|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: The US and Health Care
|
Brenda Clough
Shipmate
# 18061
|
Posted
In the US the 'list' price for stuff is padded enormously, to cover the cost of people who have no insurance. Remember hospitals are not allowed to just push sick people out the door if they are uninsured. They have to at least stick you together enough to get you by. To cover these enormous costs, they double or treble the price of every aspirin or band-aid they give to a patient with insurance. So in the end you do pay for all those people who can't afford to buy their own insurance; it's just that it's sneaked in where you don't see it.
--------------------
Science fiction and fantasy writer with a Patreon page
Posts: 6378 | From: Washington DC | Registered: Mar 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gramps49
Shipmate
# 16378
|
Posted
I have been having a running battle with my local hospital. Last December I went in for a knee replacement. My doctor used a computer-assisted procedure as part of the operation. My primary insurance, though, declined that part of the procedure (ruled experimental). I was told not to worry, my secondary insurance would probably pick it up (no they did not).
For every visit I had at the hospital, it generated a new billing. I took physical therapy there, two weeks later I would get a bill. This has gone on for six months. I paid the bills as they came in.
Lo and Behold, though, I suddenly find I still have to pay that $200 outstanding bill from December or they will send it to collections. I wrote a member of the hospital board complaining that I had not been aware of this bill. It did not appear on any itemized bill I received until the first of June.
By my recollection, I had probably overpaid all my bills by about $300 anyway. I told the hospital to apply my overpayment to the orphan bill, as I call it. They said they would.
Well, this last weekend, guess what? I get another billing from the hospital. It showed no payment to the orphan bill.
I have now demanded a complete, itemized billing all charges and receipts to my account.
I have constantly asked for an itemized bill for the past six months. Every time they told me they could not do that because of my insurance. I have Medicare that paid for the hospitalization, my employment insurance that paid about 75% of what was outstanding, and my secondary insurance that kicked in another 15%, leaving me with a minimum co-pay. The problem is that the insurances took their time paying everything, and often I would be charged for something the insurances should have covered--or, in the case of the orphan bill, declined.
If all this seems confusing, it is. Would that we had a single payor system.
Posts: 2193 | From: Pullman WA | Registered: Apr 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Amanda B. Reckondwythe
Dressed for Church
# 5521
|
Posted
Time to seek the advice and assistance of an attorney, Gramps49.
--------------------
"I take prayer too seriously to use it as an excuse for avoiding work and responsibility." -- The Revd Martin Luther King Jr.
Posts: 10542 | From: The Great Southwest | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
Fictional numbers on a bill do not drop out of thin air - there has to be a lot of backing fictional calculation to get there and it all costs money.
Oh, yes.
My point with the "fictional" reference is that in a market where most people have insurance, and all the insurance companies negotiate the price that is to be paid for a particular procedure (and as I alluded to in my post, negotiated 90% discounts aren't uncommon), the headline price is completely I disconnected from any of the actual realities of the treatment.
Exactly. Even f you calculate in the cost of uninsured patient care (far ar less under Obamacare) it's made up out of thin air. Note that even tho hospitals will bitch and moan about every cut in reimbursements as if they're living on a shoestring, they will also advertise and compete for those insured patients. Something they would not be doing if they were suffering a loss with those 90 percent reductions
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Belle Ringer
Shipmate
# 13379
|
Posted
Back a bit someone asked what people without insurance think of the USA system.
I can only answer for one person, a woman who dropped from 3 bedroom house to homeless "overnight" (she thought her ex was paying the mortgage but he stopped when the last kid graduated). She needed mood-control meds and other things she couldn't get. Nevertheless she insisted obamacare was communist and socialist and whatever other words came to mind because people should provide for themselves.
Said while searching for a free clinic that would give her the meds she needed.
The disconnect between her searching for to meds free and her rejecting of free help left me speechless. To her there was no conflict. She needed the meds free. Free help is wrong, communist. What's the conflict?
As if these were two different topics.
I suspect she is not alone. And I cannot understand.
Posts: 5830 | From: Texas | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Brenda Clough
Shipmate
# 18061
|
Posted
If you go to the deep-red states, Tennessee and Texas and so on, and watch the local TV station, you will see many ads for scooters -- small electric carts for a handicapped person. They always say "Medicare/Medicaid". In other words, they're encouraging you to get one of these devices and have the Federal government pay for it -- I believe they retail for $2K or so. This never bothers anybody. Nobody complains about socialism. (More perilously, once you quit walking and get onto one of these things you usually never get off. Use it or lose it.)
--------------------
Science fiction and fantasy writer with a Patreon page
Posts: 6378 | From: Washington DC | Registered: Mar 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
...
The disconnect between her searching for to meds free and her rejecting of free help left me speechless. To her there was no conflict. She needed the meds free. Free help is wrong, communist. What's the conflict?
As if these were two different topics.
I suspect she is not alone. And I cannot understand.
Her disconnect is that she has made a political choice: charity instead of justice. She believes she is worthy of charity. She doesn't believe her fellow citizens deserve justice, at least when it comes to health care.
--------------------
"You come with me to room 1013 over at the hospital, I'll show you America. Terminal, crazy and mean." -- Tony Kushner, "Angels in America"
Posts: 5430 | From: Caprica City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Amanda B. Reckondwythe
Dressed for Church
# 5521
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
you will see many ads for scooters <snip> and have the Federal government pay for it -- I believe they retail for $2K or so.
Just because scooters are available via Medicare/Medicaid doesn't mean that you'll get one. When my sister and I finally persuaded our elderly father to get one, we found that the paperwork involved was so convoluted that we ended up getting a used scooter on Ebay for 1/10 of what a new one would cost.
quote:
More perilously, once you quit walking and get onto one of these things you usually never get off.
You're not implying, are you, that people use them unnecessarily? Our father was at the point where he could not walk without a walker, and even then only very short distances. He fiercely resisted getting a scooter, but once he got it, yes, he seldom if ever got off it. He would have been immoble without it.
--------------------
"I take prayer too seriously to use it as an excuse for avoiding work and responsibility." -- The Revd Martin Luther King Jr.
Posts: 10542 | From: The Great Southwest | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Amanda B. Reckondwythe
Dressed for Church
# 5521
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
The bastards had them forceably removed. The adults removed from their wheelchairs to be arrested
Perhaps His Orange Despicableness would like to explain how America is made great again by dragging disabled people out of wheelchairs and into jail cells.
--------------------
"I take prayer too seriously to use it as an excuse for avoiding work and responsibility." -- The Revd Martin Luther King Jr.
Posts: 10542 | From: The Great Southwest | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:More perilously, once you quit walking and get onto one of these things you usually never get off.
You're not implying, are you, that people use them unnecessarily?
It is as ridiculous to say no one on benefits is a scrounger as to say all on benefits are scroungers.
However, I think Brenda might have been saying that using one when one can still walk might, in some cases, render the person unable to get along without one. Muscles atrophy quickly.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
A friend of mine ended up on housing benefit after an unexpected redundancy and shifting family circumstances. Almost immediately he was successful in finding another job, but found that if he took it he would be poorer. His emergency housing was expensive and housing benefit would be cut by the amount he would earn, but he would need to find the costs of transport and lunch in the canteen.
He ended up not taking the job, not looking assiduously for other employment, and stayed on benefits.
My conclusion is not that benefits should be removed (since the outcome then would have been a family on the street - so no benefit dependency but potentially no family either), but that there ought to be a decent minimum wage and benefits should be structured so that no-one is poorer for taking work.
The other conclusion though is that going on benefits can cause muscles to atrophy in the long run. Again that doesn't mean they shouldn't exist, just that they should be handled differently.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
We ought to see in work benefits as the subsidy to the employer that they are. And we ought to see housing benefit as the subsidy to landlords that it is.
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
Ironically in my example the tapering meant that benefits weren't a subsidy to the employer, and my immediate reaction to the perverse incentive produced by tapering would be not to taper or to taper less. Which would result in them becoming a subsidy to the employer. A perverse outcome from reacting to a perverse incentive.
A decent minimum wage would solve both problems wouldn't it?
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
AIUI, Mr Duncan Smith's Universal Credit was supposed to have that effect [i.e. tapering], until Mr Osborne gutted it.
[ 23. June 2017, 11:56: Message edited by: Ricardus ]
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
simontoad
Ship's Amphibian
# 18096
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:
Time to seek the advice and assistance of an attorney, Gramps49.
When I was a lawyer 17 years ago, my firm would charge you more than $200 for me saying "open a file under the name of gramps49, click go the shears" into a dictaphone.
[ 23. June 2017, 12:09: Message edited by: simontoad ]
--------------------
Human
Posts: 1571 | From: Romsey, Vic, AU | Registered: May 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
Brenda Clough
Shipmate
# 18061
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:More perilously, once you quit walking and get onto one of these things you usually never get off.
You're not implying, are you, that people use them unnecessarily?
It is as ridiculous to say no one on benefits is a scrounger as to say all on benefits are scroungers.
However, I think Brenda might have been saying that using one when one can still walk might, in some cases, render the person unable to get along without one. Muscles atrophy quickly.
Yes -- it is the same argument for having a house with stairs. Because, once you no longer have to climb the stairs daily, you may never be able to again. This only carries you until the time when you genuinely cannot scale the stairs, of course, and then you either have to move or get other help.
--------------------
Science fiction and fantasy writer with a Patreon page
Posts: 6378 | From: Washington DC | Registered: Mar 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ohher
Shipmate
# 18607
|
Posted
You know, since 44.3 can't read the Constitution, and apparently can't sit tweetless long enough to have it read to him, and since Congress has apparently set the whole document aside as irrelevant and in any case not applying to them, we might as well chuck the thing out the window.
Let's instead go back to the Declaration of Independence, predicated on our inherent rights as humans to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
Isn't our Congress setting about the business of depriving a good many citizens of their right to life by placing health care beyond their reach?
--------------------
From the Land of the Native American Brave and the Home of the Buy-One-Get-One-Free
Posts: 374 | From: New Hampshire, USA | Registered: Jun 2016
| IP: Logged
|
|
Brenda Clough
Shipmate
# 18061
|
Posted
But they don't care. They care far more about the billionaires, those poor sufferers.
--------------------
Science fiction and fantasy writer with a Patreon page
Posts: 6378 | From: Washington DC | Registered: Mar 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ohher
Shipmate
# 18607
|
Posted
'Course they don't. But WE DO, and it's OUR damn Declaration.
--------------------
From the Land of the Native American Brave and the Home of the Buy-One-Get-One-Free
Posts: 374 | From: New Hampshire, USA | Registered: Jun 2016
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Health care itself does not seem to fall under this classification but a health care risk pool might, if you're going to stipulate in advance that just letting people die untreated is an unacceptable option.
I know what a public good is. My case is that having a healthy population is a public good. This is obviously true for things like herd immunity in a vaccinated population, but I'm claiming that it's also weakly true for general population health. Consider the contrast between having fit, healthy neighbours who can lend a hand when needed, and sick ones who aren't capable.
Under the assumption that people are typically decent and will help out a neighbour in need (shoveling snow off the old lady next door's driveway, etc.), my claim is that a heathly population which is able to offer that help is a public good.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Health care itself does not seem to fall under this classification but a health care risk pool might, if you're going to stipulate in advance that just letting people die untreated is an unacceptable option.
I know what a public good is. My case is that having a healthy population is a public good. This is obviously true for things like herd immunity in a vaccinated population, but I'm claiming that it's also weakly true for general population health. Consider the contrast between having fit, healthy neighbours who can lend a hand when needed, and sick ones who aren't capable.
Under the assumption that people are typically decent and will help out a neighbour in need (shoveling snow off the old lady next door's driveway, etc.), my claim is that a heathly population which is able to offer that help is a public good.
Even if your neighbor is a selfish jerk, you'll still benefit from having healthy neighbors because they'll be less of a drain on public services. A neighbor who isn't receiving proper preventative care is going to have more health crises, requiring calls for EMTs and visits to the ER. That will raise costs for taxpayer, as well clog up the line, making it harder for you to get to those services when needed
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Even if your neighbor is a selfish jerk, you'll still benefit from having healthy neighbors because they'll be less of a drain on public services.
Yes, if you make the assumption that we're not going to let people die in the street, you can argue that that makes a healthy population a public good as well.
Whether one should really view this as a separate public good, or a simple case of resource optimization within the overall framework of "not letting people die in the street" is arguable, but probably not relevant. Once we start importing a bunch of assumptions, you can view things in several different not incorrect ways.
[ 24. June 2017, 13:18: Message edited by: Leorning Cniht ]
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
The Speaker of the House in California's Assembly has shelved the single-payer bill, saying it has too many flaws.
Then fix it, asshole, or write a better one. The majority of Californians support single-payer health care, so get it done. God, I am so angry.
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Brenda Clough
Shipmate
# 18061
|
Posted
Some pol in Virginia has proposed single-payer for our state. Doubt it'll go anywhere this cycle, but it's good to run the flag up the pole. In the meantime, I have one writer friend who has just been thrown off Medicare, and another who has started a Kickstarter campaign to fund her chemo, which she has to go to Mexico to get if she is able to afford it at all.
[ 24. June 2017, 15:31: Message edited by: Brenda Clough ]
--------------------
Science fiction and fantasy writer with a Patreon page
Posts: 6378 | From: Washington DC | Registered: Mar 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
Some pol in Virginia has proposed single-payer for our state. Doubt it'll go anywhere this cycle, but it's good to run the flag up the pole. In the meantime, I have one writer friend who has just been thrown off Medicare, and another who has started a Kickstarter campaign to fund her chemo, which she has to go to Mexico to get if she is able to afford it at all.
![[Votive]](graemlins/votive.gif)
Sadly, they are just the canaries in the mine alerting us to what is to come if the replacement ACHA plan goes thru.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
The Speaker of the House in California's Assembly has shelved the single-payer bill, saying it has too many flaws.
Then fix it, asshole, or write a better one. The majority of Californians support single-payer health care, so get it done. God, I am so angry.
The main flaw with state-level single payer plans is that states have a very limited ability to engage in deficit spending. This tends to mean such plans collapse during economic downturns, when state revenues are down but demand for health care isn't. I'm not sure that's fixable within the scope of a health care bill.
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
Some pol in Virginia has proposed single-payer for our state. Doubt it'll go anywhere this cycle, but it's good to run the flag up the pole.
That's a tough road in a state that hasn't even joined the Medicare expansion.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881
|
Posted
The Republicans will never succeed in developing any sort of economically sustainable, universally accessible health care system because they still desperately want to believe that health care is a free market. It isn't. Do I need to say it again?
HEALTH CARE IS NOT A FREE MARKET.
Doctor Rand Paul, whose medical specialty is selling sunglasses, has a talking point about how the cost of Lasik surgery has gone down because of competition. "Most people call four different clinics before deciding." AynRandy is so fucking ignorant about health care - or deliberately disingenuous - that he doesn't realize that that sort of "consumer behaviour" is the exception in health care, not the rule.
Nobody calls multiple ambulance services while having a heart attack to see which service is cheaper and faster. Nobody calls different hospitals to see which one is having a sale on cardiac care this week or which one has the best food or charges the least for cable TV. Rand Paul is either an ignorant bawbag or a lying sack of shit.
If there was a free market solution to provide health care for all USA citizens, IT WOULD HAVE HAPPENED ALREADY. It hasn't and it never will.
--------------------
"You come with me to room 1013 over at the hospital, I'll show you America. Terminal, crazy and mean." -- Tony Kushner, "Angels in America"
Posts: 5430 | From: Caprica City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
This should be a free click: it is possible that the current health insurance legislation could lose Rep. Scalise his coverage. This was the Congressman who was shot on a ballfield last week; if the caps on lifetime care go through he's going to be bankrupt before he dies. His care and rehab are going to cost millions of dollars.
Note to self: saying "serves him right" would be ugly and unChristian. repeat: do NOT say "serves him right". Remember what Jesus said. Just walk away. You don't need to comment.
*It's not working.*
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Brenda Clough
Shipmate
# 18061
|
Posted
His situation bristles with ironies. One of the Capitol Police officers who was injured defending him, for instance, is a lesbian, a group whose rights Scalise has surely voted to curtail.
--------------------
Science fiction and fantasy writer with a Patreon page
Posts: 6378 | From: Washington DC | Registered: Mar 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ohher
Shipmate
# 18607
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
This should be a free click: it is possible that the current health insurance legislation could lose Rep. Scalise his coverage. This was the Congressman who was shot on a ballfield last week; if the caps on lifetime care go through he's going to be bankrupt before he dies. His care and rehab are going to cost millions of dollars.
On the other hand, Congress frequently exempts itself from its own measures. It's possible that nobody's dug through the bill in sufficient detail to ferret out this clause in this instance.
--------------------
From the Land of the Native American Brave and the Home of the Buy-One-Get-One-Free
Posts: 374 | From: New Hampshire, USA | Registered: Jun 2016
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
The Speaker of the House in California's Assembly has shelved the single-payer bill, saying it has too many flaws.
Then fix it, asshole, or write a better one. The majority of Californians support single-payer health care, so get it done. God, I am so angry.
The main flaw with state-level single payer plans is that states have a very limited ability to engage in deficit spending. This tends to mean such plans collapse during economic downturns, when state revenues are down but demand for health care isn't. I'm not sure that's fixable within the scope of a health care bill.
Maybe not. But shelving the bill means they won't even work on it.
The whole thing about states not being able to do deficit spending is stupid, too. There are 39 million people in California, our economy is bigger than most nations', we have enormous resources, and we goddamn well ought to be able to be able to pay for health care for everyone living here.
As for Scalise, I hope he lives, I hope he continues to suffer, and I hope he loses his insurance. I don't care if it's Christian or not. I want that fucker to know how much the policies that he supports make people suffer.
[ 25. June 2017, 02:02: Message edited by: RuthW ]
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
simontoad
Ship's Amphibian
# 18096
|
Posted
In 2015, Australia's population was starting to nudge 24 million. It's one of the facts that makes me pause when I start saying how great this country is compared to the USA, and things would be better for them if the yanks just did what we did.
Keep fighting, liberal America. Jeremy Corbyn, the bloke who was never going to win an election, just got his name chanted at him by the crowd at the Glastonbury Festival. Trump might well represent high tide for the rabid, racist right.
--------------------
Human
Posts: 1571 | From: Romsey, Vic, AU | Registered: May 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gramps49
Shipmate
# 16378
|
Posted
I finally got a copy of all my hospital bills for the past year--I went back a year just to look at the trends.
The total pages were 51. It seems that each event I underwent resulted in a new account. I ended up with 45 different accounts. The one event was six pages long.
And I still have not found that $200 charge.
I have ended up asking for a bottom line. How much to I have outstanding, or is there now a surplus?
Posts: 2193 | From: Pullman WA | Registered: Apr 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
The main flaw with state-level single payer plans is that states have a very limited ability to engage in deficit spending.
Why is this? Is this just because states have small economies (and given that they are the size of small-to-medium European countries, that seems unlikely), or is there some federal rule against running deficits?
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
It's because most US state constitutions have balanced-budget rules, prohibiting deficit spending in big parts of their budgets. This doesn't mean they don't go into debt to finance big infrastructure projects, but it does generally limit their ability to borrow money to pay for stuff in their annual budgets.
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
I had no idea. That seems odd to me since I have thought of US States like quasi-countries, and borrowing seems an absolute necessity to most Countries. Is it generally thought to be an odd anachronism in the States themselves that is just too difficult to fix or is it part of a political stand taken by some or other group?
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
Is there any way of changing those rules ?
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
Is there any way of changing those rules ?
I suppose they could vote to change them. But "Hey, let's go into debt" is unlikely to be popular.
And many states run at a deficit anyway, they are continually bailed out by states with better economies. Most of their citizens do not appear to understand how this works.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
Is there any way of changing those rules ?
I suppose they could vote to change them. But "Hey, let's go into debt" is unlikely to be popular.
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
I had no idea. That seems odd to me since I have thought of US States like quasi-countries, and borrowing seems an absolute necessity to most Countries. Is it generally thought to be an odd anachronism in the States themselves that is just too difficult to fix or is it part of a political stand taken by some or other group?
This is something that probably has to be discussed on a state-by-state basis, but I can't imagine a Republican-led state undoing their balanced budget amendment. It's important to note that these are balanced budget provisions -- states still go into debt when things don't go according to plan. California had a huge budget crisis in 2010 during the depths of the Great Recession.
California has only had a balanced budget amendment since 2004, but I think it would be a hard sell to get rid of it; the legislature put it on the ballot and it passed overwhelmingly. I can't speak to the situation in other states, but in California it passed because Arnold Schwarzenneger pushed really hard for it, because it just kinda sounds like a good idea -- debt is bad! -- and because the state legislature had been missing the June 30 budgeting deadline year after year after year and this seemed like a way to tell them to get their act together. Also, it came with provisions for a rainy day fund, which we didn't have, and that seemed like a really good idea.
There were other budget reforms put in place later, after we got a Democratic super-majority in the state legislature, that actually have made our budgeting somewhat less crazy (in ways that the balanced budget provisions don't), but there are still serious issues. The main one is that the largest share of our state budget comes from income taxes, and far and away the largest share of that comes from the very rich, whose income swings wildly with the stock market. So we have bigger booms and bigger busts than the country as a whole, which makes budgeting a nightmare -- and this would make funding something enormous like healthcare for all really, really hard.
Gov. Jerry Brown has decided this last part is politically not a solveable problem right now, and I don't see anyone in the legislature stepping up to the plate either. Granted, it is extremely difficult to change how you collect money from people -- someone's going to lose, and they're not going to like it.
quote:
And many states run at a deficit anyway, they are continually bailed out by states with better economies. Most of their citizens do not appear to understand how this works.
I don't follow this. California isn't bailing out Kansas, no matter how much they screw up their economy. If you're talking about states which are net takers from the federal government as opposed to net givers, that doesn't count as deficit spending -- federal dollars received by any state are just considered income for that state.
Federal money for the states is a huge question mark right now. If the Senate passes WealthCare, it will screw up state budgets. If they figure out a way to stick it to sanctuary cities, likewise. In places like Nevada, which budgets for two years at a time because the legislature only meets for a few months every two years, an already screwed-up budget process could become monumentally worse.
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
If you're talking about states which are net takers from the federal government as opposed to net givers, that doesn't count as deficit spending -- federal dollars received by any state are just considered income for that state.
Yes, it is to this I was referring. It is deficit spending, welfare, etc. whatever else people choose to call it.
This makes even more a mockery of the "balanced budget" amendments.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
If you're talking about states which are net takers from the federal government as opposed to net givers, that doesn't count as deficit spending -- federal dollars received by any state are just considered income for that state.
Yes, it is to this I was referring. It is deficit spending, welfare, etc. whatever else people choose to call it.
This makes even more a mockery of the "balanced budget" amendments.
I don't think economists don't consider this deficit spending. I certainly don't. It's just part and parcel of federalism, and to me it's quite comparable to rich people paying more absolute dollars in taxes than poor people. I wouldn't be at all unhappy about places like Alabama and Mississippi getting more per capita than California does if they didn't do backwards things like try to suppress racial minority voting and if so many of their congressional peeps hadn't voted "no" on relief for people in the northeast suffering in the wake of Superstorm Sandy.
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
If you're talking about states which are net takers from the federal government as opposed to net givers, that doesn't count as deficit spending -- federal dollars received by any state are just considered income for that state.
Yes, it is to this I was referring. It is deficit spending, welfare, etc. whatever else people choose to call it.
This makes even more a mockery of the "balanced budget" amendments.
But the income of the States is not limited to money handed out by the federal government - a range of taxes brings income as well. It's only when payments go beyond the total that you get into the deficit spending that is contrary to the law in some of the US States. Even then, there's doubt about spending to pay for capital items, such as new bridges, let alone those which will produce income in the future. There's a body of US law which says that capital spending is not caught.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Penny S
Shipmate
# 14768
|
Posted
In the sense that Tacitus used. Haters of men.
Posts: 5833 | Registered: May 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Printer-friendly view
