Number of households that cannot afford $400 emergency expense drops to 40%

I could easily cover a $400 expense but don't usually have $400 in cash around my house so I would fit the "not enough cash" category.

I probably have two to four times that in rolls of nickels and quarters somewhere and pre 1982 copper cents, but , yeah I do not keep any real amount of paper money around usually . No real need . If you need paper you can get it at the bank if you have deposits . If times got very bad very quickly I would not be leaving the property anyway and doubtful anyone would want to part with anything of real value then for paper anyway . When things went to hell in the Balkans currency was silver German Five Mark pc.'s and gasoline . Where I live you could probably add Liquor and shotgun shells to that list . I am not going to run out of ammo .
 
Last edited:
40 percent ? My guess is thats about as low as that will get considering only 60 percent of the country works . So this is the pinnacle of economic activity . Enjoy the Boom .
 
Last edited:
Before my son’s accident I was okay..amazing how quickly that can turn to crap no matter how well you think you’re prepared. That being said, I have paid down 75% of the massive debt that got heaped upon me between medical and legal expenses.

<rolls eyes> We had over $100,000 at our disposal. But when it was gone, it was gone. And apparently it isn't coming back.

I am in favor of Singapore style health care. I don't see it as a huge infringement on liberty. It would be cheaper and you wouldn't be bankrupting people.

It is a universally unpopular view among libertarians (because it isn't libertarian) but it would yield a better societal outcome. I wish Hayek would be the dominant thinker and not Rothbard among liberty people.

“Nor is there any reason why the state should not assist the individuals in providing for those common hazards of life against which, because of their uncertainty, few individuals can make adequate provision. Where, as in the case of sickness and accident, neither the desire to avoid such calamities nor the efforts to overcome their consequences are as a rule weakened by the provision of assistance – where, in short, we deal with genuinely insurable risks – the case for the state’s helping to organize a comprehensive system of social insurance is very strong… Wherever communal action can mitigate disasters against which the individual can neither attempt to guard himself nor make the provision for the consequences, such communal action should undoubtedly be taken,”
 
I am in favor of Singapore style health care. I don't see it as a huge infringement on liberty. It would be cheaper and you wouldn't be bankrupting people.

It is a universally unpopular view among libertarians (because it isn't libertarian) but it would yield a better societal outcome. I wish Hayek would be the dominant thinker and not Rothbard among liberty people.

“Nor is there any reason why the state should not assist the individuals in providing for those common hazards of life against which, because of their uncertainty, few individuals can make adequate provision. Where, as in the case of sickness and accident, neither the desire to avoid such calamities nor the efforts to overcome their consequences are as a rule weakened by the provision of assistance – where, in short, we deal with genuinely insurable risks – the case for the state’s helping to organize a comprehensive system of social insurance is very strong… Wherever communal action can mitigate disasters against which the individual can neither attempt to guard himself nor make the provision for the consequences, such communal action should undoubtedly be taken,”

Nope. It is never better for society to make other people pay for services they aren't receiving. Centrally planned wealth redistribution is the problem, not the solution.

Nice to see another post advocating for state funded communism though. Those never get old.
 
I am in favor of Singapore style health care. I don't see it as a huge infringement on liberty. It would be cheaper and you wouldn't be bankrupting people.

It is a universally unpopular view among libertarians (because it isn't libertarian) but it would yield a better societal outcome. I wish Hayek would be the dominant thinker and not Rothbard among liberty people.

“Nor is there any reason why the state should not assist the individuals in providing for those common hazards of life against which, because of their uncertainty, few individuals can make adequate provision. Where, as in the case of sickness and accident, neither the desire to avoid such calamities nor the efforts to overcome their consequences are as a rule weakened by the provision of assistance – where, in short, we deal with genuinely insurable risks – the case for the state’s helping to organize a comprehensive system of social insurance is very strong… Wherever communal action can mitigate disasters against which the individual can neither attempt to guard himself nor make the provision for the consequences, such communal action should undoubtedly be taken,”

Not familiar with their system so I looked it up (Obamacare is basically NixonCare). https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/4/25/15356118/singapore-health-care-system-explained

Is Singapore’s “miracle” health care system the answer for America?


When liberals talk about their health care utopia, they have scores of examples to choose from. Some name France’s high-performing multi-payer system (No. 1 on the World Health Organization’s rankings, in case you haven’t heard). Others point to Canada’s single-payer simplicity. The Scandinavian countries all do health care well, and there’s much to recommend Germany’s hybrid approach.

Conservatives really only have one example of a free market health care paradise to point to: Singapore. But oh, what an example it is! In a New York Times column called “Make America Singapore,” Ross Douthat called it “the marvel of the wealthy world.” After the election, Fox News published an op-ed headlined, "Want to ditch ObamaCare? Let's copy Singapore's health care miracle.”

Why are conservatives so taken with Singapore? The American Enterprise Institute’s glowing write-up explains it well:

What’s the reason for Singapore’s success? It’s not government spending. The state, using taxes, funds only about one-fourth of Singapore’s total health costs. Individuals and their employers pay for the rest. In fact, the latest figures show that Singapore’s government spends only $381 (all dollars in this article are U.S.) per capita on health—or one-seventh what the U.S. government spends.

Singapore’s system requires individuals to take responsibility for their own health, and for much of their own spending on medical care.
Here’s what Singapore’s conservative admirers get right: Singapore really is the only truly universal health insurance system in the world based on the idea that patients, not insurers, should bear the costs of routine care.

But Singapore isn’t a free market utopia. Quite the opposite, really. It’s a largely state-run health care system where the government designed the insurance products with a healthy appreciation for free market principles — the kind of policy Milton Friedman might have crafted if he’d been a socialist.

Unlike in America, where the government’s main role is in managing insurance programs, Singapore’s government controls and pays for much of the medical system itself — hospitals are overwhelmingly public, a large portion of doctors work directly for the state, patients can only use their Medisave accounts to purchase preapproved drugs, and the government subsidizes many medical bills directly.

What Singapore shows is that unusual fusions of conservative and liberal ideas in health care really are possible. Singapore is a place where the government acts to keep costs low and then uses those low costs to make a market-driven insurance system possible. One thing you quickly realize when studying their system is it would be a disaster if you tried to impose it in a country with America’s out-of-control medical prices.

That speaks to the more depressing lesson of Singapore. As soon as you begin seriously comparing where they are, and how their system works, to where the US is, and how our system works, it becomes painfully clear how far America is from having the institutions or preconditions for truly radical health care reform.

How Singapore’s health insurance system works
Books could be written on the structure of Singapore’s health care system, and indeed, they have been. Jeremy Lim’s Myth or Magic: The Singapore Healthcare System is particularly excellent, though William Haseltine’s Affordable Excellence: The Singapore Healthcare Story has the advantage of being free. A deep dive here is rewarding, and my summary will necessarily oversimplify.

But the basic structure of Singapore’s insurance system is built around the “three M’s”: Medisave, Medishield, and Medifund. Let’s take them in turn.

Medisave: When conservatives praise Singapore’s health system, they are typically praising the Medisave system. Medisave is a forced savings plan that consumes between 7 and 9.5 percent of a working Singaporean’s wages — think of it like the Social Security payroll tax, if said tax funded a health savings account. Singaporeans then pay for some routine care out of their Medisave accounts.

Conservatives like Medisave because it is built on a deep appreciation for the idea that routine medical care can be treated like any other good, and patients can be pushed to act like consumers when buying it. Which is all true. Medisave distinguishes Singapore’s system from that of the US or Western Europe, where insurers typically cover most of the cost of routine care.

But again, the way Medisave actually works is the government forces you to divert 7 to 9.5 percent of your wages into this account, and then it decides what you can do with those savings — one way Singapore keeps drug prices low, for instance, is it only allows Medisave funds to be used for drugs that the government judges cost-effective (more on this later).

So while Medisave may look like a health savings account, it’s a mandatory health savings account funded by a payroll tax and only usable in certain conditions.

Medishield: Not all medical care is routine care. For the big expenses, Singapore runs Medishield, a nationwide catastrophic insurance program. The premiums are set by your age, and the deductibles are reasonably high — roughly $1,400 in US dollars. Enrollment is automatic, though you can opt out if you choose.

Together, Medishield and Medisave form the core of Singapore’s more market-oriented health insurance system — the idea is you pay routine expenses out of your Medisave account, and if things get bad enough that you hit your deductible, you begin using your Medishield account. This accords with the broader conservative view on health care: Insurance should cover unexpected costs, and for everything else, people should shop around as they do for most other products, and unleash the powers of the market.

But to make that structure work, Singapore relies on a massive amount of government coercion across the entire system. Fully funding your Medisave account is compulsory, not optional. You’re automatically enrolled in Medishield. The government limits the services both programs can purchase and, as we’ll see, often produces or reprices the services both programs purchase.

Medifund: Some Singaporeans fall through the cracks of Medisave and Medishield. For them, there’s Medifund — Singapore’s payer-of-last-resort.

Medifund’s structure is unusual in two ways. First, it’s based on a $3 billion endowment, with the government only able to spend the previous year’s investment income to pay for the needy’s medical bills; dipping into the endowment itself is forbidden. Second, it’s administered with a lot of discretion at the hospital level — so rather than qualifying for Medifund based on income, the way Americans do for Medicaid, hospital boards administer Medifund to the patients they judge needy enough to qualify. This is less restrictive than it might sound — the government says that more than 99 percent of applications are approved.

The big vulnerability of Medifund is that a bad investment year could wipe out the government’s ability to pay — and do so at the moment it was most needed. It’s a testament to Singapore’s economy, and to the government’s fiscal skill, that they’ve not faced this problem yet.

More at link.
 
Nope. It is never better for society to make other people pay for services they aren't receiving. Centrally planned wealth redistribution is the problem, not the solution.

Nice to see another post advocating for state funded communism though. Those never get old.

This isn't wealth distribution. It is risk management. My view changed on this because Hayek made a good case that freedom isn't destroyed by helping people manage catastrophic risk. We have Medicare, Medicaid, Obamacare, the tax break for employers, and the VA System as the current American market. Why would you be against something that cuts the government role of health care in half?

I am for things that work in practice. Singapore works.

"It spends less of its economy on health care than any country that was included in our recent tournament on best health systems in the world."

"Americans tend to think that they have a highly privatized health system, but Singapore is arguably much more so. There, about two-thirds of health care spending is private, and about one-third is public. It’s just about the opposite in the United States."

"
Life expectancy at birth is two to three years longer than in Britain or the United States. Its infant mortality rate is among the lowest in the world, about half that of the United States, and just over half that of Britain, Australia, Canada and France. General mortality rates are impressive compared with pretty much all other countries as well."

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/02/upshot/what-makes-singapores-health-care-so-cheap.html
 
Last edited:
This isn't wealth distribution. It is risk management. My view changed on this because Hayek made a good case that freedom isn't destroyed by helping people manage catastrophic risk. We have Medicare, Medicaid, Obamacare, the tax break for employers, and the VA System as the current American market. Why would you be against something that cuts the government role of health care in half?

I am for things that work in practice. Singapore works.

"It spends less of its economy on health care than any country that was included in our recent tournament on best health systems in the world."

"Americans tend to think that they have a highly privatized health system, but Singapore is arguably much more so. There, about two-thirds of health care spending is private, and about one-third is public. It’s just about the opposite in the United States."

"
Life expectancy at birth is two to three years longer than in Britain or the United States. Its infant mortality rate is among the lowest in the world, about half that of the United States, and just over half that of Britain, Australia, Canada and France. General mortality rates are impressive compared with pretty much all other countries as well."

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/02/upshot/what-makes-singapores-health-care-so-cheap.html

Noting that the "private contributions" are mandatory contributions to health savings accounts of seven to 9.5% of your income and the government says what you can and cannot spend it on.

Singapore heavily regulates both the pricing and provision of medical care to keep costs low (as do all other developed countries) and then, working off that baseline of low costs, has Singaporeans pay out of pocket in order to keep them mindful of how much they’re spending.

The Singaporean system is unusually good at applying market forces to routine health expenses. But that happens within a context where the government is aggressively managing the supply of health services, the price of treatments, and the broader behavioral environment in which the system operates. Singapore’s health care system relies much more on the government, and much less on the market, than America’s does.

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/4/25/15356118/singapore-health-care-system-explained

Life expectancy is also helped by the government.

Despite the country’s wealth, only 15 percent of Singaporeans have cars, because the government makes car ownership prohibitively expensive. There’s virtually no illegal drugs or gun crime in Singapore, in part because drug dealers are executed and guns are outlawed. Cigarette and alcohol taxes are enormous by American standards. As Matt Yglesias said in our episode of The Weeds discussing Singapore, “If you imagine America with no guns, less booze, much less drugs, and radically less driving, our public health outcomes would soar.”
 
Last edited:
Not familiar with their system so I looked it up (Obamacare is basically NixonCare)

I am sure it is a simplification. But yeah, it is a tiered public and private system. There is a lot of coercion in their system. People are irresponsible. If you have means you should be forced to buy insurance and you should be forced to have a policy where you are paying everything but major bills out of pocket. And you should be forced to put aside a certain amount for those small expenses. If you don't have means, there will be a low grade option that keeps people from falling through the floor. It is paternalistic and coercive.

In a free market people would have to live with the consequences of not having health insurance. In a free market if a person opts to not have health insurance and gets cancer, would that person really be deserving of even charity? I think not. They rolled the dice and lost and now they don't want someone else to help share the consequences of a poor decision. In the current system people roll the dice and heap the cost on me by going to the emergency room and skipping the bill or you have bankruptcies. Selfishly, this system would not affect my behavior one bit but it would lower the costs on me by forcing others to shoulder the burden that they are heaping on me with their poor life decisions.
 
Last edited:
Noting that the "private contributions" are mandatory contributions to health savings accounts of seven to 9.5% of your income and the government says what you can and cannot spend it on.


Lot of hand holding. People are stupid. Insurance is for the catastrophic and unpredictable. An office visit is neither. Most prescriptions are neither. Insurance should never pay for those. Instead of paying for a vacation, cable, boat, etc government is making sure you have the right priorities.

Think how many people have low deductibles on cars. Think how many people have insurance pay for a chipped windshields. That is a poor financial decision. Those kinds of decisions in health care raise the cost on me.
 
This isn't wealth distribution. It is risk management. My view changed on this because Hayek made a good case that freedom isn't destroyed by helping people manage catastrophic risk. We have Medicare, Medicaid, Obamacare, the tax break for employers, and the VA System as the current American market. Why would you be against something that cuts the government role of health care in half?

When you ask loaded questions like that, the only response is,"So go live there and leave me the fuck alone."

(I want everybody to notice that he's crabbing that employers get tax breaks.)

Risk management as part of a planned economy. What can go wrong?
 
Lot of hand holding. People are stupid. Insurance is for the catastrophic and unpredictable. An office visit is neither. Most prescriptions are neither. Insurance should never pay for those. Instead of paying for a vacation, cable, boat, etc government is making sure you have the right priorities.

Think how many people have low deductibles on cars. Think how many people have insurance pay for a chipped windshields. That is a poor financial decision. Those kinds of decisions in health care raise the cost on me.

So you want to force people to make decisions that benefit you. Seems that's how we got here in the first place.
 
When you ask loaded questions like that, the only response is,"So go live there and leave me the $#@! alone."

I would be fine living there. There is cost to doing. I would rather live here and see America become more free at this point.

(I want everybody to notice that he's crabbing that employers get tax breaks.)

Yeah.... That is the number thing almost EVERY free market economist cites that would bring health care costs down. I wouldn't even be surprised if people like Tom Woods and Bob Murphy agree. It was the core part of Rand Paul's health care plan. That is why I defended Rand's plan vigorously. Were you really ashamed that Rand ultimately wanted to eliminate the tax exemption on employer paid health care benefits.


Yet one man figured it out.
In 2001 the economist Milton Friedman read up on health care, discovered that the inefficiencies in our system trace back to a single policy mistake

Congress responded with legislation that made employer-provided medical benefits tax-exempt.


Because, Friedman saw, most payments for medical care are made not by the patients who receive the care but by third parties, typically employers. Since, in Friedman's phrase, "nobody spends somebody else's money as wisely as he spends his own," this third-payer system by its very nature introduces inefficiencies throughout the health care system.


https://www.forbes.com/2009/06/18/m...ions-columnists-health-care.html#14d89ad66118
 
Last edited:
Socialism is the great lie where everyone lives at the expense of everyone else.

One can ignore reality, but one can not ignore the consequences of reality. And the Reality of Socialism is that in an society lives at the expense of everyone else, many people must live without that which Socialism promises to offer everyone while only a few actually reap the rewards. The same thing applies to the economy, Obama / NixonCare, education, housing, welfare, etc. The list is pretty much endless. Want an example of how Socialism Experiments turned out? Take a look at Detroit.
 
Back
Top