Replacing the Affordable Care Act

Believe the current CEO of Yahoo puts the lie to that statement.

 

The law of supply and demand applies to salaries and wages. That should be obvious to anyone who has ever actually had a job!

 

Well actually they do have a plan. It's going back to the system that was failing before the ACA. It Is funny how even now that they control both houses of congress they still can't actally agree on a plan.

 

The plan is to get rid of what's causing the problem: government intervention in the market. Deregulate and defund and that's it and let people come up with their own solutions. There's no one system that will work for everyone. There's no one solution that we should impose on every person in the country. Some people can pay with cash as they need. Some can purchase insurance. Others can join in mutual aid groups to help each other of their own free will. Other people will come up with completely new and unique solutions that no one has thought of yet. Get the government out of the way and let human creativity go to work.

 

Not necessarily true. It could often depend upon income of the household where, if the household has excess income, it could choose to use superior "out of network" provider services. Being willing to pay more for superior service isn't necessarily stupid but it obviously depends upon the ability to afford the superior services.

 

The "law of supply and demand" does not account for the actual value of a product or service and in the "market" no enterprise long endures if it provides a product or service below cost. No enterprise expects any supplier to provide what they require for "less than cost" in a free market.

That is not true for labor where employers routinely expect their employees to provide "labor" at below cost.

 

Government regulation isn't the problem. In point of fact capitalism has many positive aspects but it also has many negative aspects as well. Regulation to mitigate the negative effects of capitalism are absolutely necessary because without that regulation capitalism becomes the most tyrannical economic model that exists, far worse than even communism.

 

Except that is also not exactly how it works. What you summarized comes from a high school economics book about the neoclassical explanation of wages through labor supply and labor demand. Except, in every industry has a "standard" of what you are worth, regardless of how good or how much you feel you are better than others. The loose collusion is an effort by employers, in said industry, to be willing what to pay someone for their services, which is not the same as "your worth" BTW, Unions do the same thing for mostly blue collar labors where owners can use economies of scale to artificially lower the wages to dangerous levels.

- - - Updated - - -

Except your brother has to thank a guild or trade union for those wages being so high than what he is really worth.

 

Then propose that state barriers be eliminated and allow competition to be truly competitive. How much do you want to bet that a) the GOP will not offer such plan, and b) the insurance companies will fight tooth and nail not to have that happen.

 

It'll be most interesting to have another conversation with you Shiva. I find that your opinions are always well-based politically, even if I of course naturally disagree with them. On this economic note though, I actually agree very much that regulation to mitigate the negative effects of capitalism are absolutely necessary.

There hasn't been any systematic bleeding(whether we agree with the approach taken by the President or not), but it wasn't that long ago when the system was breaking down, when the disease of crony capitalism and derivatives destroyed the market place, sending thousands into retirement and yet with little in retirement savings, the Housing Crisis, etc.

Simply put, when the focus is on making money no matter the cost, the ones who "make money" through selling do not mind if they bend a few rules or put consumers at a distinctive disadvantage. I think that the future of the economy, is to allow for more social mobility. The more people can have financial flexibility and make their own decisions(and if we can actually educate them financially on making those decisions), it's a big help.

Unless you enroll in a collegiate program like I did, you don't really get financial education in the US and that's a big problem.

 

Romney care wasn't a conservative idea and in any case comparing Romney care to Obama care is like comparing bb's to elephants and romney care hasn't saved the first dime ye Nor has Obama care. and the solution isn't transferring the bureaucracy to the government.

 

Romney Care is a lot like Obamacare and came from the same precepts of the GOP version from 1995. They are comparable.

 

Yes. They say "no" incredibly well. But, they haven't been able to contribute solutions.

I suspect they are well aware that the ACA provides important features that people will not appreciate being taken away.

 

We had health care regulation before the ACA. And, the funding issue has to do with helping those unable to be covered. It's still a free market system - insurance companies set their rates and sell their products.

What is new is how transportability is handled, how preexisting conditions are handled, how insurance companies must treat people who get sick (for instance, they can't just dump them!), etc.

The GOP has ALWAYS been free to propose an alternative. In fact, the basis of the ACA is a plan proposed by the GOP during the Clinton administration!

When the GOP suggests killing the ACA without having an accepted alternative plus a transition plan - THAT, my friend, is GROSS irresponsibility and is absolutely NOT acceptable.


Your "free will" ideas were available under the previous system, and they failed. So, I don't see any excuse for bringing them up as an alternative at this point.

 

If it happens the only result will be increased competition to insure the healthy and much higher premiums for the truly sick. You are probably old enough to remember when a person with a preexisting condition could not buy insurance at any price.

 

It is true that quite a few workers are kept on the payroll only because it would be a really big pain in the butt to have to go out and hire new people, train them, etc. But we will see more and more robots doing more and more things now. Those are things that usually employ a lot of the minimum wage workers and they are going to be laid off in large numbers because of this.

Besides a robot can be "trained" with software and the robot's knowledge can be updated with software too. Once the software is written it is rolled out to all the robots and implemented in the field perfectly. How well does that happen with human workers? I'll say it again, from an employer's standpoint a worker is worth what he is worth in the human workforce marketplace, no more and no less. Socialists don't like to think that is so but very few socialists are business owners evidently.

 

So are bb's and elephants. That however doesn't make them the same.

 

Yes, which is why I like the elimination of the pre-existing rule. Even people with mild asthma would be hard pressed to find medical insurance at reasonable rates prior to the ACA. But then again, the Health Maintenance Organization Bill, that was passed in the 1970's, also reduced some medical costs and was about as government infused as the ACA.

 

Robots are not the panacea that you are making them out to be, but they are useful in increasing both efficiency and quality. Where you see most robots in the production field is where there is a highly repetitive assignment with the most risk of failing exact quality standards at a fast pace. Humans can and do just as well as robots, if trained properly, but not as fast with the same precision and accuracy. That is why, under current technological advances, that robots are helpful in certain areas, just not all areas with limited applicability.

 

Why did previous legislation for the HMO model, not contain costs as expected?

 

I found out this lesson the hard way.

 

The first order of business is repealing the stupid thing, and I would recommend refunding all money stolen from federal income tax payers in the process (because of the fine imposed on those who do not purchase private "qualifying" coverage).

THEN let us discuss a plan to implement some other, far better solution to the basic problem of health care providers charging far too much for medical products and services. Obviously this is a basic economic problem that can and should be addressed. A government-managed single payer system is but one possible solution. Finding ways to lower those costs for consumers is another.

 

This reflect a lack of knowledge on the adoption of "automation" (artificial intelligence and technology) by enterprise which is done based upon a "cost/benefit" analysis. The higher the worker compensation the more cost benefit the enterprise receives by replacing the worker and automation has typically targeted the higher skilled jobs, such as mechanical engineer, as opposed to the low skilled jobs because of the advancements in artificial intelligence. Since 1970 when I first began working in manufacturing I've literally seen 80% of the work done by degreed mechanical engineers replaced by computer technology. By replacing the highly educated and highly paid mechanical engineers the enterprise saved the most money for the dollars invested and that forced these highly educated and highly paid workers into lower paying jobs while also lowering the compensation for the remaining engineers because there were more qualified individuals to fill the positions.

Replacing low paid workers is the least advantageous use of technology because there's little to be gained financially by the enterprise. Only the exponential growth in artificial intelligence makes it economically affordable to replace the low paid workers.

No worker is worth less than it costs them to provide their labor to the enterprise. Not even capitalism can "operate at a loss" and yet tens of millions of American workers are expected to work for less income than it costs them to survive. A "living wage" is not about socialism. It's about ensuring that the workers have enough compensation to live on based upon their labor. In short it establishes that the worker is never required to "operate at a loss" in our capitalistic system.

 

I just don't see how you make a difference between socialism and "ensuring" that workers make enough to live on. What is this insurance if it isn't government dictated socialism? What's next, that the government is going to forbid the owner of a company from getting robots to do the work that humans did? Or is the gov't. going to forbid the owner to simply sell his business to some foreign company and have the whole thing moved overseas or just go out of business and say (*)(*)(*)(*) it?

 

Compare computer technology from just 10 years ago with what is just normal today. Imagine what its going to be like in another ten years. It won't be much longer than that that people will simply get robots to cook for them at home, clean up the house, wash the clothes, and even have sex. Many people will prefer this to marriage but you're telling me that robots won't be able to do simple chores like making and serving food? Robots already do financial transactions and have been able to wash cars for many years. Just wait because it is coming and it will come quicker because people demand to be paid more than they are worth. Robots never ask for a raise.