Bailout costs vs. Big historical events

[Winehole23]

Bailout costs vs. Big historical events (http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2009/06/bailout-costs-vs-big-historical-events/)




It is exceedingly difficult to convey exactly how much we are spending on all these bailouts. Whenever I start talking trillions (versus mere billions), I get puzzled looks from people. Humans have a hard time conceptualizing any number that large. I wanted a graphic way to clearly show how astonishingly ginormous the amounts involved were.


So I once again went to Jess Bachman at Wallstats (http://www.wallstats.com/). I gave him my list of expenditures (inflation adjusted of course!) and he went to work. This early Bailout Nation (http://bailoutnation.net/) graphic shows the the total costs to the taxpayer of all the monies spent, lent, consumed, borrowed, printed, guaranteed, assumed or otherwise committed.


It is nothing short of astonishing.


It includes the total outlay for all the bailouts to date. In just about one short year (March 2008 - March 2009), the bailouts managed to spend far in excess of nearly every major one time expenditure of the USA, including WW1&2 (omitted from graphic), the moon shot, the New Deal, total NASA budgets (omitted from graphic), Iraq, Viet Nam and Korean wars — COMBINED.


206 years versus 12 months. Total cost: ~$15 trillion and counting . . .
>
http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/bailoutnationchart-912x1024.jpg (http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/bailoutnationchart.jpg)

[Winehole23]

Follow the link to read the comments. They are illuminating.

[Wild Cobra]

Follow the link to read the comments. They are illuminating.
Probably the same things I hear listening to other than Obama's state sponsored media outlets. I'll read when I have more time. I have to leave for work in 35 minutes.

[coyotes_geek]

$15 trillion and counting, and Obama still wants to drop another trillion plus on healthcare reform. Incredibly naive.

Just as a frame of reference, we're only a nation of appx 300 million people, and less than half pay income tax. If you're one of them, the government has put $100,000 on your tab.

[Marcus Bryant]

Something to consider, $15 trillion is essentially the same size as the nation's annual GDP. WWII expenditures ate up a considerable amount of GDP within a short period of time. Still, the fact that the only historical comparison that comes close in magnitude (% of annual GDP) to the Bush/Obama bailouts for federal expenditures is WWII says it all, I suppose.

[boutons_deux]

Does any wrongie offere ANY alternative to bailing out the "too big to fail" orgs?

Would McLiar and Repugs havbe done ANYTHING differently other that continuing what dubya and Paulsen started?

[johnsmith]

Does any wrongie offere ANY alternative to bailing out the "too big to fail" orgs?

Would McLiar and Repugs havbe done ANYTHING differently other that continuing what dubya and Paulsen started?

Your typing skills imply that your fingers are too chubby to operate your keyboard properly.

[boutons_deux]

btw, after the financial sector created this economic disaster, they are fighting like hell, and they will win, to avoid all serious regulation, and enforcement of regulation to keep it from happening again. They want to continue to be free to dream up greedy "financial innovations" and take huge bets on them.

Health care industry will also destroy any attempt at restructuring, and will continue to suck Americans and American companies dry with their exorbitant costs, aka, health care profits

[101A]

btw, after the financial sector created this economic disaster, they are fighting like hell, and they will win, to avoid all serious regulation, and enforcement of regulation to keep it from happening again. They want to continue to be free to dream up greedy "financial innovations" and take huge bets on them.

Health care industry will also destroy any attempt at restructuring, and will continue to suck Americans and American companies dry with their exorbitant costs, aka, health care profits

Hospitals are in the Red. Insurance company profits are open for the world to see (and their executive compensation packages are NOTHING like what was/is going on on Wal-Street). Doctors make a good to great living, but NOBODY is talking about scaling that back.

Old people going to the doctor every day - and taking a half dozen maintenance drugs apiece, along with the continuing ability to provide successful catastrophic care, and keep people alive that have no business breathing, is what is driving up the cost of health care. Sure 18% of our economy is spent on health care, but an equal number of our citizens are EMPLOYED in healthcare - that doesn't point to obscene profits, it points to priorities.

[coyotes_geek]

Does any wrongie offere ANY alternative to bailing out the "too big to fail" orgs?

Would McLiar and Repugs havbe done ANYTHING differently other that continuing what dubya and Paulsen started?

Well, the republicans certainly wouldn't have given GM and Chrysler to the UAW, and the stimulus package would have been full of tax cuts instead of welfare expansions. So yes, they would have done things differently. Would we still be in a huge hole? Undoubtedly. Which hole would be a better one to be in? Debateable, unprovable and irrelevant. Obama and the dems are in charge, all this is on their shoulders.

[sam1617]

Does any wrongie offere ANY alternative to bailing out the "too big to fail" orgs?

Would McLiar and Repugs havbe done ANYTHING differently other that continuing what dubya and Paulsen started?

McCain probably would have bailed out these companies too. I would be just as outraged as I am now. Of course I voted libertarian for president and for senate...

And as for your too big to fail, there is NO SUCH THING as a too big to fail corporation. Let them go under, rather than placing them in control of a people that just racked up 15 trillion in debt, because now we have companies that aren't economically viable being propped up by a government that can't even keep itself out of debt...

[boutons_deux]

So 101, nobody in the $2.5T for-profit health "care" sector is making excessive profits, so it's fully justifiiable that America spends TWICE per capita on health care than other industrial countries has numerous worse health outcomes and with 50M still uninsured, and 10s of 1000s declaring personal bankruptcy due to medical bills.

[101A]

So 101, nobody in the $2.5T for-profit health "care" sector is making excessive profits, so it's fully justifiiable that America spends TWICE per capita on health care than other industrial countries has numerous worse health outcomes and with 50M still uninsured, and 10s of 1000s declaring personal bankruptcy due to medical bills.

There are problems; the president isn't addressing them. HOW MUCH people go to the doctor, and how many drugs they take is what is driving up costs; not profit. Again many hospitals are losing money. Insurance companies are making a profit; but not an obscene one (if you have evidence to the contrary, please post it). Who is making out like a bandit in our system? Where is the money going? I say, and am backed up by the evidence that the money is going to Americans working in the Healthcare industry; Docs, nurses, claims payors, clerks, janitors - again as high a percentage of our gdp is spent on healthcare - the same percentage is employed. AND those are AMERICAN jobs; money stays here; doesn't go overseas. If we cut spending in half, to equal what other countries are spending, aren't we going to raise unemployment by 8 - 9% - or do you plan to cut everyone's salary in half? We spend more on healthcare because we USE more healthcare. Does that make us healthier? Nope. But it's the way of life Americans (lots of older ones especially) have come to expect.

Should everybody have coverage? Yes. But the government's involvement should be kept as small as possible.

[boutons_deux]

"HOW MUCH people go to the doctor, and how many drugs they take is what is driving up costs; not profit"?

fucking amazing. People are NOT going to the doctors because they don't have insurance, or they have high deductibles. Medicare people are NOT taking all their drugs because they are trying to stretch them out to minimize co-payments.

They take drugs the docs prescribe because the docs get a cut of the over-prescribed, over-medicating drugs.

The docs over-prescribe tests because they get referral fees, especially when they own the labs.

[Wild Cobra]

I get sick and tired of libtards making profit sound like a crime. You hate big profits and people getting rich. This nation would be a far better place if everyone strived to get rich rather than being crybabies depending on the government, and engaging in class warfare.

[101A]

"HOW MUCH people go to the doctor, and how many drugs they take is what is driving up costs; not profit"?

fucking amazing. People are NOT going to the doctors because they don't have insurance, or they have high deductibles. Medicare people are NOT taking all their drugs because they are trying to stretch them out to minimize co-payments.

Most people DO have insurance, with low deductibles, some do not. Doctor's waiting rooms are full.


They take drugs the docs prescribe because the docs get a cut of the over-prescribed, over-medicating drugs.Drugs are certainly over-prescribed, but doctors don't get a cut anymore (unless they own the pharmacy).


The docs over-prescribe tests because they get referral fees, especially when they own the labs.Don't forget the lawyers influence on the above, but I don't disagree. Insurance company's have tried to quell this, but get shouted down, not the least of which, by politicians.

You are right on on most of these points, my point is, the President isn't talking about THESE things, is he. If he did, the AMA would come down hard against whatever he is selling. He has not talked about curtailing revenue sources for doctors, or limiting fees - so I can only guess that isn't on the table. If it is, and that is his intention, to get govt. control to ultimately control prices at the provider level, and by rationing drugs/tests/care (like the rest of the world does), then he is being disingenuous.

Again we pay providers in this country a whole lot of money, and we visit them often because we want to.

Is it primarily the doctors and there compensation you have a problem with?

[Winehole23]

Overtreatment may not be a simple as patients' demand for services:

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=128644

[101A]

Bottom line, it doesn't matter who writes the checks if nobody's keeping track of waste and quality of care. The Mayo Clinic system seems to work: take away the financial incentives to overtreat patients, and let the doctors figure out how to treat people better for less.

Couldn't agree more, and the bottom line to me is that the Govt. is LEAST capable of checking abuse. Private insurers, frankly, looking for profit themselves, are VERY capable of spotting aberrations/abuses. Unfortunately, in the current environment - it is VERY difficult to curtail the abuses the (long) article you linked talked about; especially when in a community those abuses are the "standard" of care!

My company processes medical claims; we see it daily; we recognize it. But if we question a claim, or a procedure - we are IMMEDIATELY hammered by the doctor/patient/hospital for trying to "play" doctor ourselves. How many times have you heard that we shouldn't have insurance company's telling doctors what to do, or, for that matter, when people say we canot have bureaucrats tell doctors what to do when they are arguing against govt. control. People in this country have it ingrained in them: TRUST DOCTORS! People do so to the very end - never questioning what they are told to do, or not do, what drugs to take - or procedures to have performed on them. My family? All of my children were born in my own bed, and delivered by midwives - (my wife has taught biochemistry at med. school, and just doesn't trust doctors and (many) of their God complexes).

Frankly, I could go on and on and on. Anecdotes coming fast and furious. The "problem" is the amount of care. Of course, where would McCallen be without all of that health care? Workers built that awesome hospital, and now man it. Radiologists, nurses, support staff, etc.....

[jacobdrj]

Medical Reform: Why don't we just start small? Like any other label, or any other product, have doctors, dentists, and other medical professionals be required to show their pricing out in the open, in a pamphlet or on a board.

This solves a number of problems.
1, for limited insurance, such as 'dental insurance' (a term I use loosely) you will be able to shop around for those providers who use more of the insurance money available to you, instead of having some unknown amount charged to your plan, only to find out that catastrophic coverage had been leeched dry by getting dental cleanings.
2, by being able to see the prices, people can shop around, and therefore the prices will start to self-regulate. Better doctors with better reputations get to keep their prices higher, while other doctors (who are still board certified) would have lower prices. It becomes a supply and demand thing.
3, advertising becomes an issue for health care professionals even more than it does now, and word of mouth being one of the best service related means of advertisement will encourage good efficient care from doctors.

[Marcus Bryant]

Couldn't agree more, and the bottom line to me is that the Govt. is LEAST capable of checking abuse. Private insurers, frankly, looking for profit themselves, are VERY capable of spotting aberrations/abuses. Unfortunately, in the current environment - it is VERY difficult to curtail the abuses the (long) article you linked talked about; especially when in a community those abuses are the "standard" of care!

Exactly. Surprise, surprise that a bureaucracy would be unable to control its expenditures. And surprise, surprise that there are those who would figure out how to game and profit from its ineptness. Therein lies the fallacy with all of these national health schemes. Not to mention that the 'cost savings' to come from said schemes ultimately morph into extending the queues for certain expensive procedures. National health care is great, until you get really sick. Then the people have no use for the individual. But hey, you may qualify for a free shot which will kill your worthless ass.