20th January, 2017

[Craig Lamson]

I suspect the opposite;
I think the US deficit will grow under Trump; he wants to lower taxes and built new highways and bridges ( and even more fences)
The rich will be richer and the poor will be poorer; perhaps they have a job, but need to work around the clock to pay their bills...
With his lack of diplomacy he already made China and Mexico pissed without any good reason; even before he was president.
He twitters from the hip, without thinking. Next day he changes his mind again...
It is wrong to think a country can do it alone. Welfare is built on world wide trade and mutual understanding. That is what history shows.
Protectionism was a big mistake that the 1930 crises deeper and longer.
The US is now (again) ruled by a bunch of cynic old conservative men deciding what is right for the young.
My biggest fear is that the US welfare will go down with Trump;
Then we have a nation with angry old men at the top and the most/best arms in the world, with a 'leader' as you call it, that pulls the trigger without too much thought.
for America First; America First.

You are clearly welcome to your own opinion.  Thanks for sharing.  Time will tell.

[JoeKitchen]

You seriously think doctors are going to lower their fees?  I'm sure the AMA would go crazy.

A comment like this, combined with your previous Red Herring response of implying my hernia operation would cost more now then when I had it, just shows a lack of understanding of markets. 

Prices do not stay consistent nor are they guaranteed to go up.  Pricing a product or service is complicated and many factors go into it.  One such factor is logistics and administration costs. 

If those cost go down substantially, one would expect the overall cost to decrease as well, especially in a monopolistic competitive market like medicine.  I could see in a pure monopoly or oligopoly a supplier(s) trying to keep their cost the same, but with so many providers, it is only a matter of time until one of them tries to draw in more business and lowers his fees.   

In the long run (50+ years, at least) prices do go up due to inflation, but in the short run (less than 50 years) it is not uncommon for prices to come down even if quality goes up.  In real dollars (not including inflation) the price of lasik eye surgery has dropped substantially since the 80s while the quality has risen.  Same thing is true with computers. 

Need a not so new technology as an example, looking at shipping.  One of the oldest services in the world has seen price decreases and increased quality of service in the last couple of decades. 

[Alan Goldhammer]

Sure he can.  He can simply say, you're fired. 

You display a woeful lack of knowledge about civil service employment protections.  As much as you would like this to be a reality television show, it is not.  It's serious business running a country and I don't think that has registered with Mr. Itch Twitter Fingers.

[Alan Goldhammer]

A comment like this, combined with your previous Red Herring response of implying my hernia operation would cost more now then when I had it, just shows a lack of understanding of markets. 

Prices do not stay consistent nor are they guaranteed to go up.  Pricing a product or service is complicated and many factors go into it.  One such factor is logistics and administration costs. 

If those cost go down substantially, one would expect the overall cost to decrease as well, especially in a monopolistic competitive market like medicine.  I could see in a pure monopoly or oligopoly a supplier(s) trying to keep their cost the same, but with so many providers, it is only a matter of time until one of them tries to draw in more business and lowers his fees.   

take the automobile industry.  Can you point to any particular model whose price has dropped in the face of a wildly competitive industry that epitomizes the market.  We have owned three Honda Accords and three Honda CR-Vs over the years and each time we buy a new car it is more expensive than the one it replaced and the increase is more the inflation.  I am pathological about keeping receipts for lots of good and services including medical bills (in case we ever have enough expenses for a tax write off).  I have never seen a reduction in doctor's fees and both my wife and I have used the same doctors for a lot of years.  Lab fees should be the first to go down given is is a very competitive industry with lots of providers but they have not.  The price of my EKG as a part of my physical should either stay the same or go down, yet it also increases. 

Now you may be right about additional providers coming in and offering lower prices but the US prohibits foreign doctors from coming over to the US and practicing unless they first do a residency here.  Do you really thing a British, French, German, Canadian (probably can name many other countries whose medical training is equivalent to the US) doctor is that much inferior that we need to have this requirement in place. Lots of doctors in our area are Indian born and trained though they do residence requirement; why not eliminate that and increase the supply thus lowering the price?

Have you priced a hernia operation recently?  If not, you cannot say whether it is more or less than what it is now.

Finally, a true market relies on transparent pricing and the ability to judge quality of product/service.  I don't think we have either in healthcare right now.  this is not to say it won't evolve to that point but until it does arguing that there is a rational market in healthcare is a fools errand.

[JoeKitchen]

take the automobile industry.  Can you point to any particular model whose price has dropped in the face of a wildly competitive industry that epitomizes the market.  We have owned three Honda Accords and three Honda CR-Vs over the years and each time we buy a new car it is more expensive than the one it replaced and the increase is more the inflation.  I am pathological about keeping receipts for lots of good and services including medical bills (in case we ever have enough expenses for a tax write off).  I have never seen a reduction in doctor's fees and both my wife and I have used the same doctors for a lot of years.  Lab fees should be the first to go down given is is a very competitive industry with lots of providers but they have not.  The price of my EKG as a part of my physical should either stay the same or go down, yet it also increases. 

Now you may be right about additional providers coming in and offering lower prices but the US prohibits foreign doctors from coming over to the US and practicing unless they first do a residency here.  Do you really thing a British, French, German, Canadian (probably can name many other countries whose medical training is equivalent to the US) doctor is that much inferior that we need to have this requirement in place. Lots of doctors in our area are Indian born and trained though they do residence requirement; why not eliminate that and increase the supply thus lowering the price?

Have you priced a hernia operation recently?  If not, you cannot say whether it is more or less than what it is now.

Finally, a true market relies on transparent pricing and the ability to judge quality of product/service.  I don't think we have either in healthcare right now.  this is not to say it won't evolve to that point but until it does arguing that there is a rational market in healthcare is a fools errand.

Once again, you are arguing in fallacies, creating red herrings and straw mans. 

Your example of the prices of cars going up is nothing more than a loosely related example you are providing with the intention of knocking down, hence a straw man.

The price of a single item has nothing to do with the overall economy when looking at all services and products combined.  Nor does it hold any weight in arguing that the price of a different item in a different market, doctor visits, would only go up, especially considering the premise that admin costs would be lowed dramatically.  Your example is then negated even further when you consider all of the products and services that have gone down in price over the short run (in the last couple of decades) and that this is not unique to any one item or industry.  (You only need one counter example to disprove a statement; I have provided many to the premise that prices always go up.) 

Your example of not allowing foreign doctors from coming over is yet again a red herring, bordering on a straw man.  Whether or not foreign doctors can practice in the USA has no meaning to the idea of the possibility of doctor prices coming down due to a cut in admin costs.  Insofar as additional providers, medicine within the USA is a monopolistic competitive market with many providers already whom can raise or lower prices (at there own expense) depending on how costs fluctuate.  Additionally, native citizens are free to open their own businesses or practices, thus adding more businesses to the larger market place already and effecting pricing. 

Sorry, but I feel the need to call out a fallacy when I see one, especially since I was trained so thoroughly in college and grad school to spot and avoid writing them in mathematical proofs. 

With this being said, I do agree that there is a lack of transparency in the health care market that distorts the market. 

[Craig Lamson]

You display a woeful lack of knowledge about civil service employment protections.  As much as you would like this to be a reality television show, it is not.  It's serious business running a country and I don't think that has registered with Mr. Itch Twitter Fingers.

Are you telling me he can't fire the head of the National Park Service?   You do understand, don't you, that you don't always need to fire the little guys to get the job done.  Yes it is serious business and finally after a disasterious 8 years we have a real leader in charge.  I'm really sorry that does not meet your desires. 

[Craig Lamson]

take the automobile industry.  Can you point to any particular model whose price has dropped in the face of a wildly competitive industry that epitomizes the market.  We have owned three Honda Accords and three Honda CR-Vs over the years and each time we buy a new car it is more expensive than the one it replaced and the increase is more the inflation.  I am pathological about keeping receipts for lots of good and services including medical bills (in case we ever have enough expenses for a tax write off).  I have never seen a reduction in doctor's fees and both my wife and I have used the same doctors for a lot of years.  Lab fees should be the first to go down given is is a very competitive industry with lots of providers but they have not.  The price of my EKG as a part of my physical should either stay the same or go down, yet it also increases. 

Now you may be right about additional providers coming in and offering lower prices but the US prohibits foreign doctors from coming over to the US and practicing unless they first do a residency here.  Do you really thing a British, French, German, Canadian (probably can name many other countries whose medical training is equivalent to the US) doctor is that much inferior that we need to have this requirement in place. Lots of doctors in our area are Indian born and trained though they do residence requirement; why not eliminate that and increase the supply thus lowering the price?

Have you priced a hernia operation recently?  If not, you cannot say whether it is more or less than what it is now.

Finally, a true market relies on transparent pricing and the ability to judge quality of product/service.  I don't think we have either in healthcare right now.  this is not to say it won't evolve to that point but until it does arguing that there is a rational market in healthcare is a fools errand.

You need better Dr's and other medical service providers.  Or learn to negotiate better. My primary physician offered me a discount if I paid cash and did not file with insurance.  This was pre Obamacare.  The lab I use still offers me a discount for cash with no insurance filling. And they are roughly 70% cheaper that the lab in the medical center that is hospital affiliated.  All of this adds up since I have a high deductible policy and I pay out of pocket.  My dentist is willing to negotiate prices if there is no insurance and i pay cash.  Heck even the hospital we use offers a cash payment discount if you have not met your deductible. The last time we had a hospital visit they offered 10%, I countered with 20% and they took it.

Cash only providers are opening all over the country.  Pricing is far less that insurance based services.  If a person decides to put some skin in the game it is possible to do much better than insurance based pricing.  I believe this trend will continue.

https://www.google.com/search?q=cash+only+medical+practices+and+surgical+centers&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&hl=en-us&client=safari

[kers]

Are you telling me he can't fire the head of the National Park Service?   You do understand, don't you, that you don't always need to fire the little guys to get the job done.  Yes it is serious business and finally after a disasterious 8 years we have a real leader in charge.  I'm really sorry that does not meet your desires.

I think you forgot that when Barack Obama came in charge, it was exactly the deepest point of the financial crises, the deepest after 1929...
That problem had been brought to the US by the 8 years leadership before him; the Bush-es administrations of which the last one started an absurd expensive war with many casualties in Irak -  without any good reason.
( Weapons of Mass destruction......)
It was Barack Obama that managed to turn the downward economic spiral and he saved the Detroit car industry by investments (TAX! payed by you).
Also he managed to put down the enormous unemployment. Yes that took 8 years.
Maybe for you personally it did not turn out the best, but in many ways he saved the country as a whole.
His biggest personal accomplishment was the so called Obamacare;
He decided that a -so called wealthy country- ( the best in the world?) would need to be able to give all its citizens -also the poorest ones - some basic medical care.
(That is common thing in most part of Europe and even in Cuba.)
Because he lost his majority in the Senate and the House of Congress, the Republicans killed every proposal he made ( no matter the contains- that is a basic problem in the US political system, i think)
I think Obama was one of the most intelligent and social minded presidents you have ever had. He showed respect to every human being. He is very much respected around the world.

Unlike you 'Real Leader'

Mr Trump ' does not seem to respect:

Women in general
scientists ( when the outcome of the investigation was not what he had in mind)
Independent journalists ( When they are critical to his policy, especially when they are women or disabled)
islamic people
Mexico/ Mexicans
China
Indians, that do not want an oil pipeline through their holy soil.
...
In fact you could ask yourself who he respects ... apart from mr Trump...
I honestly think that he only respects the people that voted for him for their vote, and that is history.

[JoeKitchen]

I think you forgot that when Barack Obama came in charge, it was exactly the deepest point of the financial crises, the deepest after 1929...
That problem had been brought to the US by the 8 years leadership before him; the Bush-es administrations of which the last one started an absurd expensive war with many casualties in Irak -  without any good reason.

Come on now, really?  Brush up on your recent history and stop making red herrings. 

No, the crisis was caused by a collapse in the housing market and nothing to do with the War (your red herring).  Now, as for the cause of the collapse, we can look at the Bill Clinton administration, since he repealed Glass-Stegal (something I do agree with) and he opened to the door to more risking mortgage lending by lowering the qualifying thresholds of Franny & Freddy and agreed to allow the government to back any mortgages.  G. Bush merely continued this trend, something that I am disappointed in since he claimed to be a conservative.

Since the government now backed all mortgages, it was no longer unsafe to lend to risking individuals, so the banks followed suit, did what made sense and what they were told to do. 


It was Barack Obama that managed to turn the downward economic spiral and he saved the Detroit car industry by investments (TAX! payed by you).

Who is to say that if the car companies went to bankruptcy court they would not have turned out better and more efficient?  And if they did go, the industry would not have been lost, but bought by other investors with lower debts and a more efficient debt to revenue ratio. 

Also he managed to put down the enormous unemployment. Yes that took 8 years.

This is misleading.  The USA needs to create at least 150K jobs per month to keep up with population growth, and the average of the job numbers over the last 8 years is not more then 150K.  This means unemployment came down due to people dropping out of the work force not being hired. 

In addition to this, if you look at history, we still have the lowest labor participation rate since the great depression, highest amount of Americans on food stamps, average wages are much lower (due to lower paid jobs being created) and the average family income is almost $10K less now then when he took office.  Not a great record.  Even the DNC, through email hacks, was discovered to be talking to Obama about his lack-luster economic performance and how it could effect the election. 

Not to mention, Dodd-Frank, a bill he signed, has caused there to be no new banking institutions to be created, the first time in USA history.  Although proving a direct connection is impossible economically, this is the first time it has ever happened in American history, and that period of no growth started right after the bill went into effect.  This is causing big banks to become only bigger and clamped down on business funding, a much needed fuel for growth. 

Maybe for you personally it did not turn out the best, but in many ways he saved the country as a whole.

No president, or elected official for that matter, would have set ideally by while the economy was imploding, so giving him credit for doing something is nonsense.  Instead, we need to look at the end results, and, from what I listed above, they are lack luster and no reason to celebrate. 

His biggest personal accomplishment was the so called Obamacare;
He decided that a -so called wealthy country- ( the best in the world?) would need to be able to give all its citizens -also the poorest ones - some basic medical care.
(That is common thing in most part of Europe and even in Cuba.)

Although the idea was noble, the ACA is imploding.  Everyone agrees on this, even liberal economists when pressed; they disagree on the solution.

On top of that, I would not use Cuba as an example.  The average Cuban in the 50s was healthy then today, and infant mortality rates were much lower then too. 

Because he lost his majority in the Senate and the House of Congress, the Republicans killed every proposal he made ( no matter the contains- that is a basic problem in the US political system, i think)

Leadership stems from the top, and he was horrible at being a leader.  Compare Obama to Bill Clinton.  Both started off with a majority in the congress, both lost that within two years to a very combative opposition party.  Both had shut downs and such.  However, Bill Clinton was able to rise above, find compromise, and ultimately get a good deal of his agenda through.  Obama could not; he is a failure compared to Clinton. 

On top of this, he has overseen the greatest amount of losses for his party out of any modern US president. 

I think Obama was one of the most intelligent and social minded presidents you have ever had. He showed respect to every human being. He is very much respected around the world.

This does not and has never guaranteed economic success on both a micro and macro level, although the qualities are a plus to have. 

Think of the happiest and nicest person you have ever worked with.  If he was a poor performer and inept, would that really save his job? 

[Craig Lamson]

I think you forgot that when Barack Obama came in charge, it was exactly the deepest point of the financial crises, the deepest after 1929...
That problem had been brought to the US by the 8 years leadership before him; the Bush-es administrations of which the last one started an absurd expensive war with many casualties in Irak -  without any good reason.
( Weapons of Mass destruction......)
It was Barack Obama that managed to turn the downward economic spiral and he saved the Detroit car industry by investments (TAX! payed by you).
Also he managed to put down the enormous unemployment. Yes that took 8 years.
Maybe for you personally it did not turn out the best, but in many ways he saved the country as a whole.
His biggest personal accomplishment was the so called Obamacare;
He decided that a -so called wealthy country- ( the best in the world?) would need to be able to give all its citizens -also the poorest ones - some basic medical care.
(That is common thing in most part of Europe and even in Cuba.)
Because he lost his majority in the Senate and the House of Congress, the Republicans killed every proposal he made ( no matter the contains- that is a basic problem in the US political system, i think)
I think Obama was one of the most intelligent and social minded presidents you have ever had. He showed respect to every human being. He is very much respected around the world.

Unlike you 'Real Leader'

Mr Trump ' does not seem to respect:

Women in general
scientists ( when the outcome of the investigation was not what he had in mind)
Independent journalists ( When they are critical to his policy, especially when they are women or disabled)
islamic people
Mexico/ Mexicans
China
Indians, that do not want an oil pipeline through their holy soil.
...
In fact you could ask yourself who he respects ... apart from mr Trump...
I honestly think that he only respects the people that voted for him for their vote, and that is history.

Too bad you lived this from somewhere else besides here in the US because you have a really bad grasp of history.  To understand the crash of 08 you need to research the community reinvestment act.  This massive load of crap started in 1977 and passed through a bunch of presidents. I'll also remind you that the bulk of the world supported the claim that Iraq had WMDs including Bill Clinton. Now we can debate the Iraq war, which is really easy to do in hindsight, but I'll also remind you that terrorist had recently destroyed the Twin Towers in New York.

You will also be wise to check out the results of Obamas record of creating jobs.  Just recently a member of his staff finally admitted that the bulk of the jobs created were very low paying part time jobs.  You should also note that the number of working age adults who were no longer in the job market and looking for work rose to an all time high of 94 million workers. Another interesting fact about this so called Obama recovery is the fact that a record number of Americana are now on public assistance.  It's amazing how many people are willing to take disability or other forms of assistance rather than working.  And let's not forget Obamas 8 trillion addition to the US national debt.  It would have been much worse had the Republicans not instituted sequestration. 

Detroit....instead of letting GM proceed with a standard bankruptcy, Obama turned basic bankruptcy rules and trashed the bond holders, who had the right to first money out, and instead gave the union the money instead.  Gotta pay for those union voters to keep him in office you know.  In the process he stiffed many investors and pension funds including many States.  Then to add insult to injury Obama sold the Governments shares of GM stock for a tidy 10 BILLION loss.  And let's remember Ford did not need Government help, nor did Toyota, BMW, KIA, MB, Honda, Subaru or any of the other car companies making cars in the USA.  So did Obama really save the auto industry?  Nope.  And he hurt a lot of people in the process.

Obamacare...that horse has been beaten to death and it's a really bad program.  That's why 51 percent of Americans want it gone (rcp Ave)

The division of power is a feature of our republic, not a bug.  Obama had complete control of the executive and legistrative branches for two years.  That's how Obamacare got passed. Then he had a divided congress and thankfully it kept the lawmaking to a minimum.  That's the feature. Gridlock keeps a check on a government gone wild.  Now Trump,has the same complete control for the next two years...not quite as complete as Obama with a 60 vote Senate, but rest assured the Dems will be whining to high Heaven.

I'm happy for you that you hold such a high opinion of Obama.  I don't believe history will judge him kindly.  But let's put a few final points on the Obama legacy.  His approval average over his 8 years in office was 47.9.  Lower than Clinton, GWB and even Richard Nixon.  In fact only three presidents had lower ratings since this survey started in 1945...Ford at 47.2, Carter at 45.4 and Truman at 45.4

Let's also not forget that Obama to the biggest defeat of the Democratic Party in local, state and Federal elections.  Democrats are down to 192 members of Congress. Under President Obama, Democrats have lost 900+ state legislature seats, 12 governors, 69 House seats, 13 Senate seats.  Quite the record

As for Trump.  Not my first choice and I did not vote for the Pope or Jesus.  But the guy gets things done, insults the right people, works tirelessly and I fully believe he will re-energize the American business.  His wins in this regard since his election is amazing.  If the rest of the world does not like it, well that's just too bad.

Finally, the crash of 2008 was a huge hit for me.  I had a very nice 10,000sq ft drive through studio and we were very busy with RV, transportation and Marine clients.  All items based on a strong economy, reasonable gas prices and available credit.  Late 2008 ended all of that.  My customers quit buying and unemployment in my work area went to 20%.  But I dusted myself off, reinvented my busness model to fit the state of my industry and we thrived. I'm far more profitable now.  Did Obama help?  Maybe.  But most of it was on me, finding a way to work in the new environment.

It's really easy to sit half a world away and read news accounts that may or may not tell you the whole truth.

[jeremyrh]

If the rest of the world does not like it, well that's just too bad.

Really? Is this really what you call a "leader"? The pussy grabber? The torturer? The islamophobe? The mocker of the disabled? The climate destroyer?
Wow. Just, wow.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-says-torture-works-backs-waterboarding-and-much-worse/2016/02/17/4c9277be-d59c-11e5-b195-2e29a4e13425_story.html?utm_term=.20ebac3a5502

[Alan Goldhammer]

Are you telling me he can't fire the head of the National Park Service?   You do understand, don't you, that you don't always need to fire the little guys to get the job done.  Yes it is serious business and finally after a disasterious 8 years we have a real leader in charge.  I'm really sorry that does not meet your desires.

If he is a civil servant he cannot fire him but must go through administrative procedures which make it very difficult unless there is gross malfeasance.  People can always be reassigned to other positions within the organization but this is quite different from a firing.

[Alan Goldhammer]

Once again, you are arguing in fallacies, creating red herrings and straw mans. 

Your example of the prices of cars going up is nothing more than a loosely related example you are providing with the intention of knocking down, hence a straw man.

Automobiles are but one example and numerous others could be cited just as there are some products that have come down in price (semiconductors).  It's not a straw man but one example.  Within healthcare there is ample statistical history of consistent increases in prices.  I spent my career in the pharmaceutical industry and the rise in prices was always consistent and higher than the rate of inflation.

The price of a single item has nothing to do with the overall economy when looking at all services and products combined.  Nor does it hold any weight in arguing that the price of a different item in a different market, doctor visits, would only go up, especially considering the premise that admin costs would be lowed dramatically.  Your example is then negated even further when you consider all of the products and services that have gone down in price over the short run (in the last couple of decades) and that this is not unique to any one item or industry.  (You only need one counter example to disprove a statement; I have provided many to the premise that prices always go up.) 

Other than generic drugs (and even then it's not always true), can you point to goods and services within the healthcare sector that have constrained or lowered prices?

Your example of not allowing foreign doctors from coming over is yet again a red herring, bordering on a straw man.  Whether or not foreign doctors can practice in the USA has no meaning to the idea of the possibility of doctor prices coming down due to a cut in admin costs.  Insofar as additional providers, medicine within the USA is a monopolistic competitive market with many providers already whom can raise or lower prices (at there own expense) depending on how costs fluctuate.  Additionally, native citizens are free to open their own businesses or practices, thus adding more businesses to the larger market place already and effecting pricing. 

I guess you are arguing that by increasing the supply of doctors, pricing will not be affected.  Doesn't economic theory argue the contrary?  Economist Dean Baker has been arguing the point about arbitrary restrictions on doctors as a key factor in maintaining high prices.

Sorry, but I feel the need to call out a fallacy when I see one, especially since I was trained so thoroughly in college and grad school to spot and avoid writing them in mathematical proofs. 

  Glad to hear this.  I too graduated college and have an advanced degree in a STEM field.

With this being said, I do agree that there is a lack of transparency in the health care market that distorts the market.

Also good to hear and of course you realize that this means that in the absence, market approaches will not work as individuals are hamstrung by a lack of information.

[Alan Goldhammer]

Cash only providers are opening all over the country.  Pricing is far less that insurance based services.  If a person decides to put some skin in the game it is possible to do much better than insurance based pricing.  I believe this trend will continue.

I think this depends on which region of the country you live in.  We too have a number of practices that do not accept insurance assignment and my internist who I have been with for over 30 years is one of them.  He is getting ready to retire in a year of so and I've been looking for another provider.  I contacted a recommended practice and was told that since I was on Medicare they would not accept me.  This practice is fee for service and I asked why they would not accept me if I was willing to pay the fee as per their policy and the reply was only, "we don't accept patients covered by Medicare."  This is not unique in the Washington DC area as I have found out and has been confirmed by many others.  Of course, one can spend a lot of time making calls to try to find the best value but in an area as big as the one I live in it would take an inordinate amount of time.  It's not like most other areas where you can go on the Internet and get pricing information fairly quickly.  The more important point, is that although there is a huge amount of choice where I live there is very little information on quality.

[JoeKitchen]

Automobiles are but one example and numerous others could be cited just as there are some products that have come down in price (semiconductors).  It's not a straw man but one example. 

You're using the example of automobile pricing going up to imply that the pricing of health care services will also go up.  It is a loosely related example which you presented because you knew you could knock it done and try to prove your premise that health care pricing would go up regardless.  It's a straw man. 

The two are not related to each other and one does not have an effect on the other.  (Okay, if you take into account that shipping will be effected due to the price increase of vehicles, there may be a relation, but it would be extremely small.)  As I have shown before, pricing fluctuates up and down all of the time, and previous pricing history of any one product does not necessarily imply that the pricing of that product will continue to grow.  Technological advances along with better logistics, including admin costs, can bring down pricing of even the most expensive products. 

Anyway, look at housing.  Much of the mess we are still in, or feeling the after effects of, was due to a decrease in home values, something that had always gone up prior to 2008.  High prices are the solution to high prices, and if a market is allowed to act properly, they will come down.  I think we agree, however, the healthcare market does not currently act properly. 

Within healthcare there is ample statistical history of consistent increases in prices.  I spent my career in the pharmaceutical industry and the rise in prices was always consistent and higher than the rate of inflation.

True, but then again there has always been an increase in the amount of regulations and bureaucracy within medicine as well.  History has shown that increases in regulations and bureaucracy always lead to less suppliers and high prices.  N80 is recommending taking this away, or at least toning it down, so one could infer that prices could come down as well. 

Other than generic drugs (and even then it's not always true), can you point to goods and services within the healthcare sector that have constrained or lowered prices?

Lasik eye surgery, a largely unregulated service compared to other healthcare service, has come down substantially in price.  Once again, you only need to provide one counter example to disprove a statement. 

I guess you are arguing that by increasing the supply of doctors, pricing will not be affected.  Doesn't economic theory argue the contrary?  Economist Dean Baker has been arguing the point about arbitrary restrictions on doctors as a key factor in maintaining high prices.

Not what I was implying.  I was implying that increasing the supply of doctor would lower pricing.  I felt that you were implying the only way to do this would be to allow foreign doctors to practice in the USA, which is currently not allowed.  I was merely pointing out that, once again, this is a straw man argument since that would have nothing to due with lowering pricing through lower admin costs and/or more native doctors opening practices.  Not sure if this is what you meant, but if not, why bring up foreign doctor restrictions. 

Insofar as the restrictions on doctors, I agree here too.  Milton Friedman made the same point years ago as well. 

  Glad to hear this.  I too graduated college and have an advanced degree in a STEM field.

Also good to hear and of course you realize that this means that in the absence, market approaches will not work as individuals are hamstrung by a lack of information.

Yes, I do agree, and more information would help.  However, I feel we should move in a direction where consumers become more aware of the pricing.  Allowing government to become even more involved in medicine will only obscure the pricing further. 

I am not sure if the Republicans will move in this direction either since their plan seem to be reliant on (fall back to) insurance making decisions and negotiating with doctors directly, which will continue to obscure pricing. 

[Alan Goldhammer]

Too bad you lived this from somewhere else besides here in the US because you have a really bad grasp of history.  To understand the crash of 08 you need to research the community reinvestment act.  This massive load of crap started in 1977 and passed through a bunch of presidents.

Other than Peter Wallinson at AEI who is delusional on this point, numerous experts on the housing industry have totally debunked this viewpoint.  The Calculated Risk blog was writing in 2005 as was Dean Baker of CEPR about the horrible mortgage practices by the private sector (IndyMac, Countrywide, Wachovia, and a bunch of others) that granted NINJA mortgages.  Also complicit were some of the big investment banks that were creating tranche mortgages that were almost impossible to rate yet Moodys and others gave these AAA ratings (at the same time there were just six US corporations that had AAA ratings).  AIG., Lehman, and some others got in big trouble underwriting swap insurance against these bonds which forced them into liquidation or in need of a bailout.  The Community Reinvestment Act and FannieMae and and Freddie Mac maybe contributed a very small amount but in no way the majority.

And let's not forget Obamas 8 trillion addition to the US national debt.  It would have been much worse had the Republicans not instituted sequestration. 

Detroit....instead of letting GM proceed with a standard bankruptcy, Obama turned basic bankruptcy rules and trashed the bond holders, who had the right to first money out, and instead gave the union the money instead.  Gotta pay for those union voters to keep him in office you know.  In the process he stiffed many investors and pension funds including many States.  Then to add insult to injury Obama sold the Governments shares of GM stock for a tidy 10 BILLION loss.  And let's remember Ford did not need Government help, nor did Toyota, BMW, KIA, MB, Honda, Subaru or any of the other car companies making cars in the USA.  So did Obama really save the auto industry?  Nope.  And he hurt a lot of people in the process.

The increase in the national debt is a phony issue and has been consistently debunked.  Had the auto industry not been bailed out, countless companies that supply parts would have gone under and all of the other car companies would have been at risk of failing as well.  This was well documented at the time GM and Chrysler were bailed out.  Of course we could have chosen to not do this and not engage in deficit spending (the appropriate Keynesian response) and found this country in a major depression.  The reason the Federal Reserve has had to act the way they did in terms of low interest rates and buying securities is that Congress refused to do the right thing from an economic perspective.  I'm sure you also advocate austerity in terms of Federal spending.  Have you seen how well that has worked in other countries that have employed it?  Why do you think the US has fared much better than the rest of the world?

Finally, the crash of 2008 was a huge hit for me.  I had a very nice 10,000sq ft drive through studio and we were very busy with RV, transportation and Marine clients.  All items based on a strong economy, reasonable gas prices and available credit.  Late 2008 ended all of that.  My customers quit buying and unemployment in my work area went to 20%.  But I dusted myself off, reinvented my busness model to fit the state of my industry and we thrived. I'm far more profitable now.  Did Obama help?  Maybe.  But most of it was on me, finding a way to work in the new environment.

I'm glad it worked out well for you in the end.  It also worked out fabulously for me as well for reasons I need not belabor other than I realized the what was going to happen in late 2007 and capitalized on that (though not to the same effect as the players in "The Big Short").

It's really easy to sit half a world away and read news accounts that may or may not tell you the whole truth.

I'm not a half world away and I spend two hours a day reading economic forecasts and corporate filings.  As long as President Trump does not zero out the SEC I'll continue to have some faith in corporate filings.

[Alan Goldhammer]

@JoeKitchen - I can't respond to your posts as they are not formatted correctly.  However, you are just plain wrong about this statement:  "Anyway, look at housing.  Much of the mess we are still in, or feeling the after effects of, was due to a decrease in home values, something that had always gone up prior to 2008. "

Robert Shiller, an econmomist and Nobel Laureate, has published extensively on this topic and also was the co-founder of the Case/Shiller price index.  His book, "Irrational Exuberance" totally debunks that statement.

[JoeKitchen]

@JoeKitchen - I can't respond to your posts as they are not formatted correctly.  However, you are just plain wrong about this statement:  "Anyway, look at housing.  Much of the mess we are still in, or feeling the after effects of, was due to a decrease in home values, something that had always gone up prior to 2008. "

Robert Shiller, an econmomist and Nobel Laureate, has published extensively on this topic and also was the co-founder of the Case/Shiller price index.  His book, "Irrational Exuberance" totally debunks that statement.

I am sick and not in the mode to learn how to actually format my response correctly, sorry. 

I am familiar with the Case/Shiller indexed Robert Shiller and maybe I was being too broad.  It is true that housing has not really changed in price throughout the years, if you take into account inflation.  However, it is still true that the house crisis was caused by deflation in the housing market, something that had not occurred in recent memory of working bankers. 

[Craig Lamson]

If the rest of the world does not like it, well that's just too bad.

Really? Is this really what you call a "leader"? The pussy grabber? The torturer? The islamophobe? The mocker of the disabled? The climate destroyer?
Wow. Just, wow.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-says-torture-works-backs-waterboarding-and-much-worse/2016/02/17/4c9277be-d59c-11e5-b195-2e29a4e13425_story.html?utm_term=.20ebac3a5502

You are the perfect example of why I think Trump is perfect for the times.  Heck you are really clueless.  But thanks for playing.  Btw, perhaps you should consider some other news sources than the -Washington Post.  Let me guide you away from one of your falsehoods...

http://www.investors.com/politics/commentary/fake-news-trump-did-not-mock-disabled-reporter-and-other-lies-from-the-left/

Like a few other of your posts you believe fake news because it fits your worldview.

[Craig Lamson]

Other than Peter Wallinson at AEI who is delusional on this point, numerous experts on the housing industry have totally debunked this viewpoint.  The Calculated Risk blog was writing in 2005 as was Dean Baker of CEPR about the horrible mortgage practices by the private sector (IndyMac, Countrywide, Wachovia, and a bunch of others) that granted NINJA mortgages.  Also complicit were some of the big investment banks that were creating tranche mortgages that were almost impossible to rate yet Moodys and others gave these AAA ratings (at the same time there were just six US corporations that had AAA ratings).  AIG., Lehman, and some others got in big trouble underwriting swap insurance against these bonds which forced them into liquidation or in need of a bailout.  The Community Reinvestment Act and FannieMae and and Freddie Mac maybe contributed a very small amount but in no way the majority.
The increase in the national debt is a phony issue and has been consistently debunked.  Had the auto industry not been bailed out, countless companies that supply parts would have gone under and all of the other car companies would have been at risk of failing as well.  This was well documented at the time GM and Chrysler were bailed out.  Of course we could have chosen to not do this and not engage in deficit spending (the appropriate Keynesian response) and found this country in a major depression.  The reason the Federal Reserve has had to act the way they did in terms of low interest rates and buying securities is that Congress refused to do the right thing from an economic perspective.  I'm sure you also advocate austerity in terms of Federal spending.  Have you seen how well that has worked in other countries that have employed it?  Why do you think the US has fared much better than the rest of the world?
I'm glad it worked out well for you in the end.  It also worked out fabulously for me as well for reasons I need not belabor other than I realized the what was going to happen in late 2007 and capitalized on that (though not to the same effect as the players in "The Big Short").
I'm not a half world away and I spend two hours a day reading economic forecasts and corporate filings.  As long as President Trump does not zero out the SEC I'll continue to have some faith in corporate filings.

I'm sorry, but the root of this problem lies directly with the community investment act.  Did the bankers, ratings houses and others have a part, sure, but the ball started rolling with the CRA.  Who pressured the banks to start writing loans they never would have written?  CRA.   This is what happens when the a government tries to play God. Gotta love the law of unintended consequences.

And again, the AUTO INDUSTRY did not get bailed out .  GM did. Chrysler to a much smaller extent.  And it was done very badly.  Quite frankly you have no idea if GM had done a regular bankruptcy if it would have killed  the supplier industry. I don't either.  But the undisputed fact remains that in at least GM's case this was a massive payout to the unions, while screwing the bond holders.  I think GM would have fared much better with a regular bankruptcy.  Of course that's my opinion and I'm not one of your vaunted "experts".  I  have family that owns a major, multi state supply company to the industry.  Needless to say their business had more clients  than just GM.  And they survived and prospered, and in fact grew as they acquired other companies that faltered.   That's how it works in real life.  No,need for the government to decide the winners and the losers.  The marketplace did just fine.

The increase of the national debt is a phony issue? Well, Alan, you have just destroyed any shrewd of credibility you may have had. So we have fared better than the rest of the world because we continue to rack up massive debt that we can never repay? That's your position?   Let me ask you, could you live your personal life like that?  What happens when the tap gets turned off and the hand is out asking for the money back?   Reasonable debt, and debt that gets repaid is one thing.  Consistently overspending year after year with no means to pay more than interest alone is a death sentence. Yes, austerity is a good thing.  In fact it's a virtue. It's one thing for a business or family to go bankrupt.  It's quite another for a country.  This will not end well unless we as a country learn to live within our means.