[tomder55]

George ;don't you know yet that you can only cite sources pre-approved by NK ?

[George_1950]

George ;don't you know yet that you can only cite sources pre-approved by NK ?

Is NK the censor I'm having problems with?

[NeedKarma]

Is NK the censor I'm having problems with?

LOL!
What kind of problems are you having George?

[excon]

Whether enough people will wake up in time to keep America from being dismantled, piece by piece, is another question – and the biggest question for this generation.

Hello again, George:

I hear you. You are as opposed to Obama, as I was to George Bush. I, too, worried about the Constitution/America being dismantled, piece by piece. You know what I'm talking about... Rendition, military tribunals, Gitmo, torture, FISA violations - THAT kind of stuff.

Additionally, like you, I thought (and STILL think), it's the biggest question for our generation - especially since Obama has embraced just about ALL of them.

But, it didn't seem to concern you guys at all. I'm willing to bet that it STILL doesn't concern you...

In terms of the dismantling you're talking about, most of it is the FIX we had to do, because the dufus broke it. In terms of socialized health care, I'm not terribly torn up about it. I'm a believer in the government providing a safety net...

excon

[George_1950]

In terms of the dismantling you're talking about, most of it is the FIX we had to do, because the dufus broke it. In terms of socialized health care, I'm not terribly torn up about it. I'm a believer in the government providing a safety net...

excon

The safety net you describe and hope for is burst. There is a huge hole in the dam. Have you ever been at the bottom after the torrent passes through?

[speechlesstx]

Oh dear, you read and use WND as a credible source for anything. That is disturbing indeed.

NK, why don't you just once and for all list the credible sources we're permitted to use?

By the way, the 'source' is not WND, it's Thomas Sowell.

ADDRESS: The Hoover Institution
Stanford University
Stanford, California 94305
(650) 723-3303

PERSONAL: U.S. Citizen, born June 30, 1930

EDUCATION:

Ph.D. in Economics, University of Chicago, 1968
A.M. in Economics, Columbia University, 1959
A.B. in Economics, magna laude, Harvard College, 1958


EXPERIENCE:

Senior Fellow, Hoover Institution, Stanford University, September 1980 - present
Professor of Economics, U.C.L.A. July 1974 - June 1980
Visiting Professor of Economics, Amherst College, September- December 1977
Fellow, Hoover Institution, Stanford University, April- August 1977
Fellow, Center for Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences, July 1976 - March 1977
Project Director, The Urban Institute, August 1972 - July 1974
Associate Professor of Economics, U.C.L.A. September 1970 - June 1972
Associate Professor of Economics, Brandeis University, September 1969 - June 1970
Assistant Professor of Economics, Cornell University, September 1965 - June 1969
Economic Analyst, American Telephone & TelegraphCo. June 1964 - August 1965
Lecturer in Economics, Howard University, September 1963 - June 1964
Instructor in Economics, Douglass College, Rutgers University, September 1962 - June 1963
Labor Economist, U.S. Department of Labor, June 1961 - August 1962


PRINCIPAL PUBLICATIONS:

On Classical Economics (Yale University Press, 2006)
Black Rednecks and White Liberals (Encounter Books, 2005)
The Quest for Cosmic Justice (Free Press,1999)
Conquests and Cultures (Basic Books, 1998)
Migrations and Cultures (Basic Books, 1996)
The Vision of the Anointed (Basic Books, 1995)
Race and Culture: A World View ( Basic Books,1994 )
A Conflict of Visions (William Morrow, 1987)
Ethnic America (Basic Books, 1981)
Knowledge and Decisions (Basic Books, 1980)
Say's Law: An Historical Analysis (Princeton University Press, 1972)

Yeah, he's definitely not a credible source for anything.

[George_1950]

NK, why don't you just once and for all list the credible sources we're permitted to use?

Lol

[excon]

The safety net you describe and hope for is burst. There is a huge hole in the dam.

Hello again, George:

I don't know what the result will be. I'm not a believer in the government's ability... But, I know that the system CAN be fixed without any additional expenditures... And, I know that the health industry itself can't fix itself. This is a problem that government is DESIGNED to do.

Indeed, if we are to believe the right wing stuff about EVERYBODY being taken care of ALREADY, then it's just a matter of reallocating our resources so that we take care of EVERYBODY more efficiently...

A good example of that would be to insure the people who NOW go to the emergency room for their day to day medical care, so that they'll go to their private doctor for that stuff. Then emergency rooms can go back to taking care of emergencies...

Seems to me, that, and that alone would save BILLIONS. And, there's MORE savings to be wrought.

Now, I don't think any evil people planned for our emergency rooms to be overwhelmed like they are, but I don't see ANY fix for that OTHER than government intervention...

excon

[ETWolverine]

A good example of that would be to insure the people who NOW go to the emergency room for their day to day medical care, so that they'll go to their private doctor for that stuff. Then emergency rooms can go back to taking care of emergencies...

Seems to me, that, and that alone would save BILLIONS. And, there's MORE savings to be wrought.

Tell me, are the assets used by a private doctor somehow cheaper than those used by an ER?

Because if they aren't, then there really isn't going to be any savings at all. All you'd be doing is shifting the location of treatment. There won't be any COST savings whatsoever.

Seems to me that the aspirin handed out by the private doctor costs the same as the aspirin handed out by the ER. The band-aid costs the same whether you see a private doctor or the doctor at the hospital. The tongue depressor costs the same in both locations.

The only real difference is that the ER will make sure that the band-aid goes to the patient needing it the most before the one needing it the least.

Sorry, excon, but shifting the location of treatment doesn't save us a single solitary penny.

Wrong again.

Elliot

[excon]

Seems to me that the aspirin handed out by the private doctor costs the same as the aspirin handed out by the ER. The band-aid costs the same whether you see a private doctor or the doctor at the hospital. Wrong again.

Hello Elliot:

I don't know. For a right winger, you don't understand business at all. Then of course, considering you're a banker, it's no wonder we went broke.

In terms of how much it costs to build an emergency room as opposed to the cost to build a private practice, they are WAYYYYYYY different. That makes the cost to USE those services wayyyy different. Whereas one could charge $.50 for an aspirin and make a profit, the other would have to charge $5.00. I really don't know how you could possibly miss this glaring right wing factoid.

I say again, if private doctors treated those who are now going to emergency rooms, the savings would be in the BILLIONS.

excon

[speechlesstx]

I say again, if private doctors treated those who are now going to emergency rooms, the savings would be in the BILLIONS.

And we'll all still be stuck with half assed health care. Except for Congress and all those people that can afford the 'platinum' policies in the Democrats' plan.

[inthebox]

In terms of the dismantling you're talking about, most of it is the FIX we had to do, because the dufus broke it. In terms of socialized health care, I'm not terribly torn up about it. I'm a believer in the government providing a safety net...

excon

What bill/ plan covers 100%? From what I read it covers 90 to 94 %, so 6 % of 300,000,000 is still 18,000,000 not covered by a governemnt "safety net." Another question is at what cost to TAXPAYORS? Are current government entitlement programs like medicare, medicaid, social security in the black ? Are they going to be around by 2020? If the answer is no, then why try fooling the public with another massive government pipe dream?

More questions,

If healthcare reform is so urgent why not tackle issues like TORT REFOM or making health insurance national? Why would any reform take effect in 2013?


G&P

[inthebox]

The truth revealed.

FACT CHECK: Health insurers' profits 35th of 53 - Yahoo! News


Is anyone going to take notice?

Probably not.

Elliot

In this bad economy one of the few sectors to grow is healthcare. This administration wants to take over it and make cuts, and make it more efficient? Ha ha ha ha.
If this administration thinks government is so efficient, why do we have all these "czars?"


G&P

[George_1950]

If healthcare reform is so urgent why not tackle issues like TORT REFOM or making health insurance national? Why would any reform take effect in 2013?
G&P

Democrats = Tort Reform - Not

As for taking effect in 2013: the reason I've heard is that the taxes start immediately to 'prefund' the program so as to lower the expected costs (from CBO, et al), thereby making the scheme more acceptable to remaining fiscal hawks.

[inthebox]

Elliot you make a lot of noise about insurance companies not making adequate profits, but isn't this the vaunted capitalist system in action. No organisation is entitled to super profits and many don't make big profits all the time. In any case the public interest is not well served by big profits being made from health care. What sort of investment do you think is neeeded to be an insurer. No millions invested in production only a building to operate from and someone to answer the phone, etc. Considering the investment required the returns are adequate

Don't you think it is arrogance bordering on dictaorship for any one person or government to think they know and dictate what the "correct" profit margin should be?

Veterans have access to the VA health care system for at least service connected illnesses, do you thinnk that 100 % of veterans only go to the VA healthcare system 100 percent of the time? Do you think that 100 % of Canadians or Brits ONLY go to their government healthcare system? Obviously, the private healthcare system is serving a need that CANNOT be adequately met by the statist solutions. If you look at it this way then the public interest is being served by private enterprise, all of which requires profit to stay in business.



G&P

[ETWolverine]

Hello Elliot:

I don't know. For a right winger, you don't understand business at all. Then of course, considering you're a banker, it's no wonder we went broke.

In terms of how much it costs to build an emergency room as opposed to the cost to build a private practice, they are WAYYYYYYY different. That makes the cost to USE those services wayyyy different. Whereas one could charge $.50 for an aspirin and make a profit, the other would have to charge $5.00. I really don't know how you could possibly miss this glaring right wing factoid.

So you are saying that a $.50 bandaid in a doctors office is going to cost $5.00 at the ER.

Can you prove that statement, or are you just making it up as you go.

Leaving aside the fact that hospitals buy in bulk, and therefore get bulk discounts, there's also the fact that private doctors get paid better than ER doctors do... which means that your hypothetical switch from the ER to the private doctor has to cover the salary of the private doctor. How does that get accounted for in your math?

Answer: It doesn't.

I say again, if private doctors treated those who are now going to emergency rooms, the savings would be in the BILLIONS.

Excon

You were as wrong this time as you were the LAST time you said it.

Elliot

[ETWolverine]

Elliot you make a lot of noise about insurance companies not making adequate profits, but isn't this the vaunted capitalist system in action. No organisation is entitled to super profits and many don't make big profits all the time. In any case the public interest is not well served by big profits being made from health care. What sort of investment do you think is neeeded to be an insurer. No millions invested in production only a building to operate from and someone to answer the phone, etc. Considering the investment required the returns are adequate

A few questions:

1) What level of profits do you consider to be reasonable?

2) What if someone else considers a higher level to be more appropriate?

3) What if you are the owner of that business and have spent the past year working 60 or 70-hour weeks in order to create that level of profitability? Is it right for someone else to tell you that you don't deserve those profits after all the work you put in?

4) By what legal right does the government have the authority to nationalize your company if they think you are making too much profit?

5) What if after all your hard work, and after all the demonization by the government regarding your profitability, it turns out that your net profit margin is only 2%?

Sorry, I find it to be the height of hubris to assume that YOU know better than the economy as a whole what the value of a company's services for the year OUGHT to earn them, and that you have the right to dictate your decision upon them.

Elliot

[George_1950]

4) By what legal right does the government have the authority to nationalize your company if they think you are making too much profit?

Elliot

In re: Impeachment of Barack H. Obama:

Count I: The Manifest Abuse of Power

Count II: Theft by nationalization of private property.

There will be many others by the time this crowd is finished.

[paraclete]

A few questions:

1) What level of profits do you consider to be reasonable?

2) What if someone else considers a higher level to be more appropriate?

3) What if you are the owner of that business and have spent the past year working 60 or 70-hour weeks in order to create that level of profitability? Is it right for someone else to tell you that you don't deserve those profits after all the work you put in?

4) By what legal right does the government have the authority to nationalize your company if they think you are making too much profit?

5) What if after all your hard work, and after all the demonization by the government regarding your profitability, it turns out that your net profit margin is only 2%?

Sorry, I find it to be the height of hubris to assume that YOU know better than the economy as a whole what the value of a company's services for the year OUGHT to earn them, and that you have the right to dictate your decision upon them.

Elliot

What you fail to consider here Elliot is a reasonable business cycle and the structure of the market, apparently you have too many insurance providers and so economies of scale are lost. With reasonable volume a return (% of gross revenue) 5% after tax should be more than adequate.

There should be a mechanism where premium rises are regulated this would allow an insurer to push for higher margins based on claims experience.

Elliot no one said the market is fair, a market position can be wiped out overnight, risk of government legislation is one of the business risks you take on so sometimes you win and sometimes you lose. 2% after tax might be a good return is some instances some businesses like Telcos operate on a 2% gross margin but then they have economies of scale

So you find it to be the height of hubris that I should suggest a different market structure without having any idea what my qualification or experience might be. Apparently the present one isn't working so you would think suggestions would be welcome but you think these things are the preserve of economists, who apparently have failed miserably. It is not me who would dictate but government and that after all is the purpose of government to decide what should be done for the greater good. What you are saying here is that you disagreed with the choice of government and their policies and that anyone who doesn't think as you do is wrong. I tell you buddy, tough titty, apparently you are in a minority it's a tough place to be, but I am sure you are no stranger to that position.

I was under the impression we are holding a discussion here, I can only interpret your attitude as you failing to win the debate