Wealth distribution

[Absentglare]

So you are suggesting that I should get into the anti venom business? It isn't competition that causes these kinds of price increases. It is the cost of law suits. Perhaps you should be angry at the lawyers rather than the hospital administrators.

No, you don't understand. They charge more because they can, not because it costs more.

Perhaps you should consider than an unregulated oligopoly is bad for the public.

 

[Absentglare]

Simply take the VA's budget and divide it by the number of patients it handles in a year and you will have an idea of what it actually costs per patient. I think it will blow your mind.



Truthful blather that disagrees with your views.




I disagree. I think it is that easy. It might be politically impossible but it certainly isn't complicated. If you want to leave it and try to fix it, you will have to make it easy for managers in government to fire people and reduce costs when money is short. Until that happens it will be same-o same-o.

So your solution to fix supposed problems with inefficiency is to apply a scorched earth policy with government?

And you don't see how that's completely ridiculous ?

 

[Frank Apisa]

Simply take the VA's budget and divide it by the number of patients it handles in a year and you will have an idea of what it actually costs per patient. I think it will blow your mind.

Inform us...and inform us as it compares with regular for-profit hospitals.

Here are two I found...and both indicate that the VA out-performs the private sector...and give comparable or better healthcare...and is more likely to give care that is needed than the private sector.


'Socialized' or Not, We Can Learn from the VA | RAND

Economist's View: VA Hospitals vs. Private Sector Hospitals

Truthful blather that disagrees with your views.

Perhaps not. But I am willing to consider anything reasonable (not stuff from pure conservative sources) and will adjust if you are correct.




I disagree. I think it is that easy. It might be politically impossible but it certainly isn't complicated. If you want to leave it and try to fix it, you will have to make it easy for managers in government to fire people and reduce costs when money is short. Until that happens it will be same-o same-o.[/QUOTE]

 

[fmw]

Inform us...and inform us as it compares with regular for-profit hospitals.

Here are two I found...and both indicate that the VA out-performs the private sector...and give comparable or better healthcare...and is more likely to give care that is needed than the private sector.


'Socialized' or Not, We Can Learn from the VA | RAND

Economist's View: VA Hospitals vs. Private Sector Hospitals





Perhaps not. But I am willing to consider anything reasonable (not stuff from pure conservative sources) and will adjust if you are correct.




I disagree. I think it is that easy. It might be politically impossible but it certainly isn't complicated. If you want to leave it and try to fix it, you will have to make it easy for managers in government to fire people and reduce costs when money is short. Until that happens it will be same-o same-o.

[/QUOTE]

I haven't done an analysis. Perhaps I will when I find time. The source for the first article you liked was VA doctor. The second one didn't answer the question. It claimed that VA hospitals are cheaper than private sector hospitals without any numbers or proof. I will see what I can do to resolve it.

 

[Frank Apisa]

I haven't done an analysis. Perhaps I will when I find time. The source for the first article you liked was VA doctor. The second one didn't answer the question. It claimed that VA hospitals are cheaper than private sector hospitals without any numbers or proof. I will see what I can do to resolve it.[/QUOTE]

Thanks.

I think it is worth investigating further...and I'll give it a shot tomorrow myself.

 

[imagep]

So you are suggesting that I should get into the anti venom business? It isn't competition that causes these kinds of price increases. It is the cost of law suits. Perhaps you should be angry at the lawyers rather than the hospital administrators.

Businesses price their goods and services at as high of a price they can and still have enough sales to maximize profits. Costs only create a floor price for goods and services.

Do you really think that the healthcare industry really only prices it's products at cost? They don't ever make a profit? That's what you are suggesting when you claim that high prices are due to high costs.

 

[Absentglare]

Businesses price their goods and services at as high of a price they can and still have enough sales to maximize profits. Costs only create a floor price for goods and services.

Do you really think that the healthcare industry really only prices it's products at cost? They don't ever make a profit? That's what you are suggesting when you claim that high prices are due to high costs.

^+1 thank you

 

[Logicman]

None.

So you want it to be voluntary! What percentage of my total income would you like for me to give to the poor?

 

[Frank Apisa]

So you want it to be voluntary!

You seem to think that I am arguing for "redistribution," Logicman.

I have said I would happily accept redistribution if it where the only way to get "fairer distribution" accomplished. But it isn't.

What percentage of my total income would you like for me to give to the poor?

None.

 

[mmi]

The source for the first article you liked was VA doctor.

That's incorrect.

>>The second one didn't answer the question. It claimed that VA hospitals are cheaper than private sector hospitals without any numbers or proof.

??

The VA's cost per patient has remained steady during the past 10 years. The cost of private care has jumped about 40% in that same period.

Medicare, which pays more than $6,500 per patient annually for care by private doctors, could save with the VA's less expensive care, which costs about $5,000 per patient.​

Comparing the Costs of the Veterans' Health Care System With Private-Sector Costs

Quality and Equity of Care in the Veterans Affairs Health-Care System and in Medicare Advantage Health Plans

Examining the Quality and Cost of VA Health Care

 

[fmw]

That's incorrect.

>>The second one didn't answer the question. It claimed that VA hospitals are cheaper than private sector hospitals without any numbers or proof.

??

The VA's cost per patient has remained steady during the past 10 years. The cost of private care has jumped about 40% in that same period.

Medicare, which pays more than $6,500 per patient annually for care by private doctors, could save with the VA's less expensive care, which costs about $5,000 per patient.​

Comparing the Costs of the Veterans' Health Care System With Private-Sector Costs

Quality and Equity of Care in the Veterans Affairs Health-Care System and in Medicare Advantage Health Plans

Examining the Quality and Cost of VA Health Care

I read some of the first link which is an article provided by the CBO. It is government double speak. The reason is that it explains on the second page that the cost per patient doesn't include payments for veterans who get government paid health care in the private sector. They say that represents 70% of those registered with the VA. In other words, VA is cheaper because they only count the cost of health care for 30% of the vets. I believe little of what the government says and for good reason.

 

[jonny5]

Well, ok.

Greedy or not, you claimed all companies' prices would rise simultaneously because nobody would be willing to take the hit in favor of a competitive edge, which is obviously not the way reality works.

Which I'm pretty sure you realize, of course. I think you have a bad case of contrarianism that causes you to overshoot actual substance in your arguments.

As opposed to your posts where you attack the poster instead of posting an actual rebuttal beyond "thats not the way reality works"

 

[mmi]

I read some of the first link which is an article provided by the CBO. It is government double speak.

The CBO is widely respected.

>>it explains on the second page that the cost per patient doesn't include payments for veterans who get government paid health care in the private sector. They say that represents 70% of those registered with the VA. In other words, VA is cheaper because they only count the cost of health care for 30% of the vets.

No, that too is incorrect. Page 4 does include the following:

Veterans who are enrolled in the VHA system receive most of their health care outside that system — typically about 70 percent, according to information provided by VHA. As a result, VHA’s average cost per enrollee understates the full annual cost of a veteran’s health care.​

That is part of a section in which the report lists, in great detail, the difficulties involved in comparing the two delivery systems. Yer statement about "only count[ing] the cost of health care for 30% of the vets" is clumsy and completely unwarranted.

Yer objection here is similar to yer earlier claim that "[t]he source for the first article you liked was VA doctor." Care to provide a page reference to back up that falsehood?

>>I believe little of what the government says and for good reason.

You pick and choose what you believe based on yer rather extreme ideological bias.

 

[fmw]

The CBO is widely respected.

>>it explains on the second page that the cost per patient doesn't include payments for veterans who get government paid health care in the private sector. They say that represents 70% of those registered with the VA. In other words, VA is cheaper because they only count the cost of health care for 30% of the vets.

No, that too is incorrect. Page 4 does include the following:

Veterans who are enrolled in the VHA system receive most of their health care outside that system — typically about 70 percent, according to information provided by VHA. As a result, VHA’s average cost per enrollee understates the full annual cost of a veteran’s health care.​

That is part of a section in which the report lists, in great detail, the difficulties involved in comparing the two delivery systems. Yer statement about "only count[ing] the cost of health care for 30% of the vets" is clumsy and completely unwarranted.

Yer objection here is similar to yer earlier claim that "[t]he source for the first article you liked was VA doctor." Care to provide a page reference to back up that falsehood?

>>I believe little of what the government says and for good reason.

You pick and choose what you believe based on yer rather extreme ideological bias.

I read what is written and comment on it. Sorry you don't like the commentary. And because you respect the CBO doesn't mean I should.

 

[mmi]

I read what is written and comment on it.

As I specifically noted, yer able to read things that aren't there.

>>Sorry you don't like the commentary.

I don't dislike it. It seems like the usual right-wing claptrap. I suppose I could disregard it; perhaps I should.

>>because you respect the CBO doesn't mean I should.

My guess is you support their work when you agree with it and dismiss it when you don't.

"Why does anyone trust the CBO?," WaPo, Jul 28, 2011

"40 Years and Counting: The Independent and Effective Congressional Budget Office," Peter G. Peterson Foundation, Feb 23, 2015

 

[jaeger19]

No, you don't understand. A poor person can never become rich by simply having money. Nearly every single rich person makes money by simply having money.

It's like the Sheriff of Nottingham, collecting taxes from the poor, and then dispensing those taxes to rich people in the form of a dividend tax cut or a capital gains tax cut.

It's strange that you seem to strain to disagree with me on this point when this is the very point you, yourself, made earlier. It seems you have made quite a habit of this.

And you completely missed the last point. Selling what you own to make money is good. Getting money for owning something that increased in value is bizarre.

No I understand well.. its you that don't understand.

First.. its not like the Sheriff of Nottinham. "collecting taxes from the poor".. Because number one.. the poor aren;t paying federal income tax.. in fact a good portion of the middle class isn't paying federal income taxes. In fact.. a portion of the poor get a net income from federal taxes

No..its not strange that I disagree with you. You are wrong on so many levels when it comes to the mechanism in the economy that are at play here. Is there less social mobility? Yes. Is there as much opportunity for the poor? No.

but you.. and its not just you but other liberals.. do not understand the WHY and mechanisms that are involved.. Your "solutions".. like redistribution through taxes will only make matters worse.. not better. in fact they HAVE. Have taxes increased on the wealthy? Yes. Has government spending increased? Yes. Has there been an increase in spending on the poor? Yes.. expansion of Medicaid and subsidizing healthcare.

Are wages booming? Are jobs easy to get? Is the situation BETTER for most of the poor? no.. in fact in that period.. inequality has INCREASED.

Getting money for owning something that increased in value is not bizarre in any way. That's like saying that buying a house when you are 20 and then selling it when you are 65 for more is "bizarre"

 

[jaeger19]

Two strawmen in one.

I didn't say that a janitor deserves more profit. I said the guy who happens to own the place doesn't deserve all of the profit.

Further, i use China as an example of government investing in the people in an economy for the purposes of growth. I guess you support slowing down the economy so that we can consolidate wealth into the aristocracy.

yes you did. the Janitor doesn't deserve ANY profit. He deserves a wage.. and that's it. He gets paid whether the company makes money that month or not. H

And China is not an example of a government "investing in the people in an economy for growth".. China is an example of exploiting the people for growth and concentrating money to their "aristocracy" (the politically connected).

The gap between China’s rich and poor is now one of the world’s highest, surpassing even that in the U.S., according to a report being released this week by researchers at the University of Michigan.

The metric used in these studies, the Gini coefficient, would be zero in a society in which all income is equally distributed, while a score of one would reflect a society in which all income is concentrated in the hands of a single individual. Over a three-decade period starting in 1980—shortly after China’s economic reform and opening commenced—the Gini coefficient has grown from 0.3 to 0.55 in 2010 ]In the U.S., by contrast, the index reads 0.45. Anything over 0.50 is considered “severe disparity,” says the report in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. The authors used data from seven separate surveys conducted by a number of Chinese university-affiliated organizations, including Peking University’s Institute of Social Sciences.

 

[jaeger19]

Wealthy landowners do not create jobs from thin air. They siphon wealth toward themselves so that they have the wealth to employ others. The assumption that they took away fewer jobs than they created is a facet of the religion of capitalist worship.

And neither do poor people. Wealthy people create jobs by using the labor of poor people efficiently, and productively. How many poor people have given you a job?

 

[jaeger19]

How else would you describe it? Are you still thinking that savings allow a bank to make loans? That simply isn't true.

I suggest you go to the bank and ask to see the vault with YOUR money in it. Its not there.. that money is being reinvested in loans.. in securities, etc. Its being put "under the mattress".

 

[jaeger19]

I'm guessing you don't work with the general public much. There are mobs of otherwise smart people that are not financially savvy, and could be talked into buying too much home.

And "stupid"? Not necessarily, but certainly some or many of them were. But even the ones that weren't too stupid to think for themselves were lulled into the optimistic mindset that they would be able to afford the home they were buying. I'm not a stupid person, but even when my wife and I bought our house, we spent 15-20% more than I was comfortable spending, because it was the house she wanted. And when she lost her job in '09, we lived on coupons, sales, cheap food, part time work and odd jobs for three years until she was able to find employment.



Lots of people have non-military jobs with the same problem. I know, I know, "find another job, you loser". :rme

And again you would be wrong. I work with the general public on a daily basis. but thank you for making my point. You perfectly illustrate what I was saying. You weren;t "too stupid to know better".. you knew the risk that you were taking. You knowingly spent 15% to 20% more than you were comfortable spending.. hoping it would work out. You did and so did a lot of other people.. and for many it didn't work out. So the banks were not all at fault. It took folks making risky decisions as well.

Lots of people have non-military jobs with the same problem. I know, I know, "find another job, you loser". :rme

Know.. in general they don't. Lets say you wife was in the military and she got yanked to live somewhere else... you would have been FORCED to move.. and lose your job and look for another.

Not being military gives you way more options.

And No.. I never ever said "find another job you loser".. that's your meme..not mine. The big difference is that you have more of an opportunity to find another job.. if your wife wasn't in the military.

 

[jaeger19]

Just for giggles, in Boing's most successful recent year (2013), you'd have had to buy (or already own) about $750,000 in Boeing stock to make $600,000 in one year off of it.

Yep. Off the top of my head yep.

 

[jaeger19]

I guess.

Property tax is not a tax on wealth, it is a tax on land ownership where that land receives services from the government.

You're taxed when money from the economy goes into your hands via income. You are not taxed on the money you have accumulated. You may also be taxes when you own things that we have deemed to require government services.

Just holding cash isn't a taxable transaction.

Property taxes are a tax on wealth.

 

[jaeger19]

And don't get me wrong, that's a really nice return in one year on $750k. But nobody living below the top 1 or 2% has that kind of money available to wrap up in Boeing.

And your point?

 

[jaeger19]

Actually we tax some income and some wealth via the inheritance (death?) tax and property taxes. I prefer a consumption (sales) tax applied to most goods/services to an income tax.

A sales tax is a tax on wealth.

 

[jaeger19]

That's an easy answer. Our population is larger than most industrialized western countries. We have a legal system that favors darwinian business climates. We have a labor system that favors a darwinian system and we have a government policy of corporate welfare. Our stock market is purely based on pyramiding and monopoly thereby creating a gambling environment that favors the big players the way Monaco favors royalty.

It's a rigged game and the volume of that game is what generates such enormous profits with a government policy of keeping the margins as high as they can get. We have what is really a completely deregulated market when compared to other western countries. It's really got nothing to do with "the best system in the world", it's got everything to do with a system that generates the most money.

So "freedom", really has nothing to do with this either, as most western countries share the majority of the freedoms we have. Countries that are what you refer to as socialized have developed into societies that treat health care as important as eating.

Well .. actually what you describe other than the population thing.. is what is prevalent in most industrialized countries. We certainly have been heading that way... but we are still less socialized , and less regulated and boast more economic power and more freedom.

the Irony here is that you want to run to a system that has more regulation, less freedom..and more inequality.