Problems With Socialized Medicine & Government Healthcare

[sangha]

When you said the costs get shifted off the consumer. In the end, the consumer pays. That "someone else" you speak of is also a consumer, so why don't you stop with the intellectual dishonesty

I see the problem. You have a fundamental reading disability. Somehow you thing shifting cost burden equals NO burden. Not true. When are you going to see that all of your rebuttals rely on faulty assumptions? Since when does a shft in burden HAVE to mean all or none. Why can't go from 50-50 to 30-70 or something like that? That's what I mean

A

Another lie. France pays for its health care, and your definition is a made up one

I guess you don't understand the concept of a defecit either. Really? I'm lieing that France's health care system consistantly runs at a deficit. I bet you have reall credit card problems too. Because you probably think that when you swipe that peice of plastic through the machine YOU paid for it. Newsflash you idiot. YOU didn't pay for it. Mastercard paid for it and now you owe them instead, WITH interest. Of course France still pays for it.........by BORROWING. The providers still get their money. The government just owes someone else. When you borrow money you still have to pay it back at some point. What happens if you keep running a deficit/borrowing money without paying it back?

Unbelievable that the baics of financial transactions need to be explained to you like you're a fucking 10 year old.

Health care is cheaper in France, but you keep playing with statistics until you find something you can use.

By what defintion of cheaper? Cheaper for who?

Yes.

Then you are the only liar here my friend. Thanks again for showing you are void of any intellectual integrity.

You lied about the French spending a higher % of GDP on health care than the US does.

I'm not surprised you want to discuss something other than you lies

What happens if you keep running a deficit/borrowing money without paying it back?

If you pay each years deficit the following year, NOTHING HAPPENS.

If the economy grows faster than the debt accrues, YOUR COSTS GO DOWN as a % of GDP

 

[Bern80]

When you said the costs get shifted off the consumer. In the end, the consumer pays. That "someone else" you speak of is also a consumer, so why don't you stop with the intellectual dishonesty

I see the problem. You have a fundamental reading disability. Somehow you thing shifting cost burden equals NO burden. Not true. When are you going to see that all of your rebuttals rely on faulty assumptions? Since when does a shft in burden HAVE to mean all or none. Why can't go from 50-50 to 30-70 or something like that? That's what I mean

A

I guess you don't understand the concept of a defecit either. Really? I'm lieing that France's health care system consistantly runs at a deficit. I bet you have reall credit card problems too. Because you probably think that when you swipe that peice of plastic through the machine YOU paid for it. Newsflash you idiot. YOU didn't pay for it. Mastercard paid for it and now you owe them instead, WITH interest. Of course France still pays for it.........by BORROWING. The providers still get their money. The government just owes someone else. When you borrow money you still have to pay it back at some point. What happens if you keep running a deficit/borrowing money without paying it back?

Unbelievable that the baics of financial transactions need to be explained to you like you're a fucking 10 year old.



By what defintion of cheaper? Cheaper for who?




Then you are the only liar here my friend. Thanks again for showing you are void of any intellectual integrity.

You lied about the French spending a higher % of GDP on health care than the US does.

I'm not surprised you want to discuss something other than you lies

Again I never brought up the GDP of France, so no, I did not. Seriously if you're most constructive to retort is to shout liar every time without actually refuting anything said, you may want to come up with a different hobby.

If you pay each years deficit the following year, NOTHING HAPPENS.

Sure, if you have someone who's willing to keep extending credit to you. I think you would have to admit that just treading water year in and year out can't really be called good financial mangement. Imagine if your household was run that way. Would you argue that you are sustaining your lifestyle, that you are living within your means if you spent more than you took in and just paid for it later? Don't you get that things cost MORE doing it that way. You 'buy' a $1000 television except you put it on the card, and tell yourself it's okay I'll pay that $1000 dollars next year.

I guess we have to go over the basics again with you. People don't borrow other people money without knowing they will get it back and they don't do it without a return on their investment, meaning there is usally interest attached to it. So what do you really pay for that $1000 TV after 12 months of 10% interest (pretty low for your avg. credit card)? Just take a guess. We'll see here how well you grasp the concept of compounding interest. Now apply your logic to France. If their budget shortfall in 2009 was x. How much will they have to pay on in 2010 to pay back what they borrowed?

 

[sangha]

I see the problem. You have a fundamental reading disability. Somehow you thing shifting cost burden equals NO burden. Not true. When are you going to see that all of your rebuttals rely on faulty assumptions? Since when does a shft in burden HAVE to mean all or none. Why can't go from 50-50 to 30-70 or something like that? That's what I mean

A

I guess you don't understand the concept of a defecit either. Really? I'm lieing that France's health care system consistantly runs at a deficit. I bet you have reall credit card problems too. Because you probably think that when you swipe that peice of plastic through the machine YOU paid for it. Newsflash you idiot. YOU didn't pay for it. Mastercard paid for it and now you owe them instead, WITH interest. Of course France still pays for it.........by BORROWING. The providers still get their money. The government just owes someone else. When you borrow money you still have to pay it back at some point. What happens if you keep running a deficit/borrowing money without paying it back?

Unbelievable that the baics of financial transactions need to be explained to you like you're a fucking 10 year old.



By what defintion of cheaper? Cheaper for who?




Then you are the only liar here my friend. Thanks again for showing you are void of any intellectual integrity.

You lied about the French spending a higher % of GDP on health care than the US does.

I'm not surprised you want to discuss something other than you lies

Again I never brought up the GDP of France, so no, I did not. Seriously if you're most constructive to retort is to shout liar every time without actually refuting anything said, you may want to come up with a different hobby.

If you pay each years deficit the following year, NOTHING HAPPENS.

Sure, if you have someone who's willing to keep extending credit to you. I think you would have to admit that just treading water year in and year out can't really be called good financial mangement. Imagine if your household was run that way. Would you argue that you are sustaining your lifestyle, that you are living within your means if you spent more than you took in and just paid for it later? Don't you get that things cost MORE doing it that way. You 'buy' a $1000 television except you put it on the card, and tell yourself it's okay I'll pay that $1000 dollars next year.

I guess we have to go over the basics again with you. People don't borrow other people money without knowing they will get it back and they don't do it without a return on their investment, meaning there is usally interest attached to it. So what do you really pay for that $1000 TV after 12 months of 10% interest (pretty low for your avg. credit card)? Just take a guess. We'll see here how well you grasp the concept of compounding interest. Now apply your logic to France. If their budget shortfall in 2009 was x. How much will they have to pay on in 2010 to pay back what they borrowed?

"Again I never brought up the GDP of France, so no, I did not. Seriously if you're most constructive to retort is to shout liar every time without actually refuting anything said, you may want to come up with a different hobby."

You're right. I didn't catch your lie the first time.

You made up statistics about health spending as a % of income, so I'll just ask for a link to support your lie and watch as you squirm

And wrt borrowing each year, every single major corp in the US does this. I guess they're unsustainable also

 

[Bern80]

You're right. I didn't catch your lie the first time.

You made up statistics about health spending as a % of income, so I'll just ask for a link to support your lie and watch as you squirm

It came from the first link I posted. Again reading and reading comprehension are not you're strong suits. Not that it will make much difference when you do read it. I have a pretty good prediction as to what the your laughable response will be.

And wrt borrowing each year, every single major corp in the US does this. I guess they're unsustainable also

Dude it's getting really tiring having to explain basic concepts and difference to you, but here we go.....

Yes corporations do borrow over the course of year. The company I work for does it actually. The reason our company and many companies do that is because they need capital to build. This could be for a variety of reasons. The business is just starting up or it is seasonal in nature and revenue to cover the costs of building don't come it at the same time expenses need to be paid. So the company budgets for what it thinks it needs to cover the capital expenses and asks a bank to borrow them the money. The bank borrows them that money under the assumption that the company will make that money back in revenues and more to cover the loan. Assuming the company makes the money back in revenue to pay the loan, this is a perfectly sustainable business cycle. Borrow money to build product, sell product, use revenue from sale to pay back loan. Pretty simple

So, why do I consider that sustainable and the French borrowing unsustainable? Start at the beginning of the process; budgeting. IF this is the sustainable system you claim and the French government intended to sustain I would think they would have budgeted as well. They should have been able to collect data telling them under the current structure what government portion of the tab would be for health care for the year, ballpark. They get some number. THEN they look at where the revenue will come from to pay for that. They look at tax revenue and come up with another number. This number was apparently 9 billion short of what their tab was going to be. So they borrowed 9 billion to pay the difference. On to next year. They budget for what health care will cost them, they figure out what they will bring in revenue and unless something drastic changes like they are able to cut expenses significantly or somehow raise taxes to cover it without a mutiny there isn't any reason to expect they aren't going to come up short in revenue again the next year (and to interject a little reality it is indeed expected that health care costs will rise in France).

OH!. .....BY THE WAY......don't forget you still owe 9 BILLION from last year too. Serioulsy how simple a picture do you need painted to see why what businesses do year in and year out is sustainable borrowing and what the French government is doing is not?

 

[sangha]

You're right. I didn't catch your lie the first time.

You made up statistics about health spending as a % of income, so I'll just ask for a link to support your lie and watch as you squirm

It came from the first link I posted. Again reading and reading comprehension are not you're strong suits. Not that it will make much difference when you do read it. I have a pretty good prediction as to what the your laughable response will be.

And wrt borrowing each year, every single major corp in the US does this. I guess they're unsustainable also

Dude it's getting really tiring having to explain basic concepts and difference to you, but here we go.....

Yes corporations do borrow over the course of year. The company I work for does it actually. The reason our company and many companies do that is because they need capital to build. This could be for a variety of reasons. The business is just starting up or it is seasonal in nature and revenue to cover the costs of building don't come it at the same time expenses need to be paid. So the company budgets for what it thinks it needs to cover the capital expenses and asks a bank to borrow them the money. The bank borrows them that money under the assumption that the company will make that money back in revenues and more to cover the loan. Assuming the company makes the money back in revenue to pay the loan, this is a perfectly sustainable business cycle. Borrow money to build product, sell product, use revenue from sale to pay back loan. Pretty simple

So, why do I consider that sustainable and the French borrowing unsustainable? Start at the beginning of the process; budgeting. IF this is the sustainable system you claim and the French government intended to sustain I would think they would have budgeted as well. They should have been able to collect data telling them under the current structure what government portion of the tab would be for health care for the year, ballpark. They get some number. THEN they look at where the revenue will come from to pay for that. They look at tax revenue and come up with another number. This number was apparently 9 billion short of what their tab was going to be. So they borrowed 9 billion to pay the difference. On to next year. They budget for what health care will cost them, they figure out what they will bring in revenue and unless something drastic changes like they are able to cut expenses significantly or somehow raise taxes to cover it without a mutiny there isn't any reason to expect they aren't going to come up short in revenue again the next year (and to interject a little reality it is indeed expected that health care costs will rise in France).

OH!. .....BY THE WAY......don't forget you still owe 9 BILLION from last year too. Serioulsy how simple a picture do you need painted to see why what businesses do year in and year out is sustainable borrowing and what the French government is doing is not?

I see you still can't back up your claim that the french spend a greater % of their income on health care

 

[Bern80]

You're right. I didn't catch your lie the first time.

You made up statistics about health spending as a % of income, so I'll just ask for a link to support your lie and watch as you squirm

It came from the first link I posted. Again reading and reading comprehension are not you're strong suits. Not that it will make much difference when you do read it. I have a pretty good prediction as to what the your laughable response will be.

And wrt borrowing each year, every single major corp in the US does this. I guess they're unsustainable also

Dude it's getting really tiring having to explain basic concepts and difference to you, but here we go.....

Yes corporations do borrow over the course of year. The company I work for does it actually. The reason our company and many companies do that is because they need capital to build. This could be for a variety of reasons. The business is just starting up or it is seasonal in nature and revenue to cover the costs of building don't come it at the same time expenses need to be paid. So the company budgets for what it thinks it needs to cover the capital expenses and asks a bank to borrow them the money. The bank borrows them that money under the assumption that the company will make that money back in revenues and more to cover the loan. Assuming the company makes the money back in revenue to pay the loan, this is a perfectly sustainable business cycle. Borrow money to build product, sell product, use revenue from sale to pay back loan. Pretty simple

So, why do I consider that sustainable and the French borrowing unsustainable? Start at the beginning of the process; budgeting. IF this is the sustainable system you claim and the French government intended to sustain I would think they would have budgeted as well. They should have been able to collect data telling them under the current structure what government portion of the tab would be for health care for the year, ballpark. They get some number. THEN they look at where the revenue will come from to pay for that. They look at tax revenue and come up with another number. This number was apparently 9 billion short of what their tab was going to be. So they borrowed 9 billion to pay the difference. On to next year. They budget for what health care will cost them, they figure out what they will bring in revenue and unless something drastic changes like they are able to cut expenses significantly or somehow raise taxes to cover it without a mutiny there isn't any reason to expect they aren't going to come up short in revenue again the next year (and to interject a little reality it is indeed expected that health care costs will rise in France).

OH!. .....BY THE WAY......don't forget you still owe 9 BILLION from last year too. Serioulsy how simple a picture do you need painted to see why what businesses do year in and year out is sustainable borrowing and what the French government is doing is not?

I see you still can't back up your claim that the french spend a greater % of their income on health care

And I see the arguments you have to stoop to when basic facts and concepts are put in your face. I said the figure I quoted is in the first link I posted. Or is it % of GDP you still want (which I never gave in the first place). Make up your mind. Does the link not work? Or are you one of those immature debaters who like to claim it doesn't count or isn't real if it isn't spoon fed to you?

P.S. I wouldn't make anymore comments about who is ingoring the substance of whose posts.

 

[sangha]

It came from the first link I posted. Again reading and reading comprehension are not you're strong suits. Not that it will make much difference when you do read it. I have a pretty good prediction as to what the your laughable response will be.



Dude it's getting really tiring having to explain basic concepts and difference to you, but here we go.....

Yes corporations do borrow over the course of year. The company I work for does it actually. The reason our company and many companies do that is because they need capital to build. This could be for a variety of reasons. The business is just starting up or it is seasonal in nature and revenue to cover the costs of building don't come it at the same time expenses need to be paid. So the company budgets for what it thinks it needs to cover the capital expenses and asks a bank to borrow them the money. The bank borrows them that money under the assumption that the company will make that money back in revenues and more to cover the loan. Assuming the company makes the money back in revenue to pay the loan, this is a perfectly sustainable business cycle. Borrow money to build product, sell product, use revenue from sale to pay back loan. Pretty simple

So, why do I consider that sustainable and the French borrowing unsustainable? Start at the beginning of the process; budgeting. IF this is the sustainable system you claim and the French government intended to sustain I would think they would have budgeted as well. They should have been able to collect data telling them under the current structure what government portion of the tab would be for health care for the year, ballpark. They get some number. THEN they look at where the revenue will come from to pay for that. They look at tax revenue and come up with another number. This number was apparently 9 billion short of what their tab was going to be. So they borrowed 9 billion to pay the difference. On to next year. They budget for what health care will cost them, they figure out what they will bring in revenue and unless something drastic changes like they are able to cut expenses significantly or somehow raise taxes to cover it without a mutiny there isn't any reason to expect they aren't going to come up short in revenue again the next year (and to interject a little reality it is indeed expected that health care costs will rise in France).

OH!. .....BY THE WAY......don't forget you still owe 9 BILLION from last year too. Serioulsy how simple a picture do you need painted to see why what businesses do year in and year out is sustainable borrowing and what the French government is doing is not?

I see you still can't back up your claim that the french spend a greater % of their income on health care

And I see the arguments you have to stoop to when basic facts and concepts are put in your face. I said the figure I quoted is in the first link I posted. Or is it % of GDP you still want (which I never gave in the first place). Make up your mind. Does the link not work? Or are you one of those immature debaters who like to claim it doesn't count or isn't real if it isn't spoon fed to you?

P.S. I wouldn't make anymore comments about who is ingoring the substance of whose posts.

I see you still can't back up your claim that the french spend a greater % of their income on health care

 

[Bern80]

I see you still can't back up your claim that the french spend a greater % of their income on health care

And I see the arguments you have to stoop to when basic facts and concepts are put in your face. I said the figure I quoted is in the first link I posted. Or is it % of GDP you still want (which I never gave in the first place). Make up your mind. Does the link not work? Or are you one of those immature debaters who like to claim it doesn't count or isn't real if it isn't spoon fed to you?

P.S. I wouldn't make anymore comments about who is ingoring the substance of whose posts.

I see you still can't back up your claim that the french spend a greater % of their income on health care

And I see you are STILL reduced to being juvenile and aren't able to respond to my posts. You can't refute that corporate sustainable borrowing is different than the sustainability of government borrowing.

Now if your issue is that you can't see that 12-15% is less than 21%, you're right. We are at a bit of an impass.

 

[sangha]

And I see the arguments you have to stoop to when basic facts and concepts are put in your face. I said the figure I quoted is in the first link I posted. Or is it % of GDP you still want (which I never gave in the first place). Make up your mind. Does the link not work? Or are you one of those immature debaters who like to claim it doesn't count or isn't real if it isn't spoon fed to you?

P.S. I wouldn't make anymore comments about who is ingoring the substance of whose posts.

I see you still can't back up your claim that the french spend a greater % of their income on health care

And I see you are STILL reduced to being juvenile and aren't able to respond to my posts. You can't refute that corporate sustainable borrowing is different than the sustainability of government borrowing.

Now if your issue is that you can't see that 12-15% is less than 21%, you're right. We are at a bit of an impass.

I understand why you'd rather discuss the debt issue before we fully explore your lie about the % of income the US pays. After all, you've been claiming your #'s come from some report that you linked to. The truth is, even you admitted you made the # up.

And another interesting statistic you glossed over. The french pay almost 21% on avg. of their income for health care. In the U.S. I would guestimate (based on the numbers below that it is maybe around 12%-15%.

 

[Bern80]

I see you still can't back up your claim that the french spend a greater % of their income on health care

And I see you are STILL reduced to being juvenile and aren't able to respond to my posts. You can't refute that corporate sustainable borrowing is different than the sustainability of government borrowing.

Now if your issue is that you can't see that 12-15% is less than 21%, you're right. We are at a bit of an impass.

I understand why you'd rather discuss the debt issue before we fully explore your lie about the % of income the US pays. After all, you've been claiming your #'s come from some report that you linked to. The truth is, even you admitted you made the # up.

And another interesting statistic you glossed over. The french pay almost 21% on avg. of their income for health care. In the U.S. I would guestimate (based on the numbers below that it is maybe around 12%-15%.

No. I said I guestimated it the American percentage. It really is funny that you're the one who wants to nit pick about this considering what a fool it makes you look like. My guesstimation of 12-15% comes from the sections of the link that I did actually quote a couple pages back that essentially said x million number of americans spend at least 10% of their income on health care. Since the words at least were used it is reasonable to assume that the avg. is somewhat greater than that, but twice as great? Probably not. I await your next lame ass objection.

 

[sangha]

And I see you are STILL reduced to being juvenile and aren't able to respond to my posts. You can't refute that corporate sustainable borrowing is different than the sustainability of government borrowing.

Now if your issue is that you can't see that 12-15% is less than 21%, you're right. We are at a bit of an impass.

I understand why you'd rather discuss the debt issue before we fully explore your lie about the % of income the US pays. After all, you've been claiming your #'s come from some report that you linked to. The truth is, even you admitted you made the # up.

And another interesting statistic you glossed over. The french pay almost 21% on avg. of their income for health care. In the U.S. I would guestimate (based on the numbers below that it is maybe around 12%-15%.

No. I said I guestimated it the American percentage. It really is funny that you're the one who wants to nit pick about this considering what a fool it makes you look like. My guesstimation of 12-15% comes from the sections of the link that I did actually quote a couple pages back that essentially said x million number of americans spend at least 10% of their income on health care. Since the words at least were used it is reasonable to assume that the avg. is somewhat greater than that, but twice as great? Probably not. I await your next lame ass objection.

You "guesstimated"? IOW, you made up the #

I rest my case

 

[Bern80]

I understand why you'd rather discuss the debt issue before we fully explore your lie about the % of income the US pays. After all, you've been claiming your #'s come from some report that you linked to. The truth is, even you admitted you made the # up.

No. I said I guestimated it the American percentage. It really is funny that you're the one who wants to nit pick about this considering what a fool it makes you look like. My guesstimation of 12-15% comes from the sections of the link that I did actually quote a couple pages back that essentially said x million number of americans spend at least 10% of their income on health care. Since the words at least were used it is reasonable to assume that the avg. is somewhat greater than that, but twice as great? Probably not. I await your next lame ass objection.

You "guesstimated"? IOW, you made up the #

I rest my case

Do you have an a reasonable argument that would indicate that 10% is lower than what it should be? Would it be more than France's 21% when all factors and total population are figured? Serioulsy, do you want to have an actual adult conversation or not?

The other intersting part about your tunnel vision on this particular issue is that you think if you're right it actually means something. Let's assume on avg. Americans do spend a greater percentage of their income on health care than France. What exactly do you believe that is evidence of in regards to our health care system? You do understand their are at least two scenarios where one country could spend a greater % of income on health care than another that has NOTHING to do with the health care system itself right?

And you still haven't addressed the sustainability issue. I can only surmise that you have no reasonable rebuttal to my explanation between the differnence in private sector borrowing and government borrowing.

 

[sangha]

No. I said I guestimated it the American percentage. It really is funny that you're the one who wants to nit pick about this considering what a fool it makes you look like. My guesstimation of 12-15% comes from the sections of the link that I did actually quote a couple pages back that essentially said x million number of americans spend at least 10% of their income on health care. Since the words at least were used it is reasonable to assume that the avg. is somewhat greater than that, but twice as great? Probably not. I await your next lame ass objection.

You "guesstimated"? IOW, you made up the #

I rest my case

Do you have an a reasonable argument that would indicate that 10% is lower than what it should be? Would it be more than France's 21% when all factors and total population are figured? Serioulsy, do you want to have an actual adult conversation or not?

Yes, my reasonable argument is that there is NO EVIDENCE for your US #'s

Let me know when you have facts. I have no interest in your guestimates or your assumptions.

 

[Bern80]

Yes, my reasonable argument is that there is NO EVIDENCE for your US #'s

Let me know when you have facts. I have no interest in your guestimates or your assumptions.

No your just being silly. I POSTED EVIDENCE. READ THE FUCKING LINKS. THE NUMBERS I CITED ARE THERE. I even cut and pasted some of them from the articles a couple of pages back. Look at how pathetic you are. You've really reduced yourself to lieing and saying I didn't do what God and everyone can see I did do. If your gonna line about what someone did at the very least you might want to make sure that there isn't out in the open evidence to the contrary for everyone to see.

 

[sangha]

Yes, my reasonable argument is that there is NO EVIDENCE for your US #'s

Let me know when you have facts. I have no interest in your guestimates or your assumptions.

So it is your contention that the figures in the articles I posted don't exist? That's logical.

Are you denying you made up the # for the US?

 

[Bern80]

Yes, my reasonable argument is that there is NO EVIDENCE for your US #'s

Let me know when you have facts. I have no interest in your guestimates or your assumptions.

So it is your contention that the figures in the articles I posted don't exist? That's logical.

Are you denying you made up the # for the US?

Yes I am. 10% is cited in the link I posted.

 

[sangha]

So it is your contention that the figures in the articles I posted don't exist? That's logical.

Are you denying you made up the # for the US?

Yes I am. 10% is cited in the link I posted.

Liar. The link refers to 10% OR GREATER

Is 100% greater than, or less than , 10%?

 

[Bern80]

Are you denying you made up the # for the US?

Yes I am. 10% is cited in the link I posted.

Liar. The link refers to 10% OR GREATER

Is 100% greater than, or less than , 10%?

Is it reasonable to assume that when a paper cites 'at least' whatever, that the the actual number will be significntly higher than that?

 

[sangha]

Yes I am. 10% is cited in the link I posted.

Liar. The link refers to 10% OR GREATER

Is 100% greater than, or less than , 10%?

Is it reasonable to assume that when a paper cites 'at least' whatever, that the the actual number will be significntly higher than that?

You're the one making assumptions, not me.

I'm not a wingnut, so I prefer facts. Too bad you're short on those

 

[Bern80]

Liar. The link refers to 10% OR GREATER

Is 100% greater than, or less than , 10%?

Is it reasonable to assume that when a paper cites 'at least' whatever, that the the actual number will be significntly higher than that?

You're the one making assumptions, not me.

I'm not a wingnut, so I prefer facts. Too bad you're short on those

Then for the love of God stop being such a immature juvenile twit and pose a reasonable number. If you think the real number isn't even close to 10%, make your case. I certainly accept that 10% is not what the actual number is, it just isn't reasonable, I don't think, to assume it is twice that. Which is what it would have to be, to be greater than France. Being a fucking adult in this converstation for once and let's find out what the number actually is.