I see that Glenn Kessler, the Washington Post fact checker, is being pretty liberal in dishing out the Pinocchios over Democrats’ claim that a study from a right-wing think tank found that a Medicare-for-all system would save $2 trillion over the course of the decade. Kessler’s main complaints are that these savings assume that providers accept a 40 percent reduction in payments and that Democrats’ have ignored the study’s projection that Medicare-for-all would add $32.6 trillion to the federal budget over the decade. For these omissions, Kessler awarded three Pinocchios. This seems excessive to me.
First, Kessler argues that a 40 percent reduction in payments to providers is unrealistic. This is true, based on the historic balance of power in these debates where doctors hospitals, drug companies, and medical equipment suppliers all have very powerful lobbies. But if there was a committed majority in Congress for providing universal Medicare, it is possible that these lobbies could be defeated.
In this context, it would be helpful to point out that providers in other wealthy countries do get 40 percent, and sometimes even 50 percent or 60 percent less than providers in the United States. There is little doubt that providers would scream bloody murder over the prospects of large pay cuts, but what would be their option if there was the political will? Would doctors change careers and become shoe salespeople?
Kessler is, of course, right that the study projected a large increase in government spending under Medicare-for-all, and that was its main point. This does raise important political problems, but the biggest chunk of this increase comes from replacing employer payments for insurance with government payments. Would people really be that upset if the money that their employer sent to an insurance company was instead sent to the government to pay for health care?
It seems to me that the prospect of saving $2 trillion over a decade (roughly $15,000 per household) might be worth having more money go through the government. That is, of course, unless one has an ideological distaste for the government or wants to see insurers, drug companies, doctors, and equipment suppliers have more money.
As an economist and certified numbers geek, I can sympathize with Kessler’s complaint that the Democrats aren’t giving the full story. But is this really a three Pinocchio offense when we have many leading politicians, like the president, who literally just make things up and just deny well-established facts?
I see that Glenn Kessler, the Washington Post fact checker, is being pretty liberal in dishing out the Pinocchios over Democrats’ claim that a study from a right-wing think tank found that a Medicare-for-all system would save $2 trillion over the course of the decade. Kessler’s main complaints are that these savings assume that providers accept a 40 percent reduction in payments and that Democrats’ have ignored the study’s projection that Medicare-for-all would add $32.6 trillion to the federal budget over the decade. For these omissions, Kessler awarded three Pinocchios. This seems excessive to me.
First, Kessler argues that a 40 percent reduction in payments to providers is unrealistic. This is true, based on the historic balance of power in these debates where doctors hospitals, drug companies, and medical equipment suppliers all have very powerful lobbies. But if there was a committed majority in Congress for providing universal Medicare, it is possible that these lobbies could be defeated.
In this context, it would be helpful to point out that providers in other wealthy countries do get 40 percent, and sometimes even 50 percent or 60 percent less than providers in the United States. There is little doubt that providers would scream bloody murder over the prospects of large pay cuts, but what would be their option if there was the political will? Would doctors change careers and become shoe salespeople?
Kessler is, of course, right that the study projected a large increase in government spending under Medicare-for-all, and that was its main point. This does raise important political problems, but the biggest chunk of this increase comes from replacing employer payments for insurance with government payments. Would people really be that upset if the money that their employer sent to an insurance company was instead sent to the government to pay for health care?
It seems to me that the prospect of saving $2 trillion over a decade (roughly $15,000 per household) might be worth having more money go through the government. That is, of course, unless one has an ideological distaste for the government or wants to see insurers, drug companies, doctors, and equipment suppliers have more money.
As an economist and certified numbers geek, I can sympathize with Kessler’s complaint that the Democrats aren’t giving the full story. But is this really a three Pinocchio offense when we have many leading politicians, like the president, who literally just make things up and just deny well-established facts?
Read More Leer más Join the discussion Participa en la discusión
I am not in the habit of defending Democrats (it’s not part of my job description), but come on folks. The central graph in this piece shows little change in the views of Democrats on the economy pre- and post-2016. It shows the percentage of Republicans who rate the economy good or excellent jumping from around 20 percent to 77 percent in the most recent reading.
This is a story of Republican attitudes reflecting who is in the White House. It shows the exact opposite for Democrats. We know this is the era of Trump, but please let’s have reporting reflect the facts that are in front of our faces.
I am not in the habit of defending Democrats (it’s not part of my job description), but come on folks. The central graph in this piece shows little change in the views of Democrats on the economy pre- and post-2016. It shows the percentage of Republicans who rate the economy good or excellent jumping from around 20 percent to 77 percent in the most recent reading.
This is a story of Republican attitudes reflecting who is in the White House. It shows the exact opposite for Democrats. We know this is the era of Trump, but please let’s have reporting reflect the facts that are in front of our faces.
Read More Leer más Join the discussion Participa en la discusión
We all know how hard it is to get help these days. Companies are shelling out $15 or $20 million a year for CEOs who can’t seem to figure out how to tie their own shoes. Marketplace radio ran a piece on how companies are turning to older workers, people with prison records, and people who failed drug tests to find workers. While this is great news, since these people are now getting opportunities as a result of the low unemployment rate, companies seem to be ignoring the most obvious place to find workers: their competitors.
For some reason, the possibility of pulling workers away from competitors never seems to occur to employers. We have been treated to endless pieces about how trucking companies can’t find workers, or how manufacturing workers can’t get people with the right skills.
These people are out there in large numbers, they just happen to be working elsewhere. But there is a way to get workers to change employers: offer them higher pay. We do see this process in action sometimes. When a baseball team wants to get a great pitcher, they offer them really high pay. Universities will do this to attract star academics. And, this is ostensibly how CEO pay got pushed up into the eight-figure range.
For some reason, these same CEOs just can’t figure out how to raise wages when it comes to attracting ordinary workers. According to data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the average hourly wage for production and non-supervisory workers in both trucking and manufacturing have risen 2.7 percent over the last year, just even with the rate of inflation. This means that real wages are not rising at all in these sectors, in spite of employers alleged difficulty in finding workers.
We all know how hard it is to get help these days. Companies are shelling out $15 or $20 million a year for CEOs who can’t seem to figure out how to tie their own shoes. Marketplace radio ran a piece on how companies are turning to older workers, people with prison records, and people who failed drug tests to find workers. While this is great news, since these people are now getting opportunities as a result of the low unemployment rate, companies seem to be ignoring the most obvious place to find workers: their competitors.
For some reason, the possibility of pulling workers away from competitors never seems to occur to employers. We have been treated to endless pieces about how trucking companies can’t find workers, or how manufacturing workers can’t get people with the right skills.
These people are out there in large numbers, they just happen to be working elsewhere. But there is a way to get workers to change employers: offer them higher pay. We do see this process in action sometimes. When a baseball team wants to get a great pitcher, they offer them really high pay. Universities will do this to attract star academics. And, this is ostensibly how CEO pay got pushed up into the eight-figure range.
For some reason, these same CEOs just can’t figure out how to raise wages when it comes to attracting ordinary workers. According to data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the average hourly wage for production and non-supervisory workers in both trucking and manufacturing have risen 2.7 percent over the last year, just even with the rate of inflation. This means that real wages are not rising at all in these sectors, in spite of employers alleged difficulty in finding workers.
Read More Leer más Join the discussion Participa en la discusión
Read More Leer más Join the discussion Participa en la discusión
Read More Leer más Join the discussion Participa en la discusión
The NYT had a front page piece on how two major steel companies with close ties to the Trump administration are having enormous say on which companies are granted exemptions to his steel tariffs. While there is nothing in principle wrong with the affected companies giving their input on whether exemptions should be granted, given the lack of transparency and financial disclosure by top officials in the Trump administration, it is difficult to have confidence that these decisions are being made on the merits alone.
This issue has been noted earlier by the NYT. Tariffs and exemptions to them provide enormous opportunities for the Trump administration to practice crony capitalism. That is not necessarily an argument against all tariffs, but such favoritism is an inevitable problem associated with tariffs or other forms of protectionism (like patents and copyrights). This does show the need for having a transparent process in which the individuals making decisions do not have a financial interest in the outcome.
The NYT had a front page piece on how two major steel companies with close ties to the Trump administration are having enormous say on which companies are granted exemptions to his steel tariffs. While there is nothing in principle wrong with the affected companies giving their input on whether exemptions should be granted, given the lack of transparency and financial disclosure by top officials in the Trump administration, it is difficult to have confidence that these decisions are being made on the merits alone.
This issue has been noted earlier by the NYT. Tariffs and exemptions to them provide enormous opportunities for the Trump administration to practice crony capitalism. That is not necessarily an argument against all tariffs, but such favoritism is an inevitable problem associated with tariffs or other forms of protectionism (like patents and copyrights). This does show the need for having a transparent process in which the individuals making decisions do not have a financial interest in the outcome.
Read More Leer más Join the discussion Participa en la discusión
Last week I noted the Trump administration’s professed concern that higher mileage standards would lead to more traffic deaths because fuel efficient cars make it cheaper to drive, therefore people will drive more. As I pointed out at the time, if Trump wants to discourage people from driving then shifting to pay by the mile insurance policies would have create much more disincentive than having them drive fuel inefficient cars.
I gave some links to the relevent literature in that blog post, but here are some newer ones.
I’m sure the Trump administration will soon be leading the charge on this issue.
Thanks to Mark Brucker for the references.
Last week I noted the Trump administration’s professed concern that higher mileage standards would lead to more traffic deaths because fuel efficient cars make it cheaper to drive, therefore people will drive more. As I pointed out at the time, if Trump wants to discourage people from driving then shifting to pay by the mile insurance policies would have create much more disincentive than having them drive fuel inefficient cars.
I gave some links to the relevent literature in that blog post, but here are some newer ones.
I’m sure the Trump administration will soon be leading the charge on this issue.
Thanks to Mark Brucker for the references.
Read More Leer más Join the discussion Participa en la discusión
Read More Leer más Join the discussion Participa en la discusión
Read More Leer más Join the discussion Participa en la discusión
I know that we shouldn’t be telling readers what political figures think, but in this case, it logically follows from their claim that weakening fuel efficiency standards would save more than10,000 lives over the course of a decade. They gave several reasons for why weakening standards would save lives but the most important was that more fuel efficient cars would make it cheaper to drive, and therefore people would drive more and therefore be in more accidents. They assumed a very strong relationship between the cost of driving and the number of miles driven.
In getting to their calculation of lives saved, the Trump administration was comparing a standard of 50 miles a gallon with the 37 miles a gallon standard that would be locked in place after 2021 under their plan. This implies a 35 percent reduction in gas cost per mile.
The idea of pay-by-the-mile auto insurance is to take what is largely a fixed cost that doesn’t directly change with the number of miles driven (insurance premiums) and replace it with a per mile charge. To get a rough idea of the charge, the average premium is somewhat over $1,000 per year, but let’s round to $1,000. The average car is driven close to 10,000 miles a year, which gives us a cost of 10 cents per mile.
If a car gets 30 miles per gallon, then the current gas cost per mile driven would be about 10 cents, assuming that gas is $3.00 a gallon. This means that pay-by-the-mile auto insurance would effectively double the per-mile cost of driving. This compares to the Trump administration’s plan which would only raise the cost by 35 percent against the baseline.
This means that if the Trump administration plan would save more than 10,000 lives in traffic accidents then pay-by-the-mile auto insurance would easily save two or three times this amount. (For an extra dividend, the state could convert their car registration charges into per-mile fees.)
Anyhow, this is obviously the next step the Trump administration will take if it is concerned about preventing traffic deaths. Of course, if the point is just to reverse something the Obama administration did to slow global warming, then maybe not.
For those interested, here are some references on pay-by-the-mile auto insurance.
I know that we shouldn’t be telling readers what political figures think, but in this case, it logically follows from their claim that weakening fuel efficiency standards would save more than10,000 lives over the course of a decade. They gave several reasons for why weakening standards would save lives but the most important was that more fuel efficient cars would make it cheaper to drive, and therefore people would drive more and therefore be in more accidents. They assumed a very strong relationship between the cost of driving and the number of miles driven.
In getting to their calculation of lives saved, the Trump administration was comparing a standard of 50 miles a gallon with the 37 miles a gallon standard that would be locked in place after 2021 under their plan. This implies a 35 percent reduction in gas cost per mile.
The idea of pay-by-the-mile auto insurance is to take what is largely a fixed cost that doesn’t directly change with the number of miles driven (insurance premiums) and replace it with a per mile charge. To get a rough idea of the charge, the average premium is somewhat over $1,000 per year, but let’s round to $1,000. The average car is driven close to 10,000 miles a year, which gives us a cost of 10 cents per mile.
If a car gets 30 miles per gallon, then the current gas cost per mile driven would be about 10 cents, assuming that gas is $3.00 a gallon. This means that pay-by-the-mile auto insurance would effectively double the per-mile cost of driving. This compares to the Trump administration’s plan which would only raise the cost by 35 percent against the baseline.
This means that if the Trump administration plan would save more than 10,000 lives in traffic accidents then pay-by-the-mile auto insurance would easily save two or three times this amount. (For an extra dividend, the state could convert their car registration charges into per-mile fees.)
Anyhow, this is obviously the next step the Trump administration will take if it is concerned about preventing traffic deaths. Of course, if the point is just to reverse something the Obama administration did to slow global warming, then maybe not.
For those interested, here are some references on pay-by-the-mile auto insurance.
Read More Leer más Join the discussion Participa en la discusión
