What Party(ies) will control the House and Senate after the November Elections ?

@georgeob1,

georgeob1 wrote:

Your own post (above) has a chart which indicates an 8.7% annual rise between 1999 and 2009 and projects a 6.1% annual rise since then. This, of course is only a survey, and I don't know the regions investigated or the accuravcy of the survey. I do know what we have paid over the last decade.

So you admit that yes, the annual rise over the last decade was in fact 8-10%. And that I was correct, and you were wrong. Thanks for that.

I am going to assume at this point that you spoke in error when you claimed a McCain presidency would have lowered unemployment in any way, because you don't seem to wish to discuss the details of that little claim at all.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Actually Cyclo we have a market for health care and other services. People can make rational choices about the tradeoffs for themselves. The exponential rise you cited just wouldn't have happened. In the real world the so called "logistics function (an S shaped curve) replaces the exponential one for most processes, ranging from epidemiology to population and even the cost trajectories of much demanded goods and services. The out-of-control-cost scenario was just a red herring intended to divert a credulous public from the loss of freedom they were being sold. Evidently you took the bait.

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

I am going to assume at this point that you spoke in error when you claimed a McCain presidency would have lowered unemployment in any way, because you don't seem to wish to discuss the details of that little claim at all.

Cycloptichorn

But I did discuss it. I pointed out the lack of any increase in private sector economic activity resulting from the stimulous; noted the vast increase in public debt which will be a long-term drag on the economy; and indicated the added uncertainty and disincentives created by this administration for increases in employment. So far this administratiuon has stimulated only itself and its political supporters - and done so at the expense of the public.

1 Reply

@georgeob1,

georgeob1 wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

I am going to assume at this point that you spoke in error when you claimed a McCain presidency would have lowered unemployment in any way, because you don't seem to wish to discuss the details of that little claim at all.

Cycloptichorn

But I did discuss it. I pointed out the lack of any increase in private sector economic activity resulting from the stimulous; noted the vast increase in public debt which will be a long-term drag on the economy; and indicated the added uncertainty and disincentives created by this administration for increases in employment. So far this administratiuon has stimulated only itself and its political supporters - and done so at the expense of the public.

The part that you haven't addressed are the millions of additional unemployed people created by the lack of a stim bill or an auto bailout. How do you account for them in your projection?

You don't seriously care about the long-term affects of the debt on the economy, so why even bring that up?

The part about 'uncertainty and disincentives' is just ideology speaking, with very little actual basis in reality.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

@georgeob1,

georgeob1 wrote:

Actually Cyclo we have a market for health care and other services. People can make rational choices about the tradeoffs for themselves. The exponential rise you cited just wouldn't have happened. In the real world the so called "logistics function (an S shaped curve) replaces the exponential one for most processes, ranging from epidemiology to population and even the cost trajectories of much demanded goods and services. The out-of-control-cost scenario was just a red herring intended to divert a credulous public from the loss of freedom they were being sold. Evidently you took the bait.

You are simply incorrect. There is no evidence showing that costs were slowing down their rise at all. I understand that this isn't a problem for you personally, but think of others who have seen their costs skyrocket over the last decade already. Another decade of the same would be disastrous.

Once again, you resort to arguing by Assertion. Have you any facts to back up your argument?

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

I can't remedy your apparent lack of understanding of how the world works with facts and links. Exponentially rising costs for goods and services simply don't continue unabated unless some infinite source of mnoney is involved - like the government. In the world of private medical care rising costs will stimulate the creation of more providers - more clinics, doctors & hospitals. Very expensive but effective new treatments will stimulate new research to develop cheaper alternatives, if that can be done.

In our crazy government controlled medical world the government actively works to limit the opening of new hospitals and treatment facilities - all contrary to the normalfunctioning of real markets.

1 Reply

@georgeob1,

georgeob1 wrote:

I can't remedy your apparent lack of understanding of how the world works with facts and links.

Actually, that's exactly how you remedy what you perceive to be someone's lack of understanding, George. Through education using facts, preferably from third-party sources. On the internet we Link to such facts. If you wanted to truly advance an argument, that's exactly what you would do; but you're not interested in actually going to the trouble, so all we get is this weak sauce time after time.

Quote:

Exponentially rising costs for goods and services simply don't continue unabated unless some infinite source of money is involved - like the government.

... which is involved through Medicare and Medicaid. Not to mention deductions in taxation on the part of both employers and individuals. And Health Savings Accounts. In several ways, actually.

Quote:

In the world of private medical care rising costs will stimulate the creation of more providers - more clinics, doctors & hospitals. Very expensive but effective new treatments will stimulate new research to develop cheaper alternatives, if that can be done.

Supposedly - but where is the evidence showing that rising costs DID lead to an explosion of providers? Where are all the new hospitals opening up to meet the demand you speak of?

Quote:

In our crazy government controlled medical world the government actively works to limit the opening of new hospitals and treatment facilities - all contrary to the normalfunctioning of real markets.

Ah, I see. The government's fault again. Your favorite assertion.

Why not remedy my lack of understanding as to how the government limits the opening of new hospitals - by linking to evidence showing this to be true?

I am, of course, assuming that you know how to put a link in here at A2K. Is that the issue? Or just a stubborn unwillingness on your part to back up your assertions with evidence?

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

@CoastalRat,

The HC system was eating up 16 % of the economy, and would have soon been 25 %. This would have killed the economy. Also, employers were spending an inordinate amount on providing HC to employees. Many people chose not to go into business because they would lose their coverage, and would face tremendous cost in providing coverage to themselves and employees. And for all this expense, the health results were poor in comparison with other advanced countries, where costs were a fraction of ours.

0 Replies

What Party(ies) will control the House and Senate after the November Elections ?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know