The Current Events, News, and Politics Thread
01-03-2012, 08:37 AM
#741
Boost Czar
Thread Starter
iTrader: (62)
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 79,494
Total Cats: 4,080
talk all you want. When the gov't can figure out how to run anything efficiently, I'll consider letting them run healthcare.
I've posted it before, let me find it again.
edit: I've posted this, still looking for the source:
Al Gore thinks it's a right:
http://current.com/green/84987281_he...is-a-right.htm
so does Obama:
BS. Source?
edit: I've posted this, still looking for the source:
It appears the Canada averages tax revenues at 35% of GDP, the US only around 25%. If total taxes PLUS private healthcare insurance costs are factored in then US averages 34.7% (in 2008) of the GDP.
All this means is that they are really just paying their health insurance premiums through their taxes rather than through lower wages, as we do. The difference is, we have the option to spend that extra 10% or not, it's who decides - the individual or the government bureaucrat.
All this means is that they are really just paying their health insurance premiums through their taxes rather than through lower wages, as we do. The difference is, we have the option to spend that extra 10% or not, it's who decides - the individual or the government bureaucrat.
Al Gore thinks it's a right:
http://current.com/green/84987281_he...is-a-right.htm
so does Obama:
Reply
0
0
01-03-2012, 09:35 AM
#742
Elite Member
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Central Florida
Posts: 2,799
Total Cats: 179
blaen - You say that malpractice or tort reform is not a major factor in costs. You also talk about a lot of overtreatment or potentially unnecessary treatment. In your opinion, is there no correlation at all?
You also referenced the USA having poor showing in rankings of various health statistics but do not address at all that many of those statistics are not at all apples-to-apples comparisons.
Healthcare is a subject that I intend to better educate myself on but I assume it will take some significant time to try and push through the muck. The subject is almost as politicized as economics which makes finding quality, objective information pretty tricky.
You also referenced the USA having poor showing in rankings of various health statistics but do not address at all that many of those statistics are not at all apples-to-apples comparisons.
Healthcare is a subject that I intend to better educate myself on but I assume it will take some significant time to try and push through the muck. The subject is almost as politicized as economics which makes finding quality, objective information pretty tricky.
Reply
0
0
01-03-2012, 10:12 AM
#743
Elite Member
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Central Florida
Posts: 2,799
Total Cats: 179
No topic boggles my mind quite like gun restriction legislation.
Right, because the guy that had just shot two people at a house party would have stopped his car when he got to the state park entrance that said "no firearms allowed" and either ditched his guns or turned around.
Ya know, 'cause people that disregard laws against murder totally follow other laws and ordinances.
CBS News article
The shooting renewed debate about a federal law that made it legal for people to take loaded weapons into national parks. The 2010 law made possession of firearms subject to state gun laws.
Bill Wade, the outgoing chair of the Coalition of National Park Service Retirees, said Congress should be regretting its decision.
"The many congressmen and senators that voted for the legislation that allowed loaded weapons to be brought into the parks ought to be feeling pretty bad right now," said Wade.
Wade called Sunday's fatal shooting a tragedy that could have been prevented. He hopes Congress will reconsider the law that took effect in early 2010, but doubts that will happen in today's political climate.
The shooting renewed debate about a federal law that made it legal for people to take loaded weapons into national parks. The 2010 law made possession of firearms subject to state gun laws.
Bill Wade, the outgoing chair of the Coalition of National Park Service Retirees, said Congress should be regretting its decision.
"The many congressmen and senators that voted for the legislation that allowed loaded weapons to be brought into the parks ought to be feeling pretty bad right now," said Wade.
Wade called Sunday's fatal shooting a tragedy that could have been prevented. He hopes Congress will reconsider the law that took effect in early 2010, but doubts that will happen in today's political climate.
Ya know, 'cause people that disregard laws against murder totally follow other laws and ordinances.
Reply
0
0
01-03-2012, 11:30 AM
#748
Boost Czar
Thread Starter
iTrader: (62)
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 79,494
Total Cats: 4,080
even if the government were to confiscate the net worth of the entire Forbes 400 list of richest Americans–people who create hundreds of thousands of jobs, as well as spin-off jobs and businesses–their combined $1.5 trillion of wealth would barely cover the forthcoming $1.2 trillion debt-ceiling increase.
Reply
0
0
01-03-2012, 12:06 PM
#749
Boost Czar
Thread Starter
iTrader: (62)
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 79,494
Total Cats: 4,080
Reply
0
0
01-03-2012, 01:59 PM
#750
Elite Member
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Central Florida
Posts: 2,799
Total Cats: 179
How's this do it for you: http://dailycaller.com/2012/01/03/ma...ating-gun-law/
There you have citizens who have completed background checks and received licenses to carry legally attempting to follow both the spirit and the letter of the regulations and they get arrested after notifying security they are licensed to and are carrying.
How many "bad guys" are going to walk up to security and say, "Hey, I was going to go up to the top of the Empire State Building and shoot everyone up there to express my angst and anger at the world, but I see you have a sign which forbids me bringing firearms up. Can you hold my pistols while I go up there and beat people with this lead pipe?"
Reply
0
0
01-03-2012, 03:24 PM
#751
Assuming that is accurate, and I am, my mind is boggled.
There you have citizens who have completed background checks and received licenses to carry legally attempting to follow both the spirit and the letter of the regulations and they get arrested after notifying security they are licensed to and are carrying.
How many "bad guys" are going to walk up to security and say, "Hey, I was going to go up to the top of the Empire State Building and shoot everyone up there to express my angst and anger at the world, but I see you have a sign which forbids me bringing firearms up. Can you hold my pistols while I go up there and beat people with this lead pipe?"
There you have citizens who have completed background checks and received licenses to carry legally attempting to follow both the spirit and the letter of the regulations and they get arrested after notifying security they are licensed to and are carrying.
How many "bad guys" are going to walk up to security and say, "Hey, I was going to go up to the top of the Empire State Building and shoot everyone up there to express my angst and anger at the world, but I see you have a sign which forbids me bringing firearms up. Can you hold my pistols while I go up there and beat people with this lead pipe?"
Several states severely limited malpractice awards (Read: tort reform specific to malpractice) and handed the insurance companies everything they wanted on a silver platter. Do you know what happened?
No significant deviation from any other states malpractice premiums happened. The premiums for "malpractice" continued to rise at the same rate as the rest of the country even though the supposed "evil" was limited. I have serious trouble believing that malpractice insurance is the devil it is.
Overtreatment's relation to malpractice is significantly beyond anything I am prepared to argue in a forum post on a topic not 100% dedicated to it, however. It's a complex subject, and has so many contributing factors that I'd probably only be able to make 1 or 2 posts per week max due to the research involved.
You also referenced the USA having poor showing in rankings of various health statistics but do not address at all that many of those statistics are not at all apples-to-apples comparisons.
Healthcare is a subject that I intend to better educate myself on but I assume it will take some significant time to try and push through the muck. The subject is almost as politicized as economics which makes finding quality, objective information pretty tricky.
Fallacy, as you can see. Our healthcare system is so inefficient right now that it's difficult to imagine anything less efficient, short of just dumping millions of dollars into the pockets of some people.
Wait, that already happens with CEOs! (And CEO compensation is a topic I'd like to discuss with Scrappy sometime, on that note!)
I've posted it before, let me find it again.
edit: I've posted this, still looking for the source:
edit: I've posted this, still looking for the source:
I pay $2k a month for living costs. Person B pays 1k a month for other stuff, and 1k a month for health insurance. Obviously, I and Person B both spend $1k a month on insurance! But we both know that's very questionable logic, Brainy.
(Ninja edit)
Health care is one of the most expensive items of both nations’ budgets. In the United States, the various levels of government spend more per capita on health care than levels of government do in Canada. In 2004, Canada government-spending was $2,120 (in US dollars) per person on health care, while the United States government-spending $2,724.[11]
A 1999 report found that after exclusions, administration accounted for 31.0% of health care expenditures in the United States, as compared with 16.7% of health care expenditures in Canada. In looking at the insurance element, in Canada, the provincial single-payer insurance system operated with overheads of 1.3%, comparing favourably with private insurance overheads (13.2%), U.S. private insurance overheads (11.7%) and U.S. Medicare and Medicaid program overheads (3.6% and 6.8% respectively). The report concluded by observing that gap between U.S. and Canadian spending on health care administration had grown to $752 per capita and that a large sum might be saved in the United States if the U.S. implemented a Canadian-style health care system.[76]
However, U.S. government spending covers less than half of all health care costs. Private spending for health care is also far greater in the U.S. than in Canada. In Canada, an average of $917 was spent annually by individuals or private insurance companies for health care, including dental, eye care, and drugs. In the U.S., this sum is $3,372.[11] In 2006, health care consumed 15.3% of U.S. annual GDP. In Canada, only 10% of GDP was spent on health care.[5] This difference is a relatively recent development. In 1971 the nations were much closer, with Canada spending 7.1% of GDP on health while the U.S. spent 7.6%.
A 1999 report found that after exclusions, administration accounted for 31.0% of health care expenditures in the United States, as compared with 16.7% of health care expenditures in Canada. In looking at the insurance element, in Canada, the provincial single-payer insurance system operated with overheads of 1.3%, comparing favourably with private insurance overheads (13.2%), U.S. private insurance overheads (11.7%) and U.S. Medicare and Medicaid program overheads (3.6% and 6.8% respectively). The report concluded by observing that gap between U.S. and Canadian spending on health care administration had grown to $752 per capita and that a large sum might be saved in the United States if the U.S. implemented a Canadian-style health care system.[76]
However, U.S. government spending covers less than half of all health care costs. Private spending for health care is also far greater in the U.S. than in Canada. In Canada, an average of $917 was spent annually by individuals or private insurance companies for health care, including dental, eye care, and drugs. In the U.S., this sum is $3,372.[11] In 2006, health care consumed 15.3% of U.S. annual GDP. In Canada, only 10% of GDP was spent on health care.[5] This difference is a relatively recent development. In 1971 the nations were much closer, with Canada spending 7.1% of GDP on health while the U.S. spent 7.6%.
Al Gore thinks it's a right:
http://current.com/green/84987281_he...is-a-right.htm
so does Obama:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zAR8K2KCiGc
http://current.com/green/84987281_he...is-a-right.htm
so does Obama:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zAR8K2KCiGc
Basically, that Health Care should not bankrupt you if you get sick. They are using variations of the lower-case-r-not-Bill-Of-Rights-capital-R I talked about in that health care should be affordable, not impossibly expensive that the average citizen can't afford it.
Universal health insurance is one way to obtain this, as mentioned in Al Gore's video. You may want to rewatch it completely - he repeatedly talks about costs.
(Ninja edit) Sources: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compari...age_and_access
Last edited by blaen99; 01-03-2012 at 03:41 PM.
Reply
0
0
01-03-2012, 03:37 PM
#752
Boost Czar
Thread Starter
iTrader: (62)
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 79,494
Total Cats: 4,080
Talk all you want. When big business can figure out how to run anything efficienctly, I'll consider letting them run healthcare.
Fallacy, as you can see. Our healthcare system is so inefficient right now that it's difficult to imagine anything less efficient, short of just dumping millions of dollars into the pockets of some people.
Fallacy, as you can see. Our healthcare system is so inefficient right now that it's difficult to imagine anything less efficient, short of just dumping millions of dollars into the pockets of some people.
It's not fair to have a hand in the pot, transfer salmanila into it from the gov'ts dirty fingernails, then when customers get food posion, claim the system is broken and the gov't needs to take it over in order to save it.
Same thing with the free market... everyone says capitalism has failed, but all we learned really is that cronyism has fail us, and the solution everyone wants? give the gov't more power.
CEO compenstation has skyrocketed ever since our gov't has become more intimately involved in their affairs. I pretty sure a video by scrappy or jason was posted on it recently.
Universal health insurance is one way to obtain this, as mentioned in Al Gore's video. You may want to rewatch it completely - he repeatedly talks about costs.
I especially don't want to pay for adult babies: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011...urn-complaint/
and I don't want to lose my limbs and be denied a wheelchair: http://www.science20.com/cool-links/...vernment-85179
our Debt to GDP ratio is 101%, you expect to be able to pay for universal coverage?
Reply
0
0
01-03-2012, 03:50 PM
#753
It's not fair to have a hand in the pot, transfer salmanila into it from the gov'ts dirty fingernails, then when customers get food posion, claim the system is broken and the gov't needs to take it over in order to save it.
I.e., the government offers a very basic health plan that you will receive a level of basic health care from. Private insurers, however, are there for anyone to buy from if they want better care and better hospitals.
Same thing with the free market... everyone says capitalism has failed, but all we learned really is that cronyism has fail us, and the solution everyone wants? give the gov't more power.
CEO compenstation has skyrocketed ever since our gov't has become more intimately involved in their affairs. I pretty sure a video by scrappy or jason was posted on it recently.
Is allowing the taxpayer to go broke okay then? If it's about costs, when we take it over taxes have to go up and rationing has to happen. I don't want to pay for a single person's healthcare, morgtage, ***** enlargement, abortion, food, schooling, etc etc etc.
I especially don't want to pay for adult babies: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011...urn-complaint/
our Debt to GDP ratio is 101%, you expect to be able to pay for universal coverage?
Reply
0
0
01-03-2012, 03:57 PM
#754
Elite Member
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Central Florida
Posts: 2,799
Total Cats: 179
Brainy or any other mods, this might be worth splitting into a separate healthcare thread?
Help me understand the nuance here. You are saying that, in states like Texas that passed tort reform limiting malpractice awards, malpractice insurance premiums continued to rise roughly in pace with malpractice insurance premiums in states without those same reforms?
Assume you have a baby that is born premature with multiple complications and a 3 pound birth weight. Is that child included in all country birth and life expectancy statistics the same way?
As a guy making a living in the financial services industry and planning to eventually occupy the 5% (by being one of them), I'm happy to do so. 
What is oft-quoted as a constantly increasing cost in medical practice is malpractice insurance, not malpractice itself. These are two distinct entities for my purposes here.
Several states severely limited malpractice awards (Read: tort reform specific to malpractice) and handed the insurance companies everything they wanted on a silver platter. Do you know what happened?
No significant deviation from any other states malpractice premiums happened. The premiums for "malpractice" continued to rise at the same rate as the rest of the country even though the supposed "evil" was limited. I have serious trouble believing that malpractice insurance is the devil it is.
Several states severely limited malpractice awards (Read: tort reform specific to malpractice) and handed the insurance companies everything they wanted on a silver platter. Do you know what happened?
No significant deviation from any other states malpractice premiums happened. The premiums for "malpractice" continued to rise at the same rate as the rest of the country even though the supposed "evil" was limited. I have serious trouble believing that malpractice insurance is the devil it is.
I fail to see how statistics such as length of life can not be apple to apple comparisons. Could you elaborate as to why you think that length of life and/or life expectancy are not apple to apple comparisons?
Fallacy, as you can see. Our healthcare system is so inefficient right now that it's difficult to imagine anything less efficient, short of just dumping millions of dollars into the pockets of some people.
Wait, that already happens with CEOs! (And CEO compensation is a topic I'd like to discuss with Scrappy sometime, on that note!)
Wait, that already happens with CEOs! (And CEO compensation is a topic I'd like to discuss with Scrappy sometime, on that note!)
Reply
0
0
01-03-2012, 03:58 PM
#755
Boost Czar
Thread Starter
iTrader: (62)
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 79,494
Total Cats: 4,080
Universal coverage would cost us less, as a country, than our current system. (See: My repeated references to Canada, one of the most expensive universal coverage systems) Are you arguing against lowering our Debt to GDP ratio, or...what? I honestly don't understand what you are going for here.
Reply
0
0
01-03-2012, 03:59 PM
#756
Boost Czar
Thread Starter
iTrader: (62)
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 79,494
Total Cats: 4,080
no, and most EU countries wouldn't try to save the baby, theyd toss it in the trash and prtend it didn't happen on paper. Here in the US they would try everything to save it, and if they failed, they'll include it in the fatality reporting.
Reply
0
0
01-03-2012, 04:00 PM
#757
It's wonderful that the Canadians only pay as much as we do in taxes. That's great.
But the GDP cost of their health care is significantly less than our costs. It's not fair or intellectually honest to try to use GDP-as-taxes to equate to costs of medical systems.
Reply
0
0
01-03-2012, 04:04 PM
#758
Help me understand the nuance here. You are saying that, in states like Texas that passed tort reform limiting malpractice awards, malpractice insurance premiums continued to rise roughly in pace with malpractice insurance premiums in states without those same reforms?
Assume you have a baby that is born premature with multiple complications and a 3 pound birth weight. Is that child included in all country birth and life expectancy statistics the same way?
As a guy making a living in the financial services industry and planning to eventually occupy the 5% (by being one of them), I'm happy to do so.
Reply
0
0
01-03-2012, 04:14 PM
#760
Either way, I've been researching this and talking to Europeans I know. I've been able to find one specific situation in one specific country where this happens.
The UK, when someone is not on a private plan. It does suck that the UK's public plan refuses to provide treatment to a child before 22 weeks.
But private plans exist for this. Or are you adopting a stance that the state should do anything it can to save the baby, notably in opposition to your earlier stances about personal responsibility and being educated?
Reply
0
0
