Cutting the Cost of Living

[finnime]

The Inflaction Reduction Act has some interesting provisions to cut the costs of living for US citizens. Some of them will directly affect me; others, not so much. It's good legiislation, not good enough, but it's good.

In addition to the medications, I stand to save some money via rebates on EVs and possibly electric other things, like the water heater.  DD will definitely benefit from rapid IRS action on refunds. Her identify was apparently stolen and she has not yet gotten her refund from 2021, because it was already claimed. Now her case is in limbo. Even her congressional rep can't help yet--the queue is too long.

How about you? Or is there another avenue you're looking at right now to save on the COL?

From the Washington Post, there are 5 chief ways a person might benefit.


5 ways the Inflation Reduction Act could save you money

The measure promises lower health-care and energy costs for American families. Here’s what that could mean for you.

By Abha Bhattarai

August 16, 2022 at 10:15 a.m. EDT



The Inflation Reduction Act is Congress’s latest effort to usher in a new era of greener climate change policy. But for millions of Americans, the bill could mean big savings when making big-ticket green purchases, as well as lower energy and health-care costs and even faster tax filings.



Although President Biden is set to sign the Inflation Reduction Act on Tuesday, most Americans won’t see any money saved — including on inflation, despite the bill’s name — anytime soon.



Champions of the sprawling law say it will improve Americans’ finances while reducing the federal deficit by $300 billion. Critics say it will lead to higher taxes, particularly for corporations, and will be ineffective in bringing down decades-high inflation.



“Broadly speaking, this is a bill with a lot of elements,” said Marc Goldwein, senior policy director for the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, a group that advocates for lower deficits. “Most households will not see much change right away, but some will see real reductions in what they’re paying for things like health care and energy.”





Here’s a look at how the Inflation Reduction Act could affect your family’s finances, both now and in the future.



1. Lower energy costs



Lawmakers’ top goal was to create a new framework paving the way for more clean and sustainable energy sources. To that end, it includes $80 billion in rebates, including as much as $14,000 in money back, helping households pay for green-energy upgrades. Subsidies cover a range of improvements, including efficient heat pumps ($8,000 back per household), electric water heaters ($1,750) and electric cooktops ($840).



Homeowners can also receive a 30 percent credit for installing solar panels.



“There will be substantial tax credits to help transition to clean energy: rebates for people who buy electric vehicles, who put solar panels on their house, who make other kinds of energy efficiency-enhancing improvements to their home,” said Heidi Shierholz, president of the Economic Policy Institute, a left-leaning think tank. “It will make it easier for families to actually make these clean-energy changes.”





Families who use funding from the bill to switch to greener technology could save as much as $1,840 a year on energy costs, according to estimates from the nonprofit Rewiring America.



How the climate bill could save you money and change what you buy



2. Tax credits for switching to electric vehicles



The new round of green-energy incentives includes a much-hyped $7,500 credit for people who buy new electric vehicles beginning next year.



“The direct benefits won’t be immediate, but there is a lot here, starting with savings if you’re purchasing an electric vehicle,” said William Hoagland, senior vice president at the Bipartisan Policy Center.



Critically, the legislation also offers a $4,000 credit for people who buy used electric cars, which could be an important step in nudging more Americans away from gas-guzzling vehicles, Joe Britton, executive director of the Zero Emission Transportation Association, told The Washington Post.





“That will be one of the really kind of unseen catalysts,” he said. “Because once you get behind the wheel of an EV, you’re 95 percent likely to never go back. … Exposing Americans of all income levels to electrification will have a really positive impact on our ability to transition.”



Buy now or wait? What the new electric vehicle credits mean for you.



3. Faster tax refunds



The most immediate benefit for American families, according to experts: faster tax refunds and more responsive IRS agents, thanks to $80 billion in additional funding to the Internal Revenue Service over 10 years.



“Folks will get their phone calls returned a lot quicker,” Hoagland said. “And for individuals still waiting for their 2021 or 2022 tax returns to be processed — that’s likely to happen a lot faster, too.”



The legislation also includes the framework for a program that would make it possible for Americans to file their annual taxes directly with the IRS free of charge. That could save Americans 2 billion hours and $30 billion in tax-filing fees every year, according to Emily DiVito, a senior program manager at the Roosevelt Institute.





“A direct free file option could transform the experience millions of people have filing their taxes—and therefore improve their experience interfacing with their government,” DiVito wrote in a recent blog post, noting that this would be most beneficial to low-income families.



Why does the IRS need $80 billion? Just look at its cafeteria.



4. Cheaper prescription medications for seniors



It’ll take a few years, but Medicare recipients will eventually see lower costs on some prescriptions.



The new legislation allows Medicare to negotiate prices with pharmaceutical companies, beginning with 10 prescription drugs in 2026 and 20 by 2029.



“The [cost reductions] are very piecemeal,” said Jeffrey Singer, a general surgeon and senior fellow at the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank. “They take place a little bit at a time, but it’s going to make the Medicare recipient happier.”





More immediately, pharmaceutical companies will have to pay rebates starting next year if they raise medication prices faster than inflation. There are also other perks in store for Medicare recipients: Out-of-pocket costs will be capped at $2,000 a year starting in 2025; and insulin costs for people with diabetes will max out at $35 a month.



“If you’re on Medicare, your premiums and drug prices will start going down — not all at once and not immediately, but you’ll see these costs rising more slowly than they otherwise would,” said Goldwein of the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget.



5. Lower prices on other items — maybe, eventually



Economists say it’s unlikely the Inflation Reduction Act will reduce inflation, at least anytime soon.



There’s a chance the legislation could eventually tamp down prices by about 0.1 percentage points in about five years, according to an analysis by the University of Pennsylvania’s Penn Wharton Budget Model. But even then, analysts note they have “a low level of confidence that the legislation would have any measurable impact on inflation.”





There’s also a possibility that some of the legislation’s increased funding for farmers and rural development programs could help bring down prices for crops like corn and soybeans within a year or two, according to Hoagland of the Bipartisan Policy Center.



Households across the country have been dealing with fast-rising prices — which are up about 8.5 percent from a year ago — on a range of essentials, including groceries, gas and housing. Inflation eased slightly in July but is still hovering near 40-year highs. The Federal Reserve has been rapidly raising interest rates in the hope of slowing the economy enough to bring down prices.

[busymom]

DH and I have talked about getting solar panels, so a 30% credit would be great, if we decide to do it.  I definitely approve of more money going to the IRS, as they've been needing an infusion of money for quite awhile.  And, I strongly approve of seniors having cheaper prescriptions, as I can remember my Dad having to order some of his medication from Canada in order to try & save money.  


Sounds like a win-win to me!  

[Tiny]

None of this stuff effects me immediately.

But, when I look out 5 and 10 years into the future that for sure in 10 years I WILL own an electric vehicle and that there will be solar panels on my house.

My life doesn't turn on a dime - so I can't buy an electric vehicle or put solar on my roof tomorrow - but I can see that that is where the world is going. When I re-roof my house soon - I will make sure the new roof is "solar friendly" so that when I move to add solar - I doubt the new roof will be much of a concern - but I'd rather be pro-active.

Hopefully I will be able to take advantage of some of the aspects of this Act.

[bookkeeper]

The health insurance subsidy that DH and I currently have is $15,000 per year.  This is extended for the next three years.  This law goes a long way towards cutting our cost of living.

[TheOtherMe]

As an IRS retiree, I am so happy for the infusion of cash there.  They are still running some of the computers that they used in the 1990's.  Some of their computer systems don't talk to each other because of it and they have to keep people on staff that know those old computer languages.  People are not learning those systems today so that is expensive.

Becoming more efficient will not only get refunds in to the hands of people sooner, it will help the IRS achieve it's mission of making sure people are paying what they are supposed to pay in taxes.

They will be able to stop dinging people they can audit by computer and actually audit returns that take time.  That's where the big money is but those people hire tax people who do a good job of hiding it.  Computer analyses only shows it might be there.  An audit has to determine if it will and those audits have not been happening.

Hopefully, they can stop picking on people for EITC.  I do not mean people who fraudulently claim EITC should not be punished, but those returns have been held up "just because" every year now for several years because of the high percentage of errors.

[plugginaway22]

Yes we breathed a sigh of relief. Thankful for those ACA subsidies to continue for a few more years to get us to Medicare coverage at 65.

[teen persuasion]

I hadn't heard about the tax filing portions of the law - I'm interested in the free direct file, though my state will likely still be an impediment there.

We've been investigating the tax incentives for EV, geothermal, and solar, but the non-refundable credits have been useless for us. The EV shifting to a point of sale credit is a good improvement, but it sounds like the nitty gritty details of which cars now are eligible (US manufactured, US source for battery components, etc) means that there's almost no eligible EVs anymore. So we are waiting.

The other home improvement parts - some are tax credit, some are rebates. Rebates are better for us, but we want some from each category! We also need to do things in the correct order - solar has to be last, so that the system is sized to accommodate increased electricity usage from EV and geothermal heating/water, cooking.

I spent some time last night looking for the details on all of these, but so far it's just broad strokes in articles. Even the IRS was saying - stay tuned for more details as we figure it out!

[Bonny]

Aug 16, 2022 13:35:43 GMT -5 bookkeeper said:

The health insurance subsidy that DH and I currently have is $15,000 per year.  This is extended for the next three years.  This law goes a long way towards cutting our cost of living.

Same here. The three year extension will gets DH over the 65 threshold and takes care of me through age 64. We can afford to private pay through Kaiser for me for one year.

[Bonny]

Aug 16, 2022 15:08:30 GMT -5 TheOtherMe said:

As an IRS retiree, I am so happy for the infusion of cash there.  They are still running some of the computers that they used in the 1990's.  Some of their computer systems don't talk to each other because of it and they have to keep people on staff that know those old computer languages.  People are not learning those systems today so that is expensive.

Becoming more efficient will not only get refunds in to the hands of people sooner, it will help the IRS achieve it's mission of making sure people are paying what they are supposed to pay in taxes.

They will be able to stop dinging people they can audit by computer and actually audit returns that take time.  That's where the big money is but those people hire tax people who do a good job of hiding it.  Computer analyses only shows it might be there.  An audit has to determine if it will and those audits have not been happening.

Hopefully, they can stop picking on people for EITC.  I do not mean people who fraudulently claim EITC should not be punished, but those returns have been held up "just because" every year now for several years because of the high percentage of errors.

Agreed. It was crazy that a lower income person was more likely to be audited than a high income person. I understand the reasoning which was the IRS didn't have enough qualified agents but geez...I think it really emboldened people like our former president to keep doing what he was doing. It would take a full-time team keeping track of what he was doing every year.

[TheOtherMe]

When I was working, we had a group of agents who worked in Large Case audits.  They were teams that stayed onsite at big large corporations and continuously audited them.  There were always major adjustments.  

I'm told in Denver they are down to one Large Case auditor because of all of the time it takes to do these audits.  She was one of my trainees who didn't want to go in to management.  I can't believe I'm saying this but she is eligible to retire.  This bill may change that, but the plan was when she retires, to not have a Large Case agent.

Not to mention how low the % of returns getting audited has gotten.  It's ridiculous because high income individuals and corporations have pretty much had free reign to do what they want if the computers can't catch it.

[minnesotapaintlady]

Aug 17, 2022 9:10:55 GMT -5 Bonny said:

Aug 16, 2022 15:08:30 GMT -5 TheOtherMe said:

As an IRS retiree, I am so happy for the infusion of cash there.  They are still running some of the computers that they used in the 1990's.  Some of their computer systems don't talk to each other because of it and they have to keep people on staff that know those old computer languages.  People are not learning those systems today so that is expensive.

Becoming more efficient will not only get refunds in to the hands of people sooner, it will help the IRS achieve it's mission of making sure people are paying what they are supposed to pay in taxes.

They will be able to stop dinging people they can audit by computer and actually audit returns that take time.  That's where the big money is but those people hire tax people who do a good job of hiding it.  Computer analyses only shows it might be there.  An audit has to determine if it will and those audits have not been happening.

Hopefully, they can stop picking on people for EITC.  I do not mean people who fraudulently claim EITC should not be punished, but those returns have been held up "just because" every year now for several years because of the high percentage of errors.

Agreed. It was crazy that a lower income person was more likely to be audited than a high income person. I understand the reasoning which was the IRS didn't have enough qualified agents but geez...I think it really emboldened people like our former president to keep doing what he was doing. It would take a full-time team keeping track of what he was doing every year.

It's weird though.  They have a rule that they won't process them until Feb. 15th, so if you file on January 15th, it sits there for a month, but it's not like it's because it takes any longer to do them...they just wait to start accepting them for some reason.  I wait until after Feb 15th to file (have to anyhow) and I always have my refund within 2 weeks.  This year I had my federal refund 6 days after filing.

[jerseygirl]

Maybe more audits for waiters , cash businesses

Remember when there was some noise about requiring banks to send IRS info on bank transactions of $600. Looking for folks being paid in cash
Glad that was stopped, too much government intrusion

Not us, everything is on W2s, various types of 1099s and SS. All sent to IRS
Wishing US would put in flat tax and simplify the baroque tax code. Right now more than half of people don’t pay any income taxes just payroll, sales etc

[Deleted]

I am not optimistic.

Tax credits mean lower tax revenue, which has to be made up somewhere else. Corporations pay taxes but if they're taxed more they'll have to cut somewhere- compensation?  benefits?  dividends?  Same with reduced prescription costs.  Will lower out-of-pocket maxes mean higher insurance premiums?  Will lower drug costs cut the amount available for research?

Continued subsidies- that just means the status quo won't change.  Doesn't reduce inflation for anyone. 

[TheOtherMe]

Flat taxes hit the poor much worse than they hit the rich.  I am not in favor of flat taxes.

We used to audit businesses that dealt with a lot of cash.  Definitely waiters and waitresses do not report all of their cash tips.  

I don't know how many businesses deal in cash now, but there is underpayment of taxes there.  Again, those types of audits take time.

Here in Iowa, in the last month, two different taxpayers have actually been sent to prison.  One was for failing for file business tax returns and personal tax returns for at least 15 years.  He was only charged for 3 years as is the custom.

The other got hit for not paying over the employee's share of employment taxes.  The employees do not get punished when the employer fails to pay the taxes nor should they.  I was glad to see that man get 4 months in jail.  

[tskeeter]

Hmmm - in Economics class we were taught that rapid inflation is caused by a large supply of spendable dollars chasing a limited supply of goods and/or services.  So what does this so called Inflation Reduction Act do to reduce spendable dollars or to increase the supply of goods and services?  

It seems to me that an endless stream of rebates acts to increase the supply of spendable dollars, not limit them.  This is in direct conflict with the actions of the Federal Reserve to raise interest rates to reduce the supply spendable dollars.  Maybe that’s why the University of Pennsylvania analysis concluded that the Inflation Reduction Act will have no impact on inflation in the short term and limited, if any, impact on inflation in the long term.  It looks like calling the legislation inflation reduction is an attempt by Congress to misdirect and mislead the voters.

In the mean time, it appears that increasing corporate taxes will drive up the cost of everything from gasoline to Cheerios.  That’s going to reduce inflation, right?

[bean29]

As far as EV credits go, the Credits were already out there. They are now changed so that to get the credit, Vehicle must be assembled in N America. Next year 40% of battery also has to be mined/sourced from N America. So, not new tax $, just change in .. $$. I think it will result in longer term Mfg in N America, but for right now a lot of people are cancelling orders for newly ineligible cars.

[Blonde Granny]

At my age of 77, I'm not much concerned about all this. I'm a widow and have been for almost 10 years, I live alone, and simply do whatever I want to do, when, and how. I just picked up my my beautiful new red Cadillac SUV, that will last me until.....

I use a lot of ideas that my Mom used to do: wash clothes by hand, hang out to dry, carefully spend money on groceries.

For the youngsters here, you have a long way to go, for some of us, who knows.

[Deleted]

According to The Kiplinger Letter, the cost of the limit on out-of-pocket costs for seniors will be "equally shared" between Medicare and the insurance companies, but then they limit the percentage increases that insurers can get every year.

It does not compute. We WILL get some savings because Medicare can now negotiate the costs of some of the most-prescribed meds and there's a limit on the cost of insulin. I've always believed that US consumers were paying the cost of R&D and quality control for the rest of the world, with the single-payer health systems in other countries getting the meds at bargain prices.

But what will be the result of the lower drug costs and the limits on premium increases? Less R&D? Higher prices for other countries? Insurers leaving the market because they can't make a profit on Medicare prescription plans? More pitches from Joe Namath and Jimmie Walker to get Medicare advantage?

These feel-good changes do not happen in a vacuum.

[jerseygirl]

Negotiations on drug prices for Medicare think will start in 4 years. Ten drugs/year read something about starting with most prescribed drugs. Well 80% of prescriptions are for generic drugs so little if any savings for these they’re already cheap.
The drugs with huge costs in the millions/year are typically for orphan drugs to treat less than 200,000 people in US. The price is partially to cover the development costs which are very high for these drugs. Difficult to find these patients . Prices also based on costs for standard care. For example these patients are often in hospital multiple times/year or patients so sick they can’t work. If a year standard treatment is 2 million/year then a drug that costs million year saves costs if patient stays home or better can start or go back to work or have a normal life.
New genetic drug just approved for thalassemia this week. It’s been in development probably 15 years. It will be expensive but seems to prevent multiple blood transfusions/year and other associated health problems.Company is working to help people pay by possibly spreading over years and rebating money I’d transfusions needed in first two years
I worked on a drug for ‘short bowel’ disease, folks have major parts of their bowels removed due to serious Chrons, accidents etc. patients had iv infusions 3-7 x week for hours since they can’t absorb liquids or food. Also hospitalized multiple x year. Many patients on Medicaid. With this drug many patients got off nightly infusions, much less hospitalization and back to normal life.yes it’s expensive but company works to help afford by picking up some costs not covered by insurance
Most pharma companies have programs that give people drugs for free if they meet income requirements. My mom was on one and she had a reasonable income on SS.
Will this bill affect research on new drugs? Most likely yes. Research is enormously expensive and risky. The people who do this research are highly educated and don’t work for free. About 90% of drugs that make it from lab to humans fail. And many more don’t make it out of the lab. But many people already have been paid to work on these drugs that fail
Yes drugs cost more in the US but where are most drugs being developed? In the US
Pharma companies base price in large part on US market because it’s a large rich population compared to ROW. So if a company is manufacturing eg millions of doses of the drug for the US, adding another half million doses doesn’t add much $ to the costs so can be sold in other countries. Drugs often approved first in the US then few years to decades
in other countries, it’s an expensive project to get approval in another country
One drug I worked on in the US took another decade to be approved in Japan
Medicine is expensive to innovate and develop but treatment without is more expensive
BTW insulin is more expensive now but it has better and different characteristics.

[finnime]

Pharmaceutical companies as a sector have been incredibly profitable for many years, which they justify through pointing to their social value as innovators in health care. However, they reap profits regardless of research and development. JAMA article on pharma profits They are entrenched in lobbying to prevent fair market competition seen in other industries, to protect their astonishing profit margins. Of course it is the business of a corporation to be profitable, but to rely on the social good they might offer to justify protected prices is disengenuous.

[jerseygirl]

Wish drug advertising would again be not permitted, that would help lower costs
Also pharmaceutical benefits manager companies add to costs and are very profitable

Large risks large rewards are an economic principle

[wvugurl26]

The government has been trying to get to the PBMs forever. They add greatly to the costs along with advertising and lobbyists. I think the PBMs add the most costs though.

I had Pataday eye drops as a prescription before it came over the counter. I paid $75 for a tiny bottle. I still had one left when it came over the counter so the bottle size was exactly the same. I quit using it because I couldn't afford that. Now I could buy 6 bottles for $75.

[jerseygirl]

Yes pharma makes a profit but not the highest by far
Looking at the article from NYU Stern school business gross profit high but certainly not net (understanding that net can be lowered very ‘creatively’)
Another article - pharma not in 10 highest in US

pages.stern.nyu.edu/~adamodar/New_Home_Page/datafile/margin.html
www.ibisworld.com/united-states/industry-trends/industries-highest-profit-margin/

[The Walk of the Penguin Mich]

Aug 19, 2022 8:05:50 GMT -5 wvugurl26 said:

The government has been trying to get to the PBMs forever. They add greatly to the costs along with advertising and lobbyists. I think the PBMs add the most costs though.

I had Pataday eye drops as a prescription before it came over the counter. I paid $75 for a tiny bottle. I still had one left when it came over the counter so the bottle size was exactly the same. I quit using it because I couldn't afford that. Now I could buy 6 bottles for $75.

Just bought 3 bottles for $33 at Costco.  My fall allergies have hit early and hard this year, my sneezing and eye itch are out of control.

[jerseygirl]

When meds go off patent the money goes over the cliff. First month I was working at a pharma comp I was in a meeting with CEO marketing etc after the top drug lost patent
Slide one showed sales for last 3 months, plateau then off the cliff.
CEO turned to me and said how is the timeline on the new drug?

Hmmm, not quite like academia

[pulmonarymd]

The idea that generic drugs are not a problem is absurd. Intravenous Valium(diazepam) was cheap 4-5 years ago. It all of a sudden was impossible to get for 2 years. Css as me back and it is orders of magnitudes more expensive. This pattern has been repeated multiple times with generic medications, increasing hospital costs, and there is nothing we can do about. Mysteriously, ativan(lorazepam), a drug in the same class as Valium is now in short supply. It’s the drug we went too when Valium became unavailable. Wonder what Ativan will cost when it comes back.

The idea that drug companies do not play games and cause shortages by their actions is naive. The price increase in insulin is unconscionable. Cry me a river over pharmaceutical profits

[tskeeter]

Aug 19, 2022 0:51:01 GMT -5 @athena53 said:

According to The Kiplinger Letter, the cost of the limit on out-of-pocket costs for seniors will be "equally shared" between Medicare and the insurance companies, but then they limit the percentage increases that insurers can get every year.

It does not compute. We WILL get some savings because Medicare can now negotiate the costs of some of the most-prescribed meds and there's a limit on the cost of insulin. I've always believed that US consumers were paying the cost of R& and quality control for the rest of the world, with the single-payer health systems in other countries getting the meds at bargain prices.

But what will be the result of the lower drug costs and the limits on premium increases? Less R&? Higher prices for other countries? Insurers leaving the market because they can't make a profit on Medicare prescription plans? More pitches from Joe Namath and Jimmie Walker to get Medicare advantage?

These feel-good changes do not happen in a vacuum.

It’s simple economics.  Price controls and regulation limit availability.  Put in rent controls and developers reduce or quit building lower income rental property because they can make more money building large single family homes. Limit increases in insurance premiums, in a few years, your insurance covers fewer and fewer procedures and fewer and fewer medications.  Eventually, private business gets forced out of the market and the only real provider left is the government, with their stellar reputation for efficient, high quality services.

Regulation is tricky business that the various levels of government rarely get right.  All regulation comes at a cost.  A cost that activists rarely seem to recognize, consider, or balance within their activist agenda.  For example, a green environment  agenda sounds great.  But, does it sound as good if it comes with a 50% - 75% increase in the cost of gasoline, natural gas, electricity, and the like?  I’m sure that there are lots of people who consider the increased costs a good trade off for the benefits.  But, there are likely many more people who consider a 50% increase in commuting or home heating costs a poor trade off.  (Some might consider President Biden’s approval rating an indicator of voter sentiment on the administration’s environmental policies and other policies.)

[billisonboard]

Aug 19, 2022 16:28:11 GMT -5 tskeeter said:

Aug 19, 2022 0:51:01 GMT -5 @athena53 said:

According to The Kiplinger Letter, the cost of the limit on out-of-pocket costs for seniors will be "equally shared" between Medicare and the insurance companies, but then they limit the percentage increases that insurers can get every year.

It does not compute. We WILL get some savings because Medicare can now negotiate the costs of some of the most-prescribed meds and there's a limit on the cost of insulin. I've always believed that US consumers were paying the cost of R& and quality control for the rest of the world, with the single-payer health systems in other countries getting the meds at bargain prices.

But what will be the result of the lower drug costs and the limits on premium increases? Less R&? Higher prices for other countries? Insurers leaving the market because they can't make a profit on Medicare prescription plans? More pitches from Joe Namath and Jimmie Walker to get Medicare advantage?

These feel-good changes do not happen in a vacuum.

It’s simple economics.  Price controls and regulation limit availability.  Put in rent controls and developers reduce or quit building lower income rental property because they can make more money building large single family homes. Limit increases in insurance premiums, in a few years, your insurance covers fewer and fewer procedures and fewer and fewer medications.  Eventually, private business gets forced out of the market and the only real provider left is the government, with their stellar reputation for efficient, high quality services.

Regulation is tricky business that the various levels of government rarely get right.  All regulation comes at a cost.  A cost that activists rarely seem to recognize, consider, or balance within their activist agenda.  For example, a green environment  agenda sounds great.  But, does it sound as good if it comes with a 50% - 75% increase in the cost of gasoline, natural gas, electricity, and the like?  I’m sure that there are lots of people who consider the increased costs a good trade off for the benefits.  But, there are likely many more people who consider a 50% increase in commuting or home heating costs a poor trade off.  (Some might consider President Biden’s approval rating an indicator of voter sentiment on the administration’s environmental policies and other policies.)

A very crude indicator, some think their environmental policies go too far and some not far enough. Some don't factor it in at all. 

[Rukh O'Rorke]

Aug 19, 2022 16:28:11 GMT -5 tskeeter said:

Aug 19, 2022 0:51:01 GMT -5 @athena53 said:

According to The Kiplinger Letter, the cost of the limit on out-of-pocket costs for seniors will be "equally shared" between Medicare and the insurance companies, but then they limit the percentage increases that insurers can get every year.

It does not compute. We WILL get some savings because Medicare can now negotiate the costs of some of the most-prescribed meds and there's a limit on the cost of insulin. I've always believed that US consumers were paying the cost of R& and quality control for the rest of the world, with the single-payer health systems in other countries getting the meds at bargain prices.

But what will be the result of the lower drug costs and the limits on premium increases? Less R&? Higher prices for other countries? Insurers leaving the market because they can't make a profit on Medicare prescription plans? More pitches from Joe Namath and Jimmie Walker to get Medicare advantage?

These feel-good changes do not happen in a vacuum.

It’s simple economics.  Price controls and regulation limit availability.  Put in rent controls and developers reduce or quit building lower income rental property because they can make more money building large single family homes. Limit increases in insurance premiums, in a few years, your insurance covers fewer and fewer procedures and fewer and fewer medications.  Eventually, private business gets forced out of the market and the only real provider left is the government, with their stellar reputation for efficient, high quality services.

Regulation is tricky business that the various levels of government rarely get right.  All regulation comes at a cost.  A cost that activists rarely seem to recognize, consider, or balance within their activist agenda.  For example, a green environment  agenda sounds great.  But, does it sound as good if it comes with a 50% - 75% increase in the cost of gasoline, natural gas, electricity, and the like?  I’m sure that there are lots of people who consider the increased costs a good trade off for the benefits.  But, there are likely many more people who consider a 50% increase in commuting or home heating costs a poor trade off.  (Some might consider President Biden’s approval rating an indicator of voter sentiment on the administration’s environmental policies and other policies.)

Some might consider that he isn't doing nearly enough. I had a super low opinoin of biden when I voted for him. much more needs to be done to protect the environment, and the future of this planet. 

And the US is lacking, should be leading.

[Opti]

Aug 21, 2022 13:55:58 GMT -5 Rukh O'Rorke said:

Aug 19, 2022 16:28:11 GMT -5 tskeeter said:

It’s simple economics.  Price controls and regulation limit availability.  Put in rent controls and developers reduce or quit building lower income rental property because they can make more money building large single family homes. Limit increases in insurance premiums, in a few years, your insurance covers fewer and fewer procedures and fewer and fewer medications.  Eventually, private business gets forced out of the market and the only real provider left is the government, with their stellar reputation for efficient, high quality services.

Regulation is tricky business that the various levels of government rarely get right.  All regulation comes at a cost.  A cost that activists rarely seem to recognize, consider, or balance within their activist agenda.  For example, a green environment  agenda sounds great.  But, does it sound as good if it comes with a 50% - 75% increase in the cost of gasoline, natural gas, electricity, and the like?  I’m sure that there are lots of people who consider the increased costs a good trade off for the benefits.  But, there are likely many more people who consider a 50% increase in commuting or home heating costs a poor trade off.  (Some might consider President Biden’s approval rating an indicator of voter sentiment on the administration’s environmental policies and other policies.)

Some might consider that he isn't doing nearly enough. I had a super low opinoin of biden when I voted for him. much more needs to be done to protect the environment, and the future of this planet. 

And the US is lacking, should be leading.

We need to balance with what the politicians and the people will agree with or at least put up with. Yesterday I was reading on the EV tax credits and one writer believes much of the restrictions are due to what was needed to get Manchin to back the bill. Looks like it will be challenging for many to qualify and for those of us currently in the low-income strata, I'm not sure how the bill helps us when it comes to autos. An article or complaint I read somewhere talked about a situation where parents bought a used EV car for their daughter. In about 6 months it was useless because the battery needed to be replaced. Not only was it a $4K to $6K hit, but apparently for that vehicle it was almost impossible to find a battery even if one had the $$$. This definitely concerns me as I would need to buy used.