[Rich Toscano]

[quote=urbanrealtor]I will be there.
In the nude.[/quote]

We’d expect nothing less.

Rich

[Rich Toscano]

[quote=urbanrealtor]I will be there.
In the nude.[/quote]

We’d expect nothing less.

Rich

[Rich Toscano]

[quote=urbanrealtor]I will be there.
In the nude.[/quote]

We’d expect nothing less.

Rich

[Rich Toscano]

[quote=urbanrealtor]I will be there.
In the nude.[/quote]

We’d expect nothing less.

Rich

[Rich Toscano]

This conversation reminds me of a great article I read a while back about the problem with US healthcare.

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2009/09/how-american-health-care-killed-my-father/7617/

(Ignore the lame title, for which some magazine editor should be fired).

As I recall, the author makes a compelling case that it is the “comprehensive insurance” model that is the root of the problem, because the “customer” is not the actual patient but the insurance company, medicare, etc. This puts all kinds of distorted incentives into the system and reduces efficiency.

What’s interesting is that as far as I can tell (and I admit I’m not too punched in), most of the debate right now centers around who should pay. And this is an important question, but I think the better question to address first would be that of what we are paying for. Clearly, as davelj’s stats show, we are paying more and getting less. There is a reason behind that that needs to be fixed, and simply shifting the payment from one party to another won’t do it.

I’m probably not doing the article justice. I highly recommend it.

Rich

[Rich Toscano]

This conversation reminds me of a great article I read a while back about the problem with US healthcare.

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2009/09/how-american-health-care-killed-my-father/7617/

(Ignore the lame title, for which some magazine editor should be fired).

As I recall, the author makes a compelling case that it is the “comprehensive insurance” model that is the root of the problem, because the “customer” is not the actual patient but the insurance company, medicare, etc. This puts all kinds of distorted incentives into the system and reduces efficiency.

What’s interesting is that as far as I can tell (and I admit I’m not too punched in), most of the debate right now centers around who should pay. And this is an important question, but I think the better question to address first would be that of what we are paying for. Clearly, as davelj’s stats show, we are paying more and getting less. There is a reason behind that that needs to be fixed, and simply shifting the payment from one party to another won’t do it.

I’m probably not doing the article justice. I highly recommend it.

Rich

[Rich Toscano]

This conversation reminds me of a great article I read a while back about the problem with US healthcare.

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2009/09/how-american-health-care-killed-my-father/7617/

(Ignore the lame title, for which some magazine editor should be fired).

As I recall, the author makes a compelling case that it is the “comprehensive insurance” model that is the root of the problem, because the “customer” is not the actual patient but the insurance company, medicare, etc. This puts all kinds of distorted incentives into the system and reduces efficiency.

What’s interesting is that as far as I can tell (and I admit I’m not too punched in), most of the debate right now centers around who should pay. And this is an important question, but I think the better question to address first would be that of what we are paying for. Clearly, as davelj’s stats show, we are paying more and getting less. There is a reason behind that that needs to be fixed, and simply shifting the payment from one party to another won’t do it.

I’m probably not doing the article justice. I highly recommend it.

Rich

[Rich Toscano]

This conversation reminds me of a great article I read a while back about the problem with US healthcare.

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2009/09/how-american-health-care-killed-my-father/7617/

(Ignore the lame title, for which some magazine editor should be fired).

As I recall, the author makes a compelling case that it is the “comprehensive insurance” model that is the root of the problem, because the “customer” is not the actual patient but the insurance company, medicare, etc. This puts all kinds of distorted incentives into the system and reduces efficiency.

What’s interesting is that as far as I can tell (and I admit I’m not too punched in), most of the debate right now centers around who should pay. And this is an important question, but I think the better question to address first would be that of what we are paying for. Clearly, as davelj’s stats show, we are paying more and getting less. There is a reason behind that that needs to be fixed, and simply shifting the payment from one party to another won’t do it.

I’m probably not doing the article justice. I highly recommend it.

Rich

[Rich Toscano]

This conversation reminds me of a great article I read a while back about the problem with US healthcare.

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2009/09/how-american-health-care-killed-my-father/7617/

(Ignore the lame title, for which some magazine editor should be fired).

As I recall, the author makes a compelling case that it is the “comprehensive insurance” model that is the root of the problem, because the “customer” is not the actual patient but the insurance company, medicare, etc. This puts all kinds of distorted incentives into the system and reduces efficiency.

What’s interesting is that as far as I can tell (and I admit I’m not too punched in), most of the debate right now centers around who should pay. And this is an important question, but I think the better question to address first would be that of what we are paying for. Clearly, as davelj’s stats show, we are paying more and getting less. There is a reason behind that that needs to be fixed, and simply shifting the payment from one party to another won’t do it.

I’m probably not doing the article justice. I highly recommend it.

Rich

[Rich Toscano]

Ha ha, no, I am not EconProf (despite the shared title… though in his case, I imagine it’s an actual title whereas in my case it was entirely made up ;-).

Sorry I misunderstood the post. Carry on.

Rich

[Rich Toscano]

Ha ha, no, I am not EconProf (despite the shared title… though in his case, I imagine it’s an actual title whereas in my case it was entirely made up ;-).

Sorry I misunderstood the post. Carry on.

Rich

[Rich Toscano]

Ha ha, no, I am not EconProf (despite the shared title… though in his case, I imagine it’s an actual title whereas in my case it was entirely made up ;-).

Sorry I misunderstood the post. Carry on.

Rich

[Rich Toscano]

Ha ha, no, I am not EconProf (despite the shared title… though in his case, I imagine it’s an actual title whereas in my case it was entirely made up ;-).

Sorry I misunderstood the post. Carry on.

Rich

[Rich Toscano]

Ha ha, no, I am not EconProf (despite the shared title… though in his case, I imagine it’s an actual title whereas in my case it was entirely made up ;-).

Sorry I misunderstood the post. Carry on.

Rich

[Rich Toscano]

[quote=briansd1]
EconProf’s post is however consistent with his political beliefs. That’s more that can be said for other posters who wag their fingers at government intervention, but when housing is concerned, government intervention works. So no worries, you can buy a house; everything will be fine.

I don’t believe that Prof Piggington (Rich Toscano) and EconProf are one and the same.[/quote]

I’m not sure how to parse this… are you suggesting that I approve of government intervention in the housing market? Because that would be a pretty wacky take on what I’ve actually written…

rich

[Author]

Posts