Paul Krugman; Medicare needs DEATH PANELS

[shagdrum]

Paul Krugman: Don’t You Remember Who Serves Whom?
by quill67

In my diary entries I very rarely speak of my profession. I am an economist. No, I am not famous, or even well-known in my field. While I do post here on Redstate on occasion, I do not mention my profession because most of my postings have little to do with economics or are areas where economists’ views differ. However, in his recent article Yes, Medicare is Sustainable in Its Current Form Paul Krugman makes some statements to which I must respond. In his article, he states:

What is true is that the U.S. Medicare is expensive compared with, say, Canadian Medicare (yes, that’s what they call their system) or the French health care system (which is complicated, but largely single-payer in its essentials); that’s because Medicare American-style is very open-ended, reluctant to say no to paying for medically dubious procedures, and also fails to make use of its pricing power over drugs and other items.

So Medicare will have to start saying no; it will have to provide incentives to move away from fee for service, and so on and so forth. But such changes would not mean a fundamental change in the way Medicare works. (emphasis mine)​

You chose the title for your article “Yes, Medicare is Sustainable in Its Current Form” and the proceed to describe how Medicare will have to “start saying NO” and you advise that Medicare should “use its pricing power over drugs and other items”.

Well, if Medicare will have to start saying “no to certain spending” then seniors can expect to get less from Medicare and you are changing Medicare. If Medicare starts using its pricing power then seniors can expect fewer doctors from which to choose and longer wait times and you are changing Medicare You suggest that Medicare move away from a fee for service program. Do that and you are changing Medicare.

Gee, Paul Ryan’s plan suggests moving away from a fee for service concept as well, but with one big difference. Under Ryan’s plan which is designed to give seniors the same health care that congressmen have, seniors have the choice of dozens of plans so seniors could choose the plan that most closely meets their needs and preferences. How many different plans will you allow, Paul? Hmmmm. Single Payer. Single means one. One means…no senior under your plan will have any choices. So if there is only one provider who will decide which health treatments are “Medically dubious”? Oh that’s right. The unelected 15 member health board to be appointed by President Obama next year. Will this health board be made up of the people who believe that treating the elderly for cancer is “dubious” because they have so little time left to enjoy the cost of their treatment? Is this what you mean, Paul? Who decides for whom what their coverage should be? Shouldn’t seniors have a choice? Not be dictated to like little children?

I will remind you Paul, as is well-established in our economic discipline, that it is not up to us to decide for people what their preferences should be, but rather to enable them to better achieve their preferences, or in the words of a great economist F.A. Hayek “A society that does not recognize that each individual has values of his own which he is entitled to follow can have no respect for the dignity of the individual and cannot really know freedom.”

 

[shagdrum]

And a few more quotes from famed economist Paul Krugman;

If they were going to do reality therapy, they should have said, OK, look, Medicare is going to have to decide what it's going to pay for. And at least for starters, it's going to have to decide which medical procedures are not effective at all and should not be paid for at all. In other words, it should have endorsed the panel that was part of the health care reform.

* * *

Some years down the pike, we're going to get the real solution, which is going to be a combination of death panels and sales taxes. It's going to be that we're actually going to take Medicare under control, and we're going to have to get some additional revenue, probably from a VAT. But it's not going to happen now.

* * *

I said something deliberately provocative on This Week, so I think I’d better clarify what I meant (which I did on the show, but it can’t hurt to say it again.)

So, what I said is that the eventual resolution of the deficit problem both will and should rely on “death panels and sales taxes”. What I meant is that

(a) health care costs will have to be controlled, which will surely require having Medicare and Medicaid decide what they’re willing to pay for — not really death panels, of course, but consideration of medical effectiveness and, at some point, how much we’re willing to spend for extreme care
​

So, Krugman supports the metaphorical "death panels" that Palin originally pointed out about as a solution to "control costs"...

 

[Bob Hubbard]

The stark reality of this is, people under 55 had better get humpin when it comes to getting their own health plan.
The government isn't going to provide anything substantial to them in the form of healthcare.
It would be foolish at best to think it will.
Do whatever it takes to cover your own a$$ for health, and in doing so, know that in the future your health won't be compromised by some money grabbing politician.
For those who bury their heads in the sand, and feel the government wouldn't let you down, better reconsider your options, and soon.
If you don't do something to protect yourself now, your future health will be in deep jeopardy.
You cannot rely on anything, or anyone else to sustain you in future years.
You had better get started NOW in securing your future health needs.
Bob.

 

[foxpaws]

Oddly enough - if you go with Paul Ryan's plan - the 'voucher' which would allow you to pay for health care insurance, and then, repeal Obama's health care reform (which is what will be happening if Republicans have their way) - what you would have left is 75% of people over the age of 75 who would be uninsured. Approximately 75% of people over 75 have some sort of pre-existing condition, and if health care reform is taken off the table, than insurance companies would refuse to insure those seniors.

I guess that is one way of saying 'death panel' in republicanese...

So - bob - it could be that even if you save like crazy - you would still be turned down for health insurance, if you have any pre-existing condition - at any reasonable price.

 

[shagdrum]

The stark reality of this is, people under 55 had better get humpin when it comes to getting their own health plan.

Good point.

Oddly enough - if you go with Paul Ryan's plan - the 'voucher' which would allow you to pay for health care insurance, and then, repeal Obama's health care reform (which is what will be happening if Republicans have their way) - what you would have left is 75% of people over the age of 75 who would be uninsured. Approximately 75% of people over 75 have some sort of pre-existing condition, and if health care reform is taken off the table, than insurance companies would refuse to insure those seniors.

Where are you getting that?

Mr. Ryan’s plan changes Medicare for people now under 55, but leaves the basic Medicare benefit guarantee in place for current retirees and people 55 and older.​

People 55 and older would include people 75 and older.

Got a source for to back up your claim? Can you explain the logic behind the conclusions reached in your claim?

 

[foxpaws]

But shag - once those 55 year olds are eligible for medicare - there won't be insurance companies that will insure them if they have pre-existing conditions - if the Reps get their way and repeal health care reform, and institute Ryan's 'private insurers will insure the old (hahaha) plan'.

That $6,000 (or whatever it is this week - Ryan keeps changing the numbers) yearly voucher will be basically useless if no insurance company will insure them. And that will be a pretty big percentage of the old. Most everyone, by the time they are eligible for medicare, have something that would preclude them from getting insurance. It is why they made medicare to begin with - no one was insuring the old, because it is cost prohibitive.

So, shag - what happens? If seniors can't get insurance because of their poor health - we aren't going to let them die outside the hospital doors.

 

[compshmoe]

Good point.





Where are you getting that?

Mr. Ryan’s plan changes Medicare for people now under 55, but leaves the basic Medicare benefit guarantee in place for current retirees and people 55 and older.​

People 55 and older would include people 75 and older.

Got a source for to back up your claim? Can you explain the logic behind the conclusions reached in your claim?

Read between the lines and you see people over the retirement age right now would feel the pain from the Ryan plan because the plan repeals last year’s health care law which means reopening a coverage gap in Medicare’s prescription-drug benefit, the " gap" or " doughnut hole" would make seniors pay 100 percent of any prescription costs after the annual total reaches $2,840 and until it hits $4,550. Seniors and all other Medicare beneficiaries would also lose access to preventative-care benefits in the health care law, including free wellness visits to physicians, mammograms, colonoscopies, and so on.

"The retirees are going to be taken care of; there’s no ifs, ands, or buts about it,” House Speaker John Boehner vowed in an interview with CBS last month. The plan’s architect, Rep. Paul Ryan of Wisconsin, has said time and again that the changes wouldn’t affect anybody getting close to retirement. “We propose to not change the benefits for people above the age of 55,” Ryan, chairman of the House Budget Committee, insisted last week.

There’s only one problem with the strategy: It’s not true.

The policies in the House GOP budget, if enacted, would begin affecting millions of seniors almost immediately by increasing their costs for prescription drugs and probably long-term care. Further, Medicare costs could rise over time if healthier seniors choose to abandon the traditional benefit program."


" The Republican budget would cut spending on Medicaid—health care for the poor—much of which goes to long-term care for the elderly. Some 9 million seniors qualify for both Medicare and Medicaid benefits, and about two-thirds of all nursing-home residents are covered by Medicaid. The GOP budget proposes cutting some $744 billion from Medicaid over 10 years by turning the system into block grants that limit federal contributions and give states more choice in structuring benefits. No one knows exactly which Medicaid services states would choose to cut back, but senior citizens account for a disproportionate share of Medicaid outlays and would almost certainly bear some of the burden.

“We know that two-thirds of the dollars in Medicaid go to people who are disabled or over 65, so this is the big funder of long-term care in this country,” said David Certner, AARP’s legislative-policy director. “We also know this could have an impact on home- and community-based care, which is the kind of care individuals prefer the most [and] often the ones that will be cut first.”



http://www.nationaljournal.com/magazine/ryan-plan-would-have-immediate-effect-on-seniors-20110602

 

[04SCTLS]

The problem is that retirees have only put in at best 1/3 of the average cost of the medical care.
Based on these realities seniors should either pay the other 2/3rds out of their own pockets or be cut off of government assistance once their medicare money has been spent on them.

In any other circumstances this would be called a fair choice.

 

[shagdrum]

But shag - once those 55 year olds are eligible for medicare - there won't be insurance companies that will insure them if they have pre-existing conditions

So, those people 75 and older won't be insured under Ryan's Plan...if you exclude Medicare coverage from the definition of "insured". Got it.

A few things to note. A) in this hypothetical, the function of health insurance is effectively assumed by Medicare, B) under this definition of "insured", people 75 and older are uninsured today, and C) the changes Obamacare makes to Medicare alone are far more "radical" and destructive then anything in Ryan's plan, and they completely ignore economic reality.

Most everyone, by the time they are eligible for medicare, have something that would preclude them from getting insurance. It is why they made medicare to begin with - no one was insuring the old, because it is cost prohibitive.

Insurance companies wouldn't have had to start excluding people based on pre-existing conditions if medical costs weren't so high.

THE biggest reason for the HUGE inflation in medical costs in this country is Medicare and the arbitrary reimbursement rates that go with it.

Using the negative economic effects of Medicare as a justification to leave Medicare alone seems a little circular and counter intuitive...

Can we get away from all the moralizing and talking points and keep the conversation grounded in economic reality? All the moralizing in the world is pointless (if not a dangerous distraction) when it is not rooted in reality.

• In 1966, Medicare cost roughly $3,000,000,000 and was estimated by The House Ways and Means Committee at that time to cost $12,000,000,000 in 1990 (accounting for inflation)
• When we got to 1990, Medicare actually cost $107,000,000,000
• The difference between the estimated cost for 1990 and the actual cost was almost 800% (showing how utterly worthless government estimates are)
• In the 24 years between 1966 and 1990, the actual cost of Medicare increased close to 1700%
• In 2009, Mandatory Medicare outlays cost the taxpayer $484,000,000,000 and the Congressional Budget Office estimates it will cost $885,100,000,000 in 2018
• The 2011 Medicare trustees report estimates that the total benefits under Medicare that are promised and unpaid for total $24,600,000,000,000
• The United States GDP in 2010 was only $14,700,000,000,000

What do you have to say about these facts and their implications for society over the course of the next 25 years?

 

[compshmoe]

:shifty:

• In 1966, Medicare cost roughly $3,000,000,000 and was estimated by The House Ways and Means Committee at that time to cost $12,000,000,000 in 1990 (accounting for inflation)
• When we got to 1990, Medicare actually cost $107,000,000,000
• The difference between the estimated cost for 1990 and the actual cost was almost 800% (showing how utterly worthless government estimates are)
• In the 24 years between 1966 and 1990, the actual cost of Medicare increased close to 1700%
• In 2009, Mandatory Medicare outlays cost the taxpayer $484,000,000,000 and the Congressional Budget Office estimates it will cost $885,100,000,000 in 2018
• The 2011 Medicare trustees report estimates that the total benefits under Medicare that are promised and unpaid for total $24,600,000,000,000
• The United States GDP in 2010 was only $14,700,000,000,000

What do you have to say about these facts and their implications for society over the course of the next 25 years?

Got a source for to back up your claim? Can you explain the logic behind the conclusions reached in your claim?

:shifty:

 

[foxpaws]

A few things to note. A) in this hypothetical, the function of health insurance is effectively assumed by Medicare, B) under this definition of "insured", people 75 and older are uninsured today, and C) the changes Obamacare makes to Medicare alone are far more "radical" and destructive then anything in Ryan's plan, and they completely ignore economic reality.

What are you smoking Shag - people over 75 are insured with medicare today... And show me where Obama's plan will effectively deny anyone with a pre-existing condition benefits. This is what will happen if the Reps get their way. So, we either leave the old outside the hospital doors, admit them on Medicaid, or throw more money at voucher - and therefore more money at the insurance companies who heavily contribute to Paul's campaign.

Insurance companies wouldn't have had to start excluding people based on pre-existing conditions if medical costs weren't so high.

And guess what - insurance companies like them high - because it gives them a reason to exist. Why put even more people on private insurance?

Can we get away from all the moralizing and talking points and keep the conversation grounded in economic reality? All the moralizing in the world is pointless (if not a dangerous distraction) when it is not rooted in reality.

I know that all the entitlements will have to change - dramatically - but Ryan's plan of changing medicare to basically be private isn't going to help, but it will line the pockets of the private insurers... They will take the vouchers, and as soon as they have to start paying out - they will cancel the insurance. That is what they do shag... Then the old will be on medicaid again... and what has been accomplished - nothing - except give money to Ryan's corporate sponsors.

 

[cammerfe]

The answer

(Site burped---duplicate post!)

 

[cammerfe]

The answer

Don't you understand? The gummint OWNS the printing presses. There'll ALWAYS be plenty of money!! All this talk of being responsible is just a conservative plot to deny the rightful 'feelgood' to which all libtard demoscats have a claim.

KS ('04---tip o' the hat!)

 

[04SCTLS]

Don't you understand? The gummint OWNS the printing presses. There'll ALWAYS be plenty of money!! All this talk of being responsible is just a conservative plot to deny the rightful 'feelgood' to which all libtard demoscats have a claim.

KS ('02---tip o' the hat!)

I knew it would only be a matter of time before you used that highlighted witticism I made up for you and your friends to have a laugh over LOL!

Playing devil's advocate maybe we should just come out and say that poor old people cost the government too much money and don't contribute much to the GDP so cutting them off and leaving them to fend for themselves would be the most realistic efficient use of our resourses to solve our contradictory false promises.
Rich people can afford to pay for more care but some poor people will die and less will live longer , conveniently relieving the government of it's promised obligations.
If medicare spending keeps going the way it has this will become a self fulfilling prophecy

 

[shagdrum]

What are you smoking Shag - people over 75 are insured with medicare today...

Now your just equivocating and going for the easy out. You can do better.

Your claim that under Ryan's plan, "75% of people over the age of 75 who would be uninsured" assumed that Medicare was not insurance (it makes no logical sense otherwise).

Now you are including Medicare in the definition of "insured".

And guess what - insurance companies like them high - because it gives them a reason to exist. Why put even more people on private insurance?

Actually, profitable companies in a free market generally accomplish their success by reducing costs to increase the number of people utilizing their services. The only time your hypothetical business model works is through government collusion creating barriers to entry in the market and legislation favoring the few "too big to fail" corporations at the expense of competition in the market.

But this is a distraction from the main point, Medicare is THE biggest reason for the HUGE inflation in medical costs since the 1960's.

It is interesting that you don't deny this fact. Unless you can offer an argument (not an assertion) against this, I will assume you agree with that assessment.

I know that all the entitlements will have to change - dramatically - but Ryan's plan of changing medicare to basically be private isn't going to help

Well then it is fortunate that Ryan's plan doesn't do that...unless you consider Medicare part D "privatized".

Again, how about making it clear the exact definition of the terms you are using?

What Ryan's plan does do is introduce competition into that market. In the past on this forum, you have agreed that competitive forces in the market work to reduce costs. Considering that Medicare is THE biggest factor in INCREASING costs, this seems that a rather common sense policy to help change that.

but it will line the pockets of the private insurers... They will take the vouchers, and as soon as they have to start paying out - they will cancel the insurance.

Can you provide a logical argument that insurers will simply "take the vouchers and run"? As it stands, your "argument" is simply baseless demagoguery.

Your argument does not comport with history, economic reality, legal reality (contract law) or political reality.

Again, insurers would not need to deny based on pre-existing conditions if medical costs were not so high and regulations were not so great. Ryan's plan would introduce competition which would reduce costs and nullify the biggest single factor in increasing medical costs. Every point you make ignores that reality yet there is no justification for ignoring that reality.

If insurers are going to deny someone for a pre-existing condition, their services will not be purchased with the voucher. It is not unreasonable to expect that seniors with actually act like responsible adults and do their research before buying insurance with the voucher. Insurers already have legal consequences for reneging on contractual arrangements (contract law).

Also, it is absurd to think that Ryan's Plan would become law without some sort of political strings attached aimed at further insuring that insurers would not simply "take the money and run".

Now back to my question...

• In 1966, Medicare cost roughly $3,000,000,000 and was estimated by The House Ways and Means Committee at that time to cost $12,000,000,000 in 1990 (accounting for inflation)
• When we got to 1990, Medicare actually cost $107,000,000,000
• The difference between the estimated cost for 1990 and the actual cost was almost 800% (showing how utterly worthless government estimates are)
• In the 24 years between 1966 and 1990, the actual cost of Medicare increased close to 1700%
• In 2009, Mandatory Medicare outlays cost the taxpayer $484,000,000,000 and the Congressional Budget Office estimates it will cost $885,100,000,000 in 2018
• The 2011 Medicare trustees report estimates that the total benefits under Medicare that are promised and unpaid for total $24,600,000,000,000
• The United States GDP in 2010 was only $14,700,000,000,000

What do you have to say about these facts and their implications for society over the course of the next 25 years?

My question was not "do you think something needs to be done", but I can see why you would think that and we can use that as a starting point for agreement.

Let me rephrase, what do you see as the implications of these facts for society going forward? Forget about Ryan's Plan for the moment, simply look at the problem and the dangers ahead.

We seem to have two points of agreement;

• Medicare is THE biggest reason for the HUGE inflation in medical costs
• the math concerning medicare's costs necessitates something being done

Let's build from there with an examination of the problem of the exponential increase in Medicare costs.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

"Shag", I took a quote from what you posted above.

"Again, insurers would not need to deny based on pre-existing conditions if medical costs were not so high and regulations were not so great. Ryan's plan would introduce competition which would reduce costs and nullify the biggest single factor in increasing medical costs. Every point you make ignores that reality yet there is no justification for ignoring that reality."


First off, just what comprises "medical cost"?
The answer would be, hospital care, all medical treatment including surgery, and post operative care, plus prescriptions, just to name a few.
There isn't a plan in the world, in this lifetime that will bring down the cost of medical treatment.
In order to bring down medical cost, doctors would have to work for less, nurses would have to work for less, medical equipment would have to cost less, and none of that is going to happen, competition or not.
You can't dictate to the company making m.i.r. machines that they need to lower the prices of their equipment.
You can't dictate to the company making pacemakers that the need to charge less for their products.
They will tell you their cost are continually going up, and a cut in the price of their products is not facing reality.
It isn't just the cost involved in the medical field, but all commerce throughout the world.
Medical cost will continue to rise as will the price of everything else.
To think that anything can bring down medical cost, one would have to be living in fantasy land.
It isn't going to happen on this planet, EVER.
In order to bring down medical cost, those producing the products and services for the medical industry would have to take giant hits financially, including the people who are employed by these firms, and that just is not reality.
So the screwy politicians can blab all they want about cutting cost, but it will always be just that, blabbing.
Bob.

 

[shagdrum]

Bobby, I think you are starting with the third act and dismissing the climax of the story without considering the context of the previous two acts.

Why are medical costs so high in the first place?

Why is it that throughout history in almost all truly competitive markets and less regulated industries, costs drop and prices drop over time? What factors lead to this and why are they not present in the field of medicine?

 

[Bob Hubbard]

Ok, let's do this piece by piece.
Competition is a good thing, but in the medical field, I feel it safe to say there is a monopoly.
How many companies can you name that make pacemakers?
How many make m.i.r. machines.
How many can you name that make xray machines, artificial limbs, heart monitoring machines?
My guess would be, not many.
How many companies are producing drugs?
These handful of companies are controlling the medical industry.
These companies hire well qualified people who demand good salaries, and it is unlikely these people would take a cut in salary to lower medical cost.
Like everyone else, they have expenses that require a decent salary.
So these companies won't be charging less anytime soon to lower medical cost.
Now, let's take a look at the hospitals.
Most have an enormous amount of overhead.
Thousands of employees that due to today's cost of living, need a decent salary.
On top of salaries, there are countless other expenditures the hospitals must meet.
To lower medical cost, the hospitals would have to cut back drastically in services in order to meet projected goals for the medical industry.
Remember, hospital staff, just like the staff working for the companies that manufacture medical machines, and those employed by the companies supplying drugs, all need a decent wage to survive in today's economy.
Cutting anything from the medical industry isn't going to happen.
If you have a solution around this, there are many who would like to hear it, including every politician in the country.
Not trying to be a wise guy, just stating the reality of this medical crisis the country finds itself in.
Bob.

 

[foxpaws]

Shag - how many people are covered by medicare compared to the number insured by private companies - I think that gives you the reason costs are rising - private insurers... And if you look at the time frame you are so in love with 1960 - 1990 it was even more skewed to private insurers, because we didn't live as long in those 30 years as we do now.

Private insurers are in bed (in more ways than one) with the medical profession.. they have been forever.

And so, why are you so intent on putting more money in their hands?

 

[shagdrum]

Competition is a good thing, but in the medical field, I feel it safe to say there is a monopoly.

I think "oligopoly" would be the more accurate term, but the point stands. That is one of the main reasons for the massively increased costs.

Why is there a monopoly/oligopoly? Those do not happen naturally in a free market.

Of those oligopolies, wouldn't Medicare/Medicaid be the biggest one?

(I combine Medicare and Medicaid because they are both government programs and are not in competition with each other but, more accurately, in collusion, if anything)

You seem to be mistaking the symptom for the disease here.

 

[shagdrum]

Shag - how many people are covered by medicare compared to the number insured by private companies

"private insurers" are not monolithic but Medicare is.

Medicare is also backed by the coercive power of government as well as the ability run without a profit on the taxpayer dime (allowing them to engage in predatory pricing, which they have been doing for decades).

It is fallacious to compare the two as equally powerful entities in the market. It is hardly an "equal playing field".

Back to my question,

• In 1966, Medicare cost roughly $3,000,000,000 and was estimated by The House Ways and Means Committee at that time to cost $12,000,000,000 in 1990 (accounting for inflation)
• When we got to 1990, Medicare actually cost $107,000,000,000
• The difference between the estimated cost for 1990 and the actual cost was almost 800% (showing how utterly worthless government estimates are)
• In the 24 years between 1966 and 1990, the actual cost of Medicare increased close to 1700%
• In 2009, Mandatory Medicare outlays cost the taxpayer $484,000,000,000 and the Congressional Budget Office estimates it will cost $885,100,000,000 in 2018
• The 2011 Medicare trustees report estimates that the total benefits under Medicare that are promised and unpaid for total $24,600,000,000,000
• The United States GDP in 2010 was only $14,700,000,000,000

What do you see as the implications of these facts for society going forward?

We seem to have two points of agreement;

• Medicare is THE biggest reason for the HUGE inflation in medical costs
• the math concerning medicare's costs necessitates something being done

Let's build from there with an examination of the problem of the exponential increase in Medicare costs.​

Demonizing the insurance industry only undercuts any serious discourse.

Is your intention serious discourse or undercutting serious discourse?

 

[foxpaws]

Private insurers are monolithic because of federal regulations that squash competition... you know that shag.

And you don't know the numbers do you - 64% of people have private health insurance - So, who do you think has the most impact on health care costs - probably companies that control 2/3rds of the market, broken up into regions that have almost no competition between them.

And I never said, or even implied that medicare/medicaid doesn't need to be overhauled - but handing it over to private insurers is like having Cookie Monster guard the cookie jar.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

I think both of you are missing the point.
You seem to think the rising cost of medical insurance is the basis for the medical cost crisis in this country.
That is wrong.
Insurers, wheather private or government, ,find their premiums are escalating.
Their cost to operate as a business entity is rising.
Medical technology has increased a thousand fold in the last three decades.
That technology isn't free, and patients who are benefiting by that technology, for the most part, rely on some insurance to pick up the tab.
I have yet to hear one politician state the hospitals and drug makers are the source of rising medical cost.
They seem to always blame the medical insurers.
The Obama health plan targets insurance companies.
It stresses the obligations business must take on in making available some sort of health insurance coverage for it's workers.
I have not read the Obama plan, but I would bet the farm there is no mention of dealing with other factions of the medical field besides insurers.
It is extremely murky ground politicians are treading on, and until they address the real source of rising health cost, there will be no solution.
The medical insurance business is a part of the problem, but we must take into account the suppliers of goods and services in the medical field are just as much, if not more to blame for escalating medical cost, and that factor has to be looked at before any viable solution can be reached.
Bob.

 

[shagdrum]

Private insurers are monolithic because of federal regulations that squash competition... you know that shag.

Unsurprisingly, that misses the point I was making...

But that is something you have done with every single post of in this thread; instead simply engaging in cheap demagoguery of "private insurers" and any other mediscare tactics you can think of.

I have tried numerous times to engage you in honest dialog but that is clearly not possible.

 

[shagdrum]

I think both of you are missing the point.
You seem to think the rising cost of medical insurance is the basis for the medical cost crisis in this country.

I think you have what I am saying backwards.

The only person bringing up insurers is Foxy. I only discuss it as a response to her.

In fact, I agree with you that rising insurance premiums are simply a symptom of the problem of rising medical costs. Everything I have said is consistent with that.

However, I am taking it a step further to point out that rising medical costs are simply the symptom of a much greater problem of massive and systemic distortions of the economy and society in general.