« The Drop in University Endowments and What to Do about It--Posner | Main | Mortality from Disease and the American Health Care System-Becker »

07/26/2009

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c031153ef013482ff438b970c

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference American Health Care--Posner's Comment:

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Anonymous

Summing up it seems that some minimum healthcare must be provided for everyone. It may be financed through mandatory insurance or tax money. The controversy relates to the level of minimal insurance.

This is an issue of cost-benefit analysis, where costs include socially unproductive costs arising when insurers screen patients, and benefits include the benefits of liberty.

Anonymous

Does anyone remember the good-ol-days of Quacks and Patent Medicines? Evidently not. Such were the joys of unregulated markets. Which gave rise to the Pure Food and Drug Act (which most Free Marketers today would like to see eliminated, simply look at the international internet "drug" sales for a current developmental model) and the licensing and regulation of the Medical Profession.

As for all these individuals coming to the U.S. for medical care, they come from a completely different socio-economic background than you or I. Quite simply, they are wealthy and rich and can go whenever, whereever, to get whatever type and kind of care they desire. Unlike you and me. As for the efficacy of high cost American Medical Care, just look at the likes of Michael Jackson of late. Now there's a poster child for uncontrolled American medical care. And you want us to give up control?

Anonymous

External “normative” Control is an additive. When it is imposed by politicians who know little of the art and science of what they are regulating, it can only add to the cost of the thing they are regulating. When rent seeking oligarchies hold sway over these regulators, we are all made to suffer even higher costs still.

Information, once it is produced, coded and archived, is operatively free. The economic benefit that accrues to anyone from the production of information should not be artificially augmented by the expansion of either “property rights,” or the further propagation of “protective” regulation. If, and to the extent that such an augmentation occurs, we are left less able to build technology on technology. We lose much of the exponential benefit that can accrue from the vistas that each discovery opens to our imaginations.

Man should only be limited by the limits of his mind and imagination—not by “do-gooders” throwing random rocks at him in the name of protecting others. Maybe I have lived a sheltered life, but I have never met a truly creative person who wanted to throw roadblocks in the way of other creative people. The only people I have ever met that did want to trip others up were those who couldn’t create anything themselves, but needed so desperately to seem to others that they could.

Posted by Buggs Bunny

Anonymous

While universal health care faces many problem, most of them coalesce around one issue: money. There exists the widespread belief the federal debt already is too large, so the government could not afford to support universal health care.
Is this belief correct?
.
Do you believe a balanced federal budget or a federal surplus is more prudent than a federal deficit? Consider this: All six depressions in U.S. history began with a series of federal surpluses:
1817-1821: U. S. Federal Debt reduced 29%. Depression began 1819.
1823-1836: U. S. Federal Debt reduced 99%. Depression began 1837.
1852-1857: U. S. Federal Debt reduced 59%. Depression began 1857.
1867-1873: U. S. Federal Debt reduced 27%. Depression began 1873.
1880-1893: U. S. Federal Debt reduced 57%. Depression began 1893.
1920-1930: U. S. Federal Debt reduced 36%. Depression began 1929.
.
Do you believe federal deficits cause recessions? Consider this: There have been 9 recessions in the past 50 years. All began with reductions in federal deficit growth and all recoveries coincided with increases in deficit growth.
.
Do you believe large deficits are an unsustainable burden? Consider this: In 1971, the federal government ended the last vestiges of the gold standard. The purpose: To give itself the unlimited ability to create money. Therefore, the government can service any size debt. No debt is an unsustainable burden for the federal government.
.
Do you believe federal deficits cause inflation? Consider this: Every period of significant price growth since 1969 has been associated with rising energy costs. Not one of these inflationary periods was associated with federal deficit growth.
.
Do you believe federal deficits crowd out lending funds? Consider this: The government borrows to support deficit spending. So money lent to the government immediately returns to the economy for further lending. Deficits add lending money to the economy, which is why deficit spending stimulates the economy.
.
Do you believe our children and grandchildren will pay for today’s deficits? Consider this: There is no historical relationship between tax rates and deficits. Tax rates are based solely on political considerations. Generally, Democrats raise tax rates and Republicans lower them, irrespective of deficits. Unless tax rates are raised and the government runs a surplus, our children and grandchildren will not pay for today’s deficits.
.
Given these facts, what do you believe about the government's ability to pay for universal health care?
.
Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
rmmadvertising@yahoo.com
www.rodgermitchell.com

Anonymous

While universal health care faces many problem, most of them coalesce around one issue: money. There exists the widespread belief the federal debt already is too large, so the government could not afford to support universal health care.
Is this belief correct?
.
Do you believe a balanced federal budget or a federal surplus is more prudent than a federal deficit? Consider this: All six depressions in U.S. history began with a series of federal surpluses:
1817-1821: U. S. Federal Debt reduced 29%. Depression began 1819.
1823-1836: U. S. Federal Debt reduced 99%. Depression began 1837.
1852-1857: U. S. Federal Debt reduced 59%. Depression began 1857.
1867-1873: U. S. Federal Debt reduced 27%. Depression began 1873.
1880-1893: U. S. Federal Debt reduced 57%. Depression began 1893.
1920-1930: U. S. Federal Debt reduced 36%. Depression began 1929.
.
Do you believe federal deficits cause recessions? Consider this: There have been 9 recessions in the past 50 years. All began with reductions in federal deficit growth and all recoveries coincided with increases in deficit growth.
.
Do you believe large deficits are an unsustainable burden? Consider this: In 1971, the federal government ended the last vestiges of the gold standard. The purpose: To give itself the unlimited ability to create money. Therefore, the government can service any size debt. No debt is an unsustainable burden for the federal government.
.
Do you believe federal deficits cause inflation? Consider this: Every period of significant price growth since 1969 has been associated with rising energy costs. Not one of these inflationary periods was associated with federal deficit growth.
.
Do you believe federal deficits crowd out lending funds? Consider this: The government borrows to support deficit spending. So money lent to the government immediately returns to the economy for further lending. Deficits add lending money to the economy, which is why deficit spending stimulates the economy.
.
Do you believe our children and grandchildren will pay for today’s deficits? Consider this: There is no historical relationship between tax rates and deficits. Tax rates are based solely on political considerations. Generally, Democrats raise tax rates and Republicans lower them, irrespective of deficits. Unless tax rates are raised and the government runs a surplus, our children and grandchildren will not pay for today’s deficits.
.
Given these facts, what do you believe about the government's ability to pay for universal health care?
.
Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
rmmadvertising@yahoo.com
www.rodgermitchell.com

Anonymous

دردشة برق


دردشة الخليج

Anonymous

In response to Rodger Malcolm Mitchell:

You say that there is no relationship between taxes and deficits, that deficits do not cause inflation, etc. I might, for the sake of argument, agree with you. After all, these are hard issues to dice; at least they are harder to prove than the fact that the Inverse square law governs the gravitational pull between massive bodies. So let’s just not think about it any harder than we have to. Let’s leave the science to the geeks let our imaginations roam.

If money were some kind of detached thing that could be printed and offered for payment that would always be accepted, I would say that government could pay for anything it, or anything else for that matter, desired. After all, since the government can print money at will, well; we could not only pay for medical care for everyone, we could pay for the cure of every “condition” known to man. We could also create and treat newer diseases such as “I-don’t-want-to-have-to-earn-a-living-itis,” or “sexual deficiency disease (SDD),” or “rage dependency disorder (RDD), or “money deficiency disorder (MDD).” Man; the list can go on and on, and we can all get treated forever for everything that can turned into a disease. Why, if the government can just get a handle on healthcare, we can move all our issues to the realm of healthcare and live happily ever after.

While we’re at it, let’s build the starships. Yes, the government can print money for that too. Yes, in one felled swoop, we can handle over-population; and people alienated at not having anything real to think about with their Blackberries and 500 channels, and; lighten the burden on the planet by moving mass quantities of people into space.

Oh! Oh! Oh! Speaking of mass quantities, I got another idea. Oh! Oh! Oh! Let’s get the government to pay for operations for everyone so that they can be able to eat 2 tons of food a day—unrestrained government healthcare spending can pay for that. Oh! Oh! Oh! Then, we can have the eyes of the opposite sex worked on so that when they look at our new 5 ton bodies, they can be overwhelmed with sexual desire—a potentially unlimited money supply can pay for that too. Oh! Oh! Oh! And if doing the deed is now more difficult for our newly ballooning bodies, we can now be implanted with the heavy earth-moving construction equipment required to move the massive folds moved around so that we can live out our days in cybaritic bliss.

But the question still remains: Who is going to pay for it? Value is not paid for with money. Value is paid for with value. Money is only a medium of exchange—that’s all it is. The father of the idea that money can be printed at will and used to pay for the cure to all ills was John Law. Look him up. He ruined France about 300 years ago with this idea.

Arnold Dingfelder Horshack

Anonymous

Effort, devotion, & love is the price we as a society pay 4 our Einsteins, Newtons, & Michaelangelos !!! Higher value costs more.

Congress must help fund health care 4 Autism NOW, & Create a Savant! More Einsteins, Newton's, & Michaelangelos!! Help r Country help itself!

~EquiisSavant

(Mary Katherine Day-Petrano, the famous Savant Autistic (DX:) with the Juris Doctorate degree who "Thinks in Pictures" posts as the sensational EquiisSavant now being follow across the Country on matters of Obama's Health Care Plan for America on Twitter !!!)

Anonymous

Mary Katherine Day-Petrano, the famous Savant Autistic (DX:) with the Juris Doctorate degree who "Thinks in Pictures" posts as the sensational EquiisSavant on Twitter, Bio HERE:
http://www.equiisautisticsavantartist.webs.com/

Anonymous

دردشة برق


دردشة الخليج

Anonymous

Judge Posner writes:

"[S]peaking of obesity, its prevalence in the United States undermines studies that find that people attach great value to small improvements in quality and quantity of life. The fact that so many Americans eat badly, don't exercise, drink (or "text") when they drive, and otherwise endanger their life and health, implies, since one can eat well, drive sober, and exercise, etc., at relatively low cost, that people don't value small improvements in quality and quantity of life very much--unless the improvements are paid for by someone else!"

While Posner evidently would draw another conclusion, the circumstances of which he complains spell LIBERTY, an idea very much opposed to the agenda of intellectuals who presume to tell their fellow citizens how to live.

Anonymous

Horshack, You're not a shill for the Insurance Industry or in their pay are you? This is the same old rhetorical ploy employed by the Industry to torpedo Health Care Reform. Both past and present, by spreading fear, intimidation and confusion, within and without.

It's all about Profit Margins maximization and these guys in the Industry will use any device to maximize it in order to achieve their bonuses. Even consigning a child to an early grave by denying coverage or forcing "less than profitable" Health Coverage plans off their books focing millions, 45 million as of last count, into the abyss of "No Medical Coverage".

Public versus Private Health/Medical Coverage? It's time. The Privatized Free Market Health Care System in the U.S. has proved time and time again that it is incapable of doing the job and made the Country the medical/health care laughing-stock of the World.

Neil E. Hatfield

Anonymous

I find the Obamacare bills terrible. But let us just ask for a few things: 1) no coverage for illegal immigrants, 2) An insurance system that takes care of medical accidents and gets rid of the adversarial legal option. It is okay to fine or revoke the licenses of bad doctors but allowing a lottery system for lawyers to become millionaires is ridiculous. Also 3) roll all medical malpractice insurance into this system so that doctors do not need to buy separate coverage.

Anonymous

Judge Posner is correct that obesity is a substantial problem in the United States. But Americans live for food; they are willing to pay any cost (including an excess $1 trillion in health costs) to keep enjoying it.

In fact, there is a political party that represents the interests of all those who treasure food in America:

http://reasoncommercejustice.blogspot.com/2009/07/party-for-people-who-just-want-to-eat_06.html

Balthazar Oesterhoudt

Anonymous

No Mr. Hatfield,

I am no one's shill, nor am I in anyone's "nefarious" pay. Neither do I sleep in coffins or drink blood. A part of myself has been called a "shape shifting lizard"--but we will leave that for pretty ladies to decide. Incidentally, I am writing this on a Sunday in the daylight hours--So Baby Jesus is unlikely to strike me dead with his thunderbolts at this moment for having allowed myself to be seduced into the devil's (insurance companies') thrall.

Levity aside, in the present state of affairs the insurance companies and medical care provider industry have too much pricing power, and so are extracting vast rents at our expense. Government involvement over the period of 150 years has been the primary driver of our overbearing medical industry oligopoly. We are at a crossroads. This crossroads requires us to rein in this oligopoly, either by completely unraveling the government sponsored protections that the medical industry oligopoly enjoys, (my preferred solution), or by having the government go "all-in" in the fashion of certain European nations who practice cost controls through a system of "socialized medicine." In either case, a market (private or public), will choose the outcome and drive down the ridiculous costs.

If you're going to truly solve this problem, these are your only alternatives, as 150 years of government supports for this oligopoly have all but completely ruined much of what we could have extracted from a number of healthcare traditions that came before it. New approaches must be forged. But they can only be forged by looking at the problems completely afresh. Government must be all in so that we can experiment with policy driven alternatives--or it must be all out of it so that we can experiment with alternative modes of healthcare delivery. The compromise middle is what we have tried, and that has only lead greater oligopoly.

I usually choose the middle road in most matters, but the middle road, in this situation, has been little more than a blind behind which the medical industry oligopoly has unjustly, with the aid of its government cronies, enriched itself at the expense of everyone else.

Arnold Dingfelder Horshack

Anonymous

Mr. Horshack,

My apologies. My response to you first post was but a reaction to the form of rhetoric used, which has been utilized by the Oligopoly and its "syncophants" to cloud and confuse the issues surrounding Health Care Reform in this Country both in the past and in the present. And by such methods, stop Congressional reform from effecting any real Reform needed by the Nation and its People.

Once again, my apologies.

Neil E. Hatfield

Anonymous

A commentator wrote: "LIBERTY, an idea very much opposed to the agenda of intellectuals who presume to tell their fellow citizens how to live."
We constrain the liberty of thieves by enforcing property rights, but beyond that we don't tell them how to live. Is this so hard to understand?

Anonymous

we should know more about our topic

Anonymous

"LIBERTY, an idea very much opposed to the agenda of intellectuals who presume to tell their fellow citizens how to live.
that is a good post

Anonymous

It seems that research such as what McKinsey produced is so easy to skew to fit within our belief system. As you touched on, it's all too easy to leave out the findings that don't strengthen our argument and only mention those that do. Is that the definition of "propaganda?" If you haven't, go visit a German concentration camp and you'll see that it was "propaganda" that enabled Hitler to deceive his entire country... We'd better watch out!

Anonymous

When you make a claim like "Why do people come to the US to get treatments" Please also present a piece of evidence, maybe some statistics provided by a reputable government agency or educational organization. Otherwise, please don't make such statement. Plus, a handful of people coming to get a state-of-the-art treatment for some really rare disease does not translate to a better health care system overall.

Anonymous

شات الشلة


دردشة تعب قلبي

Anonymous

ÿ¥ÿßÿ™


دردشه

Anonymous

ÿ¥ÿßÿ™ ÿØŸÑÿπ


شات الود

Anonymous

شات حبي


شات الحب

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Working...
Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been posted. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.

Working...

Post a comment

Become a Fan

May 2014

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
        1 2 3
4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11 12 13 14 15 16 17
18 19 20 21 22 23 24
25 26 27 28 29 30 31