Pepper sprayed for public safety.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

I think you are saying that government spending is ipso facto too high if the government runs a deficit during a severe recession. But governments can borrow, so that's not usually a problem. Spain's problem is that the markets have now figured out that it can't print money to pay off its debts, and so should be treated like basket-case economies rather than a sovereign, industrialized country. If Spain were not in the Eurozone and had its own currency, it would have no trouble borrowing.

In any event, it is certainly not the case that Spain's economic troubles were caused by excessive government spending. It was the housing bubble.

yeah, well you fucks just put a new tax on all americans as of yesterday, so get ready for some more cuts to the Government.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

yeah, well you fucks just put a new tax on all americans as of yesterday, so get ready for some more cuts to the Government.

And the ACA cut a bunch of healthcare spending as well. The four conservatives on the Supreme Court would have killed the bill and restored all that spending, but they didn't get their way.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

yeah, well you fucks just put a new tax on all americans as of yesterday, so get ready for some more cuts to the Government.

That does seem to be the Koch brother's line. I wonder if it will work? Are the independents out there in attentive enough to believe they are going to be taxes?

I'm interested in the Obama campaign's response. There are a lot of things in Obamacare that are popular. We'll see how effective they are in selling them.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

And the ACA cut a bunch of healthcare spending as well. The four conservatives on the Supreme Court would have killed the bill and restored all that spending, but they didn't get their way.

you keep posting here like you're on the campaign. the cuts aren't to what people are paying, are they? Your cut hypothesis is that the government will save money.

but some people will have to buy health care now, or pay a TAX, right? how you gonna spin that noise? and how about the promise that if you ain't making $250K you will not be paying more in taxes? He has to admit he was either a fool or a liar now, yes?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

you keep posting here like you're on the campaign. the cuts aren't to what people are paying, are they? Your cut hypothesis is that the government will save money.

but some people will have to buy health care now, or pay a TAX, right? how you gonna spin that noise? and how about the promise that if you ain't making $250K you will not be paying more in taxes? He has to admit he was either a fool or a liar now, yes?

Is there something magic to you about the word "tax"? (Excuse me, "TAX"?) These penalties for not getting insurance and free-riding on the rest of us citizens were in the bill a long time ago -- do you now salivate when the Grover Norquists of the world use that word?

If you aren't making $250K and you don't want to pay that "TAX," don't. Get health insurance.

One of my friends from law school recently had breast cancer. The ACA means that she and her kids can get decent health coverage. But you're all excited that someone is going to pay a "TAX." Good for you.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Is there something magic to you about the word "tax"? (Excuse me, "TAX"?)

Yes. since my president kept saying it wasn't a TAX I figure there is something to the word. I also remember the very clear promise that if you don't make $250K you will not pay one dime. You and I can afford whatever, but there are lots of families who are really scraping by who can't. This afternoon, before you start yelling at your landscape foreman about the spots in your lawn his people missed, ask him.

If you aren't making $250K and you don't want to pay that "TAX," don't. Get health insurance.

Will it not cost me one dime?

One of my friends from law school recently had breast cancer. The ACA means that she and her kids can get decent health coverage. But you're all excited that someone is going to pay a "TAX." Good for you.

One of my friends had cancer and health insurance before ACA. He got great care. The biggest legacy of ACA will be that someone in that boat will have far lesser care ten years from now.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

Yes. since my president kept saying it wasn't a TAX I figure there is something to the word. I also remember the very clear promise that if you don't make $250K you will not pay one dime. You and I can afford whatever, but there are lots of families who are really scraping by who can't. This afternoon, before you start yelling at your landscape foreman about the spots in your lawn his people missed, ask him. Will it not cost me one dime?

One of my friends had cancer and health insurance before ACA. He got great care. The biggest legacy of ACA will be that someone in that boat will have far lesser care ten years from now.

It's fascinating hw quickly the GOP has jumped one, "Obama raised taxes." You all really must have no respect for voters' intelligence.

But I guess we'll see if it works, amd hopefully how effective it is compared to a full airing if all of the really popular stuff in te bill.

[LessinSF]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

Yes. since my president kept saying it wasn't a TAX I figure there is something to the word. I also remember the very clear promise that if you don't make $250K you will not pay one dime. You and I can afford whatever, but there are lots of families who are really scraping by who can't. This afternoon, before you start yelling at your landscape foreman about the spots in your lawn his people missed, ask him. Will it not cost me one dime?

One of my friends had cancer and health insurance before ACA. He got great care. The biggest legacy of ACA will be that someone in that boat will have far lesser care ten years from now.

Good.

LessinFrankfurt

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Adder

It's fascinating hw quickly the GOP has jumped one, "Obama raised taxes." You all really must have no respect for voters' intelligence.

But I guess we'll see if it works, amd hopefully how effective it is compared to a full airing if all of the really popular stuff in te bill.

ummm, I voted for Obama. It's people like me that will decide the election.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

ummm, I voted for Obama. It's people like me that will decide the election.

Amazing how simply the idiocy of not only Obamacare, but our entire health "insurance" scheme, can be articulated: http://www.zerohedge.com/news/dummy-...ide-healthcare

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

We have had a federal stimulus but even greater austerity at the state and local level. On net, government spending has been part of the problem, not part of the cure.

What would the opposite have achieved? A short term respite from the eventual Big Correction we all know is coming. Any gain in public economic activity would be more than offset with a decrease in private economic activity incurred as a result of increased taxation to pay for the public spending.

Govt spending is inevitably paid for with taxes. This decreases economic activity elsewhere.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Adder

Bullshit. Lower than target inflation and slow GDP growth indicates tighter than necessary monetary policy. See, Friedman, Milton.

See the recent decreases in consumer confidence? The consumer - on which 70% of our economy is based - is tapped out. The middle class squeeze (mix of non-core inflation in essentials coupled with wage stagnation) is murdering him. Seeking greater across the board inflation will only result in selective inflation that will decrease disposable income. The areas where inflation is needed - housing and wages - remain stubbornly resistant, and will continue to be so no matter how loose our monetary policy.

You've an odd assumption that monetary policy can create inflation, or deflation, where it is needed, and that it's just a matter of political will, or policy prescription, to do so. This is ludicrous. If we've learned anything from this depression, it's that the Fed, and our govt, have far less ability to guide our economy than thought.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Amazing how simply the idiocy of not only Obamacare, but our entire health "insurance" scheme, can be articulated: http://www.zerohedge.com/news/dummy-...ide-healthcare

Huh? That showed a complete lack of understanding of the system today.

Just to note, today, there are many people pushing on healthcare costs - insurance companies negotiating contracts, governments and businesses with large healthcare expenses, consumers who have to choose among insurance plans. There are relatively few plans that cover "everything", and the few with extremely broad coverage are very expensive.

In the absence of sophisticated negotiators like insurance companies, there is a very good argument our prices would be significantly higher, since the provider would have disparate negotiating power. Providers are severely limited - building a hosptial is expensive, and hospitals are sine qua nons for much health care. Plans that tried to do it a different way (see Harvard Pilgram Health in Mass.), building up their own lower cost clinics where they could controll prices, ultimately failed because they could not compete with the quality of the Boston teaching hospitals (though they had a good run with an alternate model, which did have a lower price for a while).

By the way, you don't have to look to economic theory to see some of the savings insurance negotiations get you. Compare jurisdictions where there are few insurers and many hospitals and jurisdictions where there are many insurers and few hospitals - in the later case (e.g., Massachusetts), healthcare costs are higher. Here, as a matter of fact, one healthcare system has so much bargaining power that plans cost less which exclude that system - they are available and a few people choose to give up that care and get lower cost healthcare. They also miss a lot of key specialists.

So, silly banana argument misses the banana boat. It's all a work of fiction that bears no resemblance to how healthcare is paid for.

Now, I can spot some huge problems in the incentives. For example, if a hospital has a large capital investment in a piece of equipment, like an MRI, the hospital needs to use the MRI. Today, everyone has bought their own MRI, as well as a slew of other radiology equipment. You have no swagger without PET and CAT as well. However, the best care is not always to do an expensive radiology test; there are many unnecessary tests done. There are also systems for catching unnecessary tests - but the hospital has to buy and invest in these. If you are a hospital CFO, will you spend money to buy a system that will reduce the profit you make on big capital investment?

There have been several attempts to deal with this issue, but one of the things Obamacare will do is cause medicare and medicaid reimbursement rates to be paid in part on outcomes rather than on itemized tests etc. that are run. That is huge, and it deals with the system as it exists, not as some Randian banana dealer imagines it exists.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

you keep posting here like you're on the campaign. the cuts aren't to what people are paying, are they? Your cut hypothesis is that the government will save money.

but some people will have to buy health care now, or pay a TAX, right? how you gonna spin that noise? and how about the promise that if you ain't making $250K you will not be paying more in taxes? He has to admit he was either a fool or a liar now, yes?

Congratulations, Hank, the healthcare plan you buy for your employees no longer has to build in the cost of covering the uninsured!

I don't care what you call it, it makes sense.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

Huh? That showed a complete lack of understanding of the system today.

Just to note, today, there are many people pushing on healthcare costs - insurance companies negotiating contracts, governments and businesses with large healthcare expenses, consumers who have to choose among insurance plans. There are relatively few plans that cover "everything", and the few with extremely broad coverage are very expensive.

In the absence of sophisticated negotiators like insurance companies, there is a very good argument our prices would be significantly higher, since the provider would have disparate negotiating power. Providers are severely limited - building a hosptial is expensive, and hospitals are sine qua nons for much health care. Plans that tried to do it a different way (see Harvard Pilgram Health in Mass.), building up their own lower cost clinics where they could controll prices, ultimately failed because they could not compete with the quality of the Boston teaching hospitals (though they had a good run with an alternate model, which did have a lower price for a while).

By the way, you don't have to look to economic theory to see some of the savings insurance negotiations get you. Compare jurisdictions where there are few insurers and many hospitals and jurisdictions where there are many insurers and few hospitals - in the later case (e.g., Massachusetts), healthcare costs are higher. Here, as a matter of fact, one healthcare system has so much bargaining power that plans cost less which exclude that system - they are available and a few people choose to give up that care and get lower cost healthcare. They also miss a lot of key specialists.

So, silly banana argument misses the banana boat. It's all a work of fiction that bears no resemblance to how healthcare is paid for.

Now, I can spot some huge problems in the incentives. For example, if a hospital has a large capital investment in a piece of equipment, like an MRI, the hospital needs to use the MRI. Today, everyone has bought their own MRI, as well as a slew of other radiology equipment. You have no swagger without PET and CAT as well. However, the best care is not always to do an expensive radiology test; there are many unnecessary tests done. There are also systems for catching unnecessary tests - but the hospital has to buy and invest in these. If you are a hospital CFO, will you spend money to buy a system that will reduce the profit you make on big capital investment?

There have been several attempts to deal with this issue, but one of the things Obamacare will do is cause medicare and medicaid reimbursement rates to be paid in part on outcomes rather than on itemized tests etc. that are run. That is huge, and it deals with the system as it exists, not as some Randian banana dealer imagines it exists.

You missed the entire point. Your inside baseball analysis is interesting, but irrelevant. Except perhaps to underscore how incapable people are of reconsidering the foundations of the utterly imbecilic system we have.

I hate saying, "Think outside the box a little," but here, the cliche fits.