The President is a man of principle. The WaPo reports:
Obama said he told House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) that his core goals — lowering health-care costs for businesses and individuals and expanding coverage to the uninsured — remained non-negotiable.
Maybe he should pick “core goals” that are compatible instead of ones that in direct conflict with each other.
Share
Podcast RSS Feed
Full EconTalk Text
{ 62 comments }
← Previous Comments
Again, I hope you're not misinterpreting me.
Oh, God forbid.
Russ – One more thought on this…I was listening to a great podcast from one of my favorite ecnomists this morning. He discussed trade. He explained how trade is a positive sum game rather than a zero sum game.
It seems that if we apply that positive sum game to medical care, we may just be able to lower costs and make it available to everyone (who wants it). Or am I missing something?
I don't think TOTUS knows he's about to be replaced!
http://baracksteleprompter.blogspot.com/
Wow, what an encouraging post. Thanks for encourage open questioning.sarcasm
Professor Roberts very clearly implies the mutual exclusivity of “lowering health-care costs for businesses and individuals and expanding coverage to the uninsured.”
By the way, more things do not equal more cost when you are talking about the total cost coverage. The number of participants is not relevant when one examines the total cost of a self-funded insurance plan. By “plan” in insurance terminology, one is not referring to an individual policy; rather, one is referring to the overall group of policies bundled and offered to a particular group of employees and funded by those employees. Two self-funded plans can have the same overall cost but have differing numbers of individual policies offered, which is why one might say that an individual's choice to do reduce personal costs can also reduce the total cost of the plan and therefore reduce the cost to the business, which might share in a percentage of the overall plan cost.
I really just wanted to listen (read) to an explanation of the assumption, hopefully so I can understand his position a bit better. Thanks txslr for explaining this position.
Love it.
Isn't food highly subsidized?
Do you genuinely believe there are any progressives left that support the currently proposed reforms ?
It may not reduce costs but does it raise outcomes relative to the cost, and are the costs reasonable? A seatbelt certainly raises the cost of a car, and it reduces your odds of dying behind the wheel. Do you really complain that you'd rather buy a car without a seatbelt because its keeping the cost of the car too high?
Isn't food highly subsidized?
Do you genuinely believe there are any progressives left that support the currently proposed reforms ?
It may not reduce costs but does it raise outcomes relative to the cost, and are the costs reasonable? A seatbelt certainly raises the cost of a car, and it reduces your odds of dying behind the wheel. Do you really complain that you'd rather buy a car without a seatbelt because its keeping the cost of the car too high?
← Previous Comments
Comments on this entry are closed.