Healthcare: Oligarchy vs Real Markets

[lektrode]

Re: Healthcare: Oligarchy vs Real Markets

Homesteading here I come . . . giddy-up!

yep - sure sounding like you fled the left coast Just In Time:

Stockton, a port city of close to 300,000 residents, was financially knocked out by a litany of economic circumstances and incompetence or abuse by past city leaders. Its fortunes sank under the foreclosure crisis, unsustainable employee medical benefits and pensions, and ill-conceived waterfront development financed by bonds during the economic boom.
State Controller John Chiang's office is investigating the fiscal practices and record-keeping of the city.
Stockton Vice-Mayor Kathy Mills said the current council's close examination of Stockton's finances revealed a "cesspool."
Hardest hit by the city's bankruptcy will be its municipal retirees. Stockton hopes to reduce a $26-million budget gap by phasing out the city's contribution to a retiree health care program, which required no co-pay and amounts to a $417-million liability.

wonder Who'll be Next:

What happened in Stockton? In the mid-2000s, the city was hopping. The housing market was strong, and as a result tax revenues were flowing in. The city took out $190 million in bonds and loans to pay for a bunch of civic projects including a new city hall, a new multipurpose arena, and a baseball park.

According to San Diego bankruptcy attorney Paul Staley, who lived in Stockton for 10 years, “Stockton had become a bedroom community for commuters to San Francisco and Oakland, and that drove overbuilding. When the economy imploded, commuters started disappearing, and the city saw a flight of home buyers. Property values in Stockton then plummeted, perhaps more than anywhere else in the state and nation, and the city could no longer sustain itself or pay the generous pensions to city workers.”

The city already has slashed the police force by one fourth and the fire department by one third, and cut 40 percent of other city employees, along with wages and medical benefits. Kathy Miller, a member of Stockton’s city council and its vice mayor, tells The Daily Beast that the city had no choice.

[lektrode]

Re: Healthcare: Oligarchy vs Real Markets

well that didnt take long...

headin down to the southland, whoops - looks like its...

Vernon, city of - which is just a ways up the 710 from Bell (with the 800k/year 'administrator' and his merry bunch of deputy assistants to the chief adminstrator, running a lil gig called "corruption on steroids" ) by CNN
but that was 2 years ago, so..

back to Vernon , from the LA Times 28june:

A long-awaited state audit painted a dire picture of the city of Vernon's finances, saying the city has operated its general government fund at a deficit for more than two decades.

The report, which comes in response to a Times story on Vernon’s financial problems published last year, criticized officials for poor oversight of contracts and bond issuances. It also found some risky investments have cost the city huge sums of money and described retirement plans given to be officials to be "legally questionable."

Separately, the audit called into question the government reform plan Vernon enacted last year, after it was nearly disincorporated by the state Legislature. The auditor said the city has failed to develop policies to actually implement some of the reform proposals, and that other key initiatives — like increasing the city’s residential population — are still years away.

The audit marks the latest in a series of investigations in the industrial city south of downtown L.A., which has been plagued by corruption scandals in recent years. Three top officials have been convicted of public corruption since 2009, and critics have argued that the city has failed to function as a legitimate democracy.

Much of the audit, however, focuses on Vernon’s past financial decisions, which it said are now threatening the stability of the city’s government.
For decades, the city has failed to collect enough general fund revenues to meet the costs of the services it provides, the audit said. General government expenditures have increased 50% in recent years, and the city has often overspent its budget.

Part of the problem, the auditor said, is loose contracting procedures. Since 2005, Vernon has paid out more than $60 million in taxpayer dollars under contracts that had no caps on total expenditures, the audit said. Some of the agreements reviewed did not even define specific work product. The state report also criticized Vernon’s decision to enter an unusual, prepaid natural gas purchase in 2006, which has cost the city millions. The audit said the city was unable to provide any evidence of a risk assessment on the deal or evaluation of alternatives.
The auditor also noted that Vernon provided “legally questionable” retirement benefits to some of its top officials. The California Public Employees Retirement System has already moved to slash some of those benefits, but it is unclear whether any legal action will be taken against the city or the individual employees.

uh huh... anybody else noting a pattern here?
i mean afterall, if they get away with it at the federal level....

then... when they cant get enough 'juice' out of the south bay area, they go looking outa town - like WAAAAY outa town, for more to feed the Mammoth Thirst of the municpal monster, extending its squid-like tentacles....

MAMMOTH LAKES — The people of this small High Sierra ski town have survived drought, forest fires and earthquakes. They have endured economic recessions and volcano scares. But nothing in their history prepared them for the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power.

The DWP launched a legal attack six months ago for control of the city's primary source of water, Mammoth Creek, which tumbles down the slopes through town. The utility contends it has owned the water since 1905 and Mammoth Lakes has been poaching for decades.

The tiny Mammoth Community Water District says that if it loses the lawsuits, the district would have to buy water from the DWP. That would force the district to raise average rates to levels many locals cannot afford — increasing them by at least 100%, to about $840 a year, one district official said.

Greg Norby, manager of the water district, said the DWP is using the lawsuits to intimidate his agency, hoping it will yield on the water rather than pay for a costly court battle. The district has already run up about $300,000 in legal expenses in the case, he said.



In a county with a 12.1% unemployment rate and a city whose bad economy and debts have it on the verge of bankruptcy, the DWP lawsuits could be the last straw, Norby said.

"It would bring a huge return on their investment in attorneys' fees," Norby said. "Mammoth Lakes would cease to exist."

Mammoth Lakes argues that it is entitled to as much as 2,760 acre-feet of water annually under licenses and a permit granted by the state dating back as far as 1949. The district also argues the DWP should not be allowed to claim the water now after allowing the community to become dependent upon it for decades by relying on those licenses and permit.

"Los Angeles never protested any of them," Norby said. "Where the hell was the city 50 years ago?"

The DWP says the state had no authority to give Mammoth Lakes permission to draw from the creek.

Martin Adams, DWP's water project director, said Mammoth Lakes wasn't a big concern when the community was small. "But over the years, after growth spurts which included condos and golf courses, Mammoth's water diversions were no longer just a blip," Adams said. They are now equal to 1% of the flow of water in the aqueduct carrying water from the Eastern Sierra to Los Angeles, he said.

The lawsuits, filed in Mono County Superior Court, are part of a new assertiveness by the utility along the Eastern Sierra, where it has owned land and water rights since early in the last century. After long legal battles, the DWP has been forced to help restore land it drained by giving up water to maintain levels in Mono Lake, re-water parts of the dry Owens Lake and restore a 62-mile stretch of the Lower Owens River.

The utility believes the Owens Lake effort alone unfairly raises rates for its customers by an average of at least $20 a year. Facing an estimated $238-million budget deficit, the DWP is trying to increase revenue from the Eastern Sierra and put as much water as possible into the aqueduct to L.A.

"Every drop counts, and under the city charter we are mandated to protect every drop," Deputy City Atty. Bill Carter said. "The city of Los Angeles does not want to harm Mammoth or its residents."

The water war comes at an especially tough time for Mammoth Lakes.

Just five years ago, the city was almost debt-free, enjoying record snowfalls and a real estate boom. Every Friday night in winter, thousands of vehicles streamed up from Southern California, bringing an estimated 1.5 million skiers to the region during the season.

Since then, the median price of single-family homes in Mammoth Lakes has fallen from $900,000 to $541,000 — a decline of 40%, according to a study by FTI Capital Advisors. The median price of condominiums has fallen from $560,000 to $270,000 — or about 52% — during the same period.

City leaders are preparing to file for bankruptcy because the community cannot afford to pay a $43-million breach-of-contract judgment against it brought by a major developer.

The city considered raising taxes but a financial analysis warned that tax increases would drive tourists elsewhere and devastate households. The area's largest employer, Mammoth Mountain ski resort, laid off 70 full-time employees last winter because of a dearth of snow.

"This town's been through tough times, but never like this," said Tom Cage, a business owner and member of the water district board. "I'm not saying we're going to become a ghost town with tumble weeds rolling down Main Street. But no one around here expects to see development for years to come."

After all, he added glumly, "there are lots of other places for people to go that aren't under the thumb of the DWP."

Under a "Stop the LADWP Water Grab!" campaign managed by the public relations firm Cerrell Associates, the Mammoth Lakes district recently began asking its ratepayers to flood the DWP and Los Angeles City Hall with complaints and hard-luck stories.

Many Eastern Sierra communities have existed as Los Angeles colonies of sorts since the early 1900s when the city acquired enormous swaths of Eastern Sierra land and began pumping so much water south that the region became a de facto desert wilderness. Resentment has festered for a century.

"The DWP is a rapacious agency," said Paul Rudder, a Mammoth Lakes lawyer for 40 years. "The people of Los Angeles aren't going to shed a lot of tears over a poor little mountain town being stepped on by an elephant."

State Sen. Alex Padilla(D-Pacoima) sent a letter to the DWP last week recommending that the agency work with Mammoth Lakes to find common ground. The letter to General Manager Ron Nichols said the dispute is "opening old wounds in the Owens River Valley and risks exacerbating the historic distrust of the City of Los Angeles and LADWP well beyond the Eastern Sierra."

and whata know, we get right back to Jack again (and dont forget ms faye ;) in this scene from one of his more memorable films, which got into the dirty little details just how the west was won back in the daze when the FIRE brigade played a bit less ruthlessly (before TBTF Inc, when it was a lot cheaper to buy off or whack the opposition)



and this one was great:

[lektrode]

Re: Healthcare: Oligarchy vs Real Markets

oh... sorry, eh - was getting too carried away again, and got sortof off topic - other than the fact that one of the major causes of bankruptcy for both the individual - and now entire cities - is due to the corruption/waste/fraud that permeates the entire transaction/scam known as 'healthcare' - and its none other than 'our fearless leaders' who are setting us up - thats right - its our ever so noble political class that, IMHO, is far more culpable in The Screwing of The Middle Class than even TBTF(or jail) Inc

heres one from back in the good ole daze (before the 'reform of healthcare' or at least before anybody had read it)
its a beauty...

Design For Corruption--Why US Healthcare is Failing
Posted by: Bruce Nussbaum on August 28, 2009

I’ve lived all over the world, in countries that Americans often call “corrupt.” Peace Corps in The Philippines, journalism in Thailand, Argentina, China. But these days, the US is at least as, if not, more corrupt than any other nation I have lived or worked in. Yes, most of this corruption is “legal.”

(esp 'when viewed from 40000feet' )

It is easy to pass laws that make lobbying legal but what is happening in Washington today is exactly what happens in Manila, Jakarta, Shanghai or Bangkok

—buying influence to control policy for the benefit of the few.


The US has designed a corrupt political culture that undermines our meritocracy and makes a joke of the “public good.” Health care is the most glaring example.

Read this >> amazing Business Week cover story about United HealthCare’s influence in Washington.

We have a Congress and Senate full of people covered by a great public health care plan refusing to share it with the rest of the population largely because of the lobbying efforts of health care insurers who don’t want a “public” optionthat would give them competition. The story shows in detail how corruption is shaping our national health care system.


Ditto for bank reform and Wall Street reform. Despite incredible irresponsibility that brought the US and the world to the brink of another Depression, the financial sectors have escape any serious re-regulation. Why? Lobbying.


The World Economic Forum is starting a forum for designing large-scale social organizations. It should be with a case study of the US.

[BadJuju]

Re: Healthcare: Oligarchy vs Real Markets

Perhaps you can list the costs which you say are lower rather than resort again to words.

As a young and single individual, which is what I believe you are, the situation you face is far different than most of iTulip. If in fact my characterization of you is correct, your health insurance payments under any circumstances would be low. The same cannot be said for single but older individuals, married couples, or families with children.



Wrong.

Every single other 1st world and most 2nd world nations have national health care - without health insurance. Health insurance is an American phenomenon, and it clearly is not functioning well either as a financial pool or as an efficient delivery of health care.

As for compulsion - that is equally ridiculous because you are focusing on compulsion on the 'customer' side.

What about compulsion on the health care insurer side?

Compulsion to provide coverage? To limit profits? To reduce unnecessary overhead? To provide portability?

I am perhaps less informed on this than you are, I admit. There are a lot of things in the ACA that seem like they are good on paper, but perhaps that will all be twisted as well. Nevertheless, I can see how it isn't ideal at all. A proper system modeled after those in other countries with successful healthcare systems would be far greater. I just know that the current system is untenable. Health insurance has reached a point where it is all-or-nothing and it excludes all of the people that need healthcare the most.

[c1ue]

Re: Healthcare: Oligarchy vs Real Markets

There are a lot of things in the ACA that seem like they are good on paper, but perhaps that will all be twisted as well. Nevertheless, I can see how it isn't ideal at all. A proper system modeled after those in other countries with successful healthcare systems would be far greater. I just know that the current system is untenable. Health insurance has reached a point where it is all-or-nothing and it excludes all of the people that need healthcare the most.

The problem with Obamacare as I see it is that it doesn't fix any of the problems, but it does ruin the chances of any substantive reform that might address said problems.

This type of tactic is called a spoiling attack.

For example: if Obamacare slows the rise of health care costs in the US - this will be hailed as a victory even though costs are already out of control.

If on the other hand Obamacare does nothing, the same forces which lobbied for ObamaCare will find another patsy and another spoiling tactic to put off substantive reform.

[dcarrigg]

Re: Healthcare: Oligarchy vs Real Markets

The problem with Obamacare as I see it is that it doesn't fix any of the problems, but it does ruin the chances of any substantive reform that might address said problems.

This type of tactic is called a spoiling attack.

For example: if Obamacare slows the rise of health care costs in the US - this will be hailed as a victory even though costs are already out of control.

If on the other hand Obamacare does nothing, the same forces which lobbied for ObamaCare will find another patsy and another spoiling tactic to put off substantive reform.

There is one problem the ACA will fix, at least temporarily.

State budgets.

Increased federal Medicaid funding coupled with a large expected reduction in uncompensated care costs will be the largest lifeline state budgets have been thrown in decades. In the long run, the Medicaid chunk will still sink states. But they get a couple of years off. Estimates vary, but it probably will end up saving states about $100,000,000,000.

It will probably also work fairly well towards meeting its stated goal of expanding coverage.

Costs will still be out of hand for healthcare. And in the out years (2020 and beyond), states may end up paying more.

It will buy time for the current system.

I'd say 10-20 years.

That's all.

[DSpencer]

Re: Healthcare: Oligarchy vs Real Markets

Forget it folks - this is the end of the health industry in America, and I will be looking for the recognition in the market (as expressed by technical analysis on the stocks in this sector) that the efficient market will come to the fore.

The intention of The Democrats (and liberals generally) in this legislation is clear and impossible to hide - they intend to completely destroy private health care in favor of a fully-government-run single-payer system. The efficient market guarantees this outcome given the law they passed, and they know it.

Does anyone have any comments on these statements? I know some (including EJ?) believe just the opposite: that this bill is a gift to insurance companies because of the individual mandate. However, I've had nearly identical thoughts to Denninger that this pre-existing coverage issue will blow up the whole system. And I also can't help but wonder if it's on purpose. Some potential reasons that this wouldn't happen might be:

1. Markets aren't efficient - People want insurance because they feel like they should. People are nervous about the sudden health condition problem. People are irrationally afraid of the fine.
2. The fines will change in order to prevent this from happening.
3. People will still expect insurance through their employer and employers will still provide it.
4. Ins. Companies will find away around the requirements.
5. Other unknown consequences change the whole dynamic.

I'm curious where people stand on this and what is their reasoning.

[charliebrown]

Re: Healthcare: Oligarchy vs Real Markets

This ACA seems like a big poor tax (regressive).

If I am J6P making somewhere between 40 - 100K, By refusing to buy insurance I will be paying 800 - 2000 a year tax vs. 15K for a policy. Yes I am saving 13K a year, but the risk seems very high. I had an apendectomy two years ago and was charged 50K. Had it ruputured without insurance I would have been wiped out.
My son fell and twisted his ankle. Doc in a box and follow up visit was 1K. No break, just a bad sprain.
Just seeing the doc for kids state mandated checkup and shots costs hundreds. Each year more is required and the doc fee's go up. The med complex has the state in their grip.


So the J6P making 50K who chooses to go naked has all the same risk as before, but now $1000 bucks he could have used to see the doc is absconded by .gov I know several families in this income range who are going naked. Now they will be taxed. If you make 50K, and have a family I don't think you can afford a 15K policy. So this is a poor tax. High income earners dosen't sweat the 15K premium, so they see no changes.

[DSpencer]

Re: Healthcare: Oligarchy vs Real Markets

This ACA seems like a big poor tax (regressive).

If I am J6P making somewhere between 40 - 100K, By refusing to buy insurance I will be paying 800 - 2000 a year tax vs. 15K for a policy. Yes I am saving 13K a year, but the risk seems very high. I had an apendectomy two years ago and was charged 50K. Had it ruputured without insurance I would have been wiped out.
My son fell and twisted his ankle. Doc in a box and follow up visit was 1K. No break, just a bad sprain.
Just seeing the doc for kids state mandated checkup and shots costs hundreds. Each year more is required and the doc fee's go up. The med complex has the state in their grip.


So the J6P making 50K who chooses to go naked has all the same risk as before, but now $1000 bucks he could have used to see the doc is absconded by .gov I know several families in this income range who are going naked. Now they will be taxed. If you make 50K, and have a family I don't think you can afford a 15K policy. So this is a poor tax. High income earners dosen't sweat the 15K premium, so they see no changes.

Good point. Maybe employers will continue to offer coverage because people will be willing to work for less if it means not paying a penalty and being without insurance.

It also seems like a healthy person tax to me. Forcing insurers to "insure" people with known problems is just forcing other people to pay their bills. Hence the need for the mandate to drag healthy people into the system to offset the costs. It's already ridiculous now with group plans. Young healthy people pay as much as people who have 20 times the risk level.

[c1ue]

Re: Healthcare: Oligarchy vs Real Markets

It also seems like a healthy person tax to me. Forcing insurers to "insure" people with known problems is just forcing other people to pay their bills. Hence the need for the mandate to drag healthy people into the system to offset the costs. It's already ridiculous now with group plans. Young healthy people pay as much as people who have 20 times the risk level.

I'd just point out the problem isn't specifically the age adjusted premium.

Sure, a young person may pay more relative to his/her health risk by demographic, but this should even out as the young person ages.

The real problem is portability. Whatever was paid or not paid in, disappears once a job change occurs - voluntary or not.