Do Democrats Know How Radical Bernie Sanders' 'Medicare For All' Plan Is?

[Vonsalza]

Vonsalza:

You think the electric bills of 10 rural people will ever cover the construction and maintenance of the lines to serve them? Of course not. You rural folks have electricity due to yet another form of collectivization that you’re unaware of…

A good deal of rural electrification was paid for by the government, but a lot of it was paid for by the consumers. The rural electric cooperatives in this part of the country all required “buying in” to the cooperative for initial capitalization.
Nowadays, of course, if you are in the country and want to build a new house or barn or well and connect to the electric line, you pay for it yourself, 100%.

It’s not as “collectivist” as some think, and never was.

Oh goodness me, it’s much larger than that. Electricity was just one small example.

The explosion of municipal debt all across our nation stems from the same idea. Developing rural areas with very low population densities (read: low tax and fee bases) creates the same problem. Incredibly expensive improvement projects in rural areas will almost never, ever EVER be reimbursed/recouped by the marginal increase in households newly served.

It’s only SOMEWHAT economically possible when the total cost can also be assumed by the city-dwellers that have much lower per-capita improvement costs (again, as these costs for the same physical scale area are assumed by many, many more households since pop. density is higher). If your “buy in” for your coop actually reflected the real per-household cost of running service into your immediate geographic area, you’d need to be independently wealthy to afford it (in fairness, you may be ) It’s affordable because it’s allocated elsewhere and almost certainly subsidized.

This is yet another boringly common example of collectivization that occurs even today.

 

[Ridgerunner]

The explosion of municipal debt all across our nation stems from the same idea. Developing rural areas with very low population densities (read: low tax and fee bases) creates the same problem. Incredibly expensive improvement projects in rural areas will almost never, ever EVER be reimbursed/recouped by the marginal increase in households newly served.

It’s only SOMEWHAT economically possible when the total cost can also be assumed by the city-dwellers that have much lower per-capita improvement costs (again, as these costs for the same physical scale area are assumed by many, many more households since pop. density is higher). If your “buy in” for your coop actually reflected the real per-household cost of running service into your immediate geographic area, you’d need to be independently wealthy to afford it (in fairness, you may be ) It’s affordable because it’s allocated elsewhere and almost certainly subsidized.

I own some rural land served by a coop. One piece I bought already had an electric line running the length of the property. Out of curiosity, I checked into what it would have cost to put it in new. It was pretty steep, but not impossibly so. I see people do it all the time, and they pay for it 100%. With some land, you really can’t afford to do it because the nearest line is too far away to make it pay. But those places are pretty rare, because lines tend to follow roads, and if you can get there by road, your cost is going to be extending the line into the interior of your property.

Private companies compete with the coops, and they will fight over some promising new line extension inside a right of way.

Development takes awhile, and it takes money. Around here, the countryside is getting very populated, and people can afford the infrastructure. In some more remote areas, it might not be so.

But what was the population of the U.S. in 1945? Wasn’t it a little less than half what it is now? What happens if it grows to 600 million? Will the country be better off if 300 million additional people are crowded into cities, or will it be better off if the population is more dispersed? I think probably the latter.

Of possible interest, not long ago I met a young man from Finland who remarked how undeveloped the U.S. countryside is compared to Europe. Not a great surprise. The optimal U.S. population probably really is 600 million, and it might get there in the next few decades. I don’t think the utility companies are wasting their money spending it on additional and improved infrastructure.

 

[Ridgerunner]

I can’t believe you said that. One of the criticisms of the ACA was that it favored Nebraska, due to some last minute finagling. Now we’re saying we can tolerate special funding of a couple of states just to get their vote, no matter how much it takes? It sort of defeats the purpose of the bill which is supposed to save money. Not to mention undermining the 10th Amendment. It’s not surprising McCain voted against this pork.

I can hardly believe it myself. But when I realize how much Obamacare is costing middle class people and promises to do so in the future, throwing extra money at Ak and Me seems worth it.

 

[Vonsalza]

Out of curiosity, I checked into what it would have cost to put it in new. It was pretty steep, but not impossibly so. I see people do it all the time, and they pay for it 100%.

I think we’re just missing each other here.

A higher density collection of customers subsidizes a lower density collection of customers if they’re on the same grid and pay approximately the same rate. This is a classic example of collectivization.

Private companies compete with the coops, and they will fight over some promising new line extension inside a right of way.

Interesting. Where I live, you have your choice of exactly one provider and their service areas are determined by state and local government. I guess you have a choice if your property abuts both service lines.

 

[Vonsalza]

ProVobis:

I can’t believe you said that. One of the criticisms of the ACA was that it favored Nebraska, due to some last minute finagling. Now we’re saying we can tolerate special funding of a couple of states just to get their vote, no matter how much it takes? It sort of defeats the purpose of the bill which is supposed to save money. Not to mention undermining the 10th Amendment. It’s not surprising McCain voted against this pork.

I can hardly believe it myself. But when I realize how much Obamacare is costing middle class people and promises to do so in the future, throwing extra money at Ak and Me seems worth it.

Senator Graham is right. Your insurance will get cheap again if insurers get to resume asking about pre-existing conditions and price accordingly. Thankfully, most Americans oppose it now. This attempt to change the ACA looks like it will be as successful as the other attempts thus far.

 

[JimG]

Yes, I am afraid that the ACA will remain untouched and the premiums will become simply unaffordable for many and the coverage nearly useless.

 

[Vonsalza]

Yes, I am afraid that the ACA will remain untouched and the premiums will become simply unaffordable for many and the coverage nearly useless.

Well, I guess it WOULD be less expensive if we denied sick people coverage again.

The objectively good thing the ACA did was require the private market to cover everyone. Of course it got more expensive after that. The formerly denied where the very sick (and very expensive).

Now that we’re paying for those folks, we want to cancel their coverage and go back to lower rates…

How cheaply we sell our souls, right?

 

[Ridgerunner]

Out of curiosity, I checked into what it would have cost to put it in new. It was pretty steep, but not impossibly so. I see people do it all the time, and they pay for it 100%.

I think we’re just missing each other here.

A higher density collection of customers subsidizes a lower density collection of customers if they’re on the same grid and pay approximately the same rate. This is a classic example of collectivization.

Private companies compete with the coops, and they will fight over some promising new line extension inside a right of way.

Interesting. Where I live, you have your choice of exactly one provider and their service areas are determined by state and local government. I guess you have a choice if your property abuts both service lines.

It’s actually cheaper, at least around here, to develop a rural area than it is an urban area. That’s because the cities are pretty demanding when it comes to infrastructure. Before a developer can sell a single lot, he has to grade the whole thing satisfactorily to the city engineer, put in water, sewer, electricity, gas, cable, phone land lines, all according to spec. He has to base and pave the streets to spec and put curbs, gutters and drainage. In some places, he has to install sidewalks. He has to construct drainage basins to curb erosion and flooding. And then, and only then, can anyone build on the lot. And there are setback lines to contend with and usually restrictive covenants and architectural controls that must be met.

In the country, you need an electric line and a road of some kind adjoining your property, both of which are found together almost everywhere. In this part of the country, you can drill a well, use propane or electricity for heat, install a septic tank and laterals, and build whatever kind of driveway you want and can afford. You can build how you want and where you want.

That’s why a lot of rural towns at least in this part of the country have a “town population” of “X” and a surrounding rural population of “4X”.

 

[Vonsalza]

It’s actually cheaper, at least around here, to develop a rural area than it is an urban area.

Of course it is. When you built in an urban area, you generally have an extant structure that has to come down or be massively renovated and you have to be considerate of your close neighbors.

Raw land is just about always cheaper to develop.

---

So I guess we’re moving away from the collectivization of electricity and toward the overall personal cost benefits of rural vs urban living? Just trying to follow you here.

That’s why a lot of rural towns at least in this part of the country have a “town population” of “X” and a surrounding rural population of “4X”.

If the rural area is physically larger than the town by more than 4X and they’re all on the same grid with the same rates, then the town is absolutely subsidizing the electricity of the rural populace. Which is totally fine. I’m just saying it’s an example of collectivism.

 

[ProVobis]

Bringing back the underwriters and the underwriting time in settling claims will not reduce premiums per se. Not to mention increased commissions for the salesmen which the exchanges eliminated.

And forget the high-risk pools. Been there. They stink.

 

[MonteRCMS]

Please understand that Congress is EXEMPT from ObamaCare.

They don’t care … because they don’t have to live with Bernie Sanders’ nonsensical ideas.

 

[JHC]

Yeah I don’t want the government to take over health care. This county is supposed to be different from the rest. That’s th point. If government tries to take over health care, a true revolution might be necessary. It would be time to take up arms against the communists.

 

[Ridgerunner]

It’s actually cheaper, at least around here, to develop a rural area than it is an urban area.

Of course it is. When you built in an urban area, you generally have an extant structure that has to come down or be massively renovated and you have to be considerate of your close neighbors.

Raw land is just about always cheaper to develop.

So I guess we’re moving away from the collectivization of electricity and toward the overall personal cost benefits of rural vs urban living? Just trying to follow you here.

That’s why a lot of rural towns at least in this part of the country have a “town population” of “X” and a surrounding rural population of “4X”.

If the rural area is physically larger than the town by more than 4X and they’re all on the same grid with the same rates, then the town is absolutely subsidizing the electricity of the rural populace. Which is totally fine. I’m just saying it’s an example of collectivism.

Sometimes it’s cheaper to tear down an urban structure than to develop bare urban land, because the infrastructure is so expensive to install. I am aware, for example, of a house not too far from here that was torn down for about $7800. Developing a new lot in the same city on bare land would cost about twice that much.

At least around here, cities and surrounding rural areas might or might not be on the same grid. In Springfield, Mo., for example, the City has its own power generating facility. Some smaller nearby towns buy their electricity in bulk from private energy companies. Some of the rural areas buy electricity from the same private provider. Some buy from one of two rural electric coops, some buy from a subcontractor of the Corps of Engineers for power generated by some dams. Prices vary fairly significantly, particularly City vs. rural, because even if a city buys its electricity, it buys in bulk and pays less.

One does need to recognize, though, that most power grids are interconnected with other ones.

 

[niceatheist]

Yeah I don’t want the government to take over health care. This county is supposed to be different from the rest. That’s th point. If government tries to take over health care, a true revolution might be necessary. It would be time to take up arms against the communists.

Good grief.

Single payer is coming eventually. Get over it.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Yes, I am afraid that the ACA will remain untouched and the premiums will become simply unaffordable for many and the coverage nearly useless.

It does seem like a Repub failure. Obamacare will hobble along, get worse and worse, and then we’ll get some kind of “Medicaid for all”. Hopefully there will still be a private market as is the case in most European countries.

I think the hospitals and AMA shot themselves in the foot in opposing repeal of Obamacare. They’re not going to like a system that’s “Medicaid writ large”. Actually, I don’t think most people will, if they remember the past. The kind of very quick and advanced care we have taken to be the “norm” over the years is expensive. There’s no way to do medicine on the cheap without deterioration of care.

 

[Vonsalza]

Sometimes it’s cheaper to tear down an urban structure than to develop bare urban land…

Ridge, at this point I think you’re just trying to be contrarian.

The point remains that the per-person infrastructure costs of running electricity is generally cheaper in a dense area than it is in a rural area. A 100 people served by $1million in infrastructure actively subsidizes the other 10 people with the same infrastructure cost if there isn’t any specific attempt to allocate the cost incurred to serve rural customers. As such, the more urban customers actively, factually subsidize the rural customers.

You most certainly covered this in cost accounting during your days at the U when you went over under-costing and over-costing. If the only driver for allocating infrastructure cost is kilowatt/hour and both groups are billed at a similar rate then the rural folks are under-costed and the urban folks are over-costed. And we don’t have to limit our thinking to just “city v. county”. The same effect happens within each group as well.

This is a subsidy that results from the collectivization of electrical cost.

In Springfield, Mo., for example, the City has its own power generating facility. Some smaller nearby towns buy their electricity in bulk from private energy companies.

Sure. And the way it works here is the plant is privately owned and the utility company buys juice from them and sells to us with an added margin. That’s how it works in a lot of places.

One does need to recognize, though, that most power grids are interconnected with other ones.

One does. There’s only three physically separate grids in the US, if I recall correctly. East, west and Texas. Everyone within each is interconnected. But my info may be dated. Last time I studied utilities I was at the U. And that’s been some time.

---

The grand point being: collectivization is already a reality for every American living and breathing. I just don’t think a lot of them know it.

 

[Vonsalza]

JHC:

Yeah I don’t want the government to take over health care. This county is supposed to be different from the rest. That’s th point. If government tries to take over health care, a true revolution might be necessary. It would be time to take up arms against the communists.

Good grief.

Single payer is coming eventually. Get over it.

100% correct. It is a revolution of sorts and we’re going to win it.

I’m no lover of the ACA. It does need a bevy of changes. But the exemption of pre-existing conditions is the primary thing that made rates jump and that simply isn’t going anywhere. I read somewhere recently that almost 70% of reps 80% of indies and almost 90% of dems support it. That is a good thing as it means care for people who needed it and weren’t getting it.

What would be lovely is if all the folks griping about it would spit-out their sour apples and engage themselves with the eventuality of it and help us make it the best system it can be.

Ya know, something we can look at and chant “USA! USA!” while waving our flags and getting bald eagle tattoos.

 

[stinkcat_14]

Good grief.

Single payer is coming eventually. Get over it.

I would be skeptical of that. I just don’t see the political will. Particularly since many people feel misled by Obamacare, how can they trust single payer to be any better?

 

[Vonsalza]

niceatheist:

Good grief.

Single payer is coming eventually. Get over it.

I would be skeptical of that. I just don’t see the political will. Particularly since many people feel misled by Obamacare, how can they trust single payer to be any better?

I wouldn’t be skeptical. The overwhelming majority of the millennial generation and younger are very much in the “pro” camp on single-payer systems. And your oldest millennials are in their 30s now. Gen X-ers tend to be very supportive too and they’re getting within sight of retirement (yes, it did eventually happen, guys )

It’s just a function of time.

 

[MonteRCMS]

Three-quarters of ObamaCare is overhead and bureaucracy.

Only one-fourth goes to healthcare.

Congress refuses to use ObamaCare for itself.