Royd 0
Recommended Posts
mnealtx 0
Quote
So? You have some sort of point with that?
Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
Royd 0
Just like in the old days.QuoteA couple of years ago I hit my head and sliced a gash in it. Someone looked at it and said I really needed stitches. So the next morning I went to one of the urgent care clinics (not an ER). I got some stitches and a tetanus shot. Total cost - $1700.. Insurance knocked it down to $1500 (which I had to pay because I have high-deductible insurance.) The tetanus shot alone they charged me $400 for! I wouldn't have done any of it if I had had even the faintest clue that they would charge me that much. I would have slapped a bandaid on it and been done with it.
Bolas 5
QuoteQuoteWhere were you going with that?
Simply that considering the increased debt due to the trust fund without considering the corresponding cash accounts doesn't offer a realistic picture, since the revenue going into the trust fund is required by law to be invested in government bonds, which increases the public debt, but doesn't necessarily decrease the net value of the government's assets.
For example, if you (general you, not specific you) borrow $10,000, but you put those funds in a bank account instead of spending them, is it fair to consider your net worth reduced by $10,000 because your debt increased by $10,000?
You're forgetting a key factor: Interest.
Unless the interest you can earn on the money is more then the interest you pay to borrow the money, you're still losing money. If losing money, why borrow in the first place if you already have it?
Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting
If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.
If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.
jcd11235 0
QuoteYou're forgetting a key factor: Interest.
I'm not overlooking interest at all. Interest is included in the public debt, which is already being considered. There's no need to count it twice.
Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!
Bolas 5
QuoteQuoteYou're forgetting a key factor: Interest.
I'm not overlooking interest at all. Interest is included in the public debt, which is already being considered. There's no need to count it twice.
What is the APR earned on holding this $$$?
What is the APR charged on borrowing it?
Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting
If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.
If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.
jcd11235 0
QuoteWhat is the APR earned on holding this $$$?
What is the APR charged on borrowing it?
Both questions are irrelevant to the point I made.
If the increased debt due to trust fund investments is considered, the cash accounts also need to be considered, as well.
It doesn't matter whether the cash is earning more or less interest than the bonds. Considering both will show the real story. Considering only the increased public debt or only the cash accounts will not.
Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!
Bolas 5
QuoteQuoteWhat is the APR earned on holding this $$$?
What is the APR charged on borrowing it?
Both questions are irrelevant to the point I made.
If the increased debt due to trust fund investments is considered, the cash accounts also need to be considered, as well.
It doesn't matter whether the cash is earning more or less interest than the bonds. Considering both will show the real story. Considering only the increased public debt or only the cash accounts will not.
Both do need to be considered.
Let's assume the gov't has $10 millon.
By investing it, they can make a 5% return or $500,000
But this takes that $10 million out of "use" for expenses.
So rather than use that money they borrow $10 million at a 6% rate to pay for those expenses.
They've now lost $100,000.
Multiply that by the billions and trillions and those losses build up quick. Imagine more disparity in the loan vs. investment return rates especially with market fluctuations and that number gets bigger even faster.
The other issue is that same $10 million (and all the rest) may be used multiple time for loans, making politicians think they have more available than they really do whereas if it was actually "used" there would be no illusion that it was available.
It's this sort of "smoke and mirrors" accounting that is killing not only the government but many other companies too.
Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting
If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.
If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.
jcd11235 0
QuoteIt's this sort of "smoke and mirrors" accounting that is killing not only the government but many other companies too.
That assumes that the cash in the accounts is never used for anything else, that it just stays there. Sometimes it does, and sometimes it doesn't.
It can be used in ways that offer returns far greater than what the bonds are paying. Or, it can be spent unwisely, with little to no benefit.
My point wasn't that the cash accounts will always negate the additional debt from the investments. My point was to consider one without considering the other does not offer a realistic picture of what happens fiscally. For example, during the budget surpluses of Clinton's presidency, public debt increased, but the amount of cash the government had on hand increased by a larger amount.
Bonds are often/usually issued because it is believed that the benefit of having the money to use now will generate more revenue than the cost of the coupons/interest. That's true of government bonds and bonds issued by private sector companies.
Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!
Quote
but yes, some things in Canada could be improved. they could allow private MRI businesses to open up, private X-rays, private lab tests, the stuff that people can actually afford to pay for themselves. - even private surgery centers.
And once you do it, you'll have the same problem: what if someone spends six months in pain or even dies because they cannot get MRI or surgery in time, while the center is readily available there right now, but only for "rich"?
Quote
People who can pay would probably pay. I would pay for a private MRI if I needed (JUST LIKE I HAD TO DO HERE IN THE USA WHEN MY INSURANCE COMPANY DENIED ME THAT SAME MRI - EVEN THOUGH MY DOCTOR DEEMED IT NECESSARY)
Seems like you had a crappy insurance policy. This, I'd say, is pretty unusual.
Quote
But no one in Canada really wants us to go to a private insurance-driven system. They just wish they had quicker access to health care.
Of course. Everyone wants cheap quality healthcare available for everyone. The problem is that no country has ever provided such healthcare.
To remove availability issue the system needs to bring in more medical personnel, and build more facilities. This will make the system more costly, and it's not cheap anymore.
* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *
rushmc 18
QuoteQuote
but yes, some things in Canada could be improved. they could allow private MRI businesses to open up, private X-rays, private lab tests, the stuff that people can actually afford to pay for themselves. - even private surgery centers.
And once you do it, you'll have the same problem: what if someone spends six months in pain or even dies because they cannot get MRI or surgery in time, while the center is readily available there right now, but only for "rich"?Quote
People who can pay would probably pay. I would pay for a private MRI if I needed (JUST LIKE I HAD TO DO HERE IN THE USA WHEN MY INSURANCE COMPANY DENIED ME THAT SAME MRI - EVEN THOUGH MY DOCTOR DEEMED IT NECESSARY)
Seems like you had a crappy insurance policy. This, I'd say, is pretty unusual.Quote
But no one in Canada really wants us to go to a private insurance-driven system. They just wish they had quicker access to health care.
Of course. Everyone wants cheap quality healthcare available for everyone. The problem is that no country has ever provided such healthcare.
To remove availability issue the system needs to bring in more medical personnel, and build more facilities. This will make the system more costly, and it's not cheap anymore.
Of course you are correct but, the supporters dont understand that this is not about health care
"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
Nataly 38
QuoteSo, what's the real story? A little too much party, at the dropzone?QuoteMy friend carried me to the ER. Literally carried me in - he could barely find a pulse and thought it was pretty serious.
The real story?? Sorry dude, it was not "party"-induced. When I got back to Canada a couple of days later I started going through a series of tests to find the problem & they couldn't figure it out either.
The only thing I ever thought made sense is heat exhaustion (heat stroke also a possibility, but seems a bit extreme, given I obviously didn't die).
Edit: I have to agree with TK.. Although lots of Canadians complain about healthcare, I don't think anyone wants to move to a private system.
"There is no problem so bad you can't make it worse."
- Chris Hadfield
« Sors le martinet et flagelle toi indigne contrôleuse de gestion. »
- my boss
- Chris Hadfield
« Sors le martinet et flagelle toi indigne contrôleuse de gestion. »
- my boss
SkyDekker 1,141
QuoteMy thing is I'm not paying to cover those who refuse to cover themselves
But you are, probably in a much bigger way than in a government run system.
Tom alluded to it in a post soon after yours, about bringing people into a hospital without coverage. He explained how the hospital tried to force them into an installment plan, but eventually just wrote it off.
Do you really think that is where the story ends? The costs just disappeared? What it does is drive up the costs for those that do pay. It drives up the cost of care, which in turn progressively drives up the cost of health insurance. That same health insurance you work so hard for to afford.
If you honestly think you are not paying for others you are just fooling yourself.
TomAiello 25
QuoteDo you really think that is where the story ends? The costs just disappeared? What it does is drive up the costs for those that do pay. It drives up the cost of care...
The real question is this:
Will the total increase in costs from this phenomenon (unreimbursed care) be less if it's absorbed at the local hospital level, or less if it's equally dispersed across the entire nation? Or will the total cost be the same, regardless of the level it's paid at?
Further, will the savings from pushing that cost to the federal level be sufficient to pay for the new federal bureaucracy necessary to administer that shifting of costs?
SkyDekker 1,141
QuoteWill the total increase in costs from this phenomenon (unreimbursed care) be less if it's absorbed at the local hospital level, or less if it's equally dispersed across the entire nation? Or will the total cost be the same, regardless of the level it's paid at?
I don't really like semantic arguments, but in this case it really depends on how you define costs.
The government will be able to set an acceptable profit margin better than an individual insurance company and hence will be able to reduce the costs that way.
Secondly, there will be far fewer people not paying for services, since all (or most) would be covered by te national insurance, which would also drive down the costs.
Anyways just wanted to point out that IMHO lawrocket is wrong when he states he is not paying for the health care costs of those who don't pay.
TomAiello 25
QuoteSecondly, there will be far fewer people not paying for services, since all (or most) would be covered by te national insurance, which would also drive down the costs.
You just said that everyone will be covered by the national insurance, which is why the costs will move from the local to the national level.
You are now saying that the mechanism that shifts the costs also somehow reduces them? How does that work?
SkyDekker 1,141
QuoteYou just said that everyone will be covered by the national insurance, which is why the costs will move from the local to the national level.
You are now saying that the mechanism that shifts the costs also somehow reduces them? How does that work?
I was speaking about the costs of non-payment. if everybody pays there are no costs related to non-payment.
TomAiello 25
QuoteI was speaking about the costs of non-payment. if everybody pays there are no costs related to non-payment.
Wasn't the original point that the costs of non-payment are born by the public either way--in the present system they're paid by the local hospital, and in a national system by the federal government?
The costs are the same either way. Simply shifting them off the local hospital (by having the feds pay them) isn't going to reduce them. It just changes who foots the bill.
SkyDekker 1,141
QuoteWasn't the original point that the costs of non-payment are born by the public either way--in the present system they're paid by the local hospital, and in a national system by the federal government?
That paragraph doesn't make sense. First you say the costs are born by the public in both systems, then you say the costs are paid by the hospital in the current system and by the federal government in in a national system.
I agree that in the current system the costs related to non-payment are paid for by the people that do pay the cost of health care.
In the extreme case that the government pays for all care (and I don't think anybody is advocating that) there obviously wouldn't be any additional costs associated with non-payment, just cost for the actual health care. This would already reduce the cost of total care, since you could elliminate the AR department.
Furthermore, and this is really a seperate discussion, the government would likely set what they are willing to pay for services. This would not reduce the cost of care to the provider, but would reduce the cost of care to the payor.
Keep in mind that this would not necessarily reduce the total cost of health care since the government will have to fund their, undoubtably, gigantic department to manage all of this.
I don't know if the total bill will be more or less. A lot of that depends on what the system ends up being. I also think that this should not just be a discussion on cost. I personally believe that a country does have an obligation to provide for a level of health care. I personally like the Canadian system, but would very much like to have a private layer added to the system.
In the end, my point is that in a largly private system like in the US, you are still paying for the health care costs of others.
TomAiello 25
QuoteQuoteWasn't the original point that the costs of non-payment are born by the public either way--in the present system they're paid by the local hospital, and in a national system by the federal government?
That paragraph doesn't make sense. First you say the costs are born by the public in both systems, then you say the costs are paid by the hospital in the current system and by the federal government in in a national system.
Currently, the cost of non-payment at a local hospital is born by the hospital (or the county, if they own it, or the larger hospital system in some cases, although most hospitals operate as separate cost centers even if they are in a larger system).
For simplicity, let's say this is a county hospital. Currently, the county hospital eats the bill, and the taxpayers of the county are the folks who eventually foot the bill.
No additional paperwork or bureaucracy is necessary to make this happen.
In a proposed national healthcare system, the county hospital would bill the federal healthcare system for this cost, instead of having to eat it themselves.
Now, the cost is being born by the taxpayers of the nation as a whole, rather than being focused on the taxpayers just in that smaller area that supports the hospital.
By re-arranging the system, we have effectively shifted the cost from one group of taxpayers (the local folks) to another one (the whole nation). We haven't actually changed the costs--just made someone different pay them.
That's not necessarily good or bad. It's certainly different though. Assuming that we think it's good to shift the costs this way (because, presumably it's "fairer" for the nation as a whole to get stuck with the bill, rather than the local people), the question becomes:
"Is the added goodness (the fairness of splitting the bill out with everyone in the nation) worth the added cost (the federal bureaucracy necessary to administer the cost-splitting)?"
Bolas 5
QuoteQuoteDo you really think that is where the story ends? The costs just disappeared? What it does is drive up the costs for those that do pay. It drives up the cost of care...
The real question is this:
Will the total increase in costs from this phenomenon (unreimbursed care) be less if it's absorbed at the local hospital level, or less if it's equally dispersed across the entire nation? Or will the total cost be the same, regardless of the level it's paid at?
Further, will the savings from pushing that cost to the federal level be sufficient to pay for the new federal bureaucracy necessary to administer that shifting of costs?
This doesn't factor in the additional # of people that haven't been using health care that start because it is now "free."
Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting
If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.
If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.
mnealtx 0
QuoteQuoteQuoteDo you really think that is where the story ends? The costs just disappeared? What it does is drive up the costs for those that do pay. It drives up the cost of care...
The real question is this:
Will the total increase in costs from this phenomenon (unreimbursed care) be less if it's absorbed at the local hospital level, or less if it's equally dispersed across the entire nation? Or will the total cost be the same, regardless of the level it's paid at?
Further, will the savings from pushing that cost to the federal level be sufficient to pay for the new federal bureaucracy necessary to administer that shifting of costs?
This doesn't factor in the additional # of people that haven't been using health care that start because it is now "free."
Hey, if I've got someone else paying for my groceries, I'm getting porterhouse instead of ground chuck.
Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites