Batteries May Become Obsolete

Frederik Rosenkjær said:
Always makes me chuckle when I hear an American say that. We pay about $8 pr. gallon in Denmark.
Click to expand...

Most Europeans don't understand the scale the US is laid out on especially the west. People have chosen to live so far from work/stores/services that in many places it is impossible to reduce the distances driven.

When I lived in Idaho I had a world class river outside the back door but a 300 mile round trip ride for a hair cut.
 
Re: Batteries May Become Obsolete

Frederik Rosenkjær said:
Always makes me chuckle when I hear an American say that. We pay about $8 pr. gallon in Denmark.
Click to expand...

While it doesn't make me chuckle, I find it interesting how much taxation (like on petrol) that you will tolerate from your elected government. You should be asking why do you pay so much? What do you get back for all that taxation? Smaller slower cars?

Nobody should waste energy, but we are not about to run out, so free market forces can more efficiently manage how to use finite resources.

Global warming is a separate situation to inspect, and despite not participating in all the arm waving our shift to the cheaper NG (from coal) has reduced our emissions more than any artificial program of carbon credits.

Our politicians are serial crisis mongers, and before we had global warming, it was global cooling. At the moment they are crying that the sky is falling over a rounding error in budget growth. It is getting sad to watch, but the public gets the government that they tolerate.

JR
 
Re: Batteries May Become Obsolete

Lets hope they really do have something... this is not a new pursuit.

They claim to approach the energy density of "thin film" lithium ion... Not sure if that is weaseling or not.

JR
 
Re: Batteries May Become Obsolete

Dave Barnett said:
Well, for one thing, they get universal health care...
Click to expand...

I am not interested in re-debating this can of worms but since you raise the subject, I will share a few of my thoughts and observations.

I have studied other countries systems for several years while this was open for public discussion. There is not one simple universal healthcare solution, but every country has different pros and cons. They all (most) face the same issues with an aging demographic, living longer, and incurring far higher end of life expenses to stave off the final insult. When there isn't enough wealth to support unlimited care something gets compromised. In some countries the access to costly "free" treatments is so delayed that some patients die waiting in queue.

At it's simplest, socialized medicine means spreading the cost for health expenditures over the entire 300 million or so population. That was easy... I should not complain, because it means a bunch of young people will be subsidizing my replacement hip (or whatever... as if.). The elephant in the room is that replacing a flawed health insurance industry, that wasn't really insurance against rare events, but more of an "all you can eat" fixed price plan, with a government operated single payer plan, without dealing with the cost drivers in healthcare, will leave us with even more economy sapping taxes. Wait for it. The new taxes are only now slowly getting phased in over the next few years, and whatever private sector healthcare efforts get swallowed up or assimilated by the Borg. In one bizarre tax maneuver they are raising revenue to fund healthcare by taxing healthcare (like my hypothetical replacement hip appliance). The old saw in economics is if you want less of something tax it.

An interesting personal example regarding the misplaced or lack of useful economic incentives to manage costs, my brother (RIP) contracted gut cancer. He was a state employee in NE so he had a full coverage health plan. He survived 5 years of chemo therapy and whatever they do, until his final decline. I recall in my last conversation with him, he said what I was thinking. If he was spending his own money, or his own family money, he would have stopped the very expensive treatments years earlier.

That is the crux of the biscuit, we really are spending our own money. The government does not have money of it's own. Every penny that it spends comes from we the people, or increasingly recently borrowed in our name for our children to pay back. However as long as utilizing healthcare appears like we are spending OPM (other people's money) or free manna from government, there will be no negative feedback against unlimited spending. Efficiency and creativity in every other market sector comes from competition and individuals making decisions in their self interest in a free market.

As I mentioned, my brother, not a conservative or libertarian (state employee in a blue state), recognized the disconnect between his personal economic self interest to preserve wealth for his family, and spending unlimited funds for low outcome procedures.

The big lie surrounding this discussion is that we can have painless access to enough funds to fully enjoy the benefits of the best (and coincidentally most expensive) healthcare in the world. The go-to political rhetoric is all we need to do is get the fat cats to pay their fair share, but guess what.. You could tax 100% of their income and it wouldn't pay for this. So in fact this will result in some broad based tax (like on gasoline), but more likely a national sales tax to raise enough revenue. There is no free lunch in macro-economics. When dealing with the full population the math must balance out over time. So "we" must ultimately pay for the healthcare we consume.

I have no problem with paying for my healthcare, that i choose to consume, or not. I am still angry about the pricing distortions I encountered while trying to operate outside the big insurance regime. I estimate I paid between 2x or 3x what insurance companies get charged for similar services. :-(. I should just shut up and acquiesce to all you young people paying my way, but I feel bad for the trajectory I expect this to follow (inefficient utilization of finite resources).

I have tried to avoid the standard cliches used to scare people, and truly hope I am wrong, but when has the government ever done something better and cheaper than the private sector? Healthcare is already a large fraction of the private economy and sure to grow even larger so making a larger fraction of the economy less efficient is never a good thing.

I am unhappy that after these years of "fixing" the system we still haven't addressed the fundamental problem. We need for the consumer of healthcare to feel some ownership in the money they are spending for services. Only this active economic self-interest in healthcare decision making can drive competition, creativity, and efficiency.

Of course I could be wrong.... opinions apparently vary.

JR

PS: For more unintended consequences of the government intrusion into healthcare and revenue raising attempts, the part-time worker and less than 50 worker thresholds for exclusion means we will end up with companies shifting more work to part time workers, and small companies actively managing their size to remain below such thresholds. I repeat there is no free lunch in macro-economics, every tax is an economic (dis)incentive that alters behavior.
 
Re: Batteries May Become Obsolete

I remember travelling across the mid-western states with my brother in law a few years back, we we're having continental breakfast at a hotel in North Dakota and started up a conversation with another traveller. The conversation turned to medical bills and we listened as this person described the financial hardships from having two heart attacks occur in the family, we get up to leave for our vehicles and my brother in law turns around and says "we're Canadian, that would have been free".

I won't say any more on the current health care debate you guys are having.
 
Re: Batteries May Become Obsolete

Spenser Hamilton said:
I remember travelling across the mid-western states with my brother in law a few years back, we we're having continental breakfast at a hotel in North Dakota and started up a conversation with another traveller. The conversation turned to medical bills and we listened as this person described the financial hardships from having two heart attacks occur in the family, we get up to leave for our vehicles and my brother in law turns around and says "we're Canadian, that would have been free".

I won't say any more on the current health care debate you guys are having.
Click to expand...

I am surely repeating myself, nothing is free...
The government does not have money of it's own. Every penny that it spends comes from we the people, or increasingly recently borrowed in our name for our children to pay back.
Click to expand...

I looked at the Canadian system years back and it was pioneered by one of the regional provinces (not unlike a state healthcare program here, like in MA). When it was demonstrated to be successful and well liked, they expanded it to the full country. But that was decades ago when the cost issues were not so severe. They are not immune from the same demographic issues. Just look at the number of Canadian citizens who travel across the border to pay for timely healthcare here to avoid long waits, especially for procedures not considered life threatening. An ironic example offered about Canada was to compare wait times for elective surgery on pets, vs humans. One is private sector and competes to keep the customer's happy. The other is constantly faced with inadequate resources, so do what they must. Since the customers do not have other competitive options, they must wait or pay for service outside the public system. I am not criticizing the Canadian program, they are subject to the same demographic trends as the rest of the western world, more or less.

I have no issue with a social safety net, and do not pretend that what we had before was not broken (it was seriously flawed). I just do not have much faith in the solution that was unilaterally rammed through the legislature without a balanced approach. Now we sit several years later, with the old bridges burned or burning, hoping for the best. i don't feel very lucky.

The voters get the government they tolerate, and we are getting what we (not me) voted for. Good luck to us all.

JR
 
My ER experiences range from being in and out with a prescription filled in 45 minutes to holding my finger together with bloody rags for 7 hours. Nobody is saying our system is perfect, I'm just saying that when a family member has a heart attack, a lending institution isn't on the list of people to call.

But for real, these are my last words on the issue.
 
Re: Batteries May Become Obsolete

Jay Barracato said:
Most Europeans don't understand the scale the US is laid out on especially the west. People have chosen to live so far from work/stores/services that in many places it is impossible to reduce the distances driven.

When I lived in Idaho I had a world class river outside the back door but a 300 mile round trip ride for a hair cut.
Click to expand...

I guess it makes sense to buy a hairtrimmer and a european high mpg car then :)~:-)~:smile:
My wife's old VW Polo does 67 mpg, so even as we are breaking the $10/gal. barrier here in Norway, travelling without breaking the bank is still possible. The sad thing here in Norway though, is that even with a more normal car, where a 300 mile roundtrip would amount to $100, the ombuds(wo)man for equal opportunity has decided that men has to pay the same as women for a haircut, so there is another $100 out the window :lol:
 
Re: Batteries May Become Obsolete

TL/DNR

My thoughts on gas prices are that in the US we do not cover the full cost of that gas, or the infrastructure it gets used on.
So we end up paying for it in other ways. Another form of privatizing gains, and socializing losses.

John Roberts said:
I am not interested in re-debating this can of worms but since you raise the subject, I will share a few of my thoughts and observations.

I have studied other countries systems for several years while this was open for public discussion. There is not one simple universal healthcare solution, but every country has different pros and cons. They all (most) face the same issues with an aging demographic, living longer, and incurring far higher end of life expenses to stave off the final insult. When there isn't enough wealth to support unlimited care something gets compromised. In some countries the access to costly "free" treatments is so delayed that some patients die waiting in queue.

At it's simplest, socialized medicine means spreading the cost for health expenditures over the entire 300 million or so population. That was easy... I should not complain, because it means a bunch of young people will be subsidizing my replacement hip (or whatever... as if.). The elephant in the room is that replacing a flawed health insurance industry, that wasn't really insurance against rare events, but more of an "all you can eat" fixed price plan, with a government operated single payer plan, without dealing with the cost drivers in healthcare, will leave us with even more economy sapping taxes. Wait for it. The new taxes are only now slowly getting phased in over the next few years, and whatever private sector healthcare efforts get swallowed up or assimilated by the Borg. In one bizarre tax maneuver they are raising revenue to fund healthcare by taxing healthcare (like my hypothetical replacement hip appliance). The old saw in economics is if you want less of something tax it.

An interesting personal example regarding the misplaced or lack of useful economic incentives to manage costs, my brother (RIP) contracted gut cancer. He was a state employee in NE so he had a full coverage health plan. He survived 5 years of chemo therapy and whatever they do, until his final decline. I recall in my last conversation with him, he said what I was thinking. If he was spending his own money, or his own family money, he would have stopped the very expensive treatments years earlier.

That is the crux of the biscuit, we really are spending our own money. The government does not have money of it's own. Every penny that it spends comes from we the people, or increasingly recently borrowed in our name for our children to pay back. However as long as utilizing healthcare appears like we are spending OPM (other people's money) or free manna from government, there will be no negative feedback against unlimited spending. Efficiency and creativity in every other market sector comes from competition and individuals making decisions in their self interest in a free market.

As I mentioned, my brother, not a conservative or libertarian (state employee in a blue state), recognized the disconnect between his personal economic self interest to preserve wealth for his family, and spending unlimited funds for low outcome procedures.

The big lie surrounding this discussion is that we can have painless access to enough funds to fully enjoy the benefits of the best (and coincidentally most expensive) healthcare in the world. The go-to political rhetoric is all we need to do is get the fat cats to pay their fair share, but guess what.. You could tax 100% of their income and it wouldn't pay for this. So in fact this will result in some broad based tax (like on gasoline), but more likely a national sales tax to raise enough revenue. There is no free lunch in macro-economics. When dealing with the full population the math must balance out over time. So "we" must ultimately pay for the healthcare we consume.

I have no problem with paying for my healthcare, that i choose to consume, or not. I am still angry about the pricing distortions I encountered while trying to operate outside the big insurance regime. I estimate I paid between 2x or 3x what insurance companies get charged for similar services. :-(. I should just shut up and acquiesce to all you young people paying my way, but I feel bad for the trajectory I expect this to follow (inefficient utilization of finite resources).

I have tried to avoid the standard cliches used to scare people, and truly hope I am wrong, but when has the government ever done something better and cheaper than the private sector? Healthcare is already a large fraction of the private economy and sure to grow even larger so making a larger fraction of the economy less efficient is never a good thing.

I am unhappy that after these years of "fixing" the system we still haven't addressed the fundamental problem. We need for the consumer of healthcare to feel some ownership in the money they are spending for services. Only this active economic self-interest in healthcare decision making can drive competition, creativity, and efficiency.

Of course I could be wrong.... opinions apparently vary.

JR

PS: For more unintended consequences of the government intrusion into healthcare and revenue raising attempts, the part-time worker and less than 50 worker thresholds for exclusion means we will end up with companies shifting more work to part time workers, and small companies actively managing their size to remain below such thresholds. I repeat there is no free lunch in macro-economics, every tax is an economic (dis)incentive that alters behavior.
Click to expand...
 
Re: Batteries May Become Obsolete

Jack Arnott said:
John saw an opening and Dave widened it for him so he didn't need to slow down.
Click to expand...
I really don't enjoy talking about taxes and healthcare but reflexively respond whenever I perceive mistaken understandings, be it audio, electronics, or economics. I understand that there is not wide agreement over some of these issues. Even economic experts don't agree with each other.
===
The suggestion that elevated taxes on petrol in Europe are an attempt to capture the "full" cost of that fuel, does not ring true to me. Who is that remaining fraction owed to? Do they get made whole? I think not. (I found one citation that claims an un-captured environmental cost of $0.30/gal (here), I didn't read the supporting document so repeat their number without comment).

A large marginal tax on petrol serves the more obvious purpose to be an incentive to discourage driving large, heavy, inefficient cars, and reduce congestion since it is not practical to widen and expand roadways in densely populated areas. Public transportation which is quite mature in Europe is subsidized by the state and surely a lot of the petrol tax ends up funding public transportation.

I have long been on record (contrary to popular opinion) that we should probably pay a higher fuel tax, as we have bridges falling down around us due to inadequate maintenance. My primary concern is that I don't trust the politicians to be very good shepherds of the peoples money. How many recall a couple years (or more) ago when the politicians suggested car makers add mileage monitors so citizens could be charged for miles driven, as they saw gas tax revenue shrinking from higher mileage cars. What happens if their heavy thumb on the scale ever succeeds at wide scale adoption of EV.. no gas tax to support road use. However taxing electric cars for road use, might seem a little conflicted in the context of the ridiculous subsidies they now enjoy.

A more practical remedy seems private operation of toll roads. Pay as you go for what you use.
------

It is a stretch to call this (underpriced gas). "Another form of privatizing gains, and socializing losses.". In fact gasoline taxes are probably the most regressive tax hitting poor people hardest who commute to work harder than the more wealthy who barely notice gas prices. If anything it is a wealth transfer to the poor to under-tax gasoline.

I am severely tempted to widen the inspection of things that are getting "socialized" these days , but am already far enough off topic to feel bad (only a little), and I don't need to get all political. I will make one quick observation about politics. They must actually like to fight (or believe they will win every fight). Why else would they engineer short term solutions to fiscal matters to keep us in distracting political hand-to-hand combat for many months more. Finish one fight, immediately shift gears to the next one. Think about that and draw your own conclusions, I will only lead you to the water.

JR
 
Top Bottom