Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TimF who wrote (358688)	4/10/2010 4:33:18 AM
From: KLP	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793656

I certainly can agree with him here… One of the really bad ideas that drive some of the worst government actions is the notion that wealth is somehow fixed, and that by implication all wealth is acquired at someone else’s expense. And I do get your point about the average person living better than the so called "robber barrons" of the last century. BUT, what I think has happened that we only see that the money generated by and for the millionaires and billionaires of today has totally been skewed. That money has been lumped together, homogenized, so that what comes out the funnel, is that the "average income" seems much higher by comparison with that of yesteryear. I'd like to see what the US economy would really look like if we took out of the economic equation all the new successful companies since 1980 to present, and also looked at the total income for the top 50 employees in each of those companies. Those new companies have provided employment for millions of people. Had it not been for those creative people, the 'average person' wouldn't have had the income those companies could provide them and their families. Then do the same thing with the newly created companies of those "robber barrons" and see if we took those away, how the average person would have fared. My guess is there are many more 'high net wealth individuals' today than there were in yesteryear by comparison. So we see things like "wealth redistribution" and "social justice" being floated about. BUT, it is the 'average to high average' income person that really pays more than their share of taxes, because the HIGH income folks income has been blended with that of the 'average to high average' incomes. After all of that….do this and consider what has happened to the politics of the country… Take the Top 400 Richest Americans from Forbes and Fortune, and set all that money aside from the rest of the GDP for the rest of the country. It would be interesting to see what political party has benefited the most and how much as well. Hint: Don't think you'll find it is that ole rich "republican" party…..

To: TimF who wrote (358688)	4/10/2010 4:36:54 AM
From: KLP	2 Recommendations Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793656

Coyote's blog post here was good too: The Only Health Care Cost Control Idea the Democrats Have Ever Had April 8, 2010, 9:18 am I think this article makes it clear that, no matter what the rhetoric, the only health care cost control idea Obama and the Democrats ever had was saying “no” to care. Whatever what one calls this (managed care, rationing, death panels) it is really not that much different from what insurance companies have been doing for years. And it is the real irony that Democrats passed this legislation feeding off anger of voters with insurance companies saying “no”, when their plan really depends on the government saying “no” even more often (or else there won’t be any cost savings). The author argues that information is important for patients to make better decisions: When patients are given information abou t potential benefits and risks, they seem to choose less invasive care, on average, than doctors do, according to early studies. Some people, of course, decide that aggressive care is right for them — like the cancer patient (and palliative care doctor) profiled in this newspaper a few days ago. They are willing to accept the risks and side effects that come with treatment. Many people, however, go the other way once they understand the trade-offs. They decide the risk of incontinence and impotence isn’t worth the marginal chance of preventing prostate cancer. Or they choose cardiac drugs and lifestyle changes over stenting. Or they opt to skip the prenatal test to determine if their baby has Down syndrome. Or, in the toughest situation of all, they decide to leave an intensive care unit and enter a hospice. I agree, but I would go further — information and incentives are important. And the absolute most important bit of information when it comes to cost control is price, and patients under Obamacare have absolutely no incentive to give a sh*t about price even if they were informed of it. Exactly the opposite of the incentives I have had since I took on a high-deductible health care policy several years ago. Update: Brad Warbiany discusses the proposed IPAB and its powers to shape health care spending in the context of Congress as an addict trying to control its impulses. However, I think Brad underestimates the power of the board to be captured. What will result is rulings for more coverage of procedures with powerful lobbies, offset by less coverage of procedures with weaker lobbies, irrespective of the science. Just look at the diseases the NIH and NSF gives grant money for — the grants have nothing to do with the science of where research could be most productive and everything to do with diseases that have large and powerful constituencies. Update #2: Isn’t it interesting to see the NY Times, after arguing for months that Obamacare was not about rationing, is now admitting that rationing is the key to success. It reminds me of this that I wrote a while back: I have decided there is something that is very predictable about the media: they usually are very sympathetic to legislation expanding government powers or spending when the legislation is being discussed in Congress. Then, after the legislation is passed, and there is nothing that can be done to get rid of it, the media gets really insightful all of a sudden, running thoughtful pieces about the hidden problems and unintended consequences of the legislation. coyoteblog.com