Best Economic Stimulus

[gonegolfin]

The best economic times come when everyone shares in the great wealth of this nation. That happened after FDR and continued ...

Right ... Fannie Mae was just a bang-up idea.

Brian

 

[Epsilon Delta]

So a quarter of all our healthcare dollars go toward covering 14% of the population, wow! This is typical liberalism, mandate massive spending on a select few, while the masses go bankrupt.

So, basically, fuck all those old people? Yeah, fuck 'em. And fuck the poor too. Who cares, right? Who cares about inequality of wealth anyway? So what if a gigantic underclass emerges that begins to destroy the fabric of society? So what if that's what it's like in most underdeveloped countries? Yeah, FUCK social security.

 

[Charles_Main]

When something is bleeding you dry, you fix it, Reform does not mean and end to SS it means REFORM!!

 

[Charles_Main]

I want to know who voted "Ban cars and jets except for people like Al Gorey."

LOL!!!

 

[Epsilon Delta]

When something is bleeding you dry, you fix it, Reform does not mean and end to SS it means REFORM!!

It could go one way or the other, really. If "Reform" means 'allow the magic of the market to take care of it', it basicall means 'end' it. It's "SOCIAL" security for a reason. If you've ever taken an economics class, what you see in the most elementary levels is a graph that's just shaped like an "X" with one line being demand and the other being supply. The reason why that doesn't work with national healthcare is that it doesn't guarantee universal coverage, because where those two lines meet (the center of the X), is the point where a firm makes just the right amount of product at the right price so that enough customers buy the product without the firm incurring a loss, regardless of those that fall below the line. In other words, if the health care industry could make more money by catering to 10% of the population by having the price be high enough so that that 10% can pay exorbitant amounts for it and make firms a bigger profit than by lowering the price to a level where 100% could get it, they would do it without so much as a hesitant second. But Health Care isn't an ordinary product: it should be considered the RIGHT of a citizen. Right? We can all agree that Health Care for all would be an essential component of any functioning system? That income shouldn't be the determinant on a basic necessity? That someone with no health care coverage is at a huge disadvantage and enormous risk? That there's a reason why virtually every single country that CAN has established a national health care system that at least aims to cover all citizens? The reason why a government-run system is beneficial is BECAUSE it can operate at a loss/ doesn't focus on MAXIMIZING profits, because the profit is healthy population. It shouldn't and doesn't have to operate at a loss if constructed properly, but it won't cut out 40 million people because it becomes 'unprofitable'. And it doesn't mean there can't be private insurers or doctors, either.

In either case the point reeves was making was ridiculous. Medicare is for old people. OBVIOUSLY it's going to consume more social security spending. That's just the most logical thing in the world. OLD PEOPLE USE HEALTH CARE MORE. 'Duhhhh!'. It's almost like saying "MOST FAKE DENTURES ARE BOUGHT BY OLD PEOPLE?! HOW UNFAIR!".

 

[Charles_Main]

It could go one way or the other, really. If "Reform" means 'allow the magic of the market to take care of it', it basicall means 'end' it. It's "SOCIAL" security for a reason. If you've ever taken an economics class, what you see in the most elementary levels is a graph that's just shaped like an "X" with one line being demand and the other being supply. The reason why that doesn't work with national healthcare is that it doesn't guarantee universal coverage, because where those two lines meet (the center of the X), is the point where a firm makes just the right amount of product at the right price so that enough customers buy the product without the firm incurring a loss, regardless of those that fall below the line. In other words, if the health care industry could make more money by catering to 10% of the population by having the price be high enough so that that 10% can pay exorbitant amounts for it and make firms a bigger profit than by lowering the price to a level where 100% could get it, they would do it without so much as a hesitant second. But Health Care isn't an ordinary product: it should be considered the RIGHT of a citizen. Right? We can all agree that Health Care for all would be an essential component of any functioning system? That income shouldn't be the determinant on a basic necessity? That someone with no health care coverage is at a huge disadvantage and enormous risk? That there's a reason why virtually every single country that CAN has established a national health care system that at least aims to cover all citizens? The reason why a government-run system is beneficial is BECAUSE it can operate at a loss/ doesn't focus on MAXIMIZING profits, because the profit is healthy population. It shouldn't and doesn't have to operate at a loss if constructed properly, but it won't cut out 40 million people because it becomes 'unprofitable'. And it doesn't mean there can't be private insurers or doctors, either.

2 questions

1 - How much will universal health care in the US cost on a yearly basis?

(I have been reading a lot about European Countries being confronted with Mounting costs, that only promise to Rise and Rise and Rise, and threaten to bury them in Debt.)

2 - What do you have to say about all the people who are forced to come here from Nations with National Health care systems and pay out of pocket for procedure, and operations, and diagnosis of things, Because Waiting in long lines is not an option.

 

[Epsilon Delta]

2 questions

1 - How much will universal health care in the US cost on a yearly basis?

(I have been reading a lot about European Countries being confronted with Mounting costs, that only promise to Rise and Rise and Rise, and threaten to bury them in Debt.)

2 - What do you have to say about all the people who are forced to come here from Nations with National Health care systems and pay out of pocket for procedure, and operations, and diagnosis of things, Because Waiting in long lines is not an option.

1 - Not entirely sure, but why would the cost be THAT much different than in any other industrialized country? Sure, the US is way larger population and extension, by by the same token, it has more money. I'm not sure how easy it is to get impartial figures but I found this on a quick google search:

http://www.amsa.org/uhc/CaseForUHC.pdf

And it says that the Institute of Medicine estimates $34-$69 billion dollars a year. But there might be other WILDLY differing figures. It's a good report, though, if you want to know the "pro" side. It's good to know, even if you disagree with the whole idea.

And it is true, health care costs mount up, but it's health care. Defense costs are mounting, and giving nothing in return to the economy. Health Care is an investment. There is also something else that everywhere (Europe, the former East Bloc, and Japan) are all facing, which is the fact that the population is growing at a glacial pace or actually shrinking, which actually has horrible consequences. Thankfully, the US is still safe from that with a pretty healthy age pyramid and growth rates (and you can partly thank those HATED illegals- immigration accounts for 40% of population growth in the US, and population growth is an essential component of sustained economic growth).

2 - Well, the rich can do what they will. Nobody disputes that the US has some of the most fantastic DOCTORS and equipment, but also expensive ones. What good does it do for the US if rich foreigners can come in for luxury care while more than 40 million Americans can't? The US has some of the most advanced technology in almost every field, medicine not being an exception to that, and now with the dollar going down even more foreigners could reap the benefits, but not your citizens. Besides, those foreigners coming in, what percentage of those countries populations do that anyway? It's a tiny percentage compared to those that stay in theri country and recieve medical attention. Not to mention that one of the huge benefits of having health insurance is the preventive value it brings, which can do wonders for cutting costs in the future. Preventive medicine is key, and it is totally off-limits if you have no health insurance. Obviously no system is perfect, but a Health Care SYSTEM would have a lot to do with coverage. Just take examples in the third world: places, even REALLY poor ones, that have invested in even basic universal coverage have seen gigantic leaps their standards of living. A case that always gets used as an example is the the state of Kerala in India.

 

[Charles_Main]

1 - Not entirely sure, but why would the cost be THAT much different than in any other industrialized country? Sure, the US is way larger population and extension, by by the same token, it has more money. I'm not sure how easy it is to get impartial figures but I found this on a quick google search:

http://www.amsa.org/uhc/CaseForUHC.pdf

And it says that the Institute of Medicine estimates $34-$69 billion dollars a year. But there might be other WILDLY differing figures. It's a good report, though, if you want to know the "pro" side. It's good to know, even if you disagree with the whole idea.

And it is true, health care costs mount up, but it's health care. Defense costs are mounting, and giving nothing in return to the economy. Health Care is an investment. There is also something else that everywhere (Europe, the former East Bloc, and Japan) are all facing, which is the fact that the population is growing at a glacial pace or actually shrinking, which actually has horrible consequences. Thankfully, the US is still safe from that with a pretty healthy age pyramid and growth rates (and you can partly thank those HATED illegals- immigration accounts for 40% of population growth in the US, and population growth is an essential component of sustained economic growth).

2 - Well, the rich can do what they will. Nobody disputes that the US has some of the most fantastic DOCTORS and equipment, but also expensive ones. What good does it do for the US if rich foreigners can come in for luxury care while more than 40 million Americans can't? The US has some of the most advanced technology in almost every field, medicine not being an exception to that, and now with the dollar going down even more foreigners could reap the benefits, but not your citizens. Besides, those foreigners coming in, what percentage of those countries populations do that anyway? It's a tiny percentage compared to those that stay in theri country and recieve medical attention. Not to mention that one of the huge benefits of having health insurance is the preventive value it brings, which can do wonders for cutting costs in the future. Preventive medicine is key, and it is totally off-limits if you have no health insurance. Obviously no system is perfect, but a Health Care SYSTEM would have a lot to do with coverage. Just take examples in the third world: places, even REALLY poor ones, that have invested in even basic universal coverage have seen gigantic leaps their standards of living. A case that always gets used as an example is the the state of Kerala in India.

Man I just spent 30 mins replying to this and when I clicked to submit it kept sending me to another page, and then my freaking computer crashed.

Now I am going to bed, But I will definitely respond tomorrow.

until then good night.

 

[Paulie]

1 - Not entirely sure, but why would the cost be THAT much different than in any other industrialized country? Sure, the US is way larger population and extension, by by the same token, it has more money. I'm not sure how easy it is to get impartial figures but I found this on a quick google search:

http://www.amsa.org/uhc/CaseForUHC.pdf

And it says that the Institute of Medicine estimates $34-$69 billion dollars a year. But there might be other WILDLY differing figures. It's a good report, though, if you want to know the "pro" side. It's good to know, even if you disagree with the whole idea.

And it is true, health care costs mount up, but it's health care. Defense costs are mounting, and giving nothing in return to the economy. Health Care is an investment. There is also something else that everywhere (Europe, the former East Bloc, and Japan) are all facing, which is the fact that the population is growing at a glacial pace or actually shrinking, which actually has horrible consequences. Thankfully, the US is still safe from that with a pretty healthy age pyramid and growth rates (and you can partly thank those HATED illegals- immigration accounts for 40% of population growth in the US, and population growth is an essential component of sustained economic growth).

2 - Well, the rich can do what they will. Nobody disputes that the US has some of the most fantastic DOCTORS and equipment, but also expensive ones. What good does it do for the US if rich foreigners can come in for luxury care while more than 40 million Americans can't? The US has some of the most advanced technology in almost every field, medicine not being an exception to that, and now with the dollar going down even more foreigners could reap the benefits, but not your citizens. Besides, those foreigners coming in, what percentage of those countries populations do that anyway? It's a tiny percentage compared to those that stay in theri country and recieve medical attention. Not to mention that one of the huge benefits of having health insurance is the preventive value it brings, which can do wonders for cutting costs in the future. Preventive medicine is key, and it is totally off-limits if you have no health insurance. Obviously no system is perfect, but a Health Care SYSTEM would have a lot to do with coverage. Just take examples in the third world: places, even REALLY poor ones, that have invested in even basic universal coverage have seen gigantic leaps their standards of living. A case that always gets used as an example is the the state of Kerala in India.

Where do you get the notion that the US has more money?

 

[Epsilon Delta]

Where do you get the notion that the US has more money?

Errr, because the US is the richest country in the world? 0_o'

Rank Country GDP (millions of USD)
— World 53,640,000
— European Union 16,370,000
1 United States 13,790,000
2 Japan 4,346,000
3 China (PRC) 3,299,000
4 Germany 3,259,000
5 United Kingdom 2,773,000
6 France 2,515,000
7 Italy 2,068,000
8 Spain 1,415,000
9 Canada 1,406,000
10 Brazil 1,314,000

List of countries by GDP (nominal - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)

Rank Country GDP - per capita (PPP) Date of Information
1 Qatar $ 80,900 2007 est.
2 Luxembourg $ 80,500 2007 est.
3 Bermuda $ 69,900 2004 est.
4 Jersey $ 57,000 2005 est.
5 Malta $ 53,400 2007 est.
6 Norway $ 53,000 2007 est.
7 Brunei $ 51,000 2007 est.
8 Singapore $ 49,700 2007 est.
9 Cyprus $ 46,900 2007 est.
10 United States $ 45,800 2007 est.
11 Guernsey $ 44,600 2005
12 Cayman Islands $ 43,800 2004 est.
13 Ireland $ 43,100 2007 est.
14 Hong Kong $ 42,000 2007 est.
15 Switzerland $ 41,100 2007 est.
16 Kuwait $ 39,300 2007 est.
17 Andorra $ 38,800 2005
18 Iceland $ 38,800 2007 est.
19 Netherlands $ 38,500 2007 est.
20 British Virgin Islands $ 38,500 2004 est.

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2004rank.html

[Notice how no big Euro country or Japan is on that top 20 even]

 

[Paulie]

Errr, because the US is the richest country in the world? 0_o'



List of countries by GDP (nominal - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)



https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2004rank.html

[Notice how no big Euro country or Japan is on that top 20 even]

GDP, minus our debt, and where do we rank?

 

[Epsilon Delta]

Err, It'd take me a pretty damn long time to go find all of those countries' debts and substract them from their GDP. Almost every big industrial country has a huge debt.

 

[Paulie]

Err, It'd take me a pretty damn long time to go find all of those countries' debts and substract them from their GDP. Almost every big industrial country has a huge debt.

It's still a valid question. GDP is a skewed statistic.

 

[Epsilon Delta]

List of countries by public debt - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Every statistic is skewed.

Rank Country Public debt
(% of GDP) Date of Information
1 Zimbabwe 211.90 2007 est.
2 Japan 195.50 2007 est.
3 Lebanon 186.60 2007 est.
4 Seychelles 144.30 2007 est.
5 Jamaica 127.20 2007 est.
6 Egypt 105.80 2007 est.
7 Italy 104.00 2007
8 Singapore 101.20 2007 est.
9 Sudan 98.90 2007 est.
10 Greece 89.70 2007 est.
11 Belgium 84.90 2007 est.
12 Sri Lanka 83.90 2007 est.
13 Bhutan 81.40 2004
14 Cote d'Ivoire 81.10 2007 est.
15 Israel 80.60 2007 est.
16 Norway 75.10 2007 est.
17 Jordan 72.70 2007 est.
18 Morocco 72.40 2007 est.
19 Canada 68.50 2008 est.
20 Hungary 67.00 2007 est.
21 Uruguay 67.00 2007 est.
22 France 64.00 2007 est.
23 Portugal 63.60 2007 est.
24 Germany 63.20 2007 est.
25 Nicaragua 63.00 2007 est.
26 United States 60.80 2007 est.

 

[Paulie]

This is a couple years old, so the numbers aren't quite as important as the underlying point (besides, the numbers are WORSE now):

The Bush Admin's Fuzzy Math: Faking Big Bang Growth with GDP Statistics - Seeking Alpha

It's a short one page article, well worth the read...

What was missing from Mr. Kudlow's analysis was the fact that the national debt grew by $1.9 trillion over the period of that $2.2 trillion GDP growth. Traditionally, we subtract debt when calculating net worth and growth (Can you imagine saying to your spouse, "Honey, we grew our income by $50,000 with that loan we took out!"). So if we do that, we discover that the actual growth minus debt for the period was about $300 billion.

 

[Epsilon Delta]

*Sigh* What are you trying to say? That the US ISN'T the richest country in the world? I've never heard anyone make such a statement, especially not an American.

 

[Charles_Main]

1 - Not entirely sure, but why would the cost be THAT much different than in any other industrialized country? Sure, the US is way larger population and extension, by by the same token, it has more money. I'm not sure how easy it is to get impartial figures but I found this on a quick google search:

http://www.amsa.org/uhc/CaseForUHC.pdf

And it says that the Institute of Medicine estimates $34-$69 billion dollars a year. But there might be other WILDLY differing figures. It's a good report, though, if you want to know the "pro" side. It's good to know, even if you disagree with the whole idea.

Frankly those numbers sound very low to me, Even assuming we only cover the 40 million uninsured today. It costs me almost 4000 dollars a year just for to insure my family. Times that by 40 million and you get at least 160 Billion. and we all know it would most likely cost much more than 4000 per person per year. I mean for gods sake one round of chemo cost my dads insurance 21,000 dollars, followed by an 11,000 dollar shot the next day.

I tend to think the real cost would be closer to a trillion dollars a year or more. I also think those costs would do nothing but go endlessly up.

Not to mention that I tend to think Socialized medicine ends up trading quality for quantity.

Don't get me wrong I know we have to do something, but I sure do not want some Universal health care system that puts all 300,000,000 million of us into it. The costs of that would be so high, I do not even want to think about it. It could only translate into a MASSIVE increase in Taxes across the board. As well as lower quality of care, and long waits to get that care. IMO anyways.

 

[Epsilon Delta]

Well, the problem with calculating like that is that you're using your own cost of health insurance and multiplying it. I can't tell for sure, but I'm almost 100% certain that you'd be paying significantly less than $4000 a year in a universal system.

Another problem is that there's dozens of ways to set up a national health care system. I'm not sure how it works exactly in European countries, but at least here, Health Care is jointly medical insurance and pensions plan, and the monthly "allocation" is shared three-way by employee, employer, and government [there's also private doctors, clinics and hospitals, for those who can afford it, but the quality isn't MUCH higher]. I think in other countries it might be totally free and paid for with taxes. And there's other ones. Can't say I'm an expert on the subject. But what I still fail to see any evidence of is why the cost would be so much more inexorbitantly higher in the US and in Germany or France or Japan. I mean, sure, the US has 300m people, but those countries combined have a similar population (like 260m) and similar GDP (13 trillion to around 10-11 trillion). More than welcome to show me, if there's any studies on the issue or any page that explains why the cost would be that much higher in the US.

 

[Charles_Main]

Well, the problem with calculating like that is that you're using your own cost of health insurance and multiplying it. I can't tell for sure, but I'm almost 100% certain that you'd be paying significantly less than $4000 a year in a universal system.

Ok I will take you word on that. But what about the people who actually get sick, and need treatments like Chemo and stuff which the cost for are simple massive. My dad only had it for 16 months before he died, and it cost over 335k in total. His insurance company paid it of course but if the government is paying it isn't that going to massively drive up the costs of the whole plan?

Now if you tell me the system will drive down the costs of health care. I have to ask does that not stiffel innovation and lower the quality of care. After all isn't the ole might dollar that, and the chance to make a buck that motivates both Innovation and quality of care? I mean if you can't make a killing as a doctor, or by inventing new drugs and new treatments. Then arn't less and less good people going to want to do those things?

Like I said, I know we need to do something, But I just would really like to think long and hard about it before we jump head long into it.

 

[Paulie]

Frankly those numbers sound very low to me, Even assuming we only cover the 40 million uninsured today. It costs me almost 4000 dollars a year just for to insure my family. Times that by 40 million and you get at least 160 Billion. and we all know it would most likely cost much more than 4000 per person per year. I mean for gods sake one round of chemo cost my dads insurance 21,000 dollars, followed by an 11,000 dollar shot the next day.

I tend to think the real cost would be closer to a trillion dollars a year or more. I also think those costs would do nothing but go endlessly up.

Not to mention that I tend to think Socialized medicine ends up trading quality for quantity.

Don't get me wrong I know we have to do something, but I sure do not want some Universal health care system that puts all 300,000,000 million of us into it. The costs of that would be so high, I do not even want to think about it. It could only translate into a MASSIVE increase in Taxes across the board. As well as lower quality of care, and long waits to get that care. IMO anyways.

It would be no different than SS, medicare, or medicaid. It would require those that do not need it, to pay for it anyway.

The worst part about it besides the tax raises that would be required, would be the government telling you how you will have to treat your healthcare issues.

I like my freedom, personally.