Burled Frau wrote:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v5O9Imbpe6Q

I wonder what the original was all about? but the
current one is right on. :-)
...lew...

"Lewis Hartswick" wrote in message
m...
Burled Frau wrote:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v5O9Imbpe6Q

I wonder what the original was all about? but the
current one is right on. :-)
...lew...

Original?

bold progressives www.boldprogressives.org is calling for supporters of the
public option to make donations to the campaign funds of senator michael
bennett and senator kirsten gillibrand for their recent actions. you can
make a donation through act blue's website.

http://www.actblue.com/

"William Wixon" wrote in message
...
bold progressives www.boldprogressives.org is calling for supporters of
the public option to make donations to the campaign funds of senator
michael bennett and senator kirsten gillibrand for their recent actions.
you can make a donation through act blue's website.

http://www.actblue.com/


Then why don't Progressives just pay for the public option with THEIR money?
No, they want Conservatives to pay for the left's free ride healthcare. The
lefts' motto of "Tax And Spend" is now "Steal And Spend"!

On Feb 21, 10:53*am, "Buerste" wrote:
"William Wixon" wrote in message

...

bold progressiveswww.boldprogressives.org*is calling for supporters of
the public option to make donations to the campaign funds of senator
michael bennett and senator kirsten gillibrand for their recent actions..
you can make a donation through act blue's website.

http://www.actblue.com/

Then why don't Progressives just pay for the public option with THEIR money?
No, they want Conservatives to pay for the left's free ride healthcare. *The
lefts' motto of "Tax And Spend" is now "Steal And Spend"!

Don't you mean Gunner's free health care? They don't come much further
to the right than Gunner, nor do they come much more crooked.
Remember, Tom, you are the guy who's Gunner's great fan, who would be
proud to have him working side-by-side with you. He's a thief, a tax
cheat and a drain on society. So, when you're complaining about how
you're getting burned by public health care, remember it saved your
buddy's life.

"Buerste" wrote in message
...

"William Wixon" wrote in message
...
bold progressives www.boldprogressives.org is calling for supporters of
the public option to make donations to the campaign funds of senator
michael bennett and senator kirsten gillibrand for their recent actions.
you can make a donation through act blue's website.

http://www.actblue.com/


Then why don't Progressives just pay for the public option with THEIR
money? No, they want Conservatives to pay for the left's free ride
healthcare. The lefts' motto of "Tax And Spend" is now "Steal And Spend"!

If there's a public option, the people who opt for it WILL pay for it with
their own money.

You're criticizing a program and yet you have no idea how it works, do you,
Tawwwwwwm?

--
Ed Huntress

Ed Huntress wrote:
wrote in message
...

"William wrote in message
...
bold progressives www.boldprogressives.org is calling for supporters of
the public option to make donations to the campaign funds of senator
michael bennett and senator kirsten gillibrand for their recent actions.
you can make a donation through act blue's website.

http://www.actblue.com/


Then why don't Progressives just pay for the public option with THEIR
money? No, they want Conservatives to pay for the left's free ride
healthcare. The lefts' motto of "Tax And Spend" is now "Steal And Spend"!

If there's a public option, the people who opt for it WILL pay for it with
their own money.

You're criticizing a program and yet you have no idea how it works, do you,
Tawwwwwwm?

Ed,

If people only know how half the things in govt work there would be a
revolution.


John

"john" wrote in message
...
Ed Huntress wrote:
wrote in message
...

"William wrote in message
...
bold progressives www.boldprogressives.org is calling for supporters
of
the public option to make donations to the campaign funds of senator
michael bennett and senator kirsten gillibrand for their recent
actions.
you can make a donation through act blue's website.

http://www.actblue.com/


Then why don't Progressives just pay for the public option with THEIR
money? No, they want Conservatives to pay for the left's free ride
healthcare. The lefts' motto of "Tax And Spend" is now "Steal And
Spend"!

If there's a public option, the people who opt for it WILL pay for it
with
their own money.

You're criticizing a program and yet you have no idea how it works, do
you,
Tawwwwwwm?

Ed,

If people only know how half the things in govt work there would be a
revolution.


John

If people knew how half the things in government work, they'd stop voting
for pretty-boy populist buttheads who spend their time on talk radio and TV
pundit shows, and start voting for real representatives.

--
Ed Huntress

Ed Huntress wrote:
wrote in message
...
Ed Huntress wrote:
wrote in message
...

"William wrote in message
...
bold progressives www.boldprogressives.org is calling for supporters
of
the public option to make donations to the campaign funds of senator
michael bennett and senator kirsten gillibrand for their recent
actions.
you can make a donation through act blue's website.

http://www.actblue.com/


Then why don't Progressives just pay for the public option with THEIR
money? No, they want Conservatives to pay for the left's free ride
healthcare. The lefts' motto of "Tax And Spend" is now "Steal And
Spend"!

If there's a public option, the people who opt for it WILL pay for it
with
their own money.

You're criticizing a program and yet you have no idea how it works, do
you,
Tawwwwwwm?

Ed,

If people only know how half the things in govt work there would be a
revolution.


John

If people knew how half the things in government work, they'd stop voting
for pretty-boy populist buttheads who spend their time on talk radio and TV
pundit shows, and start voting for real representatives.

I had the TV on this morning and saw the same old politicians at the tea
party meeting saying the same old things about reform... I thought the
"contract with America" was going to change everything for the good. A
bunch of politicians, and politicians has become a dirty word. You
never hear anyone called a Statesman any more.

John

"john" wrote in message
...
Ed Huntress wrote:
wrote in message
...
Ed Huntress wrote:
wrote in message
...

"William wrote in message
...
bold progressives www.boldprogressives.org is calling for supporters
of
the public option to make donations to the campaign funds of senator
michael bennett and senator kirsten gillibrand for their recent
actions.
you can make a donation through act blue's website.

http://www.actblue.com/


Then why don't Progressives just pay for the public option with THEIR
money? No, they want Conservatives to pay for the left's free ride
healthcare. The lefts' motto of "Tax And Spend" is now "Steal And
Spend"!

If there's a public option, the people who opt for it WILL pay for it
with
their own money.

You're criticizing a program and yet you have no idea how it works, do
you,
Tawwwwwwm?

Ed,

If people only know how half the things in govt work there would be a
revolution.


John

If people knew how half the things in government work, they'd stop voting
for pretty-boy populist buttheads who spend their time on talk radio and
TV
pundit shows, and start voting for real representatives.

I had the TV on this morning and saw the same old politicians at the tea
party meeting saying the same old things about reform... I thought the
"contract with America" was going to change everything for the good. A
bunch of politicians, and politicians has become a dirty word. You never
hear anyone called a Statesman any more.

John

It's grisly. Evan Bayh has said some things that are really ruffling
feathers. I wish it would start a real conversation and some real change,
but my fear is that we'll just blow by it and go back to business as usual.

--
Ed Huntress

Ed Huntress wrote:
wrote in message
...
Ed Huntress wrote:
wrote in message
...
Ed Huntress wrote:
wrote in message
...

"William wrote in message
...
bold progressives www.boldprogressives.org is calling for supporters
of
the public option to make donations to the campaign funds of senator
michael bennett and senator kirsten gillibrand for their recent
actions.
you can make a donation through act blue's website.

http://www.actblue.com/


Then why don't Progressives just pay for the public option with THEIR
money? No, they want Conservatives to pay for the left's free ride
healthcare. The lefts' motto of "Tax And Spend" is now "Steal And
Spend"!

If there's a public option, the people who opt for it WILL pay for it
with
their own money.

You're criticizing a program and yet you have no idea how it works, do
you,
Tawwwwwwm?

Ed,

If people only know how half the things in govt work there would be a
revolution.


John

If people knew how half the things in government work, they'd stop voting
for pretty-boy populist buttheads who spend their time on talk radio and
TV
pundit shows, and start voting for real representatives.

I had the TV on this morning and saw the same old politicians at the tea
party meeting saying the same old things about reform... I thought the
"contract with America" was going to change everything for the good. A
bunch of politicians, and politicians has become a dirty word. You never
hear anyone called a Statesman any more.

John

It's grisly. Evan Bayh has said some things that are really ruffling
feathers. I wish it would start a real conversation and some real change,
but my fear is that we'll just blow by it and go back to business as usual.



Where is Ross Perot when you need him?

John

On Sun, 21 Feb 2010 10:53:24 -0500, the infamous "Buerste"
scrawled the following:


"William Wixon" wrote in message
...
bold progressives www.boldprogressives.org is calling for supporters of
the public option to make donations to the campaign funds of senator
michael bennett and senator kirsten gillibrand for their recent actions.
you can make a donation through act blue's website.

http://www.actblue.com/


Then why don't Progressives just pay for the public option with THEIR money?
No, they want Conservatives to pay for the left's free ride healthcare. The
lefts' motto of "Tax And Spend" is now "Steal And Spend"!

BINGO! If it's so important, let 'em spend their own money for it.

--
"Just think of the tragedy of teaching children not to doubt."
-- Clarence Darrow

On Sun, 21 Feb 2010 13:12:11 -0500, john
wrote:

John

If people knew how half the things in government work, they'd stop voting
for pretty-boy populist buttheads who spend their time on talk radio and TV
pundit shows, and start voting for real representatives.

I had the TV on this morning and saw the same old politicians at the tea
party meeting saying the same old things about reform... I thought the
"contract with America" was going to change everything for the good. A
bunch of politicians, and politicians has become a dirty word. You
never hear anyone called a Statesman any more.

John
============
Don't confuse the "contract with America" with the actual
corporate "contract *ON* America."

For all of the tea party rhetoric, where is: (1) The new "super"
Glass-Steagall-Volker act? (2) Repeal of the CFTC Modernization
Act of 2000 to again allow/mandate reasonable monitoring and
regulation of derivatives and commodity trading and traders? (3)
A "small enough to fail" cap on corporate market share and
capitalization?

All we are seeing is more "Punch-n-Judy" show for the "great
unwashed" to drum up votes and campaign contributions.


Unka George (George McDuffee)
...............................
The past is a foreign country;
they do things differently there.
L. P. Hartley (1895-1972), British author.
The Go-Between, Prologue (1953).

F. George McDuffee wrote:
On Sun, 21 Feb 2010 13:12:11 -0500,
wrote:

John

If people knew how half the things in government work, they'd stop voting
for pretty-boy populist buttheads who spend their time on talk radio and TV
pundit shows, and start voting for real representatives.

I had the TV on this morning and saw the same old politicians at the tea
party meeting saying the same old things about reform... I thought the
"contract with America" was going to change everything for the good. A
bunch of politicians, and politicians has become a dirty word. You
never hear anyone called a Statesman any more.

John
============
Don't confuse the "contract with America" with the actual
corporate "contract *ON* America."

For all of the tea party rhetoric, where is: (1) The new "super"
Glass-Steagall-Volker act? (2) Repeal of the CFTC Modernization
Act of 2000 to again allow/mandate reasonable monitoring and
regulation of derivatives and commodity trading and traders? (3)
A "small enough to fail" cap on corporate market share and
capitalization?

All we are seeing is more "Punch-n-Judy" show for the "great
unwashed" to drum up votes and campaign contributions.


Unka George (George McDuffee)
..............................
The past is a foreign country;
they do things differently there.
L. P. Hartley (1895-1972), British author.
The Go-Between, Prologue (1953).


Where is Teddy Rosevelt when we need him? He did it with standard Oil
about 100 years ago.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progres...d_States,_1912)



its like deja voo all over again. History repeats itself.



John

"Ed Huntress" wrote:

If there's a public option, the people who opt for it WILL pay for it with
their own money.

You forgot those taxes on 'gold plated' insurance policies. (Note: does not apply to
unions)

Wes

Larry Jaques wrote:

Then why don't Progressives just pay for the public option with THEIR money?
No, they want Conservatives to pay for the left's free ride healthcare. The
lefts' motto of "Tax And Spend" is now "Steal And Spend"!

BINGO! If it's so important, let 'em spend their own money for it.


That isn't how they work. They need OPM to enact their plans.

Wes

"Wes" wrote in message
news
"Ed Huntress" wrote:

If there's a public option, the people who opt for it WILL pay for it with
their own money.

You forgot those taxes on 'gold plated' insurance policies. (Note: does
not apply to
unions)

Wes

That has nothing to do with the public option, Wes. That's a function of
taxes, and it applies to subsidized private policies as well.

This is the kind of misinformation that has to drive you nuts. The
right-wingers have told a pile of lies about the program, and some people
will believe anything they say.

--
Ed Huntress

"Wes" wrote in message
...
Larry Jaques wrote:

Then why don't Progressives just pay for the public option with THEIR
money?
No, they want Conservatives to pay for the left's free ride healthcare.
The
lefts' motto of "Tax And Spend" is now "Steal And Spend"!

BINGO! If it's so important, let 'em spend their own money for it.


That isn't how they work. They need OPM to enact their plans.

Wes

What do you mean here? What plan does OPM have to enact?

--
Ed Huntress

"Ed Huntress" wrote:


"Wes" wrote in message
...
Larry Jaques wrote:

Then why don't Progressives just pay for the public option with THEIR
money?
No, they want Conservatives to pay for the left's free ride healthcare.
The
lefts' motto of "Tax And Spend" is now "Steal And Spend"!

BINGO! If it's so important, let 'em spend their own money for it.


That isn't how they work. They need OPM to enact their plans.

Wes

What do you mean here? What plan does OPM have to enact?

Other People's Money.

Wes

"Wes" wrote in message
...
"Ed Huntress" wrote:


"Wes" wrote in message
...
Larry Jaques wrote:

Then why don't Progressives just pay for the public option with THEIR
money?
No, they want Conservatives to pay for the left's free ride healthcare.
The
lefts' motto of "Tax And Spend" is now "Steal And Spend"!

BINGO! If it's so important, let 'em spend their own money for it.


That isn't how they work. They need OPM to enact their plans.

Wes

What do you mean here? What plan does OPM have to enact?

Other People's Money.

Wes

Ha! I thought you were talking about the health plans managed by the federal
Office of Personnel Management. g They run the FEHB program for federal
employees.

FWIW, Larry is full of crap. The public option has nothing to do with the
subsidy plans. It scares the hell out of private insurance companies
because, if it's run as well as Medicare, it will beat their prices by 15% -
25% or more.

The trouble with it is that the private insurers will try to co-opt it,
through lobbying, so that it becomes the sinkhole for people with
pre-existing conditions. Then costs will go up, and the private insurers can
go back to printing money.

--
Ed Huntress

"Ed Huntress" wrote:

Ha! I thought you were talking about the health plans managed by the federal
Office of Personnel Management. g They run the FEHB program for federal
employees.

I was wondering what you thought I meant by OPM.


FWIW, Larry is full of crap. The public option has nothing to do with the
subsidy plans. It scares the hell out of private insurance companies
because, if it's run as well as Medicare, it will beat their prices by 15% -
25% or more.

Will it run as bad as Medicaid?


The trouble with it is that the private insurers will try to co-opt it,
through lobbying, so that it becomes the sinkhole for people with
pre-existing conditions. Then costs will go up, and the private insurers can
go back to printing money.


Ed, I hope you realize there are a lot of people that really think the public option is
going to be affordable as in 100 to 200 bucks a month. That isn't going to happen.

I'd still like to see a rate schedule for the public option, the particulars of what is
covered, co pays, and all that messy stuff that ruins the dream.

Wes

"Wes" wrote in message
...
"Ed Huntress" wrote:

Ha! I thought you were talking about the health plans managed by the
federal
Office of Personnel Management. g They run the FEHB program for federal
employees.

I was wondering what you thought I meant by OPM.


FWIW, Larry is full of crap. The public option has nothing to do with the
subsidy plans. It scares the hell out of private insurance companies
because, if it's run as well as Medicare, it will beat their prices by
15% -
25% or more.

Will it run as bad as Medicaid?

Each state runs its own Medicaid. State governments in general are
incompetent to do much more than name the official state bird. James Madison
had it right: the more local the government, the less competent it is likely
to be.



The trouble with it is that the private insurers will try to co-opt it,
through lobbying, so that it becomes the sinkhole for people with
pre-existing conditions. Then costs will go up, and the private insurers
can
go back to printing money.


Ed, I hope you realize there are a lot of people that really think the
public option is
going to be affordable as in 100 to 200 bucks a month. That isn't going
to happen.

I don't know who those people are, Wes. For some people with *very* low
incomes, it may well come out to a cost like that -- as will subsidized
private insurance.


I'd still like to see a rate schedule for the public option, the
particulars of what is
covered, co pays, and all that messy stuff that ruins the dream.

Wes

Have you looked for one? There have been some projections. I haven't paid
much attention to them myself. I'm more interested in putting an end to the
unpaid emergency room care; getting a grip on pharmaceutical costs (which
isn't really in the bill, but which it will enable); and putting the AMA on
the spot to start doing something about health care costs. Right now that's
in the hands of the private insurance companies, and they've failed at it,
utterly. That's not because they're stupid or evil. It's because they have
no incentive to do so. In fact, their incentive is quite the opposite.

Once the system is somewhat rationalized, with universal care and some tools
that let us grab medical care and insurance by the balls, it will be a
matter of how intelligently we use those powers. That's a big "if." But
right now, it's running out of control, with no incentives for anyone to
control costs. As David Brooks put it, it's a system of "perverse
incentives."

--
Ed Huntress

"Ed Huntress" wrote:


"Wes" wrote in message
...
"Ed Huntress" wrote:

Ha! I thought you were talking about the health plans managed by the
federal
Office of Personnel Management. g They run the FEHB program for federal
employees.

I was wondering what you thought I meant by OPM.


FWIW, Larry is full of crap. The public option has nothing to do with the
subsidy plans. It scares the hell out of private insurance companies
because, if it's run as well as Medicare, it will beat their prices by
15% -
25% or more.

Will it run as bad as Medicaid?

Each state runs its own Medicaid. State governments in general are
incompetent to do much more than name the official state bird. James Madison
had it right: the more local the government, the less competent it is likely
to be.

I'm a big fan of state sovereignty so we will just have to disagree on that.




The trouble with it is that the private insurers will try to co-opt it,
through lobbying, so that it becomes the sinkhole for people with
pre-existing conditions. Then costs will go up, and the private insurers
can
go back to printing money.


Ed, I hope you realize there are a lot of people that really think the
public option is
going to be affordable as in 100 to 200 bucks a month. That isn't going
to happen.

I don't know who those people are, Wes. For some people with *very* low
incomes, it may well come out to a cost like that -- as will subsidized
private insurance.

As you know since I mention it often, I catch all three hours of C-Span Washington
Journal. The call in portions of the program is where I'm hearing it.



I'd still like to see a rate schedule for the public option, the
particulars of what is
covered, co pays, and all that messy stuff that ruins the dream.

Wes

Have you looked for one? There have been some projections. I haven't paid
much attention to them myself.

My ear radar is on alert, I've never heard anything. My googlefu hasn't turned up
anything solid either.

I'm more interested in putting an end to the
unpaid emergency room care; getting a grip on pharmaceutical costs (which
isn't really in the bill, but which it will enable); and putting the AMA on
the spot to start doing something about health care costs. Right now that's
in the hands of the private insurance companies, and they've failed at it,
utterly. That's not because they're stupid or evil. It's because they have
no incentive to do so. In fact, their incentive is quite the opposite.

How do you deal with unpaid emergency care? That appears to be a factor in the overall
cost of insurance since in the end, someone has to pay.

Now on pharmaceutical costs, I don't think we should have to pay a dime more than any
other western country. One world price for the developed nations unless a case can be
made for extra costs for litigation or testing by country. Discounts to third world
countries, I'm willing to pay for.

I've heard that in the case of other countries, they have laws under the WTO agreements
that if a deal on pricing can't be cut, they can make the drug inhouse reguardless of US
patents.

http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_E/...a_ato186_e.htm

Go half way down. Closest thing I can find at the moment.


I wish I could give you cites but last night while I was listening to Cspan-1, I heard
that most medical centers have a year over year expectation of a 7% annual increase in
returns.


Once the system is somewhat rationalized, with universal care and some tools
that let us grab medical care and insurance by the balls, it will be a
matter of how intelligently we use those powers. That's a big "if." But
right now, it's running out of control, with no incentives for anyone to
control costs. As David Brooks put it, it's a system of "perverse
incentives."

I can agree that there are a lot of forces in action. Now will both sides agree to
eliminate the perverse parts?

Wes

"Wes" wrote in message
...
"Ed Huntress" wrote:


"Wes" wrote in message
...
"Ed Huntress" wrote:

Ha! I thought you were talking about the health plans managed by the
federal
Office of Personnel Management. g They run the FEHB program for
federal
employees.

I was wondering what you thought I meant by OPM.


FWIW, Larry is full of crap. The public option has nothing to do with
the
subsidy plans. It scares the hell out of private insurance companies
because, if it's run as well as Medicare, it will beat their prices by
15% -
25% or more.

Will it run as bad as Medicaid?

Each state runs its own Medicaid. State governments in general are
incompetent to do much more than name the official state bird. James
Madison
had it right: the more local the government, the less competent it is
likely
to be.

I'm a big fan of state sovereignty so we will just have to disagree on
that.

And there are so many fine examples for you to point to, like California,
Louisianna, Illinois, New York, Michigan, New Jersey, etc., etc. d8-)

Half the state governments in the country have a chance of becoming the
subjects of comic books.





The trouble with it is that the private insurers will try to co-opt it,
through lobbying, so that it becomes the sinkhole for people with
pre-existing conditions. Then costs will go up, and the private insurers
can
go back to printing money.


Ed, I hope you realize there are a lot of people that really think the
public option is
going to be affordable as in 100 to 200 bucks a month. That isn't going
to happen.

I don't know who those people are, Wes. For some people with *very* low
incomes, it may well come out to a cost like that -- as will subsidized
private insurance.

As you know since I mention it often, I catch all three hours of C-Span
Washington
Journal. The call in portions of the program is where I'm hearing it.

If you want, see if I can find anything serious. It may all just be wild
speculation; as I said, I haven't paid much attention. I don't listen to
call-ins of any kind. They depress me.




I'd still like to see a rate schedule for the public option, the
particulars of what is
covered, co pays, and all that messy stuff that ruins the dream.

Wes

Have you looked for one? There have been some projections. I haven't paid
much attention to them myself.

My ear radar is on alert, I've never heard anything. My googlefu hasn't
turned up
anything solid either.

I'm more interested in putting an end to the
unpaid emergency room care; getting a grip on pharmaceutical costs (which
isn't really in the bill, but which it will enable); and putting the AMA
on
the spot to start doing something about health care costs. Right now
that's
in the hands of the private insurance companies, and they've failed at it,
utterly. That's not because they're stupid or evil. It's because they have
no incentive to do so. In fact, their incentive is quite the opposite.

How do you deal with unpaid emergency care? That appears to be a factor
in the overall
cost of insurance since in the end, someone has to pay.

You make sure it isn't unpaid. First, you try to reduce it with a universal
system that, one hopes, will lead to more early detection.

For example, once Gunner had his stents a few years back, he should have
been on a regular stress-test schedule that could have detected his
impending second heart attack. They may not have had to saw him open. Then
he may not have had a stroke.

This is all statistical/actuarial stuff. The numbers are out there, in the
professional medical literature.

Once you have a rational, universal system going, you fold the remaining
emergency-room care into the total insured community. It already is,
actually, except that we pay it now in the form of taxes and substantially
higher hospital bills.


Now on pharmaceutical costs, I don't think we should have to pay a dime
more than any
other western country. One world price for the developed nations unless a
case can be
made for extra costs for litigation or testing by country. Discounts to
third world
countries, I'm willing to pay for.

I've heard that in the case of other countries, they have laws under the
WTO agreements
that if a deal on pricing can't be cut, they can make the drug inhouse
reguardless of US
patents.

http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_E/...a_ato186_e.htm

Go half way down. Closest thing I can find at the moment.

Yeah. TRIPS. It's a very fluid thing. There's a lengthy discussion about it
in a recent book that I just read, _Bad Samaritans_. The US is trying to ram
it down the world's throat, with mixed success. You may be interested that
Canada didn't recognize foreign drug patents until the '90s. I think it was
about the same for Switzerland -- 1988, IIRC. So it isn't a third-world
thing.

That's true for the US, too, BTW. We invoked it a few years ago by breaking
a European patent (Sanofi? I forget who held the patent.) on an antidote for
anthrax. Our military is using it now, but we made millions of doses for the
general population after the anthrax letter scare.

It's complicated. The European Union produced a report a few years ago,
slamming the countries of Europe for putting price controls on drugs,
producing all kinds of tables and numbers showing that the US had grabbed
most of the world's pharma research because this is where they make their
money. They showed the jobs and tax revenues that were generated from it,
and it showed that the US came out ahead. In fact, I had one of those jobs,
so I'm not entirely skeptical.

But I'm wary of it. It's one of those macroeconomic views of a microeconomic
situation, which don't show all of the mal-distribution of costs throughout
a society. My gut feeling is that we'd be better off with price controls on
drugs, just like every other developed country has done. But I'm sure that
the European report was as least partly correct, that we'd lose most of the
industry if we did so. They'd move to India and to the Third World, because
drugs can be made anywhere.

We'd get the same result if we could re-import US-made drugs from other
countries. Once you do that, the drug companies have no incentive to keep
their HQ's and production facilities in the US. None.


I wish I could give you cites but last night while I was listening to
Cspan-1, I heard
that most medical centers have a year over year expectation of a 7% annual
increase in
returns.

You'd need to see a full analysis of that. The raw figure doesn't mean much.



Once the system is somewhat rationalized, with universal care and some
tools
that let us grab medical care and insurance by the balls, it will be a
matter of how intelligently we use those powers. That's a big "if." But
right now, it's running out of control, with no incentives for anyone to
control costs. As David Brooks put it, it's a system of "perverse
incentives."

I can agree that there are a lot of forces in action. Now will both sides
agree to
eliminate the perverse parts?

Absolutely not. The conservatives will not accept the fact that the
essential problem with health care in the US is multiple market failures
that are inherently unfixable. They'll keep trying to jimmy the rules to
make a real market out of it. On this one, I agree with the Democrats: there
is no way that anyone knows of to make a real market out of the health care
business. You can squeeze the balloon but the air keeps moving to another
end.

If one is discovered, I'd be all for it. But I don't believe that such a
thing exists.

--
Ed Huntress

On Mon, 22 Feb 2010 01:34:46 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:
snip
You make sure it isn't unpaid. First, you try to reduce it with a universal
system that, one hopes, will lead to more early detection.

As indicated in another post the US ALREADY has universal medical
care. If you show up at an emergency room, they must treat you
as a matter of law, without regard to citizenship, ability to
pay, or legal immigrant status. Unfortunately this is about the
most expensive system possible, as crisis management and heroic
medical care are then the norm. The less expensive and more
effective preventative measures such as immunization and prenatal
care are not covered for many people, and are thus avoided.

For example, once Gunner had his stents a few years back, he should have
been on a regular stress-test schedule that could have detected his
impending second heart attack. They may not have had to saw him open. Then
he may not have had a stroke.
Another question is what meds did they have him on? The correct
meds may well have prevented further problems, and a lifetime of
such drugs would be cheaper than the heroic hospital treatments
for a second heart attack and then stroke. The problem being
that the drugs are expensive, and are frequently skipped if you
have a marginal income. Another example of "penny wise and pound
foolish" by contemporary society.

This is all statistical/actuarial stuff. The numbers are out there, in the
professional medical literature.
snip
This is one of the major areas of weakness of the Obama health
care effort. (The other is completely ignoring the
history/experiences of the other OECD nations with their
universal health care programs. We appear to be determined to
make their mistakes all over again.)

It appears that the accumulated medical data from the
governmental programs such as Medicaid, Medicare and the VA and
the private insurance data bases were *NEVER* used to create a
computer model of medical care costs and benefits. Thus, *ALL*
of the numbers being discussed are SWAG estimates.

By this time it should be possible to input changes such as
medical priorities, exclusions or $ caps for certain conditions
and population groups [e.g. illegals in or out? to see how the
total cost changes. What we getting are ever increasing amounts
of heat and smoke (as in blowing up the public's ***), but no
light.

Such a computer model is a major undertaking, but very necessary
if we are to minimize the chances for unpleasant surprises as the
priorities and caps for conditions change and various
demographic/socio-economic groups are covered or excluded.

The Communists were widely ridiculed for making scientific and
medical decisions on the basis of ideology. This is no better,
and we should be taking a close look at what went so wrong in the
USSR before we go down that same road.


Unka George (George McDuffee)
...............................
The past is a foreign country;
they do things differently there.
L. P. Hartley (1895-1972), British author.
The Go-Between, Prologue (1953).

"F. George McDuffee" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 22 Feb 2010 01:34:46 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:
snip
You make sure it isn't unpaid. First, you try to reduce it with a
universal
system that, one hopes, will lead to more early detection.

As indicated in another post the US ALREADY has universal medical
care. If you show up at an emergency room, they must treat you
as a matter of law, without regard to citizenship, ability to
pay, or legal immigrant status. Unfortunately this is about the
most expensive system possible, as crisis management and heroic
medical care are then the norm. The less expensive and more
effective preventative measures such as immunization and prenatal
care are not covered for many people, and are thus avoided.

Right. But addressing the point to which you appear to be responding, what
we have is universal emergency and disaster treatment, not universal health
care. The point is to *avoid* invoking the emergency treatment for the
currently uninsured.


For example, once Gunner had his stents a few years back, he should have
been on a regular stress-test schedule that could have detected his
impending second heart attack. They may not have had to saw him open. Then
he may not have had a stroke.

Another question is what meds did they have him on? The correct
meds may well have prevented further problems, and a lifetime of
such drugs would be cheaper than the heroic hospital treatments
for a second heart attack and then stroke.

You'd have to ask him. I'm on a cocktail of five medications, after stents,
but I see a cardiologist every few months, too.

The problem being
that the drugs are expensive, and are frequently skipped if you
have a marginal income. Another example of "penny wise and pound
foolish" by contemporary society.

Exactly.


This is all statistical/actuarial stuff. The numbers are out there, in the
professional medical literature.
snip

This is one of the major areas of weakness of the Obama health
care effort. (The other is completely ignoring the
history/experiences of the other OECD nations with their
universal health care programs. We appear to be determined to
make their mistakes all over again.)

I don't think so. There are hardly any practices from other countries that
have been copied to the ones proposed in the US. Do you know of another
system in which the primary payers are profit-making private insurance
companies, subsidized or not? Do you know of any that have no drug price
controls?


It appears that the accumulated medical data from the
governmental programs such as Medicaid, Medicare and the VA and
the private insurance data bases were *NEVER* used to create a
computer model of medical care costs and benefits. Thus, *ALL*
of the numbers being discussed are SWAG estimates.

Ah, George, medical data like that is available in excrutiating detail from
commercial sources. Medicare also has highly detailed actuarial data. That's
how insurers set their rates and how Medicare and Medicaid costs are
projected.

Here ya' go. Knock yourself out. There's lots more where this came from:

http://www.cms.hhs.gov/nationalhealt...sprojected.asp


By this time it should be possible to input changes such as
medical priorities, exclusions or $ caps for certain conditions
and population groups [e.g. illegals in or out? to see how the
total cost changes. What we getting are ever increasing amounts
of heat and smoke (as in blowing up the public's ***), but no
light.

It's been done for decades.


Such a computer model is a major undertaking, but very necessary
if we are to minimize the chances for unpleasant surprises as the
priorities and caps for conditions change and various
demographic/socio-economic groups are covered or excluded.

The Communists were widely ridiculed for making scientific and
medical decisions on the basis of ideology. This is no better,
and we should be taking a close look at what went so wrong in the
USSR before we go down that same road.


Unka George (George McDuffee)
..............................
The past is a foreign country;
they do things differently there.
L. P. Hartley (1895-1972), British author.
The Go-Between, Prologue (1953).

On Mon, 22 Feb 2010 03:28:49 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:


"F. George McDuffee" wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 22 Feb 2010 01:34:46 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:
snip
You make sure it isn't unpaid. First, you try to reduce it with a
universal
system that, one hopes, will lead to more early detection.

As indicated in another post the US ALREADY has universal medical
care. If you show up at an emergency room, they must treat you
as a matter of law, without regard to citizenship, ability to
pay, or legal immigrant status. Unfortunately this is about the
most expensive system possible, as crisis management and heroic
medical care are then the norm. The less expensive and more
effective preventative measures such as immunization and prenatal
care are not covered for many people, and are thus avoided.

Right. But addressing the point to which you appear to be responding, what
we have is universal emergency and disaster treatment, not universal health
care. The point is to *avoid* invoking the emergency treatment for the
currently uninsured.

Exactly, as Grandma repeatedly told us "an ounce of prevention is
worth a pound of cure."


For example, once Gunner had his stents a few years back, he should have
been on a regular stress-test schedule that could have detected his
impending second heart attack. They may not have had to saw him open. Then
he may not have had a stroke.

Another question is what meds did they have him on? The correct
meds may well have prevented further problems, and a lifetime of
such drugs would be cheaper than the heroic hospital treatments
for a second heart attack and then stroke.

You'd have to ask him. I'm on a cocktail of five medications, after stents,
but I see a cardiologist every few months, too.
Same here, and I get to see her for at least five minutes every
three months...

The problem being
that the drugs are expensive, and are frequently skipped if you
have a marginal income. Another example of "penny wise and pound
foolish" by contemporary society.

Exactly.


This is all statistical/actuarial stuff. The numbers are out there, in the
professional medical literature.
snip

This is one of the major areas of weakness of the Obama health
care effort. (The other is completely ignoring the
history/experiences of the other OECD nations with their
universal health care programs. We appear to be determined to
make their mistakes all over again.)

I don't think so. There are hardly any practices from other countries that
have been copied to the ones proposed in the US. Do you know of another
system in which the primary payers are profit-making private insurance
companies, subsidized or not? Do you know of any that have no drug price
controls?
This is exactly the point, and why I included "history." Much of
the problem appears to originate from the lack of a definitive
problem statement, thus leading to "mission creep" and attempting
to again nail "jelly to a tree" Anytime you attempt to be all
things to all people, you wind up being nothing to anyone, and in
any event it is impossible to evaluate
progress/effeciency/effectiveness without quantifiable goals
(which may be the intent).


It appears that the accumulated medical data from the
governmental programs such as Medicaid, Medicare and the VA and
the private insurance data bases were *NEVER* used to create a
computer model of medical care costs and benefits. Thus, *ALL*
of the numbers being discussed are SWAG estimates.

Ah, George, medical data like that is available in excrutiating detail from
commercial sources. Medicare also has highly detailed actuarial data. That's
how insurers set their rates and how Medicare and Medicaid costs are
projected.
There are indeed tons of information. The problem is that little
of this is reduced to data, and the little data that is available
is not being used, other than in the most selective and
self-serving way.

One of the problems is that to effectively use such a model, you
must ask detailed and explicit questions, and to do this you must
understand the problem. Ask the wrong questions and you get the
wrong answers.

Given that there is finite pot of money available, it would seem
logical to structure coverage and policies so that the greatest
number of people and largest number of conditions will be
covered, but again there is no definitive problem statement to
this effect. Unfortunately, such a model (if honest) model will
produce answers you don't want or that are
politically/ideologically unacceptable when treatment of certain
conditions or groups are found to be not cost effective and thus
should be excluded or receive [much] lower funding/treatment
priority.

There is also the problem that after the model is created and
validated, the results will be ignored if they are not what "the
boss" wants to hear. This appears to have been what occurred
with the financial/derivative programs and computer simulations
at many of the banks and brokerages.

Here ya' go. Knock yourself out. There's lots more where this came from:

http://www.cms.hhs.gov/nationalhealt...sprojected.asp


By this time it should be possible to input changes such as
medical priorities, exclusions or $ caps for certain conditions
and population groups [e.g. illegals in or out? to see how the
total cost changes. What we getting are ever increasing amounts
of heat and smoke (as in blowing up the public's ***), but no
light.

It's been done for decades.
For medical insurance company profit optimization, with
qualifications such as pre-existing condition exclusion.

Now lets do it to maximize coverage, and lets get the results
into a format that the public can understand. Does anyone know
if either the OMB [Office of Manpower and Budget] or the CBO
[Congressional Budget Office] have [access] to such a model, and
how many "what if" alternatives have they evaluated?
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/
http://www.cbo.gov/
http://www.cbo.gov/publications/collections/health.cfm
196 page report
http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/99xx/doc9...-KeyIssues.pdf

Such a computer model is a major undertaking, but very necessary
if we are to minimize the chances for unpleasant surprises as the
priorities and caps for conditions change and various
demographic/socio-economic groups are covered or excluded.
In one sense I am simply complaining about human nature where we
never learn from past mistakes, but continue to lurch, stagger
and reel from one debacle, catastrophe and fiasco to the next.

The Communists were widely ridiculed for making scientific and
medical decisions on the basis of ideology. This is no better,
and we should be taking a close look at what went so wrong in the
USSR before we go down that same road.


Unka George (George McDuffee)
...............................
The past is a foreign country;
they do things differently there.
L. P. Hartley (1895-1972), British author.
The Go-Between, Prologue (1953).

"F. George McDuffee" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 22 Feb 2010 03:28:49 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:


"F. George McDuffee" wrote in message
. ..
On Mon, 22 Feb 2010 01:34:46 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:
snip
You make sure it isn't unpaid. First, you try to reduce it with a
universal
system that, one hopes, will lead to more early detection.

As indicated in another post the US ALREADY has universal medical
care. If you show up at an emergency room, they must treat you
as a matter of law, without regard to citizenship, ability to
pay, or legal immigrant status. Unfortunately this is about the
most expensive system possible, as crisis management and heroic
medical care are then the norm. The less expensive and more
effective preventative measures such as immunization and prenatal
care are not covered for many people, and are thus avoided.

Right. But addressing the point to which you appear to be responding, what
we have is universal emergency and disaster treatment, not universal
health
care. The point is to *avoid* invoking the emergency treatment for the
currently uninsured.

Exactly, as Grandma repeatedly told us "an ounce of prevention is
worth a pound of cure."


For example, once Gunner had his stents a few years back, he should have
been on a regular stress-test schedule that could have detected his
impending second heart attack. They may not have had to saw him open.
Then
he may not have had a stroke.

Another question is what meds did they have him on? The correct
meds may well have prevented further problems, and a lifetime of
such drugs would be cheaper than the heroic hospital treatments
for a second heart attack and then stroke.

You'd have to ask him. I'm on a cocktail of five medications, after
stents,
but I see a cardiologist every few months, too.

Same here, and I get to see her for at least five minutes every
three months...

The problem being
that the drugs are expensive, and are frequently skipped if you
have a marginal income. Another example of "penny wise and pound
foolish" by contemporary society.

Exactly.


This is all statistical/actuarial stuff. The numbers are out there, in
the
professional medical literature.
snip

This is one of the major areas of weakness of the Obama health
care effort. (The other is completely ignoring the
history/experiences of the other OECD nations with their
universal health care programs. We appear to be determined to
make their mistakes all over again.)

I don't think so. There are hardly any practices from other countries that
have been copied to the ones proposed in the US. Do you know of another
system in which the primary payers are profit-making private insurance
companies, subsidized or not? Do you know of any that have no drug price
controls?

This is exactly the point, and why I included "history." Much of
the problem appears to originate from the lack of a definitive
problem statement, thus leading to "mission creep" and attempting
to again nail "jelly to a tree" Anytime you attempt to be all
things to all people, you wind up being nothing to anyone, and in
any event it is impossible to evaluate
progress/effeciency/effectiveness without quantifiable goals
(which may be the intent).


It appears that the accumulated medical data from the
governmental programs such as Medicaid, Medicare and the VA and
the private insurance data bases were *NEVER* used to create a
computer model of medical care costs and benefits. Thus, *ALL*
of the numbers being discussed are SWAG estimates.

Ah, George, medical data like that is available in excrutiating detail
from
commercial sources. Medicare also has highly detailed actuarial data.
That's
how insurers set their rates and how Medicare and Medicaid costs are
projected.

There are indeed tons of information. The problem is that little
of this is reduced to data, and the little data that is available
is not being used, other than in the most selective and
self-serving way.

I don't know where you get that idea, but insurance companies are extremely
good at using actuarial data. My understanding is that Medicare and Medicaid
are equally good. But the actual math of it is pretty arcane stuff for us
non-specialists, so I have never looked at the analyses they draw from the
data.

Their purposes are to analyze costs by doing extensive "what if" iterations
to their models, and to analyze the cost effects (and uncertainties)
involved with different boundaries established for their insured
communities. Is there something else you'd want them to do? Maybe they
already do it; I don't know the full extent of their analyses.


One of the problems is that to effectively use such a model, you
must ask detailed and explicit questions, and to do this you must
understand the problem. Ask the wrong questions and you get the
wrong answers.

Given that there is finite pot of money available, it would seem
logical to structure coverage and policies so that the greatest
number of people and largest number of conditions will be
covered, but again there is no definitive problem statement to
this effect.

In the case of private insurance, that's what their medical board, ethics
board, legal board, and regulatory compliance boards are for. They're full
of reviewers. And the financial people get involved once the options are
analyzed and reported.

Medicare and Medicaid work similarly, only they don't need the marketing
people. That saves quite a bit of money.

Unfortunately, such a model (if honest) model will
produce answers you don't want or that are
politically/ideologically unacceptable when treatment of certain
conditions or groups are found to be not cost effective and thus
should be excluded or receive [much] lower funding/treatment
priority.

That's one of the problems with private insurance. It's not a trivial
problem for the government insurers, either.


There is also the problem that after the model is created and
validated, the results will be ignored if they are not what "the
boss" wants to hear. This appears to have been what occurred
with the financial/derivative programs and computer simulations
at many of the banks and brokerages.

The business of medicine and related industry is a very different animal
from finance. You know I criticize them frequently but you have to give them
credit, IMO, for doing what they can within the incentive structure they
have to work with. I've met a lot of people in pharma and some from the
insurance industry, and I've sat through a few of their meetings and
seminars. They're mostly fine people -- even if they're a bit overpopulated
with egotists. But that's the medical field in general.

They're trying to do a humanitarian job in a profit-seeking environment.
That's bound to cause personal conflicts, like soldiers trained to kill
while trying to win "hearts and minds." In my limited experience with that
industry, there is a high frequency of cynical remarks and other evidence
that many of the people who work in it are at least somewhat conflicted.


Here ya' go. Knock yourself out. There's lots more where this came from:

http://www.cms.hhs.gov/nationalhealt...sprojected.asp


By this time it should be possible to input changes such as
medical priorities, exclusions or $ caps for certain conditions
and population groups [e.g. illegals in or out? to see how the
total cost changes. What we getting are ever increasing amounts
of heat and smoke (as in blowing up the public's ***), but no
light.

It's been done for decades.

For medical insurance company profit optimization, with
qualifications such as pre-existing condition exclusion.

Now lets do it to maximize coverage, and lets get the results
into a format that the public can understand. Does anyone know
if either the OMB [Office of Manpower and Budget] or the CBO
[Congressional Budget Office] have [access] to such a model, and
how many "what if" alternatives have they evaluated?
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/
http://www.cbo.gov/
http://www.cbo.gov/publications/collections/health.cfm
196 page report
http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/99xx/doc9...-KeyIssues.pdf

Such a computer model is a major undertaking, but very necessary
if we are to minimize the chances for unpleasant surprises as the
priorities and caps for conditions change and various
demographic/socio-economic groups are covered or excluded.

In one sense I am simply complaining about human nature where we
never learn from past mistakes, but continue to lurch, stagger
and reel from one debacle, catastrophe and fiasco to the next.

There are two points worth making here. First, medical ethics is a
fast-growing field of employment and it deals with the enormous problems of
"maximizing coverage." It's a tough field. Benthamist Utilitarianism is not
an answer, although you'd think it was to hear some of the more simplistic
advocates of universal care.

Second, "learning from past mistakes" assumes that you know which decisions
were the mistakes. This depends a lot on how long your view is, in terms of
time, and how statistical you can be with human lives. Anecdotes are very
strong in this field because individual human outcomes affect us with strong
emotion -- there, but for the grace of God, go I.

It's rightly the province of politics, in the classical sense of the term.
Right now, with the realities of medicine in the midst of a historic
transition, when we can suddenly do more than we can afford to do, the
ethical questions are inevitably (IMO) a chaotic mess. But that's not an
excuse to do nothing. We have to do the best we can. We are not doing it
now.


The Communists were widely ridiculed for making scientific and
medical decisions on the basis of ideology. This is no better,
and we should be taking a close look at what went so wrong in the
USSR before we go down that same road.


Unka George (George McDuffee)
..............................
The past is a foreign country;
they do things differently there.
L. P. Hartley (1895-1972), British author.
The Go-Between, Prologue (1953).

On Mon, 22 Feb 2010 12:40:31 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:
snip
There are two points worth making here. First, medical ethics is a
fast-growing field of employment and it deals with the enormous problems of
"maximizing coverage." It's a tough field. Benthamist Utilitarianism is not
an answer, although you'd think it was to hear some of the more simplistic
advocates of universal care.
snip
Utilitarianism [the greatest good for the greatest number] tends
to rapidly fall into the trap that this requirement is frequently
maximized by providing a very large number of people with a very
small amount of "good." The total amount of "good" may be indeed
maximized, but the affect on any single individual is minimal.
We then have the result that large amounts of money are spent
with minimal benefit to anyone.
see
http://www.utilitarianism.com/
and
http://www.siue.edu/~evailat/i-mill.html


Unka George (George McDuffee)
...............................
The past is a foreign country;
they do things differently there.
L. P. Hartley (1895-1972), British author.
The Go-Between, Prologue (1953).

"Ed Huntress" wrote:

Each state runs its own Medicaid. State governments in general are
incompetent to do much more than name the official state bird. James
Madison
had it right: the more local the government, the less competent it is
likely
to be.

I'm a big fan of state sovereignty so we will just have to disagree on
that.

And there are so many fine examples for you to point to, like California,
Louisianna, Illinois, New York, Michigan, New Jersey, etc., etc. d8-)

Those sound like democrat controlled states. Take my governor, I hear she is hot. Just
take her away, please.


Half the state governments in the country have a chance of becoming the
subjects of comic books.

Better half the state governments rather than all of the USA at the federal level.






The trouble with it is that the private insurers will try to co-opt it,
through lobbying, so that it becomes the sinkhole for people with
pre-existing conditions. Then costs will go up, and the private insurers
can
go back to printing money.


Ed, I hope you realize there are a lot of people that really think the
public option is
going to be affordable as in 100 to 200 bucks a month. That isn't going
to happen.

I don't know who those people are, Wes. For some people with *very* low
incomes, it may well come out to a cost like that -- as will subsidized
private insurance.

As you know since I mention it often, I catch all three hours of C-Span
Washington
Journal. The call in portions of the program is where I'm hearing it.

If you want, see if I can find anything serious. It may all just be wild
speculation; as I said, I haven't paid much attention. I don't listen to
call-ins of any kind. They depress me.

Now that you mention it. A lot of callers to C-Span are depressing. This is offset by
some real gems of reason that get through. That was non-sarcastic.





I'd still like to see a rate schedule for the public option, the
particulars of what is
covered, co pays, and all that messy stuff that ruins the dream.

Wes

Have you looked for one? There have been some projections. I haven't paid
much attention to them myself.

My ear radar is on alert, I've never heard anything. My googlefu hasn't
turned up
anything solid either.

I'm more interested in putting an end to the
unpaid emergency room care; getting a grip on pharmaceutical costs (which
isn't really in the bill, but which it will enable); and putting the AMA
on
the spot to start doing something about health care costs. Right now
that's
in the hands of the private insurance companies, and they've failed at it,
utterly. That's not because they're stupid or evil. It's because they have
no incentive to do so. In fact, their incentive is quite the opposite.

How do you deal with unpaid emergency care? That appears to be a factor
in the overall
cost of insurance since in the end, someone has to pay.

You make sure it isn't unpaid. First, you try to reduce it with a universal
system that, one hopes, will lead to more early detection.

Okay, you are saying not using the E room as the place of last resort. I wonder just how
much real care the unfortunate get there. Do they often get admitted to the hospital for
real care?


For example, once Gunner had his stents a few years back, he should have
been on a regular stress-test schedule that could have detected his
impending second heart attack. They may not have had to saw him open. Then
he may not have had a stroke.

Gunner needs to quit smoking. I don't care to speak about my specific heart issues but I
know for a fact that if I still smoked, I'd be dead now. Do you smoke was the only thing
my doctor wanted an answer to. I asked why do you ask and he said because if you do and
don't quit, it isn't worth my time treating you. How is that for blunt?

I don't make a habit of slagging Gunner since I like him and think he is a good guy when
not playing a bit of Walter Mitty on Usenet but he needs to make a change in his life.

Point is, more medical testing isn't going to take care of the core problems. We are part
of our treatment. As a diabetic you know you have to do you part. I know I have to do my
part for my issues. Gunner needs to drop the cigs and start living right.

Perhaps the extra testing might have convinced him. I don't think I recall him mentioning
stopping smoking yet. I'd think the first encounter would have had him flying right but
it didn't.


This is all statistical/actuarial stuff. The numbers are out there, in the
professional medical literature.

Once you have a rational, universal system going, you fold the remaining
emergency-room care into the total insured community. It already is,
actually, except that we pay it now in the form of taxes and substantially
higher hospital bills.

This is something that bothers me. We pass a law telling a business that you will serve
bad credit risks, those that cannot pay, and you spread the losses to other customers.

Do you think that would fly if the business was say a auto company instead of a medical
center? How about a bank?



Now on pharmaceutical costs, I don't think we should have to pay a dime
more than any
other western country. One world price for the developed nations unless a
case can be
made for extra costs for litigation or testing by country. Discounts to
third world
countries, I'm willing to pay for.

I've heard that in the case of other countries, they have laws under the
WTO agreements
that if a deal on pricing can't be cut, they can make the drug inhouse
reguardless of US
patents.

http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_E/...a_ato186_e.htm

Go half way down. Closest thing I can find at the moment.

Yeah. TRIPS. It's a very fluid thing. There's a lengthy discussion about it
in a recent book that I just read, _Bad Samaritans_. The US is trying to ram
it down the world's throat, with mixed success. You may be interested that
Canada didn't recognize foreign drug patents until the '90s. I think it was
about the same for Switzerland -- 1988, IIRC. So it isn't a third-world
thing.

Thank you for validating that.



That's true for the US, too, BTW. We invoked it a few years ago by breaking
a European patent (Sanofi? I forget who held the patent.) on an antidote for
anthrax. Our military is using it now, but we made millions of doses for the
general population after the anthrax letter scare.

Given the concern at the time, that sounds rational. I wonder if we cut a deal after the
fact? Considering how much wealth we have expended defending Europe, I don't really feel
too bad if we nicked something.


It's complicated. The European Union produced a report a few years ago,
slamming the countries of Europe for putting price controls on drugs,
producing all kinds of tables and numbers showing that the US had grabbed
most of the world's pharma research because this is where they make their
money. They showed the jobs and tax revenues that were generated from it,
and it showed that the US came out ahead. In fact, I had one of those jobs,
so I'm not entirely skeptical.

I have not doubt it is complicated. Pharma and the Military are two things I truly think
the EU takes us for a ride on.



But I'm wary of it. It's one of those macroeconomic views of a microeconomic
situation, which don't show all of the mal-distribution of costs throughout
a society. My gut feeling is that we'd be better off with price controls on
drugs, just like every other developed country has done. But I'm sure that
the European report was as least partly correct, that we'd lose most of the
industry if we did so. They'd move to India and to the Third World, because
drugs can be made anywhere.

You mean like a fair chunk of US non-drug manufacturing?


We'd get the same result if we could re-import US-made drugs from other
countries. Once you do that, the drug companies have no incentive to keep
their HQ's and production facilities in the US. None.

You can only re-import US drugs if enough drugs are exported. You think pharma is going
to ramp up exports to cut their throat? That isn't going to happen.




I wish I could give you cites but last night while I was listening to
Cspan-1, I heard
that most medical centers have a year over year expectation of a 7% annual
increase in
returns.

You'd need to see a full analysis of that. The raw figure doesn't mean much.

Like that is going to happen.





Once the system is somewhat rationalized, with universal care and some
tools
that let us grab medical care and insurance by the balls, it will be a
matter of how intelligently we use those powers. That's a big "if." But
right now, it's running out of control, with no incentives for anyone to
control costs. As David Brooks put it, it's a system of "perverse
incentives."

I can agree that there are a lot of forces in action. Now will both sides
agree to
eliminate the perverse parts?

Absolutely not. The conservatives will not accept the fact that the
essential problem with health care in the US is multiple market failures
that are inherently unfixable. They'll keep trying to jimmy the rules to
make a real market out of it. On this one, I agree with the Democrats: there
is no way that anyone knows of to make a real market out of the health care
business. You can squeeze the balloon but the air keeps moving to another
end.

If one is discovered, I'd be all for it. But I don't believe that such a
thing exists.

Health care went down hill when it went from being a calling (religious sense) to being a
business.

Wes

On 2/21/2010 10:19 AM, Ed Huntress wrote:

If people knew how half the things in government work, they'd stop voting
for pretty-boy populist buttheads who spend their time on talk radio and
TV
pundit shows, and start voting for real representatives.

I had the TV on this morning and saw the same old politicians at the tea
party meeting saying the same old things about reform... I thought the
"contract with America" was going to change everything for the good. A
bunch of politicians, and politicians has become a dirty word. You never
hear anyone called a Statesman any more.

John

It's grisly. Evan Bayh has said some things that are really ruffling
feathers. I wish it would start a real conversation and some real change,
but my fear is that we'll just blow by it and go back to business as usual.


I can't help but chuckle when I hear all the bitching and whining about
the rotten politicians. It's funny because they same guys bitching about
no turnover in Washington all vote for the same guy on election day they
always vote for. The south is particularly bad about this. They never
send anyone new to Washington but most of the people complaining the
loudest are from the south. In the last decade the percentage of
incumbents reelected was 98%. It's almost a guaranteed lifetime job once
you get elected. If you don't die, retire, or go to jail, everybody gets
to keep their job forever. So as usual it's the stupid "folks" who are
to blame for not sending anyone new to congress. That and they way the
politicians all got together and put in a system of redistricting that
virtually guarantees everyone a safe seat. Between voters who vote for
the same people time after time and crooked politicians who put in a
system that guarantees them reelection it's no wonder it's always
business as usual in Washington.

Hawke

Hey Ed, I saw you mentioned in your last post that you just read Bad
Samaritans. I read that a year or so ago after I saw the author on Book
TV. I was wondering what you thought about it. Me, I thought he was on
the button in a lot of areas. The hypocrisy countries show on
protectionism is pretty amazing. When you read about how his country,
Korea, went from nothing to the modern world in 40 years and did it by
protecting targeted industries, it makes the free traders look like
idiots. At least to me. What's your take on it?

Hawke

"Hawke" wrote in message
...

Hey Ed, I saw you mentioned in your last post that you just read Bad
Samaritans. I read that a year or so ago after I saw the author on Book
TV. I was wondering what you thought about it. Me, I thought he was on the
button in a lot of areas. The hypocrisy countries show on protectionism is
pretty amazing. When you read about how his country, Korea, went from
nothing to the modern world in 40 years and did it by protecting targeted
industries, it makes the free traders look like idiots. At least to me.
What's your take on it?

Hawke

Chang is a rare combination of economic historian and iconoclast; he doesn't
accept the standard histories without checking them out on his own. That
produces some very interesting reading, of which _Bad Samaritans_ is a good
example.

I got the feeling that he isn't done, that he'll eventually take on the
conventional wisdom about trade and put New Trade Theory to the test.
However, he said a couple of times that developed economies benefit from the
fewest trade restrictions, while making it clear that it is not in the
interest of developing economies to play along. Meantime, I had just
finished Krugman's _The Return of Depression Economics_, and I was
interested to see the parallels and contrasts in how they viewed the
economic collapses of Latin American countries and the Asian Tigers over the
past few decades, including the involvement of the IMF and the World Bank.

Both Chang and Krugman are macroeconomists. I want to see either one of them
really take on the microeconomic results of free trade. Krugman tips his hat
to it but doesn't get into thorough analysis. Maybe Chang is the one who
will do it.

All it all, both books opened my eyes to several issues and both were worth
reading.

--
Ed Huntress

"Wes" wrote in message
...
"Ed Huntress" wrote:

Each state runs its own Medicaid. State governments in general are
incompetent to do much more than name the official state bird. James
Madison
had it right: the more local the government, the less competent it is
likely
to be.

I'm a big fan of state sovereignty so we will just have to disagree on
that.

And there are so many fine examples for you to point to, like California,
Louisianna, Illinois, New York, Michigan, New Jersey, etc., etc. d8-)

Those sound like democrat controlled states. Take my governor, I hear she
is hot. Just
take her away, please.

She has to be an idiot to take that job in the first place, so you can keep
her.

Regarding the Democratically controlled states: hey, somebody has to pay the
bills for those red states that get more federal money than they pay out in
taxes. g Alaska is the real welfare queen. Besides getting almost $2 back
for every dollar they're taxed, that great free-market governor of theirs
rigged things so they skim enough off of the oil companies to send a nice,
fat, $4,000 welfare check to every crackpot and rug rat in the state. Of
course, we pay for all of it.



Half the state governments in the country have a chance of becoming the
subjects of comic books.

Better half the state governments rather than all of the USA at the
federal level.






The trouble with it is that the private insurers will try to co-opt
it,
through lobbying, so that it becomes the sinkhole for people with
pre-existing conditions. Then costs will go up, and the private
insurers
can
go back to printing money.


Ed, I hope you realize there are a lot of people that really think the
public option is
going to be affordable as in 100 to 200 bucks a month. That isn't
going
to happen.

I don't know who those people are, Wes. For some people with *very* low
incomes, it may well come out to a cost like that -- as will subsidized
private insurance.

As you know since I mention it often, I catch all three hours of C-Span
Washington
Journal. The call in portions of the program is where I'm hearing it.

If you want, see if I can find anything serious. It may all just be wild
speculation; as I said, I haven't paid much attention. I don't listen to
call-ins of any kind. They depress me.

Now that you mention it. A lot of callers to C-Span are depressing. This
is offset by
some real gems of reason that get through. That was non-sarcastic.

It's like a friend of mine, an expert on classical music, says about country
music: There are a lot of talented people in that business and no doubt
there are some gems among the swarf, but you'll go deaf and blind waiting
for it to show up. Most callers to talk radio and TV make me wonder how they
made it through high school. They make me fear for the republic.






I'd still like to see a rate schedule for the public option, the
particulars of what is
covered, co pays, and all that messy stuff that ruins the dream.

Wes

Have you looked for one? There have been some projections. I haven't
paid
much attention to them myself.

My ear radar is on alert, I've never heard anything. My googlefu hasn't
turned up
anything solid either.

I'm more interested in putting an end to the
unpaid emergency room care; getting a grip on pharmaceutical costs
(which
isn't really in the bill, but which it will enable); and putting the AMA
on
the spot to start doing something about health care costs. Right now
that's
in the hands of the private insurance companies, and they've failed at
it,
utterly. That's not because they're stupid or evil. It's because they
have
no incentive to do so. In fact, their incentive is quite the opposite.

How do you deal with unpaid emergency care? That appears to be a factor
in the overall
cost of insurance since in the end, someone has to pay.

You make sure it isn't unpaid. First, you try to reduce it with a
universal
system that, one hopes, will lead to more early detection.

Okay, you are saying not using the E room as the place of last resort. I
wonder just how
much real care the unfortunate get there. Do they often get admitted to
the hospital for
real care?

I don't know how they're treated. I've never asked.



For example, once Gunner had his stents a few years back, he should have
been on a regular stress-test schedule that could have detected his
impending second heart attack. They may not have had to saw him open. Then
he may not have had a stroke.

Gunner needs to quit smoking. I don't care to speak about my specific
heart issues but I
know for a fact that if I still smoked, I'd be dead now. Do you smoke was
the only thing
my doctor wanted an answer to. I asked why do you ask and he said because
if you do and
don't quit, it isn't worth my time treating you. How is that for blunt?

I don't make a habit of slagging Gunner since I like him and think he is a
good guy when
not playing a bit of Walter Mitty on Usenet but he needs to make a change
in his life.

Point is, more medical testing isn't going to take care of the core
problems. We are part
of our treatment. As a diabetic you know you have to do you part. I know
I have to do my
part for my issues. Gunner needs to drop the cigs and start living right.

That's true, but you also have to be able to test and measure where you are,
and you need an expert to put it all together. I'm full of surprises, for
example. g Many people are.


Perhaps the extra testing might have convinced him. I don't think I
recall him mentioning
stopping smoking yet. I'd think the first encounter would have had him
flying right but
it didn't.


This is all statistical/actuarial stuff. The numbers are out there, in the
professional medical literature.

Once you have a rational, universal system going, you fold the remaining
emergency-room care into the total insured community. It already is,
actually, except that we pay it now in the form of taxes and substantially
higher hospital bills.

This is something that bothers me. We pass a law telling a business that
you will serve
bad credit risks, those that cannot pay, and you spread the losses to
other customers.

Do you think that would fly if the business was say a auto company instead
of a medical
center? How about a bank?

This isn't about peoples' retirement funds, Wes. It's life and death. In a
civilized society, you don't treat it like a business, and you don't ignore
people who are dying, whether it's their own fault or not. That's for
savages.





Now on pharmaceutical costs, I don't think we should have to pay a dime
more than any
other western country. One world price for the developed nations unless
a
case can be
made for extra costs for litigation or testing by country. Discounts to
third world
countries, I'm willing to pay for.

I've heard that in the case of other countries, they have laws under the
WTO agreements
that if a deal on pricing can't be cut, they can make the drug inhouse
reguardless of US
patents.

http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_E/...a_ato186_e.htm

Go half way down. Closest thing I can find at the moment.

Yeah. TRIPS. It's a very fluid thing. There's a lengthy discussion about
it
in a recent book that I just read, _Bad Samaritans_. The US is trying to
ram
it down the world's throat, with mixed success. You may be interested that
Canada didn't recognize foreign drug patents until the '90s. I think it
was
about the same for Switzerland -- 1988, IIRC. So it isn't a third-world
thing.

Thank you for validating that.



That's true for the US, too, BTW. We invoked it a few years ago by
breaking
a European patent (Sanofi? I forget who held the patent.) on an antidote
for
anthrax. Our military is using it now, but we made millions of doses for
the
general population after the anthrax letter scare.

Given the concern at the time, that sounds rational. I wonder if we cut a
deal after the
fact? Considering how much wealth we have expended defending Europe, I
don't really feel
too bad if we nicked something.

The idea of patents was to encourage innovation, not to enrich people who
make discoveries. Our original patent and copyright laws granted exclusivity
for 14 years. Now copyrights are for the life of the author plus 75 years;
90 years for corporate authors. I'm not sure what it is for pharma patents
now but I think it's 28 years. Then there is a little trick they use to
double that, which is producing a "new" drug which is just the metabolytes
of the original one.

It's a farce. It's also evidence of the power of lobbies.



It's complicated. The European Union produced a report a few years ago,
slamming the countries of Europe for putting price controls on drugs,
producing all kinds of tables and numbers showing that the US had grabbed
most of the world's pharma research because this is where they make their
money. They showed the jobs and tax revenues that were generated from it,
and it showed that the US came out ahead. In fact, I had one of those
jobs,
so I'm not entirely skeptical.

I have not doubt it is complicated. Pharma and the Military are two
things I truly think
the EU takes us for a ride on.



But I'm wary of it. It's one of those macroeconomic views of a
microeconomic
situation, which don't show all of the mal-distribution of costs
throughout
a society. My gut feeling is that we'd be better off with price controls
on
drugs, just like every other developed country has done. But I'm sure that
the European report was as least partly correct, that we'd lose most of
the
industry if we did so. They'd move to India and to the Third World,
because
drugs can be made anywhere.

You mean like a fair chunk of US non-drug manufacturing?

A much higher percentage. It would take a while, because the expertise is
here now. But it would go away.



We'd get the same result if we could re-import US-made drugs from other
countries. Once you do that, the drug companies have no incentive to keep
their HQ's and production facilities in the US. None.

You can only re-import US drugs if enough drugs are exported. You think
pharma is going
to ramp up exports to cut their throat? That isn't going to happen.

They're in a tough spot. We've already seen that with Canada, a few years
ago, when seniors started taking their bus tours to buy drugs.

If they tighten up exports too much, foreign countries will just break the
patents and start producing those drugs on their own. And our legislators
know what will happen if they allow re-importation. That's why such a
popular idea has not taken root.


I wish I could give you cites but last night while I was listening to
Cspan-1, I heard
that most medical centers have a year over year expectation of a 7%
annual
increase in
returns.

You'd need to see a full analysis of that. The raw figure doesn't mean
much.

Like that is going to happen.


Once the system is somewhat rationalized, with universal care and some
tools
that let us grab medical care and insurance by the balls, it will be a
matter of how intelligently we use those powers. That's a big "if." But
right now, it's running out of control, with no incentives for anyone to
control costs. As David Brooks put it, it's a system of "perverse
incentives."

I can agree that there are a lot of forces in action. Now will both
sides
agree to
eliminate the perverse parts?

Absolutely not. The conservatives will not accept the fact that the
essential problem with health care in the US is multiple market failures
that are inherently unfixable. They'll keep trying to jimmy the rules to
make a real market out of it. On this one, I agree with the Democrats:
there
is no way that anyone knows of to make a real market out of the health
care
business. You can squeeze the balloon but the air keeps moving to another
end.

If one is discovered, I'd be all for it. But I don't believe that such a
thing exists.

Health care went down hill when it went from being a calling (religious
sense) to being a
business.

Some things just don't fit the business model. We used to know that, but we
forgot.

--
Ed Huntress

Coupla points: (attributions NOT strictly maintained)


In article ,
"Ed Huntress" wrote:
"Wes" wrote in message
...


This isn't about peoples' retirement funds, Wes. It's life and death. In a
civilized society, you don't treat it like a business, and you don't ignore
people who are dying, whether it's their own fault or not. That's for
savages.

Some "savages" did/do better. There's archaeological evidence the
Neanderthals took care of injured and ill group members. Some of the
skeletons showed what would have been disabling conditions, rendering
the individuals practically "useless" to the group.

Somehow I always thought we moderns could do at "least" as well as the
Neanderthals.


Health care went down hill when it went from being a calling (religious
sense) to being a
business.

Agreed. Medicine was a vocation, a highly honored profession that
required great sacrifice for the benefit of others, long before it
became the Health Care Industry


Some things just don't fit the business model. We used to know that, but we
forgot.

Yep.

Something's got to keep the doors open, the lights on, the staff paid,
etc. etc. at the hospitals and doctors' offices, of course, but there
also should be some balance between the money and the medicine.

On 2/22/2010 7:35 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:
wrote in message
...

Hey Ed, I saw you mentioned in your last post that you just read Bad
Samaritans. I read that a year or so ago after I saw the author on Book
TV. I was wondering what you thought about it. Me, I thought he was on the
button in a lot of areas. The hypocrisy countries show on protectionism is
pretty amazing. When you read about how his country, Korea, went from
nothing to the modern world in 40 years and did it by protecting targeted
industries, it makes the free traders look like idiots. At least to me.
What's your take on it?

Hawke

Chang is a rare combination of economic historian and iconoclast; he doesn't
accept the standard histories without checking them out on his own. That
produces some very interesting reading, of which _Bad Samaritans_ is a good
example.

I got the feeling that he isn't done, that he'll eventually take on the
conventional wisdom about trade and put New Trade Theory to the test.
However, he said a couple of times that developed economies benefit from the
fewest trade restrictions, while making it clear that it is not in the
interest of developing economies to play along. Meantime, I had just
finished Krugman's _The Return of Depression Economics_, and I was
interested to see the parallels and contrasts in how they viewed the
economic collapses of Latin American countries and the Asian Tigers over the
past few decades, including the involvement of the IMF and the World Bank.

Both Chang and Krugman are macroeconomists. I want to see either one of them
really take on the microeconomic results of free trade. Krugman tips his hat
to it but doesn't get into thorough analysis. Maybe Chang is the one who
will do it.

All it all, both books opened my eyes to several issues and both were worth
reading.



I haven't read any of Krugman's newer books. The last one I read was
something like the Unwinding(?). It's clear to me that Krugman knows his
field. Chang just confirmed what I had known from other things I've
read. The biggest protectionists are the most successful countries. They
were all protectionist when they needed it and when they become the
elephant in the room, economically, they decry other countries doing
what they did. It would be nice if countries like ours would own up to
the truth and just go ahead and protect what they think is critical to
the country and let what isn't be subject to free trade. I'm not going
to hold my breath waiting for us to do that though. Free trade nutbars
are too firmly in control these days.

Hawke

Hawke wrote:
On 2/22/2010 7:35 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:
wrote in message
...

Hey Ed, I saw you mentioned in your last post that you just read Bad
Samaritans. I read that a year or so ago after I saw the author on
Book TV. I was wondering what you thought about it. Me, I thought
he was on the button in a lot of areas. The hypocrisy countries
show on protectionism is pretty amazing. When you read about how
his country, Korea, went from nothing to the modern world in 40
years and did it by protecting targeted industries, it makes the
free traders look like idiots. At least to me. What's your take on
it?

Hawke

Chang is a rare combination of economic historian and iconoclast; he
doesn't accept the standard histories without checking them out on
his own. That produces some very interesting reading, of which _Bad
Samaritans_ is a good example.

I got the feeling that he isn't done, that he'll eventually take on
the conventional wisdom about trade and put New Trade Theory to the
test. However, he said a couple of times that developed economies
benefit from the fewest trade restrictions, while making it clear
that it is not in the interest of developing economies to play
along. Meantime, I had just finished Krugman's _The Return of
Depression Economics_, and I was interested to see the parallels and
contrasts in how they viewed the economic collapses of Latin
American countries and the Asian Tigers over the past few decades,
including the involvement of the IMF and the World Bank.

Both Chang and Krugman are macroeconomists. I want to see either one
of them really take on the microeconomic results of free trade.
Krugman tips his hat to it but doesn't get into thorough analysis.
Maybe Chang is the one who will do it.

All it all, both books opened my eyes to several issues and both
were worth reading.



I haven't read any of Krugman's newer books. The last one I read was
something like the Unwinding(?). It's clear to me that Krugman knows
his field. Chang just confirmed what I had known from other things
I've read. The biggest protectionists are the most successful
countries. They were all protectionist when they needed it and when
they become the elephant in the room, economically, they decry other
countries doing what they did. It would be nice if countries like
ours would own up to the truth and just go ahead and protect what
they think is critical to the country and let what isn't be subject
to free trade. I'm not going to hold my breath waiting for us to do
that though. Free trade nutbars are too firmly in control these days.

It's the result of people buynig into the "Spirit of America" bs.
There are smart, hard working, "can do", ambitious people all over the
world.
That isn't what sets America apart.

There was a long stretch, one that might not be over, where the PRC would
pay a manufacturer ten percent of everything they exported.


--
John R. Carroll

"Hawke" wrote in message
...
On 2/22/2010 7:35 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:
wrote in message
...

Hey Ed, I saw you mentioned in your last post that you just read Bad
Samaritans. I read that a year or so ago after I saw the author on Book
TV. I was wondering what you thought about it. Me, I thought he was on
the
button in a lot of areas. The hypocrisy countries show on protectionism
is
pretty amazing. When you read about how his country, Korea, went from
nothing to the modern world in 40 years and did it by protecting
targeted
industries, it makes the free traders look like idiots. At least to me.
What's your take on it?

Hawke

Chang is a rare combination of economic historian and iconoclast; he
doesn't
accept the standard histories without checking them out on his own. That
produces some very interesting reading, of which _Bad Samaritans_ is a
good
example.

I got the feeling that he isn't done, that he'll eventually take on the
conventional wisdom about trade and put New Trade Theory to the test.
However, he said a couple of times that developed economies benefit from
the
fewest trade restrictions, while making it clear that it is not in the
interest of developing economies to play along. Meantime, I had just
finished Krugman's _The Return of Depression Economics_, and I was
interested to see the parallels and contrasts in how they viewed the
economic collapses of Latin American countries and the Asian Tigers over
the
past few decades, including the involvement of the IMF and the World
Bank.

Both Chang and Krugman are macroeconomists. I want to see either one of
them
really take on the microeconomic results of free trade. Krugman tips his
hat
to it but doesn't get into thorough analysis. Maybe Chang is the one who
will do it.

All it all, both books opened my eyes to several issues and both were
worth
reading.



I haven't read any of Krugman's newer books. The last one I read was
something like the Unwinding(?). It's clear to me that Krugman knows his
field. Chang just confirmed what I had known from other things I've read.
The biggest protectionists are the most successful countries. They were
all protectionist when they needed it and when they become the elephant in
the room, economically, they decry other countries doing what they did. It
would be nice if countries like ours would own up to the truth and just go
ahead and protect what they think is critical to the country and let what
isn't be subject to free trade. I'm not going to hold my breath waiting
for us to do that though. Free trade nutbars are too firmly in control
these days.

Hawke

You may know that I wrote a series of long articles about China trade early
in the last decade, and I had a chance then to talk to a lot of the
government people involved with trade. FWIW, this is my short take:

Everyone involved at that level knows that Chang is right. They also know
that having China and other developing countries get rich as soon as
possible is in the best interest of the US. That's the best way for them to
become a market for us, and to level off trade, through a combination of
increased domestic consumption on their part, increased consumption of
imports, and rising costs -- which are inevitable as they become wealthier.

There are several caveats there, of course, but the relevant point here is
that we really don't try very hard to force them into a "fair trade" model.
That's hokum for the yokels, as Krugman puts it, for use by politicians when
an industry or two in their district have just tanked, and the yokels are
looking for someone to blame. We pay it lip service to keep the lid on
public discontent. The reps start yelling about "unfair trade" and hold
Congressional hearings until it dies away. Of course it's unfair. There's no
such thing as "fair trade," and we wouldn't like it if we had it. How do you
compete "fairly" with 80 cents/hour wages, when manufacturing technology is
a commodity available to anyone in the world? The idea is absurd. We, along
with all other developed countries, are deeply committed to making it
"unfair" with a system of indirect subsidies, starting with our military and
government expenditures on research and government-supported higher
education, and to the aerospace and electronics industries; moderate but
crucial tariffs; direct subsidies to agriculture; and on and on. These are
things that the Japanese seized on decades ago and tried, in some areas, to
go us one better. The Europeans did it largely with direct subsidies and
import quotas.

It may in fact be the Chinese who precipitated their downfall, but almost
every time, it was because the US companies set themselves up for it through
a combination of hubris and ignorance. That's what happened to the US
machine tool industry in the early '80s, when the "culprit" was Japan. The
real culprit was a 1930s business model that they refused to change. It's
also what happened to our car industry. That was a 1950s business model.

But our system of trade supports is uneven, and a captive of ideological
nonsense. It was summed up by the top execs of Mitsubishi, I think it was,
who were quoted in David Halberstam's book _The Reckoning_, asking "What we
don't understand is, why don't you protect yourselves?" We go after the
chimeras, like "dumping," as if it were all a matter of adhering to some
fantasy about "free trade," when the real issue is what we should do
tactically to keep the jobs that have a future. We do very little.

This is not to say I know any better how to do it, or that anyone I know has
any great insights. Alan Tonelson of the US Business and Industry Council,
whom you'll see on CNN from time to time, is a friend of mine who knows the
subject far better than I do, and he's helped me out several times. But I
don't think that Alan looks at the big picture, either. He sees it as a
perpetual trade war and a zero-sum game.

I'm trying hard, once again, to see the big picture on trade. But don't get
me started. d8-)

--
Ed Huntress

On Thu, 25 Feb 2010 21:51:03 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:


"Hawke" wrote in message
...
On 2/22/2010 7:35 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:
wrote in message
...

Hey Ed, I saw you mentioned in your last post that you just read Bad
Samaritans. I read that a year or so ago after I saw the author on Book
TV. I was wondering what you thought about it. Me, I thought he was on
the
button in a lot of areas. The hypocrisy countries show on protectionism
is
pretty amazing. When you read about how his country, Korea, went from
nothing to the modern world in 40 years and did it by protecting
targeted
industries, it makes the free traders look like idiots. At least to me.
What's your take on it?

Hawke

Chang is a rare combination of economic historian and iconoclast; he
doesn't
accept the standard histories without checking them out on his own. That
produces some very interesting reading, of which _Bad Samaritans_ is a
good
example.

I got the feeling that he isn't done, that he'll eventually take on the
conventional wisdom about trade and put New Trade Theory to the test.
However, he said a couple of times that developed economies benefit from
the
fewest trade restrictions, while making it clear that it is not in the
interest of developing economies to play along. Meantime, I had just
finished Krugman's _The Return of Depression Economics_, and I was
interested to see the parallels and contrasts in how they viewed the
economic collapses of Latin American countries and the Asian Tigers over
the
past few decades, including the involvement of the IMF and the World
Bank.

Both Chang and Krugman are macroeconomists. I want to see either one of
them
really take on the microeconomic results of free trade. Krugman tips his
hat
to it but doesn't get into thorough analysis. Maybe Chang is the one who
will do it.

All it all, both books opened my eyes to several issues and both were
worth
reading.



I haven't read any of Krugman's newer books. The last one I read was
something like the Unwinding(?). It's clear to me that Krugman knows his
field. Chang just confirmed what I had known from other things I've read.
The biggest protectionists are the most successful countries. They were
all protectionist when they needed it and when they become the elephant in
the room, economically, they decry other countries doing what they did. It
would be nice if countries like ours would own up to the truth and just go
ahead and protect what they think is critical to the country and let what
isn't be subject to free trade. I'm not going to hold my breath waiting
for us to do that though. Free trade nutbars are too firmly in control
these days.

Hawke

You may know that I wrote a series of long articles about China trade early
in the last decade, and I had a chance then to talk to a lot of the
government people involved with trade. FWIW, this is my short take:

Everyone involved at that level knows that Chang is right. They also know
that having China and other developing countries get rich as soon as
possible is in the best interest of the US. That's the best way for them to
become a market for us, and to level off trade, through a combination of
increased domestic consumption on their part, increased consumption of
imports, and rising costs -- which are inevitable as they become wealthier.

There are several caveats there, of course, but the relevant point here is
that we really don't try very hard to force them into a "fair trade" model.
That's hokum for the yokels, as Krugman puts it, for use by politicians when
an industry or two in their district have just tanked, and the yokels are
looking for someone to blame. We pay it lip service to keep the lid on
public discontent. The reps start yelling about "unfair trade" and hold
Congressional hearings until it dies away. Of course it's unfair. There's no
such thing as "fair trade," and we wouldn't like it if we had it. How do you
compete "fairly" with 80 cents/hour wages, when manufacturing technology is
a commodity available to anyone in the world? The idea is absurd. We, along
with all other developed countries, are deeply committed to making it
"unfair" with a system of indirect subsidies, starting with our military and
government expenditures on research and government-supported higher
education, and to the aerospace and electronics industries; moderate but
crucial tariffs; direct subsidies to agriculture; and on and on. These are
things that the Japanese seized on decades ago and tried, in some areas, to
go us one better. The Europeans did it largely with direct subsidies and
import quotas.

It may in fact be the Chinese who precipitated their downfall, but almost
every time, it was because the US companies set themselves up for it through
a combination of hubris and ignorance. That's what happened to the US
machine tool industry in the early '80s, when the "culprit" was Japan. The
real culprit was a 1930s business model that they refused to change. It's
also what happened to our car industry. That was a 1950s business model.

But our system of trade supports is uneven, and a captive of ideological
nonsense. It was summed up by the top execs of Mitsubishi, I think it was,
who were quoted in David Halberstam's book _The Reckoning_, asking "What we
don't understand is, why don't you protect yourselves?" We go after the
chimeras, like "dumping," as if it were all a matter of adhering to some
fantasy about "free trade," when the real issue is what we should do
tactically to keep the jobs that have a future. We do very little.

This is not to say I know any better how to do it, or that anyone I know has
any great insights. Alan Tonelson of the US Business and Industry Council,
whom you'll see on CNN from time to time, is a friend of mine who knows the
subject far better than I do, and he's helped me out several times. But I
don't think that Alan looks at the big picture, either. He sees it as a
perpetual trade war and a zero-sum game.

I'm trying hard, once again, to see the big picture on trade. But don't get
me started. d8-)
================

Some time back the standard excuse was "you can't make an omelet
without breaking eggs."

This problematique appears to arise because of the failure to
clearly disorientate between short term gain, as in "take the
money and run," for a very few sociopaths, and the long term
interests of the American people/society/economy as a whole.

From the viewpoint of the financiers and "buy-ruin-sell"
scam-artist management, everything is going fine, thank you very
much. They have their second homes in Switzerland or other safe
havens, and their assets widely diversified in many banks and
currencies.

By contrast, the vast majority of people in the developed
countries [not just the United States] have taken it on the shin
but good, with the high paying, high value, high multiplier jobs
and small businesses, on which a viable middle class depends,
being exported or destroyed in droves, and the tax burden for
governmental operations increasingly shifted onto their
shoulders.

The majority of the accountability for this situation lies with
our elected representatives. They spend entirely too much time
in the company of the elite few in their gated communities and
country clubs, breathing the Potomac swamp gas, and forget about
the 99% of the American citizens that live in the real world
where the good jobs with benefits (and the value of their assets
such as their homes and IRAs/401ks/pensions) are disappearing.


Unka George (George McDuffee)
...............................
The past is a foreign country;
they do things differently there.
L. P. Hartley (1895-1972), British author.
The Go-Between, Prologue (1953).

"Ed Huntress" wrote:

Those sound like democrat controlled states. Take my governor, I hear she
is hot. Just
take her away, please.

She has to be an idiot to take that job in the first place, so you can keep
her.

Maybe the same could be said about our current President.

Regarding the Democratically controlled states: hey, somebody has to pay the
bills for those red states that get more federal money than they pay out in
taxes.

Well, the state of New York sure picked the nations pockets. Think derivatives.

g Alaska is the real welfare queen. Besides getting almost $2 back
for every dollar they're taxed, that great free-market governor of theirs
rigged things so they skim enough off of the oil companies to send a nice,
fat, $4,000 welfare check to every crackpot and rug rat in the state. Of
course, we pay for all of it.

At least Alaska sends us oil and natural gas, something we need. Delaware, just sends
higher credit card bills. Well, some of us, I pay my charges off inside of 20 days so I
don't get hit with interest.

Oh, I left out the govermental industry centered around Washingon DC, that one sure sucks
the cash out of the rest of the country.

I hope you didn't get hit too hard with the snow.

Wes