Health Care: Can we all live with this?

I have an idea that might work to help with the health care crisis. I came up with this while in the shower and am still working out the details. This is more of an idea for discussion.

The idea is: What if the government functioned as a health insurance company? Here is how this would work: The government would offer health insurance that was a percentage of a person's income. If, for example, a person earned $250 and their health insurance was 5% of their income, they would pay $12.50, taken directly out of their check, to the government for health insurance. The government could not deny anyone health coverage. The only elegibilty requirements are being able to work legally in the United States.

The percentage of income would vary based on the person's situation. For example, for my mom to get coverage for herself and I, she would pay a higher percentage of her weekly check than she would just to get coverage for herself. The percentages would also be variable on certain high-risk behavior choices, such as smoking. They would not, however, be variable based on pre-existing conditions. Students could also get lower rates while they are in school. The percentages would also be variable based on the coverage a person selects. A very healthy person might decide to take a plan with a higher deductible and a lower percentage. This allows people to choose the plan that suits them, instead of a one size fits all plan.

This program would also eliminate the need for Medicaid programs, which provide medical care for those who have no insurance and cannot afford it. Instead, these people would enroll in the government sponsored program (remember, the government cannot deny you). This would mean that they bring money into the system (through paying a percentage of their income) and allow it to flourish.

In addition to the government sponsored programs, the regular insurance companies would be allowed to function as normal. This means that people who are already satisfied with their insurance, or who make a lot of money (so the percentage thing would make government insurance more expensive) would be allowed to keep their plans. This keeps competition in the market and eliminates a government monopoly of health care.

I believe this program is a good compromise for several reasons:
1) It ensures that every American is eligible for health insurance. With this plan, yes your taxes will increase. But they would with universal health care too.
2) It allows Americans who do not want universal health care to choose a private insurance company and keeps competition in the market.
3) By using an income proportional system, it makes health care affordable for the poor. Many poor people do not make the same amount of money every week and this would allow them to pay less when they make less and not have to worry about losing their health coverage.
4) The plan would allow people to chose their plan (and percentage), leaving them with choices.
5) The plan does not force one person to pay for the coverage of another or the decisions of another.

And now, a rebuttal to the most obvious criticisms that will probably come up:

Doesn't this screw over the poor people too? What if they can't afford to pay a part of their check for health care and go without?
With any form of government-sponsored health care, there is no way around an increase in taxes. None. Nada. You have to pay for health care anyway, whether through a private insurer, this program or the cross your fingers and hope for the best program. Either way you are going to have to pay. I feel that health care is like food: a necessity, but something you have to pay for.

Wow, this seems like a money-losing program?
It is. I can guarantee that this is a money-losing program. I'm not trying to hide or deny that. It falls under the category of welfare. Welfare programs cost money, but exist to help society. This program eliminates the need for programs such as Medicaid, which could help save the government money.

This still means that the rich get better coverage!
What else is new? The rich will always get better coverage, even if we have universal health care. If we have universal health care, they will bribe people to get to the front of the line or simply choose to pay for better care from somebody else. We can't make everyone equal. But this will make us closer.

Won't this raise everybody else's taxes too?
It might. But by eliminating programs like Medicaid and replacing them with this, the program will lose money, but it should lose about the same amount of money as the current system. So taxes may rise, or may not rise.

Doesn't this take choice away from the poor people?
Not really. Right now, the poor people's choices are go without health care, go to a free clinic or enroll in government programs such as Medicaid. This will allow people to choose a plan (sponsored by the government), thus allowing more choice. And it doesn't force anyone to get rid of private insurance either!

In conclusion, that's my idea. It's a spark. It's just an idea, and I want it picked apart and discussed, trashed and torn. I want it to inspire people to think. I'm not saying that it's perfect. It's just something I came up with in the shower and I want your opinion. So pick it apart and criticize it. Ask questions.

Begin:

The Most Inelastic Supply

“Time is on my side. Yes it is.”
-the Rolling Stones

Uh huh. Sure.

I would like to begin by stating that I respect the Rolling Stones. I enjoy their music and listen to them on a regular basis. But is time really on our side? Is time on anyone’s side? Time has the most inelastic supply of all goods. Everything comes down to timing. Late or early? Out or safe? Finish the AP exam or have the proctor call time with a page remaining?

We talk about land as the classic example of inelastic supply. But it’s not, really. You can always build up, tack another story on to a building or tear it down and build a taller one if you need more space. But time. You can reorganize your time, but how much of it can you really control? Things start at specific pre-determined times and you are stuck trying to conform to that schedule and make it to the three places you’re supposed to be at that time.

Time is what’s lacking in my life, not lack of ambition. I’m just as smart as many of the people in the Top 20, I’ve just never had the time to do the work required to get a 4.0. I’ve been busy doing other things, some necessary, some not so necessary and some many people wouldn’t understand until they’ve been in the situation. I try to please everybody, but I can’t. I can’t manufacture enough hours in the day for me to accomplish everything I want.

I just can’t do it. I don’t know where I get these brilliant ideas of I’m going to do everything I can, but I just can’t do it anymore. Something’s got to give, and usually that “something” is me. My thoughts, my feelings, my hopes, my dreams. I want to sit down and pet my kitten and get to know this cat that will be a part of my family for the next fifteen years or so. And I, like all kids, love the cat and I just want to say this right now, that regardless of what you say about it, I’m gonna keep it.

And her name isn’t Checkers.

Time and Oppertuinity Costs or I'm No Longer Even Trying to Pass AP Micro

Latley, I've been thinking that perhaps I might fail the AP Micro exam. I'm kind of lost, and every time I sit down to take an AP sample test something happens and I get distracted (like my mom's ex-husband calling my house and ringing the phone for three minutes straight during the free response. Naturally, I ignored it and was too distracted and pissed off to continue). Or I just fail. Or I'm just too stressed out to actually do anything and I don't bother because I've given up.

Knowing that my college will take only a four or a five and that I'll have to take econ in college for my Broadfield Social Studies (or I'll never have to take it if I don't do econ as part of my broadfield) I'm wondering if studying for this exam is a waste of my time. I've spent $84 on the exam; that's a sunk cost. Now I'm wondering if I want to throw more time after money that's already gone. Studying for this exam enough to do well on it (ie-get a 4 or 5) would require a lot of time and energy: two things I am currently lacking. I think I would increase my utility a lot more tonight by planning my next two week's worth of softball practices, calling my kids and letting them know when practices are, going for a run and petting my cat.

I know McDainel is going to have a beef about this blog, but I hope she sees my economic reasoning. Perhaps if I had put more effort into studying during the semester, I wouldn't be in this situation. But right now I don't have the mental energy to keep this up. Enough is enough. I am going to try my best on the econ test and maybe hell will freeze over, I'll get lucky and get that 4 or 5. Right now, however, the oppertuinity costs of studying are too great to throw time after a sunk cost of $84.

The Piece

Check. That. Out. Seriously, who wouldn't want to be seen driving around town in that thing right over there? It is one hot automobile--well at least in the summer anyways, because the air conditioning doesn't work. Why, you might ask, would a person want to drive a car like this? What kind of utility might a person gain from driving a car with the moniker "The Piece" and lives up to it's name?

I got this idea for a blog from Morgan's blog about buying a new car. Several times throughout my high school career, I have considered buying a new car, or at least a newer used car, but instead, I chose to keep The Piece.

Here's why:

Let's say I go to a car dealership and find a car I like. Let's say it's a 2000 and it's going to cost me $4000, minus $1000 for a trade in. I take it to a mechanic that I trust, who checks it out and says that it's perfectly safe. I go to the bank, get a loan for the remaining $3000, and I'm now driving a much nicer car, and I'm happy and safer, right?

Not necessarily. This car has been in my family since 1991. It was my grandma's car, then it got passed to my mom and now it's mine. I know everywhere it's been, because I've been in it. It's never been out of Illinois and Wisconsin, except for one trip out for a nice dinner in Indiana when I was five. I know pretty much every problem that's gone wrong with it, how it was cared for (hey Mom! Thanks for not changing the oil for two years!), I know what every little switch does and I can operate them all without even looking at them. I know how to move the seat so it won't fly all the way back when you're driving. There are no surprises with The Piece, unless something goes wrong.

Now, imagine I buy this newer car, the 2000. I don't know where its' been. I don't know what's happened to it. The mechanic says it's safe, but how do I really know for sure? Perhaps it's a better car. Perhaps it has leather seats, a CD player and gets better gas mileage. You would think that the gas mileage would be worth the trade in alone, right?

But I like my car, and so I'm keeping it, and all the memories that go with it.

Now I'm going to make my econ point: this story shows why it will take a long time for cars in general to become more fuel efficient. Let's say that a car is produced that gets 50 mpg. People like me are not going to trade in their cars for a new one--they can't afford it. The cars are going to go to the people that can afford new cars. Any change in American's fuel consumption habits is going to take a long time. Meanwhile, I've given up on paying for gas, and I bought a bicycle to ride to work this summer (after not owning one for about a decade)

Tetris

Yes, Tetris, people I kid you not. I'm going to write a blog about the greatest video game I have ever played (then again, I don't play a lot of video games) and relate it to economics. Because it really does relate to econ, it's not just something I play to procrastinate doing my econ.

For those of you who are not familiar with this game, it's rather simple. There are seven different Tetrimonoes, each made of four blocks. They fall from the top of the screen to the bottom. The player's goal is to make full lines blocks. When this happens, the line disappears and the other Tetrimonoes fall. The game is over when no more blocks can fit on the screen. If you want a full demonstration, go to www.freetetris.org, but I warn you, it's addicting!

So yes, this does relate to economics. First of all, opportunity cost. A player only knows one Tetrimonoe beyond the one currently in play. Since the Tetrimonoes fall in a random order, it is impossible to predict the ones that will come next. Therefore, a person might decide to use the L-shaped block to clear three lines, when the long skinny one comes up later and can clear four. Instead, when the player gets this block, it is too late and they cannot use it it it's full potential. There is major information asymmetry at work here: the computer knows what order the blocks will fall, but the player does not, making the game challenging.

There are also some externalities related to playing Tetris. If I were to play this game at school, it eats school bandwith and causes computers around the building to run slower, creating an issue for others. After playing Tetris for a long time, a player can experience the Tetris effect, meaning that after stopping play, you see little Tetrimonoes falling and fitting into shapes. Another externality is that Tetris improves cognitive function and spacial skills. This is a good thing for me!

So with that, I think I'm going to go play some Tetris.

Check out this rap!

Dude, I'm serious this guy had a lot of time on his hands to make this.
Click here

Oh, and by the way, he's the author of our textbook.

It's Book Review Time! (version 1.0)

To be honest, I can't think of anything to write about, so I'm going to write about my favorite non-fiction book of all time--Freakonomics. It's about using the tools of economics and applying them to social issues that may (or, more than likely, may not) have anything to do with the traditional issues studied in microeconomics courses. Nowhere in this book will you hear the phrase "production possibilities curve." You will not see any graphs; maybe a few statistics, but no graphs. You will, however, gain a new appreciation for the role that economics plays in our everyday lives. It focuses on the basics of economics: how people get what they need and want.

Why do drug dealers live with their moms? What effect did abortion have on crime? If you want to know, this book will tell you. You can find information about many of the things we talk about in class and recognize them, but only in passing. It's not Naked Economics in any way. Naked Economics talked about social issues, yes, but it used the language of economics. Freakonomics, however, uses common understandable everyday English. It's a good supplemental read for the semester, or during the summer. It's not, however, a good way to prepare for the AP or to give you background information about various subjects studied throughout the semester. Plus, it's actually remotely entertaining.

Video Games and Crime

This article (http://www.channel3000.com/technology/14916807/detail.html) tells about a lawmaker's idea to put a blanket tax on video games and gaming equipment in order to fund moving 17 year olds who commit a minor offense to juveniles court instead of adult court. Many people favor moving 17 year olds out of the adult court system for minor offenses, but are questioning the validity of the video game tax. I see several issues with the video game tax as well.

1) The video game tax applies to everyone. If a person is 25 and purchasing a video game, they have to pay. It d0es not distinguish between taxing violent video games and nonviolent ones. If I go to the store and pick up a copy of Tetris--my personal favorite, by the way--I am being taxed to put 17 year olds in the juvenile justice system. This does not affect me. I do not care if 17 year olds are being convicted in juvy or not for two reasons: one, I'm 18 and therefore an adult anyways, and two: I don't commit crimes. This change in the juvenile justice system has very little effect on many people who buy video games.

2) The tax implies that video games are the reasons why people commit crimes. If it only applied to violent video games, such as Halo, I would understand this tax a little more, even though I don't think there is a link between violent video games and violent crime. There's a link between violent people (who may or may not play violent video games) and violent crime. And violent crimes would be transfered to adult court anyway for a 17 year old, making that argument irrelevant.

3) The PPC. Let's oversimplify things and say that a 17 year old can be doing one of two things: committing misdemeanors or playing video games. For every hour that a person spends playing video games, guess what they're not doing? Committing misdemeanors. So if the goal was to reduce crime, shouldn't we just get all the kids video game systems and tell them to have fun? That, of course, would lead to other things, but that's called a trade-off.

This law does not even come close to providing a reasonable way to raise the funds to move all 17 year olds into the juvenile justice system. By taxing video gamers, we are simply implying that they are responsible for teen crime. This is not the case. The senator who wrote this law needs to get himself a copy of an econ textbook and take a look at it. Then, perhaps, he might be able to draft a law that would make more sense.

Maximizing Utility

I don't know about the rest of you, but I found today to be an excellent utility maximizing day. I slept until 9, took a catnap with my cat and am watching Grey's Anatomy with a friend tonight.
Hurrah for negative temperatures!