The Health Care Debate is OVER

#51
#51
what education that doesn't currently exist would be made available by a single-payer system? I feel confident in saying a google search would provide anything I needed to know

I know I need to lose a few lbs, I know how to do it and I know the risks if I go the other way. Is this really a secret?
 
#52
#52
I, for one, am glad that gibbs' has no real power to implement any of his ideas. Though I will admit that being a member of the resistance against his fascism has a certain appeal.

Wolverines!!!
 
#53
#53
volinbham said:
You are telling me a government panel of 15 people reduces information asymmetry? y
You are telling me this same panel appointed by elected officials eliminates or even reduces moral hazard?

:crazy:

Let's look at a the UK system - it is chock full of info asymmetry and moral hazard. All decision making and data access is limited to one party - the consumer is completely excluded and at a huge information disadvantage. Worse, the monitoring and data gathering costs are considerably higher for consumer precisely because they are excluded.

How about moral hazard? Ceding control of all HC decisions and payment authority to elected/appointed officials creates a situation where those people have to choose between decisions that further their own careers vs ones that might be best for the system. We see everyday in our own government - our "leaders" refuse to tackle real issues for fear they will not survive the battle.

You might want to try again.
Click to expand...

Wrong on every regard, and showing a deep misunderstanding both of economics and the real world.

At less than half our per capita expenditure, GB returns FAR BETTER health outcomes than the US for every citizen. The single payer system REMOVES the information asymmetry from the picture entirely. No one is disadvantaged any longer.

INSURANCE causes "moral hazard!" not the other way around (read your Kenneth Arrow, dude!) Insurance is the ultimate behaviour modifier in health care! Again, the single payer system removes moral hazard while providing massive risk sharing. In addition, it is absolutely incentivized to educate and increase personal responsibility in health.

Shockingly wrong, bham. Not your best by a mile.
 
Last edited:
#55
#55
kptvol said:
Can't you read? He knows a lot more than any PhD.
Click to expand...

just the fact that he thinks preferred stock is anything, but a marketing term, shows how financially illiterate he is. the big money investors never buy it. mom and pop buy it because they are stupid and investment advisors get 3% upfront to sell it to them.
 
#56
#56
MG1968 said:
I, for one, am glad that gibbs' has no real power to implement any of his ideas. Though I will admit that being a member of the resistance against his fascism has a certain appeal.

Wolverines!!!
Click to expand...

I'm not sure you know what fascism is. Pretty shocking, actually.

Serenity Now!
 
Last edited:
#57
#57
utvolpj said:
unless you get cancer but that's pretty rare these days
Click to expand...

On some cancers, yes. But if you get the not so rare heart ailments they blow us out of the water. As well as almost every other metric conceivable, including the babies, who don't generally get cancer or heart disease.
 
Last edited:
#58
#58
utgibbs said:
I'm not sure you know what fascism is. Pretty shocking, actually.
Click to expand...

whatever you want to call it, gibbs, your system sucks and I would gladly become part of an armed insurrection against it.

so, please, get elected and try to force your will upon us.
 
#59
#59
MG1968 said:
whatever you want to call it, gibbs, your system sucks and I would gladly become part of an armed insurrection against it.

so, please, get elected and try to force your will upon us.
Click to expand...

That's too bad. I like you, and I've got you massively outnumbered.

Serenity Now!!
 
#60
#60
utgibbs said:
Wrong on every regard, and showing a deep misunderstanding both of economics and the real world.

At less than half our per capita expenditure, GB returns FAR BETTER health outcomes than the US for every citizen. The single payer system REMOVES the information asymmetry from the picture entirely. No one is disadvantaged any longer.

INSURANCE causes "moral hazard!" not the other way around (read your Kenneth Arrow, dude!) Insurance is the ultimate behaviour modifier in health care! Again, the single payer system removes moral hazard while providing massive risk sharing. In addition, it is absolutely incentivized to educate and increase personal responsibility in health.

Shockingly wrong, bham. Not your best by a mile.
Click to expand...

you clearly don't understand information asymmetry and moral hazard. neither is removed from the HC system in the UK. you are also forgetting that HC has at least 3 parties to a transaction (payer, patient and provider). The UK system greatly increases info asymmetry between the patient and the other parties. Moral hazard is shifted to the payer and is resident in the patient (only rationing can prevent moral hazard abuse by the patient).
 
#61
#61
volinbham said:
you clearly don't understand information asymmetry and moral hazard. neither is removed from the HC system in the UK. you are also forgetting that HC has at least 3 parties to a transaction (payer, patient and provider). The UK system greatly increases info asymmetry between the patient and the other parties. Moral hazard is shifted to the payer and is resident in the patient (only rationing can prevent moral hazard abuse by the patient).
Click to expand...

No it doesn't, vinb. Read your Kenneth Arrow.

A single payer system removes the hidden information - it is no longer even meaningful in a single payer system. It is absolutely meaningless.

As for moral hazard, insurance is THE WORST because obviously two of the three parties have ZERO incentives to prevent abuse meaning the third has to 1. RATION CARE (most often to the people who need it most and completely outside of democratic accountability) and 2. Increase administrative costs, deductibles, and co-pays.

This is exactly what we see in the real world. In addition, we find the single payer system hugely incentivized to educate and inform patients on care, and we find far, far superior health outcomes.
 
#62
#62
utgibbs said:
Although my metier is not economics in the first instance, I have a better grasp of real economics than most textbook PhDs. It turns out, and I must now give credit where credit is due, I wasn't the first to say these things about health care.

Kenneth Arrow - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...

Ironic that you are smarter about real economics than most textbook PhDs yet your rest your argument on the work of a textbook PhD.

Bravo.
 
#63
#63
volinbham said:
Ironic that you are smarter about real economics than most textbook PhDs yet your rest your argument on the work of a textbook PhD.

Bravo.
Click to expand...

Alanis Morrissette has nothing on gibbs when it comes to irony
 
#64
#64
utgibbs said:
No it doesn't, vinb. Read your Kenneth Arrow.

A single payer system removes the hidden information - it is no longer even meaningful in a single payer system. It is absolutely meaningless.

BS - a key party to the transaction (the patient) becomes more shielded from information. Their involvement in the transaction is completely at the mercy of the other parties and they are barred from true cost and option information to apply in decision making.

As for moral hazard, insurance is THE WORST because obviously two of the three parties have ZERO incentives to prevent abuse meaning the third has to 1. RATION CARE (most often to the people who need it most and completely outside of democratic accountability) and 2. Increase administrative costs, deductibles, and co-pays.

This is exactly what we see in the real world.
Click to expand...

What does the real world tell you about elected officials, bureaucrats and moral hazard? It's there in spades. By reducing the number of suppliers you eliminate the ability of the patient to avoid some of this moral hazard.

Arrow discusses how HC has problems relative to traditional markets. His work doesn't necessarily point to national health (ala the UK) as the way to alleviate those problems.

Once again, you are parceling together bits and pieces to fit your preconceived world view then claiming academic proof.
 
#65
#65
volinbham said:
Ironic that you are smarter about real economics than most textbook PhDs yet your rest your argument on the work of a textbook PhD.

Bravo.
Click to expand...

No. I developed my argument independent of Kenneth Arrow. However, having discovered Arrow, the father of general equilibrium theory, has written the same things it was appropriate to:

1. Say he was first, and
2. Collect my GSM moment. :)

As I said long ago, the private sector has no incentive for efficiency. Health care is not a market. It turns out though, Kenneth Arrow said these things first. That I adopted the language of economics in this thread was just to help the CPA and CFAs.
 
#66
#66
volinbham said:
What does the real world tell you about elected officials, bureaucrats and moral hazard? It's there in spades. By reducing the number of suppliers you eliminate the ability of the patient to avoid some of this moral hazard.

Arrow discusses how HC has problems relative to traditional markets. His work doesn't necessarily point to national health (ala the UK) as the way to alleviate those problems.

Once again, you are parceling together bits and pieces to fit your preconceived world view then claiming academic proof.
Click to expand...

The arguments for health care are well-developed, as it turns out, in bourgeois economic theory, starting with Kenneth Arrow. I have never relied on academic proof. The proof is the real world outside the back door which is uncontrovertible and unambiguous. I independently provided an explanation. As it turns out, it coincides (surprisingly) with bourgeois economic theory as well.

I haven't read his whole catalog, but here is Arrow from 2005:

"... [it] really comes down to the fact that the government is better than the private sector at keeping costs down for insurance purposes."

Doesn't sound parceling or piecemeal one iota. :hi:

PS - the surprise is that my thinking and bourgeois economic thinking is so similar on this issue.
 
#67
#67
utgibbs said:
On some cancers, yes. But if you get the not so rare heart ailments they blow us out of the water. As well as almost every other metric conceivable, including the babies, who don't generally get cancer or heart disease.
Click to expand...

They don't treat heart disease better than we do.

They have fewer birth problems because they have fewer premies which I imagine is likely correlated with a lot fewer older women delivering babies.
 
#68
#68
utgibbs said:
As I said long ago, the private sector has no incentive for efficiency. Health care is not a market. It turns out though, Kenneth Arrow said these things first. That I adopted the language of economics in this thread was just to help the CPA and CFAs.
Click to expand...

Boy that USPS sure is cost efficient. I imagine they're doing quite well.
 
#70
#70
utgibbs said:
Again, it's been shown time and time again the GoF are in the superminority, while I, on the other hand, regarding almost all Vol issues, agree with the supermajority.

But again, this consistent disconnect with the real world tells us all we need to know about GoF opinion.

We have shown time and time again that many of the posters on the Politics board are deeply in the superminority when concerning a host of issues, and that true American opinion (to say nothing of world opinion) is much, much closer to my opinions.
Click to expand...

I do not spend much time at all in the politics board (do not even know who the Gang of Five is) but if you think that the average Vols fan is closer to Michael Moore than Fred Thompson you are either a raging lunatic or an idiot.
 
#72
#72
utgibbs said:
"... [it] really comes down to the fact that the government is better than the private sector at keeping costs down for insurance purposes."
Click to expand...

The real world outside the back door says, "the US government is bankrupt, and wants to borrow more money."

Im still not sure that its worth my money to invest in a group that has a proven track record of failure, because they have no incentive past finding re-election.

Ive lost hope that by the time I retire I will get anything out of SS, I will stop there, if no one minds.

Edit: For W and L purposes, thats a GSM.
 
Last edited:
#74
#74
utgibbs said:
As we know, I have said over and over that private insurance has no incentive for efficiency in health care. A fact reflected in the real world outside the back door, as we pay more for health than any other country per capita, but get less in return. Health care is not a market.
Click to expand...
Say it as many times as you like... and it will still be utterly and completely false. The biggest problem with health insurance is gov't involvement that forces people into employer based plans. Gov't has insulated the consumer from the market... THAT is the problem and your single payer idea would only make that problem worse.

Although my metier is not economics in the first instance, I have a better grasp of real economics than most textbook PhDs. It turns out, and I must now give credit where credit is due, I wasn't the first to say these things about health care.

Health care is plagued, in the vocabulary of the PhD economists, by hidden information (or information asymmetries) and moral hazard with a dash of nonexclusivity.
Click to expand...
True statement. But there is a reason we don't cure alcoholism with cyanide capsules. You don't resolve those problems much less efficiency problems by turning it over to the gov't.
It is not a market, and it cannot function as a market unless the consumer is brought back into the equation to determine the cost/value equillibrium.
Click to expand...
FYP.
A single payer system is the most efficient and most free mechanism. So said the father of the perfect Pareto-efficient markets. And so says all the data from the real world.
Click to expand...
"Most free"? Free to who? The ONLY single payer system that could possibly work is a voucher system. If the consumer feels no consequences for his choices then the ONLY other option for containing costs is HEAVY rationing.

With all due respect to milo and his excellent analysis, the myriad of problems that exist come out of one simple reason: there is no incentive for efficiency from private insurers.
Click to expand...
None except the profit motive.
 
#75
#75
MikeHamiltonFan said:
This is the future of health care and is lower cost and higher effectiveness:
Medical News: Is Cash-Only Medicine the Next Big Thing? - in Practice Management, Practice Management from MedPage Today
Click to expand...

This is why MSA's with catastrophic insurance for anything over an amount set by the consumer would have a tremendously positive effect on the healthcare system. They're opposed by statists like gibbs and insurance companies. Strange bedfellows indeed.

As I've said many times before, big business, big labor, big gov't, et al are not enemies. Their rivalry isn't over who will serve the people best but rather who gets to spoil the people.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top