MIT Economists back Obama on Healthcare

MexicanWarlord420

Active Member
A new analysis by a leading MIT economist provides new ammunition for Democrats as the Senate begins formally debating the historic health-reform bill being pushed by President Barack Obama.

The report concludes that under the Senate’s health-reform bill, Americans buying individual coverage will pay less than they do for today's typical individual market coverage, and would be protected from high out-of-pocket costs.

So Democrats will argue that under the Senate bill, Americans would pay less for more.

The new document arms Democrats with a response to the contention of Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) that the bill would mean “higher premiums, higher taxes, and massive cuts to Medicare.”

The “microsimulation” analysis is by Jonathan Gruber, an economist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and a Treasury Department official under President Bill Clinton. Gruber used data from the Congressional Budget Office.

Gruber concludes that people purchasing individual insurance would save an annual $200 (singles) to $500 (families) in 2009 dollars. And people with low incomes would receive premium tax credits that would reduce the price that they pay for health insurance by as much as $2,500 to $7,500.

The report will be circulated to Capitol Hill this week. Read the four-page report here.

Gruber’s conclusion: “[F]or those facing purchase in the non-group market, the … bill will deliver savings ranging from $200 for singles to $500 for families in today’s dollars – even without subsidies. The savings are much larger for lower income populations that receive premium credits.

“This is in addition to the higher quality benefits that those in the exchange will receive, with actuarial values for low income populations well above what is typical in the non-group market today. It is also in addition to all the other benefits that this legislation will deliver to those consumers – in particular the guarantee, unavailable in most states, that prices would not be raised or the policy revoked if they became ill.”

Gruber was among the 23 Ph.D. economists who sent a letter to Obama on Nov. 17 endorsing his approach to health-care reform.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1109/29959.html

the economists 4 page letter to President Obama: http://www.politico.com/static/PPM130_economist_letter_to_the_president.html

Republican's case: http://mcconnell.senate.gov/print_record.cfm?id=320172
 

redivider

Well-Known Member
ouch...

of course conservatives will argue that this is just a "skewed, unacceptable, impossible" simulation. they will argue that the fact that it's a simulation makes it like a video game. that just because when you play grand theft auto, and get a b.j. from a hooker it replenishes your life, it doesn't happen in real life.

i want to see how they attack this one.....

conservatives: let's tango....
 
I

Illegal Smile

Guest
23 PhD Economists, lol. I'm a PhD economist and I can tell you right now those guys don't know their assholes from their elbows. And I would no more give credence to a study from MIT than I would to one from East Anglican University.
 

redivider

Well-Known Member
23 PhD Economists, lol. I'm a PhD economist and I can tell you right now those guys don't know their assholes from their elbows. And I would no more give credence to a study from MIT than I would to one from East Anglican University.
true, since MIT doesn't have any sort of credibility at all in any of it's departments.

i guess that's why the Department of Defense, NASA, Boeing, GE, Rolls-Royce, Airbus, Gulfstream, Cessna, and countless other entities have relied on them for the past decades to provide them with the greatest mathematical minds that walk the earth.....:wall::wall::wall:
 

TheBlazehero

Active Member
what does it matter if you are paying less for healthcare if your taxes go up? and if you think taxes won't go up, you are smoking too much weed. taxes are not just in the form you can see. they also occur every time the Fed prints money. they print a trillion more, that debases the value of the dollars you had already earned, just like a tax. prices gradually rise (more money pumped into economy, generally falls in the hands of the rich first (they get the big loans from the bank). they spend on goods at pre-inflationary prices, demand goes up, prices rise) and low to middle class Americans wonder why their dollar doesn't stretch as far as it used to.

when thinking about economics, it is not useful, and actually dangerous and misleading, to view the solution to one problem as the end effect. there are many 'butterfly effects' of an action like this. this is just dilution of money and redistribution of wealth, problem is the rich and powerful will figure out how to use it to their advantage. in the end, this will expand government, intrude on personal liberty, increase taxes, and devalue the dollar further.

also, i think the Fed is purposely trying to bankrupt the dollar so we can default on our loans and start over with a new reserve, probably in the form of a regional currency. this belief doesn't change the facts of the economics of this healthcare plan. i think it is funny how we are spun so easily as we fight between republican and democrat when they are both really in the same camp. carry on welfare, corporatism, militarism, statism, and elitism you run strong in America.
 

TheBlazehero

Active Member
i can't think of another reason why they keep printing more and more money and why the federal government keeps expanding more and more. i think we are setting ourselves up to default on our loans to china and restart with a new regional or multi-regional currency. either that or the people in charge are just really flipping stupid. if someone can give me an alternate reason, i'd love to not be so paranoid about the future. the only alternative i can think of is that they believe technology can save us by drastically increasing efficiency while lowering costs dramatically in the future. our gdp can not raise fast enough to save us otherwise.
 

redivider

Well-Known Member
i don't knw, maybe because they feel the US can afford to??? the recession is slowing, we are on the path to recovery, why do you still think what they are doing is wrong>???
 

Philo2

Active Member
Well God Damn. Let's just throw out the constitution and suspend all freedoms because an MIT PHD thinks some people will save money.

Any illusions that socialized medicine will save the country money are based on the misguided belief that the federal government will stick to the constraints of a balanced budget. I think any analysis of the governments handling Medicaid and the SHCIP program are documented proof that the government cannot maintain a budget in matters of health care.
 

TheBlazehero

Active Member
hmmm? the deficit keeps growing? you can't spend your way out of a problem you spent your way in to. the 'recovery' is being propped up by printing more money! tax credits for buying homes and cars! loose credit and corporate handouts! expanding military across the globe! wait until the middle of 2010 to middle of 2011, the market will try to correct this illusory wealth again. then what? more printing? wouldn't count on it. we will soon be borrowing money just to pay interest on our loans.

how do you like the recovery now?
http://balancethebudget.com/showBudget.php
 

redivider

Well-Known Member
hmmm? the deficit keeps growing? you can't spend your way out of a problem you spent your way in to. the 'recovery' is being propped up by printing more money! tax credits for buying homes and cars! loose credit and corporate handouts! expanding military across the globe! wait until the middle of 2010 to middle of 2011, the market will try to correct this illusory wealth again. then what? more printing? wouldn't count on it. we will soon be borrowing money just to pay interest on our loans.

how do you like the recovery now?
http://balancethebudget.com/showBudget.php

ok, the central banking system was setup to control money supply. it was setup after the great depression to control the kind of inflation that led to the collapse. the way the fed controls the money is extremely efficient. it is based on a general consensus of what is good for the economy based on the opinions of a group of extremely knowledgeable people. they set the interest rates that control money supply. they lower the interest rate when they determine that more money is needed to keep the economy growing (generally in times of economic recession), when this recovery begins to happen, they raise interest rates to lower money supply, and control inflation, and ensures steady growth. we ran into a recession, the practice is that interest rates are lowered, money floods the system, and gives it a "kick start". then the interest rates are gradually increased, to control inflation, and the cycle begins again.

it's economics, there's always going to be expansion and recession. when the money supply gets out of control, something like the great depression happens. when it is well controlled and managed, the economic cycle happens a lot more smoothly. right now the economy is in a recession, with good decision making a recovery is on its way, just give it time....

but don't assume they want to bankrupt the dollar.... have you ever been bankrupt?? not me, but i know that once you're bankrupt every single business entity looses trust in you... it's not easy to gain that trust back.... i dnt think the FED wants that for the US.... after all, the board members do live here.....
 

TheBlazehero

Active Member
i'm sorry, but i can't continue this discussion with your 'facts.' the federal reserve was set up in 1913....almost 20 years before the great depression.
 

Resin225

Active Member
GRUBER M-FING GRUBER LMFAO ALL DAY LONG. He's the architect of the univ health coverage in mass. Yeah thats running real well. Sigh how both sides look past examples of how shit don't work and just keep chugging along.

Besides the real point of the article is that hospitals have to give away free health care to those who don't take care of themselves, then go to the emergency room at the last minute. ( for the libs, ER's are about 10x more expensive than seeing the doctor before hand). Shit the govt. (WE) spent 10 BILLION, YES BILLION, on illegal aliens health care last year.

Oh and the number are based on 1 trillion dollar cost.(like that will stay the same) . Doesn't include the taxes WE all will pay for medical devices, imposed in the bill. Oh and unless I'm wrong tampons and toothbrushes are considered medical devices.

Read this article and tell me the feds will do a better job http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/16/health/policy/16mass.html

Also be sure to add in all the pork bribes they are giving to buy votes to pass this. $300 billion to LA.

Follow the money people follow the $$$$$$$$
 

redivider

Well-Known Member
i'm sorry, but i can't continue this discussion with your 'facts.' the federal reserve was set up in 1913....almost 20 years before the great depression.
ok, should've stated: the federal reserve as it exists today was set up...

Over time, the roles and responsibilities of the Federal Reserve System have expanded and its structure has evolved.[2][4] Events such as the Great Depression were some of the major factors leading to changes in the system.[5] Its duties today, according to official Federal Reserve documentation, fall into four general areas:[6]
  1. Conducting the nation's monetary policy by influencing monetary and credit conditions in the economy in pursuit of maximum employment, stable prices, and moderate long-term interest rates
  2. Supervising and regulating banking institutions to ensure the safety and soundness of the nation's banking and financial system, and protect the credit rights of consumers
  3. Maintaining stability of the financial system and containing systemic risk that may arise in financial markets
  4. Providing financial services to depository institutions, the U.S. government, and foreign official institutions, including playing a major role in operating the nation's payments system
wikipedia....
 

JustAnotherFriedDay

Well-Known Member
23 PhD Economists, lol. I'm a PhD economist and I can tell you right now those guys don't know their assholes from their elbows. And I would no more give credence to a study from MIT than I would to one from East Anglican University.
Yeah, MIT don't mean shit. I'm a better card counter than all of those on the MIT team. They used a faulty card counting method, got lucky and made 700k. Then they lost nearly all their winnings back. MIT's image is overrated especially because of the black jack team and the movie 21.

I know this doesn't have shit to do with economics. just pointing out how MIT's reputation has been inflated beyond reality.
 

Resin225

Active Member
I also believe MIT talked about preventative health care. How you gonna get the high percentage of uninsured people to take care of themselves? Mandate a diet? I don't know but the assclowns in washington are known for doing stoopid things.
 
Top