The Economy

[Libsmasher]

forgive me Libs but isn't that what the American people wanted! Surely capitalism is the economists version of the darwinian concept of survival of the fitttest!

The "survival of the fittest" is a historic anti-capitalist canard by marxists and persons who don't understand free markets.

If the people had wanted a federally regulated safe banking system and financial institutions that operated within a structured accountable regime then you would have had one - and this would not have happened! Instead you have this amusing situation where those that expound the virtues of the free market system are suddenly doing exactly that which is anathema to them!

It's a false irony that you think you have detected. As I have pointed out in other posts (qv) - it is GOVERNMENT meddling in the markets that have caused this mess - notably, Fanny Mae, Freddy Mac, and Jimmy Carter and Bubba Clinton's "Community Reinvestment Act" which forced banks to give loans to unqualified borrowers. Does any of that have to do with the function of a "free market system"??? Nooooooooooooooooooo.......................
By making the banks whole, the GOVERNMENT is simply cleaning up the mess IT CREATED. The investment banks are downstream from these causal factors, but there are so many economic morons in this country, the lib media knows it can crank out agitprop convincing people the investment banks are to blame.

Based on the fact that the whole financial system seems to be based on the fantsay of stability; some huge great confidence trick the likes of which has not been seen since Ponzi, all fueled by the the lure of easy money based on beguiling quasi-financial securities. So eventually the whole thing goes phut and we have to throw out a life line. Is this how nature sorts itself out. Lehman got what it deserved it was thrown to the sharks and died. Isn't that captialism?

That depends on how you look at it. On the one hand, Lehman should have known better than to involve itself in the government-created subprime artificial market. On the other hand, when investment banks were making money hand over fist selling securities based on subprime mortgages, they wouldn't have been able to compete unless they joined in, and would otherwise have gone out of business. Moral of the story? Irrational government intervention in markets creates problems one way or the other.

 

[The Scotsman]

It's a false irony that you think you have detected. As I have pointed out in other posts (qv) - it is GOVERNMENT meddling in the markets that have caused this mess - notably, Fanny Mae, Freddy Mac, and Jimmy Carter and Bubba Clinton's "Community Reinvestment Act" which forced banks to give loans to unqualified borrowers. Does any of that have to do with the function of a "free market system"??? Nooooooooooooooooooo.......................
By making the banks whole, the GOVERNMENT is simply cleaning up the mess IT CREATED. The investment banks are downstream from these causal factors, but there are so many economic morons in this country, the lib media knows it can crank out agitprop convincing people the investment banks are to blame.

.......you're waffling man! This issue has arisen over the past 10 years - its the securitisation issue we're dealing with and the lack of regulation of the debt streams. Banks and financial institutions have created these instruments and pertetuated an untennable situation - its their market makers, the brokers and credit rating agencies that are responsible not government.

So, you intimated that the banks and financial markets should have been bailed out by the Government! I contend that this is exactly the sort of Government intervention that you detest, you believe in the FREE MARKET! If the process was regulated in such a fashion as to check the underpinning liquidity of the securitisation streams created by institutions then you would not have had what you go on to say here.......

That depends on how you look at it. On the one hand, Lehman should have known better than to involve itself in the government-created subprime artificial market.

thus I assume you agree that the other banks and financial institutions should have been left to their own devises?

...............Government created artifical market......m'kay

On the other hand, when investment banks were making money hand over fist selling securities based on subprime mortgages, they wouldn't have been able to compete unless they joined in, and would otherwise have gone out of business.

........you'll have to lead me through this miasma of wisdom...............

Irrational government intervention in markets creates problems one way or the other.

........excellent...... so its all the Governments fault.

 

[Andy]

Fact is the Clinton's are working together quite well with the Obama campaign. And it's Bush ... invasion & occupation built on lies...

You just lied. Why should we bother to read your posts when they are blatant lies?

tax cuts in time of war...

If not for the tax cuts, our economy would have been worse off. Beside, they should cut taxes, and cut spending on non-military budget items.

and love of almost total deregulation. You run your economic house on unheard of big debt overseas and do some stupid things here at home and you get the Bush Republican economic catastrophe!

Name this deregulation, and why it is bad.

Shoring up Social security needed done regardless of who was President and a revamping of our heathcare system is seen as vitally necessary by the majority of Americans as well.

Shoring up socialist security is the reason we are over taxes and why we need to disband the system completely. Further, your bill clinton raided socical security to pay for his quote, unquote, balanced budget. Like trying to borrow on a credit card to balance your home budget... it might work for a while, but it's a lie, and it will fail.

For that matter the McSame campaign has promised to spend money all over the place as well (hint: It's a campaign). With McSame we get these glorious Bush economic policies continued plus McSame's additions to spending he talks about plus a much quicker trigger finger on the War Button plus at 72+ if he goes down we have natural disaster Palin groping her way along in the dark.

All bad... all out of touch... more Bush with even less competent people running things!

Please, McSame is better that Mr. Hate America Church, who you can't pin down on any issue at any time. I can almost count the issues he HAS NOT flipped on with one hand. The only thing I know for sure is, if Obama is elected, we will embrace socialism, and the doom it brings everywhere it's tried.

And perhaps the end of America as we know it, is a justified punishment for so many stupid Americans. How anyone can look at the devastation of socialism everywhere in the world, and look at the failing socialist policies in our own country, and think we should apply it to the entire nation, is simply proof of the utter complete ignorant arrogance of the left. It's beyond me.

 

[Pandora]

Not really. You're one of the lucky few who have first class medical coverage with a minimum of out of pocket expenses. Most people would have paid a lot more than you did.

Your two surgeries that only cost $30,000 were a bargain as well. You must not have had to undergo extensive rehabilitation, nor a whole lot of time in the hospital.

As for putting the money into a tax free medical account, there is nothing wrong with that, so long as you have coverage for catastrophic bills while your account is building. What would you have done had you been faced with a couple of hundred grand during the first few years that the savings account was building?

Another thing to consider is the escalating cost. If your employer is paying $900 a month now for employee health coverage, that doesn't mean that the cost has been that for the past 18 years. 18 years ago, health insurance cost a small fraction of what it does today, after all. In another 10 years, we'll look back on that $900 as a real bargain, if we can even afford insurance at all by then.

We've seen health insurance increase by over 30% a year many times in the past. Another 30% will bring that $900 to $1,170. If the increase were to level out to an average of only 10%, which is a real stretch, then the cost in 10 more years would be over $3,000 a month.

Obviously, the challenge is to bring cost increases down. How are we going to pay over $3,000 a month for health care in just 11 more years? And yet, past increases have been more than that hypothetical 10%.

Maybe a tax free medical account with a catastrophic coverage policy is the way to go, I'm not sure. What is for certain is that what we're doing now is not the way to go.

I would not call my medical coverage first class, there are many in other state jobs that have much better coverage for less out of pocket money. I probably should have added that they pay us aprox. 3 dollars an hour less than most people doing the same job and they call the medical coverage compensation to the lower wages. I think that is a good idea for someone who actually wants the coverage but for someone like me that runs when a doctor is near its pretty useless. I would rather have the money. I already have catastrophic medical coverage, I have since I was 22 years old. I doubt that I will ever need it but its smart to have.

About the cost rising. I had already averaged that out. It started at 500 and went to 600 and so on. Its past the 900 now but 900 was the average over the 18 year period of time. I didn’t think that mattered so I didn’t add that before.

Again, if someone wanted a deal like that. I will work for 3 dollars less per hour in exchange for medical coverage; I think that is a good idea. That is sort of what silhouette had proposed. For me, I want my freaking money. The next doctor I will probably see is the medical examiner to put the tag on my toe I really do not like doctors. And I think we should be able to have a choice. Not everyone is a doctor fiend. I have co workers and friends who go to the emergency room for normal stuff, and go to the doctor for a painful ingrown toe nails. I am not kidding about that either.

Another problem with our medical coverage is that everything has to be covered. A woman who can not have kids has to be covered for the pill and Viagra, neither would be something she would ever need. People should be able to get them self covered for the things that are most important to them rather than be covered for things they can never possibly need.

I suppose you are right, what we have now is not working. But making me pay more in taxes for coverage that I don’t want in a national health care plan and then on top of that I still work for 3 dollars less an hour so my boss can take the money he claimed he was putting towards me to what program that I am stuck being on that I will not use.

Another option is needed.

 

[Andy]

Aren't you glad though, that your employer pays $900 a month for health insurance?

If you were to get that same $900 as a part of your paycheck, you'd pay taxes on it. If you're in the 28% bracket, as I am, then you'd get to keep $657 of it. I'm not sure what your state income tax is in Oregon, but in California another 8% would go to the state.

No, give me the money. With new health savings accounts, that $900 will be sheltered from taxes (which we shouldn't have an income tax anyway), and I can buy a darn good policy for $900. In, fact I'd likely not need to spend all $900 for premiums, and thus I'd actually save money in the account, year after year that I don't need it.

Not only that, but it is this exact line of thinking that has caused all the problems we have in the industry. Every single one can be traced back to this specific issue.

For example, insurance companies don't need to compete between each other for business. Why? Because you MUST use the policy your employer provides.

You can't leave your job, or if unemployed too long risk not being able to get a policy. Why? Because when you leave your job, the policy is not portable out of the group.

Insurance companies treat people poorly and try and deny service whenever possible. Why? Because they know you can't leave. You can't not shop around for insurance. You will never find a policy as cheap for the same size, independent of your company, and they know that. They know your trapped, and as long as they keep the main customer, the company who employs you, happy, whether your happy or not is irrelevant, because you have no other option.

So no... I don't want the company paying a dime. I want my own policy (which I have), that I can take anywhere to any job (which I can), that I have complete control over (and I do), and they treat me great (which they do), because they know I can pull the plug in an instant if they don't perform.

If I had my way, I'd collect the money my company is feeding their insurance company. It would be better for everyone if they did this.

Still, you could not buy the same insurance your company provides, even if you kicked in the extra dough. For one thing, if you have, or if you developed in the meantime, some health problem, then that would be a "pre existing condition", and would not be covered.

This is exactly what I referred to above as a reason to not have the company pay into insurance. If the company doesn't pay into it, then you can take your policy to any job anywhere, and never worry about "pre existing conditions" clause.

If you were to have high blood pressure, for example, heaven forbid, then had a stroke, you would be out hundreds of thousands of dollars, even if you survived.

Thousands would still be far cheaper than socialism. You are going to pay for health care in one of two ways. There is no way around this.

One: You pay for it yourself in a free-market capitalist system where you pick an insurance company, or you pay it directly.

Two: Socialism, where you pay for it through Government with much higher taxes, or mandated payment through lower wages (aka company pays for it by not paying you) and by receiving moderated or reduced care. (year long waiting lists, unavailable services such as rooms, beds, doctors, even surgery teams)

These are the only two options. There are no others. You will either pay for it directly with expensive but quality care, or through more expensive taxes and poor quality care.

 

[Andy]

No one seems to know what is actually causing the problem right now. AIG implosion was caused by government. Does no one know this?

When Enron (caused by B. Clinton) finally popped in 2002, the government tried to pass a bunch of regulations to prevent another Enron from happening.

Now, this is quick and dirty, so yeah I know there's a bit more to it, but for the sake of basic understanding, follow this.

Enron fudged the numbers by reporting future contracts as greater than what they were, there by showing increased income than what they actually got.

Instead of saying they were screwing with the system and got caught, they changed the system which devalued future contracts.

As companies started to mark down those future assets, numbers on the balance sheets dropped too. What happens when the companies balance sheet drops? Stocks in the market drop, and so do credit ratings. With the drop in stocks and credit ratings, the company is required to "set-aside" money to cover those loses, also dictated by banking regulations. By setting aside that money, it lowers the company balance sheet even more.

AIG was worse because it's massive network of financial contracts, that are contracts on contracts, all compounded the devaluing required by the new regulations. In other words, AIG has a contract on another company which has that contract on something else. That company devalued it's contract, then AIG had to drop to the new lower value, and then do it's own devaluing.

The point is, this whole issue was caused by hasty shoddy government regulations. What's worse is, while McCain want's a through methodical review of the whole situation to take proper action, Obama arrogantly claims he's got it all figured out and we need quick action. Well quick ignorant stupid political action is exactly what caused this.

Moreover, the problems are not all that 'real'. Yes there are dropping stocks, and yes companies are being pressured by the required setting aside of money to cover these "loses" in devalued contracts, but beyond that, it's all on numbers. There are not real actual loses. It's all just saying a contract has less future value than it did before. In reality, the contract will still bring in what it was supposed to, so there isn't a real loss.


The the irony of the whole situation is AIG was created in 1919 in China right after the end of Chinese imperialism. When China turned to socialism and remained a 3rd world country, AIG moved completely to the US. Now the US is doing a socialist take over of AIG. Meanwhile, China is divesting itself of nationalized companies, and ending socialism (economically).

One of those countries has a booming economy, and one doesn't.

 

[Andy]

If we had universal care, then your company would pay that $900 a month into it.

If that universal care were to be in actuality "socialized medicine", then the $900 wouldn't begin to cover the costs.

If, on the other hand, there were just one insurer, with negotiated rates of pay and legislative controls as to how much they could charge, then that 18% of the GDP we are currently paying for health care would start to go down. Right now, it is going up. Once rates started to come down, your company and hundreds of others would save money in the long run.

France, for example, pays just 7% of their GDP for the #1 rated health care system in the world.

We pay more than anyone else, by far.

The only real question is whether the federal government is so corrupted by greed and moneyed lobbyists that it can't do what the government of every other major nation in the world is doing currently, which is to provide universal coverage at an affordable price.

Right now, I'm not sure as to the answer to that question.

I just don't get this. Do you understand that the way in which these countries achieve this lower cost, is by reducing or rationing care? When you put government in control, when you socialize the industry, two things are consistent:

A: higher cost in the form of taxes.
B: Reduced or moderated care.

Take for example the UK. Do you realize that at $65K a year, you are in the 40% income tax rate? A husband and wife truck driver team would hit that easy. Two school teachers would hit that easy. A pipe fitter or a car factory worker would be in that ball park.

On top of that, they pay a 17% sale tax. Then you have an 11% mandated insurance tax. On top of all this, you have a massive excise tax on things like fuel. Do you realize they pay nearly triple what we do for a gallon of gas? And it's all tax!

You are going to lose more than half your income in taxes, both in what you lose straight from the check, and in the higher cost to purchase everything due to taxes.

What do you get for this? Free health care. How free? So free that waiting lists just to be admitted... top over 1 million people, with 40,000 of them having been on the waiting list for over a year. I was admitted for a non-emergency problem in.... 25 minutes. Patients that have been referred to a specialist by a general practitioner can expect to wait 26 weeks. I waited 3 whole days.

What about the quality of the care?

In the United States, over half of all patients receiving arthritis medication are receiving the newest and highest-quality pharmaceuticals. In Britain, only 15 percent of arthritis patients can claim that privilege.

Restricted access to high-quality pharmaceuticals is a problem that plagues not only Britain's single-payer medical plan, but health care in other countries as well. Like their British counterparts, only 15 percent of German arthritis patients get the latest medications. From 1995 to 1997, pharmacies in Portugal, Italy, and Greece failed to carry over half of the new medications surveyed. Pharmacies in Belgium, France, and the Netherlands lacked over one-third.

Moreover, a poll in which about 2/3rds the doctors in all of the UK responded ... 80% said they would consider leaving the field if the health system was not reformed. Longer waiting lists in the future... but at least they spend less % of their GDP and ... it's free!

Do you not get what I'm trying to say? Right now, my policy costs me $123 a month. That's about $1,500 a year. I earn about $22K this year. Under socialism health care, I'd pay $11,000 to the government in taxes.

So... Either I pay $1,500 for our evil corrupt capitalist system that provides the best medication, best doctors, fastest most complete service.

Or I can pay $11,000 for a loving benevolent government system where I'd wait a whole year to get into a hospital, possibly 2 years for a hip replacement if I needed it, have a hard time finding a decent doctor, not be able to get the latest greatest pharmaceuticals.

Would you like me to detail how France is cutting cost? Did you know they pay nearly 45% in social security NOT including income tax? Did you know Frances health care isn't universal anymore? A large number of people are no longer included. Also, it isn't free, you have co-pays and doctors fees now. Did you know in 2004 or 2003, almost 15,000 people died during a heat wave, because hospitals can't afford AC? But at least it's only 7% of their GDP. The people can know they died in a hospital bed cheaply... or did they? As of 2004, 9% of their GDP went to health care, and the health care ministry was over 10 billion euros in debt? By 2010 it will be 66 Billion in debt.

Did you know that the French are coming to the US to figure out how to fix their problems?

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4188/is_/ai_n19490720

Here we are stupidly looking at their system to copy all their problems here, and they are looking at our system to get out of their problems there.

People please... go research this stuff. Don't get all your info from a known liar Moore. Time to get educated before we jump into a frying pan.

 

[PLC1]

I just don't get this. Do you understand that the way in which these countries achieve this lower cost, is by reducing or rationing care? When you put government in control, when you socialize the industry, two things are consistent:

A: higher cost in the form of taxes.
B: Reduced or moderated care.

Take for example the UK. Do you realize that at $65K a year, you are in the 40% income tax rate? A husband and wife truck driver team would hit that easy. Two school teachers would hit that easy. A pipe fitter or a car factory worker would be in that ball park.

On top of that, they pay a 17% sale tax. Then you have an 11% mandated insurance tax. On top of all this, you have a massive excise tax on things like fuel. Do you realize they pay nearly triple what we do for a gallon of gas? And it's all tax!

You are going to lose more than half your income in taxes, both in what you lose straight from the check, and in the higher cost to purchase everything due to taxes.

What do you get for this? Free health care. How free? So free that waiting lists just to be admitted... top over 1 million people, with 40,000 of them having been on the waiting list for over a year. I was admitted for a non-emergency problem in.... 25 minutes. Patients that have been referred to a specialist by a general practitioner can expect to wait 26 weeks. I waited 3 whole days.

What about the quality of the care?

​

Moreover, a poll in which about 2/3rds the doctors in all of the UK responded ... 80% said they would consider leaving the field if the health system was not reformed. Longer waiting lists in the future... but at least they spend less % of their GDP and ... it's free!

Do you not get what I'm trying to say? Right now, my policy costs me $123 a month. That's about $1,500 a year. I earn about $22K this year. Under socialism health care, I'd pay $11,000 to the government in taxes.

So... Either I pay $1,500 for our evil corrupt capitalist system that provides the best medication, best doctors, fastest most complete service.

Or I can pay $11,000 for a loving benevolent government system where I'd wait a whole year to get into a hospital, possibly 2 years for a hip replacement if I needed it, have a hard time finding a decent doctor, not be able to get the latest greatest pharmaceuticals.

Would you like me to detail how France is cutting cost? Did you know they pay nearly 45% in social security NOT including income tax? Did you know Frances health care isn't universal anymore? A large number of people are no longer included. Also, it isn't free, you have co-pays and doctors fees now. Did you know in 2004 or 2003, almost 15,000 people died during a heat wave, because hospitals can't afford AC? But at least it's only 7% of their GDP. The people can know they died in a hospital bed cheaply... or did they? As of 2004, 9% of their GDP went to health care, and the health care ministry was over 10 billion euros in debt? By 2010 it will be 66 Billion in debt.

Did you know that the French are coming to the US to figure out how to fix their problems?

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4188/is_/ai_n19490720

Here we are stupidly looking at their system to copy all their problems here, and they are looking at our system to get out of their problems there.

People please... go research this stuff. Don't get all your info from a known liar Moore. Time to get educated before we jump into a frying pan.

The French are coming to study one hospital system, not the health care system.

Yes, of course, health care has to be rationed. We don't have unlimited health care now, and never will. The rationing right now favors medical tests up the wazoo for people who have good insurance, but only the minimum for those who don't.

Given that you say you're paying only $123 a month for health care, either you're being heavily subsidized by your employer, or you don't have much in the way of coverage. That much money simply doesn't pay for health care in the US, not even for young healthy individuals. NoObamanation's figure of $900 is more realistic, and that figure is only for now. Next year, it will be more, no doubt about it at all.

You're right about this:

Time to get educated before we jump into a frying pan.

Reforming health care is not going to be easy, and, should we rely on the government to do it without the voice of the people being heard, we're likely to get something that is even worse than what we have now. We don't want "socialized", ie government run, health care, just government regulated health insurance.

The facts of the matter are:

We pay more than anybody else for health care.
The costs keep going up.
Only by looking at the system with nationalistic blinders on can we possibly conclude that we have the best health care system in the world, but we do have the most expensive.
The cost of health care has been going up far faster than the rate of inflation, and continues to do so.

My opinion, based on the above facts, is that we need to act now, or we're likely to price most of the middle class out of the system altogether.

Of course, it isn't going to be easy. The health insurance industry is making a lot of money, and isn't going to give it up easily. Remember those commercials showing busloads of Canadians coming to the US for health care back when Hillary Clinton started talking about universal care? Just who do you think paid for them?

If you think that there are actually busloads of people crossing the border from Canada for health care, take a look at this:

Popular medical travel worldwide destinations include: Brunei, Cuba, Colombia, Costa Rica, Hong Kong, Hungary, India,Jordan, Lithuania, Malaysia, The Philippines, Singapore, South Africa, Thailand, and recently, Saudi Arabia, UAE, Tunisia and New Zealand.[3]

Do you notice any countries missing from the list of medical tourism destinations? Hint: The USA didn't even make the list at all.

 

[Libsmasher]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Libsmasher
It's a false irony that you think you have detected. As I have pointed out in other posts (qv) - it is GOVERNMENT meddling in the markets that have caused this mess - notably, Fanny Mae, Freddy Mac, and Jimmy Carter and Bubba Clinton's "Community Reinvestment Act" which forced banks to give loans to unqualified borrowers. Does any of that have to do with the function of a "free market system"??? Nooooooooooooooooooo.......................
By making the banks whole, the GOVERNMENT is simply cleaning up the mess IT CREATED. The investment banks are downstream from these causal factors, but there are so many economic morons in this country, the lib media knows it can crank out agitprop convincing people the investment banks are to blame.

.......you're waffling man!

Whaaaaaattttt??????

This issue has arisen over the past 10 years - its the securitisation issue we're dealing with and the lack of regulation of the debt streams. Banks and financial institutions have created these instruments and pertetuated an untennable situation - its their market makers, the brokers and credit rating agencies that are responsible not government.

You are simply wrong. Fanny Mae (ie, the Federal National Mortgage Association) has been securitizing mortgage debt since the great depression.

So, you intimated that the banks and financial markets should have been bailed out by the Government! I contend that this is exactly the sort of Government intervention that you detest, you believe in the FREE MARKET! If the process was regulated in such a fashion as to check the underpinning liquidity of the securitisation streams created by institutions then you would not have had what you go on to say here.......

Once again, GOVERNMENT created this crisis, GOVERNMENT can clean it up. In the absence of GOVERNMENT twisting the arm of lending institutions to make subprime loans, not a single one of them would ever have been made. If none of them had been made, they wouldn't have been available to the investment houses.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Libsmasher
That depends on how you look at it. On the one hand, Lehman should have known better than to involve itself in the government-created subprime artificial market.

thus I assume you agree that the other banks and financial institutions should have been left to their own devises?

...............Government created artifical market......m'kay

If you are unable to absorb the relevent facts, I can't help you.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Libsmasher
On the other hand, when investment banks were making money hand over fist selling securities based on subprime mortgages, they wouldn't have been able to compete unless they joined in, and would otherwise have gone out of business.

........you'll have to lead me through this miasma of wisdom...............

While US house values were going up and up - approximately 1997 to mid-2006, the ponzi scheme worked - people who took out subprime loans were able to refinance later, the lending institution made money, and the investors in the securitized loan bundles made money. Any investment entity such as AIG or Lehman brothers or large banks which weren't participating in this phase, would have had much poorer returns, and probably been acquired by more successful financial entities. Can't make it any simpler.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Libsmasher
Irrational government intervention in markets creates problems one way or the other.

........excellent...... so its all the Governments fault.

That's the straight-forward conclusion any rational person would make from the relevent facts - even though those facts are nowhere to be found in the lib media.

 

[Andy]

The French are coming to study one hospital system, not the health care system.

Yes, of course, health care has to be rationed. We don't have unlimited health care now, and never will. The rationing right now favors medical tests up the wazoo for people who have good insurance, but only the minimum for those who don't.

You miss understand the idea of rationing. In Canada, mothers who need neo-natal care, are sent to the US because the hospitals simply don't have room. Why is this? Because the government in an effort to control cost, dictates a specific amount that barely covers the cost of treatment. That may sound great, but consider... when the hospital starts maxing out on capacity, how do they expand to meet the need? There is no capital to do this, and the government doesn't have it. What happens? They don't expand. Result? Mothers are told their babies will die, or they go to the US.

This is true in many other areas too. For example one student had swolen appendix. He was refered to 3 different hospitals, at each one he arrived only to find there was no surgery team availible. After, I remember right, 18 hours in pain waiting for a surgey team to do "emergency surgery", he was finely sent to the US where he was admitted imedently, and they found his appendix had burst during the time he waitted for help. He could have easily died.

This is what rationing of health care means. It means people dying, people wait in pain for hours, people sitting in the ER for 28 hours waitting in pain, just to get a bed because the hospital can't expand. This simply does not happen in a capitalist system because the hospital sees you as a customer and if they don't have room or availible doctors, they lose. But under socialism, it's the norm. Your just a number, and the government doesn't pay enough to cover the true cost.

Given that you say you're paying only $123 a month for health care, either you're being heavily subsidized by your employer, or you don't have much in the way of coverage. That much money simply doesn't pay for health care in the US, not even for young healthy individuals. NoObamanation's figure of $900 is more realistic, and that figure is only for now. Next year, it will be more, no doubt about it at all.

My policy is completely independent of my employer. My policy is a $1K deductable, and has a $1 Million life coverage. It covers 100% of my hospital costs after the deductable is reached.

The facts of the matter are:

We pay more than anybody else for health care.
The costs keep going up.
Only by looking at the system with nationalistic blinders on can we possibly conclude that we have the best health care system in the world, but we do have the most expensive.
The cost of health care has been going up far faster than the rate of inflation, and continues to do so.

I already covered this. They pay less by providing less and lower quality service.

 

[Sihouette]

That's a myth. You can have universal health care for everyone and have the elite who want "top notch" care to pay extra for it or whatever. We just want a guarantee that if our kid gets appendicitis, we don't have to become homeless to afford the operation and hospital stay.

You can see our point surely?

Health care is at the root of our current crises, as it turns out..

Debt piles up when incomes stop. Income stops when jobs are outsourced. Jobs are outsourced because employers find it harder and harder to compete on the world market due to high insurance premiums for their american workers. Those premiums surround nothing but health care issues.

The root of the problem looks like the lack of universal health care.

I proposed an idea of reducing the minimum wage, legislating jobs back home from overseas and enacting universal health care fund paid in a super-low monthly premium per person. Like $15 each. $5 co-pay at the pharmacy for all prescriptions to more than cover their cost of manufacture.

The pharmaceutical lobbiests will soil their shorts at the mention of it. The GOP will scream "Socialism!!". But who cares what those elite and outdated groups think anymore anyway? We have a nation in crises due directly to their short-sided excesses and old-fogey paranoia of the slightest hint of anything sounding remotely like it is a pool to benefit the masses. Yet they drive on roads funded by a common pool, enjoy police and military protection from socialized arms and send their kids to schools that are publicly funded...oh wait..they can afford private schools.. Scratch that last one..

We should build this country back the only way we can, from the bottom up. You don't rebuild a wrecked house from the roof downward; when you're done it will have settled, be unsquare and lilting..unfit for habitation. No, you start at the foundation and work up. That's what you do when a house is wrecked. The foundation of the economy is the working stiff. We start there or kiss the USA goodbye.

Put working men and women back in their homes, give them health care so they won't have to worry and get sicker worrying. Relieve their employers by removing the unbearable burden of health and accident insurance so more people can be hired. Once with more jobs, more mortgages can be afforded, more homes will be bought back up. Real estate prices will stabilize and begin to creep upwards again. Banks will regain their financial solidity. Loans will flow more freely. The economy will be newly stimulated. Mandate clean and safe alternative energy to stave the outflow of American cash to the foreigners.

Do all this and Wallstreet will have its bailout. Oh sure, it will take some time for them to see the caviar back on the platinum dinnerware, but that's a burden I think we're all prepared to shoulder...

lol...

 

[Dawkinsrocks]

If the US spent as much on heakthcare and infrastructure as it does on war there would be no unemployment in the US and no credit crunch,

And everyone would be looked after if they got sick.

But what's that worth when you can go killing people thousands of miles away.

Come on Libs, Andy, put me straight on my dastardly plan to get some good done for people.

I know I am an evil atheist who likes to help the poor and you are good christians who like to persecute and kill them,

 

[Libsmasher]

That's a myth.

WHAT'S a "myth"? Don't respond to long, detailed posts with a meaningless dismisal.

You can have universal health care for everyone and have the elite who want "top notch" care to pay extra for it or whatever. We just want a guarantee that if our kid gets appendicitis, we don't have to become homeless to afford the operation and hospital stay.

And you think rationed health care will do that? You need to erase the propaganda in your brain about state rationed health systems, starting with the "universal" BS, and read up how they actually operate in practice, and what they cost (a third to a half four income).

Health care is at the root of our current crises, as it turns out..

Fiction for which you have no proof. Flawed government meddling in the real estate market is at the root, for which I have layed out the facts chapter and verse.

 

[Shadow]

Yahoo! Alerts Yahoo!


Tuesday, September 23, 2008, 10:02 AM PDT
WASHINGTON (AP) Paulson says financial crisis is 'embarrassing for the United States of America'




gosh, Ya think??

*****

Sihouette You make some very good points. (and very reasonable ones Kinda sad to see that some refuse to budge from their american dream fantasy , and see that it is and has been a nightmare for some time. It is imploding as we "speak". The general pop has been kept in the dark, fed BS until the cracks split open and we are seeing the reality for what it is And it ain't good.

 

[BigRob]

If the US spent as much on heakthcare and infrastructure as it does on war there would be no unemployment in the US and no credit crunch

Just so you are aware, 0% unemployment would mean high inflation.

Most economists generally consider 3-5% (depending on who you ask) unemployment to be full employment.