Comments


  • Fiona Scott Morton is an advocate of the free market. I'm surprised she wrote anything advocating government control of healthcare, that is if she really did???? To wit:

    H E A L T H A N D M E D I C I N E

    History shows that these policies lead to shortages and stagnation; so why do we want to control prescription drug prices?

    The Problems of Price Controls

    By Fiona M. Scott Morton
    Yale University

    "DISRUPTING SUPPLY AND DEMAND

    the determining of market prices through the dynamic interaction of supply and demand is the basic building block of economics. Consumer preferences for a product determine how much of it they will buy at any given price. Consumers will purchase more of a product as its price declines, all else being equal. Firms, in turn, decide how much they are willing to supply at different prices. In general, if consumers appear willing to pay higher prices for a product, then more manufacturers will try to produce the product, will increase their production capacity, and will conduct research to improve the product.

    Thus, higher expected prices lead to an increased supply of goods. This dynamic interaction produces an equilibrium market price; when buyers and sellers transact freely, the price that results causes the quantity demanded by consumers to exactly equal the supply produced by sellers. But when government adopts a price control, it defines the market price of a product and forces all, or a large percentage, of transactions to take place at that price instead of the equilibrium price set through the interaction between supply and demand. Since supply and demand shift constantly in response to tastes and costs, but the government price will change only after a lengthy political process, the government price will effectively never be an equilibrium price. This means that the government price will be either too high or too low"..........can I get me an Amen here?

    http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/r...

    April 26, 2011 at 12:06 p.m.

  • Doctors were in practice making a decent living in the 50's and 60's until Title 18 and 19 of the Social Security act, paving the way for Medicare and Medicaid and then they were instantly rich.

    Ronald Reagan sweetend the pot with COBRA and Catastrophic Heath Coverage for the likes of programs such as Dialysis.

    The BBA of 1997 and the BRA of 1999 cut the funding for Medicare (to balance the budget bush/cheyney blew) and many Physicians opted out of the program all togehter and refused to take assigment of Medicare fees.
    I got tickled when I saw a Physician at the TEA party rally. He was one of the biggest TAX TAKERS in the group.
    As for Fraud, I turned in a Doctor to Medicare for Fraud ten years ago. I was told that unless it was over 25 million, they were not interested. The State medcaid invetigators were a little interested until they found that the doc was a big freind and supporter of Breck Boy II, Perry, then dropped the case.

    April 26, 2011 at 10:44 a.m.

  • arlewill

    You're exactly right but we still have a economy where consumers are not spending. Keynesian policies are put in place in a recession ,when businesses and consumers are not spending; that leaves the government as the only source to prime the pump. It is a temporary measure and two years could qualify as temporary...The fed chairman has indicated that he will consider cutting back and we will learn more of his views this week.

    I've already said I'm uncomfortable with the actions of Ben Barnanke but I made the same remarks about Alan Greenspan as my portfolio kept increasing. If it wasn't for good luck and listening to wise people, I could have been left with nothing.

    April 26, 2011 at 9:43 a.m.

  • Mike
    Based on some things I read, I do not believe John Keynes intended for governments to create money on a permanent on going basis. I believe his intention was that govenments should create money to solve temporary economic problems.

    April 26, 2011 at 9:29 a.m.

  • reeder

    As you well know, I'm not a politician ,so I'm aware that my thoughts will never lead to National Solutions. I'm also aware that you don't like me ,so my thoughts will never resonate....Beyond that I have never said that raising taxes would fix decades long problems with Medicare. I am in favor of some proposals like means testing, co-payments, and changing the structure of fee for service.... I also criticized the Obama Administration for making a deal with Big Pharma prior to the negotiating phase of Health Care Reform... We should be able to import drugs from Canada and Mexico. We won't tackle our obese problem, the last six months of life, or other drivers that lead to the runaway costs.

    April 26, 2011 at 9:20 a.m.

  • arlewill

    I was wrong for telling you that, but I've corrected myself a couple of times since then...The Health Care was reducing the rate of growth for Medicare by $500 billion; it was not actual dollars in cuts. It's like when the democrats used to say that the republicans were doing away with Medicare when all they were doing was reducing the rate of growth in projected spending..... All budget matters are out laid for several years (about 10 years) so, you won't see a significant change in 1 or 2 years...Btw if we keep cutting money for case workers,fraud goes up.

    You keep going back to the actions of the Fed (which is an independent body, btw) but Ben Bernanke and the five governors would have done precisely the same thing for a republican president. Ben Bernanke is a student of the 1929 Great Depression, so like him are not, until you can disprove the fact that his actions were one of the reasons we averted a depression, he will not be removed by the president. His sole purpose is making conditions favorable for companies to hire and people to keep their homes, so he is keeping interest rates low for now. He has that tool of gradually raising interest rates to curb manageable inflation. I'm sure he has productive meetings with Timothy Geithner, but I don't think they are involved in a cynical plot to spend a lot of money...... I know you are very uncomfortable and don't like Keynesian economics ‘but I'm not a fan of Austerity only, or trickle-down economics.

    April 26, 2011 at 9:06 a.m.

  • @arlewil

    Google it. There have been major arrests in Medicare fraud. As to how much of the funds were recovered, I'm not sure.

    April 26, 2011 at 7:50 a.m.

  • Mike
    I would like to back up on this to an exchange we had over a year ago. The President's funding for ObamaCare included a 500 billion dollar reduction in Medicare costs. At that time, the reduction in Medicare amounted to almost half of the cost of ObamaCare.
    Your response was that the President was going to recover all that money by reducing fraud in Medicare.
    Since then I have seen no news reflecting any major recovery of funds from Medicare fraud. I have seen reports of the FED creating over two trillion dollars to pay for the spending of this Administration.
    What happened to all the money the President was going to recover from Medicare fraud?

    April 26, 2011 at 7:18 a.m.

  • And YOUR suggestion for fixing Medicare is ...... INCREASE TAXES, isn't it?

    April 25, 2011 at 11:58 p.m.