ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags health care reform , national debt , us economy

Reply
Old 12th March 2010, 07:00 PM   #441
joobz
Tergiversator
 
joobz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 17,995
Originally Posted by BeAChooser View Post
OK. The "NHE summary including share of GDP" chart that is linked on the second of your two links has this breakdown for 2007:



Odd,

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/...0.html#usgs302

says Federal Health care spending in 2007 was $642 billion and State and Local spending was $208 billion. Quite a difference.
Yes. My post explained why. They health care numbers I gave included a more complete picture of health care. Including the support from DOD, verterans affairs, SCHIp and so forth. all the quotes you show just mention medicare and medicade.

Originally Posted by BeAChooser View Post
Let's be honest, the number in various studies are all over the place. That being the case, how can the 16% figure be considered reliable.
Because I honestly explained the source of data. Let's be honest, 6trillion isn't the same as 2.3 trillion.


Originally Posted by BeAChooser View Post
And how much in absolute terms is out of pocket, per capita?

USA: Per Capita GDP = $43800 , 2% of GDP = $876
CANADA: Per Capita GDP = $35700 , 1.5% of GDP = $536

So American's pay $340 per capita more out of pocket.

However, the income of Americans per capita GDP is $8100 higher than in Canada. $340 seems a small price to pay for all that extra income, don't you think?
1.) Your comparison assumes that there is something inherent in UHC that results in lower GDPs. This is inherently nonsensical. I see no reason why we can't have the cheaper/better system with a strong GDP.
2.) Looking at US medical bankrupty rates, this comparison becomes even more meaningless.
__________________
What's the best argument for UHC? This argument against UHC.
"Perhaps one reason per capita GDP is lower in UHC countries is because they've tried to prevent this important function [bankrupting the sick] and thus carry forward considerable economic dead wood?"-BeAChooser
joobz is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th March 2010, 08:01 PM   #442
mhaze
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 15,718
Originally Posted by joobz View Post
....You keep saying this, but it's kind of stupid. Health care costs are running crazy because insurances aren't covering costs.
1.) People get medical treatment.
2.) Insurance denies coverage
3.) People go bankrupt
4.) Hospital/Doctors lose money
5.) medical prices go up to account for loss
6.) Insurance prices go up to keep profits
7.) rinse and repeat

Include the feed back loop for the uninsured as well, and you see where all this leads.

Yes, a government system can take care of this. Indeed, it has in most other western nations. The reason why people fail to see this is beyond me.
I call goal post shifting. You answered something about why socialized something was "better" than real world current actuality.

The question was:
  • why you thought that a government that was already printing money to cover expenses should take on more expenses for which it would have to print more money
  • with the doctors and hospitals getting paid with increasingly worthless paper money, how the health care system could possibly get "better?
mhaze is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th March 2010, 08:10 PM   #443
joobz
Tergiversator
 
joobz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 17,995
Originally Posted by mhaze View Post
I call goal post shifting. You answered something about why socialized something was "better" than real world current actuality.
You can, but you would be wrong.
I explained why current US costs are so high. The health care plan will eliminate some of these mechanisms. Printing money isn't the only way governments pay for things.

Originally Posted by mhaze View Post
The question was:
  • why you thought that a government that was already printing money to cover expenses should take on more expenses for which it would have to print more money
  • with the doctors and hospitals getting paid with increasingly worthless paper money, how the health care system could possibly get "better?
again, you are pretending that all government can do is print money. This is nonsense. By eliminating that feedback mechanism I describe, you eliminate the continual cost increases. YOu don't need to print more money when cost are no longer rising crazily.
__________________
What's the best argument for UHC? This argument against UHC.
"Perhaps one reason per capita GDP is lower in UHC countries is because they've tried to prevent this important function [bankrupting the sick] and thus carry forward considerable economic dead wood?"-BeAChooser
joobz is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th March 2010, 09:22 PM   #444
mhaze
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 15,718
Originally Posted by joobz View Post
You can, but you would be wrong.
I explained why current US costs are so high. The health care plan will eliminate some of these mechanisms. Printing money isn't the only way governments pay for things.

again, you are pretending that all government can do is print money. This is nonsense. By eliminating that feedback mechanism I describe, you eliminate the continual cost increases. YOu don't need to print more money when cost are no longer rising crazily.
Not more money? Only the 6T? 6T on a base of 12T would reduce the value of a dollar by 33%.

And printing money is the only way government pays for things when it has already allocated all the revenues. Which it has.
mhaze is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th March 2010, 10:20 PM   #445
BeAChooser
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 11,716
Originally Posted by joobz View Post
all the quotes you show just mention medicare and medicade.
Not exactly true. The http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/...0.html#usgs302 source mentioned a host of items that make up what it calls health care. And medicare/medicaid is barely mentioned at all. But I'm now willing to accept that the source you cited, which calculates a figure of 16% of GDP is accurate. Thanks for providing that.

Can you show us that the Canadian figures also include items like support from DOD, veterans affairs and so forth? If in 2007, Canadian health costs were 10.1% of GDP and Canada's GDP was $1.432 trillion (http://www.economywatch.com/gdp/world-gdp/canada.html ), then Canada's health care costs should total about $145 billion. This source http://secure.cihi.ca/cihiweb/products/hcic2007_e.pdf has a 2007 health care cost breakdown (Figure 2). Here is what it says:

Distribution of Health Care spending

Category Amount (billions)
Hospitals 44.1
Retail Drugs 25.1
Physicians 19.4
Other Professionals 15.6
Public Health 8.6
Administration 5.7
Other Institutions 14.0
Capital 6.0
Other 9.4
Total 148

So the total is about right, but how can I be confident that it's based on an analysis anywhere near as detailed and inclusive as the one from which the US 16% of GDP is derived. It may be but can you convince me? Do you have a source which would give us confidence of that?

Meanwhile …

Originally Posted by joobz View Post
Let's be honest, 6trillion isn't the same as 2.3 trillion.
It isn't supposed to be, as the OP indicates. The OP mentions a component of the 6 trillion that is about the same and has the same rational as Ryan's 2.3 trillion. But it also mentions another, larger component that Ryan did not address. Just because Ryan didn't address that component doesn't mean it isn't valid. Perhaps he just overlooked it? Forest in the trees sort of thing.

Originally Posted by joobz View Post
Your comparison assumes that there is something inherent in UHC that results in lower GDPs. This is inherently nonsensical.
Not when one can go down the list of UHC countries and, one after another, they all have significantly lower per capita GDPs than the US. Where there is a trend like that, there might be an inherent reason. And the obvious difference is the type of economic philosophy that is behind what UHC exemplifies.

Originally Posted by joobz View Post
Looking at US medical bankrupty rates, this comparison becomes even more meaningless.
And what does that have to do with per capita GDP? One of the fallacies of socialist thinking (exemplified by Obama) is that government can/should protect us from bankruptcies (and recessions). Both have an important purpose in a vibrant free market economy. Perhaps one reason per capita GDP is lower in UHC countries is because they've tried to prevent this important function and thus carry forward considerable economic dead wood?
BeAChooser is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th March 2010, 01:53 AM   #446
jimbob
Uncritical "thinker"
 
jimbob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 20,702
BeAChooser:

The OECD figures are generally considered to be the most accurate available.

Their methodology aims to correct for variation. Being the most developed nations, their member governments have democratic oversight of the stats so the figures are constantly [EDIT: subject to correction] corrected.
__________________
OECD healthcare spending
Expenditure on healthcare
http://www.oecd.org/els/health-systems/health-data.htm
link is 2015 data (2013 Data below):
UK 8.5% of GDP of which 83.3% is public expenditure - 7.1% of GDP is public spending
US 16.4% of GDP of which 48.2% is public expenditure - 7.9% of GDP is public spending

Last edited by jimbob; 13th March 2010 at 02:26 AM.
jimbob is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th March 2010, 06:40 AM   #447
mhaze
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 15,718
Originally Posted by jimbob View Post
BeAChooser:

The OECD figures are generally considered to be the most accurate available.

Their methodology aims to correct for variation. Being the most developed nations, their member governments have democratic oversight of the stats so the figures are constantly [EDIT: subject to correction] corrected.
Sort of like we should believe everything Obama says about the cost of his health care scam scheme because he's from the government? Like he said the recession was over?

FACT: The US is headed toward 800B+ per year interest expenses in 2020.

Progressive Faith driven belief: Universal Health Care is Gooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooood. We want it and we'll just ignore that it's another big source of spending that the country can't afford.

Last edited by mhaze; 13th March 2010 at 07:18 AM.
mhaze is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th March 2010, 07:37 AM   #448
volatile
Scholar and a Gentleman
 
volatile's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 6,729
Originally Posted by mhaze View Post
Progressive Faith driven belief: Universal Health Care is Gooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooood. We want it and we'll just ignore that it's another big source of spending that the country can't afford.
Speaking of "ignoring", why do keep ignoring that countries with UHC systems spend less per capita on their socialised healthcare programmes?
__________________
- ""My tribe has a saying: 'If you're bleeding, look for a man with scars'" - Leela, Doctor Who 'Robots of Death'.
volatile is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th March 2010, 07:38 AM   #449
jimbob
Uncritical "thinker"
 
jimbob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 20,702
Originally Posted by mhaze View Post
Sort of like we should believe everything Obama says about the cost of his health care scam scheme because he's from the government? Like he said the recession was over?
The figures I have been quoting are for 2007. This is not a forecast but an assessment of what has happened. They are the best available. What figures do you want to use, and what is their provenance?

The figures have remained consistently trending upwards over different administrations, which suggests that there hasn't been any changing in the counting. The story was the same when told under Bush as under Obama.

About 16% of the US GDP is spent on healthcare.

For comparison, here are some of the other frequently-quoted numbers for 2007.


United States---------16.0%
France----------------11.0%
Canada----------------10.1%
Netherlands------------9.8%
United Kingdom---------8.4%


EDIT: And for the full group here is the chart of per capita spending, which another poster has already posted on this thread

__________________
OECD healthcare spending
Expenditure on healthcare
http://www.oecd.org/els/health-systems/health-data.htm
link is 2015 data (2013 Data below):
UK 8.5% of GDP of which 83.3% is public expenditure - 7.1% of GDP is public spending
US 16.4% of GDP of which 48.2% is public expenditure - 7.9% of GDP is public spending

Last edited by jimbob; 13th March 2010 at 07:43 AM.
jimbob is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th March 2010, 07:40 AM   #450
joobz
Tergiversator
 
joobz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 17,995
Originally Posted by BeAChooser View Post
Not exactly true. The http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/...0.html#usgs302 source mentioned a host of items that make up what it calls health care. And medicare/medicaid is barely mentioned at all. But I'm now willing to accept that the source you cited, which calculates a figure of 16% of GDP is accurate. Thanks for providing that.

Can you show us that the Canadian figures also include items like support from DOD, veterans affairs and so forth? If in 2007, Canadian health costs were 10.1% of GDP and Canada's GDP was $1.432 trillion (http://www.economywatch.com/gdp/world-gdp/canada.html ), then Canada's health care costs should total about $145 billion. This source http://secure.cihi.ca/cihiweb/products/hcic2007_e.pdf has a 2007 health care cost breakdown (Figure 2). Here is what it says:

Distribution of Health Care spending

Category Amount (billions)
Hospitals 44.1
Retail Drugs 25.1
Physicians 19.4
Other Professionals 15.6
Public Health 8.6
Administration 5.7
Other Institutions 14.0
Capital 6.0
Other 9.4
Total 148

So the total is about right, but how can I be confident that it's based on an analysis anywhere near as detailed and inclusive as the one from which the US 16% of GDP is derived. It may be but can you convince me? Do you have a source which would give us confidence of that?
THe OECD's sources are easily verifiable. Find out if there is a problem.


Originally Posted by BeAChooser View Post
It isn't supposed to be, as the OP indicates. The OP mentions a component of the 6 trillion that is about the same and has the same rational as Ryan's 2.3 trillion. But it also mentions another, larger component that Ryan did not address. Just because Ryan didn't address that component doesn't mean it isn't valid. Perhaps he just overlooked it? Forest in the trees sort of thing.
are you saying Paul ryan doesn't know about the Cato institute? Don't you think that a 6trillion dollar argument would support his case more? I think it is funny that you assume are privy to information that a congressman involved in the CBO doesn't have.

Originally Posted by BeAChooser View Post
Not when one can go down the list of UHC countries and, one after another, they all have significantly lower per capita GDPs than the US. Where there is a trend like that, there might be an inherent reason. And the obvious difference is the type of economic philosophy that is behind what UHC exemplifies.
The GDP of the US was greater than other nations even before they adopted UHCs. Also, the US has a lower GDP per capita than some nations with a UHC. So your argument is simply illogical and contradicts the reality.




Originally Posted by BeAChooser View Post
And what does that have to do with per capita GDP? One of the fallacies of socialist thinking (exemplified by Obama) is that government can/should protect us from bankruptcies (and recessions). Both have an important purpose in a vibrant free market economy. Perhaps one reason per capita GDP is lower in UHC countries is because they've tried to prevent this important function and thus carry forward considerable economic dead wood?
I can't think of a better argument for UHC than simply quoting this argument against UHC.
Who cares if someone gets cancer and dies a pauper.
Who cares if a family becomes homeless because the mother was hit by a drunk driver and became mired in fees from a 16%GDP health care system.
__________________
What's the best argument for UHC? This argument against UHC.
"Perhaps one reason per capita GDP is lower in UHC countries is because they've tried to prevent this important function [bankrupting the sick] and thus carry forward considerable economic dead wood?"-BeAChooser
joobz is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th March 2010, 07:41 AM   #451
joobz
Tergiversator
 
joobz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 17,995
Originally Posted by mhaze View Post
Not more money? Only the 6T? 6T on a base of 12T would reduce the value of a dollar by 33%.

And printing money is the only way government pays for things when it has already allocated all the revenues. Which it has.
What the heck are you talking about?
I see that instead of arguing against UHC (which you have given up), you've started frothing about what ever this is...
__________________
What's the best argument for UHC? This argument against UHC.
"Perhaps one reason per capita GDP is lower in UHC countries is because they've tried to prevent this important function [bankrupting the sick] and thus carry forward considerable economic dead wood?"-BeAChooser
joobz is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th March 2010, 08:00 AM   #452
mhaze
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 15,718
Originally Posted by volatile View Post
Speaking of "ignoring", why do keep ignoring that countries with UHC systems spend less per capita on their socialised healthcare programmes?
I don't view it as relevant, whether or not it is true in a comparable sense, which is a different issue.

I'm more interested in why anyone in their right mind would think a government that was operating on fake (printed) money leveraged by future debt would in their wildest dreams believe increasing said obligations and liabilities of that government was "a good thing".

Irregardless of political orientation, we could agree that of all the socialist, communist, fascist, and flavors of democratic governments on the planet, many were fiscal conservatives. Many are not profligate and irresponsible spenders.

But those advocating this scheme at this time in the US are profligate, irresponsible spenders.

No question about that one, is there?

What happens in the future if a socialized health care plan is forced on the US against the wishes of the people of course is that in a few years, the dollar shrinks in value, interest rates skyrocket, and the government has to rein in expenses. Then you don't get much medical care at all, under the socialized scam scheme. Net effect, summed, is that there isn't any way to spend your childrens' money on health care today without your children having far less health care.

Really, that should be obvious.
mhaze is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th March 2010, 08:03 AM   #453
jimbob
Uncritical "thinker"
 
jimbob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 20,702
Originally Posted by joobz View Post

Originally Posted by BeAChooser View Post
And what does that have to do with per capita GDP? One of the fallacies of socialist thinking (exemplified by Obama) is that government can/should protect us from bankruptcies (and recessions). Both have an important purpose in a vibrant free market economy. Perhaps one reason per capita GDP is lower in UHC countries is because they've tried to prevent this important function and thus carry forward considerable economic dead wood?
I can't think of a better argument for UHC than simply quoting this argument against UHC.
Who cares if someone gets cancer and dies a pauper.
Who cares if a family becomes homeless because the mother was hit by a drunk driver and became mired in fees from a 16%GDP health care system.
I'd put it another way:

This 16% of GDP is the average per capita spending on healthcare. In the UK, if I fall ill, my costs do not rise by very much because I have already paid in my taxes. Prescription charges are capped, and in many parts of the UK even hospital car parking is now free.

In the US, if you fall ill, then your costs suddenly rocket.

In other words we are comparing the average costs but in one system the costs rocket if you are ill, whilst in the other, they barely rise. And the system that is initially cheaper is actually far cheaper for anyone who actually needs healthcare.


Quote:
Perhaps one reason per capita GDP is lower in UHC countries is because they've tried to prevent this important function and thus carry forward considerable economic dead wood?
Perhaps life expectancy is a better measure of wealth?
__________________
OECD healthcare spending
Expenditure on healthcare
http://www.oecd.org/els/health-systems/health-data.htm
link is 2015 data (2013 Data below):
UK 8.5% of GDP of which 83.3% is public expenditure - 7.1% of GDP is public spending
US 16.4% of GDP of which 48.2% is public expenditure - 7.9% of GDP is public spending
jimbob is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th March 2010, 08:06 AM   #454
joobz
Tergiversator
 
joobz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 17,995
Originally Posted by mhaze View Post
I don't view it as relevant, ....
yes. evidence is often irrelevant when it disagrees with one's position.
__________________
What's the best argument for UHC? This argument against UHC.
"Perhaps one reason per capita GDP is lower in UHC countries is because they've tried to prevent this important function [bankrupting the sick] and thus carry forward considerable economic dead wood?"-BeAChooser
joobz is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th March 2010, 08:57 AM   #455
mhaze
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 15,718
Originally Posted by joobz View Post
yes. evidence is often irrelevant when it disagrees with one's position.
I have to admit to seeing some arm waving on your part asserting relevance.

But I've seen no relevance.

In JoobzWorld, we could point to some comparative spending numbers between countries and say:

"SEE? They spend LESS than we do on XYZ. So they are BETTER!"

with the non following corallary argument:

"So that PROVES they are BETTER because they are SOCIALIZED".


And that really does not work to convince...anybody. So can we get real now? Getting real would mean in part that you stop ducking and dodging the question about over spending that I've posed.

Net effect, summed, is that there isn't any way to spend your childrens' money on health care today without your children having far less health care.

Last edited by mhaze; 13th March 2010 at 09:01 AM.
mhaze is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th March 2010, 09:02 AM   #456
joobz
Tergiversator
 
joobz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 17,995
Originally Posted by mhaze View Post
I have to admit to seeing some arm waving on your part asserting relevance.

But I've seen no relevance.

In JoobzWorld, we could point to some comparative spending numbers between countries and say:

"SEE? They spend LESS than we do on XYZ. So they are BETTER!"

with the non following corallary argument:

"So that PROVES they are BETTER because they are SOCIALIZED".


And that really does not work to convince...anybody. So can we get real now?
certainly. you can start by not strawmanning my argument.

Here is my argument for you:
P1.) other nations pay less for healthcare.
P2.) The quality of care is quite good.
C.) UHC isn't not inherently expensive or poor quality.

Secondly
The reason our health care costs so much is because of free market forces. (i've explained this, and you've ignored it.).

So, perhaps you can stop avoiding the issue and address the reality.
Or, perhaps show a market system which provides a health care system that is better and is private.
__________________
What's the best argument for UHC? This argument against UHC.
"Perhaps one reason per capita GDP is lower in UHC countries is because they've tried to prevent this important function [bankrupting the sick] and thus carry forward considerable economic dead wood?"-BeAChooser
joobz is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th March 2010, 11:59 AM   #457
BeAChooser
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 11,716
Originally Posted by volatile View Post
Speaking of "ignoring", why do keep ignoring that countries with UHC systems spend less per capita on their socialised healthcare programmes?
And why do you keep ignoring that those socialized countries have sacrificed higher per capita GDP and even higher disposable income to institute UHC type programs? There is a reason that the US per capita GDP greatly exceeds that of almost all UHC countries. There is a reason we have higher disposable income. There is a reason that the size of houses in the US, the size of cars, the cost of gas, and the cost of food, the cost of a hotel room is better in the US than in those UHC countries. And as I've demonstrated we more than make up for the extra cost in our health care system from the extra money we earn and keep because of not being as socialized as those countries.

And also, why do you keep ignoring the many differences that have been identified for why the per capita health care costs in the US are higher than UHC countries? You can't get there by simply passing a bill. To reduce costs in this country to those in UHC countries you are going to have to make the US like those countries. Fewer lawyers. Same diets. Same treatment of illegals. Even the same genetics in some cases. This health care bill that Obama and company are jamming down our throats through gimmicks and dishonesty isn't even going to lower costs. Even Durbin has admitted as much. So why can't you see it?
BeAChooser is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th March 2010, 12:04 PM   #458
BeAChooser
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 11,716
Originally Posted by jimbob View Post
The figures I have been quoting are for 2007. This is not a forecast but an assessment of what has happened. They are the best available.
Fine. Now address post #457.
BeAChooser is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th March 2010, 12:17 PM   #459
joobz
Tergiversator
 
joobz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 17,995
Originally Posted by BeAChooser View Post
And why do you keep ignoring that those socialized countries have sacrificed higher per capita GDP and even higher disposable income to institute UHC type programs?
and your evidence that GDP is lower because of UHC is...?
__________________
What's the best argument for UHC? This argument against UHC.
"Perhaps one reason per capita GDP is lower in UHC countries is because they've tried to prevent this important function [bankrupting the sick] and thus carry forward considerable economic dead wood?"-BeAChooser
joobz is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th March 2010, 05:14 AM   #460
Profanz
Muse
 
Profanz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 932
For what it's worth...

New CBO analysis says the Senate bill reduces the deficit. Still.
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezr..._the_sena.html
Profanz is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th March 2010, 07:31 AM   #461
mhaze
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 15,718
Originally Posted by Profanz View Post
For what it's worth...

New CBO analysis says the Senate bill reduces the deficit. Still.
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezr..._the_sena.html
As usual, the comments immediately following Klein's warm Utopian vision are priceless. Just the first three suffice:
  • Ezra, Why do you continue to promote that the HCR would reduce the deficit? When you remove the double counting, which you agreed with Rep. Paul Ryan that it was inappropriate ("out of line") for Democrats to claim, there is no reduction to the deficit.
  • I think it's simpler than that. Every city, every school district, every church and every family has had a project that went wildly over budget. If you want to make sure you don't overspend, you begin to assume that things will always cost more than the best predictions suggest. It's a semi-rational fatalism, not an effect of which parts of the bill people understand.
  • I'm curious Ezra. Does the CBO only estimate the numbers before them, or are they psychologically trained too, to understand that the numbers they are banking on today, might just be different tomorrow. For example, many belive that families will have incentive to dump their current insurance plans w/premiums, pay the penalty, and then pick up the "guararanteed, no turn downs no matter what shape you're in" coverage only when needed.
The last comment actually made me think of something. Why under ObamaPowerControlGrabMedicalScamScheme, would everyone not just cancel their medical plans and pay the yearly penalty?
mhaze is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th March 2010, 10:29 PM   #462
BeAChooser
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 11,716
Originally Posted by joobz View Post
The GDP of the US was greater than other nations even before they adopted UHCs. Also, the US has a lower GDP per capita than some nations with a UHC. So your argument is simply illogical and contradicts the reality.
Really?

http://www.forbes.com/2009/05/05/uni...-quackery.html

Quote:
Contrary to popular perception, even though America is at the epicenter of the financial crisis, it has suffered less than its industrialized peers in terms of economic growth.

… snip …

Not only is America hurting relatively less now, its economic performance in the prior 18 years--from 1990 to 2007--has also been visibly better than everybody else's. Calculations based on Department of Agriculture data show that America's GDP grew at an average annual rate of 3% during this period. By contrast, Canada's grew 2.88%; England's 2.3%; France's 1.92%; Japan's 1.74% and Germany's 1.59%.

Besides experiencing lower growth rates than America in the past, with the exception of Japan, these countries have also experienced chronically higher unemployment rates. Setting aside last year, between 1997-2007 America's peak unemployment rate was below its peers by anywhere from 1% (Canada) to 5.7% (France). Japan has always had an unusually low unemployment rate, never hitting over 5.3% partly because of its policy of guaranteed employment in urban areas that forces workers to share jobs to keep more people employed.

All of this has made Americans much wealthier than all these countries, given that Americans' per capita income in 2006, adjusted for purchasing parity, was about $6,000 more than the next country, England.

But are these countries fiscally stronger? Not by a mile. European countries started reining in their soaring deficits in the years prior to the downturn, thanks to the European Union's requirement that these levels not rise above 3% of GDP. But that meant that they had to either dismantle their social spending programs--including universal health insurance--a politically difficult task, or maintain their sky-high taxes. For the most part, they have chosen the latter.

The upshot is that whereas America's 2007 taxation rate was 28.3% of GDP, Canada's was 33.3%; Germany's 36.2%; England's 36.6% and France's 43.6%. Japan's taxation level of about 28% is at par with the United States'--but only at the price of a government debt that totaled a jaw-dropping 170% of GDP last year, nearly three times that of America's. Such taxation rates have left these countries limited room to respond to crises, which is why European countries roundly dismissed Obama's calls to increase stimulus spending right now.
Let's look in more detail at a few countries.

From http://www.eurotrib.com/story/2007/5/4/113029/9034 , I offer a great comparison of how real GDP per capita of several UHC nations (Canada, Italy, France, UK and Germany) compared to the US since the 1950s.

http://www.eurotrib.com/files/3/0701...ries_50_06.gif

Note that from 1950 to about the early 1960s or 1980s (depending on the country), the per capita GDP of all of these countries was catching up to that the the US. Then something happened … and you can trace that something to the adoption of more socialist thinking, as exemplified by the adoption of UHC, in each case (http://truecostblog.com/2009/08/09/c...hcare-by-date/ ).

Italy adopted UHC in the 1978. Sure enough, about 1980 their per capita GDP started dropping relative to ours.

The UK started UHC in the early 1948. As you can see, the UK's per capita GDP has languished relative to the US ever since 1950.

Canada started its UHC system in 1966 (and it wasn't complete until 1972). Until the early 1970s Canada's per capita GDP was closing on the US. But it's been going down ever since.

France started forming the basis of a UHC system in 1945 but it took decades for it to take shape. Universal coverage began in 1974. Sure enough, France's per capita GDP was closing on the US' until about 1974, then leveled off, and then started losing ground.

Germany was the first country to move toward UHC back in 1883 but Germany's history has been so disjointed (by several world wars) that it's modern version essentially began right after WW2. But even then, the Cold War and reunification, and the way it was adopted piecemeal by small changes, made the transition to UHC more gradual than in other countries. Looks like that around 1980 their socialization became sufficient to reverse the trend in their per capita GDP relative to ours.

How about Switzerland? That's another country that from time to time is suggested as a model for the US. Here is a comparison of the growth in per capita GDP since 1980:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...erland_usa.gif

Notice Switzerland adopted UHC in 1994. Look at the slope change in their per capita GDP growth just before they adopted it. I guess even thinking about socialist notions can damage an economy.

How about Japan? Here's how Japan's per capita GDP has compared to that of the US since 1945.

http://futurist.typepad.com/my_weblo...per_capita.jpg

As you can see, Japan was closing the gap until about 1965, then stopped closing the gap. Now the gap is widening again. Why? What happened? Well in 1961 Japan established UHC.

http://www.law.harvard.edu/programs/...er%20Japan.pdf

Quote:
The Japanese government adopted the current national health insurance scheme in the early 1960s. The economy was growing rapidly, but so was the electoral threat posed by the socialist and communist left. In their bid for power, these leftist parties had championed European welfare-state policies. Strategically to trim their appeal, the conservative government adopted a national health insurance scheme of its own.
Here's more about France, Germany, Canada, Sweden and Japan.

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Rep...e-a-Difference

Quote:
The average French citizen has seen a consistent deterioration in income vis-เ-vis his or her American counterpart over the past two decades. By 1975, when comparative data were first compiled and reported by the OECD, France's GDP per capita reached a level equal to 78 percent of America's GDP per capita; by 1982, it had risen gradually to 83 percent.3 However, this was as close as the French came to the U.S. level of production and income.

In the early 1980s, President Fran็ois Mitterand embarked upon an aggressive tax-and-spend policy in the belief that France could spend its way to prosperity. As a consequence of the substantial growth in French government spending and the taxes to fund it, the gap between American and French income and production began to widen. By 2000, French GDP per capita had fallen to 71 percent of the U.S. level. With France's GDP per capita running in the 71 percent to 72 percent share range of America's during the late 1990s and into the new century, the gap between French and American production and incomes is now the widest it has ever been in the 28-year history of this OECD data series.

Behind France's lagging performance is a tax burden that has remained at exceptionally high levels over the past two decades. According to a recent OECD report, 4 French taxes are expected to absorb 46.3 percent of the country's GDP in 2004, slightly higher than the 46.1 percent it reached in 1994. By way of contrast, the total tax burden in the United States in 2004 is expected to be 29.2 percent of GDP, down slightly from the 29.4 percent in 1994.

At a projected 29.2 percent in 2004, the U.S. will have the lowest tax burden of any of the 27 OECD countries. Also notable is the fact that Australia, South Korea, and Ireland, which have slightly larger tax burdens, have all had strong and prospering economies over the past several decades.

… snip ...

In comparison to U.S. per capita GDP, German per capita GDP peaked at 81 percent in 1991 and has since fallen to 74 percent, in part due to a tax burden of 42 percent.

Canada reached 92 percent of U.S. per capita GDP in 1982 but has lost ground since and is now at 82 percent of our level. Canada's tax burden is now at 37 percent.

Sweden's tax burden has held steady at 54 percent over the past decade and is the highest of the OECD countries. By earning this distinction, Sweden has gone from being one of the most prosperous countries in Europe (84 percent of the U.S. level in 1975) to one of the poorest (70 percent of U.S. GDP in 2001).

Japan, which once threatened the U.S. position in first place by rising to 90 percent of U.S. per capita GDP in 1991, has fallen faster than any other country. By 2001, Japan was at only 78 percent of the U.S. per capita GDP level. While Japan's tax burden has stayed the same, deficit spending has soared. Since 1990, Japanese government spending has increased from about 30 percent to 38 percent of the economy--a rate of government spending growth unmatched by any other OECD country.
You beginning to see a trend and a cause here, joobz?

Here, from http://engram-backtalk.blogspot.com/...1_archive.html , is a look at the whole Euro area (the 13 countries that use the euro):

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_2-oDfgGpQK...Per+capita.jpg

Since 1992 the GDP per capita PPP gap has been steadily widening. It's now twice what it was back in 1992.

And here's an unemployment comparison between the euro area and the US:

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_2-oDfgGpQK...employment.jpg

Again, the US seems to consistently have much lower unemployment.

Gee, do you think the reason could be …

BeAChooser is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th March 2010, 05:30 AM   #463
mhaze
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 15,718
I'd presume that the cause here is the net effect of higher levels of socialism in an economy, and it looks like you've proved that fairly well. It happens that the big chunk of that is the socialized chunk called "health care", but that wouldn't necessarily have to be the case.

This dovetails with the argument I have been making in an interesting way. I've said that the crushing future obligations we've already incurred are not sustainable, therefore it's really dumb to even think about incurring more. We are already headed for those higher rates of taxation such as the European countries have now, and that is without any more Utopian progressive schemes.

Liberal progressives are trying to do a preemtive strike on the residual wealth of the future of the country, but seem either too dim witted to realize that it's already been spent multiple times, or clever enough to realize that although extra goods and services can't be squeezed from the turnip, additional control and power can be achieved through sleight of hand euphemistically called "universal health care".

The latter may be the goal at the level of the administration, while the former is the case with gullible and naive followers of the Utopian faith.

No answers to my question:
Why under ObamaPowerControlGrabMedicalScamScheme, would everyone not just cancel their medical plans and pay the yearly penalty?
But I have discovered a possible answer. The negative incentive to not cancel private insurance and pay the penalty could be if the public plan was extremely poor service - long lines, six month to two year waits, poor service. That would "cause the public option to work". In other words, for the Utopian option to "work", it has to be the grossly inferior option....

Last edited by mhaze; 15th March 2010 at 06:14 AM.
mhaze is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th March 2010, 08:24 AM   #464
nescafe
Caffeinated Beverage
 
nescafe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 862
Originally Posted by mhaze View Post
In JoobzWorld, we could point to some comparative spending numbers between countries and say:

"SEE? They spend LESS than we do on XYZ and have equal or better outcomes across the board! So they are BETTER!"
Fixed to match real life.

Originally Posted by mhaze View Post
with the non following corallary argument:
"So that PROVES they are BETTER because they are SOCIALIZED".
No, because they are universal. How socialized they are varies wildly across the various countries.
nescafe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th March 2010, 08:46 AM   #465
mhaze
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 15,718
Originally Posted by nescafe View Post
Fixed to match real life.


No, because they are universal. How socialized they are varies wildly across the various countries.
JREF moderators are not pleased at changing someone's quote.

Please correct it and repost, with whatever commentary you choose.

Thanks.
mhaze is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th March 2010, 12:14 PM   #466
joobz
Tergiversator
 
joobz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 17,995
Originally Posted by BeAChooser View Post
That's a funny thing to reference. An article which looks at past 2 years of performance and claims that things in the us is much better.
http://www.google.com/publicdata?ds=...AN:FRA:AUS:DEU

Over a much wider window, there really isn't a dramatic difference between UHC nations and the US in terms of GDP growth. What seems to matter is what three year period you look at .

Originally Posted by BeAChooser;5719227
Let's look in more detail at a few countries.

From [url
http://www.eurotrib.com/story/2007/5/4/113029/9034[/url] , I offer a great comparison of how real GDP per capita of several UHC nations (Canada, Italy, France, UK and Germany) compared to the US since the 1950s.

http://www.eurotrib.com/files/3/0701...ries_50_06.gif

Note that from 1950 to about the early 1960s or 1980s (depending on the country), the per capita GDP of all of these countries was catching up to that the the US. Then something happened … and you can trace that something to the adoption of more socialist thinking, as exemplified by the adoption of UHC, in each case (http://truecostblog.com/2009/08/09/c...hcare-by-date/ ).

Italy adopted UHC in the 1978. Sure enough, about 1980 their per capita GDP started dropping relative to ours.

The UK started UHC in the early 1948. As you can see, the UK's per capita GDP has languished relative to the US ever since 1950.

Canada started its UHC system in 1966 (and it wasn't complete until 1972). Until the early 1970s Canada's per capita GDP was closing on the US. But it's been going down ever since.

France started forming the basis of a UHC system in 1945 but it took decades for it to take shape. Universal coverage began in 1974. Sure enough, France's per capita GDP was closing on the US' until about 1974, then leveled off, and then started losing ground.

Germany was the first country to move toward UHC back in 1883 but Germany's history has been so disjointed (by several world wars) that it's modern version essentially began right after WW2. But even then, the Cold War and reunification, and the way it was adopted piecemeal by small changes, made the transition to UHC more gradual than in other countries. Looks like that around 1980 their socialization became sufficient to reverse the trend in their per capita GDP relative to ours.
Your post hoc rationalization of trends that don't agree with your hypothesis is quite telling. You claim that the 20 year lag time between start of UHC and reduced economic growth is proof that it is because of the UHC. That's kind of a really slow effector.

and should we actually read the text of the article you quote, it exposes another VERY BIG problem with your %GDP/per capita comparison. You are asserting that this shows the average household in america having more wealth than the average household in other nations. The problem with this comparison is that it assumes median and average are nearly one and the same. However, The amount of wealth owned in the country by the top 0.1 % in the US in 2000 accounted for 6% of the total wealth, compared to that of other nations which was 2%. Which means that the average family in the US's wealth is much less than what is predicted by the GDP per capita.




Originally Posted by BeAChooser View Post
Again, the US seems to consistently have much lower unemployment.

Gee, do you think the reason could be …

Are you trying to claim that UHC causes unemployment as well? Or are you merely trying to lump socialism with UHC and claim that a UHC will result in all of these "bad things"? bread lines,...
__________________
What's the best argument for UHC? This argument against UHC.
"Perhaps one reason per capita GDP is lower in UHC countries is because they've tried to prevent this important function [bankrupting the sick] and thus carry forward considerable economic dead wood?"-BeAChooser
joobz is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th March 2010, 12:15 PM   #467
joobz
Tergiversator
 
joobz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 17,995
Originally Posted by nescafe View Post
Fixed to match real life.
I find it funny that I explained my reasoning, and he avoids this topic. I guess it is easier to pretend that evidence doesn't matter and proposed mechanisms are not as good as mere assertion and ideology.
__________________
What's the best argument for UHC? This argument against UHC.
"Perhaps one reason per capita GDP is lower in UHC countries is because they've tried to prevent this important function [bankrupting the sick] and thus carry forward considerable economic dead wood?"-BeAChooser
joobz is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th March 2010, 12:28 PM   #468
joobz
Tergiversator
 
joobz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 17,995
Originally Posted by mhaze View Post
Liberal progressives are trying to do a preemtive strike on the residual wealth of the future of the country, but seem either too dim witted to realize that it's already been spent multiple times, or clever enough to realize that although extra goods and services can't be squeezed from the turnip, additional control and power can be achieved through sleight of hand euphemistically called "universal health care".
current us health care = 16%GDP.
next highest is 11%GDP.
Facts have rendered your nattering moot.

Originally Posted by mhaze View Post
No answers to my question:[indent][i]Why under ObamaPowerControlGrabMedicalScamScheme, would everyone not just cancel their medical plans and pay the yearly penalty?
because then they wouldn't have any health coverage. That's why. They would be paying a penalty for putting the health care system at risk. If they were to get injured, we all have to make up for their inability to cover their own costs. (e.g., through increased hospital costs and therefore increased insurance premiums)
By requiring nearly everyone to have coverage, we avoid the situation of people becoming medically bankrupt, which adds strain to our economy.


Any other questions?
__________________
What's the best argument for UHC? This argument against UHC.
"Perhaps one reason per capita GDP is lower in UHC countries is because they've tried to prevent this important function [bankrupting the sick] and thus carry forward considerable economic dead wood?"-BeAChooser
joobz is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th March 2010, 02:00 PM   #469
jimbob
Uncritical "thinker"
 
jimbob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 20,702
Originally Posted by BeAChooser View Post
And why do you keep ignoring that those socialized countries have sacrificed higher per capita GDP and even higher disposable income to institute UHC type programs? There is a reason that the US per capita GDP greatly exceeds that of almost all UHC countries. There is a reason we have higher disposable income. There is a reason that the size of houses in the US, the size of cars, the cost of gas, and the cost of food, the cost of a hotel room is better in the US than in those UHC countries. And as I've demonstrated we more than make up for the extra cost in our health care system from the extra money we earn and keep because of not being as socialized as those countries.

And also, why do you keep ignoring the many differences that have been identified for why the per capita health care costs in the US are higher than UHC countries? You can't get there by simply passing a bill. To reduce costs in this country to those in UHC countries you are going to have to make the US like those countries. Fewer lawyers. Same diets. Same treatment of illegals. Even the same genetics in some cases. This health care bill that Obama and company are jamming down our throats through gimmicks and dishonesty isn't even going to lower costs. Even Durbin has admitted as much. So why can't you see it?

There are several explanations for the greater GDP growth of the US than Europe in the 20th century. Universal healthcare isn't one of them.

If you give any credence to the Laffer Curve (beloved of right-wing economists), you could argue that the current US system retards GDP growth by costing more in taxes than the UK system. There is an undoubted GDP-cost in inadequately treated medical conditions, which again would suggest that the US system is retarding GDP.

West Germany did quite well, but absorbing East Germany with 16-million people in uncompetitive industries has been a burden on a country that was only 63-million at the time of unification.

Japan is still paying the price for a huge speculative bubble that burst in the early 1990's until then it was considered to be very successful, more than the US. We are in the middle of the bursting of our speculative bubble, so it is a bit early to say which economy is doing better.


There are several explanations as to why the US GDP growth was better than Europe's in the 20th Century. None of them are to do with the healthcare system.

Firstly, the US was (and is) less densely populated than Western Europe (the East has its own issues). This means that development was easier. This has a direct impact on the cost of land, and the subsequent size of houses. Of course the average house in Utah is going to be larger than in the low countries, where for hundreds of years, the cost of land has been so high that reclaiming land from the sea has been economically viable.

Secondly, the US is an single entity, and has been the largest unified market, with no exchange-rate losses between traders. The Euro is only a very recent addition. This large single market helps economic growth.

Thirdly, the US had a good World War II, in economic terms. US industry grew to service the war, and it also had a very good Cold War. Again, this involved a lot of governmental spending. The UK was bankrupted by World War II, indeed it has only finished paying off the last of the Lend-lease loans in the last ten years. The Marshall plan helped a lot of Europe rebuild, but not the UK. There was a lot of devastation for the Marshall plan to repair, to say nothing of the killed and wounded, which came only a generation after World War I.


Poor healthcare coverage only hinders the US economy.
__________________
OECD healthcare spending
Expenditure on healthcare
http://www.oecd.org/els/health-systems/health-data.htm
link is 2015 data (2013 Data below):
UK 8.5% of GDP of which 83.3% is public expenditure - 7.1% of GDP is public spending
US 16.4% of GDP of which 48.2% is public expenditure - 7.9% of GDP is public spending
jimbob is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th March 2010, 02:06 PM   #470
jimbob
Uncritical "thinker"
 
jimbob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 20,702
And from another thread:

What about the 7-countries above the US in the economic freedom index that have universal healthcare?

Originally Posted by Francesca R View Post
Originally Posted by Leif Roar View Post
You're equating "economic freedom" with "no universal healthcare"? That's idiotic.
Of course it is.

Free-market fans normally use the Wall Street Journal / Heritage Foundation's economic freedom index to show comparisons. The USA is an impressive 8th on the list. However all the countries above it, and indeed all of the top 20 except Bahrain have universal access to publicly funded health services. So it hardly cuts the mustard to blithely assert that you need to kill off your UHS or you're never gonna be as economically free as the USA.

Moreover, the index scores for freedom on the basis of how low gubmint spending is--the smaller the government the better. And since we already know that the US government spends about as much on health as UHS countries do (except that it gets a lamentably disastrous result for it), it isn't even gaining any freedom points for low public health spending.

So that argument is ever so slightly a crashing total failure too.
__________________
OECD healthcare spending
Expenditure on healthcare
http://www.oecd.org/els/health-systems/health-data.htm
link is 2015 data (2013 Data below):
UK 8.5% of GDP of which 83.3% is public expenditure - 7.1% of GDP is public spending
US 16.4% of GDP of which 48.2% is public expenditure - 7.9% of GDP is public spending
jimbob is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th March 2010, 05:41 PM   #471
BeAChooser
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 11,716
Originally Posted by joobz View Post
Over a much wider window, there really isn't a dramatic difference between UHC nations and the US in terms of GDP growth.
You're displaying a reading comprehension problem again. My last post showed there is indeed a dramatic difference over a very wide window. That the gap between the US and the UHC nations in terms of per capita GDP is widening … and has been widening ever since each of the UHC countries that I examined began UHC. Prior to that, the gap in per capita GDP was closing.

Originally Posted by joobz View Post
You claim that the 20 year lag time between start of UHC and reduced economic growth is proof that it is because of the UHC.
I claimed no such such lag nor is there a 20 year lag in the effect of UHC on the economies of each of the cases I examined in the last post. In each case, within a few years of the inception of UHC, each economy responded by starting to fall behind the US again.

Originally Posted by joobz View Post
You are asserting that this shows the average household in america having more wealth than the average household in other nations.
What? You don't believe this?

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



I really tire of these debating tactics of yours, joobz. They seems to show up on every thread, once data appears that proves you wrong. I guess I'll have to ignore you some more because if I point out what I really think your tactics show ...
BeAChooser is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th March 2010, 05:59 PM   #472
joobz
Tergiversator
 
joobz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 17,995
Originally Posted by BeAChooser View Post
You're displaying a reading comprehension problem again. My last post showed there is indeed a dramatic difference over a very wide window.
I plotted growth rates. Look at the slopes in the absolute gdp graphs. You'll see not much difference.


Originally Posted by BeAChooser View Post
I claimed no such such lag nor is there a 20 year lag in the effect of UHC on the economies of each of the cases I examined in the last post. In each case, within a few years of the inception of UHC, each economy responded by starting to fall behind the US again.
Hardly. by the numbers you gave, growth rate slow down occurred in the 60s, but germany and other nations began socialized care in the 40s.


Originally Posted by BeAChooser View Post
I do.
But you understand the difference between "HOUSEHOLD" income and "PER Capita" right?
Average household size in america is 2.59 while canada is 2.5
This makes the median percapita income $19,394. A Far cry from your percapita GDP you tried to use as an example of the average american wealth. By this analysis, Canada is at $17,600 per capita. This makes that difference in health care costs between Canada and US seem a lot more significant to the average person, don't you think?




Originally Posted by BeAChooser View Post
I really tire of these debating tactics of yours, joobz. They seems to show up on every thread, once data appears that proves you wrong.
BAC, you do understand that the numbers are there for everyone to see, right? You do understand that you aren't fooling anyone but those who already want to beleive what you believe, right?

I demonstrated the numbers about 16%GDP were accurate, and you were wrong.
I exposed your logical inconsistency of 6 trillion and 2.3 trillion.
I exposed your error with attempting to correlate $GDP/capita to individual wealth of the average person.
I exposed the dishonesty in claiming that we can't compare nations regarding cost of healthcare.

I have no need to do anything but point to the data. Your blatant self selection of information is your own worst enemy. not me.

Originally Posted by BeAChooser View Post
? I guess I'll have to ignore you some more because if I point out what I really think your tactics show ...
You keep claiming you're going to ignore me, but never seem to do so. Talk about debate tactics.
__________________
What's the best argument for UHC? This argument against UHC.
"Perhaps one reason per capita GDP is lower in UHC countries is because they've tried to prevent this important function [bankrupting the sick] and thus carry forward considerable economic dead wood?"-BeAChooser
joobz is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th March 2010, 05:30 AM   #473
mhaze
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 15,718
Originally Posted by joobz View Post
....because then they wouldn't have any health coverage. That's why. They would be paying a penalty for putting the health care system at risk. If they were to get injured, we all have to make up for their inability to cover their own costs. (e.g., through increased hospital costs and therefore increased insurance premiums)
By requiring nearly everyone to have coverage, we avoid the situation of people becoming medically bankrupt, which adds strain to our economy.


Any other questions?
But it's been widely noted that young people, used to not paying for health insurance, would on a self interest basis not get it and then pay the penalty when and if they needed it.

Your arguments are presented on the basis of people acting according to your scheme of common good in your scheme of socialist collectivism. But other people don't share your fantasy and couldn't care less about it. They are more interested in how much money they have left at the end of the month after expenses.

So you've only dodged my question. Namely, it seems like everyone who could would opt out and just pay the penalty on an economic self interest basis.
mhaze is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th March 2010, 05:37 AM   #474
mhaze
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 15,718
Originally Posted by mhaze
Liberal progressives are trying to do a preemtive strike on the residual wealth of the future of the country, but seem either too dim witted to realize that it's already been spent multiple times, or clever enough to realize that although extra goods and services can't be squeezed from the turnip, additional control and power can be achieved through sleight of hand euphemistically called "universal health care".


Originally Posted by joobz View Post
current us health care = 16%GDP.
next highest is 11%GDP.
Facts have rendered your nattering moot.

Any other questions?
I'm moving toward agreeing with BeAChooser concerning your debate methods being ridiculous. There is no connection between your "facts" and the paragraph I wrote.

None. Zip. Nada.
mhaze is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th March 2010, 06:44 AM   #475
joobz
Tergiversator
 
joobz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 17,995
Originally Posted by mhaze View Post
But it's been widely noted that young people, used to not paying for health insurance, would on a self interest basis not get it and then pay the penalty when and if they needed it.
Some will very possibly. Those without coverage pay a tax penalty of the greater of $695 per year up to a maximum of three times that amount ($2,085) per family or 2.5% of household income.
Originally Posted by mhaze View Post
Your arguments are presented on the basis of people acting according to your scheme of common good in your scheme of socialist collectivism. But other people don't share your fantasy and couldn't care less about it. They are more interested in how much money they have left at the end of the month after expenses.
No. My argument is based upon people's own self interests. Has nothing to do with your bizarre attempts at commie fear mongering.

Using your reasoning, nobody would ever have insurance. That we would simply buy into insurance once we need it. But do you see what the problem with that?
1.) People do have health insurance.
2.) People who get sick without health insurance can't afford the insurance.
Originally Posted by mhaze View Post
So you've only dodged my question. Namely, it seems like everyone who could would opt out and just pay the penalty on an economic self interest basis.
Nope.
"Those without coverage pay a tax penalty of the greater of $695 per year up to a maximum of three times that amount ($2,085) per family or 2.5% of
household income. ."
__________________
What's the best argument for UHC? This argument against UHC.
"Perhaps one reason per capita GDP is lower in UHC countries is because they've tried to prevent this important function [bankrupting the sick] and thus carry forward considerable economic dead wood?"-BeAChooser
joobz is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th March 2010, 06:51 AM   #476
joobz
Tergiversator
 
joobz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 17,995
Originally Posted by mhaze View Post
I'm moving toward agreeing with BeAChooser concerning your debate methods being ridiculous. There is no connection between your "facts" and the paragraph I wrote.

None. Zip. Nada.
You went off on a silly libertarian rant, and I responded with actual facts. Facts that demonstrate our current private HCS is in worse shape than the "evil socialist" systems that exist around the world. Facts you have been ignoring and claiming aren't relevant. Couple this with Fran's post showing that there are systems of government that offer more economic freedom than the US AND have a form of socialized medicine, and it exposes even further the nonsense of your libertopian dreams.


You and BAC seem to dislike it when I present evidence, I wonder why?
__________________
What's the best argument for UHC? This argument against UHC.
"Perhaps one reason per capita GDP is lower in UHC countries is because they've tried to prevent this important function [bankrupting the sick] and thus carry forward considerable economic dead wood?"-BeAChooser
joobz is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th March 2010, 07:00 AM   #477
Random
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 3,016
Watching someone trying to justify the US healthcare system is kind of weird. Its like watching someone explain to you why heavier than air flight is impossible. The existence proof simply has no effect on them.
__________________
"...Am I actually watching Big Bird argue with the Egyptian God of the Dead? Is PBS sending some kind of weird religious message here?"
Random is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th March 2010, 07:19 AM   #478
Lurker
Illuminator
 
Lurker's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 4,189
Random:

I'm with you. I found it especially humorous when they said a South American country was far more like the US than any European country. I find it quite telling how they dismiss any comparisons to other countries with UHC and make an individual argument why each one should not be considered as evidence for a successful UHC or why it is in no way comparable to what would happen in the US. It is as if the US is the one country in the world without any similar countries for comparison. I guess the US is so unique it defies comparison.
Lurker is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th March 2010, 07:37 AM   #479
joobz
Tergiversator
 
joobz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 17,995
Originally Posted by Lurker View Post
Random:

I'm with you. I found it especially humorous when they said a South American country was far more like the US than any European country. I find it quite telling how they dismiss any comparisons to other countries with UHC and make an individual argument why each one should not be considered as evidence for a successful UHC or why it is in no way comparable to what would happen in the US. It is as if the US is the one country in the world without any similar countries for comparison. I guess the US is so unique it defies comparison.
I just find it funny that BAC and Mhaze has resorted to complaining about my "debate tactics".
__________________
What's the best argument for UHC? This argument against UHC.
"Perhaps one reason per capita GDP is lower in UHC countries is because they've tried to prevent this important function [bankrupting the sick] and thus carry forward considerable economic dead wood?"-BeAChooser
joobz is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th March 2010, 08:05 AM   #480
mhaze
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 15,718
Originally Posted by joobz View Post
You went off on a silly libertarian rant, and I responded with actual facts. Facts that demonstrate our current private HCS is in worse shape than the "evil socialist" systems that exist around the world. ....You and BAC seem to dislike it when I present evidence, I wonder why?
Because you haven't connected your purported "evidence" to the issue and have been called on it three times and still refuse to do so.

That's a silly and transparent debate tactic.

Let's say...

Junior High School level.

Originally Posted by Lurker View Post
Random:

I'm with you. I found it especially humorous when they said a South American country was far more like the US than any European country. I find it quite telling how they dismiss any comparisons to other countries with UHC....
Except that one of the signs that by your own admission you lost the argument is when you have to misrepresent your opponent's position to make your own seem to make sense. And that's what you've just done.

What I did was simply question why the possible consequences of the US being duped into the socialist medical scam should not be compared with various South American countries, as well as with China and Russia. It simply seems to me that there's a bit of cherry picking going on by proponents of such scams, who keep pointing to one study and one batch of statistics.

It became noticable that no one would back up the claim "these are the countries that are MOST LIKE the USA".

Which frankly does not make sense, does it?

Last edited by mhaze; 16th March 2010 at 08:07 AM.
mhaze is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:23 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.