Paul Krugman "hits the nail on the head" in re: Obamacare

[dblack]

Krugman is a very wise man:

Unacceptable Realities

(snip)

The hysteria over Obamacare is being well documented, of course; Sahil Kapur’s piece on “Obamacare McCarthyism” — the instant purging of any Republican who offers any hint of accommodation to the law of the land — is getting a lot of well-deserved attention. One thing Kapur doesn’t emphasize, however, is what I see a lot in my inbox (and in my reading): the furious insistence that nothing resembling a government guarantee of health insurance can possibly work.

That’s a curious belief to hold, given the fact that every other advanced country has such a guarantee, and that we ourselves have a 45-year-old single-payer system for seniors that has worked pretty well all this time. But nothing makes these people as angry as the suggestion that Obamacare might actually prove workable.

​

Not much argument that it works...lots of argument over if it is affordable...

The question isn't whether government is capable of being in charge of how we finance our health care, it's whether we want it to have that authority.

 

[deltex1]

Krugman is a very wise man:

Unacceptable Realities

(snip)

​

Not much argument that it works...lots of argument over if it is affordable...

The question isn't whether government is capable of being in charge of how we finance our health care, it's whether we want it to have that authority.

Oh.

 

[MeBelle]

Krugman is a very wise man:

Unacceptable Realities

(snip)

The hysteria over Obamacare is being well documented, of course; Sahil Kapur’s piece on “Obamacare McCarthyism” — the instant purging of any Republican who offers any hint of accommodation to the law of the land — is getting a lot of well-deserved attention. One thing Kapur doesn’t emphasize, however, is what I see a lot in my inbox (and in my reading): the furious insistence that nothing resembling a government guarantee of health insurance can possibly work.

That’s a curious belief to hold, given the fact that every other advanced country has such a guarantee, and that we ourselves have a 45-year-old single-payer system for seniors that has worked pretty well all this time. But nothing makes these people as angry as the suggestion that Obamacare might actually prove workable.

​

It's call pure unadulterated rage.

These people are rageaholics, otherwise known as Conservatives.

And their addiction is Obama.

Bull!

This non-conservative works in the health care industry and Obamacare mandates are hurting sick people.

 

[MeBelle]

ummm..... the law has been active for..... oh..... say 10 days give or take Trajan Stay classy

You said you were leaving this thread!

ACA has been law for over two years, spotty.

 

[Antares]

Um....sorry, your link there does nothing to support your claim...that quote is NOT in that link.

Oh it's there.

Dotty loves selective editing.




Oh and the . lied, once again.

Won't need to be bumpin' this thread much longer mebelle60. I got a NEW Krugman thread in the works. He is a TRUE PATRIOTIC AMERICAN. He calls it as he sees it and this Repub pogrom on their own members is downright cringe-worthy

You FINALLY found the quote You sure you vote Repub? Most of them wouldn't be able to. You have to read ALLLLLL the way to the 2nd paragraph to see it The middle sentence I left out supports my argument as well. The guy was basically saying don't throw out the baby w/ the bath water & Heritage-funded, attack dogs AKA- Repubs went after him.

Too funny....when it doesn't say what you want it to....MAKE it say what you want it to say...

 

[Dot Com]

Won't need to be bumpin' this thread much longer mebelle60. I got a NEW Krugman thread in the works. He is a TRUE PATRIOTIC AMERICAN. He calls it as he sees it and this Repub pogrom on their own members is downright cringe-worthy

I started the new Krugman thread. Its a doozy as well. You people MIGHT be able to find it judging by your less than stellar performance on this thread.

 

[Listening]

Won't need to be bumpin' this thread much longer mebelle60. I got a NEW Krugman thread in the works. He is a TRUE PATRIOTIC AMERICAN. He calls it as he sees it and this Repub pogrom on their own members is downright cringe-worthy

I started the new Krugman thread. Its a doozy as well. You people MIGHT be able to find it judging by your less than stellar performance on this thread.

It must be in one of the Social Groups.

Dottie is just to much of wimp to actually slug it out in front of everyone.

I think I'll start one too in the Flame Zone.

We'll see if Dottie can (wo)man up.

 

[HelenaHandbag]

Won't need to be bumpin' this thread much longer mebelle60. I got a NEW Krugman thread in the works. He is a TRUE PATRIOTIC AMERICAN. He calls it as he sees it and this Repub pogrom on their own members is downright cringe-worthy

If anything is cringe-worthy, it's taking Krugman for anything more than the politically motivated socialist central planner hack job, that he shows himself to be with his every utterance in the NYT opinion section.

 

[itfitzme]

If/when Heritagecare AKA Romneycare AKA- Obamacare works, some Repub's heads are going to explode

So, what criteria would establish that the law "works"? Compliance? If everyone knuckles under and gives the insurance industry their pound of flesh, will Democrats call that a win?

There is another meaningless question/statement.

This is the healthcares spending per cap, historically

One of the provisions of PPACA is the medical loss ratio of 80 to 85% which means that insurance companies must spend 80-85% of the premium revenues on medical care.

So, "gives the insurance industry their pound of flesh," has absolutely no meaning.

To begin with, the entire health care industry, including insurance companies, have already been getting "their pound of flesh", as you put it. And, the "pound of flesh" provision of the PPACA limits insurance companies to 80-85%.

"their pound of flesh" sounds all clever except it isn't. It is a meaningless statement.

 

[Dot Com]

yep it was increasing at 3X the rate of wages last I heard. PLUS 60% of bankruptcies were healthcare related.

 

[itfitzme]

yep it was increasing at 3X the rate of wages last I heard. PLUS 60% of bankruptcies were healthcare related.

Behind food and shelter, health care seems pretty important.

With the current level of employment to population ratio, there is a hell of a lot of people that could be working to provide that healthcare.

Whatever the problem is, it isn't our ability to provide healthcare.

 

[Listening]

If/when Heritagecare AKA Romneycare AKA- Obamacare works, some Repub's heads are going to explode

So, what criteria would establish that the law "works"? Compliance? If everyone knuckles under and gives the insurance industry their pound of flesh, will Democrats call that a win?

There is another meaningless question/statement.

This is the healthcares spending per cap, historically

One of the provisions of PPACA is the medical loss ratio of 80 to 85% which means that insurance companies must spend 80-85% of the premium revenues on medical care.

So, "gives the insurance industry their pound of flesh," has absolutely no meaning.

To begin with, the entire health care industry, including insurance companies, have already been getting "their pound of flesh", as you put it. And, the "pound of flesh" provision of the PPACA limits insurance companies to 80-85%.

"their pound of flesh" sounds all clever except it isn't. It is a meaningless statement.

That makes a lot of sense.

Limit the profits they can make and they'll only be going after those things they consider profitable.

Hard to have health insurance if no one is providing it.

 

[itfitzme]

So, what criteria would establish that the law "works"? Compliance? If everyone knuckles under and gives the insurance industry their pound of flesh, will Democrats call that a win?

There is another meaningless question/statement.

This is the healthcares spending per cap, historically

One of the provisions of PPACA is the medical loss ratio of 80 to 85% which means that insurance companies must spend 80-85% of the premium revenues on medical care.

So, "gives the insurance industry their pound of flesh," has absolutely no meaning.

To begin with, the entire health care industry, including insurance companies, have already been getting "their pound of flesh", as you put it. And, the "pound of flesh" provision of the PPACA limits insurance companies to 80-85%.

"their pound of flesh" sounds all clever except it isn't. It is a meaningless statement.

That makes a lot of sense.

Limit the profits they can make and they'll only be going after those things they consider profitable.

Hard to have health insurance if no one is providing it.

Another statement with no foundation in reality. Insurance companies do and will continue to provide health insurance.

Your mistaken perception is based on false understanding of how business and economics works. Most companies do not earn a profit. They do provide imce for their employees and owners. Many are specifically designed as not for profit and non profit.

As long as people can earn a living providing insurance, companies will provide insurance.

 

[Listening]

There is another meaningless question/statement.

This is the healthcares spending per cap, historically

One of the provisions of PPACA is the medical loss ratio of 80 to 85% which means that insurance companies must spend 80-85% of the premium revenues on medical care.

So, "gives the insurance industry their pound of flesh," has absolutely no meaning.

To begin with, the entire health care industry, including insurance companies, have already been getting "their pound of flesh", as you put it. And, the "pound of flesh" provision of the PPACA limits insurance companies to 80-85%.

"their pound of flesh" sounds all clever except it isn't. It is a meaningless statement.

That makes a lot of sense.

Limit the profits they can make and they'll only be going after those things they consider profitable.

Hard to have health insurance if no one is providing it.

Another statement with no foundation in reality. Insurance companies do and will continue to provide health insurance.

Your mistaken perception is based on false understanding of how business and economics works. Most companies do not earn a profit. They do provide imce for their employees and owners. Many are specifically designed as not for profit and non profit.

As long as people can earn a living providing insurance, companies will provide insurance.

Out of respect for what I think are rationale posts on your part, I'll try to pull some more out of these statements.

Most companies do not earn a profit ? Are you talking insurance companies or companies in general ?

 

[dblack]

If/when Heritagecare AKA Romneycare AKA- Obamacare works, some Repub's heads are going to explode

So, what criteria would establish that the law "works"? Compliance? If everyone knuckles under and gives the insurance industry their pound of flesh, will Democrats call that a win?

There is another meaningless question/statement.

This is the healthcares spending per cap, historically

One of the provisions of PPACA is the medical loss ratio of 80 to 85% which means that insurance companies must spend 80-85% of the premium revenues on medical care.

So, "gives the insurance industry their pound of flesh," has absolutely no meaning.

To begin with, the entire health care industry, including insurance companies, have already been getting "their pound of flesh", as you put it. And, the "pound of flesh" provision of the PPACA limits insurance companies to 80-85%.

"their pound of flesh" sounds all clever except it isn't. It is a meaningless statement.

Dodging the question. What will supporters of ACA consider success? Because the core of the law is the requirement that everyone buy corporate insurance. Will "success" be everyone doing as they are told?

 

[MeBelle]

Won't need to be bumpin' this thread much longer mebelle60. I got a NEW Krugman thread in the works. He is a TRUE PATRIOTIC AMERICAN. He calls it as he sees it and this Repub pogrom on their own members is downright cringe-worthy

I started the new Krugman thread. Its a doozy as well. You people MIGHT be able to find it judging by your less than stellar performance on this thread.

Where is your new Krugman thread [MENTION=28132]Dot Com[/MENTION]?

Oh...N/M...

Badlands it is!

http://www.usmessageboard.com/usmb-...w-thuggery-towards-workers-in-n-carolina.html

 

[Dot Com]

badlands because I used truth in labeling, NOT because of the content.

 

[Listening]

Won't need to be bumpin' this thread much longer mebelle60. I got a NEW Krugman thread in the works. He is a TRUE PATRIOTIC AMERICAN. He calls it as he sees it and this Repub pogrom on their own members is downright cringe-worthy

I started the new Krugman thread. Its a doozy as well. You people MIGHT be able to find it judging by your less than stellar performance on this thread.

Where is your new Krugman thread [MENTION=28132]Dot Com[/MENTION]?

Oh...N/M...

Badlands it is!

http://www.usmessageboard.com/usmb-...w-thuggery-towards-workers-in-n-carolina.html

Head on down to the Flame Zone...I just started a thread on Mr. Stupid (Krugman...not to be confused with Dottie).

Ripping Paul a new one. Which will probably get Dottie all excited.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/the-flame-zone/334625-paul-krugman-is-a-moron.html

 

[itfitzme]

That makes a lot of sense.

Limit the profits they can make and they'll only be going after those things they consider profitable.

Hard to have health insurance if no one is providing it.

Another statement with no foundation in reality. Insurance companies do and will continue to provide health insurance.

Your mistaken perception is based on false understanding of how business and economics works. Most companies do not earn a profit. They do provide imce for their employees and owners. Many are specifically designed as not for profit and non profit.

As long as people can earn a living providing insurance, companies will provide insurance.

Out of respect for what I think are rationale posts on your part, I'll try to pull some more out of these statements.

Most companies do not earn a profit ? Are you talking insurance companies or companies in general ?

Yes, companies in general. Small to large businesses. Businesses that are in truly competitive markets.

And, this shouldn't be all that surprising when we consider the details.

{I put some work into this....}

The whole concept breaks down into three parts, micro-economic theory, business accounting, and empirical data.

Micro Economic Theory

According to classical economic theory, most business shouldn't be earning a profit. Profit means that the market is not efficient or competitive. Where there are profits, then new businesses will enter the market, driving down prices to cost. At that point, no profit. Where profit exists in the medium and long term, there is market inefficiency which violates basic Adam Smith classical markets.

Business Accounting

It is, of course, important that we are working with the same definition of "profit". And, it is important that we are clear about the difference between how personal income taxes and business taxes are determined. Basically, there are no "expense deductions" in personal income taxes. I only point this out because that is what we are most familiar with and it's a bit difference for business taxes. Business taxes are calculated after costs, after expenses. Materials and labor costs are expenses. {Yeah, my comment in econ class what "You telling me that the CEO's $3 million salary is considered "not profit"? "Yes"} Interest payments on business loans are expensed. Depreciation of equipment is expensed.

It's simple enough to see if we do the accounting. By the time all is said and done,

Earnings = Revenues - costs.
EBIT {Earnings before interest and taxes}= (Price * Quantity_Sold) - (Wages * Labor Hours + Rent * Equipment_Hours)
..........{ That's the economics way of parcing it out. Facilities are lumped with equipment)

Profit is earnings after interest and taxes.
EBT {Earnings before taxes} = EBIT - interest
Taxes =t*EBT
Profit is {Earnings after taxes} = (1-t)*EBT

We can look up the terminology on investopedia and wiki. It get's a bit muddled, duplicated, overlapping, etc in real business accounting. So it is important that we have this basic set that we agree on. Business accounting concerns itself with EBIT. Economics generally doesn't care. Sometimes, accounting, finance, and economics overlap with differences. Never the less,

Wiki agrees with "In accounting and finance, earnings before interest and taxes (EBIT), is a measure of a firm's profit that excludes interest and income tax expenses."

So, the way wiki puts it, EBIT is profit before interest and taxes. That is actually a good way to put it because if we look about the definitions, there is this fuzziness in the use of "profit", "earnings", and "revenues".

For our purposes, what we are really interested in is "profit" AFTER everything. Otherwise, what are we talking about really? All companies have revenues, they must. In order to have to owe taxes, all companies must first have earnings after interest and other deductions. So, after tax "earnings", would be profit.

And, in fact, yes. Most companies do not earn a profit. Most companies just mange to make payroll. This isn't to say that the owner's don't make a nice income. They should. If they aren't, everyone else should be looking for work. Along "Main Street" where I live, most don't pay federal and state taxes. They simply don't have any earnings after expenses. They do pay sales tax, which they simply account for during the sale, and property taxes. Can't get past those because they are before expenses. But, after expenses taxes, typically they don't. That is, at least, what a new business owner has come to understand having talked with other business owners in the area. They obviously pay any income taxes on the salary they draw.

In classical theory, even high owner and CEO salary will attract competition, driving down earnings. So most companies better not be earning profits or we don't have free markets.

Empirical Data

I found some estimate that said in 2000, there were about 25 million businesses in the US with an average of 12 employees per business.

"The US government says in 2006 there were 6 million firms and 7.6 million establishments."

Another source puts it at 28 million small businesses with 22 million single individual businesses (owner only).

Another says, "Firms with less than 20 workers made up 89.7 percent of these businesses. ... Add in the number of nonemployer firms – there were 22.1 million in 2010"

I find an article saying that companies paid $191 billion in corporate income taxes in 2010. Roughly speaking, let's say that there were 25 million businesses. That amounts to about $7000 in tax revenue per business. Same source, 26% of "profits" paid in taxes. {there is that fuzzy word usage.} Never the less, $30k per company, that is pocket change. So, in those terms, it isn't that far fetched that most business don't make a profit.

So, it really isn't that odd of an idea, that most companies, don't make a profit. First,markets where there are to few firms attract competition. Even though, technically, owner and CEO salaries aren't profit, high salaries will attract competition and drive them down. Profit is after taxes and interest. Companies must meet costs. But if costs equal revenues, earnings are zero, taxes are zero, and profits are zero. In 2010, about 90% of businesses were 20 or fewer workers. I have no doubt that the owners did okay. But there is no reason why the business should have either earned a profit or paid taxes. If they are, they are doing something wrong. Any earnings should be put into expanding into the market, no sitting in the bank earning near zero interest and being subject to taxes.

It would be nice to have an actual number of businesses that paid net taxes and actual number that earned significant profit. {$1000 wouldn't be significant.}

 

[MeBelle]

badlands because I used truth in labeling, NOT because of the content.

Moved to Badlands. Polarizing OP.

Ummmm, NOT!