GlockTalk.com
Home Forums Classifieds Blogs Today's Posts Search Social Groups



  
SIGN-UP
Notices

Glock Talk
Welcome To The Glock Talk Forums.
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 10-24-2013, 12:38   #1
muscogee
Senior Member
 
muscogee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: San Antonio, TX
Posts: 6,841


Coburn: Defunding ObamaCare strategy 'not intellectually honest'

http://thehill.com/video/senate/3247...tually-honestq
__________________
"We don't pay taxes. Only the little people pay taxes."

Leona Helmsley
muscogee is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-24-2013, 13:02   #2
Mad Ryan
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Sunny Southern Oregon
Posts: 1,253
Quote:
Originally Posted by muscogee View Post
Here's the crux of the matter. This is a quote attributed to him in the article...

Quote:
ďIím all for getting change in to the Affordable Care Act, eliminating it, and doing something thatís more transparent and more market-oriented
The part in bold really reveals something interesting.

Unrestricted market forces only really work well when you're talking about a market that has lots of options and features a good or commodity that's very elastic.

There are a few markets where an unregulated market simply won't work because you have various externalities involved, or, as in the case of healthcare, it's almost perfectly inelastic.

This is the crux of the problem between "Librulz" and "Conservatives" on this issue. Conservatives don't often grasp that one size fits all, pseudo free market solutions aren't appropriate in all cases, and Liberals don't often care what something costs because they view an ROI analysis to be completely inappropriate when you're measuring human life.

The funny (and sad) thing is that a ROI analysis actually shows that "Socialized" medicine pays off in spades because healthy workforces where people don't have their healthcare tied to employment are much more productive. Businesses do better because they're not providing the benefits, and there's less absenteeism and turnover in their workforce.

The take home point is, free markets only work when both parties have something to offer the other. In healthcare the providers have the customer over a barrel. This effectively means the market breaks down.
__________________
Those who live by the sword get shot by those who don't...
Mad Ryan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-24-2013, 13:18   #3
aircarver
Silver Membership
Ride Continues
 
aircarver's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Ft. Worth TX
Posts: 24,318


We don't care about the BS ..

... It's going to happen.

.
__________________
They'd created a vast, permanently unemployed underclass, dependent upon the Republic's stupendous welfare machine for its very existence, and in so doing, they'd sown the seeds of their own destruction. No one could place two-thirds of a world's population on the Dole and keep them there forever without the entire system crashing . . . but how in hell did one get them off the Dole? -David Weber, Flag in Exile
aircarver is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 10-24-2013, 18:15   #4
SJ 40
Senior Member
 
SJ 40's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Vermont
Posts: 6,387
So sayeth one of the many Mambie Pambiecans. SJ 40

Last edited by SJ 40; 10-24-2013 at 18:16.. Reason: spelling
SJ 40 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 10-24-2013, 18:55   #5
RussP
Moderator
 
RussP's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Central Virginia
Posts: 42,612
Blog Entries: 64
Quote:
Originally Posted by muscogee View Post
That month old article, how long did you have to look to find it?
__________________
Freedom has a taste to those who fight and almost die, that the protected will never know.

"Comment is free, but facts are sacred." C.P. Scott, 1921
RussP is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-24-2013, 19:40   #6
RussP
Moderator
 
RussP's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Central Virginia
Posts: 42,612
Blog Entries: 64
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mad Ryan View Post
Unrestricted market forces only really work well when you're talking about a market that has lots of options and features a good or commodity that's very elastic.
Options, elastic, that's good. I like. I understand.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mad Ryan View Post
There are a few markets where an unregulated market simply won't work because you have various externalities involved, or, as in the case of healthcare, it's almost perfectly inelastic.
Not good...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mad Ryan View Post
This is the crux of the problem between "Librulz" and "Conservatives" on this issue. Conservatives don't often grasp that one size fits all, pseudo free market solutions aren't appropriate in all cases, and Liberals don't often care what something costs because they view an ROI analysis to be completely inappropriate when you're measuring human life.
True.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mad Ryan View Post
The funny (and sad) thing is that a ROI analysis actually shows that "Socialized" medicine pays off in spades because healthy workforces where people don't have their healthcare tied to employment are much more productive. Businesses do better because they're not providing the benefits, and there's less absenteeism and turnover in their workforce.
Why/how does a company not providing healthcare benefits affect absenteeism and turnover?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mad Ryan View Post
The take home point is, free markets only work when both parties have something to offer the other. In healthcare the providers have the customer over a barrel. This effectively means the market breaks down.
Unless there is a master guarantor of service monitoring the quality, really all aspects of service coming from the providers, right?
__________________
Freedom has a taste to those who fight and almost die, that the protected will never know.

"Comment is free, but facts are sacred." C.P. Scott, 1921
RussP is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-24-2013, 19:54   #7
muscogee
Senior Member
 
muscogee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: San Antonio, TX
Posts: 6,841


Quote:
Originally Posted by RussP View Post
That month old article, how long did you have to look to find it?
There was a link to it off the Real Clear Politics page. It's less than a month old. Nitpicking again?
__________________
"We don't pay taxes. Only the little people pay taxes."

Leona Helmsley

Last edited by muscogee; 10-24-2013 at 19:57..
muscogee is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-24-2013, 19:56   #8
muscogee
Senior Member
 
muscogee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: San Antonio, TX
Posts: 6,841


Quote:
Originally Posted by SJ 40 View Post
So sayeth one of the many Mambie Pambiecans. SJ 40
Tom Coburn? Ye know not that of which ye speak.
__________________
"We don't pay taxes. Only the little people pay taxes."

Leona Helmsley
muscogee is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-24-2013, 20:19   #9
RussP
Moderator
 
RussP's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Central Virginia
Posts: 42,612
Blog Entries: 64
Quote:
Originally Posted by muscogee View Post
There was a link to it off the Real Clear Politics page. It's less than a month old. Nitpicking again?
Quote:
Coburn: Defunding ObamaCare strategy 'not intellectually honest'
By Rebecca Shabad - 09/26/13 09:09 AM ET
My apologies, it's 28 days old.

Perhaps I should have said it is a "February" old.
__________________
Freedom has a taste to those who fight and almost die, that the protected will never know.

"Comment is free, but facts are sacred." C.P. Scott, 1921
RussP is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-24-2013, 21:12   #10
Mad Ryan
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Sunny Southern Oregon
Posts: 1,253
Quote:
Originally Posted by RussP View Post
Options, elastic, that's good. I like. I understand.

Oregon has had stellar healthcare for years. We've got lots of options and a fairly "socialized" approach which works well. Our rates under Obamacare don't seem to be as bad as some places because we've got tons of competition already.


Not good...True.

Why/how does a company not providing healthcare benefits affect absenteeism and turnover?

The fact that people have access to healthcare provides for lower absenteeism because they're overall healthier. Also, uncoupling healthcare from the employment market would free up a lot of "friction" that's currently there because people often stay in jobs they don't like or delay retirement because they need the health benefits. If the company isn't on the hook, it's good for them, and it's ultimately good for the labor market.

Unless there is a master guarantor of service monitoring the quality, really all aspects of service coming from the providers, right?
The part I put in bold is really an important point. Some industries absolutely must be regulated as you just alluded or they just rape their customers. Not because they're evil, but because corporations exist to make a profit and return dividends to their shareholders, and if they can increase profit by increasing rates without the danger of losing significant numbers of customers, they will. It's been happening for years.
__________________
Those who live by the sword get shot by those who don't...

Last edited by Mad Ryan; 10-24-2013 at 21:15..
Mad Ryan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-25-2013, 13:50   #11
muscogee
Senior Member
 
muscogee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: San Antonio, TX
Posts: 6,841


Quote:
Originally Posted by Mad Ryan View Post
The part I put in bold is really an important point. Some industries absolutely must be regulated as you just alluded or they just rape their customers. Not because they're evil, but because corporations exist to make a profit and return dividends to their shareholders, and if they can increase profit by increasing rates without the danger of losing significant numbers of customers, they will. It's been happening for years.
You're right. They're not evil. They're heartless, literally. They only want to insure people who don't need insurance. It's more profitable.
__________________
"We don't pay taxes. Only the little people pay taxes."

Leona Helmsley
muscogee is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-25-2013, 13:52   #12
Lethaltxn
Senior Member
 
Lethaltxn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Texas
Posts: 5,145
Why do companies exist?
__________________
Custom PC's
2012 Bumper Stickers
Lew Horton Springfield Compact 1911
Springfield Loaded
Lethaltxn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-25-2013, 14:36   #13
mj9mm
Senior Member
 
mj9mm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: WI, looking better since Walker
Posts: 2,556
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mad Ryan View Post
Here's the crux of the matter. This is a quote attributed to him in the article...

The funny (and sad) thing is that a ROI analysis actually shows that "Socialized" medicine pays off in spades because healthy workforces where people don't have their healthcare tied to employment are much more productive. Businesses do better because they're not providing the benefits, and there's less absenteeism and turnover in their workforce.
where exactly has this paid off ?
__________________
The power of the people lays in the first, the ability stems from the second.
that angry voice rising up from the back of the room that haunts the Republican Party.
mj9mm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-25-2013, 15:23   #14
RussP
Moderator
 
RussP's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Central Virginia
Posts: 42,612
Blog Entries: 64
Quote:
Originally Posted by RussP View Post
Why/how does a company not providing healthcare benefits affect absenteeism and turnover?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mad Ryan View Post
The fact that people have access to healthcare provides for lower absenteeism because they're overall healthier.
If they use the healthcare wisely and properly.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mad Ryan View Post
Also, uncoupling healthcare from the employment market would free up a lot of "friction" that's currently there because people often stay in jobs they don't like or delay retirement because they need the health benefits.
So you are saying that often people stay with a company because of the benefits. During the period of "I'm just here for the benefits," performance may not be at peak quality. Management requires improved performance. Employee doesn't like the job, still only does minimum +. Is that the friction you're talking about?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mad Ryan View Post
If the company isn't on the hook, it's good for them, and it's ultimately good for the labor market.
But, if the insurance attaches to the individual, or to the family, not the employment, employees could move about between companies as freely as they wish? Is that your point? Wouldn't that create volatility, uncertainty in the market?

What then would an employer offer to attract and retain employees so that they can produce/provide goods/services at values that attract clients and customers, earning profits that attract investors?
__________________
Freedom has a taste to those who fight and almost die, that the protected will never know.

"Comment is free, but facts are sacred." C.P. Scott, 1921
RussP is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-25-2013, 15:25   #15
RussP
Moderator
 
RussP's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Central Virginia
Posts: 42,612
Blog Entries: 64
Quote:
Originally Posted by muscogee View Post
You're right. They're not evil. They're heartless, literally. They only want to insure people who don't need insurance. It's more profitable.
So, now that they must insure everyone, how are they going to remain profitable?
__________________
Freedom has a taste to those who fight and almost die, that the protected will never know.

"Comment is free, but facts are sacred." C.P. Scott, 1921
RussP is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-25-2013, 22:44   #16
Mad Ryan
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Sunny Southern Oregon
Posts: 1,253
Quote:
Originally Posted by RussP View Post
If they use the healthcare wisely and properly.

True dat


So you are saying that often people stay with a company because of the benefits. During the period of "I'm just here for the benefits," performance may not be at peak quality. Management requires improved performance. Employee doesn't like the job, still only does minimum +. Is that the friction you're talking about?

Yeah, but it goes beyond that. Lots of jobs with people in them that really shouldn't be there but they stay because of the benefits. Those jobs could be freed up for people to move up or move in if those folks retired. That's part of the friction I'm talking about. Also, people who need the healthcare don't go start new businesses because they can't afford to lose their healthcare at their existing job so that's another source. That's just a few examples but you get the idea.

But, if the insurance attaches to the individual, or to the family, not the employment, employees could move about between companies as freely as they wish? Is that your point? Wouldn't that create volatility, uncertainty in the market?

Not really. There's still utility in seniority and stability for both parties. People make more when they've been there a while and whatnot. But, if an employer doesn't treat their employees well, or pay well, then they're less likely to hold on to them. That's the labor market functioning as it should.

What then would an employer offer to attract and retain employees so that they can produce/provide goods/services at values that attract clients and customers, earning profits that attract investors?
Pay, better working conditions, etc. Labor will always be one of the bigger costs associated with business, but we've had a problem with wages falling while simultaneously, profits rising for decades so a correction is probably in order. Again, the labor market working as it should.
__________________
Those who live by the sword get shot by those who don't...
Mad Ryan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-26-2013, 05:44   #17
muscogee
Senior Member
 
muscogee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: San Antonio, TX
Posts: 6,841


Quote:
Originally Posted by RussP View Post
So, now that they must insure everyone, how are they going to remain profitable?
If they remain profitable, how are the people who really need insurance going to be able to afford it? Imagine where the country would be if we followed the same paradigm with transportation, fire protection, police protection etc.
__________________
"We don't pay taxes. Only the little people pay taxes."

Leona Helmsley
muscogee is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-26-2013, 06:05   #18
series1811
CLM Number
Enforcerator.
 
series1811's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Retired, but not expired.
Posts: 14,311
Nothing like hearing people who have never run a successful business, tell you how your businesses will work.

What could go wrong?
__________________
I sure miss the country I grew up in.
series1811 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-26-2013, 06:38   #19
Lethaltxn
Senior Member
 
Lethaltxn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Texas
Posts: 5,145
Quote:
Originally Posted by series1811 View Post
Nothing like hearing people who have never run a successful business, tell you how your businesses will work.

What could go wrong?
I bet they slept at a holiday inn.
__________________
Custom PC's
2012 Bumper Stickers
Lew Horton Springfield Compact 1911
Springfield Loaded
Lethaltxn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-26-2013, 08:35   #20
RussP
Moderator
 
RussP's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Central Virginia
Posts: 42,612
Blog Entries: 64
Quote:
Originally Posted by muscogee View Post
If they remain profitable, how are the people who really need insurance going to be able to afford it?
How does Obamacare treat/handle insurance company profits?
Quote:
Originally Posted by muscogee View Post
Imagine where the country would be if we followed the same paradigm with transportation, fire protection, police protection etc.
Do you even understand your interrogative statement?

If a government operates at a profit, it is called a surplus. Remember 1998 - 2001? Those were years where the government operated at a profit.

Are you not in favor of a government operating with a surplus?

How about just a break even, a balanced budget?

Are you in favor of a mandatory balanced budget?

A country operating with spending less than receipts is very, very, very good.
__________________
Freedom has a taste to those who fight and almost die, that the protected will never know.

"Comment is free, but facts are sacred." C.P. Scott, 1921
RussP is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-26-2013, 09:08   #21
RussP
Moderator
 
RussP's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Central Virginia
Posts: 42,612
Blog Entries: 64
Quote:
Originally Posted by RussP View Post
If they use the healthcare wisely and properly.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mad Ryan View Post
True dat
Yep...
Quote:
Originally Posted by RussP View Post
So you are saying that often people stay with a company because of the benefits. During the period of "I'm just here for the benefits," performance may not be at peak quality. Management requires improved performance. Employee doesn't like the job, still only does minimum +. Is that the friction you're talking about?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mad Ryan View Post
Yeah, but it goes beyond that. Lots of jobs with people in them that really shouldn't be there but they stay because of the benefits. Those jobs could be freed up for people to move up or move in if those folks retired. That's part of the friction I'm talking about. Also, people who need the healthcare don't go start new businesses because they can't afford to lose their healthcare at their existing job so that's another source. That's just a few examples but you get the idea.
Good points. Motivating people to look for new employment might be easier if the undesirable employee did not have the benefit package "anchor". That would have been helpful to me a few times over the years.

Attracting employees to a new venture would be easier if they bring their own insurance plan. Still, many will be under corporate master policies.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RussP View Post
But, if the insurance attaches to the individual, or to the family, not the employment, employees could move about between companies as freely as they wish? Is that your point? Wouldn't that create volatility, uncertainty in the market?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mad Ryan View Post
Not really. There's still utility in seniority and stability for both parties. People make more when they've been there a while and whatnot. But, if an employer doesn't treat their employees well, or pay well, then they're less likely to hold on to them. That's the labor market functioning as it should.
True.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RussP View Post
What then would an employer offer to attract and retain employees so that they can produce/provide goods/services at values that attract clients and customers, earning profits that attract investors?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mad Ryan View Post
Pay, better working conditions, etc. Labor will always be one of the bigger costs associated with business, but we've had a problem with wages falling while simultaneously, profits rising for decades so a correction is probably in order. Again, the labor market working as it should.
More recently the market is learning to do more with fewer employees.

Demand will have to increase more dramatically than in the past to entice employers to employ more.

Otherwise, new companies, either for new products or competitors for existing products will have to come online to hire the employable.
__________________
Freedom has a taste to those who fight and almost die, that the protected will never know.

"Comment is free, but facts are sacred." C.P. Scott, 1921
RussP is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-26-2013, 09:30   #22
Chronos
Senior Member
 
Chronos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 3,934
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mad Ryan View Post
The take home point is, free markets only work when both parties have something to offer the other. In healthcare the providers have the customer over a barrel. This effectively means the market breaks down.
Are you aware that the "health care crisis" of the early 1900's was that health car was so cheap and universally available that doctors were afraid of "not getting paid what they deserve?" That ushered in the era of "political solutions," where the government began by effectively giving the AMA a monopoly. There have been many more distortions to the market since then, to the point that it's really a joke to mention the word "free" at this point, but the take home is that even when you think you have customers are over a barrel, providers in a legitimately free market are great at undercutting each other to the point that prices are low and availability is high.

It's only very recently that you have this meltdown of a heavily regulated and controlled system, with the government artificially propping up the cost of health care (guess who prevents re-importation of drugs, etc).

Another example of "perfect inelasticity" is food -- if you need it to survive (and you do), you'll pay whatever it costs. According to you, this should completely destroy the effectiveness of the free market. But it doesn't -- instead, we have an obesity problem with poor people, and the ultimate in convenience and low price (fast food) is everywhere.
__________________
If you've already accepted that "violence against the innocent" is a morally legitimate means of funding the government, who are you to complain when the majority apprporiates your legacy and sells your children into a lifetime of debt slavery?

Last edited by Chronos; 10-26-2013 at 09:40..
Chronos is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-26-2013, 09:37   #23
Michael Rye
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 1,012
Ocare need not be defunded. It will do that on its' own. ACA will not survive without a lot of young, healthy and low risk people signing up. Thus far, they haven't. And they aren't going to, either.
__________________
The past is the past, the future hasn't happened yet, so today is linguine and clam sauce!
Michael Rye is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-26-2013, 09:41   #24
Chronos
Senior Member
 
Chronos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 3,934
Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael Rye View Post
Ocare need not be defunded. It will do that on its' own. ACA will not survive without a lot of young, healthy and low risk people signing up. Thus far, they haven't. And they aren't going to, either.
Yes -- it's already happening: http://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?post=225427
__________________
If you've already accepted that "violence against the innocent" is a morally legitimate means of funding the government, who are you to complain when the majority apprporiates your legacy and sells your children into a lifetime of debt slavery?
Chronos is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-26-2013, 09:50   #25
Michael Rye
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 1,012
In a bass ackwards sort of a way, it's a good thing for the Administration that the website is in such disarray. People can't see the prices! Once they do, there will be even less incentive to sign up. This whole thing has been a turkey from the get go.
__________________
The past is the past, the future hasn't happened yet, so today is linguine and clam sauce!
Michael Rye is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump




All times are GMT -6. The time now is 17:37.



Homepage
FAQ
Forums
Calendar
Advertise
Gallery
GT Wiki
GT Blogs
Social Groups
Classifieds


Users Currently Online: 1,288
376 Members
912 Guests

Most users ever online: 2,244
Nov 11, 2013 at 11:42