Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Condi Rice = Bush

bad bad bad

I think to underestimate the conservatism of the average Joe in the US is a mistake.

Obama rode in on dislike for the previous administration, nothing more. He's done enough in the last two years to ensure he gets booted by the same sentiment that swept him into office.

In my opinion focusing on the race for the President is a mistake. Other than being the figurehead CiC it's a beauty contest. The real race is the Congress. Old fethers like Kennedy and Byrd get into office and ride that horse for fifty or sixty years. They are the real power brokers (and the problem with the US political system IMHO).

There will be a major turnover with this November's election. I predict incumbents of both parties will lose their seats in massive numbers. People are slowly waking up to the fact that the same Congress expressing shock and dismay at the economy today is the one that steered this ship into the storm in the first place.

It certainly helps wake up the American voter when several Congressmen died this year and the news headline reads that they all served for over 40 years...

Actually the turnover has been pretty reasonable since 2008. I would expect similar levels of turnover in the House and a moderate amount in the Senate. Considering how jerrymandered districts are, its amazing any politician ever loses their seat.

Personally I am in a quandary on the governor side. Perry makes my butt itch, but is an ardent 2nd Amendment/CHLer.

White is different, but pushed that Houston is a sanctuary city nonsense, and much of Houston (city) didn't get cleaned up until fed money came in, whereas certain areas reshuffled their budgets and cleaned everything up in just a few weeks. Translation: they both suck. I wonder if Friedman is running again-as his motto stated "Kinky for Governor, why the hell not?"

The tea party ruined the republican's Pres chances, and a few of tihe senate seats. Charile Crist was on the fast rtrack ti the White house, with broad support. Now he will most likely win a independant seat in florida. Huckabee was a favorite of mines, but he has been going crazy right after he got his tv and radio show. The purity test the tea pardy has is a fail test. Moderates win, and BO ran as a moderate. But he's just another weak spined dem.

mattyrm wrote:I was speaking to our lass about this, couldnt Mcain have got Condi to run as VP? She was a woman, and she was black, so ticked two boxes for the republicans with regards to bringing people into the party, but unlike Palin she was actually smart.

Has she got no interest in the job or something?

As Frazz said, she was too close to Bush. She also had a very significant role in the prelude to war in Iraq. I think her political career, outside the role of Executive apparatchik, is essentially done.

inquisitor_bob wrote:
I'd go for Colin Powell if he would ever run. We need another General as President.

Powell is done with the GOP after his endorsement of Obama. But, if the Republicans don't win this time around, you may see Petraeus in 2016.

dogma wrote:As Frazz said, she was too close to Bush. She also had a very significant role in the prelude to war in Iraq. I think her political career, outside the role of Executive apparatchik, is essentially done.

There are a lot of talented people left in the wake of the Bush administration. A lot of talented people and Condoleeza Rice.

Seriously, she's a smart lady with an incredibly underwhelming record of analysis.

mattyrm wrote:I was speaking to our lass about this, couldnt Mcain have got Condi to run as VP? She was a woman, and she was black, so ticked two boxes for the republicans with regards to bringing people into the party, but unlike Palin she was actually smart.

Has she got no interest in the job or something?

Bushes war cabinet was/is cursed and her role in the WMD fiasco and the horrific execution of the Iraq war would have made her a constant target.

sebster wrote:
There are a lot of talented people left in the wake of the Bush administration. A lot of talented people and Condoleeza Rice.

Seriously, she's a smart lady with an incredibly underwhelming record of analysis.

No kidding. When I was in school I very often referenced Rice as an example of the sort of person to avoid emulating when considering national security. Bellicosity for its own sake is usually a bad idea.

Frazzled wrote:I can see Bill Clinton now:

"I had 2 terms, 5% unemployment, and a balanced budget. Miss me yet?"

I do. I really do.

IMO, Clinton would still be POTUS in the absence of term limits. He'd have mopped the floor with anyone and everyone since 2000.
Not saying he was really a great president, mind you. Greatness implies transformational qualities, and I don't think Clinton was that kind of president. However, he was a great campaigner.

dogma wrote:

mattyrm wrote:I was speaking to our lass about this, couldnt Mcain have got Condi to run as VP? She was a woman, and she was black, so ticked two boxes for the republicans with regards to bringing people into the party, but unlike Palin she was actually smart.

Has she got no interest in the job or something?

As Frazz said, she was too close to Bush. She also had a very significant role in the prelude to war in Iraq. I think her political career, outside the role of Executive apparatchik, is essentially done.

She's also more of a policy wonk than candidate material, IMO. Setting aside her less-than-stellar track record, she's almost completely lacking in charisma. She and Palin are mirror images (in the proper meaning for that term).

My prediction for 2010-2012 is that we'll see a replay of the 1994-1996 period. The GOP will make large gains in the midterms, then interpret that as a mandate for their agenda rather than a rejection of incumbents. So they'll overreach, and Obama will ride the following backlash to victory.

gorgon wrote:
My prediction for 2010-2012 is that we'll see a replay of the 1994-1996 period. The GOP will make large gains in the midterms, then interpret that as a mandate for their agenda rather than a rejection of incumbents. So they'll overreach, and Obama will ride the following backlash to victory.

That's about where I'm at as well. The only caveat, I think, is the Tea Party. If we see a large numbers of 3, or even 4, way races, then it will be much more difficult for the Republicans to claim seats. Of course, they'll still probably make significant gains, they just won't be quite as significant as they would have been otherwise.

I thought Condi did a decent job of cleaning up Rummies mess though. The first "surge" was her brainchild(along with generals in the field) and it did work.

As far as her stint as NSA I don't think you can blame her as much as you can Rummy and stankawizz.

Rice has always said she didn't want to run for high office anyway.

GG

gorgon wrote:

focusedfire wrote:This cheesy bad story describes the U.S. and its people.

Anyone care to translate the story and its moral?

That Americans talk too much?

Seriously man, it's Monday morning and that story needed to be more to the point...

This reply here is depressing on many levels, but most dissappointing in its failure to recognize that the Story was very much to the point. However the reply is, on some levels, ironically amusing in how it went for the jab about americans talking to much.

It’s nonsense because you assume unfunded spending programs are a Democrat thing.

That's not what I assume... There's no question, the Republicans have done deficit spending in the past. Reagan basically invented it, as American Presidents go.

The point I'm making, is that Democrats will do it to fund social welfare type projects which people then become addicted to, reliant upon, and unwilling to give up.

One of the big reason that the budget ran a surplus under Clinton (and a Republican Congress), was cuts to military spending. Military spending has always been a favorite of Republicans, and a major source of their deficits. It's also not something that people directly latch on to and rely on, so it's something that's much more easily cut.

Democrats tend to like programs that people whine about when they're passed (welfare queens, etc.), but then by the time there's the votes to repeal them, people have learned to depend on them.

Its nonsense because you assume the history of the US in recent memory has been a move to the left – the last 20 years have been defined by neo-liberal policies and the dismantling of social systems.

It may be that the oversimplied nature of the term "left" is to blame here...

For example, the size and scope of the US government has done nothing but increase for as long as it's existed. That may not be a surprise, it seems like most governments do this, but that's something that's often seen as a "left v right" issue.

In terms of social policy, the US has also done nothing but move left. Again, this may not be clasically "left" so much as "in the direction that Democrats have traditionally desired," but it's still going on. Abortion, gay marriage, prayer in schools, etc. etc. Not huge deals, but all ongoing wins for the "left" viewpoint.

It is possible to have both, and your new system dosn't even offer the basic free care that ours does.

I think I've already spoken to the idea of a tiered system, where the government provides a basic set of services and then private industry provides the "Cadillac" plans on top.

Honestly, I'm not really sure what you're asking... I think it's pretty obvious that to whatever extent the government provides a service, and makes itself immune to financial reality via taxpayer money, it's destroying the free market. If it restricts itself to only a part of a market, then it's not destroying the entire market, but it's still interfering.

IMO, Clinton would still be POTUS in the absence of term limits. He'd have mopped the floor with anyone and everyone since 2000.

It certainly does seem like he was a different generation than the current lightweights. I wonder if that isn't somewhat due to the new news cycle, and the new level of partisan blathering, where we're constantly deluged with vitriolic back and forth between talking heads.

Phryxis wrote:

It’s nonsense because you assume unfunded spending programs are a Democrat thing.

That's not what I assume... There's no question, the Republicans have done deficit spending in the past. Reagan basically invented it, as American Presidents go.

Fair enough, I didn’t really want to make it a ‘Republicans do it too issue’ because that isn’t really the point.

The point I'm making, is that Democrats will do it to fund social welfare type projects which people then become addicted to, reliant upon, and unwilling to give up.

And my point, quite simply, is that isn’t true. Social welfare programs are not addictive, properly administered they facilitate movement up the social ladder. On the other hand, poverty is a trap, the dysfunctions that come with long term unemployment or underemployment are passed on to future generations, and it is an extremely difficult trap to break out of.

This is a major reason that the US, which has considerably smaller social welfare programs compared to the rest of the developed world, has a much lower rate of social mobility. Simply put, the children of the poor are much more likely to be poor themselves, compared to elsewhere in the world, and a large cause of that comes from the differences in welfare programs.

The trick, of course, is the bit where I say ‘properly administered’. Building effective welfare programs that facilitate people out of the poverty trap is a difficult thing to do, and programs don’t always work (many of the programs aimed to get single mothers working for their welfare cheque are incredibly exploitative and result in the child growing up more or less by herself while the mother works a crap job and doesn’t actually expand her marketable skills at all).

One of the big reason that the budget ran a surplus under Clinton (and a Republican Congress), was cuts to military spending. Military spending has always been a favorite of Republicans, and a major source of their deficits. It's also not something that people directly latch on to and rely on, so it's something that's much more easily cut.

That’s not true. Clinton also made substantial cuts to social programs, and defence is a notoriously difficult thing to cut – all those R&D and manufacture contracts are focussed in individual states whose senators will fight tooth and nail to keep them. Look at the ‘controversy’ over Obama’s claimed defence budget cuts, what he actually did was reduce the growth of the defence budget – for all the wailing and gnashing it still grew more than 4%.

The real story of the Clinton surplus was the tax increase it was built around. Reagan believed in the Laffer Curve, the incredibly stupid idea that any tax cut would stimulate the economy so much that it would generate more income than it lost, and the result was big deficits. Clinton didn’t agree, and the result was surpluses. Bush felt the Laffer Curve wasn’t given a fair try, cut taxes again and the big deficits returned.

For example, the size and scope of the US government has done nothing but increase for as long as it's existed. That may not be a surprise, it seems like most governments do this, but that's something that's often seen as a "left v right" issue.

It’s not really either, to be honest. The growth in government really is the product of an increasingly interconnected world. In a simpler economic environment there isn’t that much of a place for government. But the modern world simply needs a lot more government to function, it needs the skilled workers that education provides, it needs the road and communications networks that government provides. It needs the capital markets that can only exist within government created frameworks. It needs the low transaction costs and consumer confidence that can only exist when a third party ensures product quality. It needs the contract law that can only exist when government courts enforce it.

One thing a lot of people fail to realise is how important government actually is to the modern free market system.

Honestly, I'm not really sure what you're asking... I think it's pretty obvious that to whatever extent the government provides a service, and makes itself immune to financial reality via taxpayer money, it's destroying the free market. If it restricts itself to only a part of a market, then it's not destroying the entire market, but it's still interfering.

I already explained how government can encourage competition. Right now in the US, you need to go with a private insurer, they can be obnoxious, money grubbing donkey-caves, but the alternative is to basically hope you don’t get sick. If government provides a basic level of care then the insurers will need to actually provide a decent option to encourage people to shift to them.

Simply put, the children of the poor are much more likely to be poor themselves, compared to elsewhere in the world, and a large cause of that comes from the differences in welfare programs.

A quick googling confirms that this is indeed a case made by statisticians. It's odd, given that one of the major points of pride in the American mythology is the degree of econimic mobility that is offered. The whole Oprah Winfrey story...

And, to be clear, we're talking about economic mobility. There's no real class system in the US, unless you have yet more facts I've never heard before.

It also makes statistical sense that countries that bring more families out of poverty will see a pronounced improvement in the ratio of children's income to parents, as the smaller the income, the easier it is to double, triple, etc.

Clinton also made substantial cuts to social programs, and defence is a notoriously difficult thing to cut – all those R&D and manufacture contracts are focussed in individual states whose senators will fight tooth and nail to keep them.

I don't mean to "blame" Clinton for either side of this... Both the cuts, and the surplus that resulted, were passed by a Republican Congress and a Democrat President. Probably the last time in our history that the American government accomplished anything of any real merit, and odd considering how bad the Republicans hated Clinton.

But, it is true, Clinton did cut the military extensively. Some cuts happened under GHWB, but after the end of the Cold War, some cuts were reasonable. Clinton's cuts led to a budget surplus. Have to respect that.

I'm not able to find the greatest documentation on it, but what I do see suggests that Clinton took the majority of the cuts he made out of military spending. Civillian programs saw big cuts too, but it appears to be a 60/40 sort of thing.

All that is whatever, though... While you're right that Congress will fight to keep military dollars in their district, it's still a second or third tier concern. It's a lot easier to sell "vote for me or you lose your welfare check" than it is to sell "vote for me, or the military base in the next town over will shut down, which will in turn reduce the local economy, and in 2-3 years will negatively impact your area, and possibly result in a loss in income, but possibly not."

As far as the tax cut/increase stuff goes, I find it endlessly painful that people can't just get it right, and set the taxation levels in such a fashion that revenue is maximized. I don't want to hear class warfare hogwash about "fair share" and "the rich get richer." Tax what it takes to maximize long term revenue. Find somebody who's smart enough to know what that is, and shut up about social justice.

Not that you're saying that, it's just that it's all the politicians say. Either the rich are raping the little guy, or the evil Democrats are destroying business with their hateful taxes. I don't want to hear emotion and hate, I want to hear financial information that explains why something will or will not work.

This I say even as the IRS wants another $1500 out of me. I think I'll write "For Bombs Only" in the note section of my check.

If government provides a basic level of care then the insurers will need to actually provide a decent option to encourage people to shift to them.

Sure, all of that is well and good, so long as the government program doesn't charge too little, lose money, and then takes taxpayer money to make up the difference. There's no competition there, the government program has the additional income vector of "pay us or we put you in jail." The insurance companies just sell insurance. This is so obvious that I know you know it, so I'm not clear where we're missing each other.

Phryxis wrote:Sure, all of that is well and good, so long as the government program doesn't charge too little, lose money, and then takes taxpayer money to make up the difference. There's no competition there, the government program has the additional income vector of "pay us or we put you in jail." The insurance companies just sell insurance.

A big problem is whether you actually get what you are paying for, and while you can suggest that it would be the same thing in the case of the government providing a baseline of insurance, it is a reality that insurance companies are genuinely ripping people off right now. Outright denying to provide service after payments have been made for years, then throwing people around an endless cycle of bs, just so they can get what they paid for in the first place.

It is downright outrageous what private insurance companies have gotten away with. No less that thieves in business suits, some of the time.

Most everything else in your post appeared very sensible, and I generally agree with it.

Well, he's right about the need for a public option (meant as a level competitor against other insurance providers) to derive all of its funding in the same way that private insurance companies do. If it can't compete without (exclusive) subsidies, then evidently there wasn't the opportunity for competition there was thought to be.

I'm not entirely sure about that.

If a public option is meant to force the insurance industry into actually being competitive in the first place, and not to just be another insurance company, then it doesn't really matter. There could be problems with insurance companies refusing to compete, but I would not lay the blame directly on a public option in that case.

The competition is meant for the insurance industry, although you could say that no competition would be possible with a public option, and I would just have to disagree. Without assuming the government can't do anything right, ever, there isn't a massive case to be made against forcing competition into the private sector.

They just don't compete now. The assumption that a public option would undercut insurance companies as they are now, is basically the point in the first place.

Well.. yeah, the assumption is that insurance industries are running inefficiently now because they lack motivation to compete, and so a public option will force them back into competition through heightened efficiency. This all operates under the assumption that the public option can support itself while reducing costs, through the gains in efficiency.

If it isn't efficient enough to support itself, then it's not any better than the insurance companies. Yeah, people would benefit from the artificially lowered prices, but they would have to pay all of that back in the taxes used to support the program. You may as well just set up a single-payer system in this case, competition is no longer the goal, but rather a transfer of wealth to make insurance more affordable, or something along those lines.

The insurance companies can't run at a loss and finance the difference through taxes; the presence of a public option with the ability to do so won't spur them into competition, it will just cause them to shut down as they figure there's no way to compete. The only way operating at a loss would make sense from the standpoint of promoting competition would be to assume that the public option will be inherently inefficient, to such a point that subsidization will be required to merely put it on parity with private companies. (I don't see much evidence of this being the case, however, and if this was the case I think I would try some other plan to promote competition instead.)

it is a reality that insurance companies are genuinely ripping people off right now.

I would have to see more evidence of that to believe it.

We know they don't make especially huge profits, so the question is if they are indeed as inefficient as Shuma claims. I'm not suggesting he's wrong, but I'm not convinced he's right, either.

The fact is, healthcare is expensive. The premiums being charged don't strike me as particularly far out of sync with the costs.

Outright denying to provide service after payments have been made for years, then throwing people around an endless cycle of bs, just so they can get what they paid for in the first place.

This is a phenomenon I have (thankfully) no personal experience with.

Even if it's true that there is widespread conduct of this sort, they're STILL not making massive profits by doing it. They could be much more benificent in honoring claims, but then they'd have to charge even higher premiums to still make the 3% they make now.

This link: http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/349/8/768

This has a block of very useful text, which is also confusing to read, at least to the point that Daily Kos couldn't understand it:

Link: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/6/23/143234/501

The block:

"Results In 1999, health administration costs totaled at least $294.3 billion in the United States, or $1,059 per capita, as compared with $307 per capita in Canada. After exclusions, administration accounted for 31.0 percent of health care expenditures in the United States and 16.7 percent of health care expenditures in Canada. Canada's national health insurance program had overhead of 1.3 percent; the overhead among Canada's private insurers was higher than that in the United States (13.2 percent vs. 11.7 percent). Providers' administrative costs were far lower in Canada."

As I understand this, they're talking about two seperate things... Health care overhead and health insurance overhead.

In the US, thats:

Health Care Overhead: 31%
Health Insurance Overhead: 11.7%

Daily Kos seems to think that the insurance companies are taking 31%, but as I understand it, what is actually being said is that 31% of every dollar given to a hospital goes to that hospitals administrative expenses.

SO, unless somebody can show me how I'm misreading, I'm gong with 11.7% as the overhead imposed by American private health insurance.

I will further assume that the large majority of the cost of running a health insurance company is salary. Let's go with 75%. That's probably high, but whatever.

So, 75% of 11.7% is 8.78%.

Let's further assume that these people are overpaid to the tune of a whopping 25%, which is, again, probably high.

8.78% times 25% is 2.2%

So, if we cut all the salaries of everyone in the health insurance industry by 25%, it would save us all of 2.2% on our premiums. Can this really be such a massive source of overcharging?

At the WORST the health insurer amounts for no more than 11.7% of our bill. This isn't the orders of magnitude that some people seem to think they're overcharging.

If anything, the numbers from the NEJM article point to improving efficiencies in the administration of the hospitals themselves. What could lead to increased administration costs?

Fear of lawsuits and compliance with regulations seem pretty likely to me.

Tort reform and simplification of legislation seem like more useful of an idea than demonizing insurance companies.

Phryxis wrote:A quick googling confirms that this is indeed a case made by statisticians. It's odd, given that one of the major points of pride in the American mythology is the degree of econimic mobility that is offered. The whole Oprah Winfrey story...

It is very poignant given the US belief as a land of opportunity. I suspect the myth has to a large extent destroyed itself. If a society believes itself to be a meritocracy where talent and hard work will create success regardless of background, then there is no incentive to build programs to counter the disadvantages of an impoverished background.

And, to be clear, we're talking about economic mobility. There's no real class system in the US, unless you have yet more facts I've never heard before.

Yeah, talking about economic classes, not social classes. Every country has economic classes like that, although for various cultural reasons they tend to think of them quite differently – I read somewhere that something like 90% of US citizens consider themselves middle class, which kind of defeats the point a bit.

It also makes statistical sense that countries that bring more families out of poverty will see a pronounced improvement in the ratio of children's income to parents, as the smaller the income, the easier it is to double, triple, etc.

Yes, but we’re talking about social mobility compared to countries with reasonably equal levels of income. Germany, France, the UK, Australia and so on.

I don't mean to "blame" Clinton for either side of this... Both the cuts, and the surplus that resulted, were passed by a Republican Congress and a Democrat President. Probably the last time in our history that the American government accomplished anything of any real merit, and odd considering how bad the Republicans hated Clinton.

I think Clinton’s fiscal successes goes a long way to explaining the GOP hatred for him. When your opponent achieves your party’s #1 platform that’s just infuriating.

But the big thing to remember is that Clinton also raised taxes on the rich. He did this with a Democratic majority, and passed the bill without a single Republican vote. It was a big part of the subsequent surpluses, just as Bush tax cuts were a big part of subsequent deficits.

The cuts were also hugely important, but those tax cuts really mattered as well.

All that is whatever, though... While you're right that Congress will fight to keep military dollars in their district, it's still a second or third tier concern. It's a lot easier to sell "vote for me or you lose your welfare check" than it is to sell "vote for me, or the military base in the next town over will shut down, which will in turn reduce the local economy, and in 2-3 years will negatively impact your area, and possibly result in a loss in income, but possibly not."

I think you’re overstating the value of the support of the poor (who typically vote in very small numbers) compared to the power of lobby groups and defence industry towns.

As far as the tax cut/increase stuff goes, I find it endlessly painful that people can't just get it right, and set the taxation levels in such a fashion that revenue is maximized. I don't want to hear class warfare hogwash about "fair share" and "the rich get richer." Tax what it takes to maximize long term revenue. Find somebody who's smart enough to know what that is, and shut up about social justice.

But there isn’t a single answer to tax structure that is absolutely correct. Even if there was a correct position on tax, that position will change as society changes. If economic conditions create a greater wealth disparity between the rich and poor you need to retool your tax levels towards the top, if economic conditions create a more equitable society then you can retool towards a flatter range of taxes.

And the point of maximum revenue is not a factor, quite simply, the idea that any society has tax rates anywhere near the point of maximum overall revenue is completely ludicrous. It’s funny that a trained economist like Laffer tried to convince us that was true, it’s tragic that people believed him.

Sure, all of that is well and good, so long as the government program doesn't charge too little, lose money, and then takes taxpayer money to make up the difference.

In Australia we charge nothing for the basic level of care, and there’s still sufficient incentive to purchase private healthcare. In part the incentive comes from a tax surcharge once you hit a decent income (I think it’s about $70k AUD). But mostly the incentive comes from the difference in the quality of care. You get your own room in private care, there’s very low waiting periods for elective procedures, you get greater choice in your doctors, that kind of thing.

Phryxis wrote:

it is a reality that insurance companies are genuinely ripping people off right now.

I would have to see more evidence of that to believe it.

We know they don't make especially huge profits, so the question is if they are indeed as inefficient as Shuma claims. I'm not suggesting he's wrong, but I'm not convinced he's right, either.

The fact is, healthcare is expensive. The premiums being charged don't strike me as particularly far out of sync with the costs.

I understand that healthcare is expensive, but if basic healthcare is not affordable for a person making 35k a year, that strikes me as no less than ludicrous. BASIC HEALTHCARE.

I don't claim to know all of the information behind this, and I would have to find articles and things of the sort to prove my point. I can and will do so, but I can't pull it out of my butt. Healthcare in the US is messy, and I do not support anything besides the government providing a baseline of care for every citizen, if they choose to take it. The cost of preventative care is minimal, especially when you begin to sort out problems with hospitals, as well as the insurance industry.

I'll try to get back to you quickly with some information that will hopefully answer your questions.

Outright denying to provide service after payments have been made for years, then throwing people around an endless cycle of bs, just so they can get what they paid for in the first place.

This is a phenomenon I have (thankfully) no personal experience with.

Even if it's true that there is widespread conduct of this sort, they're STILL not making massive profits by doing it. They could be much more benificent in honoring claims, but then they'd have to charge even higher premiums to still make the 3% they make now.

...

Fear of lawsuits and compliance with regulations seem pretty likely to me.

Tort reform and simplification of legislation seem like more useful of an idea than demonizing insurance companies.

Tort reform has been touted as a sort of magical bullet IMO, and from what articles I have read, and reports I have seen and heard, it simply doesn't amount to much at all. A bit of a distraction if you ask me.

Anyway, 3% seems like maximum lowballing, but I will admit that I could have been misled by the sources I was following. Give me a bit and I will get back to you with a bunch of articles on this. 30% versus 3%... we can compromise and call it 15%, but it doesn't matter when my point was about customers being screwed over in general by their healthcare providers. We are rated poorly in terms of healthcare, because the healthcare we get on average is just not that great, and quite expensive to boot.

I'll get back to you with that info, and you can scrutinize it as much as you want.

Phryxis wrote:The fact is, healthcare is expensive. The premiums being charged don't strike me as particularly far out of sync with the costs.

Healthcare is expensive, but US healthcare is twice as expensive as it is elsewhere in the world, while delivering middling to poor results. I agree with you that it isn’t just a case of private insurers ripping everyone off (they do make very healthy profits consistently but it doesn’t explain the 5 or 6% additional GDP US health costs compared to elsewhere in the world).

There is simply a lot of waste in the US system, largely because the incentives are all screwy.

And yeah, from what I remember private insurance in the US recorded around 10 to 12% overheards. This typically consisted of around 5% admin and the rest in legal fees.

In public systems the number floated between 2 and 5%.

So, if we cut all the salaries of everyone in the health insurance industry by 25%, it would save us all of 2.2% on our premiums. Can this really be such a massive source of overcharging?

The primary cause of the greater overheads in the US is legal costs, because private insurers have a profit motive in denying care. So they play the game and deny care, because some people accept that, others will settle for a portion of their claim, and the insurers will occasionally win a case in court. All those court fees are very expensive, but when the alternative is paying out for expensive medical treatment, it’s the rational, profit seeking position.

Tort reform and simplification of legislation seem like more useful of an idea than demonizing insurance companies.

Tort reform would produce a saving of around 2 or 3% - which is great but ultimately is just stuffing around the edges of a system that costs twice what it does elsewhere in the world. The problem is a structural one, the incentives are all screwed up and doctors make money from over-proscribing treatments, while the insurers make money from denying coverage.

The profit motive only works when the right actions are incentivised, and right now the US system doesn’t do that. Your system incentivises over treatment and non-coverage, simultaneously making it extremely expensive and failing to cover basic needs.

Your system incentivises over treatment and non-coverage, simultaneously making it extremely expensive and failing to cover basic needs.

There has been talk of applying metrics to the communities serviced by a given hospital, and using that as a basis for payment, etc.

I'm a huge fan of the application of metrics. I think we should require it of all politicians, require them to make material promises and admit it when they fail. The problem is that I'm sure they'd just screw those up as well, and end up doing ridiuclous crap just to hit numbers.

I'm also unclear on how unpaid care is accounted for in the US, vs. other countries.

If they determine that, say, childbirth costs twice as much in the US as in England, is that actually the cost? Or is it the cost for one American that paid, and one that just skipped on the bill?

Phryxis wrote:
Fear of lawsuits and compliance with regulations seem pretty likely to me.

Tort reform and simplification of legislation seem like more useful of an idea than demonizing insurance companies.

Another likely culprit is loss from the provision of emergency treatment, often unnecessary emergency treatment, to the uninsured.

Losses due to bankruptcy are also probably a factor, but only in the sense that they multiply the primary issues.

i think people were expecting barak obama to change things instantly...what with his slogan...and his policies

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/22/business/22geisinger.html?ref=health_care_reform

Positive story, indicating an actual desire to lower the cost of healthcare.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/02/a_california_insurer_shows_how.html

Not so positive story, that if I may, seems to indicate a broken system.

I hope that began to address some of your points, Phryxis, and I will continue to look around for more articles.

Whatever we have ended up with, I certainly hope it begins to solve some of the problems that people face over healthcare.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/money_co/2010/07/new-reviews-of-health-insurance-rate-hikes-in-california-due-soon.html

Depressing article...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/02/18/health-insurance-costs-sh_n_466937.html

Old, but still depressing. I am trying to find a legit graph that shows all of this information, I know I have seen several that summarize it very well.

Ironically, the thing that got Barack Obama in the White House is what will destroy his party. He promised 'change', and while he has made at least some helpful changes, things are still going down the gakker, though he had very little to do with it. Now people are dissapointed and angry that the economy is still tanking that they'll vote for anyone else, even the Republicans, who people KNOW will do even worse. But its still change, and change is good, right? :/

Am I the only one who remembers when, if someone said "the fall of President X" they literally meant the President tripping up?