114
   

Where is the US economy headed?

 
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 Mar, 2007 05:08 pm
It isn't pertinent at all.

Nothing that Bush proposes is going to get passed by the Dem congress.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 Mar, 2007 05:11 pm
Cycloptichorn wrote:

You have it 100% backwards. It's the system which is failing the market.

Cycloptichorn

Thanks, that is a valid point. As I said originally, health care is not sufficiently controlled by the market for various reasons, one big one being the recipients of the service are generally not the payers of the service.

Cyclops, don't you think it would be informative to know what Bush wanted to do at least?
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 Mar, 2007 05:14 pm
okie wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:

You have it 100% backwards. It's the system which is failing the market.

Cycloptichorn

Thanks, that is a valid point. As I said originally, health care is not sufficiently controlled by the market for various reasons, one big one being the recipients of the service are generally not the payers of the service.

Cyclops, don't you think it would be informative to know what Bush wanted to do at least?


No, I don't think it would be informative to know what Bush wanted to do. I don't think it's informative to know what that idiot would do about anything, let alone a vital topic to our economy. Just let him warm the chair and keep his mouth shut for another 18 months, is all I ask.

As for the market... an argument against funneling health care through business is an argument for single-payer universal health care. There is no other non-business model which makes a lick of sense.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 Mar, 2007 05:22 pm
Cycloptichorn wrote:

No, I don't think it would be informative to know what Bush wanted to do. I don't think it's informative to know what that idiot would do about anything, let alone a vital topic to our economy. Just let him warm the chair and keep his mouth shut for another 18 months, is all I ask.

So, the man that was duly elected president by the American people does not matter at all, in terms of what policies were favored and proposed?

Quote:
As for the market... an argument against funneling health care through business is an argument for single-payer universal health care. There is no other non-business model which makes a lick of sense.

Cycloptichorn

All I can say is, I feel sorry for you if you are that close minded.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 Mar, 2007 05:24 pm
okie wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:

No, I don't think it would be informative to know what Bush wanted to do. I don't think it's informative to know what that idiot would do about anything, let alone a vital topic to our economy. Just let him warm the chair and keep his mouth shut for another 18 months, is all I ask.

So, the man that was duly elected president by the American people does not matter at all, in terms of what policies were favored and proposed?

Quote:
As for the market... an argument against funneling health care through business is an argument for single-payer universal health care. There is no other non-business model which makes a lick of sense.

Cycloptichorn

All I can say is, I feel sorry for you if you are that close minded.


1st, Bush no longer has any power to pass anything. He won't put forth policies which are acceptable to the Dems, and the Dems won't put forth anything which he would accept in terms of universal health care. So his opinions are no longer pertinent in any way.

He's been robbed of his legislative power, if not his executive power as a whole. There's no reason to treat him as anything other than the idiot he is.

2nd, why don't you go ahead and outline a non-business model for healthcare, which makes MORE sense than a single-payer universal model. And spare me the 'health savings account' BS, let's just save some time up front, okay?

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 Mar, 2007 05:29 pm
Sorry, but I need to go for a while. As I said originally, this thread is about economics, not health care, which is hugely related to economics of the country, but is really a separate problem. I am coming at this in the last few posts from a very deeply held belief that government solutions seldom work as the most efficient method. I have a few ideas, but I need to review them again before laying them all out here.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 Mar, 2007 05:44 pm
okie, Your personal opinion about universal health care has some merit, but as shown by a recent poll, most Americans want uninversal health care in our country. You seem to think your lone opinion has more merit than the majority of Americans. Wake up and smell the coffee.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Sat 3 Mar, 2007 10:58 am
Okie, remember how I said that privatization can be good or bad?

Turns out that it's behind many, if not most, of the problems at ol' walter reed hospital:

http://www.unbossed.net/index.php?itemid=1354

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Sat 3 Mar, 2007 01:52 pm
Thomas wrote:
okie wrote:
I did not say it was due to too much regulation. I said it was due to not being sufficiently subject to the free market.

Whichever nomenclature you prefer, how do you explain that Canada, with its single payer, universal healthcare, spends less money per citizen on health care, yet enjoys better health care by every objective measure -- life expectancy, infant mortality, you name it?


How about China, which has a significantly lower life expectancy and higher infant mortality than the U.S.? I presume they have universal health care?
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Sat 3 Mar, 2007 01:54 pm
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Okie, remember how I said that privatization can be good or bad?

Turns out that it's behind many, if not most, of the problems at ol' walter reed hospital:

http://www.unbossed.net/index.php?itemid=1354

Cycloptichorn

Privatization of legitimate government functions is not always appropriate or efficient. The military is one of the few legitimate functions of our government, as authorized by the constitution.

cyclops, I am still working on the ideas for making health care more affordable and efficient. I feel like I am in school again, working on term papers.
0 Replies
 
xingu
 
  1  
Reply Sat 3 Mar, 2007 04:41 pm
okie wrote:
Thomas wrote:
okie wrote:
I did not say it was due to too much regulation. I said it was due to not being sufficiently subject to the free market.

Whichever nomenclature you prefer, how do you explain that Canada, with its single payer, universal healthcare, spends less money per citizen on health care, yet enjoys better health care by every objective measure -- life expectancy, infant mortality, you name it?


How about China, which has a significantly lower life expectancy and higher infant mortality than the U.S.? I presume they have universal health care?



Quote:
Countries with universal health care
Argentina,[8] Australia,[5][8] Austria,[5] Belgium,[5] Brazil,[5] Canada,[5] Cuba,[5] Denmark,[5] Finland,[5] France,[5][8] Germany,[5] Greece,[8][9] Ireland,[10] Israel,[11] Italy,[8][12] Japan,[5] The Netherlands,[5] New Zealand,[5] Norway,[5], Poland, Portugal,[4] Russia,[8] Saudi Arabia,[8] Seychelles,[13] South Korea[8] Spain,[5] Sri Lanka,[14] Sweden,[5] The Republic of China (Taiwan),[5] and the United Kingdom[5][8] are among many countries that have various types of universal health care systems.

Mexico,[8] South Africa,[5][8] and Thailand[15] are among those nations attempting to implement universal health care systems.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_health_care

Apparently China does not have UHC.

The General Healthcare Expenditures of Chinese Cities and the Chinese Countryside

Quote:
Unless you're an accountant, lengthy discussion about numbers will give anyone a headache. However, if we take a rough look at some statistics we can understand the whole story. If we want to get a better idea of China's current medical expenditures, we should include the costs in both the towns and the cities. More specifically, China's health care expenditures fit into the following few categories: 1) Personal health care expenditures of those who reside in cities and towns, 2) Public health care expenditures, 3) Basic health insurance of those who live in the cities, 4) Health care costs of those who live on farm cooperatives, 5) Medical compensation paid by businesses of those who live in cities and towns. Because statistics of the last two categories are hard to come by and because they apply to relatively few people, we will not include them in our calculations for the time being. Because the statistics from 2003 are the most complete that we have, we will use this year to compare the total health care expenditures. Speaking overall, people in towns and cities spent 431 billion yuan (about US$54 billion) on health care. During that same year, the total expenditures of the Chinese government totaled 2.5 trillion yuan (about US$308 billion).

If universal health care coverage were established then those, who because they lacked insurance, had avoided seeing a doctor and avoided being hospitalized may change their behavior. As a result medical costs might go up. However, with the establishment of universal health care comes a system with greater purchasing power than ever before. As a result, the system would have stronger negotiating power when discussing prices with health care providers. This would lower the cost of medical services. What would actually happen is anyone's guess, but it is not improbable to think that health care costs could remain unchanged after the establishment of universal health care. With that assumption we should should decide what is the best system to live with. How should we apportion the roughly 400 billion yuan of health care costs?


http://www.pressinterpreter.org/node/291
0 Replies
 
xingu
 
  1  
Reply Sat 3 Mar, 2007 05:03 pm
Arguments for UHC.

http://www.amsa.org/uhc/uhcres.cfm

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

http://cthealth.server101.com/the_case_for_universal_health_care_in_the_united_states.htm

Arguments against UHC

http://www.intellectualconservative.com/article3186.html

http://www.haciendapub.com/article49.html
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sat 3 Mar, 2007 05:19 pm
Scott Shore equates our educational system with our health care system to tell us why UHC won't work.

UHC is not necessarily "free" for everybody, so what's the beef? As for our educational system, we have private and public schools. Where's the comparison to UHC?

How does one compare our educational system with a UHC system? I'm curious, because I'm not sure how it can be done.
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Sat 3 Mar, 2007 08:33 pm
cicerone imposter wrote:
okie, Your personal opinion about universal health care has some merit, but as shown by a recent poll, most Americans want uninversal health care in our country. You seem to think your lone opinion has more merit than the majority of Americans. Wake up and smell the coffee.


Cicerone, it is not me alone that has a similar opinion. And if a majority of Americans want something, it does not indicate it is always correct, workable, or appropriate, or even legal.

Cyclops and cicerone, I have reviewed this, including some of the ideas and proposals on both sides of the debate, and to be honest, I have concluded that the subject is too complicated to be very confident about what I think about this, but I have an embedded bias against the government doing anything efficiently, so the general ideas I give later are consistent with that. The ideas are in regard to tweaking the system we have now to make improvements, rather than scrapping the whole thing and starting over. One of the statistics I particularly noticed was the very fast and responsive treatment available in this country, as compared to virtually any other country, and that is a biggee in my opinion. I personally like many of the aspects of medical services now, although thankfully I have not had to use it that much.

You can review life expectancies and other statistics from various countries, however, this is comparing apples and oranges with all of the different lifestyles, work habits, variations of vices such as smoking and drinking, overeating, you name it, from country to country. These statistics even vary greatly from state to state for the above reasons.

I favor trying to tweak the current system, by doing a few simple things. These ideas are very general and need more study to be perfected.

1. Cap ridiculous and frivolous lawsuits against medical professionals and institutions. When specialists pay hundreds of thousands of dollars per year for liability insurance, that is money they have to recover before even making a living, so a math major is not required to see how that can affect their fee structure. Not only that, doctors practice what is called "defensive medicine," by ordering tests that they do not believe are necessary, but to protect themselves against future lawsuits. It is difficult to measure how much this factor is affecting medical costs, but I think it is substantial. This suggested reform would lower medical costs.

2. Make insurance policies portable, regardless of employer, and structure the tax system so that everyone benefits equally in terms of receiving deductions or rebates for purchasing medical insurance. Try to come up with a system to take the costs of medical insurance out of the companies, and back into the hands of the people that receive the medical services. This reform would create a more level playing field for all citizens and between insurance providers.

3. Investigate ways to make minor health care, such as doctor visits, be paid directly by the patients. For those under a certain income line, some kind of system to include vouchers could be considered, and unspent money after each year could be re-invested in something for the individual or family, and owned by the individual or family. This reform would enhance the doctor / patient relationship and competition in the industry of medical services.

4. We already have Medicaid for the very poor and destitute, so I see no reason why anyone should go without proper medical treatment. And we already have Medicare for the elderly.

Unfortunately, I think we are headed for some form of government health care for everybody. If we would tweak the system we have, I think it can be improved, but unfortunately the politicians cannot seem to agree on anything in this regard. For one thing, congress is made up of mostly lawyers, so they don't wish to give up the right of people suing everybody they can think of for any amount. And many Democrats simply want government health care of some kind, so they drag their feet in regard to any other proposal.

The sky seems to be the limit in terms of medical advancements, equipment, treatments, and medications, and the money that can be thrown at this industry, so it looks to me like we as a culture are in danger of bankrupting ourselves in the name of health. Nobody seems to think they should have to suffer a headache or sore throat anymore. Go to the doctor and demand some pills. And people increasingly view medical care as a God given right, or constitutional right, which it never was or is. Yet at the same time, we indulge in self destructive and unhealthy behavior. So I don't have any good answers for this problem.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sat 3 Mar, 2007 08:55 pm
Your assumptions have no evidence to prove them. Tweaking, like our tax code, worsens things, not improve them. It makes it more complicated; we need simplicity. Not more bureaucratic paper work.

We have close to 47 million in our country without health insurance, while spending the most in the world. There's enough money spent on health care to cover everybody in the US.

Efficiency is needed, not tweaking.
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Sat 3 Mar, 2007 09:21 pm
They might be without insurance, but not without health care.

The tweaking I am talking about is to make it more efficient. Government health care creates more paperwork and a humongous bureaucracy, one which can never be eliminated ever. Once you jump in that pond, you are destined to swim in it, no matter how polluted it becomes.

How many of those uninsured are illegal immigrants? Many of those COME HERE TO GET HEALTH CARE. How much is that costing the country, and other tax payers. As I said, there are more factors to this than we can solve here on an economics thread.

And universal health care proponents have no proof of anything as well, especially how much it will ultimately cost. Using Canada, or Great Britain, or some other country is no proof at all. Too many factors are unique here. I would rather deal with something this huge incrementally, by instituting improvements. At least that is the devil we know.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sat 3 Mar, 2007 09:34 pm
okie wrote: How many of those uninsured are illegal immigrants?

One of the failures of our government is the failure to secure our bordrers, and is secondary to the issue of UHC.

Your attempts to side-track the issue just shows how weak your assumptions are. You make claims without evidence - just your opinion. Show us the evidence. You claim tweaking will make it more efficient. Show us what proof you have to support this? You say government health creates more paper work. Show us how by evidence?

Most industrialized countries in this world has UHC: that's the evidence.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sat 3 Mar, 2007 09:38 pm
http://content.healthaffairs.org/cgi/reprint/22/3/77.pdf
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Sat 3 Mar, 2007 09:43 pm
cicerone, cut out the "proof" nonsense. Nobody has any proof of anything on this, but everyone has opinions, including you. And don't tell me again that because the majority want something, it must be the best way to go.

You will probably eventually get your universal health care, but not everyone will like it, just like you got the most ethical, most honest congress in history, as claimed by Nancy Pelosi. I would like to see the proof of that, cicerone, now that she has recommended William Jefferson for the Homeland Security panel.

You wanted an opinion about health care, you got it, and no matter how many posts you place here, in blue, or shouted in huge fonts, not everybody is going to agree with you.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sat 3 Mar, 2007 09:45 pm
Contrary to popular belief, malpractice lawsuits do not account for a large portion of American healthcare spending. A study in Health Affairs found that the cost of defending and settling malpractice lawsuits in 2001 was approximately $6.5bn, or 0.46% of total health expenditures (reference: http://content.healthaffairs.org/cgi/content/abstract/24/4/903). Malpractice costs in Canada are unknown. Indeed, payouts to Canadian plaintiffs were higher than those to Americans. Average payouts to American plaintiffs were $265,103. Payouts to Canadian plaintiffs averaged $309,417.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

The States Need Help - Discussion by Robert Gentel
Fiscal Cliff - Question by JPB
Let GM go Bankrupt - Discussion by Woiyo9
Sovereign debt - Question by JohnJD
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.12 seconds on 01/11/2025 at 02:58:27