Previous 11 - 20 Next
Thanks for the Cato study. It's good to have more recent info to back up the "Julia's Mother" chart.
In response to:

An Alternative to Obamacare

Ned6 Wrote: Jul 11, 2013 11:57 AM
Regarding tort reform, the "British System" also called "Loser Pays" does not go far enough. "Less Reasonable Pays" forces both parties to be reasonable in their demand and offers and promotes out of court settlements, early in the process. Slight modifications may need to be made for medical malpractice, but this offers a framework. For more on "Less Reasonable Pays" see: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SEmBfaA5l88
In response to:

An Alternative to Obamacare

Ned6 Wrote: Jul 11, 2013 11:48 AM
While this "solution" might work on a small scale, with volunteer doctors, it cannot work on a country wide basis, because it doesn't consider individual needs. For example, how would this affect a world class brain surgeon, who requires highly trained staff and a very specific work environment? Fixing healthcare will require a true free market approach, not third party payer and certainly not government run anything. Once the core approach is fixed, then and only then can we address the needs of the poor and those with pre-existing conditions. A free market approach will save so much that funding for this sub-set should be readily available. My "fix" is called "Group Self-Insurance". Like health insurance, monthly contributions are placed in a pool. Unlike health insurance, members retain equity in their contributions and the agent managing the pool has no medical liability. From the monthly contribution, members pay a small administrative fee, pay 100% of their own medical bills, and share in the costs of other members whose bills exceed their monthly contribution. Sharing member build sharing equity, while those with excessive costs have negative equity. Monthly sharing percentages are decreased depending on the accumulated amount of sharing equity. Over a lifetime healthy individuals will pay less, while those with chronic problems will pay more, but never more than their monthly contribution [about +50% of health insurance premiums]. The biggest advantage of such a system is that specialty agents can provide unbiased medical advice regarding best doctor, best price, and best procedures. Final control is left in the hands of the patient, with the agent's fiduciary responsibilities to the pool only coming into play when medical costs exceed monthly contributions plus accumulated shared equity. For more on Group Self-Insurance, see: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tIZIXPL3HxI
In response to:

An Alternative to Obamacare

Ned6 Wrote: Jul 11, 2013 11:04 AM
Your link is a good one. Agree with all, except selection of the FairTax. While both the FairTax and a Flat Tax would be far, far, far superior to the current tax code by about $300 billion saved; implementation of the FairTax would have problems. For more on Taxes see: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ESzXZ0LUumY
In response to:

Immigration Reform Can Be Much Simpler

Ned6 Wrote: Jul 07, 2013 12:21 PM
The first step in solving the immigration problem is for the federal government to limit "safety-net" support to citizens only. Possible support from state and local governments and charities therefore becomes a local issue, where such decisions should reside. In taking this step, the federal government would be winnowing the immigrant pool to those coming for the opportunity, not the cushy handouts.
Cost/benefit of each regulation is only part of the story. Since multiple regulations and multiple regulators add complexity and often conflict, the cost of all regulation must be matched against all benefits. One unsubstantiated claim is that regulation costs approach $2 trillion. There is no way the benefits come close.
In response to:

Markets Discover There is No Exit Strategy

Ned6 Wrote: Jun 20, 2013 8:23 AM
Sorry, Peter. Bernanke has already shown his exit strategy cards. He will be leaving the job at the end of the year. Consequently, there is absolutely no chance that QE will end before he leaves. Can you imagine any scenario in which he pulls the plug, knowing he will have to deal with the carnage while still Chairman? Looking out even further, the longer the new Chairman continues QE, the more s/he owns it. QE will end in January or February.
In response to:

How Do We Turn Around America?

Ned6 Wrote: Jun 13, 2013 8:15 AM
Couldn't agree more. I've offered my services several times to the Gabriel Gomez campaign to help destroy Ed Markey, with a complete program to "Fix the Federal Government." Every time I make the offer, I receive at least 5 solicitations, many of them with an arbitrary "need money by" date. We will win with the right ideas. We will lose coming across as another government money hole.
In response to:

How Do We Turn Around America?

Ned6 Wrote: Jun 13, 2013 8:06 AM
Sorry, "negative income tax" rather than "negative income".
In response to:

How Do We Turn Around America?

Ned6 Wrote: Jun 13, 2013 8:03 AM
To fix America, we must move away from dependence and toward personal responsibility. To do that we must change the incentives inherent in our tax code/means-testing programs. The two must be thought of as one huge mess. Instead, we need a "progressive flat tax" that provides a negative income for those at the bottom, which they cannot lose by earning additional income. We need to bypass the bureaucrats and go direct to the people. In kind distribution of benefits are more likely to benefit special interests than the supposed beneficiaries. For more on this see: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ESzXZ0LUumY
In response to:

Economics vs. 'Need'

Ned6 Wrote: Jun 11, 2013 2:15 PM
If the topic was "jobs that Americans receiving means-tested, unemployment, and disability benefits won't do" we would be touching on the real "jobs" crisis: conscious self-unemployment, resulting from mal-incentives in the system. From a pure demand-supply analysis, Prof. Sowell is right. "Pay more." But, when you consider that higher pay may cause loss of benefits worth more than the value of the net wage gain, his analysis misses the target.
Previous 11 - 20 Next