[jdonn]

blackshoe, on Jan 26 2010, 11:09 AM, said:

PassedOut, on Jan 26 2010, 10:34 AM, said:

But the democrats will truly have cut their own throats if they don't get health care reform passed. Enough people do know that health care reform is vitally important and are really steamed at the ineptness of congress to get this done.

LOL at the premise that whenever there's a problem, government should fix it.

They have done little about this particular problem for decades! Would you say the problem is betting worse or better?

LOL at turning everything into a Republican talking point.

[PassedOut]

blackshoe, on Jan 26 2010, 11:09 AM, said:

LOL at the premise that whenever there's a problem, government should fix it.

Of course I could say:

LOL at the premise that whenever there's a problem, the government should never fix it.

But that would be equally dishonest, so I won't say it.

In some situations, it is appropriate for the government to fix a problem. In other situations, it is not. In the case of health care reform, it is appropriate for the US government to take action, as have the governments of the many countries with better health care systems than the US.

[Winstonm]

IMO, the mistake made in health care lies in making the debate too small. The Democrats would have been much better served approaching the American people with a complete overhaul and single payer system. This would have shown the party to stand for something other than scoring political points - which is the perception IMO of the current push for health care reform.

There is a little too much pragmatism in the White House with both Barack Obama and Rahm Emanuel running the show. Better to lose a momentous fight than to appear to be slick politician out to gain polling points.

[blackshoe]

PassedOut, on Jan 26 2010, 11:44 AM, said:

In the case of health care reform, it is appropriate for the US government to take action...

Why? Because "... as have the governments of the many countries with better health care systems than the US?"

Are there "many countries" with better health care systems than the US? Which ones? Why are they better? Have the current efforts to improve out health care system taken any "lessons learned" from the experience of these better health care systems?

This health care package is a big deal in so many ways. I want our representatives in Congress to understand what it is when they vote on it. At the moment, I don't think they do. I'm not sure anyone does.

[PassedOut]

In the US, the current health care system costs much more per capita -- with worse outcomes -- than does the health care system in, for example, France. The US compares badly with every modern country where the government runs, or has a strong hand in, health care.

The private sector has had many years to fix the problem in the US without success, and the problem is getting worse, not better. This problem must be fixed, and the government is the only means available.

Would we be better off with a smarter system like that in France? Probably so, but that's not going to happen. I don't like everything about the current house and senate bills, and I doubt that anyone does. It is, however, an important first step that should be taken.

I know that my representatives do understand what is in both bills. Not sure about other areas of the US, but they've all had a long time to find out. Y66 listed many of the key provisions. And I hope that most folks keep up to date on the information on health care reform posted by the White House: Health Reform and You.

[hrothgar]

blackshoe, on Jan 26 2010, 09:17 PM, said:

Why? Because "... as have the governments of the many countries with better health care systems than the US?"

Are there "many countries" with better health care systems than the US? Which ones? Why are they better? Have the current efforts to improve out health care system taken any "lessons learned" from the experience of these better health care systems?

This health care package is a big deal in so many ways. I want our representatives in Congress to understand what it is when they vote on it. At the moment, I don't think they do. I'm not sure anyone does.

Its fairly well accepted that the US ranks very low amongst industrialized democracies in terms of health care coverage.

The following chart provides some interesting perspective:

http://www.billpeckham.com/.a/6a00e54fc659...f61f0970b-500wi

[y66]

blackshoe, on Jan 26 2010, 11:09 AM, said:

PassedOut, on Jan 26 2010, 10:34 AM, said:

But the democrats will truly have cut their own throats if they don't get health care reform passed. Enough people do know that health care reform is vitally important and are really steamed at the ineptness of congress to get this done.

LOL at the premise that whenever there's a problem, government should fix it.

Can't imagine anyone seriously arguing with PassedOut's point here. The premise is that when you invest huge amounts of capital in something, you better not come home empty handed. Come on. Even Jack, of Jack and the Beanstalk understood this.

[Winstonm]

Quote

LOL at the premise that whenever there's a problem, government should fix it.

Actually, this is exactly the debate we need - not is so much Fox News Sensationalism wording but about the Rights of health care versus the Business of health care.

Canada had this debate many years ago and decided as a country that every citizen had a basic right to receive health care.

In America, many on the other side debate this approach and they have some valid points. But they are not 100% right simply because they think they are.

Our current heath care "fix" assumes the "Healthcare as a business" premise is undisputed and cannot be challenged; IMO, that is its failing and the failing of the Democrats in attempting change.

IMO the vote was for massive change - not spare change handouts.

[Winstonm]

Quote

ok....what caused the destruction of excess debt and what is excess debt, I mean how do we measure it, assuming it exists? Just asking.

There are a number of ways to measure excess det - maybe a better term for it is "dangerous debt" as the owner tends to be more highly leveraged than others and the underlying collateral overpriced. Lending 100% LTV on assets whose prices are 2-3 standard deviations above the mean may be a good indicator. Covenent-light loans may be another. Debt to GDP is what Fisher used.

Problem is in neoclassical school (or blended) debt is considered in equalibrium when in the real world debt is (during credit frenzies like roaring 20s and current housing boom/bust) in disequalibrium. It is the disequalibrium that is the cause of the downturn.

This is why Bernanke et al have so much trouble understanding the role of debt and credit - their models assume equalibrium where there is none. Providing 0% bank loans is supposed to fix the problem - but the problem is no one who is solvent wants to borrow. The only real demand for loans is from those who are too high risk for the banks to gamble on. Disequalibrium again. Bernanke believed (in his Japan speech) that government can always cause an inflation to stop a debt-deflation recessionary event. I think his idea is bounded by the risk of hyperinflation on the top and aggregate demand loss of loans on the bottom. You can lead a horse to the trough but you can't make him borrow instead of save.

Quote

Saying the markets dont clear is just another way of saying all correlations go to one and there is a liquidity problem. I mean if we can foresee this how do we stop it, if we cannot foresee it, we got an issue.

Not really. When a lender holds a $500,000 asset he lent as 100% LTV and that asset defaults while the underlying collateral devalues to $300,000, it is not a liquqidity problem for the bank but a solvency problem - especially when they have only $5000 in loan loss reserves.

Of course, if debt and repayment were in equalibrium this could not happen - which is a real problem with determining bubbles, i.e., if your theories don't accept that disequalibrium occurs how can there be a bubble?
________________

Quote

Let me put this another way, we dont know what causes recessions and we cannot predict them with any degree of certainty but recessions cause many of these issues.

Recession has been explained as a normal part of the business cycle. The present catastrophe and the Great Depression along with Japan's lost decade are not normal recessions but the result of debt-deflation recessions - IMO and that of Irving Fisher. Excessive debt was the cause. Disequalibrium.
------------

Quote

the good news is we seem to know how to get out of recessions, low taxes, fed floods banking system, free trade, etc.

World War seems the best method to escape debt-deflation recessions.

[Winstonm]

On the same note, here is part of a e-mail from a California banker that was published today:

Quote

If you’re a bank with a relatively healthy balance sheet with adequate capital, (like us)you want to maintain surplus capital in order to stay on the FDIC’s list of banks they can transfer the loans and deposits from a failed institution into.

This is a home run for the acquiring bank and far more of an instant benefit than any new lending.

Why lend when you can wait for the guy down the street to go bust and have the FDIC transfer the assets to you?

[Al_U_Card]

Winstonm, on Jan 26 2010, 08:01 PM, said:

Why lend when you can wait for the guy down the street to go bust and have the FDIC transfer the assets to you?

May just be the most effective description of what exactly is wrong with the banking system.

[kenberg]

I have read the posted article
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2010/01/hea...ion-gap-or.html

The author assumes I understand the phrase "net favor ability". I don't. The right column's numbers are percentages, I get that from reading the column. The left column seems to be constructed by subtracting something from something. I conclude this from the word "net" and from the fact that some of the entries are negative. That's as far as I get.

Take, for example, the entries "subsidies < 400% of poverty". The entries are 33 in the left column and 72 in the right. To start with the right column, respondents were asked if they knew that "Subsidies <400% of poverty" is in the bill and 72% said yes? I am surprised that 72% understood the question but maybe it was put in some expanded form. But now what does the 33 in the first column represent?


Here is the author's explanation:

[Quote]
The following table combines two sets of questions from the Kaiser survey, each of which ask people about the individual components of the bill. One set of questions asks people whether they believe that the bill contains each provision; the other set, which I've tabulated on a net basis, asks them whether they'd be more or less likely to support a bill if it contained such a provision.
[Unquote]


It's the phrase " I've tabulated on a net basis," that is giving me trouble. "No coverage for illegals" gets a rating of 23. I would expect no coverage for illegals to be fairly popular. So again this has to be some sort of constructed number. I don't see the construction.

[helene_t]

kenberg, on Jan 27 2010, 01:33 PM, said:

Take, for example, the entries "subsidies < 400% of poverty". The entries are 33 in the left column and 72 in the right. To start with the right column, respondents were asked if they knew that "Subsidies <400% of poverty" is in the bill and 72% said yes? I am surprised that 72% understood the question but maybe it was put in some expanded form. But now what does the 33 in the first column represent?

They may have been asked if they knew that people with income less than four times the poverty line would get subsidies for their insurance.

The 33% is (percentage who favored this part of the bill) - (percentage who disfavored this part of the bill)

33% of what? Of those who were aware? Or of everyone (the unaware just having been told by the interviewer about this part of the bill)? I dunno but most likely the latter I would say, based on how similar polls are usually made.

Quote

It's the phrase " I've tabulated on a net basis," that is giving me trouble. "No coverage for illegals" gets a rating of 23. I would expect no coverage for illegals to be fairly popular. So again this has to be some sort of constructed number. I don't see the construction.

+23 still means that more people favor this than disfavor this. As you expected.

[y66]

From page 7 of Kaiser Health Tracking Poll Findings (PDF)

Quote

Provisions that Strengthen, and Weaken, Support

The above series makes clear that, for perfectly understandable reasons, many Americans remain unaware of the specific content of the legislation being discussed on Capitol Hill. But what would Americans think about each of these proposals if they did know about them? To answer this question, a separate subset of Americans were told the proposed legislation included each provision and asked whether that particular element made them more likely to support health reform, less likely to support it or didn’t affect their views.

Element of Health Reform Legislation / more likely to support / less likely / no affect

Tax credits to small businesses 73% 11% 14%
Health insurance exchange 67% 16% 14%
Won’t change most people’s existing arrangements 66% 10% 19%
Guaranteed issue 63% 24% 11%
Medicaid expansion 62% 22% 14%
Extend dependent coverage through age 25 60% 22% 15%
Help close the Medicare doughnut hole 60% 21% 15%
Increased income taxes on wealthy 59% 24% 16%
Subsidy assistance to individuals 57% 24% 17%
Reduce the deficit 56% 20% 18%
Cover at least 31 million uninsured 56% 24% 16%
No federal money for abortion 55% 26% 16%
Limit age-adjusted rating 53% 25% 19%
Taxes on drug and device makers, insurers 53% 26% 17%
Public option 53% 31% 13%
Medical loss ratio 52% 19% 21%

It looks like "net favorability" is the difference between the first 2 percentages, as Helene reported above.

[Lobowolf]

"No coverage for illegals" is a good example of why there's more to the issue that a simple chart. There are some simple loopholes.

First, you pass the healthcare bill. Then, you have a virtually all-inclusive amnesty. Presto! No coverage for illegals. Of course, the tens of millions of people currently in the country are covered, but that's ok, because they're no longer illegal. Fair enough, but do you really think that's going to thrill the +23% who favor "no coverage for illegals"?

[kenberg]

This, from Y66, does seem to be where the numbers in the first two columns came from. But these numbers create more problems. For example, taking these numbers at their word, I conclude that 20% of the population would be less likely to support the health bill if it reduced the federal deficit:

Quote

/ more likely to support / less likely / no affect
Reduce the deficit 56% 20% 18%

I want to meet the guy who says "I used to support the health care bill but then I found out that it would reduce the deficit so now I am opposed to it."

This whole thing appears to be bizarre.

[kenberg]

Lobowolf, on Jan 27 2010, 12:53 PM, said:

"No coverage for illegals" is a good example of why there's more to the issue that a simple chart.  There are some simple loopholes.

First, you pass the healthcare bill.  Then, you have a virtually all-inclusive amnesty.  Presto!  No coverage for illegals.  Of course, the tens of millions of people currently in the country are covered, but that's ok, because they're no longer illegal.  Fair enough, but do you really think that's going to thrill the +23% who favor "no coverage for illegals"?

The 23% actually is, I guess, 61.5% on the explanation that 23 comes from 61.5 minus 38.5. Or anyway it comes from something minus something. It's not to be taken straight up.

I think there are a lot of problems with making any sense out of these numbers.

[Rodney26]

kenberg, on Jan 27 2010, 12:58 PM, said:

This, from Y66, does seem to be where the numbers in the first two columns came from. But these numbers create more problems. For example, taking these numbers at their word, I conclude that 20% of the population would be less likely to support the health bill if it reduced the federal deficit:

Quote

/ more likely to support / less likely / no affect
Reduce the deficit 56% 20% 18%

I want to meet the guy who says "I used to support the health care bill but then I found out that it would reduce the deficit so now I am opposed to it."

This whole thing appears to be bizarre.

Don't you find it a little suspicious that this bill purportedly is going to extend coverage to tens of millions of people, keep current insurance holders and Medicare recipients at the same level of coverage and reduce the deficit?

Massachusetts is a left leaning state, but it also very recently witnessed the Big Dig, which took 3x as long and cost 10x as much as originally proposed. When the CBO started throwing out the deficit reduction talk when it came to this bill, they overreached. You'd be more likely to see a unicorn.

In a moral sense, should an out of control government in terms of spending be siphoning money from the medical system to pay for its sins of the past (and future)?

I hope that the real truth is that the American people are going to start demanding fiscal accountability from all levels of government and aren't going to let social issues wedge how we vote in elections.

[Lobowolf]

Rodney26, on Jan 28 2010, 10:20 PM, said:

kenberg, on Jan 27 2010, 12:58 PM, said:

This, from Y66,  does seem to be where the numbers in the first two columns came from. But these numbers create more problems. For example, taking these numbers at their word, I conclude that 20% of the population would be less likely to support the health bill if it reduced the federal deficit:

Quote

/ more likely to support / less likely / no affect
Reduce the deficit 56% 20% 18%

I want to meet the guy who says "I used to support the health care bill but then I found out that it would reduce the deficit so now I am opposed to it."

This whole thing appears to be bizarre.

Don't you find it a little suspicious that this bill purportedly is going to extend coverage to tens of millions of people, keep current insurance holders and Medicare recipients at the same level of coverage and reduce the deficit?

Massachusetts is a left leaning state, but it also very recently witnessed the Big Dig, which took 3x as long and cost 10x as much as originally proposed. When the CBO started throwing out the deficit reduction talk when it came to this bill, they overreached. You'd be more likely to see a unicorn.

In a moral sense, should an out of control government in terms of spending be siphoning money from the medical system to pay for its sins of the past (and future)?

I hope that the real truth is that the American people are going to start demanding fiscal accountability from all levels of government and aren't going to let social issues wedge how we vote in elections.

Yes, this is another good example. The assertion is that it will reduce the deficit; most people are in favor of deficit reduction, so the conclusion is that people just aren't well-informed about the bill. Alternate hypothesis: They don't believe it.

[jdonn]

So then what should people do? Assume any bill must automatically increase the deficit? Not believe anything the CBO says and thus have nothing at all but the word of politicians to go on? Fight for CBO reform before health care reform? Just be against everything?

I mean let's be real. Those numbers say 1 in 5 people either are against deficit reduction, or think it's MORE likely the deficit increases if the CBO says it will decrease than otherwise, or didn't understand the question. That is not plausible except for not understanding the question, but in that case I don't care about the results anyway. I think I'll remain a bit skeptical thanks.