Price controls coming for health care

OpEd from Ezekiel Emanuel in the New York Times today
http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/01/03/better-if-not-cheaper-care/?src=recg

A+.... Honors! Pinch yourself! Wake up! Jahahahahahahahah haha knee slapped belly ache laugh!!

Nice to see your insecurities revealed again! Too funny too too funny

More coffee boy

Read that, greensdale, but it doesn't add very much useful information.

BROOKSIE'S BACK!

You forgot to share your Flyboy Days with us, Brooksie! You know, your insecurities revealed....

Positive convexity = negative convexity.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Not useful to you, but not false info bozo.

What a load of toro-shite from "NYCNovice/foolish_renter"(and other noms de se she was and is still posting her B.S. comments).

I wasn't the only one to call her out on her B.S.:
huntersburg, now tied by the NYCNovice in her title of "favorite grey-poster",(from which alanhart was suddenly knocked-down from first-place, in her appointment) called her B.S. out as a "social experiment".

She "would love to continue to discuss this topic offline" with aboutready because she "generally loves reading...".. blah, blah, blah.
Yet, the bored housewife obviously has not taken the "NYCNovice"/"foolish_renter" up on the offer.

"NYCNovice/"foolish_renter" and whatever noms de streeteasy she posts under is full of shite.
Covering her butt while offering her lunch money to the streeteasy cyber-schoolyard bully, hoping not to get her ass cyber-kicked.

NYCNovice may overlook a legal pleading, which she nor any of the partners in her firm has the ability to recognize and therefore save their client millions of dollars.
Only aboutready has the legal acumen to save the lawfirm.

Truth, I thought you loved NYCNovice. Oh, that's right, until she preferred ARs posts to yours. So now you're NYC's troll. You have become your very own "bully gang" on SE.

Steve - I hope you are right. However, I predict health insurance premiums and taxes both rising significantly under Obamacare, with many electing to pay additional out of pocket to top physicians who refuse to accep fees set by insurers or Medicare. Quality will be maintained; accessibility improved, but US system will still be most expensive and inefficient. The great thing about this debate is that it is preserved here in cyberspace. Whoever is right gets to come back and say I told you so. What is your chosen time frame for settlement?

and here's phsnob, telling me what I thought.
Posting yet another stupid comment.

She's a drunk who posted my address , for no other reason than that I posted a comment stating that I didn't like the green kitchen cabinets in a listing photo (not of phsnob's apt), I'm still waiting for her to post her apt. photos.

Especially since she followed up her classy comment with another, asking inonad "When did you become such a POS.?"

Another drunken comment: I've "become my own "bully gang" on SE"
Have another drink, you old drunken slob.

Didn't you have some sort of agreement with SE, "truth"?

you have no idea what this "bored" housewife is doing or with whom she is speaking offline.

Really, Brooksie, my cousin is a flight mechanic - no reason to be ashamed of your past, even though in your mind you're the Red Baron.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Novice, you may be right in the short-term, but like housing prices before them, healthcare prices cannot rise forever. I don't know how long it will take (though I suspect it's starting now) they will be brought under control. It will, though, mean taking on special interests, so it will take a lot of political will to do it.

Steve -it appears you finally get my point. I predict healthcare costs will continue to rise in the United States for at least the duration of my life; I am mid-40's; 3 out of 4 grandparents lived past 95, so statistically speaking, I should have at least another 50 years. During that time the range of insurance options may well expand, but the cheapest plans are not the ones anyone who can afford more will choose, and the physicians who accept the cheapest plans will be either saints or physicians whose credentials or experience have relegated them to the lower income bracket in their chosen profession. At least everyone will be insured vis a vis hospitals, but again, there will continue to be different classes of hospitals. I am making no value. judgment here; I am just stating what I believe the facts will be. I believe your fantasy world has some appeal, but my point is that it is you who is the one living in a fantasy world if you think your revolution will materialize in the US in your lifetime.

PS - you were joking I hope in suggesting any comparison between housing and healthcare industries. If you were not, please elaborate and see where that logically takes you. I would enjoy reading you work through that one.

The fact that your grandparents lived past 95 doesn't mean much, sorry to say.

No - I've always got your point. I think it's a ridiculous point, but I've always understood it.

And no, I wasn't kidding about healthcare costs and housing - all expenses are a function of income. There is no way that housing costs could continue to rise as a percentage of disposable income, nor is there any way that healthcare costs can. It's simply impossible. Healthcare costs already take up 20% or more of GDP, versus 12% for most other industrialized nations. They can't rise much more because no one will be able to pay them.

And where you're wrong is that we won't see that revolution materialize in my lifetime - I'm just a few years older than you; Medicare costs can't continue to rise the way they are, and increasing the Medicare eligibility age will do nothing to stop the costs from rising, nor will voucherizing it. What will do something about it is when the cost becomes unbearable - that is starting to happen with Obamacare, and more will happen in the future. It won't all happen at once, but after 50 years of trying we've finally reached the point where we can begin.

Some revolutions are slower than others.

I believe biostatisticians beg to differ with you re my grandparents longevity being predictor of my own. Re healthcare costs, since you think I am wrong on timeframe for your revolution, name your settlement date and we can have a reckoning then - 5 years? 10 years? You have only said less than 50 years, but you are not willing to go beyond that? How convenient.

And please go on re your comparison of housing and healthcare industries; I am sure your econ professors would be proud of the sophistication of your analysis. I sense it is only going to get better.

No, actually, I don't think they would. While there is on the aggregate a relationship between parental and filial longevity, I don't know of any study that relates the longevity of grandparents to that of grandchildren. Moreover, what data do exist on parental / filial longevity are not conclusive because of the data are sparse, and those data do not prove causality: just because YOUR parents were long-lived (not grandparents as I don't know of any study like that) does not mean YOU will be. Recessive genetic disorders (cystic fibrosis, for example) are proof of that.

So is my aunt who is pushing 101, whose younger sister died at 50. Or my uncle who's will be turning 81 in March, whose sister died of breast cancer at 26. Or that uncle's eldest daughter who died when she was just a few months old. Or my great-great grandparents who lived to about 90, whereas my great-grandfather died of TB at 26.

I could go on, but that is your first fatal error. Your second fatal error is your eloquent misunderstanding of what I said about housing and healthcare. I did not do a "comparison of housing and healthcare industries." What I said - pretty clearly, I think - is that neither housing nor healthcare costs can be more than a certain percentage of disposable income. In the case of housing that runs about 30% - that is why the housing bubble was destined to collapse: once you get above 30% of housing costs to gross income, the rest of life becomes impossible to afford. There is a reversion to the mean as a percentage of income over time.

The same is true for any other costs. Healthcare costs cannot exceed a certain percentage of income. I don't know what that percentage is, but I suspect that we are fast approaching it if we have not already reached it. Given the nature of healthcare costs they can't be measured as a percentage of household income as housing can, because healthcare costs are distributed unevenly and randomly. That is why insurance exists, and why your "opting out" or "concierge service" concept cannot and will not work: Person A could live to 95 without incurring significant medical costs, then just drop dead. Person B could come down with non-Hodgkin lymphoma or rheumatoid arthritis at 30, and require millions of dollars of healthcare. See my family history, above.

Therefore, healthcare spending - since it is principally covered by insurance - is measured as a percentage of GDP. That is, in the aggregate. We cannot spend 101% of GDP on healthcare. Therefore, healthcare costs cannot rise forever, because there is not enough income to support it. Right now we spend about 20% of GDP on healthcare. I think we've pretty much reached the peak; how and when we will start to control those costs I don't know. Obamacare is a first step, and I am certain there will be more. What their shape will be I don't yet know, because I don't know how Obamacare will actually be implemented.

Too bad you went to such a highly rated school, because you seem pretty ignorant about basic economic analysis. Maybe you forgot to take macroeconomics?

Steve it's obvious. The only ignorant one is you.

Flyboy's back!

Tell us some of your war stories, would you, Brooksie?

Just as soon as you show us the calculus you used to compute negative convexity = positive convexity.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Flyboy....

Steve - Please go on. As Brooks2 suggests, you continue to make an excellent record. For my part, I rest my case and waive closing argument.

What is the value of this 700 post debate?

Within what timeframe will we know if there are price controls coming for healthcare? Seems that it is not on the table today, so when do the parties to this never ending debate assume we will know one way or the other?

Novice, since you are forced to agree with Brooksie I can confidently claim victory.

Unless you think that healthcare costs can rise to 101% of GDP, or that physicians can charge whatever they want, regardless of people's ability to pay, or that because your grandparents lived to 95 you will live to 96.

Which is the essence of your arguments.

Of course maybe you could ask Dr. Faucci if he thinks that healthcare costs can rise to 101% of GDP. It will make for an interesting dinner table chat for you, I'm sure.

So painful. I am now "unsaving" this discussion so no more of this nonsense clutters my inbox.

Gee, Novice, I'll miss you and your novel economic theories, that prices of things can increase in excess of incomes forever, or that suppliers can charge whatever prices they want regardless of what people can afford.

Wait! Let me guess! "It's different this time."

You could, on the other hand, Novice, let us know at what point healthcare costs will cease to rise faster than GDP - that is how expensive healthcare can get. It is currently 20%. Do you think it can go up to 30%?

You can also tell us, maybe, how your "concierge" medical services will work - all very good for the doctors involved, who can charge any price they want, BUT HOW WILL PEOPLE PAY FOR IT given the median household income in the US is about $55,000, which is what a week's stay in the hospital could cost you.

Under your system, how could people pay for that hospital visit?

It's the entire problem with supply-side economics - what matters is demand, and the price at which goods are demanded.

Here's another WHAMMY to your "grandparents were old" theory, Novice:

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-01-01/oldest-man-turning-115-can-thank-lottery-win-like-genes-health.html

"Genetic factors may account for about 30 percent of a person’s chances of living to their late 80s, with behavior and the environment contributing the remainder."

"Though Kimura’s parents died at ages 78 and 65, four of his five siblings lived to be more than 90 years old and his youngest brother, Tetsuo, died at 100, nephew Tamotsu Miyake said."

Kimura is nearly 116. Apparently how long each of his parents lived has nothing to do with his age, and though the combination of the two of them might have helped (recombinant DNA), it would only account for 30% of that (though somewhat more of that if you make it to 105, according to the article).

Think of a clever new theory for us, Novice. I'm enjoying them.

Steve, we know you're bored to tears in Florida, but you do know you're not getting paid by the word for your SE posts, right?

Nah, not getting paid by the word for this but the job I'm working on is BOOOOOOOOOOOOOORING, so I just entertain myself.

But thanks for your concern!

Okay, I'll continue playing. Aren't you a fan of KevinMD? Check out his recent posts about his personal decision to opt out of medicare and also switch to a new payment model. Also read a bit about companies like Accretive Health and let me know what you think. I do believe healthcare costs and insurance premiums will continue to increase, but I think innovative players in the market will stop them from increasing as percentage of GDP. I do not think price controls or single payer system are the answer, and I don't believe either will come to pass in the United States in the foreseable future. You said you were bored; I have given you specific reading assignments.

The bored housewife wants to have a discussion with me about some BS she's cooked-up, trying to be interesting.

I have no "agreement with SE."

I'm not interested and don't care to "have any idea what she is doing or with whom she is speaking offline."

The bored housewife started a "Farewell" discussion on se, years ago.
Yet, she came back.
Then she "left" again. But was really here all along.

Her enchanted life of what she is doing and with whom she is speaking offline is of no interest to me.
That's the problem of whomever she's speaking with offline.

Thank you for your reading assignments. Give me specific links so I know specifically what you are talking about.

I've never heard of KevinMD. One individual doctor might opt out of Medicare. The question is whether it will be a wave - and there is no evidence that it will be, nor is it theoretically possible that it could be. The question is simply supply and demand, and risk management. Almost no one can afford medical services without insurance, and certainly not hospitalizations.

Accretive Health is a debt collection agency. I don't know what you would like me to opine about them.

Okay, if healthcare costs and insurance premiums increase, but not as a percent of GDP, then they will either stay the same or fall as a percent of GDP. Therefore, they will stay the same or fall as a percent of incomes, because that is what GDP essentially is.

That's fine. I would agree with that as a general principle - it's what I said when I said that "Right now we spend about 20% of GDP on healthcare. I think we've pretty much reached the peak."

However, healthcare costs have been increasing far faster than GDP has been, and that's the problem.

There already are "price controls" and a "single payer system" in the US - all insurance companies institute "price controls," and Medicare, Medicaid, and the VA are "single payer systems" (the VA of a sort). Medicare and Medicaid are far more efficient than private health insurers, and their costs have gone up much more slowly than private insurers - they can't simply "price" their customers out of their pool of insureds, so they control the payment and approval processes.

The way doctors have been getting around insurance company "price controls" is by ordering more services than are medically necessary - proved by the fact that in the US we perform twice as many procedures as in any other OECD country, and have far worse results despite it. The VA and others have been controlling that by instituting mandatory medical protocols for specific diagnoses.

In other words, essentially getting rid of "fee-for-service," and instituting a capitation-based system. France has a "fee-for-service" system, but it is protocol-based, as the VA's is protocol-based (though not fee-for-service based).

I believe you are wrong for those reasons.

That is not what SE told me. I'll have to have a chat with them again.

Trust is the drunken one here. She is a horny, pathetic, lonely old lady looking to get laid. That's the only reason she posts here. She managed to get my email address, then came on to me BIG TIME. I told her I wasn't interested in sexual hookups, just to discuss Manhattan real estate with similarly interested gentlepersons. The more I read from her, the more I realize she hits the bottle, then gets nasty with anyone who doesn't agree with her. How can you agree with a drunk who doesn't know what the hell she is talking about. I just have this internal feeling that she must be butt-ugly, so ugly than when she was born, the doctor slapped her mother...................

Oh hey Riccardo. Somehow I doubt Truth came on to you since I think you made rather clear that you aren't intersted in the female sex.
As for how "she managed to get [your] email address", didn't she "manage to get" it because you posted it?: http://streeteasy.com/nyc/talk/discussion/31180

and
http://streeteasy.com/nyc/talk/discussion/32502
Riccardo65\about 3 months ago
Posts: 83
Member since: Jan 2011
ignore this person
report abuse
What is with this cheech and chong (or huntersburg/aboutready)?? Why don't they start their own webiste and leave the rest of us alone. Hideous morons....................

Riccardo65, I don't think it's fair to make accusations against Truth and her emails here unless you post the contents of those email, so she can at least defend herself. Maybe she was discussing real estate with you and you just misunderstood, being new to NYC and all.

Nada - Agree. I would also add that Riccardo's accusations against Truth seem particularly inappropriate given his own admission in links HB provided that he received e-mails from more than one person claiming to be Truth.

Steve - you provided a link from KevinMD in your explanation of physician MRI ordering practices so your claim to have never heard of him is odd. I am on handheld now and am terrible at interface, but when I get opportunity when next at desktop, I will provide you with specific links. I believe you do need more info on how concierge medecine works and complements insurance coverage for hospital stays. I also believe you lack info on private sector initiatives by companies like Accretive Health (much more than a debt colllection company) to make hospitals more efficient. Your statement re price controls and single payer system is hard to respond to because it is such non-sense; I could understand someone with no formal econ training making it; if someone with professed formal econ training makes it, it calls into question any program that would pass such a person. Your statement is like saying one store in the neighborhood has a price ceiling of 1 dollar for gallon of milk so there are price controls in effect for milk. I think you are better than that and that you were just being argumentative there, so I am going to ignore that statement.

The link I posted was simply for the number of MRI's performed - not that I read KevinMD, or even read anything beyond that post, because I didn't, and don't care about his opinion.

In fact, Novice, milk prices are controlled by the government. Look it up.

Not quite re milk prices, but touche nonetheless, and I don't need to look it up. Just substitute "detergent" for "milk" in my sentence.

Novice--- steve posts a lot if things he does not understand. It sounds like you are starting to discover this.

Brooks - jury is still out for me re steve's understanding links he posts. I am troubled by his apparent posting without vetting in case of kevinmd, but not overly so.

Pretty much "quite" for milk prices in New York - they are controlled by the state.

I stand by my price control comment - physicians who belong to HMO's or PPO's agree to prices set by others; they are not freely determined. While they are free not to join those organizations, it is those organizations who set the prices once they join. Medicare sets the prices they will pay, as well, as does Medicaid. That is backwards from your now-Detergent example, where manufacturers set the (wholesale and sometimes retail) prices for their products; and if not the manufacturers, the independent retailers. The healthcare market does not work like an ordinary market because prices are controlled by a few powerful organizations (insurance companies and the government).

Brooksie, you've already made a fool of yourself with your theory of negative convexity = positive convexity. Don't make it worse - stick to your Flyboy Stories.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Steve - now you have revealed limitations that make further productive discussion impossible. Or, I'll make it easier for you: You win; you are too smart for me. Perhaps if I had the education and experience you have, I might be able to understand. However, I am just an anonymous nitwit on the Internet without a clue about anything. I thank you again for spending so much time indulging my ignorance.

Steve -- keep making things up. I never said anything of the sort. You are the one that does not understand the concept of convexity of financial instruments.
You still have not explained to me what it was. Maybe with your continuing Ed certificate in calculus you can, but I highly doubt it. As I doubt the the veracity of anything you post on this site.

And @sshole, show me one if my "flyboy stories".
You are the one who boasts about the degrees you have, the car you drive and the institutions you claim to attend. Your insecurities are obvious. You Are an insignificant coffee fetcher in real life and a big poser on SE.
It is sad.

Well Novice, you can find NYS retail milk prices here:

http://www.agriculture.ny.gov/DI/DIStats.html

The minimum price is set by the state.

What precise limitations have I revealed "that make further productive discussion impossible"? That in the market for physician and hospital services, the buyer sets the price rather than the seller, which is precisely the opposite of how competitive markets work? Which is why introducing "competition" into healthcare doesn't affect its efficiency?

Or some other?

Brooksie, you can't back away from what you said on this very thread: "Treasuries are positively convex so they will NOT act in the opposite way as treasuries you fking moron' Correction not act in the opposite way as MBS which are negatively convex."

That's a quote from you, from page 5. Which means that if negatively convex bonds act no differently from positively convex bonds - which is what you said - then they act the same. Ergo, negative convexity = positive convexity.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Your insecurities are obvious. You Are an insignificant coffee fetcher in real life and a big POSEUR [to correct your spelling!] on SE.

Stick to your Flyboy stories.

Steve, you are really dumber than I initially thought. This is your interpretstion, "Which means that if negatively convex bonds act no differently from positively convex bonds - . Ergo, negative convexity = positive convexity", not mine.

If you were as educated as you claim or took an AP math class is HS you might understand this is the wrong conclusion to draw. But wait you are adept at getting coffee and cutting and pasting from google. I also see you are adept at spell check, but your analytical skills have much to be desired. I highly doubt that you passed an advanced HS Math class

The wrong conclusion to draw?

Please, then, Brooksie: do tell! What is the "right" conclusion to draw? If negatively convex bonds (MBS's) do not act in opposite ways as positively convex bonds (Treasuries) - which, in fact, is what you said and is utterly false - how do they act if not the same?

Because as far as I know positive is the opposite of negative, but if it's not as you hold, please do enlighten us.

WHAT IS THE RIGHT CONCLUSION TO DRAW?

Flyboy.

Steve, it's Math, a subject that I don't think you have the analytical tools to understand. I stopped wasting my time trying to explain things to you a long time ago.

huntersburg provides valuable links.

Riccardo had a career as an opera singer until "something happened", as NWT pointed out in a discussion a few months ago.
Riccardo may be confused but at least he has talent.

Unlike the bored housewife who tells SE readers that she has "chats" with streeteasy about their agreements.
streeteasy doesn't enter into any agreements until they chat with her about their business deals.
Streeteasy owes their success to her.

Now, back to discussing the price of milk, MBS's and the Brooks/stevie Waltz.

Yeah, and Paul Ryan "didn't have time to explain the math" on his budget, either.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Flyboy.

Maybe this will help you, Brooksie:

"We know when the convexity is zero, duration can explain everything. If the curve is not straight, we need to add convexity. For a bond, with positive convexity, the value increases faster when the interest rate drops than the value decreases when the interest rate increases. The opposite is for the negative convexity one."

http://minute-class.com/finance/hows-negative-convexity-compared-with-positive-convexity/

Hmm. Flyboy math doesn't work so well, does it?

Took you a long time to search for that one. You still think its a good idea to hedge duration with a negative convex instrument which MBS are?

Ohhh Steveie aren't you selective in cutting and pasting.? You for got the last sentence. "The opposite is for the negative convexity one. So as an investor, looks like positive convexity is better."

You certainly are a clown.

Not as good in cutting and pasting as I thought.

Case closed You are WRONG again!

Thanks for proving my point. I knew you would. Dope

"A long time"? No, I've been saying the same thing for pages now - I just had to find something that would be easy for your mind to comprehend - that you are absolutely incorrect about convexity.

And yes, using MBS's can be a very effective way to hedge interest rate (duration) risk. If you expect interest rates to rise, treasury prices would fall. But MBS prices would work the exact opposite way because the negative convexity of MBS's is due to the prepayment risk, but the prepayment risk falls as interest rates rise, because fewer people will refinance. Therefore, while treasury prices are falling, MBS prices are not.

In fact, MBS's - as I've quoted dozens of times on the prior page - are most especially used to hedge mortgage interest lock risk, where a locked mortgage rate might cause a loss should market interest rates increase during the lock period. Here is an explanation:

http://www.fhlbsea.com/whatcounts/Issues/200405/Article2/Article2.aspx

If you want to keep on making a fool of yourself I'll be glad to help you along the way, Flyboy, though you seem to be doing a mighty good job of it yourself.

Knowledge of math is important for you to undertstand that Steve

Oh, Brooksie, Brooksie, Brooksie!

"So as an investor, looks like positive convexity is better."

It is, and if you search back through what I wrote on the prior pages you will see that I clearly state as much, IN THE CASE OF A SINGLE BOND.

In that case, if you hold ONE BOND, then positive convexity is better than negative convexity because of the call or prepayment option on a negatively convex bond: the risk - as I clearly stated - is that you would pay a price for a bond based on an anticipated cash flow that does not materialize.

Specifically, on pg. 5 I said:

And it is precisely why MBS's are used to hedge against treasuries, and vice-versa: it hedges duration risk because if interest rates change, MBS's act in the opposite way as treasuries, reducing the total duration of a bond portfolio.

Here's what the pdf says: "Positive convexity is desirable, because it cushions a bond’s price fall and accelerates its rise." "Mortgage-backed securities and other callable bonds may have negative convexity which cushions a bond’s price rise and accelerates its fall!" Since no one can always accurately predict which way interest rates will move, you would want to manage the duration of your bond portfolio by having a mixture of bonds that perform in opposite directions. IF YOU ONLY HAVE ONE BOND THAT IS A DIFFERENT MATTER; but if you have a large bond portfolio, you need bonds that behave differently.

You don't even have the slightest clue what you're talking about, Turdblossom. "For an investor" - in a single bond, as I clearly said - positive convexity is better than negative convexity.

That "goodness" or "betterness" has NO RELATIONSHIP to hedging.

None. Zero. Zilch. Nada.

OMG - stick to flying, Flyboy, and fetch me some coffee.

Keep back tracking . Changing ..... Do it enough you will be right, but bottom line you are a fool. And still wrong

Your problem is; is that you don't know when you are right and when you are wrong. Keep posting your ignorance gets revealed!

Oh Flyboy, Flyboy, Flyboy!

Brooksie: "Keep back tracking . Changing"

Me: "Specifically, on pg. 5 I said:"

HAHAHAHAHA! To Brooksie, going back to repeat what you've already said (a few hundred times) is "backtracking."

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Really, if I'm wrong, TELL US HOW I'M WRONG. Humor us, please!

And get me my coffee while you're at it.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Still waiting on Novice to tell me what precise limitations have I revealed "that make further productive discussion impossible"?

Steve - discussions between two individuals with formal training in economics should involve agreement on the definition of certain terms. As a linguist/interpretor, this should make particular sense to you. You and I simply are not speaking the same language and there is no way to get around the language barrier. Throughout this discussion I have let various things go that have been lost in translation. You have posted a lot "that is not what you said" and "that is not what I meant" "that is not what your statement implied." I cannot beam my economics training into your head, nor can you beam yours into mine. The only thing that is clear to me is that we received different training and are not speaking same language such that we cannot have furthfurther productive discussion. Again, as a linguist, surely you can understand that. But I think that we should pat ourselves on the back for trying as long as we did.I have had "learn more about healthcare" on my list for quite some time now, and this discussion has jumpstarted that item on my to-do list. I have learned quite a bit in the past few weeks, but still have long way to go. As stated ad nauseum, I see your points, but disagree as to where the US system is headed and where it should head based on review of what you have presented plus my own outside reading. Time will tell how it all shakes out; in the interim, I am very glad US has taken important step towards universal coverage, because that is personally more important to me than cost and efficiency.

>Steve - discussions between two individuals with formal training in economics

Can we clarify for the audience, what is the "formal training in economics" that both of you have?

how about you clarify your area of expertise?

>how about you clarify your area of expertise?

I have no expertise. I'm only 13. I definitely do have observations though.

So..., you are just an anonymous nitwit on the Internet without a clue about anything. Thanks for sharing.

>So..., you are just an anonymous nitwit on the Internet without a clue about anything. Thanks for sharing.

11179 posts and this is what you finally figured out?

No...its been obvious throughout your endless identities.

>your endless identities.

Name two other identities among my endless identities.

Have you forgotten the first rule, again?

>Have you forgotten the first rule, again?

I get it - very New York of you - answer a question with another question.

That's a non-answer, novice.

So, I am more than a little slow, but does CC think that I am HB? If so, now I am truly flattered. However, CC still cannot compete with HB; HB gave me the ultimate compliment when he compared me to Clinton.

Hey what's with Al Gore selling out to Al Jazeera?

Since you don't feel like answering, novice:

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505103_162-57522437/issue-brief-health-care/

Steve - I've been reading current and back articles from The Economist. I can't post links because they are behind subscription wall, but to the extent you are curious where I am getting my info from, that is where. My longtime favorite magazine.

HB - I am not a huge Gore fan and this recent move does not help.

gore thought "fair share" is only applicable to others. accelerated deal so he could pocket an extra 10mm or so, how gallant of him. never mind he is part of a burkle fund and taking full advantage of "carried interest" that he and his cohorts have highlighted as blasphemy. beyond ironic, hypocricy in motion.

*hypocrisy

"Growth of Health Spending Stays Low...

...The rate of increase in health spending, 3.9 percent in 2011, was the same as in 2009 and 2010 — the lowest annual rates recorded in the 52 years the government has been collecting such data...."

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/08/us/health-spending-growth-stays-low-for-third-straight-year.html?_r=0

huntersburg:
It's safe to say that Al Gore will not be doing anything for the streeteasy community.

Al didn't even bother to show up at the Current TV staff meeting in San Francisco yesterday.
No problem for the Current TV staff in the L.A. and NYC offices because they were called in to the teleconference. Greetings from their new bosses: Ehab Al Shihabi and Muftah Al-Suwaidan.

So much for Al-Gore and his clean energy, now sold out to the emir of Qatar.

>Al didn't even bother to show up at the Current TV staff meeting in San Francisco yesterday.

No sympathy from me for CurrentTV's staff.

huntersburg: Most of CurrentTV's staff are running for the hills.
They didn't even bother to wait around for a severance package.
Former Michigan Gov. Granholm asked but only received a verbal smack-down from Al-Gore's partner,Joel Hyatt.

If CurrentTV didn't find an acquirer, it would have gone out of business I believe. And the MSOs had been looking to drop it, but for the political influence of Gore.

huntersburg: That's what happened. Al-GoreJazeera cut a deal right before the new tax code.

>Al-GoreJazeera cut a deal right before the new tax code.

The deal has to be completed (money transfers) - that's when it becomes effective.

stupid meet stupid.

Hey! COlumbia COunty!

oh look.

it's stupid.

COlumbia COunty!

dumbo.

Hey CC, what do you think about aboutready contributing the lawsuit windfall she expects to receive to a housing organization or some other group that benefits the poor and/or working class? Do you think that's the right thing to do, or do you believe she should keep the money herself even though she was a tenant in a market rate apartment negotiated on an arms-length basis between sophisticated parties? Keep in mind that the rent regs were put in place based on a tax subsidy given by the taxpayers of the State of New York.

i think that you are a pathetic liar that will do everything and anything to get a reaction.

>i think that you are a pathetic liar that will do everything and anything to get a reaction.

Yet you've actually been silent on the issue regarding the lawsuit windfall that aboutready is receiving that should go to those poor and working class who were actually harmed.

What does that say about you and your career cheating and defrauding those with money?

you are a liar.

Let's say I am a "liar". But you still haven't managed an ounce of defense for aboutready's money-pocketing situation.

you are a liar and a fraud. anything for a reaction.

Let's say I am a "liar and a fraud". You still haven't managed an ounce of defense for aboutready's money-pocketing situation. That says a lot.