PDA

View Full Version : Krugman on the (ostensible) need for new taxes, healthcare rationing



pjohns
02-06-2013, 01:24 AM
Left-wing economist Paul Krugman--an icon of the American left--is, at least, candid in his assessment of where healthcare must go (in his opinion) under ObamaCare: We must have a middle-class tax hike to fund it properly, in addition to the "death panels" (his own words) that were mentioned awhile back by Sarah Palin.

Here are his exact words:


Eventually we do have a problem. That the population is getting older, health care costs are rising…there is this question of how we’re going to pay for the programs. The year 2025, the year 2030, something is going to have to give…. …. We’re going to need more revenue…Surely it will require some sort of middle class taxes as well.. We won’t be able to pay for the kind of government the society will want without some increase in taxes… on the middle class, maybe a value added tax…And we’re also going to have to make decisions about health care, doc pay for health care that has no demonstrated medical benefits . So the snarky version…which I shouldn’t even say because it will get me in trouble is death panels and sales taxes is how we do this.

And the link: Krugman: U.S. Needs Death Panels, Sales Taxes (http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/02/04/Krugman-Death-panels-and-sales-taxes-is-how-we-do-this)

RtWngaFraud
02-06-2013, 01:32 AM
If the fat cats only paid their fair share there would be no problem.

zelmo1234
02-06-2013, 03:09 AM
If the fat cats only paid their fair share there would be no problem.

So what is my fair share?

Carygrant
02-06-2013, 04:08 AM
Love Krugman for a variety of reasons and one example is shown below . It has relevance to the Topic , imo , because it talks about one fundamental factor behind growth --- an increasing population .Which the US has not got enough of .
And the case which suggests that taxes tinkering will never get to the heart of requirements for economic change .
Krugman is far away from having all the right answers ---- but who is ?
Importantly , he brings Economics down to "ordinary person " consciousness and talks real issues that affect all of us in ways which are easy to follow. He is no scholar in an ivory tower .




Krugman also makes the point that, so far as the Texas population has grown because of in-migration from other states, the net benefit to the national economy has been nil.
In the aggregate, the American population is still growing, a little less than 1% per year, almost all of which is due to immigration. The traditional powerhouse of American economic vibrancy–whites of European descent that still comprise nearly three-fourths of the overall population–barely reproduces at a level sufficient to replace its existing population. On average, this population is growing older and dying. It can no longer be relied upon to provide sustainable economic growth in the aggregate.
Krugman’s aim was to dispel the notion that Texas economic performance had any sort of relation to its economic infrastructure, no doubt because of the recent announcement by Texas governor Rick Perry that he would enter the presidential race. And he capably did. What he didn’t also do is extend his analysis to the larger economic view, and admit that the domestic American economy, like all capitalist economies, depends for its aggregate growth on a growing population. In short, the American economy can not be expected to grow much at all, no matter what the government does in the way of fiscal or monetary stimulus, without which it continues to attract a steady stream of immigrants.

Alif Qadr
02-06-2013, 07:28 AM
Left-wing economist Paul Krugman--an icon of the American left--is, at least, candid in his assessment of where healthcare must go (in his opinion) under ObamaCare: We must have a middle-class tax hike to fund it properly, in addition to the "death panels" (his own words) that were mentioned awhile back by Sarah Palin.

Here are his exact words:



And the link: Krugman: U.S. Needs Death Panels, Sales Taxes (http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/02/04/Krugman-Death-panels-and-sales-taxes-is-how-we-do-this)

pjohns,
Obama, The Commander n' Thief, stated that taxes are and must go up. Many of those who support that guy no matter what, do not care about tax-hikes, deficits, debt nor anything else concerning government. As long as they receive the government "bennies", they are fine. I even had one of them tell me that if I do not like the way the country is being run, leave. Such s the mentality of those with a leech mentality.

Alif Qadr
02-06-2013, 07:31 AM
Love Krugman for a variety of reasons and one example is shown below . It has relevance to the Topic , imo , because it talks about one fundamental factor behind growth --- an increasing population .Which the US has not got enough of .
And the case which suggests that taxes tinkering will never get to the heart of requirements for economic change .
Krugman is far away from having all the right answers ---- but who is ?
Importantly , he brings Economics down to "ordinary person " consciousness and talks real issues that affect all of us in ways which are easy to follow. He is no scholar in an ivory tower .




Krugman also makes the point that, so far as the Texas population has grown because of in-migration from other states, the net benefit to the national economy has been nil.
In the aggregate, the American population is still growing, a little less than 1% per year, almost all of which is due to immigration. The traditional powerhouse of American economic vibrancy–whites of European descent that still comprise nearly three-fourths of the overall population–barely reproduces at a level sufficient to replace its existing population. On average, this population is growing older and dying. It can no longer be relied upon to provide sustainable economic growth in the aggregate.
Krugman’s aim was to dispel the notion that Texas economic performance had any sort of relation to its economic infrastructure, no doubt because of the recent announcement by Texas governor Rick Perry that he would enter the presidential race. And he capably did. What he didn’t also do is extend his analysis to the larger economic view, and admit that the domestic American economy, like all capitalist economies, depends for its aggregate growth on a growing population. In short, the American economy can not be expected to grow much at all, no matter what the government does in the way of fiscal or monetary stimulus, without which it continues to attract a steady stream of immigrants.






Krugman also makes the point that, so far as the Texas population has grown because of in-migration from other states, the net benefit to the national economy has been nil.
Those who migrate from one state to another are citizens of the United States. Those who enter the country through means that are other than legal, are not citizens of the United States. Where does the confusion about this come into play? One belongs while the other does not.

Carygrant
02-06-2013, 07:58 AM
[/B]Those who migrate from one state to another are citizens of the United States. Those who enter the country through means that are other than legal, are not citizens of the United States. Where does the confusion about this come into play? One belongs while the other does not.

Yes , you have missed his point .
To measure any suggested Texas improvements, you must at the same time subtract the contribution of existing immigrants who have moved into Texarse from other States --- regardless of their personal reasons for doing so
Only in that way will you get a true NET result .
Example : It would be nationally pointless to claim that Texarse excels at something , say plus 20%, when it has achieved that by taking success from all of it's neighbour states where the same skill has declined 40% , and over a larger area and greater population .
People entering the US first time are irrelevant to this calculation .

Chris
02-06-2013, 08:50 AM
Left-wing economist Paul Krugman--an icon of the American left--is, at least, candid in his assessment of where healthcare must go (in his opinion) under ObamaCare: We must have a middle-class tax hike to fund it properly, in addition to the "death panels" (his own words) that were mentioned awhile back by Sarah Palin.

Here are his exact words:



And the link: Krugman: U.S. Needs Death Panels, Sales Taxes (http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/02/04/Krugman-Death-panels-and-sales-taxes-is-how-we-do-this)

Krugman is enough of an economist to see the problem but too much of a social democrat to see anything but government solutions to government problems.

As stated in the article: "Years of accumulating debt and expanding government programs only moves us down the “road to serfdom.”"

Chris
02-06-2013, 08:56 AM
To measure any suggested Texas improvements, you must at the same time subtract the contribution of existing immigrants who have moved into Texarse [sic] from other States

That's obvious. Of course if you just count heads, then what you say is true. But if you count the effect on the economy, moving from an overtaxed, overregulated, failing state to the opposite, a freer, more successful state, will have a positive effect, not just on Texas but the US as a whole.

Chris
02-06-2013, 09:09 AM
While slightly off-topic, I'm guessing this is the article of Krugman's, Wages, Jobs, Texas, and the World (http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/08/15/wages-jobs-texas-and-the-world/), that cary refers to. Reading it I understand why no link was provided for in it Krugman is in rare form.

His entire argument rests on a false premise:


But there’s a fair bit about my assertion that an individual state can attract jobs from other states via low wages, but this won’t work if every state tries to do it.

People aren't migrating from failing California and to successful Texas because of low wages. That in itself makes no rational sense. All else equal, for Krugman says no more than that, what subjective value exists in taking a lower paying job? None.

Next he strays off his own topic to address trade, comparing Texas, the US and other nations. But states and nations do not trade, individuals trade.

It's hard to follow someone as illogical as Krugman, clearly his politics interfere with his economic judgments.

Carygrant
02-06-2013, 09:11 AM
That's obvious. Of course if you just count heads, then what you say is true. But if you count the effect on the economy, moving from an overtaxed, overregulated, failing state to the opposite, a freer, more successful state, will have a positive effect, not just on Texas but the US as a whole.


It was not obvious to someone else . I am pleased that you are on song for a change but be kinder to other people .
Your second sentence is one for debate and not for assumed correctness .It's general tone is that of , "Successful measures lead to better outcomes "' which hardly contributes analytically to matters .
It is precisely the nature and definition of "Successful measures" that produce things like Forums .
But I do like Krugman's pre-requisite of an increasing population before other matters are even debated . You seemed to have skipped that perspective . And the evidence to support it .

Chris
02-06-2013, 09:16 AM
It was not obvious to someone else . I am pleased that you are on song for a change but be kinder to other people .
Your second sentence is one for debate and not for assumed correctness .It's general tone is that of , "Successful measures lead to better outcomes "' which hardly contributes analytically to matters .
It is precisely the nature and definition of "Successful measures" that produce things like Forums .
But I do like Krugman's pre-requisite of an increasing population before other matters are even debated . You seemed to have skipped that perspective . And the evidence to support it .

Yes, I saw where you disagreed with Alif Qadr.


Your second sentence is one for debate

Then debate it, don't just talk about talking about it.


But I do like Krugman's pre-requisite of an increasing population before other matters are even debated .

Elaborate.

pjohns
02-06-2013, 01:21 PM
If the fat cats only paid their fair share there would be no problem.

There are not enough "fat cats" to make some soak-the-rich theory workable.

Krugman (sadly) is correct--about this one thing, at least--e.g. tha in order for ObamaCare to be sustainable, it will require some broad-based, middle-class tax hike, together with healthcare rationing...

Agravan
02-06-2013, 02:17 PM
There are not enough "fat cats" to make some soak-the-rich theory workable.

Krugman (sadly) is correct--about this one thing, at least--e.g. tha in order for ObamaCare to be sustainable, it will require some broad-based, middle-class tax hike, together with healthcare rationing...
Krugman also specifically mentions "death panels". Where is the ridicule from the left at the mention of death panels?

Alif Qadr
02-06-2013, 03:10 PM
Chris and Cary,
All that I stated was this
Those who migrate from one state to another are citizens of the United States. Those who enter the country through means that are other than legal, are not citizens of the United States. Where does the confusion about this come into play? One belongs while the other does not..
It is a fact that those who come to the United States or any other nation usually are not considered citizens if they come via means other than legal. That is the premise of my simple and short post. Now, if you want to discuss the benefits of of having both migrate to states, that can be done. There is a plus as well as a negative to either group (citizen or non-citizen) migrating to local areas of other states. One negative is that there is a surplus of labor, which is a positive for certain businesses. The indigenous population suffers due to the surplus in labor because it adds to the labor pool that in several states is already in surplus without the added induction of migratory "workers". Granted as I stated earlier, some businesses benefit from this surplus because it puts the control of hiring squarely into their hands;if one does not want the job, the others will this allows employers to offer less than comparable wages and other benefits.
If a sufficient number of said migratory workers do not gain employment, they then become a drain on the local and state governments. This is the other part of the equation that I was making but did not post it. In my opinion, most citizen migrants only move to other states due to an employment offer, so such people are not a negative to the local and state governments being that they are a determined contributor, not a perspective contributor like an illegal migrant from another country.

Mister D
02-06-2013, 03:22 PM
Chris and Cary,
All that I stated was this . It is a fact that those who come to the United States or any other nation usually are not considered citizens. That is the premise of my simple and short post. Now, if you want to discuss the benefits of of having both migrate to states, that can be done. There is a plus as well as a negative to either group (citizen or non-citizen) migrating to local areas of other states. One negative is that there is a surplus of labor, which is a positive for certain businesses. The indigenous population suffers due to the surplus in labor because it adds to the labor pool that in several states is already in surplus without the added induction of migratory "workers". Granted as I stated earlier, some businesses benefit from this surplus because it puts the control of hiring squarely into their hands;if one does not want the job, the others will this allows employers to offer less than comparable wages and other benefits.
If a sufficient number of said migratory workers do not gain employment, they then become a drain on the local and state governments. This is the other part of the equation that I was making but did not post it. In my opinion, most citizen migrants only move to other states due to an employment offer, so such people are not a negative to the local and state governments being that they are a determined contributor, not a perspective contributor like an illegal migrant from another country. [/COLOR]

Alif, why do you think black politicians, at least on the national level, tend to favor high levels of immigration when the negative effects you describe hit black communities particularly hard?

Alif Qadr
02-06-2013, 03:38 PM
Alif, why do you think black politicians, at least on the national level, tend to favor high levels of immigration when the negative effects you describe hit black communities particularly hard?

Maybe they support it due to party politics, most are not the brightest nor the second brightest bulb in the pack. Some could also support such things because of their Marxist tendencies in thinking, planning and action. Many insanely believe that the more "non-Whites" that come to this country, that will be a bulwark against "racism". Little do they know that most immigrants who come here from "non-White" nations as well as White nation, really have no favorable opinion about Black people due to what they see on television and in movies.

Some people are truly idiotic and cowardly.

Mister D
02-06-2013, 03:47 PM
Maybe they support it due to party politics, most are not the brightest nor the second brightest bulb in the pack. Some could also support such things because of their Marxist tendencies in thinking, planning and action. Many insanely believe that the more "non-Whites" that come to this country, that will be a bulwark against "racism". Little do they know that most immigrants who come here from "non-White" nations as well as White nation, really have no favorable opinion about Black people due to what they see on television and in movies.

Some people are truly idiotic and cowardly.

Interesting. I think yuo are right. It's a mix of partisanship and perceived (wrongly) racial interest. It's odd t me though because there is no love lost between everyday blacks and Hispanics. Aside from the economic conflicts there is also a great deal of antagonism and violence particularly in CA.

Peter1469
02-06-2013, 05:42 PM
The problem is not just paying for health insurance / care. The problem is all the spending that the government has taken on. We can't afford it.

Add our demographic shift (more elderly, and less workers in proportion) and the math gets even worse.

Alif Qadr
02-08-2013, 05:44 AM
The problem is not just paying for health insurance / care. The problem is all the spending that the government has taken on. We can't afford it.

Add our demographic shift (more elderly, and less workers in proportion) and the math gets even worse.

agreed Pete,
The question is: Where to cut costs? Beyond the usual spending cuts on both sides of the Uni-party, as another forum poster calls it, the issue of spending cuts will always remain in the forefront until mature adults with sober minds prevail.

Chris
02-08-2013, 05:49 AM
agreed Pete,
The question is: Where to cut costs? Beyond the usual spending cuts on both sides of the Uni-party, as another forum poster calls it, the issue of spending cuts will always remain in the forefront until mature adults with sober minds prevail.

Which will never happen. People in government a driven by power just as much as people in business are by profits.

zelmo1234
02-08-2013, 07:10 AM
The secret to brining costs down is three fold

#1 Tort reform and the biggest thing that we can do with this is slap back legislation wherre if the Jury finds that the alligations were totaly obserd, then the law firm has to apy the company the same amount that they are suing for, and the looser pays for the legal fees of the winer. This will keep the ambulance chasers at bay.

#2 Competition the more competition there in in the insurance and medical fields the more that insurance and medical prices will come down.

#3 personel control of your heathcare dollars, not one size fits all policies that provide coverage that is unwanted or un needed. and in this we should let peope from groups to achieve buying power for insurance.

Implement these and you will see healthcare costs come down dramatically but it does not sound very compasionate.

Peter1469
02-08-2013, 07:00 PM
The secret to brining costs down is three fold

#1 Tort reform and the biggest thing that we can do with this is slap back legislation wherre if the Jury finds that the alligations were totaly obserd, then the law firm has to apy the company the same amount that they are suing for, and the looser pays for the legal fees of the winer. This will keep the ambulance chasers at bay.

#2 Competition the more competition there in in the insurance and medical fields the more that insurance and medical prices will come down.

#3 personel control of your heathcare dollars, not one size fits all policies that provide coverage that is unwanted or un needed. and in this we should let peope from groups to achieve buying power for insurance.

Implement these and you will see healthcare costs come down dramatically but it does not sound very compasionate.

I disagree with tort reform. Doctors are the leading cause of death in the US. If they get immunity, I imagine that number will go up.

Tort reform means actually enforcing existing law / court rules regarding frivolous law suits.

lynn
02-12-2013, 09:07 PM
The actual costs of healthcare is to take any total charge bill from any provider of healthcare service and cut it into half and that is what healthcare costs today. The insurance industry sets the fees allowable on all charges in medical care so do not blame high healthcare cost. It is the insurance companies that don't want to pay anything at all for healthcare that are making this up for the sheep to believe.

Captain Obvious
02-12-2013, 09:19 PM
The actual costs of healthcare is to take any total charge bill from any provider of healthcare service and cut it into half and that is what healthcare costs today. The insurance industry sets the fees allowable on all charges in medical care so do not blame high healthcare cost. It is the insurance companies that don't want to pay anything at all for healthcare that are making this up for the sheep to believe.

Not exactly. Many Medicaid fee schedule payments for example do not even cover the actual cost of providing healthcare services while many commercial payments more than cover costs.

The "art" of payer contract negotiation is considering what you do as a provider and what the payer is paying. Take a bath on the small stuff and make your margin on the stuff you do a lot of.

The trick nowadays is looking for what payers will deny for. RAC, compliance audits are all designed to deny payment for services provided for one reason or another. Having a good paying contract with a payer means nothing if they have stringent rules on obtaining pre-approvals that cannot be reasonably met.

Peter1469
02-12-2013, 09:20 PM
The actual costs of healthcare is to take any total charge bill from any provider of healthcare service and cut it into half and that is what healthcare costs today. The insurance industry sets the fees allowable on all charges in medical care so do not blame high healthcare cost. It is the insurance companies that don't want to pay anything at all for healthcare that are making this up for the sheep to believe.

I think you are only looking at part of the problem.

lynn
02-15-2013, 09:23 AM
The proof that we pay more for healthcare premiums is on your last paystub from your employer. I paid more in premiums then I did in income tax owed, social security and Medicare that was paid for 2012. My healthcare insurance paid $374.00 for the entire year of medical bills on the allowable total of $3,147.54 which I am responsible for the difference. Total charges for medical services were $6922.25 which the providers had to write off the difference. My insurance is United Healthcare

Peter1469
02-15-2013, 12:15 PM
The proof that we pay more for healthcare premiums is on your last paystub from your employer. I paid more in premiums then I did in income tax owed, social security and Medicare that was paid for 2012. My healthcare insurance paid $374.00 for the entire year of medical bills on the allowable total of $3,147.54 which I am responsible for the difference. Total charges for medical services were $6922.25 which the providers had to write off the difference. My insurance is United Healthcare

For the time being I am covered under my soon to be ex-wife's health care. But that is a European world wide plan and I have no idea how much it costs. I will soon have to get my own coverage.

But I am not sure how much you can read into the amount charged, the amount paid by insurance, the amount paid by you, and the amount "forgiven." It is like a store raising prices and then announcing a sale.

Mister D
02-15-2013, 12:16 PM
For the time being I am covered under my soon to be ex-wife's health care. But that is a European world wide plan and I have no idea how much it costs. I will soon have to get my own coverage.

But I am not sure how much you can read into the amount charged, the amount paid by insurance, the amount paid by you, and the amount "forgiven." It is like a store raising prices and then announcing a sale.

You can't get it at work?

Peter1469
02-15-2013, 12:30 PM
You can't get it at work?

Yes, that is what I will do once I am no longer covered under the present policy.

Mister D
02-15-2013, 12:37 PM
Yes, that is what I will do once I am no longer covered under the present policy.

You'll be a shoe in. That's a qualifying event.

Peter1469
02-15-2013, 02:47 PM
You'll be a shoe in. That's a qualifying event.

Right. It isn't a big deal. I could always go to the VA if I had too.

Dr. Who
02-15-2013, 11:38 PM
For the time being I am covered under my soon to be ex-wife's health care. But that is a European world wide plan and I have no idea how much it costs. I will soon have to get my own coverage.

But I am not sure how much you can read into the amount charged, the amount paid by insurance, the amount paid by you, and the amount "forgiven." It is like a store raising prices and then announcing a sale.
The US has a three-fold problem - Hospitals that have to pay profits; Insurance Companies that have to pay profits and drugs in the US are the most expensive in the world. How can health care be anything but ridiculously expensive.

Peter1469
02-15-2013, 11:39 PM
The profit motive is good. You take that away and you get complacency.

Dr. Who
02-15-2013, 11:59 PM
The profit motive is good. You take that away and you get complacency.
Except that the demands for profit increasingly leave less for operating costs.

Dr. Who
02-16-2013, 12:10 AM
The profit motive is good. You take that away and you get complacency.
1569
Rate of return that was acceptable 50 years ago, is not acceptable now.

Dr. Who
02-16-2013, 12:15 AM
The profit motive is good. You take that away and you get complacency.
How do you feel about the fact that US citizens pay more for prescription drugs than anyone else in the world?

Peter1469
02-16-2013, 01:53 AM
How do you feel about the fact that US citizens pay more for prescription drugs than anyone else in the world?


That is because US companies make the drugs and need to make a profit.

I don't particularly care, because I am against most of them. Natural alternative and preventive care work better.

zelmo1234
02-16-2013, 05:55 AM
How do you feel about the fact that US citizens pay more for prescription drugs than anyone else in the world?

It is bacause the US citizens pays for the R&D for the world. You want the prices to come down, TORT reform, and allow people to purchase drugs from other countries? Online Pharmacies will spring up, and the price at home will drop like a stone, But the Government will not take these steps that cost the people nothing, they want to socialize the medical system which cost trillions.

Chris
02-16-2013, 10:48 AM
Except that the demands for profit increasingly leave less for operating costs.

Explain this. Profits come after paying the bills, not before.

Chris
02-16-2013, 10:52 AM
That is because US companies make the drugs and need to make a profit.

I don't particularly care, because I am against most of them. Natural alternative and preventive care work better.

It's more. Pharmas use regional pricing, iow, they price pharmaceuticals according to what they think the market can bear. On one hand, they can do this by economic means simply knowing the US is richer and will pay more. On the other hand, they can do this by political means simply by bribing the US government to regulate against US citizens purchasing medication outside our region, like Canada, Mexico. Without this latter support, as zelmo points out, we could do that and the competition would drive prices down.

Peter1469
02-16-2013, 11:02 AM
It's more. Pharmas use regional pricing, iow, they price pharmaceuticals according to what they think the market can bear. On one hand, they can do this by economic means simply knowing the US is richer and will pay more. On the other hand, they can do this by political means simply by bribing the US government to regulate against US citizens purchasing medication outside our region, like Canada, Mexico. Without this latter support, as zelmo points out, we could do that and the competition would drive prices down.

Agreed

Dr. Who
02-16-2013, 07:45 PM
Explain this. Profits come after paying the bills, not before.
The administrators of hospitals are well aware, before the fact, what will diminish profits. If bills must be padded to ensure profits, or certain procedures that are too costly, eliminated, so be it.

Chris
02-16-2013, 08:04 PM
The administrators of hospitals are well aware, before the fact, what will diminish profits. If bills must be padded to ensure profits, or certain procedures that are too costly, eliminated, so be it.

Listen to this, Lipstein on Hospitals (http://www.econtalk.org/archives/2008/12/lipstein_on_hos.html), Lipstein is President and CEO of BJC HealthCare--a $3 billion hospital system in St. Louis, Missouri. Hospitals don't work the way your liberal imagination paints them.

Dr. Who
02-17-2013, 12:32 AM
Listen to this, Lipstein on Hospitals (http://www.econtalk.org/archives/2008/12/lipstein_on_hos.html), Lipstein is President and CEO of BJC HealthCare--a $3 billion hospital system in St. Louis, Missouri. Hospitals don't work the way your liberal imagination paints them.
Just because they are not for profit does not mean that they don't have to make a profit if only to keep up with technology. The fact that they have to subsidize Medicare and Medicaid requires that they overcharge the insured user. I'm surprised that you don't object to the fact that they are legally required to subsidize. Because of that very overcharging, and as per your own reference, people avoid seeking healthcare in the initial stages or disease for financial reasons, and thus when the disease progresses becomes much more expensive to remedy.

According to Henry Aaron - who you will find on the same site, hospital administration in the US costs $294B more than Canada presumably as adjusted for population. The main reason is of course that with a single payer health care system, you don't have extraordinary billing requirements or the requirement to subsidize insurance company admin costs (nor the requirement to provide shareholder profits). In Canada, unless you are a foreign national, or if you wish to upgrade your accomodation through private insurance, there are no costs at the end of a hospital stay. There is no insurance deductible or co-pay requirement. In addition, because the Province purchases the drugs for hospitals, there is an economy of scale, thus it is less expensive to administer drugs. That is simply good business sense. Thousands of US seniors flock to Canada every year to purchase prescription drugs at a lower price. Why is that? Canada has one tenth of the US population and yet pays far less for prescription drugs, often the same drugs produced in the US. As wonderful as BJC is as an organization, it is hamstrung by the very fragementation of US healthcare.

zelmo1234
02-17-2013, 03:35 AM
Just because they are not for profit does not mean that they don't have to make a profit if only to keep up with technology. The fact that they have to subsidize Medicare and Medicaid requires that they overcharge the insured user. I'm surprised that you don't object to the fact that they are legally required to subsidize. Because of that very overcharging, and as per your own reference, people avoid seeking healthcare in the initial stages or disease for financial reasons, and thus when the disease progresses becomes much more expensive to remedy.

According to Henry Aaron - who you will find on the same site, hospital administration in the US costs $294B more than Canada presumably as adjusted for population. The main reason is of course that with a single payer health care system, you don't have extraordinary billing requirements or the requirement to subsidize insurance company admin costs (nor the requirement to provide shareholder profits). In Canada, unless you are a foreign national, or if you wish to upgrade your accomodation through private insurance, there are no costs at the end of a hospital stay. There is no insurance deductible or co-pay requirement. In addition, because the Province purchases the drugs for hospitals, there is an economy of scale, thus it is less expensive to administer drugs. That is simply good business sense. Thousands of US seniors flock to Canada every year to purchase prescription drugs at a lower price. Why is that? Canada has one tenth of the US population and yet pays far less for prescription drugs, often the same drugs produced in the US. As wonderful as BJC is as an organization, it is hamstrung by the very fragementation of US healthcare.

And thousands of Canadians, Including their leaders flock to the USA each year to get treatments that save their lives, but would either be denied or delayed, causing them to loose their life.

Socialized Medical system do level the playing field, the quality of care always goes down, and the time it takes to receive your care always get longer, but all are in the same boat, So the die togehter? isn't that Great?

Dr. Who
02-17-2013, 12:30 PM
And thousands of Canadians, Including their leaders flock to the USA each year to get treatments that save their lives, but would either be denied or delayed, causing them to loose their life.

Socialized Medical system do level the playing field, the quality of care always goes down, and the time it takes to receive your care always get longer, but all are in the same boat, So the die togehter? isn't that Great?
Studies regarding health care outcomes as between the US and Canada disagree: http://www.cbc.ca/news/health/story/2007/04/18/health-canada-us.html
This is the actual study paper: http://www.openmedicine.ca/article/view/8/1
Additionally very few Canadians go to the US for medical care: http://www.amsa.org/AMSA/Libraries/Academy_Docs/WaitingTimes_primer.sflb.ashx

Chris
02-17-2013, 02:10 PM
Studies regarding health care outcomes as between the US and Canada disagree: http://www.cbc.ca/news/health/story/2007/04/18/health-canada-us.html
This is the actual study paper: http://www.openmedicine.ca/article/view/8/1
Additionally very few Canadians go to the US for medical care: http://www.amsa.org/AMSA/Libraries/Academy_Docs/WaitingTimes_primer.sflb.ashx


Canadian Health Policy Failures What’s Wrong? Who Gets Hurt? Why Nothing Changes (http://www.fraserinstitute.org/uploadedFiles/fraser-ca/Content/research-news/research/publications/CanadianHealthPolicyFailures.pdf):


Canadian health policy is increasingly failing patients and taxpayers. Canadians spend a lot on health care relative to comparable countries, yet our high relative level of spending does not buy Canadians as many health care resources as patients in other countries enjoy. Shortages of medical resources, as well as improper economic incentives within the Canadian health system, have resulted in growing waits for access to publicly funded, medically necessary goods and services. The available evidence indicates that wait times are longer in Canada than in almost all other comparable countries. Not only has our high level of spending not produced better access to health care, government health spending has also been growing at rates that are faster than our ability to pay for it through public means alone. This has resulted in health care consuming ever greater shares of the revenue available to governments, leaving proportionally less available for other public responsibilities and obligations.


Reforming Canada’s health care system (http://www.fraserinstitute.org/uploadedFiles/fraser-ca/Content/research-news/research/articles/reforming-canadas-health-care-system_csr-winter-2012.pdf):


In reality, the sustainability of Canada’s health care system is eroding; by 2017, government health expenditures in six out of 10 provinces are projected to consume half of the total available provincial revenues, including federal transfers (Skinner and Rovere, 2011). Further, from 2000 to 2010, Canada’s total expenditure on health care as a percentage of GDP rose from 8.8% to 11.3%. This figure is well above the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) 2010 average of 9.7%, making Canada the sixth most expensive health care system in the OECD (OECD, 2011). We also spend significantly more on health care on a per capita basis, spending $4,363 ($US PPP) per person annually as opposed to the OECD average of $3,361 (OECD, 2011).


Value for Money from Health Insurance Systems in Canada and the OECD, 2012 edition (http://www.fraserinstitute.org/research-news/display.aspx?id=18231):


This paper compares the economic performance of Canada’s health insurance system against the health insurance systems of 27 other countries that are members of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). According to the most recent internationally comparable data from 2009, Canada had the sixth most expensive health care system (defined by total health spending as a percentage of GDP) among OECD countries without adjusting for differences in the population age distributions between countries. Despite being ranked as the sixth most expensive health insurance system among OECD countries in 2009, Canada ranked below the majority of the other 27 OECD countries in almost every indicator of medical resource availability and the output of medical services for which comparable data were available.

Leaving Canada for medical care 2011 (http://www.fraserinstitute.org/uploadedFiles/fraser-ca/Content/research-news/research/articles/leaving-canada-for-medical-care-2011-ff0712.pdf):


Among the consequences of poor access to health care in Canada is the reality that some Canadians will ultimately receive the care they require outside of the country. Some of these patients will have been sent out of country by the public health care system due to a lack of available resources or the fact that some procedures or equipment are not provided in their home jurisdiction. Others will have chosen to leave Canada in response to concerns about quality (Walker et al., 2009); to avoid some of the adverse medical consequences of waiting for care such as worsening of their condition, poorer outcomes following treatment, disability, or death (Esmail, 2009); or simply to avoid delay.

Morningstar
02-17-2013, 05:59 PM
It's more. Pharmas use regional pricing, iow, they price pharmaceuticals according to what they think the market can bear. On one hand, they can do this by economic means simply knowing the US is richer and will pay more. On the other hand, they can do this by political means simply by bribing the US government to regulate against US citizens purchasing medication outside our region, like Canada, Mexico. Without this latter support, as zelmo points out, we could do that and the competition would drive prices down.

Correct. And you either have to have protectionism on everything, or free trade on everything. Picking and choosing is unfair, and benefits big business at the expense of the people.

Chris
02-17-2013, 06:01 PM
Correct. And you either have to have protectionism on everything, or free trade on everything. Picking and choosing is unfair, and benefits big business at the expense of the people.

Any protectionism, by its very nature, picks and chooses at the expense of the people.

Morningstar
02-17-2013, 06:21 PM
Any protectionism, by its very nature, picks and chooses at the expense of the people.

Not with an across the board tariff.

If every price, and every wage, was inflated at the same rate, a lot of these ills would be cured.

We're using 19th century economic thought, based on 19th century realities, to tackle 21st century problems.

Chris
02-17-2013, 06:31 PM
Not with an across the board tariff.

If every price, and every wage, was inflated at the same rate, a lot of these ills would be cured.

We're using 19th century economic thought, based on 19th century realities, to tackle 21st century problems.

Even with across the board tariffs. Good example is sugar tariffs, for which A conservative case for sugar tariffs (http://dailycaller.com/2012/11/26/a-conservative-case-for-sugar-tariffs/) can be made, but still Sugar tariffs are sweet for special interests, sour for the rest of us (http://dailycaller.com/2012/12/03/sugar-tariffs-sweet-for-special-interests-sour-for-us/#ixzz2LCbGL12x)

Dr. Who
02-17-2013, 06:45 PM
It's more. Pharmas use regional pricing, iow, they price pharmaceuticals according to what they think the market can bear. On one hand, they can do this by economic means simply knowing the US is richer and will pay more. On the other hand, they can do this by political means simply by bribing the US government to regulate against US citizens purchasing medication outside our region, like Canada, Mexico. Without this latter support, as zelmo points out, we could do that and the competition would drive prices down.

This article examines both sides of the equation: http://heartland.org/press-releases/2004/04/19/pros-and-cons-importing-drugs-canada

Chris
02-17-2013, 06:48 PM
This article examines both sides of the equation: http://heartland.org/press-releases/2004/04/19/pros-and-cons-importing-drugs-canada

Interesting, though their argument against free market importation is really an argument against government price fixing.

Dr. Who
02-17-2013, 07:16 PM
Interesting, though their argument against free market importation is really an argument against government price fixing.

Some of both I think.

I'm not sure, but would think that the majority of drugs consumed by seniors (i.e. blood pressure, beta blockers and blood thinners etc) tend not to be leading edge drugs, but more likely in general the tried and true type of drugs, which could be discounted more in the US market, at least for those living on fixed incomes. It may become necessary if Canada suddenly decides that selling to US citizens is ultimately harmful to the domestic drug supply and bans the exportation over the internet. On the other hand the situation might not be so acute if seniors and Americans in general were not being overprescribed medications. http://www.enlightenamerica.com/files/Over-Prescribed.pdf

Chris
02-17-2013, 07:27 PM
Some of both I think.

I'm not sure, but would think that the majority of drugs consumed by seniors (i.e. blood pressure, beta blockers and blood thinners etc) tend not to be leading edge drugs, but more likely in general the tried and true type of drugs, which could be discounted more in the US market, at least for those living on fixed incomes. It may become necessary if Canada suddenly decides that selling to US citizens is ultimately harmful to the domestic drug supply and bans the exportation over the internet. On the other hand the situation might not be so acute if seniors and Americans in general were not being overprescribed medications. http://www.enlightenamerica.com/files/Over-Prescribed.pdf

Indeed, it's a racket, protected by government.

Morningstar
02-19-2013, 02:21 PM
Even with across the board tariffs. Good example is sugar tariffs, for which A conservative case for sugar tariffs (http://dailycaller.com/2012/11/26/a-conservative-case-for-sugar-tariffs/) can be made, but still Sugar tariffs are sweet for special interests, sour for the rest of us (http://dailycaller.com/2012/12/03/sugar-tariffs-sweet-for-special-interests-sour-for-us/#ixzz2LCbGL12x)

Completely free trade might work.

But as long as other nations are playing the game, we had better play it, too.

Otherwise we're just bleeding away jobs, and unemployed people are more likely to vote for socialist policies, than to starve on principle...