View Full Version : Politically Incorrect.
Pages : 1 2 3
[
4]
5 6 7 8
"tokugawa" <truth_seeker227@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:fb0ae2f1.0301041557.740359fe@posting.google.com...
> Health care administrative costs (% of health care dollar):
>
> United States (Medicare, Medicaid, HMO's, PPO's, etc.) ........13% Canada (Single payer system)
> ...................................3%
>
> Why?
Because there is no paperwork to prove claims in Canada while in the USA the claims forms are long
and complicated and often are sent back 3 or 4 times for further information.
Yes, this is often because insurance companies have found that they can delay payment and maximize
their profits in this manner but don't pretend that insurance companies are making money on health
insurance because they aren't. MedLife just went belly up because they DIDN'T use these tactics. A
system closest to the Canadian Health System is the Kaiser Health Care System and most people that
have used it don't like it and try to use some other sort of health system.
> 1. Private insurers' number one priority in a capitalist system is to make a profit. All other
> considerations are secondary.
That's true. However, it is ALL businesses number one priority to make a profit. If you are
suggesting that you can somehow make a non-profit healthcare business work think again. Most of the
hospitals in the USA wree nonprofit before the 60's and they were chronically underfunded,
undermanned and had very poor technological advances. After for-profit hospitals began showing up
doctors switched over in droves. They got better equipment, better working conditions, better
patient facilities and better payment.
> 2. Private insurers have a financial incentive to deny claims. They work very hard to deny claims.
> A friend of mind recently had her claim denied unjustly. She pursued legal means and won her
> case. Good news, you say? WRONG! It cost her $20,000 in legal fees (which, of course, are not
> reimbursed) and it delayed payment to her for two years WHEN SHE REALLY NEEDED THE MONEY. The
> f***ing insurance company hired private investigators who violated her privacy, and produced
> evidence which did not hold up in court. In addition, she suffered from post-tramatic stress
> disorder after the trauma she received when she found out about the snooping.
1) Her legal fees to recover losses were recoverable if the case was properly filed. 2) If her
privacy was violated to obtain evidence against her that evidence besides being a matter of
public record is also proof of illegal acts and is probably useable in criminal and civil cases
against the insurance company.
There certainly are evil insurance companies. Personally I would NEVER use Farmer's Insurance
Company for anything. But there are civil remedies for their actions.
> While high medical bills are the #1 cause of bankruptcies in the United States, nobody is ever
> denied necessary medical care in Canada at a hospital.
I don't know where you've gotten that idea but all of the statistics show that the medical system in
Canada does not work well for diseases of aging, or chronic illnesses. Surprise, the once young and
healthy Canadian population is now aging and contracting chronic diseases. They also have had an
extremely liberal immigration policy and it is showing up with all sorts of imported chronic and
severe illnesses and all of this is beginning to severely stress the medical system.
The Canadian Health Care System is not a system of health care but a system of health care
rationing.
Canadians with money that require rapid health care come to the USA where our less than perfect
system is still superior to a system that would often take longer to get a patient in than his
expected lifespan with a serious illness.
The Pomeranian wrote:
>
>
> Retard, where, how, and why do you dream all this **** up? Do you know why inelastic demand, and a
> lot of it, is a problem? For your benefit, the answer is in the question.
Because all that I see in your rhetoric is the supposed supreme perfection of a pure free-market
economy. Why do we have so many able-minded and able-bodied homeless? Why do we have so many
families living under the poverty level? Why are there undernourished children in this great country
of ours? Why do so many not have adequate healthcare? Because our market's aren't free enough? A
free market doesn't care about those that can't participate in the market in the first place.
And, yes, I understand the problem with unlimited or even much inelastic demand. What you don't see
is where capitalism fails. And you never will because you don't want to. Unlike you I know the
failings of my party's economics, you should acknowledge yours.
You and TK can call me moron and retard all you want, I know you both agree with me deep down in
your icy little hearts.
Greg
--
"Destroy your safe and happy lives before it is too late, the battles we fought were long and hard,
just not to be consumed by rock n' roll..." - The Mekons
Canuck wrote:
> "G.T." <ethan_t@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
> news:V1qQ9.2462$Um3.192640137@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com...
>
>>
>>What a simplistic way to ignore all those that have no medical coverage
>
> and
>
>>can't afford to pay for medical visits. What is your solution? To ban government healthcare
>>subsidies, even ban health insurance altogether, and let the free-market price all those illegal
>>aliens right out of the
>
> country
>
>>while also pricing those citizens under the poverty-level out of life?
>
>
> Here I was thinking you are a crusty old man and you break out the compassionate side.
>
No, I just have issues with effete and impudent snobs who can't take a joke. The rest of me is in
complete disagreement with anything TK or that yappy little pomeranian stands for.
Greg
--
"Destroy your safe and happy lives before it is too late, the battles we fought were long and hard,
just not to be consumed by rock n' roll..." - The Mekons
"G.T." <ethan_t@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:IjRQ9.859$7q5.78375166@newssvr17.news.prodigy.com...
> The Pomeranian wrote:
> > Retard, where, how, and why do you dream all this **** up? Do you know why inelastic demand, and
> > a lot of it, is a problem? For your benefit, the answer is in the question.
>
> Because all that I see in your rhetoric is the supposed supreme perfection of a pure free-market
> economy.
Where has anyone here claimed that the free market system is even good let alone perfect? We
acknowledge only that it is far superior to anything else that's been tried.
> Why do we have so many able-minded and able-bodied homeless?
That is a complete and utter fabrication. Network news tried to pass off every single thing that the
"homeless" activists decided was best for their cause but apparently you haven't kept up. Several
homeless activists came clean. They fabricated almost every fact about the homeless. When the best
estimates were that this country had about 300,000 homeless (something that should have been
shocking enough) they got the network news hacks to report that there were 19 million and climbing
homeless. They got the network news moguls to report that most homeless were able bodied people.
That was a lie. Most homeless are insane or drug or alcohol addicts. Able bodied men are seldom
homeless and find that there is a lot of help from the government and from all sorts of charities. I
personally talked to some of those and they told me that the problem wasn't getting food of
temporary shelter but putting together the trememdous about of money it takes for first and last
month's rent and a security deposit. Welfare has taken care of that for two decades now.
In other words, you are completely full of ****.
> Why do we have so many families living under the poverty level?
Network news reported that there were many families living under the poverty level. Government
welfare offices reported the same thing. When it was investigated it was found that "poverty level"
was a certain income level for a family. If they had three kids the poverty level was something like
$30,000 a year. Families that owned their own homes and owned several cars would OFTEN be on these
"poverty" roles.
In other words, you've been taken in and are little more than a sucker for a liberal lie.
> Why are there undernourished children in this great country of ours?
That was covered 25 years ago. Food is not a problem. Nutrician is. And most of the time it isn't
because of poverty or lack of food. It is because of divorced mother homes and the mother often has
little or no education and doesn't understand what nutrician means. And one of the primary reasons
that young ignorant mothers were around was because of the culture of sex freely spread by the
general media in this country. Which is another reason that other more conservative societies see us
as little more than animals.
> Why do so many not have adequate healthcare?
What is adequate healthcare? Few aliens have any problems getting free medical care. Few minorities
have problems getting free medical care. The one's that suffer most from lack of medical care are
low income white people whom the government and most of all Liberals do not feel any pain for.
The problem with you Greg is that you are too stupid to think about any of this beyond reading the
occasional lefty news reports. You don't go down to the local emergency rooms and see them filled to
overflowing with aliens while low income citizens get nothing. You hear about homeless but you've
never gone down to the missions and talked to any of them or stood in the soup line on Thanksgiving
or Christmas and handed out food.
In France a homeless person lives about two years. In the USA they are fat until they die of the
effects of their addictions or are carted off to the mental hospitals where you'd argue they
shouldn't be held against their will.
You WANT to believe that the USA is evil because you want to hate a lot more than you want to know
the truth.
"G.T." <ethan_t@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:_bRQ9.857$Kj5.77977934@newssvr17.news.prodigy.com...
>
> No, I just have issues with effete and impudent snobs who can't take a joke. The rest of me is in
> complete disagreement with anything TK or that yappy little pomeranian stands for.
I am an effete impudent snob?
I tried to keep the conversation as cordial as possible, perhaps that makes me effete, but impudent
and snobbish, hmmmm, just because I disagree with you.
G.T. wrote:
>
> The Pomeranian wrote:
> >
> >
> > Retard, where, how, and why do you dream all this **** up? Do you know why inelastic demand, and
> > a lot of it, is a problem? For your benefit, the answer is in the question.
>
> Because all that I see in your rhetoric is the supposed supreme perfection of a pure free-market
> economy.
When did I say "supreme perfection of a pure free-market economy" and when did I say the government
can't play an important role in the well being of its citizens and insuring that markets function
properly (for the betterment of the consumers and the environment they live in)? If you don't like
the marketplace's way of allocating scarce resources, then tell us who should decide
1. What goods are to be produced?
2. How will they be produced?
3. Who will do what jobs?
4. For whom will the products be produced?
Answer the questions.
> Why do we have so many able-minded and able-bodied homeless?
You tell me: How many and why? What should we do about it and how will it affect the aggregate
wealth of our nation?
> Why do we have so many families living under the poverty level?
You tell me: How many, and what does "poverty level" mean and does it change through time in a
given society/nation? What should we do about it and how will it affect the aggregate wealth of
our nation?
> Why are there undernourished children in this great country of ours?
You tell me: How many and why? What should we do about it and how will it affect the aggregate
wealth of our nation?
> Why do so many not have adequate healthcare?
Because the current methodology is outmoded.
> Because our market's aren't free enough?
You tell me the how's and why's, since that is your claim. Then provide a solution that hasn't
already been tried and failed miserably. What should we do about it and how will it affect the
aggregate wealth of our nation?
> A free market doesn't care about those that can't participate in the market in the first place.
Who in the US does not purchase goods in one marketplace or the other?
> And, yes, I understand the problem with unlimited or even much inelastic demand.
I don't believe you. Explain. What should be done about it? How do we handle it?
> What you don't see is where capitalism fails.
I don't? Funny, I thought I read all about it in my economic, political science, and history books,
and studied it in college. Gee, thanks for telling me. Of course, I read Marx, Hayek, and Orwell 25
years ago, so what could I possibly know?
> And you never will because you don't want to.
Answer the above first. Tell what the projected costs of entitlements (SS for example) are going to
be in the next 50 years. Put numbers on
it. How will the bill be paid and what fraction of the GDP will it consume. Now do the same for a
universal single payer health care plan. Don't mess around. Put numbers on it and tell how much
of the GDP it will likely chew up. What will these large price tags do to the welfare and
prosperity of all US citizens, rich and poor? Would you say we might need a new paradigm, or is
any old retard plan better than doing the hard work of challenging the established way of doing
things and forming a new paradigm? Who fights for status quo? What will happen to the
prosperity of future generations? Don't you even care about them?
> Unlike you I know the failings of my party's economics, you should acknowledge yours.
What is "my party" and what is your's and what are its failings? Your failing is you simply swallow
any old party garbage as long as it supports your existing prejudices. Talk about reactionary. I'm
looking for new ideas. I reject the old ones in new clothing, that have been shown time and again to
fail, or have simply outlived their usefulness. Things are going to change because our world will
change (it _is_ changing) and there is nothing we can do to stop it. We can choose the high road or
the low road. One road is a lot more comfortable (for _everybody_) than the other.
> You and TK can call me moron and retard all you want, ...
I don't want to call you those things at all. It is something you've chosen for yourself. I'd rather
be saying: hey that's an interesting idea, let's look at it some more. But you can't do it.
> ...I know you both agree with me deep down in your icy little hearts.
I don't believe you care about anybody but yourself. It is because I care about all people, and my
country, and my world, and the people that will inherit it, that I am frustrated with your nonsense.
If you cared you would at least make a casual attempt at throwing off the veil of destructive
ignorance.
So answer my questions and don't ignore this one: "...where did I say anyone should be ignored?"
The Pomeranian wrote:
> G.T. wrote:
>
>>
>>Because all that I see in your rhetoric is the supposed supreme perfection of a pure free-market
>>economy.
>
>
> When did I say "supreme perfection of a pure free-market economy" and when did I say the
> government can't play an important role in the well being of its citizens and insuring that
> markets function properly (for the betterment of the consumers and the environment they live in)?
I have yet to see you provide any examples of where you think government intervention is ok. Here in
r.b.r. or in the Campag=Mac thread on r.b.t.
> If you don't like the marketplace's way of allocating scarce resources,
Which resources are scarce here in the USA? Food? Water? Housing? Heating oil? Do you mean scarce
or finite?
> then tell us who should decide
>
> 1. What goods are to be produced?
> 2. How will they be produced?
> 3. Who will do what jobs?
> 4. For whom will the products be produced?
>
> Answer the questions.
>
As far as those questions are concerned production doesn't seem to be the problem here in our
country right now except for #2 and how production of goods effects the environment. #2 is the only
place I think someone needs to keep an eye on things. And as long as someone keeps an eye that the
racists and sexists of the country are hiring and promoting a proportionate amount of minorities and
women the rest of #3 should be left up to producers.
>
>>Why do we have so many able-minded and able-bodied homeless?
>
>
> You tell me: How many and why?
Estimates made over the last 5 years are between 2 and 7 million. Why? Some are mentally ill, some
prefer to be homeless, some have been very unlucky, some are even employed but can't afford housing
within a 2 hours commute of their employmer.
> What should we do about it and how will it affect the aggregate wealth of our nation?
>
The first part is a good question. It's hard to balance the need for everyone making a living wage
and keeping unemployment low.
The second part of your question is offensive. Is the aggregate wealth of our country more important
than those 2 million homeless? We sacrifice 1% of our citizens?
>
>>Why do we have so many families living under the poverty level?
>
>
> You tell me: How many, and what does "poverty level" mean and does it change through time in a
> given society/nation?
Federal guidelines: http://aspe.hhs.gov/poverty/02poverty.htm
How many: "Using CPS data, the National Center for Children in Poverty at Columbia University has
published statistics on the rate of poverty among very young children. The center estimates that
between 1979 and 1993, the number of children under age six living in poverty in the United States
grew from 3.5 million to 6.4 million (26.2 percent of all children under 6 in 1993). In 2001, the
number was 4 million (a poverty rate of 18.2 percent)".
So in one of our best recent years 4 million children live in families that make less than $18,000
per year. That's counting just the children, not the parents.
>
>>Why do so many not have adequate healthcare?
>
> Because the current methodology is outmoded.
>
>>Because our market's aren't free enough?
>
>
> You tell me the how's and why's, since that is your claim.
That's not my claim. It's what I've understood to be your claim.
> Then provide a solution that hasn't already been tried and failed miserably. What should we do
> about it and how will it affect the aggregate wealth of our nation?
>
Well, having worked 7 years for the health insurance industry I do know one thing that needs to be
addressed and that is price gouging by hospitals and providers. $250 for two unused Tylenol is
absurd. I worked for a managed care operation, Prucare of California, and at one time I paid claims
during my management training rotation so these are things that I saw with my own two eyes, there
not anecdotes from some website.
Two things that I learned while working there are that IPA and medical group based HMOs are
definitely not the way to go, and that patient care should absolutely not be regulated by an
administrative organization.
>
>>A free market doesn't care about those that can't participate in the market in the first place.
>
>
> Who in the US does not purchase goods in one marketplace or the other?
Those that I'm talking about above, the ones with no money.
>
>
>>And, yes, I understand the problem with unlimited or even much inelastic demand.
>
>
> I don't believe you. Explain.
It's basically where demand isn't influenced by price. Price can drop or increase and there will be
very little change in demand.
> What should be done about it?
In the case of skyrocketing prices for an item with inelastic demand? Revolutions have been fought
for less reason.
>
> Answer the above first. Tell what the projected costs of entitlements (SS for example) are going
> to be in the next 50 years. Put numbers on
> it. How will the bill be paid and what fraction of the GDP will it consume.
I don't disagree with you about the projected costs of entitlements.
> Now do the same for a universal single payer health care plan. Don't mess around. Put numbers on
> it and tell how much of the GDP it will likely chew up.
Depends on how it is funded. It's besides the point anyway, I don't know if a universal single payer
plan is the way to go. I do know with health costs increasing far more rapidly than the current rate
of inflation (my monthly premiums went from $242 to $255, that's only 5% but my benefits dropped
considerably), and approximately 44 million uninsured citizens something clearly has to be done.
>
>
> I don't believe you care about anybody but yourself.
That is entirely not true. I'd be willing to bet a large sum of money that I consider solutions to
the above problems more often than you. And I KNOW I do more than TK.
> It is because I care about all people, and my country, and my world, and the people that will
> inherit it, that I am frustrated with your nonsense.
Your nationalistic, anti-immigratory, borderline racist stance suggests otherwise, particularly the
"my world" part.
> If you cared you would at least make a casual attempt at throwing off the veil of destructive
> ignorance.
>
That's some good rhetoric. I am. I think you've taken some of what I've said in the past a little
too seriously.
> So answer my questions and don't ignore this one: "...where did I say anyone should be ignored?"
Well, you don't have to explicitly state it. You've made it clear in previous posts and this post
that the good of the majority is more important than the misery of the few. Is the misery of 1% to
2%, possibly more, of our nation's population acceptable?
Greg
--
"Destroy your safe and happy lives before it is too late, the battles we fought were long and hard,
just not to be consumed by rock n' roll..." - The Mekons
Canuck wrote:
> "G.T." <ethan_t@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
> news:_bRQ9.857$Kj5.77977934@newssvr17.news.prodigy.com...
>
>>No, I just have issues with effete and impudent snobs who can't take a joke. The rest of me is in
>>complete disagreement with anything TK or that yappy little pomeranian stands for.
>
>
>
>
>
> I am an effete impudent snob?
>
> I tried to keep the conversation as cordial as possible, perhaps that makes me effete, but
> impudent and snobbish, hmmmm, just because I disagree with you.
Actually, I was just kidding with that first sentence. But I do have a problem with people who have
to find fault with many things I think are harmless.
Greg
--
"Destroy your safe and happy lives before it is too late, the battles we fought were long and hard,
just not to be consumed by rock n' roll..." - The Mekons
Tom Kunich wrote:
>
>
> That is a complete and utter fabrication. Network news tried to pass off every single thing that
> the "homeless" activists decided was best for their cause but apparently you haven't kept up.
> Several homeless activists came clean. They fabricated almost every fact about the homeless. When
> the best estimates were that this country had about 300,000 homeless (something that should have
> been shocking enough) they got the network news hacks to report that there were 19 million and
> climbing homeless. They got the network news moguls to report that most homeless were able bodied
> people. That was a lie. Most homeless are insane or drug or alcohol addicts. Able bodied men are
> seldom homeless and find that there is a lot of help from the government and from all sorts of
> charities. I personally talked to some of those and they told me that the problem wasn't getting
> food of temporary shelter but putting together the trememdous about of money it takes for first
> and last month's rent and a security deposit. Welfare has taken care of that for two decades now.
>
Not being able to afford first and last still means homeless, you moron.
And now that you bring up the insane, which I wasn't going to go into, why are they on the streets?
They can't work to support themselves. Many of them don't want to be on the streets. Could it be
because your hero cut back federal funds for inpatient psychiatric hospitals sending them all out on
the street?
>
>
>>Why do we have so many families living under the poverty level?
>
>
> Network news reported that there were many families living under the poverty level. Government
> welfare offices reported the same thing. When it was investigated it was found that "poverty
> level" was a certain income level for a family. If they had three kids the poverty level was
> something like $30,000 a year.
2002 level for a 5 person family is $21,000. Please post your budget in your reply on how you would
buy a home and several cars on $21,000 a year. ****, just post a budget on how you would survive.
Quit coming up with bull****.
>
>
>>Why are there undernourished children in this great country of ours?
>
>
> That was covered 25 years ago. Food is not a problem. Nutrician is. And most of the time it isn't
> because of poverty or lack of food. It is because of divorced mother homes and the mother often
> has little or no education and doesn't understand what nutrician means. And one of the primary
> reasons that young ignorant mothers were around was because of the culture of sex freely spread by
> the general media in this country. Which is another reason that other more conservative societies
> see us as little more than animals.
>
You mean the societies that wrap their women from head to toe?
>
>>Why do so many not have adequate healthcare?
>
>
> What is adequate healthcare? Few aliens have any problems getting free medical care. Few
> minorities have problems getting free medical care. The one's that suffer most from lack of
> medical care are low income white people whom the government and most of all Liberals do not feel
> any pain for.
>
You keep saying that "aliens" get better care than citizens. Please point me to even the most
right-wing website out there that has any so-called proof of that favoritism.
> The problem with you Greg is that you are too stupid to think about any of this beyond reading the
> occasional lefty news reports. You don't go down to the local emergency rooms and see them filled
> to overflowing with aliens while low income citizens get nothing.
I've taken my uninsured friends and neighbors to the County ER several times. Nobody was picking
"aliens" over my friends. Tell me, Tom, how do you pick out an alien without asking for their
papers? Do you have some magical powers to discern between legal and illegal? Or is it just the
color of their skin and/or ESL?
>
> In France a homeless person lives about two years. In the USA they are fat until they die of the
> effects of their addictions or are carted off to the mental hospitals where you'd argue they
> shouldn't be held against their will.
>
I have never seen a fat homeless person. Do you hallucinate these images of fat homeless people? And
they are no longer carted off to mental hospitals because your hero axed federal contributions to
their budgets LONG ago.
> You WANT to believe that the USA is evil because you want to hate a lot more than you want to know
> the truth.
>
I don't hate anything about the USA except for evil, hate-mongering, racist, sexist ***** like you.
And you call me sick. What a joke.
Greg
--
"Destroy your safe and happy lives before it is too late, the battles we fought were long and hard,
just not to be consumed by rock n' roll..." - The Mekons
The Pomeranian wrote:
>
>
> Mr. Ignorant,
>
> What is "a large sum of money?" I'll give you 100-1, even though I know you would never think of
> paying up.
>
If there was a way to prove the bet, I would make the bet. If I lost the bet, I would pay the bet.
Because I have plenty of integrity, much more than you do hiding behind your fake e-mail address.
> You really are a retard.
> It is nice that you've relieved me of the burden of worrying if there is any truth to the global
> warming claims of a good number of scientists. It is nice that you've relieved me of the burden of
> worrying about any global resources that could be finite in an important way. Since it is not "my
> world," I need not worry at all. I can trade in my 50 mpg car for a SUV. No worries, it isn't "my
> world" and therefore not "my problem." Wars, genocide, who cares as long as it isn't in my
> backyard? After all, it isn't "my world."
>
I apologize, I mistook your "my world" for megalomania considering your self-important prose.
> Knucklehead, my sarcastic comment to Kunich about social security (where I included immigration)
> was a slap in the face to politicians, and nothing else. The record, as I know it, is that
> immigration has always had a net *positive* effect on the economy.
Again I apologize, I had considered the possibility of sarcasm but in the context it sounded like
you were agreeing with Kunich.
> People immigrate here to increase their lot, to become more "wealthy" in quite explicit terms. But
> you would condemn wealth, thus by your logic, you are a racist because you don't want those poor
> people to rise up and prosper. You are apparently against immigration because you don't like the
> idea of increasing wealth.
>
Nice circular logic. You clearly know I'm not anti-immigratory, nor am I anti-prosperity.
> You are dispicable and hateful.
>
>
> I take you seriously only to the extent you are the archetypical asshole slobbering out the same
> old political tripe that an 8 yo could mindlessly recite.
>
> I generally appreciate the opinions of people with Ph.D.'s in Economics more than I do resident
> rbr retards. But that's just me being me.
>
You've exceeded your quota for put-downs in a single post, especially considering how it was
slightly informative. I guess I'll remain ignorant and a retard as I sure am not going to continue
reading your posts on politics and economics, as informative as they may be. And I was starting to
think you were less of a troll than Troll Kunich.
Greg
--
"Destroy your safe and happy lives before it is too late, the battles we fought were long and hard,
just not to be consumed by rock n' roll..." - The Mekons
G.T. wrote:
>
> The Pomeranian wrote:
> I have yet to see you provide any examples of where you think government intervention is ok. Here
> in r.b.r. or in the Campag=Mac thread on r.b.t.
So it is all based on your assumptions. Assumptions seem to go a long way on the usenet.
Here's an example of the goverment getting involved in business: The Bush administration pushes
legislation that forces CA to use ethanol in its gasoline formulations to lower pollution. But the
refineries say they can meet the same pollution standards without ethanol and that ethanol will
raise the cost of gas for CA consumers. Isn't this really an election 2k payback that simply
transfers wealth from CA (who didn't give electoral votes to Bush) to the midwest, who did give
electoral votes to Bush? And think of all the corn that could have been eaten by poor people.
Instead, it is used to fuel SUVs stopped in traffic jams in LA. So is government involvement is
business some sort of holy divining that can never be questioned? Would you like more examples?
I never said the goverment can't play a role. The manner of _beginning_ to think about it is
outlined [1], [2], [3].
> > If you don't like the marketplace's way of allocating scarce resources,
>
> Which resources are scarce here in the USA? Food? Water? Housing? Heating oil? Do you mean scarce
> or finite?
You are willfully ignorant. If something doesn't have some measure of scareness, then it will be
free because why would somebody pay someone else for something they can get themselves for free?
What does the field of study called "Economics" actually study? Would you pay for a Pet Rock? Those
who pay for that which is not scarce are fools.
> > then tell us who should decide
> >
> > 1. What goods are to be produced?
> > 2. How will they be produced?
> > 3. Who will do what jobs?
> > 4. For whom will the products be produced?
> >
> > Answer the questions.
> >
>
> As far as those questions are concerned production doesn't seem to be the problem here in our
> country right now except for #2 and how production of goods effects the environment. #2 is the
> only place I think someone needs to keep an eye on things.
So in principle you don't object the market system as a method of producing and distributing scarce
resources. What is your complaint about me accepting it if you accept it yourself?
> And as long as someone keeps an eye that the racists and sexists of the country are hiring and
> promoting a proportionate amount of minorities and women the rest of #3 should be left up to
> producers.
How is the crowd in left field?
> >>Why do we have so many able-minded and able-bodied homeless?
> >
> >
> > You tell me: How many and why?
>
> Estimates made over the last 5 years are between 2 and 7 million. Why? Some are mentally ill, some
> prefer to be homeless, some have been very unlucky, some are even employed but can't afford
> housing within a 2 hours commute of their employmer.
>
> > What should we do about it and how will it affect the aggregate wealth of our nation?
> >
>
> The first part is a good question. It's hard to balance the need for everyone making a living wage
> and keeping unemployment low.
Wow. You seem to realize it is a tough problem and that it does end up coming down to a judgement
call. How encouraging. Hey, how can someone live and not be receiving a living wage? Isn't that a
contradiction in terms?
> The second part of your question is offensive. Is the aggregate wealth of our country more
> important than those 2 million homeless? We sacrifice 1% of our citizens?
GU. Ignorant, more aggregate wealth means it is easier for a society to help the less fortunate.
Everyone except for fools know that "wealth" is not a zero-sum game. Maybe you should compare
the poor of say, Haiti, with that of the poor in the US. Maybe you should compare the US poor of
today with the US poor in 1880. In general, increasing a societies wealth helps the poor. You
and I might not like it if it happens to help the rich even more, but you can't deny the basic
fact that the situation of the poor generally improves along with a societies increasing
aggregate wealth.
It also appears that societies get more egalitarian as wealth increases. See _Socialism and Equality
in Cross-National Perspective_, Poltical Science and Politics (Thomas Dye & Harmon Ziegler, Winter
1988). So why do you like being poor? Why do *want* your neighbors to be poor? What could possibly
be in it for you?
In exception to the above, there is evidence of some increasing income disparity in the US in the
roughly the last 15 years. Various things have been speculated but very liberal economist Paul
Krugman says that nobody really knows for sure why. In the epilogue to Krugman's book _Peddling
Prosperity_, he states the following:
What Should Be Done?
America has two great economic problems, slow growth in pro- ductivity, and rising poverty
which is the consequence both of inadequate productivity groxvth and of increasing income
inequal- ity. Everything else is either of secondary importance or a non- issue. For
example, the budget deficit matters only to the extent that it is a drag on our
productivity growth; we saw in Chapter 6 that this drag is significant but not
overwhelming. America’s al- leged problem of international competitiveness is almost com-
pletely a non-issue. So the big question is: How should the U.S. government set about
solving these two great problems? And the answer is straightforward: It shouldn’t, That is,
it is a mistake for the U.S. government to base its policies on the idea that it can solve
the problems of productivity and poverty in the sense of eliminating them —- raising
productiv- ity growth back to pre-1973 levels and eliminating poverty or reducing it to
insignificance. The reason it is a mistake is the simple fact that nobody knows how to do
either of those things. The roots of inadequate productivity performance are deep and
poorly understood; the causes of growing inequality and poverty hardly less so. If the
President insists on finding advisers willing to claim that they can really solve these
problems, he will inevitably find himself listening to men and women whose certainty is
based on ignorance. While the government cannot promise to solve the nation’s problems,
however it can do many things that can help diminish them.
If you care about population growth, and the strain on global resources that some say our growing
world population will result in, then you should care about prosperity (wealth). The population
growth rate is correlated with the prosperity of a nation and particularly the economic, political,
and reproductive freedom of women. So prosperity will in the long run inhibit population growth and
the correlated strain on the environment. If you don't give a **** about the environment, then you
can be happy to damn increasing prosperity (wealth).
If you don't ever have a dream of one thing better for yourself, or your children, then you can
easily damn increasing prosperity (wealth). If you want to increase your assets (wealth) so that
your life is a little better and so you can help your fellow humans (in need) a little better, then
you are pro-prosperity (wealth). I never trust people that say they are anti-prosperity. I think
they are liars. But worse, they are just plain old assholes. So by implication, you are an asshole.
You would hurt people if you could.
Only a complete and utter fool would think "wealth" is a dirty word.
> >>Why do we have so many families living under the poverty level?
> >
> > You tell me: How many, and what does "poverty level" mean and does it change through time in a
> > given society/nation?
>
> Federal guidelines: http://aspe.hhs.gov/poverty/02poverty.htm
>
> How many: "Using CPS data, the National Center for Children in Poverty at Columbia University has
> published statistics on the rate of poverty among very young children. The center estimates that
> between 1979 and 1993, the number of children under age six living in poverty in the United States
> grew from 3.5 million to 6.4 million (26.2 percent of all children under 6 in 1993). In 2001, the
> number was 4 million (a poverty rate of 18.2 percent)".
>
> So in one of our best recent years 4 million children live in families that make less than $18,000
> per year. That's counting just the children, not the parents.
It isn't surprising that the ranks of the poor grew then because we had a recession in 1992. So you
should care about the economy. If a strong economy doesn't mean increasing prosperity, or at least
sustained prosperity, what does it mean? Why are you so anti-prosperity (wealth).
> >>Why do so many not have adequate healthcare?
> >
> > Because the current methodology is outmoded.
> >
> >>Because our market's aren't free enough?
> >
> > You tell me the how's and why's, since that is your claim.
>
> That's not my claim. It's what I've understood to be your claim.
You "understood" what you wanted to understand. All I said is that I don't want doctors and nurses
to be defacto bureaucrats. In my opinion, the health care industry needs to learn how to serve their
customers (sick people) more efficiently. The entire industry must do so because the costs are
getting too high.
I do not trust a government bureaucracy to shake some efficiency into
GV. That doesn't mean I think the government should not and cannot fill a role in insuring and
promoting quality care for a much broader base of the citizenry. In fact, I think it is
probably necessary. The question is how to do it without bankrupting ourselves.
If you'd like to see an idea, get your stupid ass to the library: The Radical Center: The Future of
American Politics by Ted Halstead, Michael Lind Paperback: 288 pages ; Dimensions (in inches): 0.64
x 8.10 x 5.16 Publisher: Anchor Books; ISBN: 0385720297; (November 12, 2002)
Read pp63-72 for ideas about health care.
> > Then provide a solution that hasn't already been tried and failed miserably. What should we do
> > about it and how will it affect the aggregate wealth of our nation?
> >
>
> Well, having worked 7 years for the health insurance industry I do know one thing that needs to be
> addressed and that is price gouging by hospitals and providers. $250 for two unused Tylenol is
> absurd. I worked for a managed care operation, Prucare of California, and at one time I paid
> claims during my management training rotation so these are things that I saw with my own two eyes,
> there not anecdotes from some website.
>
> Two things that I learned while working there are that IPA and medical group based HMOs are
> definitely not the way to go, and that patient care should absolutely not be regulated by an
> administrative organization.
>
> >
> >>A free market doesn't care about those that can't participate in the market in the first place.
> >
> >
> > Who in the US does not purchase goods in one marketplace or the other?
>
> Those that I'm talking about above, the ones with no money.
Oh, that's brilliant. Then just think about the money we can save by not distributing food stamps to
the poor. After all, if you can't spend them in the marketplace, then why have them at all?
>From p167 of Sowell's _Basic Econonmics_
By 1994, for example, most American households living below the official poverty line had
a microwave oven and a videocassette recorder, things that less than one percent of all
American house- holds had in 1971. For the population at large, homes were much bigger,
automobiles were much better, and more people were connected to the Internet at the end
of the century than were con- nected to a water supply at the beginning of the century.
This was clearly not a zero-sum game, in which what some won was lost by others.
Where did they get those microwave ovens and videocassette players? Do the poor in Haiti have such
things, and if they did, what would they plug the electrical cord in to? Or maybe the stuff isn't
scarce, they just picked them in the fields for free. I wish microwave ovens and videocassette
players grew in the fields around my neck of the woods. Personally, I think they are expensive and
am encouraged that the poor have a few things that improve their lives. I don't think you care.
> >>And, yes, I understand the problem with unlimited or even much inelastic demand.
> >
> >
> > I don't believe you. Explain.
>
> It's basically where demand isn't influenced by price. Price can drop or increase and there will
> be very little change in demand.
>
> > What should be done about it?
>
> In the case of skyrocketing prices for an item with inelastic demand? Revolutions have been fought
> for less reason.
So "get out our guns" and start shooting is the solution?
> > Answer the above first. Tell what the projected costs of entitlements (SS for example) are going
> > to be in the next 50 years. Put numbers on
> > it. How will the bill be paid and what fraction of the GDP will it consume.
>
> I don't disagree with you about the projected costs of entitlements.
>
> > Now do the same for a universal single payer health care plan. Don't mess around. Put numbers on
> > it and tell how much of the GDP it will likely chew up.
>
> Depends on how it is funded. It's besides the point anyway, I don't know if a universal single
> payer plan is the way to go. I do know with health costs increasing far more rapidly than the
> current rate of inflation (my monthly premiums went from $242 to $255, that's only 5% but my
> benefits dropped considerably), and approximately 44 million uninsured citizens something clearly
> has to be done.
What do you know, we agree on something. Except it really is right on the point. You better care if
you care about yourself and your poor neighbor.
> > I don't believe you care about anybody but yourself.
>
> That is entirely not true. I'd be willing to bet a large sum of money that I consider solutions to
> the above problems more often than you.
What is "a large sum of money?" I'll give you 100-1, even though I know you would never think of
paying up.
> And I KNOW I do more than TK.
Why are you comparing yourself to TK if you don't respect him?
> > It is because I care about all people, and my country, and my world, and the people that will
> > inherit it, that I am frustrated with your nonsense.
>
> Your nationalistic, anti-immigratory, borderline racist stance suggests otherwise, particularly
> the "my world" part.
You really are a retard. It is nice that you've relieved me of the burden of worrying if there is
any truth to the global warming claims of a good number of scientists. It is nice that you've
relieved me of the burden of worrying about any global resources that could be finite in an
important way. Since it is not "my world," I need not worry at all. I can trade in my 50 mpg car for
a SUV. No worries, it isn't "my world" and therefore not "my problem." Wars, genocide, who cares as
long as it isn't in my backyard? After all, it isn't "my world."
Knucklehead, my sarcastic comment to Kunich about social security (where I included immigration) was
a slap in the face to politicians, and nothing else. The record, as I know it, is that immigration
has always had a net *positive* effect on the economy. "Right wing" personalities such as Pat
Buchanan, say the *opposite*. So my sarcastic comment was semi-serious in that politicians might get
the idea that high immigration rates could actually be used as a way to keep SS afloat. I don't even
know if it is true, but in any case it has nothing to do with my stance on immigration. In fact, I
don't even claim to know much about it. I _don't know_ what the immigration rates "should be," and
made no such comment on the matter, so how could it ever be construed as "borderline racist?" I
never said anything specific about immigration, you just want to be a hateful asshole, and you
succeed in that.
People immigrate here to increase their lot, to become more "wealthy" in quite explicit terms. But
you would condemn wealth, thus by your logic, you are a racist because you don't want those poor
people to rise up and prosper. You are apparently against immigration because you don't like the
idea of increasing wealth.
You are dispicable and hateful.
> > If you cared you would at least make a casual attempt at throwing off the veil of destructive
> > ignorance.
> >
>
> That's some good rhetoric. I am. I think you've taken some of what I've said in the past a little
> too seriously.
I take you seriously only to the extent you are the archetypical asshole slobbering out the same old
political tripe that an 8 yo could mindlessly recite.
> > So answer my questions and don't ignore this one: "...where did I say anyone should be ignored?"
>
> Well, you don't have to explicitly state it. You've made it clear in previous posts and this post
> that the good of the majority is more important than the misery of the few.
Well you'll need to be explicit to make your case that I said something I never came close to
saying. Lay it on the line.
> Is the misery of 1% to 2%, possibly more, of our nation's population acceptable?
Stop blathering in broad undefinable platitudes that are only intended to polarize. Liberal
economist Krugman doesn't have a "solution," and he might win a Nobel Prize some day. So if he can't
do it, I assume you can't either. You could care less about poor people. You care about your sacred
ideas and nothing else. Shut the **** up and read a book for a change.
I generally appreciate the opinions of people with Ph.D.'s in Economics more than I do resident rbr
retards. But that's just me being me.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I'm not fixing OCR errors. You'll need to get your foolish brain to the library if you
don't like it.
[1]_ECONOMICS_, Seventh Edition EDWIN G. DOLAN, President, American Institute of Business and
Economics, Moscow and Visiting Professor, Gettysburg College DAVID E. LINDSEY Deputy Director,
Division of Research and Statistics Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System THE DRYDEN
PRESS, HARCOURT BRACE COLLEGE PUBLISHERS Fort Worth Philadelphia San Diego New York Orlando
Austin San Antonio Toronto Montreal London Sythyy Tokyo Copyright © 1994, 1991, 1988, 1986, 1983,
1980, 1977 by The Dryden Press ISBN 0-03-096501-2
2.3 THE ECONOMIC ROLE OF GOVERNMENT
Although markets play an enormous role in answering the key questions of who, what, how,
and for whom, not all economic decisions are made in markets. As Chapter 1 pointed out,
some important economic decisions are made in hierarchies. Allocation of resources within a
business firm is one example of hierarchical decision making. Chapter 27 will focus on
those decisions. Here we are concerned with the role of government, the other major example
of hierarchy in economics. If we want to understand the rnicroecouomic role of government,
a good place to begin is by asking, ‘Why does government play any role in the economy at
all? Why, that is, cannot all decisions he made by households and private firms
coordinating their ac- tions through markets? Economists offer two answers, one based on
the notion of mar- ket failure, the other on that of rent seeking. The answers are partly
contradictory and partly complementary. Each will figure prominently in cotning chapters,
and each de- serves a brief preview here.
THE MARKET FAILURE THEORY OF GOVERNMENT
According to the market failure theory of government, the principal economic role of
government is to step in where markets fail to allocate rcst)Lirces efficiently and fairly.
Each type of market failure calls for a particular type of governmental intervention. Take
the case of pollution. Earlier we gave the example of a utility whose contribu- tion to air
pollution caused $02 worth of damage for every kilowatt hour of electricity.. Government
can do a number of things to correct the resulting marker failtire, for exam- ple, it can
require the utility to install pollution control equipment that will prevent poi- sonous
gas from escaping into the atmosphere. Various approaches to pollution control will he
examined in Chapter 32. When markets fail to supply public goods, government also is called
in. Often, as In the case of national defense, the government simply becomes the producer
of the public good. In other cases, such as education, which sonic economists consider to
be in part a public good, the government need not be the sole producer. Private schools and
colleges are encouraged with subsidies and tax benefits to add to the supply 0f education
pco- duced by public insritutions. Governmenr has attempred to remedy market failures
arising from insufficient conl- petition in a variety of ways. In some cases government
uses antitrust laws to preserve competition by preventing mergers of competing firms, or
even by breaking large firms up into a number of smaller ones. In other cases, such as the
electric power industry, reg- ulation is used to control prices charged by a monopoly firm.
In a few cases, such as the Tennessee Valley Authority’s electric power facilities, the
government itself may become a monopoly producer of a good or service. Antitrust and
regulation policies will be dis- cussed in Chapter 31.
THE PUBLIC CHOICE THEORY OF GOVERNMENT
The marker failure theory of government is sometimes criticized for being more of a the-
ory about what the government ought to do than about what it actually does. The prob- lem,
say the critics, is that too many government programs, rather than correcting mar- ket
failures, seem to promote inefficiency or ineqtiality in markets that would function well
without government intervention. Price supports for milk, discussed in Chapter 2, are an
example. That program holds the price of milk above its equilibrium level, thus causing
persistent surpluses. That is hardly efficient.Further, although some benefits go to
farmers who are in financial difficulty, rhus serving the goal of fairness, many 0f the
subsidies go to farmers who are financially well off Critics of the market failure theory
maintain that government policies should be un- derstood nor in terms of broad social goals
like efficiency and fairness hut in terms of how people use the institutions of government
to pursue their own self-interest. This ap- proach to policy analysis is known as public
choice theory. Chapter 30 will look at public choice theory in detail, but it will be
worthwhile to preview some of its basic con- cepts here.
RENTS AND RENT SEEKING. One of the key concepts of public choice rue- ory is economic rent
In everyday language, a rent is simply a payment made for the use of something, say, an
apartment or a car. Public choice theorists use the term in a more spe- cialized sense,
however. An economic rent is any payment to a factor of production in excess of its
opportunity cost. An example is the huge income a popular author like Susan Howatch or ****
Francis earns from a new novel—an income much higher than the author could earn using the
same time in any other line of work. When rents are earned through competition in markets,
they are called pure eco- nomic profits. Entrepreneurs are always on the look for earning
such profits, for example, by introducing a new product superior to that of rival firms, or
by being the first to im- plement a cost-saving production method. When they are
successful, the income they earn may be substantially higher than what others ate able to
earn by employing similar factors of production in less imaginative ways. Chapters 21
through 26 will explore this aspect of market activity at length. Pure economic profit that
entrepreneurs earn through private market activity is not the only category of economic
rents, however. Firms, workers, and resource owners often turn to government in search of
rents, rather than trying to outwit their rivals in the marketplace. A dollar earned
through a government program that raises the price a which a firm sells its output or
lowers the prices at which it buys its inputs is worth just as much as a dollar of profit
earned through purely private efforts at innovation. In some cases it may even be better.
Profits earned from innovation in a competitive market may be short lived, because rivals
will soon come out with an even better product or intro- duce an even cheaper production
method. However, government regulations can not only create opportunities to earn rents but
also shield those opportunities from competi- tors. Obtaining and defending rents through
government action is known as political rent seeking, or often simply as rent seeking, with
the political aspect implied.4 Consider the case of milk price supports, which, as we saw
earlier, are hard to ex- plain in terms of the market failure theory of government. Public
choice theorists see this policy as a classic case of political rent seeking. Because a
large portion of the benefits of price supports go to farmers who are not in trouble,
broad-ranging programs generating rents for all farmers will draw much wider political
support than programs more nar- rowly targeted only on needy farmers. Without the political
support of the relatively prosperous farmers who draw the bulk of the subsidies, say public
choice theorists, pro- grams for farmers in trouble would not get the votes they need in
Congress. Government restrictions on competition are another way of generating rents. For
example, tariffs and import quotas on clothing, cars, sugar, steel, and other products
shield domestic firms and their employees from foreign competition. The firms thus are able
to earn rents by raising prices above the competitive market level, and the employees are
able to earn rents in the form of higher wages. Examples of government restrictions on
competition can be found within the domestic economy as well. For example, licens- ing fees
and examinations restrict the number of competitors who can enter such profes- sions as law
and medicine and often even such occupations as manicuring and hair styling.
FROM THE LAW OF UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES TO GOVERN- MENT FAILURE. The notion that government
policies do not always promote efficiency and equity is not new. Economists have long bee
aware of the law of unin- tended consequences—the tendency of government policies to have
effects other than those desired by their proponents. But public choice theory goes beyond
the notion of unintended consequences, which could be traced simply to incomplete analysis
on the part of policymakers. Rather, the element of rent seeking in the formulation of
govern- ment policy suggests that there is a systematic tendency for governmenr programs to
cause rather than to cure economic inefficiencies—a tendency, that is, toward govern- ment
failure. In introducing the notion of government failure, public choice theorists do not
In- tend to imply either that government always makes a mess of things or that the market
always functions perfectly; rather, they demonstrate that both the market and govern- ment
are imperfect institutions. In deciding whether a given function is better performed by
government or the market, the possibilities of government failure must be weighed against
those of market failure. Public choice theory and the trade-off between market failure and
government failure will be prominently featured in Chapters 30 to 35.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
[3]Peddling Prosperity: Economic Sense and Nonsense in the Age of Diminished Expectations by Paul
Krugman Hardcover: 303 pages ; Dimensions (in inches): 1.21 x 8.47 x 5.73 Publisher: W.W. Norton
& Company; ISBN: 0393036022; (March 1994)
Epilogue
...
The Role of the Economist
An experienced and therefore cynical government economist once described to me his vision
of his job. It's mostly a matter of getting rid of bad ideas, he explained, but "it's like
flushing **** roaches down a toilet—sooner or later they just come back." The role of the
economist who cares about policy can be dispiriting: one may spend years devising
sophisticated theories or carefully testing ideas against the evidence, then find that
politicians turn again and again to ideas that you thought had been discredited decades or
even centuries ago, or make statements that are flatly contradicted by the facts, It’s
tempting to give up—either to retreat to the ivory tower, or to start to play the policy
entrepreneur game. After all, what is the use of sophisticated policy thinking or careful
examination of the facts if simplistic ideas win every time? One answer is simply that it
would be wrong to give up. If the people with good ideas do not fight for them, they have
no right to complain about the outcome. But good ideas will still often lose to convenient
nonsense. When that happens, every serious economist is ultimately sus- rained by a faith
that the right ideas will eventually prevail. Unlike the simplicities of the policy
entrepreneurs, good thinking about economics is cumulative. A generation from now, the
supply- siders will be of purely historical interest, but the valid insights of serious
conservatives will remain. Strategic trade ‘will be remem- bered as a defunct doctrine, but
the economics of QWERTY will still be a vital part of the intellectual tradition. Or so we
hope. In the long run we are all dead, but one must have faith that good ideas live on.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
[4]Basic Economics: A Citizen's Guide to the Economy by Thomas Sowell Hardcover: 432 pages ;
Dimensions (in inches): 1.20 x 9.50 x 6.46 Publisher: Basic Books; ISBN: 046508138X;
(December 26, 2000)
Chapter 25
An Overview
... If you are prepared to sacrifice prosperity for the sake of sta- bility, so be it. All
economics can do is make you aware of the con- sequences of your choices. It cannot tell
you what your philosophy or your priorities should be, though it can reveal in-
consistencies between goals. Perhaps more than anything else, an understanding of basic
economics can enable us to consider policy issues in terms of the incentives they create
and the consequences that follow, rather than simply the goals they proclaim and how
wonderful it would be to achieve such goals. Both within government and in the pri- vate
sector, individuals and organizations tend to respond to the particular incentives facing
them by trying to promote their own wellbeing. When this adversely affects others, it need
not be due to “bu- reaucratic bungling” within government or to “greed” in the pri- vate
sector. Perfectly rational and decent people tend to respond to the incentives confronting
them. Those incentives may need re- consideration more than the individuals need
denouncing. While critics of various programs often point out “unin- tended consequences”
that did more harm than good, many of these consequences were predictable from the outset
if people had looked at the incentives created, rather than the goals proclaimed. Very
often either history or economics could have told us what to expect but neither was
consulted. It does not matter that a law or policy proclaims its goal to be “affordable
housing,” “fair trade” or “a living wage.” What matters is what incentives are created by
the specifics of these laws and how people react to such incentives. These are dry
empirical questions which are sel- dom as exciting as political crusades or moral
pronouncements. But they are questions which must be asked, if we are truly inter- ested in
the wellbeing of others, rather than in excitement or a sense of moral superiority for
ourselves. As historian Paul John- son has said:
The study of history is a powerful antidote to contemporary ar- rogance. It is humbling
to discover how many of our glib as- sumptions, which seem to us novel and plausible,
have been tested before, not once but many times and in innumerable guises; and
discovered to be, at great human cost, wholly false.
We have seen some of those great human costs—people going hungry in Russia, despite some
of the richest farmland on the continent of Europe, people sleeping on cold sidewalks on
winter nights in Manhattan, despite far more boarded-up housing units than it would take
to shelter them all. A desperate government in eighteenth-century France decreed the
death penalty for anyone who refused to accept the money that the revolutionary leaders
had issued, in ignorance or disregard of economics. After the as- tronomical inflation
in Germany in the 1920s had destroyed mil- lions of families’ life savings, many who
were bitterly disappointed with their traditional leaders and institutions turned
eventually toward someone who had been just a fringe fa- natic before: Adolf Hitler. No
complex or esoteric economic principles would have been required to avoid these and
other human tragedies around the world. But it would have required people to stop and
think, instead of being swept along by emotions, rhetoric or the political pressures of
the moment. For those who are willing to stop and think, basic economics provides the
tools for evaluating policies and proposals in terms of logical implications and
empirical evidence. If this book has contributed to that end, then it has succeeded in
its mission.
On 6 Jan 2003, Tom Kunich wrote:
> So the probability is that I'm going to have to work the rest of my life because the taxes I've
> paid for government pork barrel projects and Liberal "help everyone in the world and even
> discussing the necessity of it means that you are a greedy hateful person" projects have prevented
> me from saving enough of my own money to support myself in my old age.
>
You argue regularly around here with several people who are retired. If they can do it, you should
be able to do it. If you have to work for the rest of your life you have nothing to blame but your
own inability to plan ahead. Hopefuly you won't linger forever so you can stop working sooner.
... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . legatek@mcmaster.ca Kyle Legate legatek@hotmail.com
Tower of Tongues:Thursday PM:10:30-11:30 EDT:http://cfmu.mcmaster.ca moon
musick:ritual:IDM:experimental(electronica):minimalism:glitch
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...
"Tom Kunich" <tkunich@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:<tW1S9.14534$134.1598802@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net>...
> > > > Health care administrative costs (% of health care dollar):
> > > >
> > > > United States (Medicare, Medicaid, HMO's, PPO's, etc.) ........13% Canada (Single payer
> > > > system) ...................................3%
> > > >
> > > > Why?
> > >
> > > Because there is no paperwork to prove claims in Canada while in the USA
> the
> > > claims forms are long and complicated and often are sent back 3 or 4
> times
> > > for further information.
> > >
> > > Canadians with money that require rapid health care come to the USA
> where
> > > our less than perfect system is still superior to a system that would
> often
> > > take longer to get a patient in than his expected lifespan with a
> serious
> > > illness.
> >
> > "With money" gets you anything you want in the U.S., doesn't it?
>
> Sure, it sucks if you don't have money. But you DO understand that in Canada if you have all the
> money in the world you can't get any better medical care than a homeless person?
So you admit even homeless people in Canada get necessary health care.
> While the level of medical care in Canada is very high in some regards, in others it sucks. And
> the average medical care is lower and much slower than in the USA. This is the same experience as
> all other countries with socialized medicine. Canada has always been held up as an example because
> their system seemed to be actually working though closer scrutiny showed that the reason that it
> was working was because of the healthier, younger population with lower numbers of chronically ill
> or severely ill patients.
Maybe it's the magic water they drink?
> > The bottom line for health care is life expectancy in Canada beats the U.S.
>
> The bottom line is that it doesn't
Comparing the effectiveness and quality of health system across borders is a challenging process.
Nevertheless, it is instructive to note that the empirical evidence indicates that Canada's system
is more effective than America's. The World Health Organization (WHO) has devised an index that
measures how efficiently health systems translate expenditures into health. One yardstick they use
is known as the average disability adjusted life expectancy (DALE) of a population, which measures a
population's health rather than strict life expectancy. WHO combines this data with figures on the
amount of choice patients have, the autonomy of health care providers, the equity of health care
distribution and related issues. In 1997, Canada ranked 35th on this index. The U.S. ranked 72nd.
Life expectancy and similar statistics are admittedly crude measurements of the quality of medical
care. Such figures are influenced not only by the quality of health services but by social,
environmental and demographic factors. Nevertheless, Canada consistently outperforms the United
States on such measures. Canadians have the second longest life expectancy of all countries (79
years). The United States ranks 25th at under 77 years.
Canadians have a better chance of living free of disability. Canadians average 70 years of
disability-free life, compared to 68 in the United States.
Infant mortality rates are also frequently used to grade the health of a particular population. Here
the U.S. fares even worse. In countries belonging to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and
Development (OECD), the median infant mortality rate was 5.8 deaths per thousand live births in
1996. The U.S. rate was 7.8, better only than Hungary, Korea, Mexico, Poland and Turkey. Canada's
was 5.6. Maternal mortality rates in the United States were double those in Canada in 1988, with
seven out of every 100,000 dying in Canada compared to 14 in the U.S.
WHO has developed sophisticated criteria to measure the effectiveness of health care services. These
indexes measure a system's level of responsiveness (which includes autonomy, confidentiality, choice
of care providers, quality of basic amenities, etc.); distribution (to all members of society); and
fairness of financial contribution (which reflects inequality in household contributions to their
health care costs). The U.S. scores better than Canada only on the responsiveness index, where it
ranks 1st to Canada's 7th. When all these criteria are combined with basic health measurements, the
WHO ranks Canada 7th, the U.S. 15th.
> and the proof is that all of the major US cities along the borders have entire departments that do
> nothing but service Canadians who come across the border for medical care.
Source, please.
> > There are far more Americans making the trip to Canada for health care services, than vice
> > versa. Prescription drugs comes to mind.
>
> Prescription drugs in Canada can cost 1/3rd what they do in the USA. The reason is that they are
> subsidized by the Canadian Health Care system. The down side of this is that the system is
> EXTREMELY slow to allow newer medicines so most of the prescrition drugs available in Canada are
> several years behind those prescribed in the USA. So by crossing the border you can get cheap
> drugs IF YOU HAPPEN to have a prescription for the drugs that are sold there.
It seems that many Americans fall into this category.
> Please be aware that older drugs are usually outdated because newer drugs are more efficacious or
> have fewer or less serious side effects and this is nothing to poo-poo since large numbers of
> people are made ill or die each year from drug side effects.
Many newer drugs have side effects which are just as bad, or worse, than older drugs. Many 'newer'
drugs are merely combinations of existing drugs, albeit sold at a much higher price.
> > Many Americans find themselves in Medicaid "spend down" mode. After they lose their health
> > insurance, they must improvish themselves before they can get life-saving heath care. Not a
> > pretty picture if you ever have experienced this happen to somebody. This does not happen in
> > Canada.
>
> Yeah, instead they are put in a line and die waiting for medical care.
There is no wait in Canada for emergency care. Ever visit a US hospital and see needy patients
turned away because of lack of insurance? It happens. There are many more Americans who die waiting
for medical care because their insurance company refuses to pay for needed care.
Although you snipped portions of my previous post, my friend had to wait two years and spend $20,000
out of pocket until the insurance company paid her valid claim. Not everybody has $20,000 to pay for
a lawyer, so they give up.
> > For-profit American heath insurance companies are parasites.
I don't see you deny this.
> > Only the .01% of the population who are stockholders or obscenely overpaid executives benefit
> > from the present system. Plus the people who process claims for insurance companies. Their
> > purpose: deny claims. The better they are, the higher their salary. For the 99.99% of Americans
> > who don't own stock in health insurance companies, nor work for health insurance companies,
> > there is no upside.
>
> Last time I looked, 80% of the population was covered by medical insurance. What would lead you to
> believe otherwise?
I'm talking about the extra money Americans pay for administrative expenses. See the table at top of
this post. The extra money for administrative costs is paid for by EVERYBODY who receives health
services in the US.
> I'm sure that there are tons of insurance company employees who would like to deny claims for a
> higher salary but that is a complete fabrication on your part.
Employees who do a good job get incentives and are promoted. For an insurance company, a 'good'
claims examiner is one who errs on the side of denying claims rather than paying claims.
Doctors receive incentives from insurers when they deny needed care.
Doctors receive incentives from insurers to see more patients, and therefore they spend less time
with each patient.
I was once a member of a plan where I didn't even get to see a doctor when I went in for care. I saw
a physicians assistant, and then she told the doctor what my symptoms were, and the doctor wrote a
prescription without ever seeing me!!! Is this what we're coming to in this country?
> My ex-inlaws worked in the insurance industry as does the past president of our cycling club.
Some of my best friends work for insurance companies, too.
> They have a lot of bad things to say about the actions of insurance companies but it all boils
> down to slowing payments not throwing them out.
Are you saying insurance companies never deny claims for needed medical care?
> I'm sure that you'll scream about the 20% who aren't covered
It's nothing to brag about.
> but if you look it up you'll find that that group is very high in healthy young men who OPT to
> have no insurance and save the money.
Most of the healthy young men I know have jobs which include health insurance benefits.
> Also in that group are people that are between jobs and people who are under government programs
> and don't need other insurance.
This is pure fantasy. The majority of people without health insurance in the US are:
1) The long term unemployed who have too many assets to be eligible for Medicaid,
2) The working poor who receive no benefits but make too much money (sometimes they work two minimum
wage jobs, sometimes three) to be covered by Medicaid. This includes many former welfare mothers
AND THEIR CHILDREN.
Again, the number one cause of bankruptcy in the United States is unexpected medical bills. Do you
like people going bankrupt?
Also, the number of uninsured in the US is growing.
> Also there are people that need insurance and don't have it. There are people in Canada dying
> without health care because there is none available in their areas.
The same can be said of Americans living in remote areas.
"Tom Kunich" <tkunich@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:<zFtS9.18158$134.1932657@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net>...
> The United States has a far greater proportion of its population obese or worse. It has a far
> greater cultural and ethnic diversity.
And it has a far greater number of consumers who are denied care either because they have no
insurance or because the insurance they do have does not pay for the health care that they need.
> All of these make tremendous differences in the average health of the population. To pretend that
> it is not so as you are doing is simple propaganda. The small statistical difference in the
> average age and health of the populations by any measure shows that the basic factors in a long
> and healthy life and lack of stress
The current way the American health care is financed is in itself stressful, with the ultimate fear:
will something happen to make me lose my insurance? It could be a pink slip from an employer, a
letter from an insurance company canceling one's policy, a denial of a legitimate claim, exceeding
the lifetime maximum for a condition, or even "claims forms are long and complicated and often are
sent back 3 or 4 times for further information."
> healthy exercise and good nutrician starting at birth.
>
> The Canadian health care system is the only socilaized medicine
Isn't Medicare socialized medicine? Isn't Medicaid socialized medicine? Isn't care for Veterans
socialized medicine? Isn't CHIP socialized medicine? We already have socialized medicine, but not
for everybody. Instead we have another costly, duplicate health financing mechanism called 'private
insurance.'
> group in the world that has gotten even close to its promise and most of those in the government
> who have to deal with it know that it is about to be in trouble.
While rising health care costs occur no matter how health care is financed, some of the troubles of
the American system are:
1. The number of uninsured in America is 40 million and rising,
2. Americans with private health insurance are finding reduced benefits, rising deductibles, rising
copayments, longer eligibility waiting periods, and longer waits to be approved by insurance
company bureaucrats for medically necessary care,
3. Americans can no longer choose their own doctors because HMOs limit selection,
4. Medical bills are the number one cause of personal bankruptcy filings,
5. Doctors are spending more and more of their time filling out paperwork instead of providing
health care.
> The pretense that this isn't so cannot hide the financial problems that are beginning to be
> well known.
The same can be said of the American system.
> I don't know what you think you can accomplish by advocating a system based on worldwide failures
> and one temporary success, but it isn't going to fly in the United States regardless of what the
> Liberals are pressing.
You have failed to convince anybody that the Canadian system is a failure.
> The citizenry are waking up from a long hypnotic nap when they were under the impression that they
> could have everything forever and no one would ever have to pay for it.
I'm not saying Single-Payer makes health care free. I'm saying that the total cost for Single-Payer
is lower than our present crazy-quilt system of financing health care.
> Now they are looking at their bank accounts, their income and their taxes and they are beginning
> to be afraid and to see just what the Liberals have done to them and this country.
Vague scare tactics add nothing to the debate.
Another American health care horror story: 28 year old male HMO member goes to hospital emergency
room with chest pains. Doctors send him home without doing standard (and inexpensive) heart test!
Patient dies two days later of a heart attack. Hospital pays out multi-million dollar settlement to
patients' estate. Medical malpractice insurance rates rise again. Why did the hospital omit the
test? Was there any incentive to cut down on 'unnecessary testing' by the HMO? One thing is certain:
this would not have happened in Canada.
> "tokugawa" <truth_seeker227@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:fb0ae2f1.0301060747.3e327c61@posting.google.com...
> > "Tom Kunich" <tkunich@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:<tW1S9.14534$134.1598802@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net>...
> >
> > > > > > Health care administrative costs (% of health care dollar):
> > > > > >
> > > > > > United States (Medicare, Medicaid, HMO's, PPO's, etc.) ........13% Canada (Single payer
> > > > > > system) ...................................3%
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Why?
> > > > >
> > > > > Because there is no paperwork to prove claims in Canada while in the
> USA the
> > > > > claims forms are long and complicated and often are sent back 3 or 4
> times
> > > > > for further information.
> > > > >
> > > > > Canadians with money that require rapid health care come to the USA
> where
> > > > > our less than perfect system is still superior to a system that
> would often
> > > > > take longer to get a patient in than his expected lifespan with a
> serious
> > > > > illness.
> > > >
> > > > "With money" gets you anything you want in the U.S., doesn't it?
> > >
> > > Sure, it sucks if you don't have money. But you DO understand that in
> Canada
> > > if you have all the money in the world you can't get any better medical
> care
> > > than a homeless person?
> >
> > So you admit even homeless people in Canada get necessary health care.
> >
> > > While the level of medical care in Canada is very high in some regards, in others it sucks.
> > > And the average medical care is lower and much slower than in the USA. This is the same
> > > experience as all other countries with socialized medicine. Canada has always been held up
> as
> > > an example because their system seemed to be actually working though
> closer
> > > scrutiny showed that the reason that it was working was because of the healthier, younger
> > > population with lower numbers of chronically ill or severely ill patients.
> >
> > Maybe it's the magic water they drink?
> >
> > > > The bottom line for health care is life expectancy in Canada beats the U.S.
> > >
> > > The bottom line is that it doesn't
> >
> > Comparing the effectiveness and quality of health system across borders is a challenging
> > process. Nevertheless, it is instructive to note that the empirical evidence indicates that
> > Canada's system is more effective than America's. The World Health Organization (WHO) has
> > devised an index that measures how efficiently health systems translate expenditures into
> > health. One yardstick they use is known as the average disability adjusted life expectancy
> > (DALE) of a population, which measures a population's health rather than strict life expectancy.
> > WHO combines this data with figures on the amount of choice patients have, the autonomy of
> > health care providers, the equity of health care distribution and related issues. In 1997,
> > Canada ranked 35th on this index. The U.S. ranked 72nd.
> >
> > Life expectancy and similar statistics are admittedly crude measurements of the quality of
> > medical care. Such figures are influenced not only by the quality of health services but by
> > social, environmental and demographic factors. Nevertheless, Canada consistently outperforms the
> > United States on such measures. Canadians have the second longest life expectancy of all
> > countries (79 years). The United States ranks 25th at under 77 years.
> >
> > Canadians have a better chance of living free of disability. Canadians average 70 years of
> > disability-free life, compared to 68 in the United States.
> >
> > Infant mortality rates are also frequently used to grade the health of a particular population.
> > Here the U.S. fares even worse. In countries belonging to the Organization for Economic
> > Cooperation and Development (OECD), the median infant mortality rate was 5.8 deaths per thousand
> > live births in 1996. The U.S. rate was 7.8, better only than Hungary, Korea, Mexico, Poland and
> > Turkey. Canada's was 5.6. Maternal mortality rates in the United States were double those in
> > Canada in 1988, with seven out of every 100,000 dying in Canada compared to 14 in the U.S.
> >
> > WHO has developed sophisticated criteria to measure the effectiveness of health care services.
> > These indexes measure a system's level of responsiveness (which includes autonomy,
> > confidentiality, choice of care providers, quality of basic amenities, etc.); distribution (to
> > all members of society); and fairness of financial contribution (which reflects inequality in
> > household contributions to their health care costs). The U.S. scores better than Canada only on
> > the responsiveness index, where it ranks 1st to Canada's 7th. When all these criteria are
> > combined with basic health measurements, the WHO ranks Canada 7th, the U.S. 15th.
> >
> > > and the proof is that all of the major US cities along the borders have entire departments
> > > that do nothing but
> service
> > > Canadians who come across the border for medical care.
> >
> > Source, please.
> >
> > > > There are far more Americans making the trip to Canada for health care services, than vice
> > > > versa. Prescription drugs comes to mind.
> > >
> > > Prescription drugs in Canada can cost 1/3rd what they do in the USA. The reason is that they
> > > are subsidized by the Canadian Health Care system.
> The
> > > down side of this is that the system is EXTREMELY slow to allow newer medicines so most of the
> > > prescrition drugs available in Canada are
> several
> > > years behind those prescribed in the USA. So by crossing the border you
> can
> > > get cheap drugs IF YOU HAPPEN to have a prescription for the drugs that
> are
> > > sold there.
> >
> > It seems that many Americans fall into this category.
> >
> > > Please be aware that older drugs are usually outdated because newer
> drugs
> > > are more efficacious or have fewer or less serious side effects and this
> is
> > > nothing to poo-poo since large numbers of people are made ill or die
> each
> > > year from drug side effects.
> >
> > Many newer drugs have side effects which are just as bad, or worse, than older drugs. Many
> > 'newer' drugs are merely combinations of existing drugs, albeit sold at a much higher price.
> >
> > > > Many Americans find themselves in Medicaid "spend down" mode. After they lose their health
> > > > insurance, they must improvish themselves before they can get life-saving heath care. Not a
> > > > pretty picture if you ever have experienced this happen to somebody. This does not happen in
> > > > Canada.
> > >
> > > Yeah, instead they are put in a line and die waiting for medical care.
> >
> > There is no wait in Canada for emergency care. Ever visit a US hospital and see needy patients
> > turned away because of lack of insurance? It happens. There are many more Americans who die
> > waiting for medical care because their insurance company refuses to pay for needed care.
> >
> > Although you snipped portions of my previous post, my friend had to wait two years and spend
> > $20,000 out of pocket until the insurance company paid her valid claim. Not everybody has
> > $20,000 to pay for a lawyer, so they give up.
> >
> > > > For-profit American heath insurance companies are parasites.
> >
> > I don't see you deny this.
> >
> > > > Only the .01% of the population who are stockholders or obscenely overpaid executives
> > > > benefit from the present system. Plus the people who process claims for insurance companies.
> > > > Their purpose: deny claims. The better they are, the higher their salary. For the 99.99% of
> > > > Americans who don't own stock in health insurance companies, nor work for health insurance
> > > > companies, there is no upside.
> > >
> > > Last time I looked, 80% of the population was covered by medical
> insurance.
> > > What would lead you to believe otherwise?
> >
> > I'm talking about the extra money Americans pay for administrative expenses. See the table at
> > top of this post. The extra money for administrative costs is paid for by EVERYBODY who receives
> > health services in the US.
> >
> > > I'm sure that there are tons of insurance company employees who would like to deny claims for
> > > a higher salary but that is a complete fabrication on your part.
> >
> > Employees who do a good job get incentives and are promoted. For an insurance company, a 'good'
> > claims examiner is one who errs on the side of denying claims rather than paying claims.
> >
> > Doctors receive incentives from insurers when they deny needed care.
> >
> > Doctors receive incentives from insurers to see more patients, and therefore they spend less
> > time with each patient.
> >
> > I was once a member of a plan where I didn't even get to see a doctor when I went in for care. I
> > saw a physicians assistant, and then she told the doctor what my symptoms were, and the doctor
> > wrote a prescription without ever seeing me!!! Is this what we're coming to in this country?
> >
> > > My ex-inlaws worked in the insurance industry as does the past president of our cycling
> club.
> >
> > Some of my best friends work for insurance companies, too.
> >
> > > They have a lot of bad things to say about the actions of insurance companies but it all boils
> > > down to slowing payments not throwing them
> out.
> >
> > Are you saying insurance companies never deny claims for needed medical care?
> >
> > > I'm sure that you'll scream about the 20% who aren't covered
> >
> > It's nothing to brag about.
> >
> > > but if you look it up you'll find that that group is very high in healthy young men who
> OPT
> > > to have no insurance and save the money.
> >
> > Most of the healthy young men I know have jobs which include health insurance benefits.
> >
> > > Also in that group are people that are between jobs and people who are under government
> > > programs and don't
> need
> > > other insurance.
> >
> > This is pure fantasy. The majority of people without health insurance in the US are:
> >
> > 1) The long term unemployed who have too many assets to be eligible for Medicaid,
> >
> > 2) The working poor who receive no benefits but make too much money (sometimes they work two
> > minimum wage jobs, sometimes three) to be covered by Medicaid. This includes many former
> > welfare mothers AND THEIR CHILDREN.
> >
> > Again, the number one cause of bankruptcy in the United States is unexpected medical bills. Do
> > you like people going bankrupt?
> >
> > Also, the number of uninsured in the US is growing.
> >
> > > Also there are people that need insurance and don't have it. There are people in Canada dying
> > > without health care because there is none
> available
> > > in their areas.
> >
> > The same can be said of Americans living in remote areas.
"G.T." <ethan_t@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:<b66S9.465$xs7.15649040@newssvr15.news.prodigy.com>...
> The Pomeranian wrote:
>
> > Knucklehead, my sarcastic comment to Kunich about social security (where I included immigration)
> > was a slap in the face to politicians, and nothing else. The record, as I know it, is that
> > immigration has always had a net *positive* effect on the economy.
>
> Again I apologize, I had considered the possibility of sarcasm but in the context it sounded like
> you were agreeing with Kunich.
Just so we're on the same page. Both of you seem to be pretty much anti-wealthy so let's describe
what "wealthy" is in the USA.
The top 10% of the income earners in the USA pay 45% of all of the income taxes and a
disproportionately large portion of all other taxes. (Data available from the IRS.)
That top 10% has a combined income from all income sources in the household starting just under
$89,000. That means that a programmer friend of mine in Missouri can't buy a house but is classified
as rich. That means that two married grade school teachers just about anywhere in California (or
most of the nations for that matter) are "rich".
That means that all of the Democrats and other liberals who are trying to screw over the rich are
really trying to screw over an east coast fireman and his daycare worker wife.
While screeching about helping people the Liberal revolution has run my taxes up to half of
everything I make. It seems to me highly unlikely that I should be able to rely on people like Rob
Palachick, Joe Cipale, Andrew Albright and the rest of this self-centered egotistical mob to
continue to pay my social security after I retire. When there are more people retired than working
exactly what do you think the working people are going to demand from their lawmakers? Do you think
that these workers are going to appreciate paying a dollar in taxes for every $1.50 they make in
order to pay for my social security and hopefully their's? I have my doubts.
So the probability is that I'm going to have to work the rest of my life because the taxes I've paid
for government pork barrel projects and Liberal "help everyone in the world and even discussing the
necessity of it means that you are a greedy hateful person" projects have prevented me from saving
enough of my own money to support myself in my old age.
Keep up the class warfare Paterson, GT and the Liberal left. But you are the one's that will suffer
the most when you find that there aren't enough workers to pay for all of your living standard after
you want to retire. And if they allow the immigrants into this country to provide an additional
workforce, they will pave over all of the countryside which you were so environmentally concious of
previously and chances are that such a large percentage of immigrants will not share the American
dream at all and you will become nothing but useless unwanted garbage in the way of their new
manifest destiny.
The Liberals wanted to change the face of America and it never occurred to them that America was a
shining example of everything that couldn't be found anywhere else in the world from the beginning.
They were going to improve it by bringing in all of the people from elsewhere that didn't share the
American ideals. Now they have them - let's see them provide the Liberals with everything they want.
The Pomeranian <liftingleg@smellslikeakennel.com> wrote in message
news:<3E19CEB5.96440C28@smellslikeakennel.com>...
> Tom Kunich wrote:
> >
> > "G.T." <ethan_t@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
> > news:<b66S9.465$xs7.15649040@newssvr15.news.prodigy.com>...
> > > The Pomeranian wrote:
> > >
> > > > Knucklehead, my sarcastic comment to Kunich about social security (where I included
> > > > immigration) was a slap in the face to politicians, and nothing else. The record, as I know
> > > > it, is that immigration has always had a net *positive* effect on the economy.
> > >
> > > Again I apologize, I had considered the possibility of sarcasm but in the context it sounded
> > > like you were agreeing with Kunich.
> >
> > Just so we're on the same page. Both of you seem to be pretty much anti-wealthy so let's
> > describe what "wealthy" is in the USA.
>
> Who are you talking about when you say "anti-wealthy?"
>
> I didn't write about "the wealthy." I wrote about wealth. Where did I write anything that could be
> taken as anti-wealthy? Where did I write anything that could be taken as pro-wealthy?
>
> I am, however, pro-wealth because I believe it tends to help everyone. The only question that
> matters is: how do we make _everyone_ richer? For the ten-billionth time, it is not a
> zero-sum game.
I had just been reading some crap from Paterson and confused the two postings.
On Sun, 05 Jan 2003 17:00:30 -0800, The Pomeranian <liftingleg@smellslikeakennel.com> wrote:
> And think of all the corn that could have been eaten by poor people.
I think there's too much corn. It's a lot cheaper to produce corn syrup sweetners from it. That's
why most sweet drinks have it rather than cane sugar any more.
Ben
The United States has a far greater proportion of its population obese or worse. It has a far
greater cultural and ethnic diversity. All of these make tremendous differences in the average
health of the population. To pretend that it is not so as you are doing is simple propaganda. The
small statistical difference in the average age and health of the populations by any measure shows
that the basic factors in a long and healthy life and lack of stress, healthy exercise and good
nutrician starting at birth.
The Canadian health care system is the only socilaized medicine group in the world that has gotten
even close to its promise and most of those in the government who have to deal with it know that it
is about to be in trouble. The pretense that this isn't so cannot hide the financial problems that
are beginning to be well known.
I don't know what you think you can accomplish by advocating a system based on worldwide failures
and one temporary success, but it isn't going to fly in the United States regardless of what the
Liberals are pressing. The citizenry are waking up from a long hypnotic nap when they were under the
impression that they could have everything forever and no one would ever have to pay for it. Now
they are looking at their bank accounts, their income and their taxes and they are beginning to be
afraid and to see just what the Liberals have done to them and this country.
"tokugawa" <truth_seeker227@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:fb0ae2f1.0301060747.3e327c61@posting.google.com...
> "Tom Kunich" <tkunich@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:<tW1S9.14534$134.1598802@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net>...
>
> > > > > Health care administrative costs (% of health care dollar):
> > > > >
> > > > > United States (Medicare, Medicaid, HMO's, PPO's, etc.) ........13% Canada (Single payer
> > > > > system) ...................................3%
> > > > >
> > > > > Why?
> > > >
> > > > Because there is no paperwork to prove claims in Canada while in the
USA
> > the
> > > > claims forms are long and complicated and often are sent back 3 or 4
> > times
> > > > for further information.
> > > >
> > > > Canadians with money that require rapid health care come to the USA
> > where
> > > > our less than perfect system is still superior to a system that
would
> > often
> > > > take longer to get a patient in than his expected lifespan with a
> > serious
> > > > illness.
> > >
> > > "With money" gets you anything you want in the U.S., doesn't it?
> >
> > Sure, it sucks if you don't have money. But you DO understand that in
Canada
> > if you have all the money in the world you can't get any better medical
care
> > than a homeless person?
>
> So you admit even homeless people in Canada get necessary health care.
>
> > While the level of medical care in Canada is very high in some regards, in others it sucks. And
> > the average medical care is lower and much slower than in the USA. This is the same experience
> > as all other countries with socialized medicine. Canada has always been held up
as
> > an example because their system seemed to be actually working though
closer
> > scrutiny showed that the reason that it was working was because of the healthier, younger
> > population with lower numbers of chronically ill or severely ill patients.
>
> Maybe it's the magic water they drink?
>
> > > The bottom line for health care is life expectancy in Canada beats the U.S.
> >
> > The bottom line is that it doesn't
>
> Comparing the effectiveness and quality of health system across borders is a challenging process.
> Nevertheless, it is instructive to note that the empirical evidence indicates that Canada's
> system is more effective than America's. The World Health Organization (WHO) has devised an index
> that measures how efficiently health systems translate expenditures into health. One yardstick
> they use is known as the average disability adjusted life expectancy (DALE) of a population,
> which measures a population's health rather than strict life expectancy. WHO combines this data
> with figures on the amount of choice patients have, the autonomy of health care providers, the
> equity of health care distribution and related issues. In 1997, Canada ranked 35th on this index.
> The U.S. ranked 72nd.
>
> Life expectancy and similar statistics are admittedly crude measurements of the quality of medical
> care. Such figures are influenced not only by the quality of health services but by social,
> environmental and demographic factors. Nevertheless, Canada consistently outperforms the United
> States on such measures. Canadians have the second longest life expectancy of all countries (79
> years). The United States ranks 25th at under 77 years.
>
> Canadians have a better chance of living free of disability. Canadians average 70 years of
> disability-free life, compared to 68 in the United States.
>
> Infant mortality rates are also frequently used to grade the health of a particular population.
> Here the U.S. fares even worse. In countries belonging to the Organization for Economic
> Cooperation and Development (OECD), the median infant mortality rate was 5.8 deaths per thousand
> live births in 1996. The U.S. rate was 7.8, better only than Hungary, Korea, Mexico, Poland and
> Turkey. Canada's was 5.6. Maternal mortality rates in the United States were double those in
> Canada in 1988, with seven out of every 100,000 dying in Canada compared to 14 in the U.S.
>
> WHO has developed sophisticated criteria to measure the effectiveness of health care services.
> These indexes measure a system's level of responsiveness (which includes autonomy,
> confidentiality, choice of care providers, quality of basic amenities, etc.); distribution (to all
> members of society); and fairness of financial contribution (which reflects inequality in
> household contributions to their health care costs). The U.S. scores better than Canada only on
> the responsiveness index, where it ranks 1st to Canada's 7th. When all these criteria are combined
> with basic health measurements, the WHO ranks Canada 7th, the U.S. 15th.
>
> > and the proof is that all of the major US cities along the borders have entire departments that
> > do nothing but
service
> > Canadians who come across the border for medical care.
>
> Source, please.
>
> > > There are far more Americans making the trip to Canada for health care services, than vice
> > > versa. Prescription drugs comes to mind.
> >
> > Prescription drugs in Canada can cost 1/3rd what they do in the USA. The reason is that they are
> > subsidized by the Canadian Health Care system.
The
> > down side of this is that the system is EXTREMELY slow to allow newer medicines so most of the
> > prescrition drugs available in Canada are
several
> > years behind those prescribed in the USA. So by crossing the border you
can
> > get cheap drugs IF YOU HAPPEN to have a prescription for the drugs that
are
> > sold there.
>
> It seems that many Americans fall into this category.
>
> > Please be aware that older drugs are usually outdated because newer
drugs
> > are more efficacious or have fewer or less serious side effects and this
is
> > nothing to poo-poo since large numbers of people are made ill or die
each
> > year from drug side effects.
>
> Many newer drugs have side effects which are just as bad, or worse, than older drugs. Many 'newer'
> drugs are merely combinations of existing drugs, albeit sold at a much higher price.
>
> > > Many Americans find themselves in Medicaid "spend down" mode. After they lose their health
> > > insurance, they must improvish themselves before they can get life-saving heath care. Not a
> > > pretty picture if you ever have experienced this happen to somebody. This does not happen in
> > > Canada.
> >
> > Yeah, instead they are put in a line and die waiting for medical care.
>
> There is no wait in Canada for emergency care. Ever visit a US hospital and see needy patients
> turned away because of lack of insurance? It happens. There are many more Americans who die
> waiting for medical care because their insurance company refuses to pay for needed care.
>
> Although you snipped portions of my previous post, my friend had to wait two years and spend
> $20,000 out of pocket until the insurance company paid her valid claim. Not everybody has $20,000
> to pay for a lawyer, so they give up.
>
> > > For-profit American heath insurance companies are parasites.
>
> I don't see you deny this.
>
> > > Only the .01% of the population who are stockholders or obscenely overpaid executives benefit
> > > from the present system. Plus the people who process claims for insurance companies. Their
> > > purpose: deny claims. The better they are, the higher their salary. For the 99.99% of
> > > Americans who don't own stock in health insurance companies, nor work for health insurance
> > > companies, there is no upside.
> >
> > Last time I looked, 80% of the population was covered by medical
insurance.
> > What would lead you to believe otherwise?
>
> I'm talking about the extra money Americans pay for administrative expenses. See the table at top
> of this post. The extra money for administrative costs is paid for by EVERYBODY who receives
> health services in the US.
>
> > I'm sure that there are tons of insurance company employees who would like to deny claims for a
> > higher salary but that is a complete fabrication on your part.
>
> Employees who do a good job get incentives and are promoted. For an insurance company, a 'good'
> claims examiner is one who errs on the side of denying claims rather than paying claims.
>
> Doctors receive incentives from insurers when they deny needed care.
>
> Doctors receive incentives from insurers to see more patients, and therefore they spend less time
> with each patient.
>
> I was once a member of a plan where I didn't even get to see a doctor when I went in for care. I
> saw a physicians assistant, and then she told the doctor what my symptoms were, and the doctor
> wrote a prescription without ever seeing me!!! Is this what we're coming to in this country?
>
> > My ex-inlaws worked in the insurance industry as does the past president of our cycling
club.
>
> Some of my best friends work for insurance companies, too.
>
> > They have a lot of bad things to say about the actions of insurance companies but it all boils
> > down to slowing payments not throwing them
out.
>
> Are you saying insurance companies never deny claims for needed medical care?
>
> > I'm sure that you'll scream about the 20% who aren't covered
>
> It's nothing to brag about.
>
> > but if you look it up you'll find that that group is very high in healthy young men who
OPT
> > to have no insurance and save the money.
>
> Most of the healthy young men I know have jobs which include health insurance benefits.
>
> > Also in that group are people that are between jobs and people who are under government programs
> > and don't
need
> > other insurance.
>
> This is pure fantasy. The majority of people without health insurance in the US are:
>
> 1) The long term unemployed who have too many assets to be eligible for Medicaid,
>
> 2) The working poor who receive no benefits but make too much money (sometimes they work two
> minimum wage jobs, sometimes three) to be covered by Medicaid. This includes many former
> welfare mothers AND THEIR CHILDREN.
>
> Again, the number one cause of bankruptcy in the United States is unexpected medical bills. Do you
> like people going bankrupt?
>
> Also, the number of uninsured in the US is growing.
>
> > Also there are people that need insurance and don't have it. There are people in Canada dying
> > without health care because there is none
available
> > in their areas.
>
> The same can be said of Americans living in remote areas.
Tom Kunich wrote:
>
> "G.T." <ethan_t@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
> news:<b66S9.465$xs7.15649040@newssvr15.news.prodigy.com>...
> > The Pomeranian wrote:
> >
> > > Knucklehead, my sarcastic comment to Kunich about social security (where I included
> > > immigration) was a slap in the face to politicians, and nothing else. The record, as I know
> > > it, is that immigration has always had a net *positive* effect on the economy.
> >
> > Again I apologize, I had considered the possibility of sarcasm but in the context it sounded
> > like you were agreeing with Kunich.
>
> Just so we're on the same page. Both of you seem to be pretty much anti-wealthy so let's describe
> what "wealthy" is in the USA.
Who are you talking about when you say "anti-wealthy?"
I didn't write about "the wealthy." I wrote about wealth. Where did I write anything that could be
taken as anti-wealthy? Where did I write anything that could be taken as pro-wealthy?
I am, however, pro-wealth because I believe it tends to help everyone. The only question that
matters is: how do we make _everyone_ richer? For the ten-billionth time, it is not a zero-sum game.
"Tom Kunich" <tkunich@earthlink.net> wrote:
> "tokugawa" <truth_seeker227@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > "Tom Kunich" <tkunich@earthlink.net> wrote:
> > > "tokugawa" <truth_seeker227@yahoo.com> wrote:
Sure, but who's got the nicer bike shops?
vBulletin, Copyright ©2000-2009, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Search Engine Friendly URLs by
vBSEO 3.3.0
