Keyboard Shortcuts
ctrl + shift + ? :
Show all keyboard shortcuts
ctrl + g :
Navigate to a group
ctrl + shift + f :
Find
ctrl + / :
Quick actions
esc to dismiss
Likes
Search
A Little Macroeconomics. A Little Social Responsibility
|
More people will be covered by ACA, young students, cheapskates, poor people, and people who previously could not afford health insurance.
Yes, since more people and people who could not previously afford health insurance will be covered their will be more demand for health services and the total cost of health services will go up. Average costs will also go up since more sick people will be covered. Through some macroeconomic avenue care given to poor people will through some avenue need to be paid by those with greater means to pay. On the other side costs will go down because y=the outrageously expensive us of emergency rooms will go down. A burden already included in current costs. I have seen no analysis of the net effect. The health care lobby, supported by members of Congress, decided to not include significant real cost savings measures that could easily been implemented and would be effective, Why, because they would cut for profit health insurance company profits, they would cut for profit hospital profits, and most importantly they may have required cuts in health care company executive compensations. Instead, a requirement that 85% of health care insurance company revenue be used for health care. That sounds quite good until you look at what the average annual return to client by the insurance industry was prior to demutualization and creating the for profit insurance industry. The average annual return to clients had been 120% (as compared to the required 85%) This was possible due to the investment profit from insurance companies investing the revenues. The 85% looks pretty meager in comparison. That leaves a net 35% in the insurance companies. That also does not include any accounting games like "contingency for future expenses". A slush fund cast as an expense. Now to the social side. More people will be sick without ACA. More people will be more sick without ACA. More people will die without ACA. More macroeconomics: More work will be missed due to sickness without ACA. More people will work less efficiently without ACA. Employers will suffer more sick time expenses without ACA. No, ACA will not be anywhere near as effective as universal single payer would be. No ACA will not save as much money as it could have if it had included more industry standards and operational efficiencies. BUt it doesn't because a dysfunctional Congress would not let efficiencies be included in the bill. Yes, it is complicated. Why, because the industry is complicated, fractured, and inefficient. Because lobbyists had their hands in it making it complicated for industry profit. Still, it's a step in the right direction. Universal single payer heath care would have had a major economic boost effect in our economy. It would have leveled the competitive field, taken the health care burden off of companies and unions, and pensions, and encouraged investment in the United States. But it didn't happen. Too many vested interests who don't want it to happen for their own reasons of large wealth accumulation. Follow the money. |
|
WHERE DO YOU COPY THIS STUFF FROM? ?ARE YOU A HIRED SHILL? ?
|
|
No.
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
Where do you get you distortions? --- In ibmpensionissues@..., Just Puttin' <JustPutt2@...> wrote:
|
to navigate to use esc to dismiss