Incomes up and Poverty Down in 2019

Markle

Gold Member
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Apr 15, 2016
Messages
20,279
Reaction score
4,255
Points
290
Location
Tallahassee, FL
How much more should the "rich" pay and who do you classify as "rich"?

Specifically, what is a "fair share"?
What the fucks were paying before Reagan. That would be their fair share.

You see, when they paid their fair share, we had enough money for schools, highways, and we were even able to have a space program.
Your ignorance of our taxes at the time is not surprising.

You have a bit of a foggy memory about the Eisenhower Days. Either that or you have gotten your talking points from the DailyKOS who left out a few..."minor" details.

I have done this before but I’ll do it again for your edification, from (1963). It will do for our purposes. Anyone (a single person) earning $4,000 per year or less paid income tax at the rate of 20%. Adjusted for inflation, that would be $31,800.00 per year. That translates to everyone earning LESS THAN $31,800 PER YEAR TODAY WOULD PAY 20% INCOME TAX. Gosh, that sure would eliminate that 48% that pay no income tax today! Way to go!

As for the top rate of your beloved 91% in 1963, that was paid by those earning over $400,000.00 Adjusted for inflation, that would be $3,186,770.00 today. Do you want to tell us that 1% of the nation earns of 3.2 MILLION PER YEAR? Really?

In the same year, employees paid 3.625% for Social Security and the employer paid nothing. Not quite the 15.2% of today.

Now, do you really want to go back to those rates? Are you aware of the long, long list of deductions in 1963? All interest on everything and the list goes on.

Federal Income Tax Brackets for Tax Year 1962 (Filed April 1963)

FICA & SECA Tax Rates

The Inflation Calculator
 

forkup

Gold Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2016
Messages
5,397
Reaction score
902
Points
195
Great! Please explain what I mean by "the most active and aggressive Fed in the history of the country". And please break it down to the actions of the central Fed and the NY Fed over the last three years, AND the long term implications of those actions.

Go ahead. Feel free to get as specific as you'd like.

Oh, and then tell us how long we can engage in massive deficit spending increases.

Thanks in advance.
Meaning, you've got NOTHING!

If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bull s***!
'
Is that supposed to be some kind of answer?
I already asked you to provide details as to why you think the Biden/Harris plan will be successul and how the fed will change their monetary policy under Biden/Harris. Instead of answering, you filabuster.
So his big reason why people doing better financially doesn't matter is the fed, and the fed will do the exact same thing with Harris. Plus, everyone's gains will be removed, and spending will balloon even higher. Mac, why are you not rooting for people to win in any fashion?
Because we're being terribly fiscally irresponsible. This comes at a cost.

It's sad that I even have to say this.
You can see that lower taxes and regulations give people a better chance to take care of themselves? Despite what the fed is doing, I would have to think common sense practices would still allow wages to rise. Are you saying nothing Trump does is good for the country economically because of what the fed is doing? If nothing matters because of the fed, people have pointed out that the fed behavior will likey be the same under a democrat administration.
How do you make that connection. Wages rose under Obama despite more regulation. We have way more regulations and way higher taxes and people here are capable of taking better care of themselves and their family. I'm not trying to do some gotcha thing but I'd like to know what objective fact you're aware of that leads you to conclude that lower taxes and regulations lead to being better able to take care of yourself?
Note he said taking care of yourself, not being taken care of by the government. Europe has a larger welfare state than the US. Ironically, the US citizens give MUCH more to charity than those in Europe, who rely on government redistribution of wealth. We are much more in control of our personal welfare than those in Europe and I personally like that because I am willing to take on the personal responsibility and the risk that allows me to move up( and down) the economic ladder much more freely than in Europe.
If I work to earn a wage, a wage that allows you too
Great! Please explain what I mean by "the most active and aggressive Fed in the history of the country". And please break it down to the actions of the central Fed and the NY Fed over the last three years, AND the long term implications of those actions.

Go ahead. Feel free to get as specific as you'd like.

Oh, and then tell us how long we can engage in massive deficit spending increases.

Thanks in advance.
Meaning, you've got NOTHING!

If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bull s***!
'
Is that supposed to be some kind of answer?
I already asked you to provide details as to why you think the Biden/Harris plan will be successul and how the fed will change their monetary policy under Biden/Harris. Instead of answering, you filabuster.
So his big reason why people doing better financially doesn't matter is the fed, and the fed will do the exact same thing with Harris. Plus, everyone's gains will be removed, and spending will balloon even higher. Mac, why are you not rooting for people to win in any fashion?
Because we're being terribly fiscally irresponsible. This comes at a cost.

It's sad that I even have to say this.
You can see that lower taxes and regulations give people a better chance to take care of themselves? Despite what the fed is doing, I would have to think common sense practices would still allow wages to rise. Are you saying nothing Trump does is good for the country economically because of what the fed is doing? If nothing matters because of the fed, people have pointed out that the fed behavior will likey be the same under a democrat administration.
How do you make that connection. Wages rose under Obama despite more regulation. We have way more regulations and way higher taxes and people here are capable of taking better care of themselves and their family. I'm not trying to do some gotcha thing but I'd like to know what objective fact you're aware of that leads you to conclude that lower taxes and regulations lead to being better able to take care of yourself?
Note he said taking care of yourself, not being taken care of by the government. Europe has a larger welfare state than the US. Ironically, the US citizens give MUCH more to charity than those in Europe, who rely on government redistribution of wealth. We are much more in control of our personal welfare than those in Europe and I personally like that because I am willing to take on the personal responsibility and the risk that allows me to move up( and down) the economic ladder much more freely than in Europe.
If I work and make a wage. A wage that allows me to pay taxes and buy goods how am I letting the government take care of me? It's a disconnect I feel often occurs when talking to conservatives. For some reason services payed for by taxes are considered "given". They are not I paid for them.

As to social mobility. The whole concept of student debt is alien to people living here. Who do you think is more mobile in society. A person living in a country that allows everyone to have a higher education without accruing debt regardless of who you parents are? Or a person for whom the best universities are unaffordable unless they themselves are exceptional enough to qualify for a sholarship. And other higher education carries considerable financial burdens?
Even with the higher taxes in Europe, it is still in the taxpayers best interest to make things efficient. Having three agencies that oversee the same thing, and layers of overlapping government are wasteful and expensive. Trump reducing those in America was helpful. While you don't mind paying higher taxes for your services, I imagine if the government makes stupid decisions, and your taxes rise to a certain level, you might view those taxes differently. Trump increased efficiency, which is common sense. It works with both Europe and the US. Here in the US, people act like it had nothing to do with our success before the virus.
I have a very simple outlook. What's cheaper. Is my government wasteful? Yes, it is. Does it offer services at a cheaper price than I could myself? Yes, it does. Not for everything of course. I have experience in both the US and here and have an actual base for comparison. I prefer my high taxation and limitations that come with living here over the risks I run in the US in the hope I'll become a millionaire.
People in the US have said that government programs would be cheaper than private services, and they have been wrong every single time. By your outlook of what is cheaper, people who live in the US have an obvious choice, private services. It isn't even close. Government involvement normally causes a service's cost to explode far over the cost of if the government would have just stayed away.
PolitiFact - Comparing administrative costs for private insurance and Medicare They are wrong every single time? You are sure about that?
Yes, we are sure. As I mentioned before, you ignore glaring issues like reimbursement and a skewed administrative costs as a percentage of over all cost since Medicare deals with disabled and elderly patients. Nobody and I mean NOBODY who has any sense thinks the US government is efficient.
I'm not asserting that even my government is efficient. In fact, I flat out said mine wasn't. I asserted that they are more efficient in some areas than private industry is.
I think I am finally seeing the level of differences in our perspective. I want to look at things from a different angle. You have said that your government can provide services cheaper than private industry in certain areas, while at the same time saying your government isn't efficient. I'm going to make an assumption that you do not have a lot of private competition to your government programs. If an efficient, sharply led business which created a superior product at prices which match private competition levels offered to compete with your government on services, do you believe it could beat your government's prices? Are you really getting prices that are better than you can get anywhere else? In the US, it has been my experience that the best price was the original privately offered price, and then the government makes the costs rise sharply. I'm wondering if you have experienced any other options than the government option?
I don't believe you are getting my perspective at all. My perspective is born out of having a partner who has lived in the US the first 25 years of her life. My perspective is of someone who's partner has experienced life both insured and uninsured in both countries. My perspective is of someone who has friends and family who are experiencing health issues in both countries as we speak. My perspective is of someone who's had people going through the same or similar health issues in both countries. My perspective is of someone who can give first or at worst second hand examples of differences how health care is approached in the US and Belgium.

When I make claims about costs and efficiencies in my country and draw comparisons, I'm not stating opinions, I'm stating facts based on my own personal knowledge.

So yes I have experienced other than government options. I have experienced YOUR option.
 

DustyInfinity

Gold Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2018
Messages
2,457
Reaction score
1,115
Points
210
Location
Midwest
Great! Please explain what I mean by "the most active and aggressive Fed in the history of the country". And please break it down to the actions of the central Fed and the NY Fed over the last three years, AND the long term implications of those actions.

Go ahead. Feel free to get as specific as you'd like.

Oh, and then tell us how long we can engage in massive deficit spending increases.

Thanks in advance.
Meaning, you've got NOTHING!

If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bull s***!
'
Is that supposed to be some kind of answer?
I already asked you to provide details as to why you think the Biden/Harris plan will be successul and how the fed will change their monetary policy under Biden/Harris. Instead of answering, you filabuster.
So his big reason why people doing better financially doesn't matter is the fed, and the fed will do the exact same thing with Harris. Plus, everyone's gains will be removed, and spending will balloon even higher. Mac, why are you not rooting for people to win in any fashion?
Because we're being terribly fiscally irresponsible. This comes at a cost.

It's sad that I even have to say this.
You can see that lower taxes and regulations give people a better chance to take care of themselves? Despite what the fed is doing, I would have to think common sense practices would still allow wages to rise. Are you saying nothing Trump does is good for the country economically because of what the fed is doing? If nothing matters because of the fed, people have pointed out that the fed behavior will likey be the same under a democrat administration.
How do you make that connection. Wages rose under Obama despite more regulation. We have way more regulations and way higher taxes and people here are capable of taking better care of themselves and their family. I'm not trying to do some gotcha thing but I'd like to know what objective fact you're aware of that leads you to conclude that lower taxes and regulations lead to being better able to take care of yourself?
Note he said taking care of yourself, not being taken care of by the government. Europe has a larger welfare state than the US. Ironically, the US citizens give MUCH more to charity than those in Europe, who rely on government redistribution of wealth. We are much more in control of our personal welfare than those in Europe and I personally like that because I am willing to take on the personal responsibility and the risk that allows me to move up( and down) the economic ladder much more freely than in Europe.
If I work to earn a wage, a wage that allows you too
Great! Please explain what I mean by "the most active and aggressive Fed in the history of the country". And please break it down to the actions of the central Fed and the NY Fed over the last three years, AND the long term implications of those actions.

Go ahead. Feel free to get as specific as you'd like.

Oh, and then tell us how long we can engage in massive deficit spending increases.

Thanks in advance.
Meaning, you've got NOTHING!

If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bull s***!
'
Is that supposed to be some kind of answer?
I already asked you to provide details as to why you think the Biden/Harris plan will be successul and how the fed will change their monetary policy under Biden/Harris. Instead of answering, you filabuster.
So his big reason why people doing better financially doesn't matter is the fed, and the fed will do the exact same thing with Harris. Plus, everyone's gains will be removed, and spending will balloon even higher. Mac, why are you not rooting for people to win in any fashion?
Because we're being terribly fiscally irresponsible. This comes at a cost.

It's sad that I even have to say this.
You can see that lower taxes and regulations give people a better chance to take care of themselves? Despite what the fed is doing, I would have to think common sense practices would still allow wages to rise. Are you saying nothing Trump does is good for the country economically because of what the fed is doing? If nothing matters because of the fed, people have pointed out that the fed behavior will likey be the same under a democrat administration.
How do you make that connection. Wages rose under Obama despite more regulation. We have way more regulations and way higher taxes and people here are capable of taking better care of themselves and their family. I'm not trying to do some gotcha thing but I'd like to know what objective fact you're aware of that leads you to conclude that lower taxes and regulations lead to being better able to take care of yourself?
Note he said taking care of yourself, not being taken care of by the government. Europe has a larger welfare state than the US. Ironically, the US citizens give MUCH more to charity than those in Europe, who rely on government redistribution of wealth. We are much more in control of our personal welfare than those in Europe and I personally like that because I am willing to take on the personal responsibility and the risk that allows me to move up( and down) the economic ladder much more freely than in Europe.
If I work and make a wage. A wage that allows me to pay taxes and buy goods how am I letting the government take care of me? It's a disconnect I feel often occurs when talking to conservatives. For some reason services payed for by taxes are considered "given". They are not I paid for them.

As to social mobility. The whole concept of student debt is alien to people living here. Who do you think is more mobile in society. A person living in a country that allows everyone to have a higher education without accruing debt regardless of who you parents are? Or a person for whom the best universities are unaffordable unless they themselves are exceptional enough to qualify for a sholarship. And other higher education carries considerable financial burdens?
Even with the higher taxes in Europe, it is still in the taxpayers best interest to make things efficient. Having three agencies that oversee the same thing, and layers of overlapping government are wasteful and expensive. Trump reducing those in America was helpful. While you don't mind paying higher taxes for your services, I imagine if the government makes stupid decisions, and your taxes rise to a certain level, you might view those taxes differently. Trump increased efficiency, which is common sense. It works with both Europe and the US. Here in the US, people act like it had nothing to do with our success before the virus.
I have a very simple outlook. What's cheaper. Is my government wasteful? Yes, it is. Does it offer services at a cheaper price than I could myself? Yes, it does. Not for everything of course. I have experience in both the US and here and have an actual base for comparison. I prefer my high taxation and limitations that come with living here over the risks I run in the US in the hope I'll become a millionaire.
People in the US have said that government programs would be cheaper than private services, and they have been wrong every single time. By your outlook of what is cheaper, people who live in the US have an obvious choice, private services. It isn't even close. Government involvement normally causes a service's cost to explode far over the cost of if the government would have just stayed away.
PolitiFact - Comparing administrative costs for private insurance and Medicare They are wrong every single time? You are sure about that?
Yes, we are sure. As I mentioned before, you ignore glaring issues like reimbursement and a skewed administrative costs as a percentage of over all cost since Medicare deals with disabled and elderly patients. Nobody and I mean NOBODY who has any sense thinks the US government is efficient.
I'm not asserting that even my government is efficient. In fact, I flat out said mine wasn't. I asserted that they are more efficient in some areas than private industry is.
I think I am finally seeing the level of differences in our perspective. I want to look at things from a different angle. You have said that your government can provide services cheaper than private industry in certain areas, while at the same time saying your government isn't efficient. I'm going to make an assumption that you do not have a lot of private competition to your government programs. If an efficient, sharply led business which created a superior product at prices which match private competition levels offered to compete with your government on services, do you believe it could beat your government's prices? Are you really getting prices that are better than you can get anywhere else? In the US, it has been my experience that the best price was the original privately offered price, and then the government makes the costs rise sharply. I'm wondering if you have experienced any other options than the government option?
I don't believe you are getting my perspective at all. My perspective is born out of having a partner who has lived in the US the first 25 years of her life. My perspective is of someone who's partner has experienced life both insured and uninsured in both countries. My perspective is of someone who has friends and family who are experiencing health issues in both countries as we speak. My perspective is of someone who's had people going through the same or similar health issues in both countries. My perspective is of someone who can give first or at worst second hand examples of differences how health care is approached in the US and Belgium.

When I make claims about costs and efficiencies in my country and draw comparisons, I'm not stating opinions, I'm stating facts based on my own personal knowledge.

So yes I have experienced other than government options. I have experienced YOUR option.
I enjoy talking with you, and message received. I can only speak from my own experience. I'm glad you like the health system in Belgium and I'm not denying the US system is a mess. I'm just saying that as bad as our system is now, government actions such as the ACA make it that much worse. We have a talent for making things worse. Have a good one.
 
Last edited:

forkup

Gold Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2016
Messages
5,397
Reaction score
902
Points
195
Great! Please explain what I mean by "the most active and aggressive Fed in the history of the country". And please break it down to the actions of the central Fed and the NY Fed over the last three years, AND the long term implications of those actions.

Go ahead. Feel free to get as specific as you'd like.

Oh, and then tell us how long we can engage in massive deficit spending increases.

Thanks in advance.
Meaning, you've got NOTHING!

If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bull s***!
'
Is that supposed to be some kind of answer?
I already asked you to provide details as to why you think the Biden/Harris plan will be successul and how the fed will change their monetary policy under Biden/Harris. Instead of answering, you filabuster.
So his big reason why people doing better financially doesn't matter is the fed, and the fed will do the exact same thing with Harris. Plus, everyone's gains will be removed, and spending will balloon even higher. Mac, why are you not rooting for people to win in any fashion?
Because we're being terribly fiscally irresponsible. This comes at a cost.

It's sad that I even have to say this.
You can see that lower taxes and regulations give people a better chance to take care of themselves? Despite what the fed is doing, I would have to think common sense practices would still allow wages to rise. Are you saying nothing Trump does is good for the country economically because of what the fed is doing? If nothing matters because of the fed, people have pointed out that the fed behavior will likey be the same under a democrat administration.
How do you make that connection. Wages rose under Obama despite more regulation. We have way more regulations and way higher taxes and people here are capable of taking better care of themselves and their family. I'm not trying to do some gotcha thing but I'd like to know what objective fact you're aware of that leads you to conclude that lower taxes and regulations lead to being better able to take care of yourself?
Note he said taking care of yourself, not being taken care of by the government. Europe has a larger welfare state than the US. Ironically, the US citizens give MUCH more to charity than those in Europe, who rely on government redistribution of wealth. We are much more in control of our personal welfare than those in Europe and I personally like that because I am willing to take on the personal responsibility and the risk that allows me to move up( and down) the economic ladder much more freely than in Europe.
If I work to earn a wage, a wage that allows you too
Great! Please explain what I mean by "the most active and aggressive Fed in the history of the country". And please break it down to the actions of the central Fed and the NY Fed over the last three years, AND the long term implications of those actions.

Go ahead. Feel free to get as specific as you'd like.

Oh, and then tell us how long we can engage in massive deficit spending increases.

Thanks in advance.
Meaning, you've got NOTHING!

If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bull s***!
'
Is that supposed to be some kind of answer?
I already asked you to provide details as to why you think the Biden/Harris plan will be successul and how the fed will change their monetary policy under Biden/Harris. Instead of answering, you filabuster.
So his big reason why people doing better financially doesn't matter is the fed, and the fed will do the exact same thing with Harris. Plus, everyone's gains will be removed, and spending will balloon even higher. Mac, why are you not rooting for people to win in any fashion?
Because we're being terribly fiscally irresponsible. This comes at a cost.

It's sad that I even have to say this.
You can see that lower taxes and regulations give people a better chance to take care of themselves? Despite what the fed is doing, I would have to think common sense practices would still allow wages to rise. Are you saying nothing Trump does is good for the country economically because of what the fed is doing? If nothing matters because of the fed, people have pointed out that the fed behavior will likey be the same under a democrat administration.
How do you make that connection. Wages rose under Obama despite more regulation. We have way more regulations and way higher taxes and people here are capable of taking better care of themselves and their family. I'm not trying to do some gotcha thing but I'd like to know what objective fact you're aware of that leads you to conclude that lower taxes and regulations lead to being better able to take care of yourself?
Note he said taking care of yourself, not being taken care of by the government. Europe has a larger welfare state than the US. Ironically, the US citizens give MUCH more to charity than those in Europe, who rely on government redistribution of wealth. We are much more in control of our personal welfare than those in Europe and I personally like that because I am willing to take on the personal responsibility and the risk that allows me to move up( and down) the economic ladder much more freely than in Europe.
If I work and make a wage. A wage that allows me to pay taxes and buy goods how am I letting the government take care of me? It's a disconnect I feel often occurs when talking to conservatives. For some reason services payed for by taxes are considered "given". They are not I paid for them.

As to social mobility. The whole concept of student debt is alien to people living here. Who do you think is more mobile in society. A person living in a country that allows everyone to have a higher education without accruing debt regardless of who you parents are? Or a person for whom the best universities are unaffordable unless they themselves are exceptional enough to qualify for a sholarship. And other higher education carries considerable financial burdens?
Even with the higher taxes in Europe, it is still in the taxpayers best interest to make things efficient. Having three agencies that oversee the same thing, and layers of overlapping government are wasteful and expensive. Trump reducing those in America was helpful. While you don't mind paying higher taxes for your services, I imagine if the government makes stupid decisions, and your taxes rise to a certain level, you might view those taxes differently. Trump increased efficiency, which is common sense. It works with both Europe and the US. Here in the US, people act like it had nothing to do with our success before the virus.
I have a very simple outlook. What's cheaper. Is my government wasteful? Yes, it is. Does it offer services at a cheaper price than I could myself? Yes, it does. Not for everything of course. I have experience in both the US and here and have an actual base for comparison. I prefer my high taxation and limitations that come with living here over the risks I run in the US in the hope I'll become a millionaire.
People in the US have said that government programs would be cheaper than private services, and they have been wrong every single time. By your outlook of what is cheaper, people who live in the US have an obvious choice, private services. It isn't even close. Government involvement normally causes a service's cost to explode far over the cost of if the government would have just stayed away.
PolitiFact - Comparing administrative costs for private insurance and Medicare They are wrong every single time? You are sure about that?
Yes, we are sure. As I mentioned before, you ignore glaring issues like reimbursement and a skewed administrative costs as a percentage of over all cost since Medicare deals with disabled and elderly patients. Nobody and I mean NOBODY who has any sense thinks the US government is efficient.
I'm not asserting that even my government is efficient. In fact, I flat out said mine wasn't. I asserted that they are more efficient in some areas than private industry is.
I think I am finally seeing the level of differences in our perspective. I want to look at things from a different angle. You have said that your government can provide services cheaper than private industry in certain areas, while at the same time saying your government isn't efficient. I'm going to make an assumption that you do not have a lot of private competition to your government programs. If an efficient, sharply led business which created a superior product at prices which match private competition levels offered to compete with your government on services, do you believe it could beat your government's prices? Are you really getting prices that are better than you can get anywhere else? In the US, it has been my experience that the best price was the original privately offered price, and then the government makes the costs rise sharply. I'm wondering if you have experienced any other options than the government option?
I don't believe you are getting my perspective at all. My perspective is born out of having a partner who has lived in the US the first 25 years of her life. My perspective is of someone who's partner has experienced life both insured and uninsured in both countries. My perspective is of someone who has friends and family who are experiencing health issues in both countries as we speak. My perspective is of someone who's had people going through the same or similar health issues in both countries. My perspective is of someone who can give first or at worst second hand examples of differences how health care is approached in the US and Belgium.

When I make claims about costs and efficiencies in my country and draw comparisons, I'm not stating opinions, I'm stating facts based on my own personal knowledge.

So yes I have experienced other than government options. I have experienced YOUR option.
I enjoy talking with you, and message received. I can only speak from my own experience. I'm glad you like the health system in Belgium and I'm not denying the US system is a mess. I'm just saying that as bad as our system is now, government actions such as the ACA make it that much worse. We have a talent for making things worse. Have a good one.
I've had this conversation numerous times in this forum. It always ends in one of 4 ways. The person breaks of the conversation. The person I'm talking to gets mad. The person I'm talking to starts to try to come up with increasingly bad justifications for the discrepancy between reality and belief. Or they just say " agree to disagree".

You are the first person I met in the years I've been active here besides me. Who's got the courage and intellectual honesty to simply concede a point when their argument becomes unsustainable. It makes me wish I could do more than simply "love" your post.

Not to be pushy but simply out of a desire to continue the conversation. I would like to ask if you are willing to explore the concept that a government can actually deliver better services to its populace than private industry, even in the US? To highlight the fact that I to hold honesty in high regard I will immediately tell you that I think translating my system to the US constitutes a task so complicated that I think it impossible. But maybe we can agree on at least some points.
 

JoeB131

Diamond Member
Joined
Jul 11, 2011
Messages
126,614
Reaction score
12,956
Points
2,220
Location
Chicago, Chicago, that Toddling Town
Once again you failed to click on the link provided. Now had you done that, you would have read how Piglosi and the other commies are holding out to keep all their pork in the bill--trillions more than we actually need to spend on this virus.
Actually, no. We need to spend a lot more than we are to fix the economy. The problem with you guys is you always think you can fix the economy on the cheap.

Worried about the debt and deficit, the Republicans didn't want to allow 600 bucks a week of extra unemployment. They didn't want to bailout Democrat cities who have been overspending for years. They didn't want to give out stimulus checks since our economy is quickly recovering, and in order to get this through, they met over half-way on all that.
Right. Got to have your priorities. It's more important to give tax cuts to billionaires than to take care of the people who've lost their livelihoods to TRUMP PLAGUE.

But the Democrats are saying "You spend every dime we demand, or all bets are off!" And now you're going to blame Trump for that? Such a hypocrite. Here's a clue: All appropriation bills originate in the House, not the White House.
Yup, gonna blame Trump for all of it. We wouldn't be in this mess if he hadn't LIED about the Plague.

Trump Lied. People Died.
Trump Lied. People Died
Trump Lied, People Died.
 

Markle

Gold Member
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Apr 15, 2016
Messages
20,279
Reaction score
4,255
Points
290
Location
Tallahassee, FL
When I make claims about costs and efficiencies in my country and draw comparisons, I'm not stating opinions, I'm stating facts based on my own personal knowledge.
Then post your reliable sources and working links to support your "knowledge".
 

Ray From Cleveland

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 16, 2015
Messages
63,372
Reaction score
13,237
Points
2,290
Actually, no. We need to spend a lot more than we are to fix the economy. The problem with you guys is you always think you can fix the economy on the cheap.
First you blame Trump for the deficit and debt. Now that I proved to you it's the Democrats and not Trump, you're complaining that they aren't spending enough.

Right. Got to have your priorities. It's more important to give tax cuts to billionaires than to take care of the people who've lost their livelihoods to TRUMP PLAGUE.
It has nothing to do with tax cuts, it has to do with wasting money on pork the Democrats want.

Yup, gonna blame Trump for all of it. We wouldn't be in this mess if he hadn't LIED about the Plague.
Even though Dr. Fauci said that Trump relayed everything they talked about correctly to the people. Because in a deluded liberal mind, if Trump would have jumped up and down telling everybody to run for their lives, this would have never happened.

Now do you understand why we want to keep people who think like you out of power?
 

Ray From Cleveland

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 16, 2015
Messages
63,372
Reaction score
13,237
Points
2,290
Great! Please explain what I mean by "the most active and aggressive Fed in the history of the country". And please break it down to the actions of the central Fed and the NY Fed over the last three years, AND the long term implications of those actions.

Go ahead. Feel free to get as specific as you'd like.

Oh, and then tell us how long we can engage in massive deficit spending increases.

Thanks in advance.
Meaning, you've got NOTHING!

If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bull s***!
'
Is that supposed to be some kind of answer?
I already asked you to provide details as to why you think the Biden/Harris plan will be successul and how the fed will change their monetary policy under Biden/Harris. Instead of answering, you filabuster.
So his big reason why people doing better financially doesn't matter is the fed, and the fed will do the exact same thing with Harris. Plus, everyone's gains will be removed, and spending will balloon even higher. Mac, why are you not rooting for people to win in any fashion?
Because we're being terribly fiscally irresponsible. This comes at a cost.

It's sad that I even have to say this.
You can see that lower taxes and regulations give people a better chance to take care of themselves? Despite what the fed is doing, I would have to think common sense practices would still allow wages to rise. Are you saying nothing Trump does is good for the country economically because of what the fed is doing? If nothing matters because of the fed, people have pointed out that the fed behavior will likey be the same under a democrat administration.
How do you make that connection. Wages rose under Obama despite more regulation. We have way more regulations and way higher taxes and people here are capable of taking better care of themselves and their family. I'm not trying to do some gotcha thing but I'd like to know what objective fact you're aware of that leads you to conclude that lower taxes and regulations lead to being better able to take care of yourself?
Note he said taking care of yourself, not being taken care of by the government. Europe has a larger welfare state than the US. Ironically, the US citizens give MUCH more to charity than those in Europe, who rely on government redistribution of wealth. We are much more in control of our personal welfare than those in Europe and I personally like that because I am willing to take on the personal responsibility and the risk that allows me to move up( and down) the economic ladder much more freely than in Europe.
If I work to earn a wage, a wage that allows you too
Great! Please explain what I mean by "the most active and aggressive Fed in the history of the country". And please break it down to the actions of the central Fed and the NY Fed over the last three years, AND the long term implications of those actions.

Go ahead. Feel free to get as specific as you'd like.

Oh, and then tell us how long we can engage in massive deficit spending increases.

Thanks in advance.
Meaning, you've got NOTHING!

If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bull s***!
'
Is that supposed to be some kind of answer?
I already asked you to provide details as to why you think the Biden/Harris plan will be successul and how the fed will change their monetary policy under Biden/Harris. Instead of answering, you filabuster.
So his big reason why people doing better financially doesn't matter is the fed, and the fed will do the exact same thing with Harris. Plus, everyone's gains will be removed, and spending will balloon even higher. Mac, why are you not rooting for people to win in any fashion?
Because we're being terribly fiscally irresponsible. This comes at a cost.

It's sad that I even have to say this.
You can see that lower taxes and regulations give people a better chance to take care of themselves? Despite what the fed is doing, I would have to think common sense practices would still allow wages to rise. Are you saying nothing Trump does is good for the country economically because of what the fed is doing? If nothing matters because of the fed, people have pointed out that the fed behavior will likey be the same under a democrat administration.
How do you make that connection. Wages rose under Obama despite more regulation. We have way more regulations and way higher taxes and people here are capable of taking better care of themselves and their family. I'm not trying to do some gotcha thing but I'd like to know what objective fact you're aware of that leads you to conclude that lower taxes and regulations lead to being better able to take care of yourself?
Note he said taking care of yourself, not being taken care of by the government. Europe has a larger welfare state than the US. Ironically, the US citizens give MUCH more to charity than those in Europe, who rely on government redistribution of wealth. We are much more in control of our personal welfare than those in Europe and I personally like that because I am willing to take on the personal responsibility and the risk that allows me to move up( and down) the economic ladder much more freely than in Europe.
If I work and make a wage. A wage that allows me to pay taxes and buy goods how am I letting the government take care of me? It's a disconnect I feel often occurs when talking to conservatives. For some reason services payed for by taxes are considered "given". They are not I paid for them.

As to social mobility. The whole concept of student debt is alien to people living here. Who do you think is more mobile in society. A person living in a country that allows everyone to have a higher education without accruing debt regardless of who you parents are? Or a person for whom the best universities are unaffordable unless they themselves are exceptional enough to qualify for a sholarship. And other higher education carries considerable financial burdens?
Even with the higher taxes in Europe, it is still in the taxpayers best interest to make things efficient. Having three agencies that oversee the same thing, and layers of overlapping government are wasteful and expensive. Trump reducing those in America was helpful. While you don't mind paying higher taxes for your services, I imagine if the government makes stupid decisions, and your taxes rise to a certain level, you might view those taxes differently. Trump increased efficiency, which is common sense. It works with both Europe and the US. Here in the US, people act like it had nothing to do with our success before the virus.
I have a very simple outlook. What's cheaper. Is my government wasteful? Yes, it is. Does it offer services at a cheaper price than I could myself? Yes, it does. Not for everything of course. I have experience in both the US and here and have an actual base for comparison. I prefer my high taxation and limitations that come with living here over the risks I run in the US in the hope I'll become a millionaire.
People in the US have said that government programs would be cheaper than private services, and they have been wrong every single time. By your outlook of what is cheaper, people who live in the US have an obvious choice, private services. It isn't even close. Government involvement normally causes a service's cost to explode far over the cost of if the government would have just stayed away.
PolitiFact - Comparing administrative costs for private insurance and Medicare They are wrong every single time? You are sure about that?
Yes, we are sure. As I mentioned before, you ignore glaring issues like reimbursement and a skewed administrative costs as a percentage of over all cost since Medicare deals with disabled and elderly patients. Nobody and I mean NOBODY who has any sense thinks the US government is efficient.
I'm not asserting that even my government is efficient. In fact, I flat out said mine wasn't. I asserted that they are more efficient in some areas than private industry is.
I think I am finally seeing the level of differences in our perspective. I want to look at things from a different angle. You have said that your government can provide services cheaper than private industry in certain areas, while at the same time saying your government isn't efficient. I'm going to make an assumption that you do not have a lot of private competition to your government programs. If an efficient, sharply led business which created a superior product at prices which match private competition levels offered to compete with your government on services, do you believe it could beat your government's prices? Are you really getting prices that are better than you can get anywhere else? In the US, it has been my experience that the best price was the original privately offered price, and then the government makes the costs rise sharply. I'm wondering if you have experienced any other options than the government option?
I don't believe you are getting my perspective at all. My perspective is born out of having a partner who has lived in the US the first 25 years of her life. My perspective is of someone who's partner has experienced life both insured and uninsured in both countries. My perspective is of someone who has friends and family who are experiencing health issues in both countries as we speak. My perspective is of someone who's had people going through the same or similar health issues in both countries. My perspective is of someone who can give first or at worst second hand examples of differences how health care is approached in the US and Belgium.

When I make claims about costs and efficiencies in my country and draw comparisons, I'm not stating opinions, I'm stating facts based on my own personal knowledge.

So yes I have experienced other than government options. I have experienced YOUR option.
Cleveland Ohio is at the northern border to Canada, only separated by Lake Erie. As a local truck driver, I've had the opportunity to speak with a lot of other drivers while we waited to get loaded or unloaded. Because of where we are at, I ran into my share of Canadian drivers.

I would often bring up healthcare to get their opinion since they have a socialized system. The younger and middle-aged drivers told me how much they love it. The elderly drivers told me to keep what we have, or otherwise we will end up being very sorry.

Our hospitals in the north are filled with Canadian patients. I've not only read this, but my sister is a supervisor in a department at the world famous Cleveland Clinic and concurred what I have read.

What you have to understand about the United States is we politicize everything, and I mean everything. Surrendering our healthcare to government is empowering them, and they have too much power over us as it is, Constitution be damned. The only two vestiges they have not yet totally controlled are healthcare and energy. We on the right realize once they have control over those two things, they will be able to have total control of our people. So naturally we resist. We don't want to end up like other countries.


 

forkup

Gold Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2016
Messages
5,397
Reaction score
902
Points
195
When I make claims about costs and efficiencies in my country and draw comparisons, I'm not stating opinions, I'm stating facts based on my own personal knowledge.
Then post your reliable sources and working links to support your "knowledge".
If I'm stating facts based on my own personal knowledge why should I give sources and links? I'm not entirely sure how to go about that. Do you want to see invoices from medical procedures I've had here? Some of my in-laws? I am a reliable source but I have no actual way of demonstrating that without divulging personal information.

I can give you examples of things that happened to my mother-in-law and the severely lacking post-op care she received, and contrast that to my grandmother's care after having the same medical condition. But you have no way of knowing if it's true. I could state that when I receive a script from my GP I can simply go to the pharmacy and get my pills. Not an hour later after some pharmacy tech calls my insurance company to verify that that particular medicine is covered as happens in the US. But again how do you verify that?

I can and have posted an entire slew of reports from the OECD, or other NGO's tracking health indices but my experience tells me that's rejected too. So I tell you what. What do you consider a reliable source, especially when this source tells you something you long believed to be true is wrong?
 

forkup

Gold Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2016
Messages
5,397
Reaction score
902
Points
195
Great! Please explain what I mean by "the most active and aggressive Fed in the history of the country". And please break it down to the actions of the central Fed and the NY Fed over the last three years, AND the long term implications of those actions.

Go ahead. Feel free to get as specific as you'd like.

Oh, and then tell us how long we can engage in massive deficit spending increases.

Thanks in advance.
Meaning, you've got NOTHING!

If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bull s***!
'
Is that supposed to be some kind of answer?
I already asked you to provide details as to why you think the Biden/Harris plan will be successul and how the fed will change their monetary policy under Biden/Harris. Instead of answering, you filabuster.
So his big reason why people doing better financially doesn't matter is the fed, and the fed will do the exact same thing with Harris. Plus, everyone's gains will be removed, and spending will balloon even higher. Mac, why are you not rooting for people to win in any fashion?
Because we're being terribly fiscally irresponsible. This comes at a cost.

It's sad that I even have to say this.
You can see that lower taxes and regulations give people a better chance to take care of themselves? Despite what the fed is doing, I would have to think common sense practices would still allow wages to rise. Are you saying nothing Trump does is good for the country economically because of what the fed is doing? If nothing matters because of the fed, people have pointed out that the fed behavior will likey be the same under a democrat administration.
How do you make that connection. Wages rose under Obama despite more regulation. We have way more regulations and way higher taxes and people here are capable of taking better care of themselves and their family. I'm not trying to do some gotcha thing but I'd like to know what objective fact you're aware of that leads you to conclude that lower taxes and regulations lead to being better able to take care of yourself?
Note he said taking care of yourself, not being taken care of by the government. Europe has a larger welfare state than the US. Ironically, the US citizens give MUCH more to charity than those in Europe, who rely on government redistribution of wealth. We are much more in control of our personal welfare than those in Europe and I personally like that because I am willing to take on the personal responsibility and the risk that allows me to move up( and down) the economic ladder much more freely than in Europe.
If I work to earn a wage, a wage that allows you too
Great! Please explain what I mean by "the most active and aggressive Fed in the history of the country". And please break it down to the actions of the central Fed and the NY Fed over the last three years, AND the long term implications of those actions.

Go ahead. Feel free to get as specific as you'd like.

Oh, and then tell us how long we can engage in massive deficit spending increases.

Thanks in advance.
Meaning, you've got NOTHING!

If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bull s***!
'
Is that supposed to be some kind of answer?
I already asked you to provide details as to why you think the Biden/Harris plan will be successul and how the fed will change their monetary policy under Biden/Harris. Instead of answering, you filabuster.
So his big reason why people doing better financially doesn't matter is the fed, and the fed will do the exact same thing with Harris. Plus, everyone's gains will be removed, and spending will balloon even higher. Mac, why are you not rooting for people to win in any fashion?
Because we're being terribly fiscally irresponsible. This comes at a cost.

It's sad that I even have to say this.
You can see that lower taxes and regulations give people a better chance to take care of themselves? Despite what the fed is doing, I would have to think common sense practices would still allow wages to rise. Are you saying nothing Trump does is good for the country economically because of what the fed is doing? If nothing matters because of the fed, people have pointed out that the fed behavior will likey be the same under a democrat administration.
How do you make that connection. Wages rose under Obama despite more regulation. We have way more regulations and way higher taxes and people here are capable of taking better care of themselves and their family. I'm not trying to do some gotcha thing but I'd like to know what objective fact you're aware of that leads you to conclude that lower taxes and regulations lead to being better able to take care of yourself?
Note he said taking care of yourself, not being taken care of by the government. Europe has a larger welfare state than the US. Ironically, the US citizens give MUCH more to charity than those in Europe, who rely on government redistribution of wealth. We are much more in control of our personal welfare than those in Europe and I personally like that because I am willing to take on the personal responsibility and the risk that allows me to move up( and down) the economic ladder much more freely than in Europe.
If I work and make a wage. A wage that allows me to pay taxes and buy goods how am I letting the government take care of me? It's a disconnect I feel often occurs when talking to conservatives. For some reason services payed for by taxes are considered "given". They are not I paid for them.

As to social mobility. The whole concept of student debt is alien to people living here. Who do you think is more mobile in society. A person living in a country that allows everyone to have a higher education without accruing debt regardless of who you parents are? Or a person for whom the best universities are unaffordable unless they themselves are exceptional enough to qualify for a sholarship. And other higher education carries considerable financial burdens?
Even with the higher taxes in Europe, it is still in the taxpayers best interest to make things efficient. Having three agencies that oversee the same thing, and layers of overlapping government are wasteful and expensive. Trump reducing those in America was helpful. While you don't mind paying higher taxes for your services, I imagine if the government makes stupid decisions, and your taxes rise to a certain level, you might view those taxes differently. Trump increased efficiency, which is common sense. It works with both Europe and the US. Here in the US, people act like it had nothing to do with our success before the virus.
I have a very simple outlook. What's cheaper. Is my government wasteful? Yes, it is. Does it offer services at a cheaper price than I could myself? Yes, it does. Not for everything of course. I have experience in both the US and here and have an actual base for comparison. I prefer my high taxation and limitations that come with living here over the risks I run in the US in the hope I'll become a millionaire.
People in the US have said that government programs would be cheaper than private services, and they have been wrong every single time. By your outlook of what is cheaper, people who live in the US have an obvious choice, private services. It isn't even close. Government involvement normally causes a service's cost to explode far over the cost of if the government would have just stayed away.
PolitiFact - Comparing administrative costs for private insurance and Medicare They are wrong every single time? You are sure about that?
Yes, we are sure. As I mentioned before, you ignore glaring issues like reimbursement and a skewed administrative costs as a percentage of over all cost since Medicare deals with disabled and elderly patients. Nobody and I mean NOBODY who has any sense thinks the US government is efficient.
I'm not asserting that even my government is efficient. In fact, I flat out said mine wasn't. I asserted that they are more efficient in some areas than private industry is.
I think I am finally seeing the level of differences in our perspective. I want to look at things from a different angle. You have said that your government can provide services cheaper than private industry in certain areas, while at the same time saying your government isn't efficient. I'm going to make an assumption that you do not have a lot of private competition to your government programs. If an efficient, sharply led business which created a superior product at prices which match private competition levels offered to compete with your government on services, do you believe it could beat your government's prices? Are you really getting prices that are better than you can get anywhere else? In the US, it has been my experience that the best price was the original privately offered price, and then the government makes the costs rise sharply. I'm wondering if you have experienced any other options than the government option?
I don't believe you are getting my perspective at all. My perspective is born out of having a partner who has lived in the US the first 25 years of her life. My perspective is of someone who's partner has experienced life both insured and uninsured in both countries. My perspective is of someone who has friends and family who are experiencing health issues in both countries as we speak. My perspective is of someone who's had people going through the same or similar health issues in both countries. My perspective is of someone who can give first or at worst second hand examples of differences how health care is approached in the US and Belgium.

When I make claims about costs and efficiencies in my country and draw comparisons, I'm not stating opinions, I'm stating facts based on my own personal knowledge.

So yes I have experienced other than government options. I have experienced YOUR option.
Cleveland Ohio is at the northern border to Canada, only separated by Lake Erie. As a local truck driver, I've had the opportunity to speak with a lot of other drivers while we waited to get loaded or unloaded. Because of where we are at, I ran into my share of Canadian drivers.

I would often bring up healthcare to get their opinion since they have a socialized system. The younger and middle-aged drivers told me how much they love it. The elderly drivers told me to keep what we have, or otherwise we will end up being very sorry.

Our hospitals in the north are filled with Canadian patients. I've not only read this, but my sister is a supervisor in a department at the world famous Cleveland Clinic and concurred what I have read.

What you have to understand about the United States is we politicize everything, and I mean everything. Surrendering our healthcare to government is empowering them, and they have too much power over us as it is, Constitution be damned. The only two vestiges they have not yet totally controlled are healthcare and energy. We on the right realize once they have control over those two things, they will be able to have total control of our people. So naturally we resist. We don't want to end up like other countries.


First I can not speak to Canada's healthcare system from personal experience, nor can I speak of that of Japan's or that of England's. I know that all these countries score better overall when it comes to health indices https://www.who.int/healthinfo/paper30.pdf

As to medical tourism being a testament to how good a countries healthcare system is. Global Medical Tourism Market Statistics 2019 | The Healthcare Guys I don't really agree I have to say.
 

Ray From Cleveland

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 16, 2015
Messages
63,372
Reaction score
13,237
Points
2,290
Great! Please explain what I mean by "the most active and aggressive Fed in the history of the country". And please break it down to the actions of the central Fed and the NY Fed over the last three years, AND the long term implications of those actions.

Go ahead. Feel free to get as specific as you'd like.

Oh, and then tell us how long we can engage in massive deficit spending increases.

Thanks in advance.
Meaning, you've got NOTHING!

If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bull s***!
'
Is that supposed to be some kind of answer?
I already asked you to provide details as to why you think the Biden/Harris plan will be successul and how the fed will change their monetary policy under Biden/Harris. Instead of answering, you filabuster.
So his big reason why people doing better financially doesn't matter is the fed, and the fed will do the exact same thing with Harris. Plus, everyone's gains will be removed, and spending will balloon even higher. Mac, why are you not rooting for people to win in any fashion?
Because we're being terribly fiscally irresponsible. This comes at a cost.

It's sad that I even have to say this.
You can see that lower taxes and regulations give people a better chance to take care of themselves? Despite what the fed is doing, I would have to think common sense practices would still allow wages to rise. Are you saying nothing Trump does is good for the country economically because of what the fed is doing? If nothing matters because of the fed, people have pointed out that the fed behavior will likey be the same under a democrat administration.
How do you make that connection. Wages rose under Obama despite more regulation. We have way more regulations and way higher taxes and people here are capable of taking better care of themselves and their family. I'm not trying to do some gotcha thing but I'd like to know what objective fact you're aware of that leads you to conclude that lower taxes and regulations lead to being better able to take care of yourself?
Note he said taking care of yourself, not being taken care of by the government. Europe has a larger welfare state than the US. Ironically, the US citizens give MUCH more to charity than those in Europe, who rely on government redistribution of wealth. We are much more in control of our personal welfare than those in Europe and I personally like that because I am willing to take on the personal responsibility and the risk that allows me to move up( and down) the economic ladder much more freely than in Europe.
If I work to earn a wage, a wage that allows you too
Great! Please explain what I mean by "the most active and aggressive Fed in the history of the country". And please break it down to the actions of the central Fed and the NY Fed over the last three years, AND the long term implications of those actions.

Go ahead. Feel free to get as specific as you'd like.

Oh, and then tell us how long we can engage in massive deficit spending increases.

Thanks in advance.
Meaning, you've got NOTHING!

If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bull s***!
'
Is that supposed to be some kind of answer?
I already asked you to provide details as to why you think the Biden/Harris plan will be successul and how the fed will change their monetary policy under Biden/Harris. Instead of answering, you filabuster.
So his big reason why people doing better financially doesn't matter is the fed, and the fed will do the exact same thing with Harris. Plus, everyone's gains will be removed, and spending will balloon even higher. Mac, why are you not rooting for people to win in any fashion?
Because we're being terribly fiscally irresponsible. This comes at a cost.

It's sad that I even have to say this.
You can see that lower taxes and regulations give people a better chance to take care of themselves? Despite what the fed is doing, I would have to think common sense practices would still allow wages to rise. Are you saying nothing Trump does is good for the country economically because of what the fed is doing? If nothing matters because of the fed, people have pointed out that the fed behavior will likey be the same under a democrat administration.
How do you make that connection. Wages rose under Obama despite more regulation. We have way more regulations and way higher taxes and people here are capable of taking better care of themselves and their family. I'm not trying to do some gotcha thing but I'd like to know what objective fact you're aware of that leads you to conclude that lower taxes and regulations lead to being better able to take care of yourself?
Note he said taking care of yourself, not being taken care of by the government. Europe has a larger welfare state than the US. Ironically, the US citizens give MUCH more to charity than those in Europe, who rely on government redistribution of wealth. We are much more in control of our personal welfare than those in Europe and I personally like that because I am willing to take on the personal responsibility and the risk that allows me to move up( and down) the economic ladder much more freely than in Europe.
If I work and make a wage. A wage that allows me to pay taxes and buy goods how am I letting the government take care of me? It's a disconnect I feel often occurs when talking to conservatives. For some reason services payed for by taxes are considered "given". They are not I paid for them.

As to social mobility. The whole concept of student debt is alien to people living here. Who do you think is more mobile in society. A person living in a country that allows everyone to have a higher education without accruing debt regardless of who you parents are? Or a person for whom the best universities are unaffordable unless they themselves are exceptional enough to qualify for a sholarship. And other higher education carries considerable financial burdens?
Even with the higher taxes in Europe, it is still in the taxpayers best interest to make things efficient. Having three agencies that oversee the same thing, and layers of overlapping government are wasteful and expensive. Trump reducing those in America was helpful. While you don't mind paying higher taxes for your services, I imagine if the government makes stupid decisions, and your taxes rise to a certain level, you might view those taxes differently. Trump increased efficiency, which is common sense. It works with both Europe and the US. Here in the US, people act like it had nothing to do with our success before the virus.
I have a very simple outlook. What's cheaper. Is my government wasteful? Yes, it is. Does it offer services at a cheaper price than I could myself? Yes, it does. Not for everything of course. I have experience in both the US and here and have an actual base for comparison. I prefer my high taxation and limitations that come with living here over the risks I run in the US in the hope I'll become a millionaire.
People in the US have said that government programs would be cheaper than private services, and they have been wrong every single time. By your outlook of what is cheaper, people who live in the US have an obvious choice, private services. It isn't even close. Government involvement normally causes a service's cost to explode far over the cost of if the government would have just stayed away.
PolitiFact - Comparing administrative costs for private insurance and Medicare They are wrong every single time? You are sure about that?
Yes, we are sure. As I mentioned before, you ignore glaring issues like reimbursement and a skewed administrative costs as a percentage of over all cost since Medicare deals with disabled and elderly patients. Nobody and I mean NOBODY who has any sense thinks the US government is efficient.
I'm not asserting that even my government is efficient. In fact, I flat out said mine wasn't. I asserted that they are more efficient in some areas than private industry is.
I think I am finally seeing the level of differences in our perspective. I want to look at things from a different angle. You have said that your government can provide services cheaper than private industry in certain areas, while at the same time saying your government isn't efficient. I'm going to make an assumption that you do not have a lot of private competition to your government programs. If an efficient, sharply led business which created a superior product at prices which match private competition levels offered to compete with your government on services, do you believe it could beat your government's prices? Are you really getting prices that are better than you can get anywhere else? In the US, it has been my experience that the best price was the original privately offered price, and then the government makes the costs rise sharply. I'm wondering if you have experienced any other options than the government option?
I don't believe you are getting my perspective at all. My perspective is born out of having a partner who has lived in the US the first 25 years of her life. My perspective is of someone who's partner has experienced life both insured and uninsured in both countries. My perspective is of someone who has friends and family who are experiencing health issues in both countries as we speak. My perspective is of someone who's had people going through the same or similar health issues in both countries. My perspective is of someone who can give first or at worst second hand examples of differences how health care is approached in the US and Belgium.

When I make claims about costs and efficiencies in my country and draw comparisons, I'm not stating opinions, I'm stating facts based on my own personal knowledge.

So yes I have experienced other than government options. I have experienced YOUR option.
Cleveland Ohio is at the northern border to Canada, only separated by Lake Erie. As a local truck driver, I've had the opportunity to speak with a lot of other drivers while we waited to get loaded or unloaded. Because of where we are at, I ran into my share of Canadian drivers.

I would often bring up healthcare to get their opinion since they have a socialized system. The younger and middle-aged drivers told me how much they love it. The elderly drivers told me to keep what we have, or otherwise we will end up being very sorry.

Our hospitals in the north are filled with Canadian patients. I've not only read this, but my sister is a supervisor in a department at the world famous Cleveland Clinic and concurred what I have read.

What you have to understand about the United States is we politicize everything, and I mean everything. Surrendering our healthcare to government is empowering them, and they have too much power over us as it is, Constitution be damned. The only two vestiges they have not yet totally controlled are healthcare and energy. We on the right realize once they have control over those two things, they will be able to have total control of our people. So naturally we resist. We don't want to end up like other countries.


First I can not speak to Canada's healthcare system from personal experience, nor can I speak of that of Japan's or that of England's. I know that all these countries score better overall when it comes to health indices https://www.who.int/healthinfo/paper30.pdf

As to medical tourism being a testament to how good a countries healthcare system is. Global Medical Tourism Market Statistics 2019 | The Healthcare Guys I don't really agree I have to say.
My only point in all this is that everybody has problems with their healthcare system, the US no different. However our problems are different than other countries, but they are still problems.

Healthcare is expensive no matter what country you're in. The problem always seems to be money. If it's affordable to the public, services lag. If it's a great system like we have, not everybody can afford it.
 

Moonglow

Diamond Member
Joined
Jun 27, 2011
Messages
146,139
Reaction score
15,614
Points
2,220
Location
sw mizzouri
Just a does of reality for all you Trump haters. The proof is again in the pudding. interestingly, look who benefited the most. But alas, these are the folks that are lock-step with the Democrats. Ignorance at best. We know it has taken a hit due to COVID, but it can be fixed under Trump. It will plummet with Biden.

Real median incomes of white, Black, Asian, and Hispanic households all increased from the prior year. Lower-income households did particularly well after missing out on income gains earlier in the expansion. The mean income of the lowest fifth of households rose 9% last year, a larger gain than for any other quintile of households.

U.S. Incomes Up, Poverty Rate Down in 2019
Trump has never gotten me a job I do that on my own and have for 45 years without yer God-Trump...
 

forkup

Gold Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2016
Messages
5,397
Reaction score
902
Points
195
Great! Please explain what I mean by "the most active and aggressive Fed in the history of the country". And please break it down to the actions of the central Fed and the NY Fed over the last three years, AND the long term implications of those actions.

Go ahead. Feel free to get as specific as you'd like.

Oh, and then tell us how long we can engage in massive deficit spending increases.

Thanks in advance.
Meaning, you've got NOTHING!

If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bull s***!
'
Is that supposed to be some kind of answer?
I already asked you to provide details as to why you think the Biden/Harris plan will be successul and how the fed will change their monetary policy under Biden/Harris. Instead of answering, you filabuster.
So his big reason why people doing better financially doesn't matter is the fed, and the fed will do the exact same thing with Harris. Plus, everyone's gains will be removed, and spending will balloon even higher. Mac, why are you not rooting for people to win in any fashion?
Because we're being terribly fiscally irresponsible. This comes at a cost.

It's sad that I even have to say this.
You can see that lower taxes and regulations give people a better chance to take care of themselves? Despite what the fed is doing, I would have to think common sense practices would still allow wages to rise. Are you saying nothing Trump does is good for the country economically because of what the fed is doing? If nothing matters because of the fed, people have pointed out that the fed behavior will likey be the same under a democrat administration.
How do you make that connection. Wages rose under Obama despite more regulation. We have way more regulations and way higher taxes and people here are capable of taking better care of themselves and their family. I'm not trying to do some gotcha thing but I'd like to know what objective fact you're aware of that leads you to conclude that lower taxes and regulations lead to being better able to take care of yourself?
Note he said taking care of yourself, not being taken care of by the government. Europe has a larger welfare state than the US. Ironically, the US citizens give MUCH more to charity than those in Europe, who rely on government redistribution of wealth. We are much more in control of our personal welfare than those in Europe and I personally like that because I am willing to take on the personal responsibility and the risk that allows me to move up( and down) the economic ladder much more freely than in Europe.
If I work to earn a wage, a wage that allows you too
Great! Please explain what I mean by "the most active and aggressive Fed in the history of the country". And please break it down to the actions of the central Fed and the NY Fed over the last three years, AND the long term implications of those actions.

Go ahead. Feel free to get as specific as you'd like.

Oh, and then tell us how long we can engage in massive deficit spending increases.

Thanks in advance.
Meaning, you've got NOTHING!

If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bull s***!
'
Is that supposed to be some kind of answer?
I already asked you to provide details as to why you think the Biden/Harris plan will be successul and how the fed will change their monetary policy under Biden/Harris. Instead of answering, you filabuster.
So his big reason why people doing better financially doesn't matter is the fed, and the fed will do the exact same thing with Harris. Plus, everyone's gains will be removed, and spending will balloon even higher. Mac, why are you not rooting for people to win in any fashion?
Because we're being terribly fiscally irresponsible. This comes at a cost.

It's sad that I even have to say this.
You can see that lower taxes and regulations give people a better chance to take care of themselves? Despite what the fed is doing, I would have to think common sense practices would still allow wages to rise. Are you saying nothing Trump does is good for the country economically because of what the fed is doing? If nothing matters because of the fed, people have pointed out that the fed behavior will likey be the same under a democrat administration.
How do you make that connection. Wages rose under Obama despite more regulation. We have way more regulations and way higher taxes and people here are capable of taking better care of themselves and their family. I'm not trying to do some gotcha thing but I'd like to know what objective fact you're aware of that leads you to conclude that lower taxes and regulations lead to being better able to take care of yourself?
Note he said taking care of yourself, not being taken care of by the government. Europe has a larger welfare state than the US. Ironically, the US citizens give MUCH more to charity than those in Europe, who rely on government redistribution of wealth. We are much more in control of our personal welfare than those in Europe and I personally like that because I am willing to take on the personal responsibility and the risk that allows me to move up( and down) the economic ladder much more freely than in Europe.
If I work and make a wage. A wage that allows me to pay taxes and buy goods how am I letting the government take care of me? It's a disconnect I feel often occurs when talking to conservatives. For some reason services payed for by taxes are considered "given". They are not I paid for them.

As to social mobility. The whole concept of student debt is alien to people living here. Who do you think is more mobile in society. A person living in a country that allows everyone to have a higher education without accruing debt regardless of who you parents are? Or a person for whom the best universities are unaffordable unless they themselves are exceptional enough to qualify for a sholarship. And other higher education carries considerable financial burdens?
Even with the higher taxes in Europe, it is still in the taxpayers best interest to make things efficient. Having three agencies that oversee the same thing, and layers of overlapping government are wasteful and expensive. Trump reducing those in America was helpful. While you don't mind paying higher taxes for your services, I imagine if the government makes stupid decisions, and your taxes rise to a certain level, you might view those taxes differently. Trump increased efficiency, which is common sense. It works with both Europe and the US. Here in the US, people act like it had nothing to do with our success before the virus.
I have a very simple outlook. What's cheaper. Is my government wasteful? Yes, it is. Does it offer services at a cheaper price than I could myself? Yes, it does. Not for everything of course. I have experience in both the US and here and have an actual base for comparison. I prefer my high taxation and limitations that come with living here over the risks I run in the US in the hope I'll become a millionaire.
People in the US have said that government programs would be cheaper than private services, and they have been wrong every single time. By your outlook of what is cheaper, people who live in the US have an obvious choice, private services. It isn't even close. Government involvement normally causes a service's cost to explode far over the cost of if the government would have just stayed away.
PolitiFact - Comparing administrative costs for private insurance and Medicare They are wrong every single time? You are sure about that?
Yes, we are sure. As I mentioned before, you ignore glaring issues like reimbursement and a skewed administrative costs as a percentage of over all cost since Medicare deals with disabled and elderly patients. Nobody and I mean NOBODY who has any sense thinks the US government is efficient.
I'm not asserting that even my government is efficient. In fact, I flat out said mine wasn't. I asserted that they are more efficient in some areas than private industry is.
I think I am finally seeing the level of differences in our perspective. I want to look at things from a different angle. You have said that your government can provide services cheaper than private industry in certain areas, while at the same time saying your government isn't efficient. I'm going to make an assumption that you do not have a lot of private competition to your government programs. If an efficient, sharply led business which created a superior product at prices which match private competition levels offered to compete with your government on services, do you believe it could beat your government's prices? Are you really getting prices that are better than you can get anywhere else? In the US, it has been my experience that the best price was the original privately offered price, and then the government makes the costs rise sharply. I'm wondering if you have experienced any other options than the government option?
I don't believe you are getting my perspective at all. My perspective is born out of having a partner who has lived in the US the first 25 years of her life. My perspective is of someone who's partner has experienced life both insured and uninsured in both countries. My perspective is of someone who has friends and family who are experiencing health issues in both countries as we speak. My perspective is of someone who's had people going through the same or similar health issues in both countries. My perspective is of someone who can give first or at worst second hand examples of differences how health care is approached in the US and Belgium.

When I make claims about costs and efficiencies in my country and draw comparisons, I'm not stating opinions, I'm stating facts based on my own personal knowledge.

So yes I have experienced other than government options. I have experienced YOUR option.
Cleveland Ohio is at the northern border to Canada, only separated by Lake Erie. As a local truck driver, I've had the opportunity to speak with a lot of other drivers while we waited to get loaded or unloaded. Because of where we are at, I ran into my share of Canadian drivers.

I would often bring up healthcare to get their opinion since they have a socialized system. The younger and middle-aged drivers told me how much they love it. The elderly drivers told me to keep what we have, or otherwise we will end up being very sorry.

Our hospitals in the north are filled with Canadian patients. I've not only read this, but my sister is a supervisor in a department at the world famous Cleveland Clinic and concurred what I have read.

What you have to understand about the United States is we politicize everything, and I mean everything. Surrendering our healthcare to government is empowering them, and they have too much power over us as it is, Constitution be damned. The only two vestiges they have not yet totally controlled are healthcare and energy. We on the right realize once they have control over those two things, they will be able to have total control of our people. So naturally we resist. We don't want to end up like other countries.


First I can not speak to Canada's healthcare system from personal experience, nor can I speak of that of Japan's or that of England's. I know that all these countries score better overall when it comes to health indices https://www.who.int/healthinfo/paper30.pdf

As to medical tourism being a testament to how good a countries healthcare system is. Global Medical Tourism Market Statistics 2019 | The Healthcare Guys I don't really agree I have to say.
My only point in all this is that everybody has problems with their healthcare system, the US no different. However our problems are different than other countries, but they are still problems.

Healthcare is expensive no matter what country you're in. The problem always seems to be money. If it's affordable to the public, services lag. If it's a great system like we have, not everybody can afford it.
Again the statistics nor my own personal experience bears that out. You are claiming services lag, as far as I can discern without I might add really backing that up.
Great! Please explain what I mean by "the most active and aggressive Fed in the history of the country". And please break it down to the actions of the central Fed and the NY Fed over the last three years, AND the long term implications of those actions.

Go ahead. Feel free to get as specific as you'd like.

Oh, and then tell us how long we can engage in massive deficit spending increases.

Thanks in advance.
Meaning, you've got NOTHING!

If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bull s***!
'
Is that supposed to be some kind of answer?
I already asked you to provide details as to why you think the Biden/Harris plan will be successul and how the fed will change their monetary policy under Biden/Harris. Instead of answering, you filabuster.
So his big reason why people doing better financially doesn't matter is the fed, and the fed will do the exact same thing with Harris. Plus, everyone's gains will be removed, and spending will balloon even higher. Mac, why are you not rooting for people to win in any fashion?
Because we're being terribly fiscally irresponsible. This comes at a cost.

It's sad that I even have to say this.
You can see that lower taxes and regulations give people a better chance to take care of themselves? Despite what the fed is doing, I would have to think common sense practices would still allow wages to rise. Are you saying nothing Trump does is good for the country economically because of what the fed is doing? If nothing matters because of the fed, people have pointed out that the fed behavior will likey be the same under a democrat administration.
How do you make that connection. Wages rose under Obama despite more regulation. We have way more regulations and way higher taxes and people here are capable of taking better care of themselves and their family. I'm not trying to do some gotcha thing but I'd like to know what objective fact you're aware of that leads you to conclude that lower taxes and regulations lead to being better able to take care of yourself?
Note he said taking care of yourself, not being taken care of by the government. Europe has a larger welfare state than the US. Ironically, the US citizens give MUCH more to charity than those in Europe, who rely on government redistribution of wealth. We are much more in control of our personal welfare than those in Europe and I personally like that because I am willing to take on the personal responsibility and the risk that allows me to move up( and down) the economic ladder much more freely than in Europe.
If I work to earn a wage, a wage that allows you too
Great! Please explain what I mean by "the most active and aggressive Fed in the history of the country". And please break it down to the actions of the central Fed and the NY Fed over the last three years, AND the long term implications of those actions.

Go ahead. Feel free to get as specific as you'd like.

Oh, and then tell us how long we can engage in massive deficit spending increases.

Thanks in advance.
Meaning, you've got NOTHING!

If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bull s***!
'
Is that supposed to be some kind of answer?
I already asked you to provide details as to why you think the Biden/Harris plan will be successul and how the fed will change their monetary policy under Biden/Harris. Instead of answering, you filabuster.
So his big reason why people doing better financially doesn't matter is the fed, and the fed will do the exact same thing with Harris. Plus, everyone's gains will be removed, and spending will balloon even higher. Mac, why are you not rooting for people to win in any fashion?
Because we're being terribly fiscally irresponsible. This comes at a cost.

It's sad that I even have to say this.
You can see that lower taxes and regulations give people a better chance to take care of themselves? Despite what the fed is doing, I would have to think common sense practices would still allow wages to rise. Are you saying nothing Trump does is good for the country economically because of what the fed is doing? If nothing matters because of the fed, people have pointed out that the fed behavior will likey be the same under a democrat administration.
How do you make that connection. Wages rose under Obama despite more regulation. We have way more regulations and way higher taxes and people here are capable of taking better care of themselves and their family. I'm not trying to do some gotcha thing but I'd like to know what objective fact you're aware of that leads you to conclude that lower taxes and regulations lead to being better able to take care of yourself?
Note he said taking care of yourself, not being taken care of by the government. Europe has a larger welfare state than the US. Ironically, the US citizens give MUCH more to charity than those in Europe, who rely on government redistribution of wealth. We are much more in control of our personal welfare than those in Europe and I personally like that because I am willing to take on the personal responsibility and the risk that allows me to move up( and down) the economic ladder much more freely than in Europe.
If I work and make a wage. A wage that allows me to pay taxes and buy goods how am I letting the government take care of me? It's a disconnect I feel often occurs when talking to conservatives. For some reason services payed for by taxes are considered "given". They are not I paid for them.

As to social mobility. The whole concept of student debt is alien to people living here. Who do you think is more mobile in society. A person living in a country that allows everyone to have a higher education without accruing debt regardless of who you parents are? Or a person for whom the best universities are unaffordable unless they themselves are exceptional enough to qualify for a sholarship. And other higher education carries considerable financial burdens?
Even with the higher taxes in Europe, it is still in the taxpayers best interest to make things efficient. Having three agencies that oversee the same thing, and layers of overlapping government are wasteful and expensive. Trump reducing those in America was helpful. While you don't mind paying higher taxes for your services, I imagine if the government makes stupid decisions, and your taxes rise to a certain level, you might view those taxes differently. Trump increased efficiency, which is common sense. It works with both Europe and the US. Here in the US, people act like it had nothing to do with our success before the virus.
I have a very simple outlook. What's cheaper. Is my government wasteful? Yes, it is. Does it offer services at a cheaper price than I could myself? Yes, it does. Not for everything of course. I have experience in both the US and here and have an actual base for comparison. I prefer my high taxation and limitations that come with living here over the risks I run in the US in the hope I'll become a millionaire.
People in the US have said that government programs would be cheaper than private services, and they have been wrong every single time. By your outlook of what is cheaper, people who live in the US have an obvious choice, private services. It isn't even close. Government involvement normally causes a service's cost to explode far over the cost of if the government would have just stayed away.
PolitiFact - Comparing administrative costs for private insurance and Medicare They are wrong every single time? You are sure about that?
Yes, we are sure. As I mentioned before, you ignore glaring issues like reimbursement and a skewed administrative costs as a percentage of over all cost since Medicare deals with disabled and elderly patients. Nobody and I mean NOBODY who has any sense thinks the US government is efficient.
I'm not asserting that even my government is efficient. In fact, I flat out said mine wasn't. I asserted that they are more efficient in some areas than private industry is.
I think I am finally seeing the level of differences in our perspective. I want to look at things from a different angle. You have said that your government can provide services cheaper than private industry in certain areas, while at the same time saying your government isn't efficient. I'm going to make an assumption that you do not have a lot of private competition to your government programs. If an efficient, sharply led business which created a superior product at prices which match private competition levels offered to compete with your government on services, do you believe it could beat your government's prices? Are you really getting prices that are better than you can get anywhere else? In the US, it has been my experience that the best price was the original privately offered price, and then the government makes the costs rise sharply. I'm wondering if you have experienced any other options than the government option?
I don't believe you are getting my perspective at all. My perspective is born out of having a partner who has lived in the US the first 25 years of her life. My perspective is of someone who's partner has experienced life both insured and uninsured in both countries. My perspective is of someone who has friends and family who are experiencing health issues in both countries as we speak. My perspective is of someone who's had people going through the same or similar health issues in both countries. My perspective is of someone who can give first or at worst second hand examples of differences how health care is approached in the US and Belgium.

When I make claims about costs and efficiencies in my country and draw comparisons, I'm not stating opinions, I'm stating facts based on my own personal knowledge.

So yes I have experienced other than government options. I have experienced YOUR option.
Cleveland Ohio is at the northern border to Canada, only separated by Lake Erie. As a local truck driver, I've had the opportunity to speak with a lot of other drivers while we waited to get loaded or unloaded. Because of where we are at, I ran into my share of Canadian drivers.

I would often bring up healthcare to get their opinion since they have a socialized system. The younger and middle-aged drivers told me how much they love it. The elderly drivers told me to keep what we have, or otherwise we will end up being very sorry.

Our hospitals in the north are filled with Canadian patients. I've not only read this, but my sister is a supervisor in a department at the world famous Cleveland Clinic and concurred what I have read.

What you have to understand about the United States is we politicize everything, and I mean everything. Surrendering our healthcare to government is empowering them, and they have too much power over us as it is, Constitution be damned. The only two vestiges they have not yet totally controlled are healthcare and energy. We on the right realize once they have control over those two things, they will be able to have total control of our people. So naturally we resist. We don't want to end up like other countries.


First I can not speak to Canada's healthcare system from personal experience, nor can I speak of that of Japan's or that of England's. I know that all these countries score better overall when it comes to health indices https://www.who.int/healthinfo/paper30.pdf

As to medical tourism being a testament to how good a countries healthcare system is. Global Medical Tourism Market Statistics 2019 | The Healthcare Guys I don't really agree I have to say.
My only point in all this is that everybody has problems with their healthcare system, the US no different. However our problems are different than other countries, but they are still problems.

Healthcare is expensive no matter what country you're in. The problem always seems to be money. If it's affordable to the public, services lag. If it's a great system like we have, not everybody can afford it.
What makes you conclude that affordable healthcare means services have to lag? Because you found one article in the Telegraph? My health insurance for instance doesn't just cover most of my medical expenses. It has staff on hand that provides anything from daycare to cleaning services and daily nurses visit, medical beds, or speech therapy for your kid if your medical condition makes it necessary. Our GP's and physical therapists make house calls. As I said I get my medicines right away if I turn in a script. You can correct me if I'm wrong but I'm very doubtful you have enough money to have access to all those services. Or for that matter that all those services are available.

My wife had a gastric bypass. From the first visit to the specialist to having her surgery, it took 4 months and about 2500 euros. My wife's friend had a lap band surgery in the US it took her a year and a half and well over 10000 dollars, the extra time mostly spend on getting extra examinations so her insurance would cover some of it. This is of course anecdotal and it might well be that under a different insurance plan or a different state it would have been different. But I doubt it would have been all that much different.

Yes, every country and healthcare system has its problems. But I dare say that few if any of the industrialized nations have the same amount of problems as the US.
 

Markle

Gold Member
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Apr 15, 2016
Messages
20,279
Reaction score
4,255
Points
290
Location
Tallahassee, FL
When I make claims about costs and efficiencies in my country and draw comparisons, I'm not stating opinions, I'm stating facts based on my own personal knowledge.
Then post your reliable sources and working links to support your "knowledge".
If I'm stating facts based on my own personal knowledge why should I give sources and links? I'm not entirely sure how to go about that. Do you want to see invoices from medical procedures I've had here? Some of my in-laws? I am a reliable source but I have no actual way of demonstrating that without divulging personal information.

I can give you examples of things that happened to my mother-in-law and the severely lacking post-op care she received, and contrast that to my grandmother's care after having the same medical condition. But you have no way of knowing if it's true. I could state that when I receive a script from my GP I can simply go to the pharmacy and get my pills. Not an hour later after some pharmacy tech calls my insurance company to verify that that particular medicine is covered as happens in the US. But again how do you verify that?

I can and have posted an entire slew of reports from the OECD, or other NGO's tracking health indices but my experience tells me that's rejected too. So I tell you what. What do you consider a reliable source, especially when this source tells you something you long believed to be true is wrong?
Yep, anecdotal evidence is as reliable as the weather. Try again.
 

forkup

Gold Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2016
Messages
5,397
Reaction score
902
Points
195
When I make claims about costs and efficiencies in my country and draw comparisons, I'm not stating opinions, I'm stating facts based on my own personal knowledge.
Then post your reliable sources and working links to support your "knowledge".
If I'm stating facts based on my own personal knowledge why should I give sources and links? I'm not entirely sure how to go about that. Do you want to see invoices from medical procedures I've had here? Some of my in-laws? I am a reliable source but I have no actual way of demonstrating that without divulging personal information.

I can give you examples of things that happened to my mother-in-law and the severely lacking post-op care she received, and contrast that to my grandmother's care after having the same medical condition. But you have no way of knowing if it's true. I could state that when I receive a script from my GP I can simply go to the pharmacy and get my pills. Not an hour later after some pharmacy tech calls my insurance company to verify that that particular medicine is covered as happens in the US. But again how do you verify that?

I can and have posted an entire slew of reports from the OECD, or other NGO's tracking health indices but my experience tells me that's rejected too. So I tell you what. What do you consider a reliable source, especially when this source tells you something you long believed to be true is wrong?
Yep, anecdotal evidence is as reliable as the weather. Try again.
I have offered non-anecdotal evidence. But you don't respond.
I have offered a direct reply to your first counter-argument using that term loosely. But you don't respond

I reply to someone else, offering by my own admission anecdotal evidence and you choose to engage that one claiming I have offered only anecdotal evidence. Markle, trolling someone says more about you than the person you are trolling.
 

Markle

Gold Member
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Apr 15, 2016
Messages
20,279
Reaction score
4,255
Points
290
Location
Tallahassee, FL
First I can not speak to Canada's healthcare system from personal experience, nor can I speak of that of Japan's or that of England's. I know that all these countries score better overall when it comes to health indices https://www.who.int/healthinfo/paper30.pdf
What is the date of this "research"? I can help you, 2000. Two decades ago.

Why is there not any more recent? Because even the United Nations had to admit that the data used was unreliable.
Each country provided their own information using their own definitions of the terms.

Further, the criteria used leaned far more heavily on the availability of care rather than the quality of care.

July 5, 2000
We’re Number 37 in Health Care!
By Julie Chan

Feeling ill? If so, you might consider catching the next plane out of here, because the World Health Organization (WHO) says your health is best served by countries like Andorra, Cyprus or even Colombia. Each outperforms the U.S. health care system on the WHO’s recently issued World Health Report 2000.
[ ]
The WHO rankings of 191 health systems worldwide placed the United States 37th, trailing countries like Malta and Oman and barely edging out dilapidated Cuba. Predictably, “ClintonCare” champions are using the report in their battle cry for reviving the movement toward government‐controlled medicine. But the WHO study is much like the annual magazine rankings of colleges: It grabs plenty of headlines but rests on questionable analysis. A closer look at the WHO health care study reveals startling assumptions, critical lapses in statistical judgment, and a clearly predetermined political agenda.

Breaking “new methodological ground,” the WHO report rates national health care performance according to five trendy flavors of the month: life expectancies, inequalities in health, the responsiveness of the system in providing diagnosis and treatment, inequalities in responsiveness, and how fairly systems are financed.

First, consider the study’s data. Health statistics for each country were collected from individual agencies and ministries, assuring wide disparities in definition, reporting technique and collection methodology. Indeed, the report concedes that “in all cases, there are multiple and often conflicting sources of information,” if sources at all. For the many nations that simply do not maintain health statistics, the WHO “developed [data] through a variety of techniques.” Without consistent and accurate data from within a single country, how can meaningful comparison be made among 191 different countries?

 
Last edited:

forkup

Gold Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2016
Messages
5,397
Reaction score
902
Points
195
First I can not speak to Canada's healthcare system from personal experience, nor can I speak of that of Japan's or that of England's. I know that all these countries score better overall when it comes to health indices https://www.who.int/healthinfo/paper30.pdf
What is the date of this "research"? I can help you, 2000. Two decades ago.

Why is there not any more recent? Because even the United Nations had to admit that the data used was unreliable.
Each country provided their own information using their own definitions of the terms.

Further, the criteria used leaned far more heavily on the availability of care rather than the quality of care.

July 5, 2000
We’re Number 37 in Health Care!
By Julie Chan

Feeling ill? If so, you might consider catching the next plane out of here, because the World Health Organization (WHO) says your health is best served by countries like Andorra, Cyprus or even Colombia. Each outperforms the U.S. health care system on the WHO’s recently issued World Health Report 2000.

[ ]


The WHO rankings of 191 health systems worldwide placed the United States 37th, trailing countries like Malta and Oman and barely edging out dilapidated Cuba. Predictably, “ClintonCare” champions are using the report in their battle cry for reviving the movement toward government‐controlled medicine. But the WHO study is much like the annual magazine rankings of colleges: It grabs plenty of headlines but rests on questionable analysis. A closer look at the WHO health care study reveals startling assumptions, critical lapses in statistical judgment, and a clearly predetermined political agenda.

Breaking “new methodological ground,” the WHO report rates national health care performance according to five trendy flavors of the month: life expectancies, inequalities in health, the responsiveness of the system in providing diagnosis and treatment, inequalities in responsiveness, and how fairly systems are financed.

First, consider the study’s data. Health statistics for each country were collected from individual agencies and ministries, assuring wide disparities in definition, reporting technique and collection methodology. Indeed, the report concedes that “in all cases, there are multiple and often conflicting sources of information,” if sources at all. For the many nations that simply do not maintain health statistics, the WHO “developed [data] through a variety of techniques.” Without consistent and accurate data from within a single country, how can meaningful comparison be made among 191 different countries?

This was published in 2019 Avoidable mortality (preventable and treatable) | Health at a Glance 2019 : OECD Indicators | OECD iLibrary
This in 2020 Health Care Index by Country 2020 Mid-Year
2020 Healthiest Countries 2020
Etc. etc.

If you have any problem with them feel absolutely free to dispute them by citing different sources.
 

Markle

Gold Member
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Apr 15, 2016
Messages
20,279
Reaction score
4,255
Points
290
Location
Tallahassee, FL
What makes you conclude that affordable healthcare means services have to lag? Because you found one article in the Telegraph? My health insurance for instance doesn't just cover most of my medical expenses. It has staff on hand that provides anything from daycare to cleaning services and daily nurses visit, medical beds, or speech therapy for your kid if your medical condition makes it necessary. Our GP's and physical therapists make house calls. As I said I get my medicines right away if I turn in a script. You can correct me if I'm wrong but I'm very doubtful you have enough money to have access to all those services. Or for that matter that all those services are available.

My wife had a gastric bypass. From the first visit to the specialist to having her surgery, it took 4 months and about 2500 euros. My wife's friend had a lap band surgery in the US it took her a year and a half and well over 10000 dollars, the extra time mostly spend on getting extra examinations so her insurance would cover some of it. This is of course anecdotal and it might well be that under a different insurance plan or a different state it would have been different. But I doubt it would have been all that much different.

Yes, every country and healthcare system has its problems. But I dare say that few if any of the industrialized nations have the same amount of problems as the US.
This is what leads me to conclude that government healthcare means services have to lag.

Canada’s health-care wait times eclipsed 20 weeks in 2019; second-longest wait ever recorded
December 10, 2019 05:00 ET | Source: Fraser Institute


VANCOUVER, British Columbia, Dec. 10, 2019 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- The median wait time for medically necessary treatment in Canada this year was 20.9 weeks, finds a new study released today by the Fraser Institute, an independent, non-partisan Canadian public policy think-tank.​

This is the second-longest wait ever recorded by the Fraser Institute, which has been measuring wait times across Canada since 1993 when patients waited just 9.3 weeks.

“Across Canada, patients continue to wait for more than four months for medically necessary treatment—a fact that should concern not just patients and their families but also policymakers in Ottawa and across the country,” said Bacchus Barua, associate director of health policy studies at the Fraser Institute and co-author of Waiting Your Turn: Wait Times for Health Care in Canada, 2019.

 

Markle

Gold Member
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Apr 15, 2016
Messages
20,279
Reaction score
4,255
Points
290
Location
Tallahassee, FL
First I can not speak to Canada's healthcare system from personal experience, nor can I speak of that of Japan's or that of England's. I know that all these countries score better overall when it comes to health indices https://www.who.int/healthinfo/paper30.pdf
What is the date of this "research"? I can help you, 2000. Two decades ago.

Why is there not any more recent? Because even the United Nations had to admit that the data used was unreliable.
Each country provided their own information using their own definitions of the terms.

Further, the criteria used leaned far more heavily on the availability of care rather than the quality of care.

July 5, 2000
We’re Number 37 in Health Care!
By Julie Chan

Feeling ill? If so, you might consider catching the next plane out of here, because the World Health Organization (WHO) says your health is best served by countries like Andorra, Cyprus or even Colombia. Each outperforms the U.S. health care system on the WHO’s recently issued World Health Report 2000.

[ ]


The WHO rankings of 191 health systems worldwide placed the United States 37th, trailing countries like Malta and Oman and barely edging out dilapidated Cuba. Predictably, “ClintonCare” champions are using the report in their battle cry for reviving the movement toward government‐controlled medicine. But the WHO study is much like the annual magazine rankings of colleges: It grabs plenty of headlines but rests on questionable analysis. A closer look at the WHO health care study reveals startling assumptions, critical lapses in statistical judgment, and a clearly predetermined political agenda.

Breaking “new methodological ground,” the WHO report rates national health care performance according to five trendy flavors of the month: life expectancies, inequalities in health, the responsiveness of the system in providing diagnosis and treatment, inequalities in responsiveness, and how fairly systems are financed.

First, consider the study’s data. Health statistics for each country were collected from individual agencies and ministries, assuring wide disparities in definition, reporting technique and collection methodology. Indeed, the report concedes that “in all cases, there are multiple and often conflicting sources of information,” if sources at all. For the many nations that simply do not maintain health statistics, the WHO “developed [data] through a variety of techniques.” Without consistent and accurate data from within a single country, how can meaningful comparison be made among 191 different countries?

This was published in 2019 Avoidable mortality (preventable and treatable) | Health at a Glance 2019 : OECD Indicators | OECD iLibrary
This in 2020 Health Care Index by Country 2020 Mid-Year
2020 Healthiest Countries 2020
Etc. etc.

If you have any problem with them feel absolutely free to dispute them by citing different sources.
This was published in 2019 Avoidable mortality (preventable and treatable) | Health at a Glance 2019 : OECD Indicators | OECD iLibrary
This in 2020 Health Care Index by Country 2020 Mid-Year
2020 Healthiest Countries 2020
Etc. etc.

If you have any problem with them feel absolutely free to dispute them by citing different sources.
Yes, as a matter of fact, I do.

Here is the source of the data used in the OECD source. No sense on looking any further.

About Health Care Indices At This Website
This section is based on surveys from visitors of this website. Questions for these surveys are similar to many similar scientific and government surveys.

Each entry in the survey is saved as the number in the range [-2, +2], with -2 having meaning of strongly negative and +2 meaning of strongly positive.

 

forkup

Gold Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2016
Messages
5,397
Reaction score
902
Points
195
What makes you conclude that affordable healthcare means services have to lag? Because you found one article in the Telegraph? My health insurance for instance doesn't just cover most of my medical expenses. It has staff on hand that provides anything from daycare to cleaning services and daily nurses visit, medical beds, or speech therapy for your kid if your medical condition makes it necessary. Our GP's and physical therapists make house calls. As I said I get my medicines right away if I turn in a script. You can correct me if I'm wrong but I'm very doubtful you have enough money to have access to all those services. Or for that matter that all those services are available.

My wife had a gastric bypass. From the first visit to the specialist to having her surgery, it took 4 months and about 2500 euros. My wife's friend had a lap band surgery in the US it took her a year and a half and well over 10000 dollars, the extra time mostly spend on getting extra examinations so her insurance would cover some of it. This is of course anecdotal and it might well be that under a different insurance plan or a different state it would have been different. But I doubt it would have been all that much different.

Yes, every country and healthcare system has its problems. But I dare say that few if any of the industrialized nations have the same amount of problems as the US.

This is what leads me to conclude that government healthcare means services have to lag.

Canada’s health-care wait times eclipsed 20 weeks in 2019; second-longest wait ever recorded
December 10, 2019 05:00 ET | Source: Fraser Institute


VANCOUVER, British Columbia, Dec. 10, 2019 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- The median wait time for medically necessary treatment in Canada this year was 20.9 weeks, finds a new study released today by the Fraser Institute, an independent, non-partisan Canadian public policy think-tank.

This is the second-longest wait ever recorded by the Fraser Institute, which has been measuring wait times across Canada since 1993 when patients waited just 9.3 weeks.

“Across Canada, patients continue to wait for more than four months for medically necessary treatment—a fact that should concern not just patients and their families but also policymakers in Ottawa and across the country,” said Bacchus Barua, associate director of health policy studies at the Fraser Institute and co-author of Waiting Your Turn: Wait Times for Health Care in Canada, 2019.

So you are able to conclude that affordable healthcare leads to diminished services on the bases of 1 article stating that Canada has long wait times? It seems to me that you don't actually have a problem with anecdotal evidence when you feel it supports you?

Wait times in one country does not prove that all countries with universal healthcare suffer from the same problem ( in fact I know it doesn't) nor are wait times the only consideration when judging services in healthcare, the amount and cost of them being obvious others.

https://www.commonwealthfund.org/si...ort_2017_jul_schneider_mirror_mirror_2017.pdf The Truth on Wait Times in Universal Coverage Systems - Center for American Progress
These are sourced and give a better understanding of wait times across different countries.
 

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List