Pages

Friday, July 28, 2017

CBO breaks it down... choice is harmful

The CBO finally admitted what conservative critics have suggested all along.  According to the most recent CBO report of the "skinny" repeal of Obamacare, such a repeal would raise the number of uninsured by 16 million Americans.  Of those 16 million, 15 million would be people who would no longer choose to purchase insurance if the individual mandate was no longer in effect.

This is probably worth repeating... of the 16 million Americans who would "lose coverage" 15 million of them would "lose coverage" as a matter of their personal choice.

Considering the repeal of the Individual mandate has been in every repeal and replace bill... that means that the first 15 million of every other estimate (22,23,32 million) is made up of people who would be deciding on their own to no longer purchase the same insurance that they are currently mandated to purchase.

So when you saw the  headline that 22 million people would lose insurance... what that headline should have read was that seven million people would lose insurance, while 15 million would be given the choice to not purchase what they are currently required to purchase.

The CBO acknowledges that many of the 15 million would probably purchase some sort of low cost insurance (as they previously had prior to Obamacare mandates). But that those insurance plans do not live up to the new criteria as to what is considered "coverage" and therefor those who chose this option still show (by CBO standards) as "losing insurance".

You know the liberal mindset has gone full scale socialist when they consider it a government "benefit" to take away our choices on healthcare insurance, and consider it to be a "benefit lost" when we, as American citizens, are given back that choice.

I guess our liberal friends just don't trust their own ability to make choices and think for themselves.

Anyone surprised by this?

74 comments:

opie said...

15 million of them would "lose coverage" as a matter of their personal choice

That makes it a whole lot better, people being stupid, just like years of repeal and replace failure due to incompetence.

caliphate4vr said...

Anyone surprised by this?

What I said on day one, when Roger breathlessly posted the CBO numbers

opie said...

What I said on day one, when Roger breathlessly posted the CBO numbers

Yep, predicting stupid people is your sweet spot. Be proud consultant....your career will go with all those customers.

C.H. Truth said...

Prior to Obamacare, 96% of Americans were happy with their healthcare insurance. Today that number wallows somewhere in the mid seventies...

Still... liberals seem surprised that people are happier when they get to make their own choices, than when they are told what to do.

Oh and apparently wanting to make your own choices makes you "stupid". I guess by that logic, the "smart people" are the ones who rely on others to make their decisions for them.

Once again, it boils down to this. Just because "you" don't trust yourself to make good decisions, doesn't mean you take away that right for "me" to make my own decisions. I actually trust myself.

Loretta said...

"guess our liberal friends just don't trust their own ability to make choices and think for themselves."

I simply can't imagine being that insecure.

Commonsense said...

It's become downright Orwellian.

caliphate4vr said...

Once again, it boils down to this. Just because "you" don't trust yourself to make good decisions, doesn't mean you take away that right for "me" to make my own decisions. I actually trust myself.

Hell just look here, we have one that couldn't push the bottle away until it destroyed his liver and another that can't push the pie away

opie said...


Prior to Obamacare, 96% of Americans were happy with their healthcare insurance
Sure CH, seems there may be an opposing opinion to yours....

https://www.healthinsurance.org/blog/2014/10/25/the-good-old-days-before-obamacare/

82% wanted the system overhauled

In August 2008, about six months before debate began in Washington on what would become the Affordable Care Act, 82 percent of Americans were so dissatisfied with the U.S. health care system they wanted it overhauled, according to The Commonwealth Fund, which commissioned the poll.

We were worried not only about how we personally were being affected by the inefficiency and high cost of our uniquely American health care system, we were worried about how our country as a whole was being affected.

And for good reason.

50 million were uninsured

The cost of health care – and health insurance – was rising so fast that ever-growing numbers of us were winding up in the ranks of the uninsured. Fifty million – one out of every six of us – were uninsured when the Affordable Care Act was signed into law in 2010. That number was projected to grow by several million more over the coming decade if Congress didn’t pass reform legislation.

The main reason so many of us were uninsured in 2010 was that health insurance had simply become a budget-buster for many American families. The cost of employer-sponsored family coverage reached $13,375 in 2009, an increase of 131 percent in ten years, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation

Source: https://www.healthinsurance.org/blog/2014/10/25/the-good-old-days-before-obamacare/
Follow us: @EyeOnInsurance on Twitter | healthinsurance.org on Facebook

opie said...

To determine whether respondents of a given poll were "happy" with their health insurance -- as Will phrased it -- we lumped together the percentages for "very satisfied," "somewhat satisfied" and, where applicable, "extremely satisfied."

Here's what we found, poll by poll, in reverse chronological order:

• Quinnipiac University, Sept. 2009. "How satisfied are you with your health insurance plan?" 54 percent very satisfied, 34 percent somewhat. Total: 88 percent satisfaction.

• Quinnipiac University, June 2009. "How satisfied are you with your health insurance plan?" 49 percent very satisfied, 36 somewhat satisfied. Total: 85 percent satisfaction.

• ABC News/Washington Post, June 2009. "For each specific item I name, please tell me whether you are very satisfied with it, somewhat satisfied, somewhat dissatisfied or very dissatisfied. ... Your health insurance coverage." 42 percent very satisfied, 39 percent somewhat satisfied. Total: 81 percent satisfaction.

• Mathew Greenwald & Associates for the Employee Benefit Research Institute, May 2009. "Overall, how satisfied are you with your current health insurance plan?" 21 percent extremely satisfied, 37 percent very satisfied, 30 percent somewhat satisfied. Total: 88 percent satisfaction.

• ABC News/Washington Post, June 2009. "For each specific item I name, please tell me whether you are very satisfied with it, somewhat satisfied, somewhat dissatisfied or very dissatisfied. ... Your health insurance coverage." 42 percent very satisfied, 39 percent somewhat satisfied. Total: 81 percent satisfaction.

• Mathew Greenwald & Associates for the Employee Benefit Research Institute, Aug. 2008. "Please rate your satisfaction with each of the following aspects of your health care. ... Quality of health care I receive through my (health insurance) plan." 31 percent extremely satisfied, 41 percent very satisfied, 23 somewhat satisfied. Total: 95 percent satisfaction.

• Mathew Greenwald & Associates for the Employee Benefit Research Institute, Aug. 2008. "Please rate your satisfaction with each of the following aspects of your health care. ... Overall satisfaction with my health (insurance) care plan." 23 percent extremely satisfied, 38 percent very satisfied, 30 percent somewhat satisfied. Total: 91 percent satisfaction.

• Mathew Greenwald & Associates for the Employee Benefit Research Institute, May 2008. "Overall, how satisfied are you with your current health insurance plan?" 17 percent extremely satisfied, 36 percent very satisfied, 33 percent somewhat satisfied. Total: 86 percent satisfaction.

If you average these eight scores, the total rate of satisfaction is 87 percent. In all but one poll, the satisfaction level was below Will's stated level of 95 percent.

One poll, taken five months before Obama was inaugurated, did come up with 95 percent satisfaction. But alone among these eight polls, that survey asked participants about the "quality of health care I receive through my (health insurance) plan." While we decided that the wording was close enough to merit inclusion on our list, the modest difference in satisfaction levels may stem from the way the question was phrased. Many people feel more warmly toward their doctors than they do toward their insurers.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2010/mar/10/george-will/will-says-95-percent-people-health-insurance-are-s/

Me says CH's 96% is full of shit again.

Commonsense said...

You just proved the 96% claim was true idiot.

Wake and bake.

KD, ALky Admits he is a Parasite on the US Tax Payers Wallet said...

. Thanks for paying for my transplant!” Roger Krugman Narch 23, 2017


I have to prepare for my early morning appointment. Thank you for paying for it." Alky July 27,2017


Alky, thanks for tell us all you are so happy with your self-proclaimed parasite class status.

What a failure you are, good that the US Tax Payers are held up every time they are paid to pay for your self abuse, poor life choices and lack of financial knowledge planning and savings.

opie said...

Blogger Commonsense said...
You just proved the 96% claim was true idiot.

You obviously can't read can't you....... Again, you prove nothing other than being a dunce.

opie said...

The game is changing, some are getting tired of the drama and BS from the WH.

President Donald Trump, in the middle of a whirlwind week involving the Republican Party’s infighting over repealing and/or replacing Obamacare, as well as a public feud with Attorney General Jeff Sessions, saw his overall approval ratings and support from GOP party members decline in a poll released Wednesday.

Only just over a third (35.1 percent) of those polled by Reuters approved of Trump’s work in office, with more than half (58.1 percent) disapproving and 4.2 percent expressing “mixed feelings” in the five-day rolling poll. Reuters’ latest results suggest that those who had mixed feelings about Trump have instead moved into the disapproval category. Earlier this week, 8 percent of respondents garnered mixed feelings compared to a 55.7 percent disapproval rating and a 36.3 percent approval.

The poll also showed a recent steady decline of support from Republicans, who, despite Trump’s actions on social media and major legislative inaction, have been staunch supporters during the first six months of his presidency.

CH et al will all stay till the bitter end and impeachment hoping something will change after all the restarts.....Too funny

opie said...


What I said on day one, when Roger breathlessly posted the CBO numbers

Or how you predicted the SCOTUS loss....It was a great day for you and predictions.

KD, Economic Trump Bump Continues, Alky and Jane who does not know who she is until i tell her are heart broken said...

You obviously can't read can't you....... " oDopie

What?

Wait do the math, that gave me about 2 million laughs @ You.

2.6 % GDP, just Reported, omg, what was Obama's 8 year average, I believe it was right at 1.9 . I will have to look it up later.

KD, said...

Trump GDP vs boyobama's.

Highlights
The second quarter was healthy, growing at an as-expected 2.6 percent annualized rate with the consumer spending component also healthy and as expected, at a 2.8 percent rate. Business investment, at 5.2 percent, was once again very strong ...."

When the boy was in the white house we got tons of "in-Expected" news, now the US Press is catching on, the good economic Trump Bump news is now "as-expected". Yep, as-expected President Trump is #MAGA.

caliphate4vr said...

And the more intimately the government becomes involved in the provision of general services, rather than simply stopping the spread of epidemics, the more intimate the decisions it will make. I’m not making the crude claim that the NHS wanted Charlie to die so taxpayers would spend less money treating him; I’m sure the doctors who begged the court to say “enough” thought that they were acting in little Charlie’s best interest. But when the government is in charge of providing all the health care, it will develop a whole set of policies and norms for deciding when it will not provide that health care. It cannot be otherwise; if they didn’t say "enough" at some point, doctors and patients would exhaust the entire national budget chasing futile hopes of life.

Britain directly provides health services to most of its citizens, and so its institutions are particularly advanced in this direction; it has an entire agency, the National Institute for Health Care Excellence, which decides which treatments are worth paying for based on a metric called quality adjusted life year. The ability to make coolly rational assessments of benefit, far removed from the desperation of individual patients, is the envy of health-care wonks everywhere. Obamacare’s Independent Payments Advisory Board, which is supposed to come into existence next year, is an attempt to move the U.S. in this direction.

As far as I know, the institute played no direct role in the decision about Charlie’s treatment; his parents had privately raised the funds needed to take him to the U.S. for treatment, and the battle in court was not about taxpayers' money, but about the risk that further treatment would harm Charlie rather than helping him. But the existence of such institutions has a more subtle effect: It establishes that statisticians and government officials are the proper authority over what treatments you may receive. And once we have accepted such a principle where it is obviously logical and necessary, it may be easier to abide its deployment in cases where it is unnecessary. This change in public values may simply be an inevitable side effect of getting the government into the health-care business.

C.H. Truth said...

In August 2008, about six months before debate began in Washington on what would become the Affordable Care Act, 82 percent of Americans were so dissatisfied with the U.S. health care system they wanted it overhauled, according to The Commonwealth Fund, which commissioned the poll.

Sure they did.. and they still do, since our health care system was never overhauled by Obamacare.

Obamacare overhauled "Health insurance", which nobody was asking for.

KD, Chuck Shummer losses another election with sanders and Warren said...

This is beyond lying,,, Sen Chuck Schmucker said he and may Dems are now willing to "fix" ObamaCare.

Not one democrat in the US Senate is a anything but a Socialist, their votes prove that fact.


rrb said...

Sure they did.. and they still do, since our health care system was never overhauled by Obamacare.

Obamacare overhauled "Health insurance", which nobody was asking for.
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

yup.

and the alky and the pie hole are too fucking stupid to know the difference.

but charlie gard and his parents learned the difference... the hard way.

wphamilton said...

The mandate serves the interests of the insurance companies, to ensure their profits.

I am the only person on this Blog, conservative or liberal, who strongly and overtly opposed including the individual mandate in the ACA to begin with. MY argument centered around individual choice and the free market. YOU, and other conservatives here, argued against me, citing the profit motive.

So it seems that you have it exactly backwards. The liberal viewpoint would facilitate personal choice, while the conservative viewpoint subjugates personal choice to the interests of business profit.

As for the CBO, anyone who has insurance now and wouldn't after some GOP legislation to "fix" their insurance, will have lost their insurance. If they want it or not, if they can afford it or not, those are other questions. The CBO reported numbers, and your value judgments over the implications does not change them.

rrb said...

The liberal viewpoint would facilitate personal choice, while the conservative viewpoint subjugates personal choice to the interests of business profit.
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

not quite. the liberal viewpoint would facilitate GOVERNMENT choice (see: gard, charlie).

and the conservative viewpoint DOES support business profit. no one works for free, wp. as much as bernie would have us believe otherwise. doctors and other healthcare professionals have every right to charge what the market will bear for their services. and until the government conscripts them into service, they should be allowed to do so.

liberals would have us believe that healthcare is simply one more commodity market that the government can distort to achieve a desired outcome. but it's not, and the day is soon coming that rationing will be forced upon us by a shortage of HC professionals caused by too many potential HC professionals saying "fuck it, it's just not worth the hassle."

i personally know of one young man who would have been a third generation MD in his family. but fortunately for him and unfortunately for his community, he witnessed the disaster of the ACA first hand via his dad, and scrapped his plans for med school. i'm sure this story can be repeated across the nation many times over.

government seizure of the healthcare system was never a good idea, and lowering costs while improving quality was never the intent.



rrb said...




David Harsanyi:

"When Republicans bother to defend Obamacare repeal bills, they are pretty explicit in explaining that Medicaid 'cuts' are merely a slowing of spending growth. But Obama repeatedly stated — probably hundreds of times over a two-year span — that the bill would 'reduce' the cost of premiums by $2,500 per family. I can't find a single instance anywhere of Obama, or anyone else selling the legislation, offering a nuanced context for this claim. ... You'd think someone would have written a comprehensive fact-check of the Democrats' lie that 24 million people will 'lose' their health insurance due to repeal bills. Who knows? Maybe fact-checkers will get around to pointing out that the Congressional Budget Office believes 14 million of the 24 million are people who will choose not to buy it in 2018 in the absence of a penalty. No doubt, fact-checkers will point out that around six million or more of those 24 million are people the CBO just assumes would have left Obamacare markets anyway. You know, baselines and all. It is true that Obamacare repeal legislation — whatever the specifics happen to be — is going to be unpopular. Why wouldn't it be? There isn't a single Republican lawmaker out there effectively slapping down these misleading claims. Voters will be. Republicans certainly can't rely on fact-checkers."



wphamilton said...

too many potential HC professionals saying "fuck it, it's just not worth the hassle."

Fine, let those types become lawyers, or work in Daddy's business if their only priority is amassing wealth.

There will be plenty of health care professionals, because the market is lucrative top to bottom, regardless of ACA or the Republicans' failed repeal schemes.

caliphate4vr said...


The mandate serves the interests of the insurance companies, to ensure their profits.



No, no, no, the mandate is there as an attempt to stabilize a market where you have eliminated underwriting and being able assign proper pricing for the risk. You instituted guarantee issue with no prex the individual mandate was an attempt to prevent the meltdown we see now. Unfortunately, the fine isn't enough to deter people from going bare, load the law up with "freebies" BC, wellness and other coverage mandates, narrow the rate bands to 3 to 1, GA was 8 to previously. Therefore, the young healthyies aren't buying in. Which is an exact prediction of mine

rrb said...

Fine, let those types become lawyers, or work in Daddy's business if their only priority is amassing wealth.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

c'mon, wp. i always considered you to be a much more thoughtful individual. that's a response i would expect from a 23 yr old bernie bro.

spend some time talking to a primary care doc. let them help you understand the ACA compliance costs and issues. and talk to a brand new doc who is sitting atop a quarter mil or more of med school debt.

you sound just like obama, who lectured us about the docs who (in his feeble mind) performed needless tonsillectomies just to line their pockets:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZhNeGYYPgIE



get a clue beyond you bias toward greedy profit motives.





rrb said...

No, no, no, the mandate is there as an attempt to stabilize a market where you have eliminated underwriting and being able assign proper pricing for the risk.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________


precisely.

the mandate exists for one reason and one reason only -

to "spread the wealth around" in order to pay for everything, as in the young and healthy paying for the old and sickly.

or, the "equal distribution of misery" as churchill would say to describe socialism.

caliphate4vr said...

And doing it without the mandate was tried before

With the guaranteed access provisions still standing, the state saw premiums rise and enrollment drop, as residents only purchased coverage when they needed it. Health insurers fled the state and, by 1999, it was impossible to buy an individual plan in Washington — no company was selling.

rrb said...



in other news...


A knife-wielding man reportedly screamed "Allahu Akbar" during a wild attack inside a Hamburg supermarket that killed at least one person and left four others bloodied and wounded on Friday.

[...]

Officials wrote on Twitter that "the motive and the number of injured persons" were not yet known, but did confirm that "one person died."

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2017/07/28/german-police-1-killed-in-knife-attack-at-hamburg-supermarket.html


raghead with knife yells "alky snackbar."

motive not known.

got it.

rrb said...

Anonymous caliphate4vr said...
And doing it without the mandate was tried before
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________


didn't Tenn-care turn to shit for much the same reason?

caliphate4vr said...

Tenncare was their Medicaid that they vastly expanded whom was eligible. Enrollment boomed it blew past the waiver the Federal government gave them and there were no federal dollars flowing to them for 10s of 1000s of enrollees.

You give people free shit they line up for it

C.H. Truth said...

Fine, let those types become lawyers, or work in Daddy's business if their only priority is amassing wealth.

Nobody is going to go through 6-8 years of post secondary schooling, accumulate student loans (average doctor graduates with just under $200K in loans), have all the pressures of being an M.D. and then go out and make $50,000/year long term.

They just won't do it.


Right now we have less than half of the doctors willing to take new Medicaid patients. That's a problem with existing doctors.

Moreover, a doctor shortage is not a potential problem, it is a current problem. Compared to many countries we already have a suspect doctor to person ratio, and they figure we could be as many as 90,000 doctors short in less than a decade.


Expecting doctors to eat the cost and lower their own pay checks... for the good of liberal medical insurance policy is not a realistic expectation. Certainly it's not the the best way to combat a current and potentially problematic shortage of doctors.

opie said...

Anonymous caliphate4vr said...

Shouldn't you be working on company time????? Maybe your employer should pay you for posting on blogs..... Seems to me that all the rhetoric of repeal turned out to be a big dud and drove the ACA into the highest approval evah!!!! Going to be the law of the land no matter what you think. Amazing how quiet the right has been about McCain.....most here don't consider him a republicon. Funny how this little payback is lost on you idiots.

caliphate4vr said...

Nobody is going to go through 6-8 years of post secondary schooling, accumulate student loans (average doctor graduates with just under $200K in loans), have all the pressures of being an M.D. and then go out and make $50,000/year long term.

Pakis will, ala the NHS. That's working well for the U.K.

opie said...

Which is an exact prediction of mine

Sure it is big mouth....With such sheer genius, you should have been on the ACA committee writing the law instead of being a failed consultant posting on an obscure blog on how great you think you are.

KD, Cali keep informing US all on the Failure of ObimboSocialismCare said...

Opie, it is best you go sit in the corner , suck a pie, when it comes the this issue of Health Insurance Cali is the bedrock of knowledge and YES he has been so right so often I have lost count.

Thanks Cali for your continued information and correctness.

caliphate4vr said...

Damn i occupy a lot your time. Living rent free in your pathetic head, fatty. And today it's all because I busted you lying, yet again

LMAO!!

KD, Dems confirm all 48 are Liberals, Fact said...

Not one Democrat joined the Republicans on any vote, IT is so nice to see that the entire group is of one liberal lockstep mind. Not a conservative or moderate in the the party, not one.

caliphate4vr said...

Thanks Cali for your continued information and correctness.

👍

KD, GDP almost to where President Trump Promised, and far past Obama's, that was easy said...

Highlights
The Baker Hughes North American rig count is up 22 rigs in the July 28 week to 1,178.

A year ago when the boymonkey was in the WH and hating on the US workers and oil producers in the Unions, the count was down to 495.

President Trump policy changes, Regulation SLashing and getting up back on a OIL/Gas Exporting footing again is creating 10's of Union jobs.

President Trump is taking market share away from Putin, Punishingly so.

KD, Alky you moocher said...

Alky, you took a shot at Kansas Unemployment Rate.

Ok, I know you know so little about everything, so let me help you.

2009 Kansas Unemployment = 7.3
2009 Californicated Unemployment = 9.8 you win yours was much higher

2017 Kansas Unemployment = 3.7
2017 Calf Unemployment = 5.2 you win again, yours is much higher


Alky you stupid little moocher, before attempting to talk about Economic, Fiscal or Financial issues , please look up the facts, less I continue to make you look like you actually are and HS diploma holder.

opie said...

caliphate4vr said...
Damn i occupy a lot your time

Sure you do....maybe you should try working instead of being the abject idiot you are here. The only thing I care about is how your menial life as loser peddler while I watch your idiotic predictions and ideologies fail. BTW....how's your cabin coming???? Mine is doing great and going up with the market. Better buy quick.

opie said...

please look up the facts, less I continue to make you look like you actually are and HS diploma holder.

Like you always fail to do? Idiot See your math post. LOL

KD, US OIL UNION LOVING all that Trump Winning, Coal is King said...

I hope others do look up that post, I was/am right and you were off by over $2,000,000.00 .

That is because I have signed the front of a payroll check and you never have.

Opie, tell us, is it ok with you that Alky wrote twice that he is bilking the US Tax payers to pay for his abuse of his kidneys?

opie said...

CH opined....

Obamacare overhauled "Health insurance", which nobody was asking for.

Gee, that whole piece was about people wanting an overhaul and not supporting your 96% BS, But thanx for playing anyway.

caliphate4vr said...

Have a good weekend trolling me fatty. Off to dinner with the kids and then TTWS tomorrow and you'll be here or at the Golden Corral or whatever coverband the Villages can scare up.

LMAO!!

wphamilton said...

Nobody but a strawman said doctors have to work for 50K.

Going through 6-8 years of post-grad, having student loans, of course they will. You choose a career, you get the qualifications, you go to work. You seem to believe that MD's are a special case because they are so well paid.

There will always be a demand for medical professionals (unless mandated insurance becomes so pricey that most people can't afford the care). With that demand, there will always be professionals willing to provide for it. They might not be the same professionals that you anecdotally cite, but the law of supply and demand in a free market will guarantee it.

opie said...

Cali the gay man posted

nd then TTWS tomorrow and you'll be here or at the Golden Corral or whatever cover band the Villages can scare up.

Hilariously funny, numbnutz. Yeah, I'm glad you can afford to eat out, being a salesman, I'm sure wendy's is your place. I;m sure a kid rock tune will make your day. And nice of you to report your busy day of being a jag off, like anyone gives a crap. IDIot

Commonsense said...

I heard that you can rent a real nice doublewide at the Villages.

Loretta said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Loretta said...

"There will always be a demand for medical professionals"

Well, yeah.

For a lot of people right now, it comes down to cost vs reward and risks.

opie said...

Commonsense said...
I heard that you can rent a real nice doublewide at the Villages.

When are you going. I hear that area is permeated with assholes just like yourself....

rrb said...

There will always be a demand for medical professionals (unless mandated insurance becomes so pricey that most people can't afford the care). With that demand, there will always be professionals willing to provide for it. They might not be the same professionals that you anecdotally cite, but the law of supply and demand in a free market will guarantee it.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

true to an extent, but you can bet that the quality of those medical professionals will be lower as those who would have entered the profession choose another vocation to maximize their earnings. it's about self-interest, wp.

ironically, the millennials who are such huge fans of bigger government and more and more free shit will suffer a great deal as they age and the available medical professionals will be treating them with the skill set of a rookie plumber's apprentice.

C.H. Truth said...

There will always be a demand for medical professionals (unless mandated insurance becomes so pricey that most people can't afford the care). With that demand, there will always be professionals willing to provide for it.

The laws of supply and demand include the variable of compensation. Just because people "want" new houses for free... doesn't mean a builder will build them "for free". It doesn't really matter how many people want free houses, they will never be provided.

The law of supply and demand suggests that builders will build houses when there is enough interest that a "profit" can be made. Builders are not going into low income areas and building million dollar condos, when nobody there will pay for them.


Likewise, the "need" for medical attention does not create a "demand" for doctors outside of the variable of compensation. The demand for doctors will come when that profession provides people with adequate compensation for the services involved. Otherwise people will choose other professions.

There may be a few exceptions, but very few people would go to college for 8 years, spend a few hundred thousand dollars on an education, in order to train to do a high pressure job that will likely be anything but 9-5 for the same salary as "easier" professions.


Think of it this way: You post a job for a profession, but offer the pay to be far below what that job is worth. Nobody applies.

So because nobody applies... you decide not to increase the compensation, but to simply increase the number of job postings to 10. Will that make people apply?

If that doesn't work.. don't change the compensation... just post 1000 jobs?

At what point does the "amount" of openings override the concept that the compensation for the job is not adequate?

I am very curious what the answer is?

wphamilton said...

"Likewise, the "need" for medical attention does not create a "demand" for doctors outside of the variable of compensation"

Of course it does; that was an incorrect statement. The demand for their services, for any service, is not determined by the service provider's income. The PRICE of the service may be ... which also means, when the free market capitalism is allowed more full reign over health care services, both the prices and the salaries will likely drop.

I'd say, this is a good thing. Bring it on.

C.H. Truth said...

WP...

So your argument is:

Having a greater need for medical care, will (under free market capitalism) create a greater need for Doctors at a lower price and salary?

I suppose when a product or service has a lower need, those who provide that product or service can demand more money, huh?

Where did you learn your economics?



KD, need to know said...

Where did you learn your economics?" CHT


Thanks for asking what I was already thinking.

opie said...

CH again can't read said...

Having a greater need for medical care, will (under free market capitalism) create a greater need for Doctors at a lower price and salary?

I'm sort of aghast, WP said nothing of the sort. You said it, not him....His argument was:
The demand for their services, for any service, is not determined by the service provider's income. The PRICE of the service may be ... which also means, when the free market capitalism is allowed more full reign over health care services, both the prices and the salaries will likely drop.

A complete mischaracterization once again by the omnipotent CH and his kansan lap dog.!!!!!!

Once again, WP beats CH hands down.

wphamilton said...

Do I really have to explain the simplest basics of supply and demand to CH and KD??

No it will lead to a supply of qualified doctors sufficient to meet the market. Not "create a greater need for Doctors at a lower price and salary".


KD, YOU WON, WE STILL HAVE OBAMACARE, Stop crying sissys said...

WP, no need to go all skirt wearing sissy boy on us, put some ice on it, damn.



" free market capitalism ",,, you have to be kidding this blog , that does not exist in the US Health Insurance Sector, not since you won and got ObamaCare.

KD, "Crushing Cost" of ObimboCare said...

Where did you learn your economics?" CHT


WP, failure is noted , I am moving over it and putting it in my rear view Mirror of my * V8 F-250 Super Duty Crew Cab 4 x 4 Pick Up*

C.H. Truth said...

No it will lead to a supply of qualified doctors sufficient to meet the market.

Yeah... just like that demand for free housing has created a large supply of qualified builders to meet that market. I hear they are now providing free furniture just to garner that non-payment job.


Let's start at the beginning, WP...

Why are we having this discussion? Because a growing number of doctors (especially specialists) are no longer taking Medicaid patients. Why? Because Medicaid does not pay what these doctors are billing.

The fact that many doctors refuse to take the lower payments... is the variable that you refuse to accept (likely because you feel that it is driven by greed, rather than prudence).

What is happening right now is that this is creating a two tiered medical system. One where those with the means to purchase private insurance are getting to see the experienced doctors and the specialists, while those with Medicaid are going to teaching hospitals or seeing residents or interns. Basically they are only seeing those looking to gain experience. When these medicaid people are in need of a specialist, then they are forced to wait in line for the reduced number of doctors willing to see them.

_____

Now here is the point you seem to miss.

If taking Medicaid patients made prudent financial sense, then the existing doctors would not be refusing to take them. It's simply not reasonable to believe that all of these doctors are greedy money grabbing whores... but that there is somewhere out there a bunch of people (better people who are not greedy money grabbing whores) who are willing to just step in and do what these other doctors are doing for significantly less money.

Common sense economics suggests that your most gifted people will generally decide to get involved in a career where they can earn good money. It's not an absolute, but the curve is pretty heavy in that direction. There is no question that being a doctor is a career path that offers lucrative compensation.

But if that stops being the case, your best and brightest "will" decide to do something else. This is not only a problem because you will get less qualified people in the industry, but a problem because being a doctor is a career path that much of our population cannot do (either because they don't have the ability to get through med school, or because they don't have the means to pay for med school). You start with a limited number of people who can even "potentially" become doctors, and then you remove those who might do it for the money...

and you have a shortage. Period. How many people "need" that service is irrelevant to how many people will choose to enter an industry where the commitment of 8 years of school does not pan out to a lucrative salary.

There is simply NOT an unlimited supply of potential doctors. There is a limited pool, and the more people you put on medicaid, the less and less it becomes a lucrative option for that limited pool.
.


OPIE said...

Yeah... just like that demand for free housing has created a large supply of qualified builders to meet that market.

One of your dumbest straw man evah......WP remains in complete control of the argument, your attempt to trivialize his words are indicative of your desperation to show how smart you are. How the mighty have fallen....

There is a limited pool, and the more people you put on medicaid, the less and less it becomes a lucrative option for that limited pool

A willfully stupid opinion. UCF just started a med school and is providing scholarships for students willing to work in poor areas after graduation. I'm sure that does not fit in your model....LOLOLOL

wphamilton said...

Why are we having this discussion? Because a growing number of doctors (especially specialists) are no longer taking Medicaid patients. Why? Because Medicaid does not pay what these doctors are billing.

Because you are promoting this myth perhaps.

The vase majority of doctors (93%) accept medicare. The majority of doctors also accept new medicare patients, slightly lower than those accepting new privately insured patients (73% vs 80%)

Much of this, both that 73% and the 80%, are due to "closed practices" where the doctors aren't accepting ANY new patients.

Supply and demand works, CH, no matter how much you rail against it.

C.H. Truth said...

Well Opie...

WP is not arguing this one with me. He's basically arguing that he knows better than all the economists and medical experts who see a shortage of doctors coming (upwards of 90,000 within the next few years).

The argument that every demand for every service is guaranteed to be filled (at a consumer chosen cost) because said demand simply exists... is interesting. But if that was true, then nobody would be projecting a large upcoming shortage.

There is no logic that would lead us to believe that his "demand" argument would not work to prevent shortages as well as fill them. If in fact, all demands for services (at a consumer chosen cost) is filled.

WP simply has a better understanding of supply and demand than those silly economists who are studying this issue, huh? Moreover, WP is the "lone" cynic in this debate (as I have not heard anyone else make this argument). B

Not like the climate change argument (don't you fall in line behind the experts in that debate - rather than follow a lone wolf) where there is a large growing segment of the community that are cynical of projections.

wphamilton said...

And by the way, the number of active physicians has INCREASED by 8% since ACA came into effect. About the same increase as we saw in the same length period before ACA.

We should also note that medical student enrollment is meeting the AAMC goals of 30% increase.

The biggest problem is the cap on federal support for graduate medical education, which has resulted in an insufficiency of residency positions to meet the demand from the increasing supply of new physicians.

wphamilton said...

Here's your source (not Daly KOS LOL)
https://members.aamc.org/eweb/upload/2015_Enrollment_Report.pdf

wphamilton said...

http://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/article-abstract/2613209 provides a more detailed look at the question. while it acknowledges that some organizations such as the AAMC predicts a future shortage, the conclusion is that the numbers currently do not support it.

Calculations "estimating the number of physicians needed to care for all US residents suggests no physical shortage".

opie said...

WP is not arguing this one with me. He's basically arguing that he knows better than all the economists

Which proves what.....you are posting others ideas instead of your own.. WP is still kicking your skinny white ass across the internet. Pus, it confirms what is going on at the local med school, getting doctors trained from low income areas to remain in the area to get their education on scholarship....something you are ignoring...seems to me his source is more credible than your words, since you provided no links to the data.... WHO TO BELIEVE??????

Commonsense said...

Because you are promoting this myth perhaps.


It isn't a myth WP. I have five hospitals in my area and only one it taking Medicaid patients.

And Medicare is not much better. I've seen the diffrence in the quality of care my parents received while on Medicare vs. the quality of care I get in my private plan.

C.H. Truth said...

Yes Opie...

In this case I am simply parroting the conventional wisdom of the medical and economic community... as well as defending what I was taught in college regarding macro-economics.

I have to hand it to WP, though... he often defends bizarre (black is white) arguments... with quite the vigor.

C.H. Truth said...

Like arguing that the AAMC (and others are wrong) because some study from three doctors published on the JAMA network says so?

That's one of those typical WP arguments. My best guess is that this article was either linked in the Huffington Post or Daily Beast... or WP went searching for it "after the fact".

wphamilton said...

either linked in the Huffington Post or Daily Beast.

Nope. I don't often even read those, although they sometimes pick up on something that I'd anticipated earlier.

WP went searching for it "after the fact".

No more than we all tend to do, when someone starts speculating about and impugning one's sources. Which if you're honest, you'll admit was your first resort here.

What I see from you guys on this thread are a series of anecdotes about your doctors, your doctors' friends, and what you've heard is going on in a local hospital. I'd rather look up numbers and reason towards my own deductions, but that's just me ...

opie said...

as either linked in the Huffington Post or Daily Beast... or WP went searching for it "after the fact".

Funny CH, when you are having your ass kicked resort to the trump method, attack the fake source and name calling. This is very amusing especially to me who thoroughly trashed you in the GW models are wrong mantra you still push. Since you still have not provided the source of your statistics, I still wonder who to believe....LOLOLOL

I have five hospitals in my area and only one it taking Medicaid patients

Really menstral??? You live in floriduh with a high percentage of elderly. I would say your statement is bullshit, just like CH parroting conventional wisdom as fact. LOL