Friday, February 19, 2010

How to raise the cost of health care: fashion policy so that the gov't saves money



Obama's forced spending cuts for Medicare are causing health care premiums to rise for individuals.

This is all being driven by the false notion that the government has to "make or save money."

It's very simple: for the government to "make or save money," the private sector must lose money by definition.

If Obama wanted to lower the cost of health care for millions of Americans, he'd make the government the "single payer". That would inject a huge amount of competition into the health care system and prices for all services would fall across the board.

6 comments:

Tom Hickey said...

Right. And rising costs drive healthy people not on Medicare to becoming "self-insurers," some necessarily because they cannot afford the increases. This shrinks the pool and leaves only the sickest, further driving up premiums costs, which drives out more people at the margin.

This is obviously unsustainable. What's to hard to get about this?

googleheim said...

this also opens up the question about spending and the budget axe.

black farmers have historically been left out of the massive subsidizations other white farmers enjoyed.

in addition to destroying the elderly's medicare, the deficit hawk terrorism also destroys the notion that the US federal government provides the same resources to all people.

The treasury is not a depository institution, so the government does not need to "save money."

Since it can create money and retract the loans, tax money helps but is not the sole funding for all government spending.

googleheim said...

We need to take aim at Grover Norquist and Pawlenty since they say Obama is a gold medalist in government spending, but they call themselves Reagan Republicans.

Reagan outspent ALL PREVIOUS ADMINISTRATIONS SINCE GEORGE WASHINGTON not adjusting for inflation.

That means that Obama has spent less than Reagaon when we DO ADJUST FOR INFLATION.

Mosler does not do a good job at pointing this simple fact out.

This is the Anchilles heel for these deficit hawk terrorists.

Poke it, and they fall flat on their face back to the smoke screen supply siding of the 80's.

Mike Norman said...

Tom,

Exactly, what's hard to get about this? Nothing, except for the fact that people see things through the prism of their own beliefs. If that belief system says that government needs to be "viable" in a cost/profit sense, this is what you get, even if the whole thing is ridiculous.

Tom Hickey said...

Yeah. Exactly how good did things work out under out MBA president?

YMMV + IBGYBG

Interesting that the loyal opposition has taken to making things up and outright lying.

"You can fool some of the people all the time, and all the people some of the time, but you can't fool all of the people all of the time."

Meanwhile, the party in power can't decide what they are for.

Total mess.

Mike Norman said...

Goog,

Yes, the deficit under Reagan was the highest in the postwar period until now and if you strip out TARP and the bailouts, the deficit is on a few tenths of a percent greater than the deficit Reagan ran.