Sachs Support Occupy Wall Street Movement; Goldman Pissed

[Tupac Shakur]

First, Drake, thanks for actually posting something meaningful for once.

1) A lot of money could be saved on entitlement spendings, if only government cared about making it successful, instead of letting welfare drown until it has to be shut down.

2) Whatever happens, people will still need what they're getting. What makes you think that the private sector will provide it at a better price?

Jesus, this post is awful. All three points are nonsense.

[Lorizael]

Does that mean you didn't post something meaningful?

[Tupac Shakur]

1. I'm not "Drake".

2. I regularly make meaningful posts.

[Lorizael]

Period goes inside the quotes.

[Elok]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-15732661

Protesters cleared to clean the park. Apparently they'll be allowed back, though.

[Fake Boris]

Jesus, this post is awful. All three points are nonsense.

No dude, things can be done, that aren't being done, to reduce health care costs. What the **** is nonsense about that?

[KrazyHorse]

cnbc is liveblogging the general confuson in duarte square on canal st. should they rename it occupy chinatown?

[Kuciwalker]

No dude, things can be done, that aren't being done, to reduce health care costs. What the **** is nonsense about that?

Are you suggesting that we can reduce the quantity of healthcare goods and services we produce, without reducing the total health benefits we accrue from them? (i.e. we are providing ineffective treatments; if only the government determined which treatments were effective and outlawed all the rest, things would be better.)

Or are you suggesting that we could reduce the quantity of healthcare goods and services we produce and see a commensurate reduction in total health benefits we accrue from them? (i.e. healthcare isn't as valuable as the other things we could be producing in its stead; we should have less healthcare but more [whatever].)

[Felch]

Period goes inside the quotes.

That rule never made sense to me.

[Jon Miller]

Or we should change to a system which is more efficient.

I actually think that a more socialist system or a more capitalist system would be more efficient.

To pretend that the market is 'working' in the health care industry (in the US) isn't useful.

I know you prefer the capitalist approach.

Here:

1. Take away employer tax subsidies for providing health insurance.
2. Provide stronger limits on malpractice lawsuits.
3. If you are willing to have some state involvement, I think the proper thing (in this framework) would be to have a national 'catastrophic' health insurance. Everyone pays in with their taxes, but it is probably a bit slow and has a large 'deductible' (~500 per visit or ~10000 per year?). Republicans would still probably hate this. (Of course you could pay and not use it)

JM

[Fake Boris]

Are you suggesting that we can reduce the quantity of healthcare goods and services we produce, without reducing the total health benefits we accrue from them? (i.e. we are providing ineffective treatments; if only the government determined which treatments were effective and outlawed all the rest, things would be better.)

Or are you suggesting that we could reduce the quantity of healthcare goods and services we produce and see a commensurate reduction in total health benefits we accrue from them? (i.e. healthcare isn't as valuable as the other things we could be producing in its stead; we should have less healthcare but more [whatever].)

You can turn, up to a reasonable amount, higher prices into waiting lists.
You can barter for medication prices. Some governments do it, some don't, usually because they have their palms greased by the pharma industry.
You can spend more on preventative health care.
You can increase the number of doctors. In a system where education and health care are public, it costs much less for the government to increase enrollment in medicine programs than it is to pay for more expensive doctors.
You can legalize assisted suicide. Treatment of the terminally ill is freaking expensive.

[Kuciwalker]

Oncle Boris: how is it that as a socialist you manage to constantly confuse "price" with "cost"?

I'll respond to this, but in the future please phrase your argument in a way that describes how you actually want to change the pattern of production, distribution, or consumption of goods and services. If you mention changing the price of some good, explain what the actual consequence of that price change is.

You can turn, up to a reasonable amount, higher prices into waiting lists.

i.e. you want to reduce the amount of healthcare available, and then ration it rather than allocate it through prices. OK, that works, but why do you think this is better than the system we use for almost all other goods and services?

You can barter for medication prices. Some governments do it, some don't, usually because they have their palms greased by the pharma industry.

By what mechanism will lower prices for medication reduce the real resources used to produce healthcare?

You can spend more on preventative health care.

The idea that preventative health care reduces total healthcare consumption is one of the greatest feel-good lies the left tells itself. More preventative care almost always increases consumption, not reduces it. Sometimes (but not always) it also improves outcomes. The improved outcomes may be worth the extra resources, but they are not cost-saving measures in any way.

You can increase the number of doctors. In a system where education and health care are public, it costs much less for the government to increase enrollment in medicine programs than it is to pay for more expensive doctors.

How does increasing the number of doctors - that is, allocating more skilled laborers to healthcare production - reduce the total quantity of productive capacity expended on healthcare.

You can legalize assisted suicide. Treatment of the terminally ill is freaking expensive.

Yes.

[Fake Boris]

1) As far as I know, Drake was making a point about the government's financial ability to sustain entitlements.

2) Chronic diseases are a major part of healthcare costs. You prevent them, you reduce costs.

[Kuciwalker]

2) Chronic diseases are a major part of healthcare costs. You prevent them, you reduce costs.

The data do not support you on this. Widespread preventative care generally costs more than the care it, well, prevents. This is because you need to treat a lot of healthy individuals to catch a few sick ones.

[Tupac Shakur]

That rule never made sense to me.

Agreed.