tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5806884.post2337428870121761435..comments2023-10-31T03:18:26.963-07:00Comments on Great Guys Weblog: The $317,000 QuestionBrethttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15063508651955739056noreply@blogger.comBlogger128125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5806884.post-36067963607109382822013-11-23T12:37:16.765-08:002013-11-23T12:37:16.765-08:00The $50 a month question:
http://www.courthousene...The $50 a month question:<br /><br />http://www.courthousenews.com/2013/11/22/63147.htmHarry Eagarhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04196202758858876402noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5806884.post-4116026830799616852013-11-22T16:54:54.264-08:002013-11-22T16:54:54.264-08:00Harry, we can forgive you being wrong, but not bei...Harry, we can forgive you being wrong, but not being incoherent.Peterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15836910211382887430noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5806884.post-86011443094042808402013-11-22T11:34:16.327-08:002013-11-22T11:34:16.327-08:00I was not looking for any. I happened to notice Sa...I was not looking for any. I happened to notice Sanger's obit.<br /><br />It is true that the most important advances in medicine during my lifetime were paid for by the National Health. Sanger was not alone.Harry Eagarhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04196202758858876402noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5806884.post-39481684722589480892013-11-21T17:36:50.272-08:002013-11-21T17:36:50.272-08:00Peter, you specifically did not tell me why foreig...Peter, you specifically did not tell me why foreign aid is not a gift from U.S. workers. Bringing in soldiers, etc. is pretty much last century doncha know.erphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09826044412670324694noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5806884.post-9171088543884183972013-11-21T17:07:41.641-08:002013-11-21T17:07:41.641-08:00You can't find any contributors who haven'...You can't find any contributors who haven't died?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5806884.post-15588074854050919532013-11-21T16:34:17.513-08:002013-11-21T16:34:17.513-08:00Well, excuse me for not arranging for a younger re...Well, excuse me for not arranging for a younger researcher to die this week.Harry Eagarhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04196202758858876402noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5806884.post-42693348252460394772013-11-21T11:36:02.877-08:002013-11-21T11:36:02.877-08:00H. Skipper,
----
[Clovis] Now, Skipper, am I subs...H. Skipper,<br /><br />----<br />[Clovis] Now, Skipper, am I subsidizing that nice Ford Focus of yours? <br /><br />That can't possibly be true, unless the companies are colluding, which itself is extremely unlikely, because the benefits accruing to a defector.<br />----<br />It is true, H. Skipper. You may not believe the reasons I gave you, but the prices I've quoted remain true and you can check that for yourself. So you still did not answer me: by your logic with health care, is it true that I subsidize you Ford Focus?<br /><br /><br />----<br />I think you should look in the direction of import taxes, which I will bet are extremely high. Otherwise, it would be well worth the cost of shipping to bring in used cars and arbitrage that $11,000 per unit delta right out of existence.<br />----<br />Yes, import taxes are extremely high for new cars. For used cars, there are no taxes, for it is forbidden. Yes, you read me right. Only used cars older than 30 years, and if you can prove it is for collection reasons, are allowed.<br /><br />But I will give you a few bits more: the very same cars produced here are exported and sold to other markets (Latin America, US, Europe) for the smaller prices you know well.<br /><br />The argument of the companies is that our local taxes make the same car sold here more expensive. Than you go and calculate those taxes, and you see they are telling, literally, a half truth. Only half of the difference of prices can be explained by taxes. The other half is purely extra profits - that, according to your economic theory, subsidize car technology for all those lazy Americans and Europeans, right?<br /><br />As for your defector theory, it is naive to think it always work, dear Skipper. Game theory provides, sometimes, many possible solutions to a market game. We have witnessed it recently, with the arrival of the cheap Chinese cars. The first year they were being sold really cheap, but then the Chinese realized the market was used to pay much more and they could make more money, simply because the relationship between acceptable prices and number of cars sold would give optimal profits in a higher price. The result: the next year they elevated prices, hence sold less cars but still made more money.<br /><br />Notice I made no mention of companies colluding. It is not needed if the right combination of their control over the market and the acceptance of the consumers natureally led to a higher accepted price. I believe a similar effect happens in your pharmaceutical market.<br /><br /><br />----<br />[Clovis] And for the very same reason it is bogus to claim that other countries are free riding on it. <br />[AOG] With regard to pharmaceuticals, I don't see how you get to that conclusion. <br />Without profit, pharmaceutical development stops dead in its tracks. <br />Where does the industry's profit come from? Where do the benefits go?<br />----<br />I don't think you got my point, Skipper. Very simply put: if you make 1 trillion of profits, it is easy to allocate 50 billion to research. If suddenly you make only 800 billion of profit, well, you curse all those damn socialists, but you still can put 50 billion to research, you'll only need to buy one island less next year for your holidays.<br /><br />Clovishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08921327103613284595noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5806884.post-73791002211940355682013-11-21T10:42:00.271-08:002013-11-21T10:42:00.271-08:00Mr. Eagar;
President Obama agrees, he just thinks...Mr. Eagar;<br /><br />President Obama <a href="https://twitter.com/jaketapper/statuses/403570911342653440" rel="nofollow">agrees</a>, he just thinks that we're "going to have give up paying for things that don't make [us] healthier".<br /><br />Over at the New York Times there is <a href="" rel="nofollow">Thomas Edsall</a> explaining the real problem isn't that POR-care is redistributive but that "white people" have become tired of spending more on to benefit minorities. That is, I am paying more because that's fundamental to the design and purpose of POR-care.<br /><br />Have I explained it enough yet? I'll keep an eye out for more data, just in case.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5806884.post-21405040777525309802013-11-20T18:45:08.490-08:002013-11-20T18:45:08.490-08:00Yes, erp, I did. Very specificallyYes, erp, I did. Very specificallyPeterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15836910211382887430noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5806884.post-90151489817148753422013-11-20T14:01:20.104-08:002013-11-20T14:01:20.104-08:00Mr. Eagar;
Here is another facet of the answer to...Mr. Eagar;<br /><br /><a href="http://justoneminute.typepad.com/main/2013/11/the-dubious-obamacare-insurance-waiver-finds-some-support.html?cid=6a00d83451b2aa69e2019b0166431b970b#comment-6a00d83451b2aa69e2019b0166431b970b" rel="nofollow">Here is another facet of the answer to your question</a>.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5806884.post-68714942179404695022013-11-20T12:50:16.403-08:002013-11-20T12:50:16.403-08:00Blogger erp said...
Peter, if U.S. foreign aid is...<i>Blogger erp said...<br /><br />Peter, if U.S. foreign aid isn't a gift from U.S. workers, what is it? </i><br /><br />You didn't answer the question.erphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09826044412670324694noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5806884.post-43167338006733508162013-11-20T11:53:14.513-08:002013-11-20T11:53:14.513-08:00Sanger, who did his work in the 1950s and 1960s, t...Sanger, who did his work in the 1950s and 1960s, the very early years of the NHS? That seems quite in line with erp's claim, that the research ran on momentum after the NHS was founded and has by now trailed off, or you would have found something more recent.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5806884.post-56656168855067963652013-11-20T11:46:50.300-08:002013-11-20T11:46:50.300-08:00I would like Guy to explain to me why he thinks hi...<i>I would like Guy to explain to me why he thinks his insurance costs have doubled. Was he paying too little before? Is he being gouged now?</i><br /><br />As if the newspapers are not filled with <a href="http://articles.latimes.com/2013/oct/26/business/la-fi-health-sticker-shock-20131027" rel="nofollow">explanations</a> of precisely why that is, and if Skipper and I haven't explained it here multiple times. (Or <a href="http://energycommerce.house.gov/sites/republicans.energycommerce.house.gov/files/analysis/20130305PremiumReport.pdf" rel="nofollow">even the government</a>)<br /><br />Actually, my family's health insurance costs have more than doubled because of the higher deductible. Yes, I am getting gouged, entirely because of the federal government via the ACA. It, among other things, mandates many types of coverage for which I have no use or would prefer to not pay for (e.g., maternity care).<br /><br />The bottom line is the ACA, by design, needs me to pay for other people's health care and rather than passing a real tax to do that, the ACA creates mandates which raise the price of insurance to cover those additional costs.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5806884.post-42943002405366618322013-11-20T10:04:27.583-08:002013-11-20T10:04:27.583-08:00Skipper, you should think deeply about your remark...Skipper, you should think deeply about your remark about life-cycle effects. It was more profound than you think.<br /><br />Particularly think about it in terms of 'free riding.'<br /><br />I would like Guy to explain to me why he thinks his insurance costs have doubled. Was he paying too little before? Is he being gouged now?<br /><br /> Skipper thinks the ACA's goal is the same coverage for all. Maybe that's what should happen -- I think so -- but that's not the ACA.<br /><br />Harry Eagarhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04196202758858876402noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5806884.post-40856591507761131392013-11-20T09:55:32.019-08:002013-11-20T09:55:32.019-08:00More vital research funded by the National Health....More vital research funded by the National Health. According to erp, this cannot happen.<br /><br />Most of the most important medical research advances of the last 65 years came from socialized medicine. <br /><br />"Frederick Sanger, a British biochemist whose discoveries about the chemistry of life led to the decoding of the human genome and to the development of new drugs like human growth hormone and earned him two Nobel Prizes, a distinction held by only three other scientists, died on Tuesday in Cambridge, England. He was 95." Harry Eagarhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04196202758858876402noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5806884.post-27040063869138788062013-11-20T08:27:31.765-08:002013-11-20T08:27:31.765-08:00if U.S. foreign aid isn't a gift from U.S. wor...<i>if U.S. foreign aid isn't a gift from U.S. workers, what is it?</i><br /><br />It's an intergovernmental subsidy with objectives ranging from humanitarian charity to diplomatic leverage to geo-strategic advantage. Would you ever say that American workers invaded Iraq? <br />Peterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15836910211382887430noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5806884.post-61825934120750730082013-11-20T05:53:27.299-08:002013-11-20T05:53:27.299-08:00Harry, Note: Freudian slip above.Harry, Note: Freudian slip above.erphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09826044412670324694noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5806884.post-30232692152504946912013-11-20T05:35:01.969-08:002013-11-20T05:35:01.969-08:00Peter, if U.S. foreign aid isn't a gift from U...Peter, if U.S. foreign aid isn't a gift from U.S. workers, what is it? <br /><br />BYW my "enflamed, grossly exaggerated" rhetoric is to reduce the question from "high-minded" semantics to its basic components. <br /><br />I don't hate anybody. I hate what's being done to my country and its citizens in the name of fairness. We were only promised "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness." The rest is up to us. Those wishing to inflict their failed uptopian model on us are the worst kind of hypocrites. Living the life of unparalleled luxury white lecturing the rest of us for being uncaring. <br /><br />The results of the Focus Groups must be in and the message nailed down because Michelle Obama is being dispatched across the land to speak to the folk about "If but for the grace of God, go I" as the reason to implement socialized medicine. To paraphrase one of their own, "Have you no shame, madam?"<br /><br />Skipper, your comment about used cars, reminded me of one of the fascists in the White House's first moves almost immediately after taking over -- remember they got people to turn their used cars into scrap metal. Their arrogance was immediately on display, but people thought they were getting something for nothing, so they walked right into the trap. Now there is far less inventory of used cars, so people are forced into buying cars that are admixtures of corn-fed and battery powered ... or whatever other nonsense Obama's crony capitalists can dream up to drain the resources of us workers.<br /><br />The left is wrong, but they're not stupid and they are single minded.<br /><br />Clovis, you are wrong. Unwed mothers was not the reason we moved to Florida.erphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09826044412670324694noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5806884.post-84544635790531480022013-11-20T03:32:01.057-08:002013-11-20T03:32:01.057-08:00I simply have to wade in here to object in princip...I simply have to wade in here to object in principle to this "free-ride" talk, which strikes me as the kind of rhetoric the left loves and exploits. I'm sure Clovis could share a few trenchant comments about the profits North American businesses make in South America and how the left loves to preach they are free-riding on Latin American resources and labour. The case for free markets, free trade and free access to research lies in the promise of overall general--not universal, as the U.S. Mid-West manufacturing worker will tell you-- prosperity. I'm not convinced that's an open-ended truth, but countries who regulate markets and prices heavily are supposed to be shooting themselves in the foot, not free-riding. To suddenly shift gears churlishly and accuse them of sucking out precious American bodily fluids is dangerous, inflammatory rhetoric. I understand the U.S. takes a lot of crap and it's natural to defend onself, but zeroing in on one industry and crying "No fair" inverts the whole economic theory. I suppose we could make the argument that the subsidized basic foodstuffs in Cuba means the Cuban peasant is free-riding on U.S. agricultural research, but I'd feel pretty silly doing so. <br /><br />The same is true about some of erp's rhetoric, which can sound a lot like a compliment to those she claims to hate. Foreign aid to Brazil is a gift of the American worker? That sounds like something out of the old Soviet Union.<br /><br />I once took a day to try to research the ins and outs of pricing and regulation in the American and Canadian pharmaceutical industries and I was defeated by both the complexities and moral ambiguities. I hope nobody is going to suggest all those drugs are just responses to real objective consumer demand by a diverse competitive industry. Anyway, it's far too complicated to be the subject of one-sentence declarations about who is screwing whom. <br /><br />However, if any of my American friends here can point to one quote in the Congressional Record that says something like "Mr. Speaker, while I agree the proposed price regulations and price supports would benefit Americans, we would be free-riding on the rest of the world, and that would be wrong.", I will consider eating crow.Peterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15836910211382887430noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5806884.post-21439269791218669482013-11-19T19:58:07.998-08:002013-11-19T19:58:07.998-08:00Clovis;
My point was that I do not see - and was ...Clovis;<br /><br /><i>My point was that I do not see - and was not presented to - any economic model that justifies why your money is so much more valuable than mine</i><br /><br />I don't either. What I have argued is that $90 of my money is more valuable than $10 of your money. That difference is precisely the information I claimed we lacked at the time.<br /><br /><i>Your prescription is the equivalent of making the different car (the "luxury" ones) a little bit more expensive</i><br /><br />No. I am utterly mystified as to how you read "punitive taxes" as "a little bit more expensive". You also seem to have passed right by point (2). And <i>you</i> accuse <i>me</i> of not paying attention ...<br /><br /><i>how can it be that everybody is confused about their new possibilities within ACA?</i><br /><br />What are you talking about? You do enjoy making strong affirmations without any regard for links, don't you?<br /><br />As for paying the same, it would be closer had not Obama <b>illegally</b> delayed ACA requirements for corporate plans. It was politically inconvenient so he just announced it wouldn't be enforced for another year. There are places where one would use the term "caudillo" to describe such an executive...<br /><br />Also it turns out that the ACA will, by government fiat, divide the nation in to regions in which the pricing is the same, but it can vary between regions. As Skipper and I live in different states, that would have an effect as well. Of course, it could well have a bad effect on worker mobility, but what's one more drag on our economy?<br /><br /><i>You look to be oversimplifying matters here to a point it is no longer connected to reality.</i><br /><br />That's what I think about you. You seem to have very little knowledge about the ACA, to the point that your view of it seems disconnected from reality.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5806884.post-66300583212531639372013-11-19T19:46:49.590-08:002013-11-19T19:46:49.590-08:00The Brazilian branch of Ford is producing it here ...<i>The Brazilian branch of Ford is producing it here in Brazil too. Do you know how much is the cheapest model? Near $31.000. The equivalent one in US is near $16.000.<br /><br />Now, Skipper, am I subsidizing that nice Ford Focus of yours? <br /><br />... all the serious research I've read point to the ultimate fact that the Brazilian market simply accepted to operate with higher prices, which is very welcomed by the companies</i><br /><br />That can't possibly be true, unless the companies are colluding, which itself is extremely unlikely, because the benefits accruing to a defector.<br /><br />I think you should look in the direction of import taxes, which I will bet are extremely high. Otherwise, it would be well worth the cost of shipping to bring in used cars and arbitrage that $11,000 per unit delta right out of existence.<br /><br /><i>... the level of incentive provided by the US is not necessarily optimal. </i><br /><br />Absolutely. Far too much money is spent on defensive medicine and deadweight administrative costs.<br /><br /><i>It may very well be that innovation keeps on even if that incentive lowers. </i><br /><br />I disagree. I think that as with cars, most medical innovation starts out extremely expensive, then competition starts driving down prices and increasing economies of scale. <br /><br />With pharmaceuticals, the problem is worse, because of the high failure rate between inception and product.<br /><br />I just don't see how single-payer systems can provide anywhere near the same innovation incentive. How could they?<br /><br /><i>And for the very same reason it is bogus to claim that other countries are free riding on it. </i><br /><br />With regard to pharmaceuticals, I don't see how you get to that conclusion. <br /><br />Without profit, pharmaceutical development stops dead in its tracks. <br /><br />Where does the industry's profit come from? Where do the benefits go?<br /><br />The difference between those two questions is where the free-riding lies.Hey Skipperhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10798930502187234974noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5806884.post-13717444453761858062013-11-19T19:08:25.559-08:002013-11-19T19:08:25.559-08:00[Clovis:] Maybe I grossly misunderstand your point...<i>[Clovis:] Maybe I grossly misunderstand your point, but I can not conciliate this affirmation with anything I've read so far. Are you and AOG paying the same, and having the same? If it was a one option only system, how can it be that everybody is confused about their new possibilities within ACA? </i><br /><br />No, AOG and I aren't paying the same. Since my employer purchases my healthcare coverage on my behalf in lieu of salary, I get much more for less -- my effective cost is at least 30% lower than AOG's. <br /><br />Also, my employer is a very large company, so it self-insures, which means its insured pool is in the bottom of the life-cycle cost curve. And since my employer has mandatory drug testing to get hired, and random testing to remain employed, I'll bet its loss profile due to substance abuse is much lower than insurers in the individual market.<br /><br />That is now.<br /><br />The goal of Obamacare is to essentially eliminate risk pricing. That is why people who have absolutely no chance of having a baby will have to pay for maternity care. That is also why Obamacare is eliminating high-deductible plans, because a healthy and smart young person could bank the premium difference vs. a low-deductible plan, and within a few years would stand better than a 95% chance of being self-insured for the high deductible.<br /><br />Obamacare takes as true a certain definition of "fair". For it to achieve its definition of fairness its ultimate goal must be mandatory participation for universal coverage. <br /><br />Its first steps in that direction were directed, by necessity, at the individual market, because that is the only place to increase the size of the pool (by imposing penalties -- nope, sorry, taxes -- on those who don't participate), and where it was politically possible to eliminate risk pricing.<br /><br />That was inevitable, and anyone with half a brain, which must exclude every journalist at the NYT, and the President himself, had to know this.<br /><br />What else is inevitable is the adverse selection problem, about which you are going a great deal over the next couple months.<br /><br />Because risk pricing is eliminated, young healthy people who aren't currently covered still won't, because of the cost. Yet to keep Obamacare from sinking like a greased safe, their participation is essential.Hey Skipperhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10798930502187234974noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5806884.post-11698159496494095522013-11-19T16:53:06.855-08:002013-11-19T16:53:06.855-08:00AOG & H. Skipper,
I was forgetting to answer ...AOG & H. Skipper,<br /><br />I was forgetting to answer this one:<br /><br />---<br />[AOG] Your previous objection to this claim was that it wasn't clear how much of pharmaceutical revenue was from the USA vs. the rest of the world. I've now provided evidence that, in fact, most of it is from the USA.<br />---<br />I do not know why you believe my point was the lack of information on that. My point was that I do not see - and was not presented to - any economic model that justifies why your money is so much more valuable than mine (and I am not talking about currency, of course), to make my contribution to the market negligible. Because that's what you are effectively arguing here, as far as I understand it.<br /><br /><br /><br />---<br />[H. Skipper] The only reason there is drug development is that there is money to be made on the the successful medicines. Since the US is by far the greatest source of that profit -- due to most other countries regulating far lower prices -- then the rest of the world is free riding on the US consumer.<br />---<br /><br />Maybe, Mr. Skipper, you can only weak up to the weaknesses of this argument by the example you like most: a Ford Focus.<br /><br />The Brazilian branch of Ford is producing it here in Brazil too. Do you know how much is the cheapest model? Near $31.000. The equivalent one in US is near $16.000.<br /><br />Now, Skipper, am I subsidizing that nice Ford Focus of yours?<br /><br />[A little background: the mystery of why cars are more expensive in Brazil is a long one, and of course - as you may have guessed - it has a lot to do with taxes and government. But not only that: all the serious research I've read point to the ultimate fact that the Brazilian market simply accepted to operate with higher prices, which is very welcomed by the companies]<br /><br />Simply put: people pay more for that Ford Focus because they want it, kind of the same way people pay more for medicine in US because they want it too. <br /><br />It is very complex to describe the dynamics and incentives for new technologies, Skipper, but to make it short: the level of incentive provided by the US is not necessarily optimal. It may very well be that innovation keeps on even if that incentive lowers. And for the very same reason it is bogus to claim that other countries are free riding on it.<br /><br />Clovishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08921327103613284595noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5806884.post-79209473588642421752013-11-19T16:23:45.966-08:002013-11-19T16:23:45.966-08:00AOG,
Even taking for granted your version of the ...AOG,<br /><br />Even taking for granted your version of the analogy, I still do not see how it would lead to stagnation in car technology.<br /><br />Your prescription is the equivalent of making the different car (the "luxury" ones) a little bit more expensive. It can have effects on their sales, but to say it would make the companies to give up on them makes no sense.<br /><br />Do you think BMWs a few per cent more expensive wouldn't sell? You must not have paid attention to car markets your whole life to think so.<br /><br /><br /><br />H. Skipper,<br /><br /><br />---<br />Obamacare isn't just about insurance, but the product delivered: everybody pays the same, and gets the same.<br />---<br />Maybe I grossly misunderstand your point, but I can not conciliate this affirmation with anything I've read so far. Are you and AOG paying the same, and having the same? If it was a one option only system, how can it be that everybody is confused about their new possibilities within ACA?<br /><br />You look to be oversimplifying matters here to a point it is no longer connected to reality.<br /><br />Clovishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08921327103613284595noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5806884.post-29985857293298462272013-11-19T15:33:10.163-08:002013-11-19T15:33:10.163-08:00[Clovis:] I think your Ford/BMW example can illust...<i>[Clovis:] I think your Ford/BMW example can illustrate too my puzzling with your line of reasoning: your fear that inovation in medicine will be damped by ACA, makes as much sense IMHO as to fear that a similar government change for car insurance markets would make BMW or Ford lazy to improve cars. </i><br /><br />AOG's response was on the money.<br /><br />Obamacare isn't just about insurance, but the product delivered: everybody pays the same, and gets the same.<br /><br />Which is like saying that every car manufacturer will build the Ford Focus, and that is the only car available to buyers.<br /><br />Six years ago, heads-up displays were newly available, but only on cars in the $60K plus range.<br /><br />The 2014 Mini, which will be in the low-20s, will have one.<br /><br />The market for cars is "unfair". Which would you rather have, a "fair" one, or what we have now?<br /><br />I don't want to push that analogy too far, though.<br /><br />The point I wish to illustrate with it is merely that "fair" can be looked at a lot of ways, and also that "fair" has consequences over time.<br /><br />Which makes solving healthcare the devil's own problem.<br /><br />Harry pungently describes the US system. How would he make it better? What are the tradeoffs?<br /><br />We traded a healthcare system riddled with problems of access and excess cost for chaos and absolutely jaw-dropping incompetence sold with blatant lies and bought wholesale by Progressive dupes.Hey Skipperhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10798930502187234974noreply@blogger.com