The Hope and Change of rationing and tax increases
April 7, 2010
New York Times: You know what we need to fix health care? Death panels.
How can we learn to say no?
The federal government is now starting to build the institutions that will try to reduce the soaring growth of health care costs. There will be a group to compare the effectiveness of different treatments, a so-called Medicare innovation center and a Medicare oversight board that can set payment rates.
But all these groups will face the same basic problem. Deep down, Americans tend to believe that more care is better care. We recoil from efforts to restrict care.
-
This try-anything-and-everything instinct is ingrained in our culture, and it has some big benefits. But it also has big downsides, including the side effects and risks that come with unnecessary treatment. Consider that a recent study found that 15,000 people were projected to die eventually from the radiation they received from CT scans given in just a single year — and that there was “significant overuse” of such scans.From an economic perspective, health reform will fail if we can’t sometimes push back against the try-anything instinct. The new agencies will be hounded by accusations of rationing, and Medicare’s long-term budget deficit will grow.
So figuring out how we can say no may be the single toughest and most important task facing the people who will be in charge of carrying out reform. “Being able to say no,” Dr. Alan Garber of Stanford says, “is the heart of the issue.”
What goes good with rationed health care? Why, massive tax increases of course.
The United States should consider raising taxes to help bring deficits under control and may need to consider a European-style value-added tax, White House adviser Paul Volcker said on Tuesday.
Volcker, answering a question from the audience at a New York Historical Society event, said the value-added tax “was not as toxic an idea” as it has been in the past and also said a carbon or other energy-related tax may become necessary.
slaphappypap :
Date: April 7, 2010
Sarah Palin is starting to become a prophet.
Air Force Brat :
Date: April 7, 2010
These D.C. assholes should start doing some reading about the fall of the Bastille.
The boil is getting ready to either be lanced or explode.
sortahwitte :
Date: April 7, 2010
If you haven’t clicked on “death panels” below the cartoon, you had better. These people are darwinists, planned parenthood, abortionists, and holocaust initiators all rolled into one slimy package.
ODA551 :
Date: April 7, 2010
Speaking of tax increases, this article from the American Thinker really crunches the numbers to show how the taxes will impact government revenue.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/04/laff_it_up_tax_lovers.html
James :
Date: April 7, 2010
ODA, that’s a remarkable article.
I didn’t know U.S. overspending was that severe. Revenues pay for only 61% of current spending!
It’s very funny that maximum gradient of the iso-revenue curves is parallel to the labor tax axis.
Ha, ha! That’ll teach unions for spending it up!
Locke n Load :
Date: April 7, 2010
James, you didn’t think the employment projections were even funnier? My GOD, they’re calculating expenditures and revenues based on 5% unemployment in THREE YEARS.
Well shit, if things are THAT rosy I better jump on a few hundred of those foreclosed properties and sell all my gold (ok, if I had any), double down on my longs in the stock markets, and prepare for happy happy days ahead. I mean shit, what ARE we all worried about?
Locke n Load :
Date: April 7, 2010
RD, James, and ODA551, have a look at tables 1-1 and 1-2 for more side splitting hilarity. The CBO must have a liquor cabinet the size of my GARAGE to put all this together without crapping their pants in shame. It must be brutal to have to project such nonsense and NOT be allowed to forecast using common sense.
Locke n Load :
Date: April 7, 2010
One last thing for you uber-geeks regarding the Laffer Curve. Am I mistaken in my assumption that it’s main conceit is it’s a snapshot in time analysis and doesn’t/can’t actually account for disincentives produced by people projecting their fortunes forward? I know damn well I make income decisions based on tax penalties. How does the Laffer curve account for this unpredictablity or is it not actually supposed to be a forcast tool?
And James?
“It’s very funny that maximum gradient of the iso-revenue curves is parallel to the labor tax axis. Ha, ha! That’ll teach unions for spending it up” is hands down, beyond a doubt, the single GEEKIEST thing I have EVER read in here. You deserve some sort of award. Classic. I am humbled in your presence
Nobody :
Date: April 7, 2010
Correct me if I’m wrong, and I probably am, but it has always seemed to me that, at least the way the Laffer curve is usually calculated or portrayed, it is biased towards higher taxes and away from “disincentive to earn” relative to the way our tax code is structured here in the real-world USA. By this, I mean that it seems to assume a “flat tax” or “Fair tax” or something similar exists, in which the only way to reduce your tax burden to zero is to stop working entirely, theonly way to reduce it by half is to work half as much. Since our current tiered tax system has a fairly large band of very low or no taxation below a certain level of income, and that level of income is quite livable, which about half the population is apparently already taking advantage of, it seems that nearly everyone in the “ideal” 60% labor-tax range would cut their labor output back severely until they were in the low-to-no-tax income band, thus peak tax revenue would be far to the left of where it is shown. In other words, we really are already on the right hand side of the curve. The only way around this would be to tax “The poor” with that same 60% tax, and we know there is no political stomach for that.
Locke n Load :
Date: April 8, 2010
Thats a good point Nobody. As I understand the Laffer there is no accounting for the progressive taxation disincentives. Then again I haven’t actually spent several semesters in econ, just worked in the Commodity biz trading and doing technical and fundamental analysis. I’m sure there are folks who do take that into account…somehow. RD? Enlighten us with your Econ degree here. What are the fundamental assumptions/givens here? Is there a larger more cmplex equation that would settle this? It seems to me the snapshot effect of the curve reflects exactly what Nobody and I are bitching about.
James :
Date: April 8, 2010
If you believe the stats that the bottom 50% pay 3% of total revenues, there’s no place but taxes to go up for that group. Deductions will be taken away or lowered. Inflation will index this group into the tax band, even with no other action.
Once the socialist medical system is in place, the sinister goal will be accomplished, and those people’s votes won’t matter much anymore.
Nobody :
Date: April 8, 2010
Or pass the VAT, along with additional taxes on capital investment, and that way, spend or save, rich or poor, you have no choice but to pay, pay, pay!
Added bonus: As the price of everything the sheep buy spikes sharply due to the VAT, you can tell the sheep that it’s all due to “evil greedy corporations” gouging them. It’s like propaganda icing on top of a cake made of tax money. Yum!
James :
Date: April 8, 2010
Ironically, taxing creates spending.
These people only change behavior when there’s an absolute hard limit.
There is no discipline.