Why doesn't the GOP allow it to fail and reap the rewards from the failure?
OH! So the GOP is afraid it won't fail and then they will look like fools. I hate to break it to them but.....
Why doesn't the GOP allow it to fail and reap the rewards from the failure?
OH! So the GOP is afraid it won't fail and then they will look like fools. I hate to break it to them but.....
thats a possibility, but, Imho, they should have let them just go ahead, but, news for you, the bill no longer contains a total defund of obamcare, its to re-enact the obamacare mandate in full for congress and their staffers and a 1 year suspension for the individual mandate....hello.
The bill would help the dems with the aca issues they are having ala software etc....did yo think of that? Why doesn't Obama and Reid jump on that? They already suspended the employer mandate.....or are you going to tell us that any glicth or glitches that come up are just tough shit?
Why doesn't the GOP allow it to fail and reap the rewards from the failure?
OH! So the GOP is afraid it won't fail and then they will look like fools. I hate to break it to them but.....
Or, better yet, pass their own far superior healthcare reform that ensures all Americas have health insurance and access to healthcare that costs less than the ACA.
what happened to bending the cost curve?...oh wait...
Why doesn't the GOP allow it to fail and reap the rewards from the failure?
OH! So the GOP is afraid it won't fail and then they will look like fools. I hate to break it to them but.....
Or, better yet, pass their own far superior healthcare reform that ensures all Americas have health insurance and access to healthcare that costs less than the ACA.
That would go against the GOP Golden rule...."The Rich Are First in Line!"
Good question, I found this
This is the ratio of health care jobs to all jobs. As you can see, in 2013 it's been falling.
This sort of thing is the concrete manifestation of a bending health care cost curve. It happened in the late-1990s as well when HMOs were containing health care spending. The difference was that back then overall employment was booming, so it only took a minor kind of restraint in health care job growth to push the ratio down. So far 2013 has been a year of growth, but far from a boom year. Nonetheless, the non-health economy is adding workers faster than the health economy is even while the population ages.
The health care cost curve is bending.
They are going to roll the 'labor savings' into lower treatment payments etc..?
what happened to bending the cost curve?...oh wait...
Good question, I found this
This is the ratio of health care jobs to all jobs. As you can see, in 2013 it's been falling.
This sort of thing is the concrete manifestation of a bending health care cost curve. It happened in the late-1990s as well when HMOs were containing health care spending. The difference was that back then overall employment was booming, so it only took a minor kind of restraint in health care job growth to push the ratio down. So far 2013 has been a year of growth, but far from a boom year. Nonetheless, the non-health economy is adding workers faster than the health economy is even while the population ages.
The health care cost curve is bending.
that is going to reduce the cost of treatment/care, at the purchase point of the goods? How does that work
O likes to say, "glitches" to minimize the reality of the Unaffordable HealthCare Act, while his base and the media swoon. I can't wait to see the newly struggling millions go to the polls in 2014.
You know.................most of the "glitches" were because there were 7.5 MILLION PEOPLE trying to sign on to the website TODAY ALONE and their servers crashed from so much traffic. But, it happens to other websites as well that has something that everyone wants.
As far as it being unaffordable? Well, one man on the news this evening stated that he'd had to wait for over 3 hours to process his application, but was glad he waited, and even said that he would have waited all day, because in signing up, he was saving 6,000/year.
Another woman stated that she was living on unemployment (she'd recently lost her job) and had a pre existing condition. Her monthly income was 1,400/month, and if she went through the existing insurance, she'd have had to pay 700/month for healthcare alone. Under the plan she got with Obamacare, she's only having to pay 85/month.
Good question, I found this
This is the ratio of health care jobs to all jobs. As you can see, in 2013 it's been falling.
This sort of thing is the concrete manifestation of a bending health care cost curve. It happened in the late-1990s as well when HMOs were containing health care spending. The difference was that back then overall employment was booming, so it only took a minor kind of restraint in health care job growth to push the ratio down. So far 2013 has been a year of growth, but far from a boom year. Nonetheless, the non-health economy is adding workers faster than the health economy is even while the population ages.
The health care cost curve is bending.
that is going to reduce the cost of treatment/care, at the purchase point of the goods? How does that work
Well, we could find out if it wasn't for this **** up...
Due to the lapse in government funding, SHUT DOWN: Bureau of Economic Analysis will be unavailable until further notice. will be unavailable until further notice. This includes access to all data and the e-File system.
We sincerely regret this inconvenience.
O likes to say, "glitches" to minimize the reality of the Unaffordable HealthCare Act, while his base and the media swoon. I can't wait to see the newly struggling millions go to the polls in 2014.
You know.................most of the "glitches" were because there were 7.5 MILLION PEOPLE trying to sign on to the website TODAY ALONE and their servers crashed from so much traffic. But, it happens to other websites as well that has something that everyone wants.
As far as it being unaffordable? Well, one man on the news this evening stated that he'd had to wait for over 3 hours to process his application, but was glad he waited, and even said that he would have waited all day, because in signing up, he was saving 6,000/year.
Another woman stated that she was living on unemployment (she'd recently lost her job) and had a pre existing condition. Her monthly income was 1,400/month, and if she went through the existing insurance, she'd have had to pay 700/month for healthcare alone. Under the plan she got with Obamacare, she's only having to pay 85/month.
I am glad for her, really, but, I have a question.
lets say that the overhead for profit, administration etc. on that plan is an inflated 20%, so; minus 20% from that 700,(140) WHICH leaves 560, then minus $85 she pays, that leaves $475, where does that $475 come from?
that is going to reduce the cost of treatment/care, at the purchase point of the goods? How does that work
Well, we could find out if it wasn't for this **** up...
Due to the lapse in government funding, SHUT DOWN: Bureau of Economic Analysis will be unavailable until further notice. will be unavailable until further notice. This includes access to all data and the e-File system.
We sincerely regret this inconvenience.
I am glad for her, really, but, I have a question.
lets say that the overhead for profit, administration etc. on that plan is an inflated 20%, so; minus 20% from that 700,(140) WHICH leaves 560, then minus $85 she pays, that leaves $475, where does that $475 come from?
It doesn't "come" from anywhere. You are confusing actual physical service and production with the accounting tickets called "money". It costs exactly $85. There is no $475.
You need to learn about supply and demand curves in micro-economics as well as what fixed pricing is.
In fixed pricing, which is what you are use to, everyone pays the average cost that is what the average person would pay. It is, though, an error in pricing that is offset by the efficiency of not holding an auction for every unit of product sold. For companies like Costco, the losses are accounted for by charging a membership fee. There is a name for it, I forget, it's the portion of the curve under the demand curve and above the price line. This allows the fixed price to be lower.
For sliding scale pricing, the pricing is exactly as it should be, each paying in accordance with their personal demand curve. It is closer to actually holding an auction.
Think of it this way, if it were a real free market, everyone that wanted healthcare for the day would show up at the hospital auction. Then they would bid for the service. The highest bidder would get served first, the next highest second, and down the line until the last person bid $85. And, we should expect, she will get the generic brand care, not the "NFL Football Sports Injury Level Care".
Get it? The problem is, you have never actually purchased in a real free market.
Did I make my question ‘clear’ enough? Does the floor or initial bid for the plan or auction claim get jacked up and if so, then does it not outrun the promise of the lower costs to those that were promised as much?
I am glad for her, really, but, I have a question.
lets say that the overhead for profit, administration etc. on that plan is an inflated 20%, so; minus 20% from that 700,(140) WHICH leaves 560, then minus $85 she pays, that leaves $475, where does that $475 come from?
It doesn't "come" from anywhere. You are confusing actual physical service and production with the accounting tickets called "money". It costs exactly $85. There is no $475.
You need to learn about supply and demand curves in micro-economics as well as what fixed pricing is.
In fixed pricing, which is what you are use to, everyone pays the average cost that is what the average person would pay. It is, though, an error in pricing that is offset by the efficiency of not holding an auction for every unit of product sold. For companies like Costco, the losses are accounted for by charging a membership fee. There is a name for it, I forget, it's the portion of the curve under the demand curve and above the price line. This allows the fixed price to be lower.
For sliding scale pricing, the pricing is exactly as it should be, each paying in accordance with their personal demand curve. It is closer to actually holding an auction.
Think of it this way, if it were a real free market, everyone that wanted healthcare for the day would show up at the hospital auction. Then they would bid for the service. The highest bidder would get served first, the next highest second, and down the line until the last person bid $85. And, we should expect, she will get the generic brand care, not the "NFL Football Sports Injury Level Care".
Get it? The problem is, you have never actually purchased in a real free market.
Yes I understand pretty much what you’re saying, so where does that fit into the overall scheme? Where cost outruns income that is made up with taxpayer $ outside the ‘auction pool’ $$$?
that is the amount of $ coming in at whatever the ‘plan’ or right to claim is auctioned off for, and the number of folks who got the ‘low’ auction price using a concomitantly larger share than the rest of the auction pool is made up of via what all of those other low bidders contributed? I am sue this sounds convoluted(?), please excuse me….its o on purpose
"that is the amount of $ coming in at whatever the ‘plan’ or right to claim is auctioned off for, and the number of folks who got the ‘low’ auction price using a concomitantly larger share than the rest of the auction pool is made up of via what all of those other low bidders contributed? I am sue this sounds convoluted(?), please excuse me….its o on purpose
Yes I understand pretty much what you’re saying, so where does that fit into the overall scheme? Where cost outruns income that is made up with taxpayer $ outside the ‘auction pool’ $$$?
that is the amount of $ coming in at whatever the ‘plan’ or right to claim is auctioned off for, and the number of folks who got the ‘low’ auction price using a concomitantly larger share than the rest of the auction pool is made up of via what all of those other low bidders contributed? I am sue this sounds convoluted(?), please excuse me….its o on purpose
Oh, a calm and intelligent person.... Sorry, my bad......
Here is that thing, and I've spent many an hour working on this. What we first have to get as a foundation for our understanding of the macro-economy is that the real part is employment level, resource utilization, and efficiency. The, the resulting resources get distributed according to the competing needs and market power of the individuals and companies. It is, first and foremost, an image that has the physical aspects as the foundation. The money are just tickets to the show, little pieces of contracts that say, "yeah, this guy did something and someone else agrees he did". The money itself, the "value" is mutable. It changes depending on how we decide it is valued. And all the provided goods and services prices are just a percentage of the total amount of money we are passing about.
It is also important to get that the money "pays" for labor only. Raw materials are free. The sun doesn't charge, the earth doesn't charge. All the money accounts for is labor, that someone did something.
So, now we have 7% unemployment, which is at least 2% underemployment or 150mil * .02 = 3 million people, right? That is 3 million people available to do value added work in whatever we need, what is in demand, how about healthcare services?
Right? That all follows reasonably, deductively, logically. (1)
Now, the money value, if we can figure out how to get it circulating appropriately, just accounts for our collective and individual value that we place on the services. That is, except when a market has a crap load of market power and can demand high prices. Oh, that was the medical market. I know, when I have pain, I will pay anything. I know that we are disconnected from the market, insurance in between me and paying the doctor or drug company, such that the supply and demand forces are a bit off.
So, yeah, it is convoluted. You are absolutely right. It's convoluted in my mind. It was find, up to where I said, "Right. That follows .... logically".
So, let's tackle this question. It's good, thank you for forming it.
"Where cost outruns income that is made up with taxpayer $ outside the ‘auction pool’ $$$?"
We agree now that all of the money pays for, accounts for, labor. That is all. So, now the question is, how much labor really goes into providing that point of service care? Doctor, education, facilities, insurance company overhead, research, drug manufacturing, etc....... We can't begin to count it.
The real thing is, then, as I see your question.... Is the total value added in labor to the point of service provided greater than the value added to the overall economy by the person utilizing the service? Really, that is a question of 1) the average and 2) the point price. See, in fact, the average price becomes the average of all the individual point prices from high bidder to low bidder. So, the average value added labor at point of service is the average value added labor at point of service (sorry.) That is to say, yeah, sure, maybe the janitor gets a tad bit more back in terms of the value added than he put in emptying office trash. Maybe Warren Buffet gets a bit less than he put in in terms of his value added (and frankly, I think he knows he actually makes to much.....it's how the market forces work.)
Here is the thing, and you can check it. The current GDP, in real dollars per capita, is the amount of output produced per person measured in this unit "$". This should be exactly the same as the average real dollar income. I don't think it is. You can check, I did, it wasn't, I always check things twice, just to be sure. Sorry, the BEA is closed. But still, there is some of the "price".
Here is another thing. Prices are a function of the amount of spendable income we have. We have so much money to spend. Everyone is working and adding value to deliver product to the market. We consume it all, prices adjust to meet the average price per good. It really is that simple. The 25% tax everyone pays, doesn't count towards prices. Why, because we don't have it to spend. That 25% just circulates on top of the actual monies we use for buying stuff. It becomes monies that someone else buys stuff with. And isn't insurance premiums just a sort of tax like pricing structure? It really is.
So, I apologize. I have this picture solid to the "deductive" part. Then, as you say, it gets convoluted. Still, the "convoluted" part checks out. Each view, pricing, income, GDP, average, point prices, taxes, all balance out separately.
Look, somewhere, granny is going to be using services and she doesn't work. Somewhere, some janitor will be using services that would otherwise be "average" priced beyond the value he adds. The mistake is thinking that he is somehow taking something away from Warren Buffet. Warren can't consume the medical services of two people. If the janitor doesn't use it, it just doesn't exist. So, there is no "loss", in those terms. Do we care that Warren Buffet forgoes one car so the janitor can be healthy and do his job? Not really, unless Warren Buffet wants to do that work. Because, if the janitor doesn't have the healthcare, the work don't get done.
The issue is in trying to place some absolute value on the healthcare, as if there is some intrinsic value to it. There really isn't. Part of the value is to the janitor. Part is opportunity cost to Warren, one as no one dumps his trash vs he buys a car. Part is value to the janitor. But there really isn't an intrinsic value. A surgeon isn't worth some specific amount when he does surgery. When he does surgery on Warren, his services are worth what they are worth to Warren. When he does it on the janitor, it is worth what it is worth to the janitor( or more specifically, in the context of the surgeon and the janitor).
So,"that is the amount of $ coming in at whatever the ‘plan’ or right to claim is auctioned off for, and the number of folks who got the ‘low’ auction price using a concomitantly larger share than the rest of the auction pool is made up of via what all of those other low bidders contributed? I am sue this sounds convoluted(?), please excuse me….its o on purpose
The real question is, what can the body of labor provide in value added service at full employment and what does the body of consumers want to consume. The reality is that everyone, when it comes down to breaking a leg, cracking a molar, getting cancer, warts, high blood pressure, etc... will choose the medical service. The only question is if the little pieces of paper (or numbers in a computer) are flowing in a balanced manner.
The real question is, will the ACA balance the flow of funds? If it does , the "value" of the "$" will adjust accordingly. The real error is thinking that the "$" that the "low" auction folks use for their "price" is exactly the same as the "$" that the "high" auction folks use for their "price".
Think of it this way, (I just did). You've seen the scene of the guy that is lighting his cigars with $100 bills. No sane "poor" person would do that. Why? Because though they both have a bill that has $100 on it, it doesn't have the same value to them.
Warren Buffet may pay $1200 for a service while someone else pays $150 for it. But, the reality is that the "value", in terms of utility and comparative percentage of income, of opportunity costs, etc, is the same for Warren as for the janitor.
Economics speaks of "utility", the value that each person finds in a particular product. $1 has a different utility to different people at different income levels. An aspirin has the same. So, in terms of utility, the cost is the same. It is the meaning of the $1 that changes.
If you are in the military, and you go to the military hotel resort in Hawaii, the cost of the room is different depending on your pay grade. If you are a high pay grade you pay more..... The military is really socialist. $100 has more utility to the non-com than to the commissioned officer because the non-com doesn't have that much of it.
Thanks for asking. That is really it. I needed someone to ask the right question. Now we just need to make it less convoluted.
That is really the thing, that I get because you asked. The $ has different value for the low bidder than for the high bidder. In terms of the utility, $100 has the same utility for the low bidder as $1000 has for the high bidder. This is actually what is skewed up, one thing, in our fixed price market system. We do not have an "Adam Smith" free market system. Why? Because it is less efficient. It works, but not perfectly. We can depend on it up to a point.
Yes I understand pretty much what you’re saying, so where does that fit into the overall scheme? Where cost outruns income that is made up with taxpayer $ outside the ‘auction pool’ $$$?
that is the amount of $ coming in at whatever the ‘plan’ or right to claim is auctioned off for, and the number of folks who got the ‘low’ auction price using a concomitantly larger share than the rest of the auction pool is made up of via what all of those other low bidders contributed? I am sue this sounds convoluted(?), please excuse me….its o on purpose
Oh, a calm and intelligent person.... Sorry, my bad......
Here is that thing, and I've spent many an hour working on this. What we first have to get as a foundation for our understanding of the macro-economy is that the real part is employment level, resource utilization, and efficiency. The, the resulting resources get distributed according to the competing needs and market power of the individuals and companies. It is, first and foremost, an image that has the physical aspects as the foundation. The money are just tickets to the show, little pieces of contracts that say, "yeah, this guy did something and someone else agrees he did". The money itself, the "value" is mutable. It changes depending on how we decide it is valued. And all the provided goods and services prices are just a percentage of the total amount of money we are passing about.
It is also important to get that the money "pays" for labor only. Raw materials are free. The sun doesn't charge, the earth doesn't charge. All the money accounts for is labor, that someone did something.
So, now we have 7% unemployment, which is at least 2% underemployment or 150mil * .02 = 3 million people, right? That is 3 million people available to do value added work in whatever we need, what is in demand, how about healthcare services?
Right? That all follows reasonably, deductively, logically. (1)
Now, the money value, if we can figure out how to get it circulating appropriately, just accounts for our collective and individual value that we place on the services. That is, except when a market has a crap load of market power and can demand high prices. Oh, that was the medical market. I know, when I have pain, I will pay anything. I know that we are disconnected from the market, insurance in between me and paying the doctor or drug company, such that the supply and demand forces are a bit off.
So, yeah, it is convoluted. You are absolutely right. It's convoluted in my mind. It was find, up to where I said, "Right. That follows .... logically".
So, let's tackle this question. It's good, thank you for forming it.
"Where cost outruns income that is made up with taxpayer $ outside the ‘auction pool’ $$$?"
We agree now that all of the money pays for, accounts for, labor. That is all. So, now the question is, how much labor really goes into providing that point of service care? Doctor, education, facilities, insurance company overhead, research, drug manufacturing, etc....... We can't begin to count it.
The real thing is, then, as I see your question.... Is the total value added in labor to the point of service provided greater than the value added to the overall economy by the person utilizing the service? Really, that is a question of 1) the average and 2) the point price. See, in fact, the average price becomes the average of all the individual point prices from high bidder to low bidder. So, the average value added labor at point of service is the average value added labor at point of service (sorry.) That is to say, yeah, sure, maybe the janitor gets a tad bit more back in terms of the value added than he put in emptying office trash. Maybe Warren Buffet gets a bit less than he put in in terms of his value added (and frankly, I think he knows he actually makes to much.....it's how the market forces work.)
Here is the thing, and you can check it. The current GDP, in real dollars per capita, is the amount of output produced per person measured in this unit "$". This should be exactly the same as the average real dollar income. I don't think it is. You can check, I did, it wasn't, I always check things twice, just to be sure. Sorry, the BEA is closed. But still, there is some of the "price".
Here is another thing. Prices are a function of the amount of spendable income we have. We have so much money to spend. Everyone is working and adding value to deliver product to the market. We consume it all, prices adjust to meet the average price per good. It really is that simple. The 25% tax everyone pays, doesn't count towards prices. Why, because we don't have it to spend. That 25% just circulates on top of the actual monies we use for buying stuff. It becomes monies that someone else buys stuff with. And isn't insurance premiums just a sort of tax like pricing structure? It really is.
So, I apologize. I have this picture solid to the "deductive" part. Then, as you say, it gets convoluted. Still, the "convoluted" part checks out. Each view, pricing, income, GDP, average, point prices, taxes, all balance out separately.
Look, somewhere, granny is going to be using services and she doesn't work. Somewhere, some janitor will be using services that would otherwise be "average" priced beyond the value he adds. The mistake is thinking that he is somehow taking something away from Warren Buffet. Warren can't consume the medical services of two people. If the janitor doesn't use it, it just doesn't exist. So, there is no "loss", in those terms. Do we care that Warren Buffet forgoes one car so the janitor can be healthy and do his job? Not really, unless Warren Buffet wants to do that work. Because, if the janitor doesn't have the healthcare, the work don't get done.
The issue is in trying to place some absolute value on the healthcare, as if there is some intrinsic value to it. There really isn't. Part of the value is to the janitor. Part is opportunity cost to Warren, one as no one dumps his trash vs he buys a car. Part is value to the janitor. But there really isn't an intrinsic value. A surgeon isn't worth some specific amount when he does surgery. When he does surgery on Warren, his services are worth what they are worth to Warren. When he does it on the janitor, it is worth what it is worth to the janitor( or more specifically, in the context of the surgeon and the janitor).
So,
The real question is, what can the body of labor provide in value added service at full employment and what does the body of consumers want to consume. The reality is that everyone, when it comes down to breaking a leg, cracking a molar, getting cancer, warts, high blood pressure, etc... will choose the medical service. The only question is if the little pieces of paper (or numbers in a computer) are flowing in a balanced manner.
The real question is, will the ACA balance the flow of funds? If it does , the "value" of the "$" will adjust accordingly. The real error is thinking that the "$" that the "low" auction folks use for their "price" is exactly the same as the "$" that the "high" auction folks use for their "price".
Think of it this way, (I just did). You've seen the scene of the guy that is lighting his cigars with $100 bills. No sane "poor" person would do that. Why? Because though they both have a bill that has $100 on it, it doesn't have the same value to them.
Warren Buffet may pay $1200 for a service while someone else pays $150 for it. But, the reality is that the "value", in terms of utility and comparative percentage of income, of opportunity costs, etc, is the same for Warren as for the janitor.
Economics speaks of "utility", the value that each person finds in a particular product. $1 has a different utility to different people at different income levels. An aspirin has the same. So, in terms of utility, the cost is the same. It is the meaning of the $1 that changes.
If you are in the military, and you go to the military hotel resort in Hawaii, the cost of the room is different depending on your pay grade. If you are a high pay grade you pay more..... The military is really socialist. $100 has more utility to the non-com than to the commissioned officer because the non-com doesn't have that much of it.
Thanks for asking. That is really it. I needed someone to ask the right question. Now we just need to make it less convoluted.
That is really the thing, that I get because you asked. The $ has different value for the low bidder than for the high bidder. In terms of the utility, $100 has the same utility for the low bidder as $1000 has for the high bidder. This is actually what is skewed up, one thing, in our fixed price market system. We do not have an "Adam Smith" free market system. Why? Because it is less efficient. It works, but not perfectly. We can depend on it up to a point.
This is a lot to digest, I am sorry to cherry pick but this stuck out to me, a lot of what you said I understand intuitively, but some escapes my ability to translate into the point I am trying to get atÂ…so simple is asÂ…
So;
where does and how does the transfer of federal dollars take place to a co. to pay/provide for pool members who collectively have not made up the estimated worth but negatively affect the forecast ‘ins’, I get what you’re saying, the cost doesn’t exist until the value of the good is consumed/purchased, but, they have their actuaries telling them that going forward to sustain their company and make a ‘profit’ or reach par, they have to mark some shared value to the labor they hold and will expend, if they take in 20 customers who pay $2 and forecast or have to bear a cost of $45, the balloon has to pop or be squeezed to a point where in the net effect is negative, the labor value is ‘shorted’, and, well, the make up value for that negative labor has to be made good….
I guess the question I still have is; if the labor transferred via auctions to satisfy the needs now from the young guns and healthy folks who are seen as and simply must enroll in the auctions , carrying the forward burden ( trading their labor value now for future ‘calls’ ), what happens if, they don’t? Labor or similar value must be moved/transferred …yes?
no problem, hey, I have no issue admitting what don't know, what I don't know or don't understand what I don't know..
