Obama's HealthCare Plan

[Sanctuary]

**This is mostly directed at MVPlaya as a query into the world of economics.

What do you guys think of Obama's healthcare plan? Personally, I've always been against socializing anything because of the belief that I don't feel the poor - as tragic as their situation may be - should be getting free handouts. Not only that, but I feel like it's robbing from the rich in some Robin Hoodesque way; essentially, I see socialism as stealing. Before people make generalizations and start flaming me (which is usually what happens when I bring this up), I'm a minority and I came from a working class family (we are poor as hell but I side mostly with the Republican Party because of my beliefs). People usually tell me that such social programs would benefit me but I always say that just because something benefits me doesn't make it the correct choice logically. Am I just plain deluded?

Anyway, I'm going off on a tangent. I do believe there is a problem with healthcare in this country but the only part of Obama's plan that I like (and I'm not even sure what it fully entails) is the part where he wants to give financial grants to medical students who want to pursue a career as Primary Care Physicians instead of a specialist field. I feel the problem with healthcare is a result of overwhelming demand and a shortage of treatment. We need more doctors in this country. Cutting the costs of healthcare or making it more financially available to the poor would not really solve the problem. It's like a farm has 100 oranges and the people around it want 300 oranges collectively so the farm raises it's prices so only 100 people can afford it. Now you're asking to pass legislation to lower the price of the oranges. Granted the issue has many other layers but this is just one of them.

Going back to Obama's plan, I believe he said it can be funded by cutting expenses from expendable items in the budget. Oh come on, that's bullshit. There's GOT to be a tax hike somewhere in the future or we won't be able to afford it (or maybe we can borrow some more $$$ from good ol China). I guess I just dislike the fact that he's hiding that little tidbit so this legislation gets passed (or maybe he fantasizes so much about this that he actually believes it).

Obama also wanted to lower doctor's salaries which I feel is counterproductive as it will create a disincentive for people to become doctors.

And to a lot of people, this healthcare plan seems great. He's good with rhetoric and even uses his mother as a pitch of when she got denied coverage by her provider. And of course, it only seems right that those who are well off be obligated to help those in need.

But guess what? You are not your brother's keeper. If I have a lot of money which I probably acquired through my own hard work and I want to donate some to help you out, that's fine. But to force me to donate it via tax hikes - that's called stealing.

Not to mention that moving closer towards socialism is detrimental to GDP growth and I don't know about you but I like progress (the technological and rises in standard of living kind).

[Junket]

Not to mention that moving closer towards socialism is detrimental to GDP growth and I don't know about you but I like progress (the technological and rises in standard of living kind).

Progress doesn't mean anything when no one can afford to reap the benefits of it.

[Sanctuary]

Then why does it seem like the poor in the United States are so much more well off than the middle class in Africa?

I think people who say stuff like what you just said have too much of an issue with "fairness."

For example, would you rather make $70k a year and ALL your other friends make $100k or would you rather make $60k a year and your other friends make $50k a year?

In the first situation, you're better off for sure. But it just seems.. unfair.

[Junket]

Make what you will of it, but just because I have it better than someone in Darfur doesn't mean I should be content.

I work hard and pay my taxes. If I had any condition that required me to seek medical attention regularly I'd be royally f*cked. I haven't been to the doctor's or dentist in years, and I have the cheapest kind of insurance available because otherwise I'd break the bank. There isn't even a co-payment, it's a discount, and the deductibles are very high.

And I wish I was making 50k a year, but working full time I'm making about 23k.

[Sanctuary]

That's odd, you sound like a smart and talented individual, 23k sounds like it's certainly beneath what you're capable of. Must be the recession eh?

You're either young, lack ambition, not college educated, or you lack the adequate social skills for a better job or something. I don't know but I'm guessing the town you live in doesn't exactly offer you with the most amazing opportunities either.

[Junket]

I'm an apprentice in the commercial electric industry.

I've helped build several new firestations, a disaster shelter at the levee board, and several schools like the one I'm working on now.

So yes, I'm young, and inexperienced and my pay reflects that, but I've been doing this the past 2 years and it's definitely a worth career. I am in school but I'm not union so I'm not guaranteed benefits.

I'd expand on this further, but 6 here, and I need to be at work by 6:30.

8 for 8.

[Sanctuary]

How long does it take for you to become a journeyman or whatever is next?

Over here in NY, electricians have pretty solid careers with great pay and benefits provided you're willing to do the work. My friend's stepdad was an electrician and he got to retire early. And he didn't start saving for retirement till he was in his 40s (he blew all his money on fancy things and drinking). But he still got to retire comfortably at 55 -that's ****ing crazy.

I'm an accounting student myself currently. I am looking forward to making slave labor wages ($35k???) in comparison to the hours (60 if I'm lucky) I will be working.

[Lipp]

In my opinion, having a large middle-class population with high taxes with many benefits in the time of need (childcare, education, healthcare) provided trumphs having a split between a low-class, middle-class and upper-class society where the lower class is hindered from progression (education, lower class), any mishaps can be devastating (childcare, healthcare - lower/middle class) and the only ones who really pull through are the those in the upper class, who obviously will always be a small portion of the population.

If I was only in it for the money I'd live in Dubai.

[Sanctuary]

Provided you have the ability and determination, the opportunity for success is always here in America. Granted it's not an even playing field but the opportunity is here nonetheless. If you wanted your free healthcare and crap then move to Europe where they regularly enjoy double digit unemployment. But when we get that here it's called a depression.

You're pulling me into an argument about the cost of a human life but can you explain to me why the rich have an obligation to help the poor? If that's the case, then comparatively, you're significantly better off than most people in Africa (hence you're rich to them) in which case you should donate some money then cuz you don't really need this computer you're using. It just provides you enjoyment.

[IndiReloaded]

America is far richer than Canada and we can afford a socialized healthcare system.

Its not perfect, there are waits for non-essential procedures. Some you have to pay for out of pocket or get extended insurance. But at least everyone here, rich or poor, has access to basic healthcare.

I think you can tell the measure of a people by how they treat their least. Obama wants to raise the bar, Clinton talked about this just before he left office. I think its far more worthy than spending billions on a worthless war.

Sanctuary, at 30K a year, you are far from rich. And if you got sick or even had a bad accident, your future would be screwed or at least severely hampered. Don't you think that's unfair? Aren't you poised to become a contributing, respectable member of society?

[MVPlaya]

**This is mostly directed at MVPlaya as a query into the world of economics.

Hola.

What do you guys think of Obama's healthcare plan? Personally, I've always been against socializing anything because of the belief that I don't feel the poor - as tragic as their situation may be - should be getting free handouts. Not only that, but I feel like it's robbing from the rich in some Robin Hoodesque way; essentially, I see socialism as stealing. Before people make generalizations and start flaming me (which is usually what happens when I bring this up), I'm a minority and I came from a working class family (we are poor as hell but I side mostly with the Republican Party because of my beliefs). People usually tell me that such social programs would benefit me but I always say that just because something benefits me doesn't make it the correct choice logically. Am I just plain deluded?

Firstly, everyone gets free hand-outs in some form. Free public roads, free K-12 education, free police protection, free military protection, these are all free benefits you get from the government, rich or poor. "Socialism" is all around you, even in a capitalist society. So when people discuss "socialism" they are not discussing the concept, since even the most ardent Republican supports many "socialist programs," they are discussing who should benefit from socialism.

Anyway, I'm going off on a tangent. I do believe there is a problem with healthcare in this country but the only part of Obama's plan that I like (and I'm not even sure what it fully entails) is the part where he wants to give financial grants to medical students who want to pursue a career as Primary Care Physicians instead of a specialist field. I feel the problem with healthcare is a result of overwhelming demand and a shortage of treatment. We need more doctors in this country. Cutting the costs of healthcare or making it more financially available to the poor would not really solve the problem. It's like a farm has 100 oranges and the people around it want 300 oranges collectively so the farm raises it's prices so only 100 people can afford it. Now you're asking to pass legislation to lower the price of the oranges. Granted the issue has many other layers but this is just one of them.

There is a reason for Obama's grants for people studying Primary Care. If you are a doctor, you maximize your earning potential by specializing into a field (oncologist, cardiologist, brain surgeon), but there is a problem of over-specialization because people have economic incentives to specialize. The goal of the funding is to give more of an incentive to Primary Care and GP, the lower paid doctors, so that there are more of them in the field.

As for Supply v. Demand:

Even if there is an excess of demand for medical services and a shortage of supply, you move towards a prioritization where urgent care is given to people who can't afford it. As of right now, a high earning patient has an easier time getting a sore thumb looked at than a poor patient with cancer. I say its better that people with sore thumbs get looked at a little less so that poor people with life-threatening conditions get looked at more. There is more of a value to society in people getting treated for life-threatening illnesses than there is for smaller, irrelevant medical problems.

Going back to Obama's plan, I believe he said it can be funded by cutting expenses from expendable items in the budget. Oh come on, that's bullshit. There's GOT to be a tax hike somewhere in the future or we won't be able to afford it (or maybe we can borrow some more $$$ from good ol China). I guess I just dislike the fact that he's hiding that little tidbit so this legislation gets passed (or maybe he fantasizes so much about this that he actually believes it).

Honestly, everyone is curious just how far we can keep National Debt piling up. For now, China has indicated it is going to keep purchasing US bonds because it is the best way to stabilize their currency and continue their economic growth. Chinese reps have also said they would like to buy bonds from other governments, especially an EU bond if such a thing were created, but for now US treasury bonds are the only game in town. If China starts getting better options for buying bonds its time to start worrying (they would still buy US bonds to ensure economic stability and protect the value of their purchased assets, they would just leverage less in the future).

Obama also wanted to lower doctor's salaries which I feel is counterproductive as it will create a disincentive for people to become doctors.

And to a lot of people, this healthcare plan seems great. He's good with rhetoric and even uses his mother as a pitch of when she got denied coverage by her provider. And of course, it only seems right that those who are well off be obligated to help those in need.

But guess what? You are not your brother's keeper. If I have a lot of money which I probably acquired through my own hard work and I want to donate some to help you out, that's fine. But to force me to donate it via tax hikes - that's called stealing.

If you don't have children but your taxes go towards paying K-12, is that stealing? What if you don't use the local highway overpass that cost $30M out of your taxes? If paying taxes were completely optional, then this country could not run itself.

Not to mention that moving closer towards socialism is detrimental to GDP growth and I don't know about you but I like progress (the technological and rises in standard of living kind).

This is actually not accurate. Excess government interference can hurt the functioning of markets and reduce economic growth, but a lack of government interference can do it all the same, consider the Economic Crisis of 2007. You have to analyze each government action individually, sometimes you need more government interference, sometimes you need less. There is no blanket principle that less is always better. There are many instances of where markets will actually fail if government doesn't step in to regulate business conduct.

But importantly, investing into health care is key for the US economy. There is a principle economists refer to as "poverty shock," this is an external circumstance beyond someone's control that forces them into poverty. For example, you are in a car accident and have to pay $60,000 in medical bills because insurance will only cover so much. Or, you are in a car accident and just lose wages for 3 months while insurance does cover your medical bills. These situations cause people who are living on the margins (high credit card debt) to spiral out of control. The end result is that they often times have a hard time returning to their original standard of living.

You see, if you're a 25 year old college graduate and you deal with testicular cancer but it goes into remission and you're able to get a job again, you have a chance to escape poverty and to build your future.

But if you're a 60 year old widower with few job prospects, there are no paths for you to get back out into the work force and to re-earn your place in society.

Some people are at high risk for poverty shock and when it happens, their wages are reduced, which reduces their spending in the local community, which causes businesses to reduce their orders / expenses, which causes other businesses to fail, etc. One of the key methods of protecting an economy and making sure that it grows is to: 1) invest in human capital, make sure you have healthy, well-educated workers that are worth a good salary, and 2) protect people from poverty shock, minimize external factors that can stop economic development.

When you look at the foreclosure data, the plurality of all foreclosures are from medical problems:

"Half of all respondents (49%) indicated that their foreclosure was caused in part by a medical problem, including illness or injuries (32%), unmanageable medical bills (23%), lost work due to a medical problem (27%), or caring for sick family members (14%). We also examined objective indicia of medical disruptions in the previous two years, including those respondents paying more than $2,000 of medical bills out of pocket (37%), those losing two or more weeks of work because of injury or illness (30%), those currently disabled and unable to work (8%), and those who used their home equity to pay medical bills (13%). Altogether, seven in ten respondents (69%) reported at least one of these factors."

With the economy tightening and people having less pay, something as simple as medical bills, which used to affect a small portion of the population, now has much greater impact on people's well being. People are on the margin and at greater risk, while medical bills are now poverty shock. The result is that people can't pay their mortgage, can't sell their house at equivalent value, and thus are evicted with an additional $100,000 in debt and forced to declare personal bankruptcy. The personal bankruptcy ruins their credit and they are forced to pay high interest rates on all their day-to-day loans, which increases their living expenses and gives them even more bills to pay, all at a time that their earning has gone down. This becomes a downward spiral where people who were once high earners contributing to a community in well-paid, specialized jobs are now unable to contribute to their community via spending and unable to pay their loans, which creates a problem of NPL's (Non-Performing Loans), which, in turn, hurts the banks and lenders who gave them the money in the first place, as their assets turn toxic.

In short, protecting people from bankruptcy by issues beyond their control is good for the economy. And investing into the health and education of your workers ensures that they contribute more to the economy.

[Gigabitch]

That's odd, you sound like a smart and talented individual, 23k sounds like it's certainly beneath what you're capable of. Must be the recession eh?

You're either young, lack ambition, not college educated, or you lack the adequate social skills for a better job or something. I don't know but I'm guessing the town you live in doesn't exactly offer you with the most amazing opportunities either.

It's not odd. It's pretty normal.

Lots of regular, hardworking people are getting ****ed every day because they get sick. Not even big time sick, like cancer, but like kidney stone kind of sick, where you miss a little bit of work, but you don't get paid for it because you already took all of your vacation time taking care of your kids when they were sick or on yet another of the multitudinous holidays they get from school so your pay gets docked.

How are you supposed to afford groceries with the smaller paycheck? You live so close to the line already that there's no savings to fall back on, so you get that credit card out, the one that's supposed to be only for emergencies.

The credit card is an even worse idea than it used to be because the interest rate has more than doubled over the last three months, with credit companies scrambling to set the rates as high as they can before it becomes illegal for them to hike them (the government gave them plenty of warning, though, so don't worry about them, in case you were concerned that the rich might not get richer).

So what do you do? You get a second job, that's what. You get run down as all hell, working all the time, and your kids don't have you around to help make up for what they aren't learning in school and your relationship starts to suffer because you never see each other since you both work two jobs.

This isn't that unusual a story, Sanctuary, and it's not a story about assholes who are trying to get something for nothing.

Ask yourself a question: how did the rich get rich? Was it necessarily by merit? Were they just so wonderful that people started throwing money at them?

[Junket]

I don't care how the health care costs come down, they just need to.

And it's not "free" health care if we're all paying into it.

Worried about the bottom feeders and illegal immigrants?

Why bother?

They already take full advantage of our emergency rooms as it is.

I would also like to mention that you're from New York.

You're a forced Union state.

The cost of living is higher in your state therefore your wages are higher.

You may wonder why I'm not Union.

For one, this a right-to-work state. No person may be force to join a Union for employment. Secondly, union has better pay and great benefits but none of that means anything if they can't get you on a job. You're still obligated to pay dues regardless of your employment. Open shops have most of big jobs down here. Union just doesn't have the kind of muscle it does in the blue states.

[Sanctuary]

America is far richer than Canada and we can afford a socialized healthcare system.

Its not perfect, there are waits for non-essential procedures. Some you have to pay for out of pocket or get extended insurance. But at least everyone here, rich or poor, has access to basic healthcare.

I think you can tell the measure of a people by how they treat their least. Obama wants to raise the bar, Clinton talked about this just before he left office. I think its far more worthy than spending billions on a worthless war.

Sanctuary, at 30K a year, you are far from rich. And if you got sick or even had a bad accident, your future would be screwed or at least severely hampered. Don't you think that's unfair? Aren't you poised to become a contributing, respectable member of society?

Though the number (GDP) is certainly skewed by many other things, I believe one of the reasons we are so rich is because we don't have socialized healthcare; increasing taxes on the rich and corporations creates a disincentive to make more profits.

I agree that healthcare is far more worthy than spending billions on a war but implementing a healthcare plan isn't a one time expense. Healthcare costs didn't really start skyrocketing until after the creation of Medicare. Socializing healthcare would do something quite similar.

Yea, 30k is pretty shitty, but it is what it is. If I got into an accident and it severely hampered my ability to succeed in life then that's just tough. I see it as no different than the athlete who's on his way to becoming a professional but gets injured at the last minute. People get unlucky in life, you learn to deal with it. It's unfair but that's life - I never said life was fair.

[Sanctuary]

Hola.

What's good? Glad you could make it.

Firstly, everyone gets free hand-outs in some form. Free public roads, free K-12 education, free police protection, free military protection, these are all free benefits you get from the government, rich or poor. "Socialism" is all around you, even in a capitalist society. So when people discuss "socialism" they are not discussing the concept, since even the most ardent Republican supports many "socialist programs," they are discussing who should benefit from socialism.

Oooh this is my fault. I never meant to say that socialism as part of a mixed economy is bad. I guess I was kind of misleading and it looks like I was making a blanket statement about socialism = all bad. I meant countries with a greater degree of socialism tend to do worse economically than more capitalistic countries.

There is a reason for Obama's grants for people studying Primary Care. If you are a doctor, you maximize your earning potential by specializing into a field (oncologist, cardiologist, brain surgeon), but there is a problem of over-specialization because people have economic incentives to specialize. The goal of the funding is to give more of an incentive to Primary Care and GP, the lower paid doctors, so that there are more of them in the field.

Yes, I realize this and I said this was the only bright spot in the plan for me.

As for Supply v. Demand:

Even if there is an excess of demand for medical services and a shortage of supply, you move towards a prioritization where urgent care is given to people who can't afford it. As of right now, a high earning patient has an easier time getting a sore thumb looked at than a poor patient with cancer. I say its better that people with sore thumbs get looked at a little less so that poor people with life-threatening conditions get looked at more. There is more of a value to society in people getting treated for life-threatening illnesses than there is for smaller, irrelevant medical problems.

Is that the plan? Moving towards a prioritization of urgent care? If it is then that's awesome.

But as of now, I would think approving the healthcare plan would actually lead to an increase of treatment for smaller, irrelevant medical problems due to greater availability of services.

I could be wrong on this cuz I'm not 100% sure on what the healthcare plan entails.

Honestly, everyone is curious just how far we can keep National Debt piling up. For now, China has indicated it is going to keep purchasing US bonds because it is the best way to stabilize their currency and continue their economic growth. Chinese reps have also said they would like to buy bonds from other governments, especially an EU bond if such a thing were created, but for now US treasury bonds are the only game in town. If China starts getting better options for buying bonds its time to start worrying (they would still buy US bonds to ensure economic stability and protect the value of their purchased assets, they would just leverage less in the future).

China relies on us a lot for it's exports, they have a vested interest in us. I just wish Obama didn't put tariffs on the tires we import from China - that doesn't help anybody really except for the domestic tire makers.

Actually, nm I don't want to open the doors for a debate about global trade.

It feels like sometimes China doesn't like us and I sometimes get the feeling we don't like them either, but we need each other.

If you don't have children but your taxes go towards paying K-12, is that stealing? What if you don't use the local highway overpass that cost $30M out of your taxes? If paying taxes were completely optional, then this country could not run itself.

I think this is where I believe our views diverge. I don't feel taxing the rich to help out the sick is overall conducive to GDP growth. This is why it's different for me than the other things you mention. And for the record, education would be the number 1 priority for me in running a country's domestic affairs.

This is actually not accurate. Excess government interference can hurt the functioning of markets and reduce economic growth, but a lack of government interference can do it all the same, consider the Economic Crisis of 2007. You have to analyze each government action individually, sometimes you need more government interference, sometimes you need less. There is no blanket principle that less is always better. There are many instances of where markets will actually fail if government doesn't step in to regulate business conduct.

How can you tell me that increasing taxes on the rich and corporations isn't detrimental to GDP growth?

Anyway, I was talking about socialist policies and now you're saying government intervention is good which is an entirely different topic lol. I guess somewhere along the way you labeled me as a free market maniac or something because of my talk about capitalism vs socialism. Anyway, government intervention is good, I wholeheartedly support it (for the most part). I agree with you 100% on everything you said. While we're on this topic, please tell me you were one of the few lucid people who were supportive of the bailout plan from the start and not just another raving angry taxpayer.

But importantly, investing into health care is key for the US economy. There is a principle economists refer to as "poverty shock," this is an external circumstance beyond someone's control that forces them into poverty. For example, you are in a car accident and have to pay $60,000 in medical bills because insurance will only cover so much. Or, you are in a car accident and just lose wages for 3 months while insurance does cover your medical bills. These situations cause people who are living on the margins (high credit card debt) to spiral out of control. The end result is that they often times have a hard time returning to their original standard of living.

You see, if you're a 25 year old college graduate and you deal with testicular cancer but it goes into remission and you're able to get a job again, you have a chance to escape poverty and to build your future.

But if you're a 60 year old widower with few job prospects, there are no paths for you to get back out into the work force and to re-earn your place in society.

Some people are at high risk for poverty shock and when it happens, their wages are reduced, which reduces their spending in the local community, which causes businesses to reduce their orders / expenses, which causes other businesses to fail, etc. One of the key methods of protecting an economy and making sure that it grows is to: 1) invest in human capital, make sure you have healthy, well-educated workers that are worth a good salary, and 2) protect people from poverty shock, minimize external factors that can stop economic development.

When you look at the foreclosure data, the plurality of all foreclosures are from medical problems:

"Half of all respondents (49%) indicated that their foreclosure was caused in part by a medical problem, including illness or injuries (32%), unmanageable medical bills (23%), lost work due to a medical problem (27%), or caring for sick family members (14%). We also examined objective indicia of medical disruptions in the previous two years, including those respondents paying more than $2,000 of medical bills out of pocket (37%), those losing two or more weeks of work because of injury or illness (30%), those currently disabled and unable to work (8%), and those who used their home equity to pay medical bills (13%). Altogether, seven in ten respondents (69%) reported at least one of these factors."

With the economy tightening and people having less pay, something as simple as medical bills, which used to affect a small portion of the population, now has much greater impact on people's well being. People are on the margin and at greater risk, while medical bills are now poverty shock. The result is that people can't pay their mortgage, can't sell their house at equivalent value, and thus are evicted with an additional $100,000 in debt and forced to declare personal bankruptcy. The personal bankruptcy ruins their credit and they are forced to pay high interest rates on all their day-to-day loans, which increases their living expenses and gives them even more bills to pay, all at a time that their earning has gone down. This becomes a downward spiral where people who were once high earners contributing to a community in well-paid, specialized jobs are now unable to contribute to their community via spending and unable to pay their loans, which creates a problem of NPL's (Non-Performing Loans), which, in turn, hurts the banks and lenders who gave them the money in the first place, as their assets turn toxic.

In short, protecting people from bankruptcy by issues beyond their control is good for the economy. And investing into the health and education of your workers ensures that they contribute more to the economy.

It feels like you're making a slippery slope argument of some sort. No doubt poverty shock exists, but it's not to say that without adequate healthcare policies we would have crippled human capital.

If you're 60 and you get sick, then that's too bad, shit happens. Go find a job at Mcdonalds or something.

Your data on foreclosures is nice but you can't say medical reasons are the only variable that caused those foreclosures. Keep in mind that many years ago, lending practices were absurdly loose. Most people bought homes they could barely just afford. Medical issues aside, I think the reasons for those foreclosures are just as much a result of predatory lending by banks and irresponsible homeowners (well to be fair, most of them didn't know better). Very clever though to lead insufficient healthcare into toxic bank assets but it's kinda slippery.

Anyway, my point is that the money spent on healthcare doesn't provide the return on GDP to justify it. You save lives though and improve the lives of some people and yea you improve a portion of your human capital but that doesn't cut it for me when you take into account the costs. If you really wanna know where I'm coming from, listen to this.

Did you know eskimos put their elderly on icebergs that float away so they won't have to deal with healthcare costs? It may seem Machiavellian, but from a purely pragmatic point of view, it makes sense no? If you're old and can't take care of yourself and provide no utility to the world but take up resources, then what's the point? Over here, we have medicare and resting homes where we spend money on the elderly where the return is pretty much the utility relatives derive from them being alive. And medical costs go up cuz of it. Of course a country based on Christian ideals (or any ideals for that matter) would never go for the eskimos' inhumane way of "taking care" of the elderly.

If my views seem borderline insane and extremist, it's cuz I'm amoral, exclude emotion from my decisions, and go almost purely on logic.