PCR's on the Gold Question

[don]

Former Assistant Treasury Secretary Paul Craig Roberts is making some bold new claims about the Federal Reserve and its official government gold holdings. Dr. Roberts contends, “They don’t have any more gold. That’s why they can only give Germany 5 tons of the 1,500 tons it’s holding. In fact, when Germany asked for this delivery last year, the Fed said no. But it said we will give you back 300 tons . . . . So, they said we will give you back 20% of what you trusted us to keep for you over the next seven years, but they are not even able to do that.” Dr. Roberts goes on to say, “The stocks of gold at the Bank of England seem to be disappearing. The stocks of many of the gold trusts, such as GLD, are being looted . . . all of this gold is disappearing into Asian markets. The entire West is being drained of gold.”

After the interview, Dr. Roberts said, “Here’s another heads up.” He told me he’s going to post an article from an anonymous insider that will address the question of “estate recovery” contained in Obama Care. Dr. Roberts charges, “The Affordable Care Act is not affordable and doesn’t provide care. It’s a way to loot the poorest people and steal whatever assets they have.” Roberts says the upcoming article will show, “The poorest who are supposed to be helped are herded into Medicaid, where any property they own is subject to estate recovery.”

[thriftyandboringinohio]

Re: PCR's on the Gold Question

Don, I did take a peek at the estate recovery aspect a couple weeks ago.
Seems like this is really just the same principle we've had in place for decades.

A sick, old or dying person can't quietly give all his money to his children, and then stick the taxpayers with the full bill for his expensive final care, when he could have paid much of it himself. Well-established law and regulation says you spend your own money first, and if you try this sort of trick judges and other authorities can claw back the money.

I wonder if any of the industrious iTulip folk have located and read through the actual ACA language on this topic - I have not.
.
.
.

[don]

Re: PCR's on the Gold Question

Don, I did take a peek at the estate recovery aspect a couple weeks ago.
Seems like this is really just the same principle we've had in place for decades.

A sick, old or dying person can't quietly give all his money to his children, and then stick the taxpayers with the full bill for his expensive final care, when he could have paid much of it himself. Well-established law and regulation says you spend your own money first, and if you try this sort of trick judges and other authorities can claw back the money.

I wonder if any of the industrious iTulip folk have located and read through the actual ACA language on this topic - I have not.
.
.
.

The impression I've had of Medicaid was that it replaced county hospitals. Essentially medical care for the poor, with I assume a sweeter, albeit small compared to draining the middleclass, kick for private healthcare. Confiscation of assets was always baked in the Medicaid cake. Perhaps what Roberts is suggesting is that Obamacare, in the guise of affordable medical care for the poor, pushes them into a system that will asset strip them as well. I don't think this aspect of Obamanation Care is being trumpeted by either "party".

[vinoveri]

Re: PCR's on the Gold Question

Perhaps what Roberts is suggesting is that Obamacare, in the guise of affordable medical care for the poor, pushes them into a system that will asset strip them as well. I don't think this aspect of Obamanation Care is being trumpeted by either "party".

Because ACA penalties were interpreted as a TAX by SCOTUS, premiums, co-pays etc aren't far behind - opening the door to the situation where medical bills are not dischargeable via bankruptcy.

My health care premiums increased ~40% as the 1st of the year - and I've already been denied an Rx that I had last year; the insurance co. said that b/c of the new year they have to "re-authorize" all Rx

thanks ACA

[shiny!]

Re: PCR's on the Gold Question

Don, I did take a peek at the estate recovery aspect a couple weeks ago.
Seems like this is really just the same principle we've had in place for decades.

A sick, old or dying person can't quietly give all his money to his children, and then stick the taxpayers with the full bill for his expensive final care, when he could have paid much of it himself. Well-established law and regulation says you spend your own money first, and if you try this sort of trick judges and other authorities can claw back the money.

I wonder if any of the industrious iTulip folk have located and read through the actual ACA language on this topic - I have not.
.
.
.

The obscene injustice of the Affordable Care Act when it comes to estate recovery comes from the double standard applied to people receiving gov't subsidies to pay for their premiums -vs- treatment of those being forced onto Medicaid by dint of their income level.

The estates of people receiving taxpayer funded subsidies to pay for their insurance premiums are NOT subject to estate recovery to recoup that money. The estates of people forced into Medicaid ARE subject to estate seizure- often when the patient is still alive.

The criteria for Medicaid eligibility changed with the ACA. It used to be based on total assets. If you had assets you didn't qualify for Medicaid; you had to buy your own insurance. Now, eligibility is based simply on "income". If you have no or low income but do have assets (a house, a retirement pension, an IRA, or in the case of widows, some money from a life insurance payout) you are forced into Medicaid. Now your property is subject to estate seizure to recover Medicaid expenses. You can, of course, buy your own insurance on the private market, but thanks to skyrocketing premiums most people in these circumstances can't afford to do so. As a widow, this is the situation I now find myself in.

Thanks to the AFC there are millions more people now than before who have some assets, but who find themselves long-term unemployed or working for poverty wages. They aren't eligible to buy insurance in the new "marketplace" exchange with a subsidy to help pay the premiums. They are being forced into Medicaid. They will lose everything. They will have nothing to pass on to their children. But people receiving subsidies to pay for their premiums won't be subject to estate seizure at all. Where is the fairness in this?

This is what Pelosi meant when she said, "But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it."

[thriftyandboringinohio]

Re: PCR's on the Gold Question

Thanks for the summary, Shiny.
What fix makes most sense to you?

[shiny!]

Re: PCR's on the Gold Question

Thanks for the summary, Shiny.
What fix makes most sense to you?

Some combination of the following:

1. Greatly reduce the involvement of insurance companies as middlemen between health care providers and patients. More concierge medicine. Patients pay doctors directly for services. Doctors can charge much less when insurance companies are cut out of the transaction.

2. A system of plentiful low-cost or free clinics for general care. Create a program whereby doctors and nurses could work in these clinics for several years to discharge their medical school debt. Returning military personnel could manage and run the system. This would give much needed jobs to our soldiers as we reduce our military involvement around the world. (credit to lektrode for this idea)

3. Standardized pricing for procedures and medications, with up-front price transparency at every medical facility and lab. Currently, prices for procedues and drugs vary hugely between facilities with little rhyme or reason, and patients can't know what they owe until after they've had the procedure. This leads to price gouging.

4. Require similar up-front price transparency from insurance companies for all procedures.

5. Require insurance companies to be non-profit agencies not beholden to stockholders. Full transparency of their books, including salaries and compensation. If they would rather go out of business than change, great! Don't let the door hit them on the way out.

6. Do something to rein in the high cost of pharmaceuticals. Seems a big part of the problem is that pharmaceutical companies are obliged to pay high dividends to stockholders. I don't know what the solutions are. More taxpayer-funded R&D for drugs?

7. At this point, this libertarian has finally capitulated. I think we need to go single-payer with all people enrolled, allowing people to purchase additional coverage for private care if they desire. Medicare has proven to be more cost-efficient than private healthcare. Why not expand it to cover everybody? Taxes would have to go up, but I think this would be offset by the following:

1. Without insurance companies taking their cut, medical costs would go down at least 30% right off the bat.

2. Care providers would no longer have to bill insurance, so their operating expenses would go down significantly. This would also bring down prices.

3. If people no longer had to pay exorbitant insurance premiums they would have more disposable income, which would boost the economy.

Other countries can afford single-payer systems because they don't spend so much of their GDP on wars and defense spending like we do. But even some of them are having trouble managing the expense and providing quality care. Since the USA excels in creating bloated, inefficient bureaucracies, I don't know if we could do it well or at all, but I think it's past time to take a serious, impartial look at the pros and cons and hows of it.

I'd like to see hypothetical plans of how a single payer system could be structured and paid for here. Look at what is working and not working in other countries. Thailand has a good model, and AFAIK so does Uruguay.

Eschew obfuscation! Written legislation for any of these reforms should be under 50-100 pages. This would force the laws to be simple and clear, with no sneaky fine print that we can't see until after it's passed.

We already have the federal government managing our highway system and air traffic control for the public good. We consider free education for all children to be a right. Why not at least a minimal degree of health care as well? At this point I think the I in FIRE has become such an economic parasite that it is endangering our ability to survive as a society. Most insurance companies should have their corporate charters revoked.

[don]

Re: PCR's on the Gold Question

Some combination of the following:

1. Greatly reduce the involvement of insurance companies as middlemen between health care providers and patients. More concierge medicine. Patients pay doctors directly for services. Doctors can charge much less when insurance companies are cut out of the transaction.

2. A system of plentiful low-cost or free clinics for general care. Create a program whereby doctors and nurses could work in these clinics for several years to discharge their medical school debt. Returning military personnel could manage and run the system. This would give much needed jobs to our soldiers as we reduce our military involvement around the world. (credit to lektrode for this idea)

3. Standardized pricing for procedures and medications, with up-front price transparency at every medical facility and lab. Currently, prices for procedues and drugs vary hugely between facilities with little rhyme or reason, and patients can't know what they owe until after they've had the procedure. This leads to price gouging.

4. Require similar up-front price transparency from insurance companies for all procedures.

5. Require insurance companies to be non-profit agencies not beholden to stockholders. Full transparency of their books, including salaries and compensation. If they would rather go out of business than change, great! Don't let the door hit them on the way out.

6. Do something to rein in the high cost of pharmaceuticals. Seems a big part of the problem is that pharmaceutical companies are obliged to pay high dividends to stockholders. I don't know what the solutions are. More taxpayer-funded R&D for drugs?

7. At this point, this libertarian has finally capitulated. I think we need to go single-payer with all people enrolled, allowing people to purchase additional coverage for private care if they desire. Medicare has proven to be more cost-efficient than private healthcare. Why not expand it to cover everybody? Taxes would have to go up, but I think this would be offset by the following:

1. Without insurance companies taking their cut, medical costs would go down at least 30% right off the bat.

2. Care providers would no longer have to bill insurance, so their operating expenses would go down significantly. This would also bring down prices.

3. If people no longer had to pay exorbitant insurance premiums they would have more disposable income, which would boost the economy.

Other countries can afford single-payer systems because they don't spend so much of their GDP on wars and defense spending like we do. But even some of them are having trouble managing the expense and providing quality care. Since the USA excels in creating bloated, inefficient bureaucracies, I don't know if we could do it well or at all, but I think it's past time to take a serious, impartial look at the pros and cons and hows of it.

I'd like to see hypothetical plans of how a single payer system could be structured and paid for here. Look at what is working and not working in other countries. Thailand has a good model, and AFAIK so does Uruguay.

Eschew obfuscation! Written legislation for any of these reforms should be under 50-100 pages. This would force the laws to be simple and clear, with no sneaky fine print that we can't see until after it's passed.

We already have the federal government managing our highway system and air traffic control for the public good. We consider free education for all children to be a right. Why not at least a minimal degree of health care as well? At this point I think the I in FIRE has become such an economic parasite that it is endangering our ability to survive as a society. Most insurance companies should have their corporate charters revoked.

aka: putting out the FIRE . . . .

[EJ]

Re: PCR's on the Gold Question

I can't speak to the Affordable Car Act but Roberts has been coming across as increasingly off the deep end lately.

How much gold the U.S. Treasury and Fed have is not exactly a mystery. They publish precise data on it to the 1/1000th of an ounce monthly here.
----------------
Status Report of U.S. Treasury-Owned Gold

Return to Gold Report Homepage
Current Report: December 31, 2013

Summary	Fine Troy Ounces	Book Value
Gold Bullion	258,641,878.074	$10,920,429,098.79
Gold Coins, Blanks, Miscellaneous	2,857,048.173	120,630,859.37
Total	261,498,926.247	11,041,059,958.16
Mint-Held Gold - Deep Storage
Denver, CO	43,853,707.279	1,851,599,995.81
Fort Knox, KY	147,341,858.382	6,221,097,412.78
West Point, NY	54,067,331.379	2,282,841,677.17
Subtotal - Deep Storage Gold	245,262,897.040	10,355,539,085.76
Mint-Held Treasury Gold - Working Stock
All locations - Coins, blanks, miscellaneous	2,783,218.656	117,513,614.74
Subtotal - Working Stock Gold	2,783,218.656	117,513,614.74
Grand Total - Mint-Held Gold	248,046,115.696	10,473,052,700.50
Federal Reserve Bank-Held Gold
Gold Bullion:
Federal Reserve Banks - NY Vault	13,376,987.715	564,805,850.63
Federal Reserve Banks - display	1,993.319	84,162.40
Subtotal - Gold Bullion	13,378,981.034	564,890,013.03
Gold Coins:
Federal Reserve Banks - NY Vault	73,452.066	3,101,307.82
Federal Reserve Banks - display	377.451	15,936.81
Subtotal - Gold Coins	73,829.517	3,117.244.63
Total - Federal Reserve Bank-Held Gold	13,452,810.551	568,007,257.66
Total - Treasury-Owned Gold	261,498,926.247	$11,041,059,958.16

Deep Storage: Deep-Storage gold is the portion of the U.S. government-owned Gold Bullion Reserve that the U.S. Mint secures in sealed vaults, which are examined annually by the Department of Treasury's Office of the Inspector General. Deep-Storage gold comprises the vast majority of the Reserve and consists primarily of gold bars. This portion was formerly called "Bullion Reserve" or "Custodial Gold Bullion Reserve."


Working Stock: Working-Stock gold is the portion of the U.S. government-owned Gold Bullion Reserve that the U.S. Mint uses as the raw material for minting congressionally authorized coins. Working-Stock gold comprises only about 1 percent of the Reserve and consists of bars, blanks, unsold coins, and condemned coins. This portion was formerly listed as individual coins and blanks or called "PEF Gold."
-------------

I do not believe that they are lying.

The question is why does the U.S. have so much gold, 8171 tons to be exact, far more than any other country, and more than Germany, Italy, and France combined, with a market value of $322 billion?

The combined market value of the 15 largest national and institutional gold holdings, including the IMF and BIS, has a market value of over $1 trillion.

For what?

The answer to that question is the reason to own gold.

[Mn_Mark]

Re: PCR's on the Gold Question

Some combination of the following:

1. Greatly reduce the involvement of insurance companies as middlemen between health care providers and patients. More concierge medicine. Patients pay doctors directly for services. Doctors can charge much less when insurance companies are cut out of the transaction.

2. A system of plentiful low-cost or free clinics for general care. Create a program whereby doctors and nurses could work in these clinics for several years to discharge their medical school debt. Returning military personnel could manage and run the system. This would give much needed jobs to our soldiers as we reduce our military involvement around the world. (credit to lektrode for this idea)

3. Standardized pricing for procedures and medications, with up-front price transparency at every medical facility and lab. Currently, prices for procedues and drugs vary hugely between facilities with little rhyme or reason, and patients can't know what they owe until after they've had the procedure. This leads to price gouging.

4. Require similar up-front price transparency from insurance companies for all procedures.

5. Require insurance companies to be non-profit agencies not beholden to stockholders. Full transparency of their books, including salaries and compensation. If they would rather go out of business than change, great! Don't let the door hit them on the way out.

6. Do something to rein in the high cost of pharmaceuticals. Seems a big part of the problem is that pharmaceutical companies are obliged to pay high dividends to stockholders. I don't know what the solutions are. More taxpayer-funded R&D for drugs?

7. At this point, this libertarian has finally capitulated. [So the socialists' strategy worked. First you screw things up by making employer-provided medical coverage exempt from being counted as a taxable benefit, thus moving all health care provision into the sphere of employer-provided health insurance. Then you pass laws requiring medical providers to give medical care to people who show up at emergency rooms whether they can pay it or not, requiring hospitals to pass those costs on to the other, paying, customers, driving their bills through the stratosphere (along with other similar socialist measures screwing up the health care marketplace). Then, once you've thoroughly skewed and warped the medical marketplace beyond recognition, you get desperate people to say "hey, let's have the government take over healthcare. It couldn't be any worse than this!". ] I think we need to go single-payer with all people enrolled, allowing people to purchase additional coverage for private care if they desire. Medicare has proven to be more cost-efficient than private healthcare. Why not expand it to cover everybody? Taxes would have to go up, but I think this would be offset by the following:

1. Without insurance companies taking their cut, medical costs would go down at least 30% right off the bat. [Where did you come up with this figure? I saw an article somewhere that said insurance companies make a low single digit profit - something like 3%. Nothing like a 30% markup.]

2. Care providers would no longer have to bill insurance, so their operating expenses would go down significantly. [Wait til you see how much new paperwork the government will require from them! I bet it is several times as much as they do now.]This would also bring down prices.

3. If people no longer had to pay exorbitant insurance premiums they would have more disposable income, which would boost the economy. [Nope. Their taxes are going to go up to pay for the "free" government health care - and the massive additional bureaucracy to manage it.]

Other countries can afford single-payer systems because they don't spend so much of their GDP on wars and defense spending like we do. But even some of them are having trouble managing the expense and providing quality care. Since the USA excels in creating bloated, inefficient bureaucracies, I don't know if we could do it well or at all, but I think it's past time to take a serious, impartial look at the pros and cons and hows of it.

I'd like to see hypothetical plans of how a single payer system could be structured and paid for here. Look at what is working and not working in other countries. Thailand has a good model, and AFAIK so does Uruguay.

Eschew obfuscation! Written legislation for any of these reforms should be under 50-100 pages. [You are living in fantasy land. This is what always happens with government involvement: nice, well-meaning people get all enthused about "making government work!" or "reinventing government!" or "streamlining government!" etc etc and then the reality is massive multi-thousand-page pork-stuffed monstrosities. If you're going to advocate that the government take over the health care industry and least be realistic enough to admit that this is going to come with it.]This would force the laws to be simple and clear, with no sneaky fine print that we can't see until after it's passed.

We already have the federal government managing our highway system and air traffic control for the public good. We consider free education for all children to be a right. Why not at least a minimal degree of health care as well? At this point I think the I in FIRE has become such an economic parasite that it is endangering our ability to survive as a society. Most insurance companies should have their corporate charters revoked. [There's a hell of a difference between maintaining highways and taking over healthcare. And children already have a "minimal degree of healthcare" - it's called Medicaid.]

You call yourself a libertarian - at least consider actually trying a free market approach to this problem. We did not have this massive health care system expense bloat back before the government got involved. There is every reason to expect that getting the government back out of it would provide better and cheaper care. And we can go back to county hospitals to care for the indigent.

[thriftyandboringinohio]

Re: PCR's on the Gold Question

Some combination of the following:

1. Greatly reduce the involvement of insurance companies as middlemen between health care providers and patients. More concierge medicine. Patients pay doctors directly for services. Doctors can charge much less when insurance companies are cut out of the transaction.

2. A system of plentiful low-cost or free clinics for general care. Create a program whereby doctors and nurses could work in these clinics for several years to discharge their medical school debt. Returning military personnel could manage and run the system. This would give much needed jobs to our soldiers as we reduce our military involvement around the world. (credit to lektrode for this idea)

3. Standardized pricing for procedures and medications, with up-front price transparency at every medical facility and lab. Currently, prices for procedues and drugs vary hugely between facilities with little rhyme or reason, and patients can't know what they owe until after they've had the procedure. This leads to price gouging.

4. Require similar up-front price transparency from insurance companies for all procedures.

5. Require insurance companies to be non-profit agencies not beholden to stockholders. Full transparency of their books, including salaries and compensation. If they would rather go out of business than change, great! Don't let the door hit them on the way out.

6. Do something to rein in the high cost of pharmaceuticals. Seems a big part of the problem is that pharmaceutical companies are obliged to pay high dividends to stockholders. I don't know what the solutions are. More taxpayer-funded R&D for drugs?

7. At this point, this libertarian has finally capitulated. I think we need to go single-payer with all people enrolled, allowing people to purchase additional coverage for private care if they desire. Medicare has proven to be more cost-efficient than private healthcare. Why not expand it to cover everybody? Taxes would have to go up, but I think this would be offset by the following:

1. Without insurance companies taking their cut, medical costs would go down at least 30% right off the bat.

2. Care providers would no longer have to bill insurance, so their operating expenses would go down significantly. This would also bring down prices.

3. If people no longer had to pay exorbitant insurance premiums they would have more disposable income, which would boost the economy.

Other countries can afford single-payer systems because they don't spend so much of their GDP on wars and defense spending like we do. But even some of them are having trouble managing the expense and providing quality care. Since the USA excels in creating bloated, inefficient bureaucracies, I don't know if we could do it well or at all, but I think it's past time to take a serious, impartial look at the pros and cons and hows of it.

I'd like to see hypothetical plans of how a single payer system could be structured and paid for here. Look at what is working and not working in other countries. Thailand has a good model, and AFAIK so does Uruguay.

Eschew obfuscation! Written legislation for any of these reforms should be under 50-100 pages. This would force the laws to be simple and clear, with no sneaky fine print that we can't see until after it's passed.

We already have the federal government managing our highway system and air traffic control for the public good. We consider free education for all children to be a right. Why not at least a minimal degree of health care as well? At this point I think the I in FIRE has become such an economic parasite that it is endangering our ability to survive as a society. Most insurance companies should have their corporate charters revoked.

Thanks for the thoughtful response, Shiny.
I would sign on to a program like you describe.

[shiny!]

Re: PCR's on the Gold Question

7. At this point, this libertarian has finally capitulated. [So the socialists' strategy worked. First you screw things up by making employer-provided medical coverage exempt from being counted as a taxable benefit, thus moving all health care provision into the sphere of employer-provided health insurance. Then you pass laws requiring medical providers to give medical care to people who show up at emergency rooms whether they can pay it or not, requiring hospitals to pass those costs on to the other, paying, customers, driving their bills through the stratosphere (along with other similar socialist measures screwing up the health care marketplace). Then, once you've thoroughly skewed and warped the medical marketplace beyond recognition, you get desperate people to say "hey, let's have the government take over healthcare. It couldn't be any worse than this!". ]

It's insurance companies that have skewed and warped the medical marketplace beyond recognition.

1. Without insurance companies taking their cut, medical costs would go down at least 30% right off the bat. [Where did you come up with this figure? I saw an article somewhere that said insurance companies make a low single digit profit - something like 3%. Nothing like a 30% markup.]

Right here on iTulip. Wish I could remember the thread. If I find it I'll post it. Here's something:

The Reason Health Care Is So Expensive: Insurance Companies
More than 20 years ago, two Harvard professors published an article in the prestigious New England Journal of Medicine showing that health-care administration cost somewhere between 19 percent and 24 percent of total spending on health care and that this administrative burden helped explain why health care costs so much in the U.S. compared, for instance, with Canada or the United Kingdom. An update of that analysis more than a decade later, after the diffusion of managed care and the widespread adoption of computerization, found that administration constituted some 30 percent of U.S. health-care costs and that the share of the health-care labor force comprising administrative (as opposed to care delivery) workers had grown 50 percent to constitute more than one of every four health-sector employees.

There's a wealth of data to support these numbers. Five minutes of searching will give you a very different perspective about the cancer that is the health insurance industry. My question to you is, how does your perception of our problem change with this new awareness of what's been driving up health care costs?

2. Care providers would no longer have to bill insurance, so their operating expenses would go down significantly. [Wait til you see how much new paperwork the government will require from them! I bet it is several times as much as they do now.]This would also bring down prices.

Given our government's penchant for bloated bureaucracy you're probably right. But even so, Medicare is still more cost-efficient than private care under insurance companies.

3. If people no longer had to pay exorbitant insurance premiums they would have more disposable income, which would boost the economy. [Nope. Their taxes are going to go up to pay for the "free" government health care - and the massive additional bureaucracy to manage it.]

Didn't you see where I said that?

Eschew obfuscation! Written legislation for any of these reforms should be under 50-100 pages. [You are living in fantasy land. This is what always happens with government involvement: nice, well-meaning people get all enthused about "making government work!" or "reinventing government!" or "streamlining government!" etc etc and then the reality is massive multi-thousand-page pork-stuffed monstrosities. If you're going to advocate that the government take over the health care industry and least be realistic enough to admit that this is going to come with it.]This would force the laws to be simple and clear, with no sneaky fine print that we can't see until after it's passed.

Two of the most significant pieces of legislation of the 20th century were Roosevelt's Social Security act and the Glass-Steagall act.
Social Security was 64 pages long. Glass-Steagall was 37 pages long.

We already have Medicare and it works for the most part. Simply expand it to cover everyone. Is it a perfect solution? Heck no! Got a better idea? I'm all ears! Specifically, what would your legislation entail?

We already have the federal government managing our highway system and air traffic control for the public good. We consider free education for all children to be a right. Why not at least a minimal degree of health care as well? At this point I think the I in FIRE has become such an economic parasite that it is endangering our ability to survive as a society. Most insurance companies should have their corporate charters revoked. [There's a hell of a difference between maintaining highways and taking over healthcare. And children already have a "minimal degree of healthcare" - it's called Medicaid.]

Until Obamacare, medicaid was not universally available for all poor children. States set the rules which differed widely when it came to eligibility. Forget for a moment about partisan politics and ideologies. That the richest country in the world can't take decent care of its poor children shows we as a society have our priorities wrong.

You call yourself a libertarian - at least consider actually trying a free market approach to this problem.

I am a libertarian. I would love to return to a pure time in the past where libertarian principles ruled and all was wonderful. But you're living in a fantasy if you think that world ever existed or can exist. I gave specific suggestions, which you tore apart without making any suggestions of your own. All I hear is "socialism" bashing and "free market" repeated like a broken parrot.

From what I can gather, your approach would be to eliminate the safety net of Medicare and Medicaid because that's "government involvement," while throwing us to the lions of the insurance companies because they're "free market".

Here's some cost comparisons for medical procedures in other countries compared to the USA. I'm not talking about primative hospitals, either. You can get top-notch care in other countries. Most of these countries have "socialized medicine" which you say drives up the cost of health care.

Insurance was supposed to protect people from bankruptcy in the event of accident or illness. In practice, the insurance industry is driving up the cost of health care to the point of being the biggest cause of bankruptcy in the country. Way to go, free markets!

Yes, I'm a libertarian. But I can see thieves and robbers for what they are. Companies that harm the public welfare need to have their charters revoked. That's not anti-free market. That's pro-citizen.

[shiny!]

Re: PCR's on the Gold Question

Thanks for the thoughtful response, Shiny.
I would sign on to a program like you describe.

You're welcome. I try. Unfortunately since we have the best politicians money can buy, any solution that doesn't cater to the I in FIRE doesn't stand a chance.

[don]

Re: PCR's on the Gold Question

It's insurance companies that have skewed and warped the medical marketplace beyond recognition.



Right here on iTulip. Wish I could remember the thread. If I find it I'll post it. Here's something:


There's a wealth of data to support these numbers. Five minutes of searching will give you a very different perspective about the cancer that is the health insurance industry. My question to you is, how does your perception of our problem change with this new awareness of what's been driving up health care costs?



Given our government's penchant for bloated bureaucracy you're probably right. But even so, Medicare is still more cost-efficient than private care under insurance companies.



Didn't you see where I said that?



Two of the most significant pieces of legislation of the 20th century were Roosevelt's Social Security act and the Glass-Steagall act.
Social Security was 64 pages long. Glass-Steagall was 37 pages long.

We already have Medicare and it works for the most part. Simply expand it to cover everyone. Is it a perfect solution? Heck no! Got a better idea? I'm all ears! Specifically, what would your legislation entail?



Until Obamacare, medicaid was not universally available for all poor children. States set the rules which differed widely when it came to eligibility. Forget for a moment about partisan politics and ideologies. That the richest country in the world can't take decent care of its poor children shows we as a society have our priorities wrong.



I am a libertarian. I would love to return to a pure time in the past where libertarian principles ruled and all was wonderful. But you're living in a fantasy if you think that world ever existed or can exist. I gave specific suggestions, which you tore apart without making any suggestions of your own. All I hear is "socialism" bashing and "free market" repeated like a broken parrot.

From what I can gather, your approach would be to eliminate the safety net of Medicare and Medicaid because that's "government involvement," while throwing us to the lions of the insurance companies because they're "free market".

Here's some cost comparisons for medical procedures in other countries compared to the USA. I'm not talking about primative hospitals, either. You can get top-notch care in other countries. Most of these countries have "socialized medicine" which you say drives up the cost of health care.

Insurance was supposed to protect people from bankruptcy in the event of accident or illness. In practice, the insurance industry is driving up the cost of health care to the point of being the biggest cause of bankruptcy in the country. Way to go, free markets!

Yes, I'm a libertarian. But I can see thieves and robbers for what they are. Companies that harm the public welfare need to have their charters revoked. That's not anti-free market. That's pro-citizen.

+1 shiny!

Ideological mind control trumps 'two-party' mind control

[thriftyandboringinohio]

Re: PCR's on the Gold Question

... In practice, the insurance industry is driving up the cost of health care ...

I recall my father making that complaint back in the late 1960s.
His company had just started giving him dental insurance.
He complained that the dentist quickly raised prices so my dad was the same out of pocket, but the dentist and insurance company were both making more money.