely nothing

and the kids are also part of it. If you can't provide for yourself don't add on more debt in the process. Basic common sense which gets erased the longer you're on a free ride

It sounds like you are looking at the issue is if top-down government or complete deregulation are the only options; this is not the case.

they aren't but it needs fixing. What I don't believe in is 2yrs of unemployment potentially followed by 5yrs of assistance only to end up in the same place. People have to want to change and they don't. That makes me not give a damn about their plight. I have no issues helping the ones that truly need a little help to get on their feet and completely believe that could be handled privately.

Only if you want to go live as a hermit off the land. If not, you're in the same boat with the rest of us no matter how much you don't want to be.

not saying it's an option but in my world they would not be a burden on the rest of society

There's really no hard data on this; I'm referring to some studies done by my current prof. between UF and Portland St, which included about 600 people in either state. Ostensibly there is no correlation between the health of welfare recipients and those who would or would not prefer to be on it, poor health is equally common among all of them, as it is due to environmental factors by region and socio-economic status.

so the mob mentality makes people dumber. That's been proven many times

 

[milohimself]

so what did the 5yrs give them? Absolutely nothing

and the kids are also part of it. If you can't provide for yourself don't add on more debt in the process. Basic common sense which gets erased the longer you're on a free ride

More often than not they're on it because they have a kid to begin with, don't want to get jobs because if they did then there's no more Medicaid.

What the two years gave them was the ability to raise their kids that they would have otherwise not had without having to beg and scrounge for money, which is exactly what went on before Medicaid and welfare and what they were trying to avoid.

they aren't but it needs fixing. What I don't believe in is 2yrs of unemployment potentially followed by 5yrs of assistance only to end up in the same place. People have to want to change and they don't. That makes me not give a damn about their plight. I have no issues helping the ones that truly need a little help to get on their feet and completely believe that could be handled privately.

They do want to change and have, how many times do I have to cite that? The vast majority of welfare recipients make it off for at least a couple years (about a quarter of them make it off permanently), but most that make it off end up back on it within a couple years, the vast majority of which don't willingly decide work was too hard. Most of them end up getting laid off.

Either way, the situation is relatively fluid, you've got a lot of people coming off welfare, a lot of people coming on welfare because the fact of the matter is that not everybody can have a job and make a decent living. When there's no effective safety net for those who fall to the bottom, then they eventually take the rest of society down with them, it's a historical occurrence that's happened time and again.

so the mob mentality makes people dumber. That's been proven many times

If that's how you want to phrase it. People will adapt to their environment.

 

[milohimself]

droski brought up a good point with the kids thing, which I was gonna mention, and that was the family network being eroded in the US has contributed a large part to this. I haven't been through Europe, but in J-land pretty much anywhere outside of Tokyo, three generations per household was the norm. Works a lot better when you've got grandma and grandpa there to help take care of the baby.

 

[utvolpj]

More often than not they're on it because they have a kid to begin with, don't want to get jobs because if they did then there's no more Medicaid.

What the two years gave them was the ability to raise their kids that they would have otherwise not had without having to beg and scrounge for money, which is exactly what went on before Medicaid and welfare and what they were trying to avoid.

simple solution- don't have the kids! Try to explain their mistakes away doesn't help at all

and why not use that time to get a skill, education, etc?

They do want to change and have, how many times do I have to cite that? The vast majority of welfare recipients make it off for at least a couple years (about a quarter of them make it off permanently), but most that make it off end up back on it within a couple years, the vast majority of which don't willingly decide work was too hard. Most of them end up getting laid off.

if you relapse you are never off it. I don't buy the "they tried and it was just too hard" line at all. People make it all the time and there's a reason some don't

Either way, the situation is relatively fluid, you've got a lot of people coming off welfare, a lot of people coming on welfare because the fact of the matter is that not everybody can have a job and make a decent living. When there's no effective safety net for those who fall to the bottom, then they eventually take the rest of society down with them, it's a historical occurrence that's happened time and again.

there is no reason people that want a job should be without one for any length of time. If I got fired right now I could get a job on the way home without using my degree on the application. I also have my expenses at a level where that job would allow me to keep my house and car with minimal changes. Where is that taught or am I just smarter than the rest?

and they only take others down because we're too soft to kick them in the ass and make them earn it.

If that's how you want to phrase it. People will adapt to their environment.

that's exactly what it is. No different than a bunch of idiots burning mattresses on campus. What you're doing is making an excuse for unacceptable behavior

 

[milohimself]

There is a world of difference between making an excuse for something and explaining why something happens.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

 

[Redstater]

"There are many other countries where the federal government plays a much larger role in education than they do in the US, yet educational attainment is higher and health outcomes are better."

And those countries have much more homogeneity than we. We have way too much baggage and the Organizer in Chief is counting on adding to it to increase his constituency.

 

[Weezy]

I don't think the US puts a premium on actually being intelligent as much as other countries. We put a premium on achievements but not what they actually constitute. For instance, we put the achievement on the degree, not what the degree means or how much was learned getting it. Same with high school. And this includes everyone, including the individual, parents, and administrations. This results in standards being lowered to hit those goals.

And beyond all that, scientists, doctors, and generally intelligent people aren't respected here. It's a celebrity world right now where people are listening to the loudest jackass instead of putting forth effort to form their own opinions.

/rant.