This is run75441's Typepad Profile.
Join Typepad and start following run75441's activity
Join Now!
Already a member? Sign In
run75441
Where Hell is Today . . . Michigan
Just a LSS Manufacturing and throughput Guru
Interests: reading, writing, arithematic, "wing chun do," runner,
Recent Activity
Index funds appear to be doing well.
Toggle Commented Aug 21, 2015 on Links for 08-20-15 at Economist's View
1 reply
E: No real surprise as you would pay the Pharma version of the Hospital Charge Master Rates for meds. Healthcare Insurance does gain one the lower and negotiated costs. It would be nice if Congress would let Medicare negotiate for Pharma, Hospital Supplies, Hospital, and Doctor rates. This would be a boon for all; but, this I am sure you already know..
Toggle Commented Aug 21, 2015 on Links for 08-20-15 at Economist's View
1 reply
Century of declining Participation Rate? Maybe last 30 years dependent upon how you look at it and with a greater decline trend since 2001. The inequity arrives from the skewing of productivity gains from Labor to Capital. It also arises from hours worked therebt eliminating the need of other Labor. Disability roll increases arise from the lack of jobs. Then too, why invest in Labor Investments when greater profits can be made from investing in Capital not requiring Labor?
Toggle Commented Sep 29, 2013 on 'Rage of the Privileged' at Economist's View
1 reply
Edward: I believe I have read you over at Economist's View. Maybe a different Lambert?. In any case you may a strong case for labor and its share of income. Relatively easy to read and understand also.
Dan: 1st paragraph: absolutely correct. 2nd Paragraph: Since ~50% of the stocks are held by the 1% and is their income, allow the capital gains to be subject to SS withholding. Do not remove the cap. 3rd Paragraph: Allow Medicare like Medicaid to negotiate services and product with suppliers. Obama is supposedly supposed to allow Medicare to do this. If so, costs will decrease.
Toggle Commented Mar 7, 2013 on 'The War On Entitlements' at Economist's View
1 reply
You really need to look at who is being imprisoned and understand whether they are violent or nonviolent. the prison population could easily be reduced by changing the sentencing and parole guidelines. "1 in 4 drug offenders are more likely to be imprisoned rather than placed on probation or released earlier on parole. The increase for drug offenders is up from 1 in 10 in 1980." http://www.angrybearblog.com/2010/08/one-in-31-adults.html "One in 31 Adults" "increased harsher sentencing guidelines has resulted in as little reduction of 2% in crime with an increase of 10% in incarceration. Played out in the harsher sentencing guidelines are costs of ~$75 billion in 2008 up from under $20 billion in 1980 with 60% being borne by state and local governments." Add to this recidivism of paroled prisoners being returned to prison for mostly minor violations. There is much which can be done to lower the prison population.
1 reply
Fred: In answer to WP, look for yourself. http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/numbers/displayatab.cfm?DocID=3485&topic2ID=40&topic3ID=41&DocTypeID=1
1 reply
Paine: Rubin? I would suggest it was Clinton's pact with the devil . . . Greenspan which made that economy tick then.
1 reply
Return: I would want to hear a better explanation for the death of an insurance plan due the PPACA also. If anything the PPACA did nothing for healthcare insurance companies as it imposed a ratio of administrative costs to costs directly for insuree care. Within that MLR is another ratio based upon the lowest cost insuree which specifies how much can be charged the elderly and smokers (they get off surprisely cheap). I would attack the pharma part before I would insurance, they did well. Obama did pledge to turn Medicare loose on the healthcare industry in 2013 though. Till the PPACA it was whatever the market will bear economy eliminating a large percentage of the young, the poor, and those not elgible for Medicare or Disability.
1 reply
Ed: You dance around the issue. Investments in Labor Intensive Investments (redundant alert) combining Capital with Labor is thinking of future generations. Wall Street and TBTF have been able to reap profits solely from Capital minus Labor. The Financial Services sector has grown immensely as a result and their profits are a larger percentage of GDP.
1 reply
darrell: No you can not sustain a cutting of direct labor wages as t still remains the smallest cost in the Cost of Manufacturing. It is the Overhead and the Material cost which are the greater costs. Labor cost cuts are a bandaid.
1 reply
Mark: You answered well to this manufacturing person and sometime guru. The deficit is due to other things besides Labor and its direct cost to manufacturing. Whacking Labor gets us nowhere.
1 reply
Don: I happen to agree with most of what you say about Germany. Its sales are based in the EU. They have much to lose without PIIGS. Germany gains more by being a part of the EU. Euros to dollars as it is cheaper to manufacture in the US. The same holds true for its's southern neighbors. This should be interesting as Germany shoots itself in the foot and claims injury as a reult.
1 reply
Mark: Is it really cometitiveness or is it productivity and the passage of gains to Labor? If productivity have increased to the same level as the 40 hour week, then a gain was had. I suspect such was the case. What is cost of Labor? Is this burdened labor with all the capital and other costs on top of it or is this direct labor which is the true throughput of making a component/product? I would be interested in knowing what the French product is competing against as it does make a different when analyzing the cost of Labor.
1 reply
DrDick: Good inflation control when one considers a tightening labor pool.
1 reply
And The Fed would disappear as we know it as there would be too little debt to manipulate. Was this not one of Greenspan's fears in 2000 on paying down the deficit and he recommended tax breaks?
1 reply
Hmmmm: From where do the ACA savings and cuts come? - Cuts in the funds going to private commercial (redundant alert to get my point across) insurance companies subsidizing the Advantage Insurance Programs for those Medicare recipients who enroll in these programs. The services are similar to what Medicare provides already. This turned out to be more expensive (117%) than regularly provided Medicare service. - Hospital Reimbursements rates. Better Outcomes for Services performed payments rather than a payment for services provided. It a patient is readmitted due to hospital error or negligence, the hospital sucks it up. This is meant to change the fee for services pricing and marketing healthcare model. Bundling of services provided by hospitals and single payments for treatment. etc. - Cuts to staffing costs and redirection of payments from specialists to primary care doctors. Extra payments for seeing more uninsured patients. This is done over a 10 year period. With the implementation of the ACA, the Medicare TF extended its funding until 2024-2029. This too can change as the economy changes. The money is redirected from expenditures to the TF through cuts. R & R's healthcare plan takes the money and funds tax cuts depleting the Medicare TF as if the ACA never existed. Their plan robs the benefits gained from the ACA the same as the SS surplus was taken for tax cuts 2001/2003 with the Bush tax breaks of which 31% was skewed to 1% of the tapaying households making > $500,000 AGI.
1 reply
"I do not know" is probably the most honest thing you have said here on this thread. Today, hospitals, doctors, and insurance do not eat anything. Main Street is gouging itself on uncovered expenses as it is passed right on to them. Commercial healthcare has failed miserably and it had plenty of time to cure itself since Hillarycare. The entire healthcare industry will do nothing unless it is mandated to do so. You are grasping at extremes.
Toggle Commented Jul 20, 2012 on Medicaid at Economist's View
1 reply
mr: 15-20% of all doctors are a part of the AMA. There stranglehold is not as great as it once was in the past. Service for fee is the present cost model which should be changed to better outcomes for fees and which has an impact on hospitals: - no compensation for patients who must re-enter hospitals due to mistakes. - fewer hospital caused mistakes - bundling of payments - etc.
1 reply
Macrotimer: A doctors pay reduction make work a bit; but remember, the healthcare cost model is services for fees which is driven by the services, procedures, pharma provided by the healthcare industry. To this there is no limit and the SGR does not impact the services. Upstream the comment was made about switching compensation more towards primary and away from specialists. We do need more primary care doctors. The present ACA does provide for this.
1 reply
sherpaick: Distinquish between government expenditures and healthcare industry costs. The former is mostly a reflection of the latter and the former already experiences a lesser inflationary rate when compared to its industry counterparts (medicare versus commercial).
1 reply
adlai: If your point is a switch from service for fees healthcare cost model without regard for outcome to a cost model predicated on better outcomes for fee; then, I would point out Medicare is indeed heading in such a direction and has been for sometime now. This does not take away from the VA model which is outlined nicely in Longman's "Best Care Anywhere." Remember too, healthcare costs are a reflection of the healthcare industry which has had little incentive to providing better outcomes through the quality of care. Congress and the Pres have been shy about controlling such a large industry the same as the Financial Setvices sector
Thank you for the comments.
1 reply