The Economy

Wow, you can cut and paste lies onto the forum. Of course garbage is still garbage no matter where you repeat it.


garbage?? according to whom?? Are you a self appointed designated hostile critic of all the posts on here ( and the posters??)


the fact that you knock Parry 's article demonstrates YOUR BIASES and credibility gap. . The fact that you intend to vote for McShame, & Palin theatrics speaks volumes .......but THAT is your right. Not sure it is a good idea to advertise who one is voting for. Private ballot and all that.

****

Top Gun: you can add McShame "knows NOTHING about economy, THE economy and does not comprehend the nature /complexities of the current crisis.


with him at the helm......it would be the dumb leading the dumbed down. (No offense to the reasonable and concerned that must reside along side with the former )
 
Werbung:
garbage?? according to whom?? Are you a self appointed designated hostile critic of all the posts on here ( and the posters??)


the fact that you knock Parry 's article demonstrates YOUR BIASES and credibility gap. . The fact that you intend to vote for McShame, & Palin theatrics speaks volumes .......but THAT is your right. Not sure it is a good idea to advertise who one is voting for. Private ballot and all that.

****

I am a little confused... are you claiming that Parry's article is the definition of unbiased journalism?

Obviously everyone comes to the table with preconceived notions...
 
are you claiming that Parry's article is the definition of unbiased journalism?

No, not at all.

Obviously everyone comes to the table with preconceived notions...


Yes ,indeed they do.

 
from here:


http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article20854.htm



This crisis comes at the worst possible time. Gratuitous wars and military spending in pursuit of US world hegemony have inflated the federal budget deficit, which recession is further enlarging. Massive trade deficits, magnified by the offshoring of goods and services, cannot be eliminated by US export capability.

These large deficits are financed by foreigners, and foreign unease has resulted in a decline in the US dollar’s value compared to other tradable currencies, precious metals, and oil.

The US Treasury does not have $700 billion on hand with which to buy the troubled assets from the troubled institutions. The Treasury will have to borrow the $700 billion from abroad.

The dependency of Treasury Secretary Paulson’s bailout scheme on foreign willingness to absorb more Treasury paper in order that the Treasury has the money to bail out the troubled institutions is heavy proof that the US is in a financially dependent position that is inconsistent with that of America’s “superpower” status.

The US is not a superpower. The US is a financially dependent country that foreign lenders can close down at will.

Washington still hasn’t learned this. American hubris can lead the administration and Congress into a bailout solution that the rest of the world, which has to finance it, might not accept.


Currently, the fight between the administration and Congress over the bailout is whether the bailout will include the Democrats’ poor constituencies as well as the Republicans’ rich ones. The Republicans, for the most part, and their media shills are doing their best to exclude the ordinary American from the rescue plan.

A less appreciated feature of Paulson’s bailout plan is his demand for freedom from accountability.


freedom from accountability??? They have to be kidding. ( but they are not. This has become the US norm.)
 
Well since I have actually researched the situation instead of spouting partisan politically motivated drivel, I, to my own surprise, agree with McCain on this. Thanks for giving me another reason to vote for him.

GREAT!!! Will you please go out for me and spread the word JOHN MCCAIN IS MR. DEREGULATION all over. Maybe get some t-shirts and bumper stickers made up. That will help us tremendously! Thanks...:)
 
My problem with that line of thinking is, do we know that this forum is an accurate representation of the entire population? How much have the people on this forum specifically, dealt with their health care system? Up till last year, I never dealt with our health care system. If you had asked me last year, I might have said yay or nay, without having any real experience.

Further, even if you do find someone that did go to the hospital in a socialized health care country, what type of treatment did they have? Some basic things like splinting a broken arm, might be done very well for free... while other more complicated things like the Heart by-pass, or a hip replacement, or something else, the system might fail horribly.

Some problems might not even be known to someone who responds. For example, people in the UK who need medication for arthritis, only 15% get the latest greatest medications. Why? Because the government pays for them, and since the government doesn't have infinite amounts of money, they simply don't buy them. It's not an option. Only those with private insurance can get the newer, better, less side effects, medications. So a patient may think their getting the best treatment, when if fact there are better medications out their, they don't know about them because their government won't buy them.

Finely, and this is a big issue. Latent failure. This is the idea that when socialism first starts, everything works wonderfully (normally), but as it goes on, the system crashes, as all socialism does. France is a perfect example. In France, it's free, it's universal, it's tax payer funded, it's peachy it's great... That was 1985... but that system has been in deficit every single year. They raised taxes, raised taxes, raised taxes and the economy suffered, but it still didn't cover the cost. The health care deficit in France is projected to be 66 Billion. People pay over 50% of their income in taxes, and still the system is bankrupt. Now they are cutting services. And future cuts, and higher taxes are in the works as we speak.

Now an end user may not know this, may think the system is wonderful... but it's still failing! The system does not work... Again... even if you find a french guy who says it's great, the system is crumbling around them, whether they 'like' the system or not. Of course if their as lame as I think, they likely have a bunch of nutty people saying the reason their system is killing people and failing, and crashing around them is "bigoil" and if they just embraced Geothermal power, over nuclear, then all these socialized medical problems would disappear.

It's interesting you should bring up the French system. WHO rates it #1 in the world, but are they right?

That rating was questioned by other researchers:

Some researchers, however, said that study was flawed, arguing that there might be things other than a country's health care system that determined factors like longevity.

Their results:

The researchers looked at health care in 19 industrialized nations. Again, France came in first. The United States was last.


Of course, the #1 health care system doesn't come cheap. France's is one of the most expensive in the world, according to the same study.

It's expensive to provide this kind of health care and social support. France's health care system is one of the most expensive in the world.

But it is not as expensive as the U.S. system, which is the world's most costly. The United States spends about twice as much as France on health care. In 2005, U.S. spending came to $6,400 per person. In France, it was $3,300.

Wow! That's almost half as much as the US spends. Is it so expensive because of it being socialized medicine?

Well, no...

"Americans assume that if it's in Europe, which France is, that it's socialized medicine," he says. "The French don't consider their system socialized. In fact, they detest socialized medicine. For the French, that's the British, that's the Canadians. It's not the French system."

The bottom line is that, unless we change our system, we're going to price ourselves out of the ability to provide health care for any but the wealthiest, or perhaps the best insured.

We have the most expensive health care in the world, by far. We don't have the best health care by any objective measure.

The only argument against universal care seems to be that it is "socialized medicine" and therefore bad, because it is socialism and socialism is always bad. This kind of circular reasoning will have to be addressed and shown to be what it is, or we will continue to pay too much for a mediocre system.

Not that we don't have good doctors and nurses, of course, it's the insurance system that needs to be reformed.
 
It's interesting you should bring up the French system. WHO rates it #1 in the world, but are they right?

You're laughably uninformed. WHO ratings are rigged to give credit to health systems with socialized aspects. WHO rating the US vs. socialized systems is about like asking new york yankee fans to rate whether the new york yankees or the boston red sox are the greatest all time baseball team. :D
Also, WHO has notoriously allowed data to be rigged by reporting countries - eg (famously) saying the US infant mortality is high. The real reason is the US counts the death of preemies as infant deaths, where most others don't. Get a clue.

That rating was questioned by other researchers:

Quote:
Some researchers, however, said that study was flawed, arguing that there might be things other than a country's health care system that determined factors like longevity.

Their results:

Quote:
The researchers looked at health care in 19 industrialized nations. Again, France came in first. The United States was last.

:p BLLLLLAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHH HA HA HEEE HEEEEEEEE CHORTLE GIGGLE YAAAAA HEEE HEE HARRR YUK CACKLE HA HA HEEE HEEEEEEEE GIGGLE CHORTLE YAAAAA HEEE HEE HARRR YUK CACKLE HA HA HEEE HEEEEEEEE GIGGLE

And who did the rating??? A component of the UK's socialized NHS. Hey, here's an idea: you and your friends play me and my boys a game of baseball - my team gets to be the umpires too! :D

Comparisons of socialized health systems vs the US are always rigged from beginning to end.

The health of a nation depends on all kinds of factors not included in rigged studies created by non-impartial sources, and other than the health system itself. Do euro countries have the rate of violent crime the US does? Nooooo. Do they have a huge underclass like we do, which is addicted to all kinds of health destroying behaviors such as illegal drugs, unhealthy food, gang warfare, unprotected sex etc? Nooooo. Do they have 20 million illegal aliens who screw up the stats? Noooooo. Do they fight major wars and have millions of wounded veterans from several wars? Noooo. Do they drive cars as many per capita passenger miles as us? Noooooo.

Give it up. You've got nothing. :rolleyes:
 
You're laughably uninformed. WHO ratings are rigged to give credit to health systems with socialized aspects. WHO rating the US vs. socialized systems is about like asking new york yankee fans to rate whether the new york yankees or the boston red sox are the greatest all time baseball team. :D
Also, WHO has notoriously allowed data to be rigged by reporting countries - eg (famously) saying the US infant mortality is high. The real reason is the US counts the death of preemies as infant deaths, where most others don't. Get a clue.



:p BLLLLLAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHH HA HA HEEE HEEEEEEEE CHORTLE GIGGLE YAAAAA HEEE HEE HARRR YUK CACKLE HA HA HEEE HEEEEEEEE GIGGLE CHORTLE YAAAAA HEEE HEE HARRR YUK CACKLE HA HA HEEE HEEEEEEEE GIGGLE

And who did the rating??? A component of the UK's socialized NHS. Hey, here's an idea: you and your friends play me and my boys a game of baseball - my team gets to be the umpires too!

Comparisons of socialized health systems vs the US are always rigged from beginning to end.

The health of a nation depends on all kinds of factors not included in rigged studies created by non-impartial sources, and other than the health system itself. Do euro countries have the rate of violent crime the US does? Nooooo. Do they have a huge underclass like we do, which is addicted to all kinds of health destroying behaviors such as illegal drugs, unhealthy food, gang warfare, unprotected sex etc? Nooooo. Do they have 20 million illegal aliens who screw up the stats? Noooooo. Do they fight major wars and have millions of wounded veterans from several wars? Noooo. Do they drive cars as many per capita passenger miles as us? Noooooo.

Give it up. You've got nothing. :rolleyes:

If you have a serious comment, then post it. Otherwise, don't waste our time.:rolleyes:
 
The bottom line of why jobs are disappearing from the US at an exponential rate is nothing but health care and accident premiums pricing the American worker right out of a business' budget. You can only milk "patriotism" for so long until the business owner sits down and crunches the monthly numbers.

Provide universal health care and accident insurance as a pooled fund with super-low premiums per person and you remove that burden from business and industry owners. Burden removed, legislation enacted to bring jobs back home where they belong, people go back to work. Then mortgages will get paid, housing values increase, banks stabilize and the economy recovers.

At the root of it all: Universal Health Care.

Hillary Clinton got it right. Too bad the GOP ripped it away. If it had passed then, we would not be in the crises we're in today.
 
The bottom line of why jobs are disappearing from the US at an exponential rate is nothing but health care and accident premiums pricing the American worker right out of a business' budget. You can only milk "patriotism" for so long until the business owner sits down and crunches the monthly numbers.

That's another manifestly stupid idea - there are all kinds of reasons why jobs are leaving the US, but the main reason is labor wages - everything can be done more cheaply elsewhere. With Obama's anti-trade attitudes, if he gets in expect many more jobs to disappear.

Provide universal health care and accident insurance as a pooled fund with super-low premiums per person and you remove that burden from business and industry owners.

Sounds like magic to me! :D The insured won't pay, business won't pay - who will pay?? The tooth fairy? :D

Then mortgages will get paid, housing values increase, banks stabilize and the economy recovers.

At the root of it all: Universal Health Care.

Unforgiveably stupid and with absolutely no connection to the well-known facts - give yourself an "F".
 
The bottom line of why jobs are disappearing from the US at an exponential rate is nothing but health care and accident premiums pricing the American worker right out of a business' budget. You can only milk "patriotism" for so long until the business owner sits down and crunches the monthly numbers.

I do not think "health" costs are the sole reason jobs are moving overseas, or even a big reason for that matter.

Provide universal health care and accident insurance as a pooled fund with super-low premiums per person and you remove that burden from business and industry owners. Burden removed, legislation enacted to bring jobs back home where they belong, people go back to work. Then mortgages will get paid, housing values increase, banks stabilize and the economy recovers.

You have just proposed a complete government take over of all insurance of any kind. As Lib has pointed out correctly, the money still must come from somewhere. Further, setting up price controls simply never works, that is simple Econ 101.

Also, you will be hard pressed to pass a law that says a company in China must move their operations back the USA.

At the root of it all: Universal Health Care.

Dubious.

Hillary Clinton got it right. Too bad the GOP ripped it away. If it had passed then, we would not be in the crises we're in today.

Very dubious. The logic that healthcare costs caused lenders to give bad loans is mostly ridiculous.
 
The bottom line of why jobs are disappearing from the US at an exponential rate is nothing but health care and accident premiums pricing the American worker right out of a business' budget.

That explains why the employment rate is so low.

Provide universal health care and accident insurance as a pooled fund with super-low premiums per person and you remove that burden from business and industry owners. Burden removed, legislation enacted to bring jobs back home where they belong, people go back to work. Then mortgages will get paid, housing values increase, banks stabilize and the economy recovers.

Again, cite examples. Because I can list dozens where universal health care costs tons more. The French pay 50% of their income in taxes. That isn't a "super-low premium" to anyone who can use a calculator.

And I still don't see Cubans swimming back to Cuba to get that free health care, and to be in the supposed booming economy that resulted from it.
 
It's interesting you should bring up the French system. WHO rates it #1 in the world, but are they right?

Both groups use questionable data to come to their conclusions.

WHO:
The problem here is that the rating system, rates how "socialized" the medical industry is. WHO openly stated that it's important that all people receive equal care, and this is a factor in how it rates. Well of course under any non-socialized system where people pay for service, care isn't going to be equal, and nor should it.

This automatically favors systems like the French system. In a normal system the newest best, more expensive medications would be available to anyone who could pay. However in France, those medications are simply not available, since the government won't pay for it (to control cost). Thus it is equal care. Everyone is equally stuck with older less effective medications. WHO would rate this higher than our system.

Another large problem in France, is people being hooked on medications. Since medications are free, people take pills even when they don't need them. Some take pills to remedy side effects of other pills they have taken, none of which they need. People are actually making themselves sick on unnecessary medications. WHO wouldn't look at that information, rather just that everyone has equal access to drugs.

That said, I can promise you, WHO would not rate France as #1 if they did the rating over. Why? Cause it's not equal anymore. They don't have universal coverage, and they have co-pays now. So poor people no longer have equal coverage to those who can pay.


With the other group, the problem is that they do not consider cultural differences. There are many problems socially in America, that effect simple statistical information, that are not the fault of the health care industry. For example, it's a known fact that the vast majority of Americans eat poorly. We have a fast food mentality. We smoke, we drink, and we do drugs.

Tell me, if a mother on crack and drinking alcohol gives birth at a hospital and the babe dies from complications due to those things... is that the health care systems fault, or the mothers fault? But from a simple infant mortality statistic, you wouldn't see that.

If a person weights 400 lbs and smokes 2 packs a day, and dies from any number of things, is that the health care systems fault, or the person? Again, that would not show up on a statistic.

For example, in my extended family, a former husband (he divorced) died just a month ago. He was an alcoholic. The doctor flat out said, if you don't quit drinking, you'll die. He refused to quit drinking, and he died. Now is that the health care systems fault, or his fault? He was being treated, and he was in the hospital, in theory they should have saved him ... but he had to much alcohol in his blood and it killed him. I could say the revolting details of what alcohol does to you, but here's the point. It wasn't our hospitals or health care systems fault in any of those situations. Yet if you simply looked at statistics, they all had treatable things, so that would look bad.

I posted on another thread about how Canada's infant mortality rate is better than ours. Yet, every year hundreds of mothers and babies that need neo-natal care are sent to our hospitals, and we save their lives. Mothers are literally told, your child will die. Then they come to the US and their lives are saved. Our system is making their system look better, because we're saving the infants that would otherwise be a statistic in Canada.

Of course, the #1 health care system doesn't come cheap. France's is one of the most expensive in the world, according to the same study.

Wow! That's almost half as much as the US spends. Is it so expensive because of it being socialized medicine?

Well, no...

Two things. First, when I think of cheap, I compare how much it's costing ME. If I have to choose between insurance premiums, or 50% of my income, insurance premiums are far cheaper than 50% of my income.

Second, which is more important.. top quality care, or the almighty dollar? I would say top quality care. You keep skipping over the fact that the services rendered in France are not up to our level of care. Remember, 1/3rd of the latest greatest most effective, least side effects, newest drugs... are simply not available in France. Remember in 2003 a heat wave that hit Europe, killed thousands of people, but amazingly it killed people in hospitals. Can you imagine if a heat wave hit the US and people in hospitals died? There would be outrage nation wide, but in France, this was unavoidable, because the health care system simply doesn't pay enough for hospitals to afford AC. Can you even imagine a hospital in the US not having AC and people dying in hospital beds from heat stroke? Yet that happened in France.

So which is more important to you, reducing our health car costs, or providing top quality care where people don't die of heat stroke in hospital beds? You answer that, then tell me how much you want to copy the system WHO rated #1.

The bottom line is that, unless we change our system, we're going to price ourselves out of the ability to provide health care for any but the wealthiest, or perhaps the best insured.

The only way to do that is to reduce care. Health care costs money. That's not going to change. The only way to pay less, is to get less. Hospitals are expensive to run. If you reduce how much they are paid, something has to give. In Canada, in order to reduce cost, the government established a quota on how many people can receive an MRI each day. People now wait up to a year to get an MRI. At the same time, the hospital will allow people to bring in their pet dog or cat to get an MRI after hours... for a fee.

Remember the key to beating cancer is early detection, yet if you wait a year for an MRI, that could be the difference between surviving it, or dying. Ironically I read another report that surveyed patients, and discovered a very high percentage (I don't remember the exact number off hand, but it was higher than 3/4) reported getting much worse while waiting 6 month to a year for diagnostic tests and scans like an MRI. But of course WHO would say as long as everyone had equal access... and statistically, as long as they don't die while waiting...

We have the most expensive health care in the world, by far. We don't have the best health care by any objective measure.

I disagree. I've seen lots of evidence that we have one of the best most advanced health care systems in the world. Granted that will change very quickly if we adopt socialism.

The only argument against universal care seems to be that it is "socialized medicine" and therefore bad, because it is socialism and socialism is always bad. This kind of circular reasoning will have to be addressed and shown to be what it is, or we will continue to pay too much for a mediocre system.

Well, I don't see people flying to India to get health care like that do in Canada and the UK. I don't see people dying in hospital beds because hospitals can't afford AC like France. I don't see mothers being told their babies will die because there's no room for them. I don't see people swimming to Cuba to get great health care. So I don't know where you get this idea our system is the 'mediocre' one.

Further, I still look at the cost to me, and I don't see another other system being 'cheaper'.

Not that we don't have good doctors and nurses, of course, it's the insurance system that needs to be reformed.

I agree. That's about the only statement you've made I agree with.
 
Werbung:
Again, cite examples. Because I can list dozens where universal health care costs tons more. The French pay 50% of their income in taxes. That isn't a "super-low premium" to anyone who can use a calculator.~ Andy

So the French are getting raped by corruption. Whatever. In the US we can institute oversight. There is no reason why the fine details of bringing jobs back home cannot be hammered out. Employers cannot afford American workers and compete globally. That you cannot deny. A superfund, with extensive oversight and regular revisiting, that is padded by low monthly premiums with people making more visits for preventative care without worry of cost will cost less than the mess we're in now.

Can you deny that?

No.

So support the one solution that will bring American jobs back, stabilize the banks, the economy and lead to a future for America instead of a predicted decline into forced socialism on more levels than you, Andy, would be comfortable with at all..
 
Back
Top