The United States is broke!

[2centsworth]

Fantastic article by Scott Burns over the weekend.

what stood out "The Federal Reserve recently estimated the net worth of all U.S. consumers – that's you, me and Bill Gates – at $55.6 trillion. " We have unfunded liabiliies of $64 trillion. Hence, a 100% tax on all income and assets would still not cover the bill.


U.S. going broke; guess who will pay?



08:08 AM CDT on Sunday, April 22, 2007



Scott Burns [email protected] ([email protected])


Thanks to a good accountant, the Burns family tax return was ready a week before deadline this year. Proud of ourselves, my wife and I signed it.

Then we contemplated its enormity. While far shorter than War and Peace, the heft of our 40-page return was striking.

So was the amount we paid.

If taxes are "the price we pay for civilization," our payment should help make America the Athens of the 21st century. I'm sure millions of others had similar thoughts.

Unfortunately, the price we pay for civilization will need to rise sharply in the near future. Whatever you paid this year, get ready to pay lots more.

The newest estimates come from two economists, Jagadeesh Gokhale and Kent Smetters at the Cato Institute and Wharton School, respectively. Their estimates of unfunded government liabilities were summarily removed from the president's budget in 2003 as Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill was ousted and replaced by John W. Snow.

Mr. Snow's immediate job was to sell the second round of tax cuts. The idea wouldn't have gone over very well if an official accounting of government liabilities had revealed that the entire country was stone broke.

Writing in the March/April issue of the Financial Analysts Journal, Mr. Gokhale and Mr. Smetters updated their earlier work. Since 2003, things have gotten worse, not better. They found:

•That our government has promised $63.675 trillion more in benefits than it will collect in taxes.

•That "if the federal government confiscated all the land in the United States along with all of its improvements – buildings, highways, plants and equipment, and other durable assets built on it – and sold them at auction to foreign investors, it would still fall more than $20 trillion short in present value of the monies required to satisfy its future budget."

•That the true federal deficit isn't the $200 billion-odd a year discussed in newspapers but nearly 10 times more, $2.4 trillion.

•That without Social Security and Medicare, we'd be running a surplus. The entire problem is the $72.9 trillion in unfunded liabilities of Social Security and Medicare.

•That eliminating all military spending, forever, would only cover about half of the unfunded liabilities of Medicare.

•That just paying for promised benefits would require an immediate new 14.4 percent tax on all payroll. A tax increase that large probably wouldn't be collectible. Work would go underground.

•That the vast majority of the problem can be traced to Medicare. Its unfunded liabilities are 8.5 times larger than the unfunded liabilities of Social Security.

Lest you think Mr. Gokhale and Mr. Smetters belong to the Chicken Little School of Economics, the two economists compare their estimates with figures from the trustees for Social Security and Medicare. The trustees' estimates are $10.9 trillion higher (see the accompanying table).

To put these figures in perspective, the total output of the U.S. economy is now about $12.5 trillion. The Federal Reserve recently estimated the net worth of all U.S. consumers – that's you, me and Bill Gates – at $55.6 trillion.

The economists ask why the credit markets aren't treating the U.S. Treasury like a poor cousin to General Motors Corp. They suggest four possible answers, but I've got one of my own: Every government in the world does exactly the same thing.

[RandomGuy]

This would make more sense if I were sure that those unfunded liabilities were put into present day terms.

As it is, I wonder if the time value of money factored into those calculations?

Not that we shouldn't be worried, but I am not entirely sure the calculations are entirely accurate.

[BradLohaus]

When these large shortfalls are upon us the government will monetize the debt on a large scale along with increasing federal taxes. The U.S. government will issue massive amounts of treasury bonds and the Federal Reserve will make sure all are purchased by buying up any that aren't otherwise purchased with money that they will create exactly for this purpose. The consumer will pay this price in the form of greatly inflated consumer prices. So not only will there be higher taxes, but higher prices of everything. Much higher prices.

If a government needs $X it can tax its citizens to get it, or it can issue $X in treasury notes and have the central bank create $X and buy them (The Fed does return over 90% of the interest it collects on these notes from the taxpayers to the treasury)*. The federal government gets its money either way, but one is more obvious then the other.

This is all dependent on foreigners not rejected the dollar as payment in the long term, however. That is dependent on a few things, but it is completely dependent on the petro-dollar. If all OPEC nations demand Euros and refuse dollars in the future then who knows what will happen with these liabilities.

*The Federal Reserve is still a horrible institution that steals wealth from all money holders and borrowers for reasons other than this.

[smeagol]

Living beyond your means is not a good way to go through life.

[2centsworth]

This would make more sense if I were sure that those unfunded liabilities were put into present day terms.

As it is, I wonder if the time value of money factored into those calculations?

Not that we shouldn't be worried, but I am not entirely sure the calculations are entirely accurate.
they are present value.

[Extra Stout]

At some point in the future, the U.S. will default on its Medicare and Social Security obligations. There will be a major devaluation of the dollar. The result will be economic ruin and social unrest for much of the populace, a lengthy depression, an attempted coup, and the end of American hegemony.

[xrayzebra]

At some point in the future, the U.S. will default on its Medicare and Social Security obligations. There will be a major devaluation of the dollar. The result will be economic ruin and social unrest for much of the populace, a lengthy depression, an attempted coup, and the end of American hegemony.

I am not that pessimistic ES. There is
no doubt that Medicare, SOC and many
other federal programs, as well as
state/county/city programs are draining
many millions (billions) of dollars.

I think the governments will have to
take a hard look and cut back on
the bennies of these programs and
raise taxes. I think you will see a
VAT (value added tax) added to our
taxing system as they have in the
UK, presently 20 percent I think.
The politicians will have to have all
this forced on them, because the use
the welfare system to buy votes with.
But it will surely come.

But I don't see riots or complete ruination of our country, just cuts and
increased taxation.

[mullet]

I am not that pessimistic ES. There is
no doubt that Medicare, SOC and many
other federal programs, as well as
state/county/city programs are draining
many millions (billions) of dollars.

I think the governments will have to
take a hard look and cut back on
the bennies of these programs and
raise taxes. I think you will see a
VAT (value added tax) added to our
taxing system as they have in the
UK, presently 20 percent I think.
The politicians will have to have all
this forced on them, because the use
the welfare system to buy votes with.
But it will surely come.

But I don't see riots or complete ruination of our country, just cuts and
increased taxation.


yeah that article fails to mention that we'd probably also have a surplus w/o Bush's tax cuts

[Extra Stout]

yeah that article fails to mention that we'd probably also have a surplus w/o Bush's tax cuts
Lie.

[mullet]

http://www.usnews.com/usnews/biztech/capitalcommerce/070320/president_bushs_tax_cut_suicid.htm

"Absent a tailwind to growth from some other source," the analysis concludes, "this would almost surely mark the onset of a recession." Question the model, but it sure seems logical that a sudden $400 billion tax increase in 2011 and 2012 might have some slowing effect on the economy. Now to be fair, the WUMM model does show that eventually the additional revenue would help balance the budget, leading to stronger longer-term growth. But as economist John Maynard Keynes famously commented, "In the long run, we are all dead."

[2centsworth]

yeah that article fails to mention that we'd probably also have a surplus w/o Bush's tax cuts
did you read the article?

The government could confiscate 100% of all US wealth and still be in the negative. Problem then would be there would be zero taxes to collect the following year.

[mullet]

did you read my article?

we are in so much debt that 100% of US wealth wouldnt make a dent.

[johnsmith]

Mouse, pick a username and stick with it ya jackass.

[cholo]

alls i know is my taxes gone way up

[2centsworth]

The primary problem
•That without Social Security and Medicare, we'd be running a surplus. The entire problem is the $72.9 trillion in unfunded liabilities of Social Security and Medicare.

I guess we're going to learn the hard way. A socialist form of government doesn't work fiscally, but who cares.

Soon everyone will be part of Medicare in the form of universal healthcare.

[RandomGuy]

As it is, I wonder if the time value of money factored into those calculations?

Not that we shouldn't be worried, but I am not entirely sure the calculations are entirely accurate.


they are present value.

Good. Thanks.

Troubling indeed.

All the more reason to start on universal health care. A single payor system would really put a HUGE dent in spirally health costs.

[xrayzebra]

All the more reason to start on universal health care. A single payor system would really put a HUGE dent in spirally health costs.

Do you really think universal health care is cheap? Take a
look at both Canada and the United Kingdom. You want
a system that rations health care. Or who sets standards
on who they will treat or not treat because of peoples
life styles. I don't.

[RandomGuy]

Do you really think universal health care is cheap? Take a
look at both Canada and the United Kingdom. You want
a system that rations health care. Or who sets standards
on who they will treat or not treat because of peoples
life styles. I don't.

The system we have now has seen an explosion in administrative costs, the majority of which are due to massive insurance company, hospital, and provider (read: doctor) administrative costs, that could be MUCH more simply shifted to the government.

The current system is MASSIVELY inefficient, but the costs are all hidden.

As much as one might fault "big government" it would replace a myriad of "little governments" and have some large economies of scale.

It is NOT the same as rationing.

[2centsworth]

All the more reason to start on universal health care. A single payor system would really put a HUGE dent in spirally health costs.

How in the world can you say this when the sole reason why the US is broke is because of MEDICARE, A GOVERNMENT RUN HEALTH PLAN.


Are you saying adding everyone to Medicare is going to make things better because the government is more effecient than private insurance companies?

[Nbadan]

All the more reason to start on universal health care. A single payor system would really put a HUGE dent in spirally health costs.

Putting caps on spiraling out-of-control health care costs is the right to do, but the only thing driving our economy is debt and health care.

[Nbadan]

When a wing-nut asks, what are you sacrificing for the Iraq War? Why are you tired of the war its not costing you anything? Tell them you are sacrificing your share of your social security money, $1 trillion dollars and counting of new IOU's in your account because of this war, so don't tell me I'm not sacrificing anything for this war.

[BradLohaus]

At some point in the future, the U.S. will default on its Medicare and Social Security obligations. There will be a major devaluation of the dollar. The result will be economic ruin and social unrest for much of the populace, a lengthy depression, an attempted coup, and the end of American hegemony.

I think all of that sounds about right, except the coup part. There will no doubt be many private citizens who would like to overthrow the government at that point, but it would take a large and organized faction of the military to make a legitimate coup attempt, and I can't see that happening on U.S. soil without the threat of a foreign invasion.

I don't exactly think the government will default on its Medicare and SS liabilities. If the dollar couldn't surive an extremely large debt monetization in the future, and there is a very good chance that it wouldn't, then I think a more likely scenario to a government default is the Federal Reserve declaring itself bankrupt. The Fed does have one super ace in the hole it can play if there is an incredible economic crisis in the U.S. such as this where debt monetization isn't possible and government default is considered out of the question: the Fed declares bankruptcy, defaults on the dollar, founds the Bank of North America with the Canadian and Mexican central banks (who would be more than willing partners in this scenario), and then issues a new North American bank note. Then the U.S. government would not default on any of its liabilities, foreign or domestic. It would simply insist that all of its creditors accept the new continental currency as payment. This would require restructuring these debts, as the new currency would have a higher value than the dollar would have towards its end. Foreign holders will accept fewer amounts of this new currency than they would have gotten with dollars because the new currency will have a higher value than the dollar did in the world markets do to a lower supply, and because they will have no choice; it's that or they take it in the rear and get nothing.

American citizens will accept this new currency for the same reason. The government will simply say, "Remember all that money you sent us for Medicare and Social Security? Well, it's gone. But we've created a new and stronger currency, so you can either accept it as payment and use it in transactions or you will get nothing." I doubt they would have to be even close to that blunt. People will be desperate at this point and won't care what the new money is or where it came from, just that they get it in their hands.

Stuff like this happens to corporations all the time. A particular corporation will find itself in an impossible finacial situation - it can't service its debt anymore, or it owes more money in lawsuits then it could ever pay, whatever. So how does it surive? It declares bankruptcy, closes up shop, re-incoprorates with a new name and a new board of directors, and is back in business doing the same thing. The Federal Reserve will follow the same path.

[Nbadan]

$4 a gallon
by Michael Ventura


America is over. America is like Wile E. Coyote after he's run out a few paces past the edge of the cliff – he'll take a few more steps in midair before he looks down. Then, when he sees that there's nothing under him, he'll fall. Many Americans suspect that they're running on thin air, but they haven't looked down yet. When they do ...

Former Federal Reserve Board Chairman Paul Volcker, a pillar of the Establishment with access to economic information beyond our reach, wrote recently: "Circumstances seem to me as dangerous and intractable as any I can remember. ... What really concerns me is that there seems to be so little willingness or capacity to do anything about it" (quoted in The Economist, April 16, p.12). Volcker chooses words carefully: "dangerous and intractable," "willingness or capacity." He's saying: The situation is probably beyond our powers to remedy.

Gas prices can only go up. Oil production is at or near peak capacity. The U.S. must compete for oil with China, the fastest-growing colossus in history. But the U.S. also must borrow $2 billion a day to remain solvent, nearly half of that from China and her neighbors, while they supply most of our manufacturing ("Benson's Economic and Market Trends," quoted in Asia Times Online) – so we have no cards to play with China, even militarily. (You can't war with the bankers who finance your army and the factories that supply your stores.) China now determines oil demand, and the U.S. has no long-term way to influence prices. That means $4 a gallon by next spring, and rising – $5, then $6, probably $10 by 2010 or thereabouts. Their economy can afford it; ours can't. We may hobble along with more or less the same way of life for the next dollar or so of hikes, but at around $4 America changes. Drastically.

The "exburbs" and the rural poor will feel it first and hardest. Exburbians moved to the farthest reaches of suburbia for cheap real estate, willing to drive at least an hour each way to work. Many live marginally now. What happens when their commute becomes prohibitively expensive, just as interest rates and inflation rise, while their property values plummet? Urban real estate will go up, so they won't be able to live near their jobs – and there's nowhere else to go. In addition, thanks to Congress' recent shameless activity, bankruptcy is no longer an option for many. What happens to these people? Exburb refugees. A modern Dust Bowl.

For the rural poor it's even worse. They are the poorest among us, with no assets and few skills; they earn the lowest nonimmigrant wages in America, and they must drive. When gas hits $4, their already below-the-margin life will be unsustainable. They'll have no choice but to be refugees and join in the modern Dust Bowl migration. So, too, will people who live where people were never intended to live in such numbers – places like Phoenix and Vegas, unlivable without air conditioning and water transport (energy prices will rise across the board, regular brownouts, blackouts, and faucet-drips will be "the new normal" everywhere). In the desert cities, real estate will plunge, thousands will be ruined, most will leave – while all over the country folks will have to get used to "hot" and "cold" again.

But where will the new refugees go, and what will they do when they get there? They will migrate to the more livable cities, where rents are already unreasonable and social services are already strained, and where the new refugees will compete with immigrants for the lowest-level housing and jobs. Immigration issues will intensify to hysteria. Native-born Americans will clamor for work that only legal and illegal aliens do now. In a culture as prone to violence as ours, that will probably get ugly.

Meanwhile, suburbs and cities will be in various states of chaos, depending on their infrastructure. As inflation and interest rates rise, and the real estate bubble bursts, millions will see their assets plunge precipitously. In five years, many who are now well-off will live as the marginal live today, while the marginal will sink into poverty. With gas at $4-plus a gallon, real estate values will depend on nearness to working centers and access to transportation. As has already happened in Manhattan, the well-off will head for what are now slums, and the slum-dwellers will go God-knows-where. Places with decent rail service will be prime. Places without rail service will be in deep trouble.

One key to America's future will be: How quickly can we build or rebuild heavy and light rail? And where will we get the money to do it? Railroads are the cheapest transport, the easiest to sustain, and the only solution to a post-automobile America. (For reasons I haven't space to detail, hybrid cars and alternative energy won't cut it, if by "cut it" one means retaining anything like the present standard of living. See James Howard Kunstler's "The Long Emergency" on Rolling Stone's Web site. Also check Mike Ruppert's site www.fromthewilderness.com and the documentary The End of Suburbia.) A massive investment in railroad infrastructure could offer jobs to the unskilled and skilled alike, absorb much of the inevitable population displacement, and create a new social equilibrium 10 or 15 years down the line. Old RR cities like Grand Junction, Colo.; Amarillo, Texas; and Albuquerque, N.M., could become vital centers, offering new lives for the displaced. Railroads are key, but the question is: how to finance them?

There's only one section of our economy that has that kind of money: the military budget. The U.S. now spends more on its military than all other nations combined. A sane transit to a post-automobile America will require a massive shift from military to infrastructure spending. That shift would be supported by our bankers in China and Europe (that is, they would continue to finance our debt) because it's in their interests that we regain economic viability. What's not in their interests is that we remain a military superpower.

And that's where things get really interesting. The question becomes:

Can America face reality? If the government responds to the coming changes by attempting to remain a superpower no matter what, there is no way to underestimate the harm. The numbers speak for themselves. Soon we'll no longer have the resources to remain a military superpower and sustain a livable society that is anything like what we know today. It happened to England; it happened to Russia; it's about to happen to us. England sustained the transformation more or less gracefully; it lost its dominance while retaining its essential character. Russia is still in a period of transformation, but has remained a player thanks to its oil reserves. Europe in general – France, Germany, Italy, and Spain (all world powers in the fairly recent past) – is creating a post-national society, the most experimental form of governance since America's revolution. We have no appreciable oil, and we no longer have a manufacturing base. So what will the United States do? Sanely recognize its declining status and act accordingly, or make one last ignoble stab to retain its position by force?

Half a century ago James Baldwin wrote: "Confronted with the impossibility of remaining faithful to one's beliefs, and the equal impossibility of becoming free of them, one can be driven to the most inhuman excesses." Americans believe they're "No. 1," destined to lead the world. That is the America that's over. If we insist on that illusion, then this world is in for tough times. We will neither hold on to what we have nor create what we might have, but we will wreak untold harm (if we don't destroy the species altogether). Or we can face and embrace reality. And that reality is: There is no such thing as "No. 1" ... there is no such thing as an ideal destined country that is better than any other ... there is only us, doing the best we can, trying to live free and sanely, within limits that are about to become only too clear. Our glory days are done. What's next?

Remember, we're not talking about the far future. We're talking about the next decade.

No country gets two centuries anymore. The 21st will be China's century. That's what $4-plus a gallon means, and nothing can stop it. So: How will we change? But the question "How will we change?" is really the question "How will I change?" Because history isn't a spectator sport. It's you and me. Everything depends on whether we side with reality or illusion. Face reality, and we have a chance. Cling to illusion, and we are lost. The America we've known is over – very soon. The America we can create is up to us. end story

Energy Bulletin (http://www.energybulletin.net/6056.html)

[boutons_]

$4/gal is supposed to be some kind of national disaster?

Scroll down to the bottom of this chart for what serious govt's charge for gas:

http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/international/gas1.html

If the US now had federal-tax-inflated $7/gal gas, the country would in much better shape now and in the future. Alternative motors for transport, and supporting infrastructure, would be competitive, developed, and refined so that oil-fuel motors would minimized.

[Extra Stout]

I think all of that sounds about right, except the coup part. There will no doubt be many private citizens who would like to overthrow the government at that point, but it would take a large and organized faction of the military to make a legitimate coup attempt, and I can't see that happening on U.S. soil without the threat of a foreign invasion.
It has almost happened before.

A handful of wealthy families, including the Morgans, Chases, Du Ponts, and Johnsons, attempted a coup against FDR in the early 1930's as the Depression bottomed out, in order to institute fascism in the United States. Their allies had infiltrated the military, but the general they called upon to execute the coup blew the whistle on them.

The coup has thwarted, and the matter was referred to Congress. Of course, since rich and powerful people were responsible for the treason, Congress swept it all under the rug.

[Extra Stout]

$4 a gallon is going to ruin America? Dan, you are absurd. We're at $3 a gallon right now and demand isn't even being abated.

Of course, your prediction there will just go down the memory hole, and the one in 50 you ever get right you will trumpet for years as a sterling example of your prescience.

You are such a fraud.

[RandomGuy]

How in the world can you say this when the sole reason why the US is broke is because of MEDICARE, A GOVERNMENT RUN HEALTH PLAN.


Are you saying adding everyone to Medicare is going to make things better because the government is more effecient than private insurance companies?

Yup. :wakeup

Thousands of private insurance companies are less efficient than a single payer system.

Those thousands of companies force providers' (doctors/hospitals) administrative costs through the roof.

Thousands of private insurance companies also mean that each of the 50 states has seperate laws that govern insurance and so forth.

SOOOO

You not only get a lot of duplication of effort, de-centralized processing, you get a lot of waste because you can't easily transport your health care from place to place.


ALL of this waste comes out of your pocket anyways in a myriad of ways, but you simply don't see them.

[RandomGuy]

$4 a gallon is going to ruin America? Dan, you are absurd. We're at $3 a gallon right now and demand isn't even being abated.

Of course, your prediction there will just go down the memory hole, and the one in 50 you ever get right you will trumpet for years as a sterling example of your prescience.

You are such a fraud.

Expensive fuel will have a host of repercussions, but will not be so ruinous as some on the left seem to think.

Free market economies can be remarkably adaptable. Higher fuel costs will make alternative energy sources more competitive, they will force efficiency gains as our economy finally takes a hard look at how to do so.

Along the way, we will discover new technologies, invest in new capital infrastructure, and figure out that not using the energy in the first place makes more economic sense than mindlessly using it.

Not that everything will be roses, but it will hardly be the "end of the world", either.

[RandomGuy]

$4 a gallon is going to ruin America? Dan, you are absurd. We're at $3 a gallon right now and demand isn't even being abated.

Of course, your prediction there will just go down the memory hole, and the one in 50 you ever get right you will trumpet for years as a sterling example of your prescience.

You are such a fraud.

Some of the big losers will be the land speculators that tend to buy land in rings around cities to profit from the expansion as cities sprawl.

Cities will become more dense, and probably even tend to get a bit smaller in surface area, over the long term of 10-40 years.

This will mean that services like police and fire, power, and water can all be provided more efficiently, as well as making mass transit MUCH more economically viable.

Like it or not, we will be reducing our greenhouse gas emissions through sheer market action.

[RandomGuy]

Oh and by the way, all those nasty oil imports suck tens of billions of dollars out of our economy every year.

More local renewables mean not only will this money not leave the economy, money will be invested in the types of capital projects that provide for economic growth.

Again, not that higher fuel prices won't suck AND tend to make everything more expensive, but on the balance it is not all doom and gloom.

[RandomGuy]

a model of efficiency

You forgot a step in that chain:

insurance company pays investors out of the premium they charge

I am *sure* that makes insurance cheaper, right?

[2centsworth]

You forgot a step in that chain:

insurance company pays investors out of the premium they charge

I am *sure* that makes insurance cheaper, right?
So would eliminating all profits from the equation make it all better?

[RandomGuy]

So would eliminating all profits from the equation make it all better?

Not what I am implying at all. The profit margin of insurance companies is simply part of the extra health care costs that we all pay.

If the goal is to provide health care, then things that tend to add expense reduce the amount of health care that can be provided.

[01Snake]

The system we have now has seen an explosion in administrative costs, the majority of which are due to massive insurance company, hospital, and provider (read: doctor) administrative costs, that could be MUCH more simply shifted to the government.



A huge cost is the malpractice insurance for physicians.

[xrayzebra]

RG and Elpimp. Please explain to me how government is
going to handle this more efficiently? You mean like medicare,
medicaid and welfare. Or as you like to point out any number
of federal agencies.

[boutons_]

for-profit health care is bullshit.

The next administration will take a run at universal health care. Edwards has some clear ideas, a little timid,but nobody else has said anything. A large majority of Americans and corps are now for universal health care.

[2centsworth]

Not what I am implying at all. The profit margin of insurance companies is simply part of the extra health care costs that we all pay.

If the goal is to provide health care, then things that tend to add expense reduce the amount of health care that can be provided.
what's the incentive to provide quality health care?

Also, don't prudent business people try to minimize expenses to boost profits. Without profits, what's the incentive to be effecient?

[xrayzebra]

for-profit health care is bullshit.

The next administration will take a run an universal health care. Edwards has some clear ideas, a little timid,but nobody else has said anything. A large majority of Americans and corps are now for universal health care.

Want to point out the benefits of health care in countries
where they have universal health care?

[RandomGuy]

A huge cost is the malpractice insurance for physicians.

A huge cost to be sure. I personally am not privvy to the normal expense breakdowns of the average doctor's office, so I am unable to give any numbers.

I have seen studies of the number of administrative workers per doctor and how that has exploded over time, this is what I base my claim of larger administrative costs.

Health care costs are NOT exactly my area of expertise, but I *do* know a bit about insurance.

[RandomGuy]

what's the incentive to provide quality health care?

Also, don't prudent business people try to minimize expenses to boost profits. Without profits, what's the incentive to be effecient?

The incentive to provide quality health care is that if you don't provide it, then your patients go elsewhere. This is NOT the government directly employing doctors and running hospitals.

While we are talking about insurance companies being efficient and minimizing expenses...

minimize expenses=deny/weasel out of as many claims as possible?

minimize expenses=pay as little on valid claims as possible?

minimize expenses=have as few staff on hand as possible to process claims?

I can think of no few people who have gone bankrupt (or worse) because of insurance companies "minimization of expenses".

[RandomGuy]

Want to point out the benefits of health care in countries
where they have universal health care?


Universal health care tends to make the ultimate costs of unhealthy behavior a LOT more transparent.

You pay for all of this now, but you just don't see it because it is tucked away in everything you buy and all the premiums you pay.

When a person goes to the hospital emergency room and can't pay, how does that hospital recoup those costs if they aren't reimbursed by the government?

(hint: it rhymes with "swill the insurance companies smore"

Who ultimately pays for that ER trip? You do.

The big benefit from a cost standpoint is the fact that universal health care will tend to make cheaper preventive medicine more available, so that the more expensive curative stuff can be avoided.

It is cheaper to treat just about any disease earlier than it is later, or better yet head it off to begin with.

[RandomGuy]

You can pay for health care through increased mortality rates, private premiums that have to cover the uncovered anyways, and all the hidden costs, or you can pay for it up front through taxed premiums and a universal, single payer system.

Will there be some burocratic bloat? Surely, just as there is now.
Will it be expensive in terms of premiums? Surely, just is it is now.

BUT

There are some good economic arguments to be made that point to a strong possibility that it will ultimately reduce costs for the system as a whole.
That and the fact that we get all the costs out in the open where they can be dealt with from a position of knowledge and information is something I am all for.

[01Snake]

The current system is full of problems but universal healthcare won't be any better.

[RandomGuy]

The current system is full of problems but universal healthcare won't be any better.

How so?

[BradLohaus]

It has almost happened before.

A handful of wealthy families, including the Morgans, Chases, Du Ponts, and Johnsons, attempted a coup against FDR in the early 1930's as the Depression bottomed out, in order to institute fascism in the United States. Their allies had infiltrated the military, but the general they called upon to execute the coup blew the whistle on them.

The coup has thwarted, and the matter was referred to Congress. Of course, since rich and powerful people were responsible for the treason, Congress swept it all under the rug.

Wow I've never heard of that. I'll have to look into it. I can believe it though because the list of families are some of the largest shareholders of the largest banks that make up the Federal Reserve system, which had just caused the Great Depression. (Current Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke admitted that the Fed accidently caused the Great Depression in a speech while Greenspan was still in charge.) Or maybe it was no accident. I wouldn't put anything past those snakes.

[BradLohaus]

Insurance is like a casino in a way - it's a numbers racket, except the casino has to pay you when your number comes up, but an insurance company can try to get out of paying what they owe you. It works both ways to an extent with insurance fraud I suppose.

I took a course on the health insurance industry as an undergrad and I really don't have a clue what would be the best way. The professor said he didn't know either, and he was an econ PhD who worked for the American Dental Association researching this stuff for 30 years.

I'll say this much: it doesn't surprise me how much all of this costs because keeping people alive gets harder the older they get for the most part, and we just keep getting older as a nation. Health insurance and treatment is only going to get more expensive however we do it. I think socialized medicine is inevitable because to stop it you have to stop it every time; you only have to implement it once. Just like Social Security ain't going nowhere. Once socialized medicine arrives in the U.S. then thats it. We'd better make damn sure that it's the best way and that it isn't going to tap us out or put a damper on R&D. I have my doubts.

[ggoose25]

what's the incentive to provide quality health care?

Also, don't prudent business people try to minimize expenses to boost profits. Without profits, what's the incentive to be effecient?

the wellbeing of the sick. doctors take oaths to treat regardless of ability to pay. healthcare shouldnt be about making money, it should be a bout running and efficient system of care

[RandomGuy]

The current system is full of problems but universal healthcare won't be any better.

How so?

[boutons_]

"the megabucks aren't bringing people to the polls"

no, but "research shows" that negative ads work well to influence sheeple/rabble/dumbfucks who do go to the polls.

What people vote is their pocket books first and always. Esp how their pocket books are affected by locally delivered pork and earmarks.

Some people do vote their ideology ("Christians" voting for "right to life" "Christians" but end up electing murderous, lying, US-military-disrespecting war-mongers).

The US doesn't got to the polls (low %age vs eg. Europe) because a comfortable life and $$$ for most people, combined with the disconnect between a huge country of 300M and DC/Beltway, have seduced many/most people into believing that politics doesn't count in their lives.

[101A]

As it is, I wonder if the time value of money factored into those calculations?

Not that we shouldn't be worried, but I am not entirely sure the calculations are entirely accurate.



Good. Thanks.

Troubling indeed.

All the more reason to start on universal health care. A single payor system would really put a HUGE dent in spirally health costs.

Nope.

Spiraling health care costs come from a single thing: Sick People - and the expensive cures (or "heroic" attempts at cures) that our healthcare system charges for them.

We have reduced people that die from heart attacks.

Great.

Heart attacks are cheap deaths, however.

Cancer is a very expensive way to die.

There are alot more cancers now (angioplasties, cholesterol lowering meds,etc) are too blame more than anything else - not that they cause it, they just ALLOW people to live long enough to get it.

Baby boomers are getting older; taking more and more meds, getting sicker...THAT is why healthcare costs are skyrocketing!!! That's why they were so cheap in the 70's! - the baby boomers (spelled bulk of the economy), were young and healthy, and their parents and grandparents were dying of relatively inexpensive things. In the meantime, the insurance companies were charging cheap premiums, the baby boomers were PAYING cheap premiums, all was good. NOW there aren't as many of us, to pay for all of them gettting VERY sick (Chemo, radiation = $$$$$$$$$), plus all of the meds these people take to just make the baseline costs month to month high...

Doesn't matter how you pay for it; private, public, a mix...it's GONNA be expensive!!!

I'm pretty sure, however, that it WON"T be CHEAPER if the govt. (the one responsible for the mess we're in that this thread is based on), is MORE involved. Just a guess.

[TDMVPDPOY]

long live china :D:D:D

i think they hold alot of ur treasury bonds

[2centsworth]

the wellbeing of the sick. doctors take oaths to treat regardless of ability to pay. healthcare shouldnt be about making money, it should be a bout running and efficient system of care Like our public education system?

[RandomGuy]

Nope.

Spiraling health care costs come from a single thing: Sick People - and the expensive cures (or "heroic" attempts at cures) that our healthcare system charges for them.


Nope.

Spiraling health care costs are because we don't provide cheap preventive medicine that would avoid those expensive cures.

Just a guess...

[xrayzebra]

The US doesn't got to the polls (low %age vs eg. Europe) because a comfortable life and $$$ for most people, combined with the disconnect between a huge country of 300M and DC/Beltway, have seduced many/most people into believing that politics doesn't count in their lives.

I thought everyone was in dire straits in the US because
the rich were robbing everyone else........

Now I am confused.

[101A]

Nope.

Spiraling health care costs are because we don't provide cheap preventive medicine that would avoid those expensive cures.

Just a guess...

Wife is teaching a class on causes of cancer; no "preventative measures" in the WORLD are going to stop it; AND it's the MOST expensive thing going. We are PRE-WIRED to get cancer if nothing else gets us.

Preventive care is WAY overrated in terms of saving health care dollars.

[101A]

Also:

Lowest number of doctors per capita in the country = Minnesota

Least $$$$ spent on Healthcare in Country = Minnesota

More AVAILABLE Doctors and Visits != Good Health or lower costs; just the opposite.

[Nbadan]

US debt could trigger dollar collapse, UN warns


The United States dollar is facing imminent collapse in the face of an unsustainable debt, the United Nations warned today.

United States debt, which had now deepened to well over $3 trillion, might turn out to be unsustainable in the rest of 2007 or next, putting further downward pressure on the United States dollar, Rob Vos, the Director of the Development Policy and Analysis Division of the Department of Economic and Social Affairs (DESA), told correspondents at a Headquarters press conference.

He pointed out that since its peak in 2002, the dollar had depreciated vis-à-vis the major currencies by some 35 per cent and by 25 per cent against a broader range of other currencies.

Vos made these comments at the launch of the 2007 World Economic Situation and Prospects report midyear update.

With that increased debt the risk of a sharp depreciation of the dollar continued, he warned. If countries willing to invest in United States dollar assets expected further depreciation, they might be less willing to hold dollar assets, triggering a much sharper fall in the United States dollar. The risk of disorderly adjustment and the steep fall of the dollar existed. The policy challenge was how to prevent a hard landing of the United States dollar and forge a benign adjustment of the global imbalance.

Linky (http://pressesc.com/01180629622_dollar_falls)

Who owns you?


http://www.optimist123.com/optimist/images/2007/04/09/piechart200701.gif

Mission accomplished! I wonder what Bin Laden will be doing at that podium on the Carrier Abraham Lincoln???

[BradLohaus]

A strong dollar, massive debt, and huge trade deficits cannot exist in the long run. It is simply not economically possible.

As long as we spend more than we have year after and borrow the difference, and allow these "free trade" trade policies to continue that are actually perversions of the theory of comparative advantage due to the wage differentials in third world countries, then our debt and deficits are only going to grow. You don't need a PhD in economics to know what that inevitably means for the dollar.

Ron Paul appears to be either the only presidential candidate who understands this, or he's the only one who will admit the problem and do something about it.

[RandomGuy]

Wife is teaching a class on causes of cancer; no "preventative measures" in the WORLD are going to stop it; AND it's the MOST expensive thing going. We are PRE-WIRED to get cancer if nothing else gets us.

Preventive care is WAY overrated in terms of saving health care dollars.

So finding and detecting cancer early really isn't cheaper than expensive desperate treatment?

What about the lost costs to the economy of lost productivity of people who would otherwise live and be productive members of our economy?

The costs both in actively spent dollars and opportunity costs of not having decent preventive health care are much greater than you seem to think.

[xrayzebra]

You can always try and get the drug people to pony up if it doesn't
work. Right.


From Times Online
June 4, 2007
Drugmaker to refund NHS when its medicine fails
Pharmaceutical firm Janssen-Cilag is offering an innovative system of NHS refunds should its cancer treatment not work
Robert Lindsay

In a ground-breaking move that could provide a cost-effective way to fund expensive new drugs, the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE), the Government's health adviser, proposed today to fund a cancer treatement, Velcade, only for patients who responded to the drug.

Andrew Dillon, the chief executive of NICE, said that he was taking up a proposal from the drug manufacturer Janssen-Cilag, a division of the US consumer goods giant Johnson & Johnson, that it refund the NHS for patients who showed no significant response to Velcade.

NICE originally had refused to fund the drug at all, because it was not convinced that the medicine was effective in enough cases to be worthwhile.

But Janssen-Cilag won its appeal of this decision by suggesting that it pay when the drug does not work.

Mr Dillon said: “We are aware of the challenge that the NHS faces in ensuring that patients can access expensive, but potentially effective, treatments for life-threatening conditions such as cancer.

"If the drug’s manufacturer accepts the proposals we are consulting on today, it will mean that when the drug works well the NHS pays but when it doesn’t the manufacturer should bear the cost. All patients suitable for treatment will get the chance to see if the drug works well for them.”

NICE is proposing, in a consultation document, that the NHS pay only when the drug is shown to have reduced a particular protein in multiple myeloma patients' blood by at least 50 per cent.

It is also capping funding at four cycles of treatment.

However, Janssen-Cilag wants the threshold to be 25 per cent and believes that many patients will benefit if funding continues for longer than four treatments.

NICE will take on board any comments made up to the end of June and issue another draft against which appeals can be lodged.

At the moment funding for the drug is available only on a case-by-case basis determined by local health authorities.

Or just tell them how to live their lives.

Smokers told to quit or surgery will be refused
By DAN NEWLING - More by this author » Last updated at 16:02pm on 4th June 2007

Comments Comments (32)
smoker

Smokers are to be denied operations on the NHS unless they give up cigarettes for at least four weeks beforehand

Smokers are to be denied operations on the Health Service unless they give up cigarettes for at least four weeks beforehand.

Doctors will police the rule by ordering patients to take a blood test to prove they have not been smoking.

The ruling, authorised by Health Secretary Patricia Hewitt, comes after medical research conclusively showed smokers take longer to recover from surgery.

It is thought that 500,000 smokers a year will be affected.

However patients' groups argue that the move is about the NHS saving money rather than improving patient care.

They claim that health trusts do not want to operate on smokers because they stay in hospital longer, blocking beds and costing more to treat.

The ruling applies to routine operations such as hip replacements and heart surgery for conditions that are not immediately life-threatening.

If smokers refuse to give up, they are still likely to be treated but may have to wait longer.

Leicester City Primary Care Trust will become the first health authority to introduce the "quit or wait" rule this summer. Other health trusts are consulting on the idea.

Rod Moore, the trust's assistant director of public health, said: "If people give up smoking prior to planned operations it will improve their recovery. It would reduce heart and lung complications and wounds would heal faster.

"Our purpose is not to deny patients access to operations but to see if the outcomes can be improved."

Patricia Hewitt has described the ruling as "a perfectly legitimate clinical decision".

Yesterday her spokesman explained: "Trusts commission surgery services based on their assessment of the needs of their local population and availability of service capacity.
What about drinkers, drug takers, people who eat too much and people who never exercise? Online forum
"The provision and availability of a particular surgical intervention should be dependent on the clinical needs of the individual patient."

• The European Commission is considering a proposal to extend the forthcoming ban on smoking in enclosed public places to cover doorways.

Officials have been studying the Canadian province of Quebec, where smoking is banned within nine metres of the doorway into any healthcare-related building, school or social services building.

The experiment is thought to have shown positive health benefits.

A spokesman for the Department of Health said the Health Act 2006, which covers the July 1 ban, contains reserve powers to extend the law to outside areas. Sports stadia, bus shelters and train platforms are already classed as enclosed public spaces under the Act and it would not have to go back to Parliament to be extended to doorways.

[MaNuMaNiAc]

Living beyond your means is not a good way to go through life.yes, trust us Argies, we know something about that :lol

[smeagol]

yes, trust us Argies, we know something about that :lol
Clearly, our governemnt screwed things up in the 90s taking on way more debt than what, as a country, we could handle.

The problem in the US is that both at the government and at the household level, there is too much debt.

In Argentina, at the individual level, it's very difficult to be overlevered because the is no credit available.

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

All the more reason to start on universal health care. A single payor system would really put a HUGE dent in spirally health costs.

Yeah, then we can all have half of our paychecks taken out to cover it like they do in Great Britain. Can't wait for that day to get here. :wakeup

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

for-profit health care is bullshit.

The next administration will take a run at universal health care. Edwards has some clear ideas, a little timid,but nobody else has said anything. A large majority of Americans and corps are now for universal health care.

Yep, a guy that made his entire fortune off of ambulance chasing is going to reform an industry where the majority of the costs to taxpayers are charges to cover malpractice insurance of medical workers.

Are you really that gullible?

[BradLohaus]

US debt could trigger dollar collapse, UN warns

http://pressesc.com/01180629622_dollar_falls

I don't know where they got $3 trillion from when it comes to all that we owe. I usually see around $60 trillion when economists add up everything, and I've see $100+ trillion figures as well.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

At some point in the future, the U.S. will default on its Medicare and Social Security obligations. There will be a major devaluation of the dollar. The result will be economic ruin and social unrest for much of the populace, a lengthy depression, an attempted coup, and the end of American hegemony.

It didnt happen in 1917-1940.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Nope.

Spiraling health care costs are because we don't provide cheap preventive medicine that would avoid those expensive cures.

Just a guess...

its the overcommercialization of the industry and no demand response to price changes.

[Wild Cobra]

It didnt happen in 1917-1940.
We didn't have those programs to fund then either.

I think we are in need for a serious devaluation of our dollar world wide. It would balance the trade deficit rather well if USA goods became cheaper for others to buy, and if out imports cost us more to buy. It could revitalize USA manufacturing!

[Extra Stout]

It didnt happen in 1917-1940.
You're right, the USA did not default on its social welfare system between 1917 and 1940. I'm not sure what your point is, however.

Interestingly, we did have both a major depression and an attempted coup in that interval.

[Extra Stout]

We didn't have those programs to fund then either.

I think we are in need for a serious devaluation of our dollar world wide. It would balance the trade deficit rather well if USA goods became cheaper for others to buy, and if out imports cost us more to buy. It could revitalize USA manufacturing!
Lots of bad things will happen if the dollar undergoes a serious devaluation. For one, it will cease to be a reserve currency worldwide. Once oil starts being traded in euros, then as the dollar slides against the euro, energy becomes unaffordable. If the dollar loses half its value, we're paying $5.50 a gallon at the pump instead of $3, without the intrinsic price of oil changing at all.

That is but one example.

[BradLohaus]

I think we are in need for a serious devaluation of our dollar world wide. It would balance the trade deficit rather well if USA goods became cheaper for others to buy, and if out imports cost us more to buy. It could revitalize USA manufacturing!

If the dollar tanks then the manufacturing that will rise up here will resemble the third world countries that currently export to us rather than the manufacturing of old that provided excellent blue collar jobs. Factor in the tens of millions of immigrants here now and that will be here in the future, along with an inevitably devalued dollar, and your looking at a future where manufacturing in America will be similar to the countries that are currently exporting cheaply to us; that's how the trade deficit will correct. In other words, it will correct in a very negative way for everyone who doesn't own a major corporation or bank (surprise, surprise - they run the world).

If we really want ro revitalize US manufacturing, then the best way to do it would be to place tariffs on all imported goods in the amount of the wage differential between the exporting country and the US; then we'll truly see which country has the comparative advantage in a particular market instead of seeing which country's corporations can pay their workers the least.

Fat chance of that happening, sadly, because free trade has reached religious status in the power centers of the country. Tariffs are heresy to the god of globalization.

[BradLohaus]

This article is a tad long, but it describes this whole situation very well, including the disconnect between the booming stock market and microscopic GDP growth.

http://onlinejournal.com/artman/publish/article_2053.shtml

[xrayzebra]

If the dollar tanks then the manufacturing that will rise up here will resemble the third world countries that currently export to us rather than the manufacturing of old that provided excellent blue collar jobs. Factor in the tens of millions of immigrants here now and that will be here in the future, along with an inevitably devalued dollar, and your looking at a future where manufacturing in America will be similar to the countries that are currently exporting cheaply to us; that's how the trade deficit will correct. In other words, it will correct in a very negative way for everyone who doesn't own a major corporation or bank (surprise, surprise - they run the world).

If we really want ro revitalize US manufacturing, then the best way to do it would be to place tariffs on all imported goods in the amount of the wage differential between the exporting country and the US; then we'll truly see which country has the comparative advantage in a particular market instead of seeing which country's corporations can pay their workers the least.

Fat chance of that happening, sadly, because free trade has reached religious status in the power centers of the country. Tariffs are heresy to the god of globalization.

Smegol will disagree with you. He wants a more level
playing field.

A cheaper dollar wont even affect most Americans, except
as wildcobra said, you will pay more for imported goods,
but I have stated before it will increase our exports because
like he said it will make our goods cheaper.

[BradLohaus]

Smegol will disagree with you. He wants a more level
playing field.

So that's what he means when he says that. Have the American government stop looking out for the best interests of its workers and treat them the same as citizens everywhere in the world. I'd call that treason, but maybe that's just me.


A cheaper dollar wont even affect most Americans, except
as wildcobra said, you will pay more for imported goods

That's not true. A massive dollar devaluation will be bad for most Americans' finances in many ways. Inflation will affect everything; just look at the change in prices at the grocery and convenience stores over the last few years. Everything is much higher than it was just a few years ago, and if we're talking about the inevitable major collapse, then this is just the beginning. The Dow is a huge credit bubble, like so many markets around the world today, and it will go down with the dollar in a major devaluation. This is bad for everybody. In short, people will pay higher prices for everything while much of their savings evaporates.


but I have stated before it will increase our exports because
like he said it will make our goods cheaper.

The export and debt repayment benefits of a much cheaper dollar will be far outweighed by the negative effects.

[Extra Stout]

If I put my assets in euros now, what happens to me? Do I become a miniature Joseph Kennedy?

[BradLohaus]

^If you get inside info to get out one year before the crash like JPK did in 1928 do me a favor and send me a private message. :smokin

[PixelPusher]

^If you get inside info to get out one year before the crash like JPK did in 1928 do me a favor and send me a private message. :smokin
JPK got inside info about the impending Crash of '29? Who's the Nostradamus who clued him in to that one?

[BradLohaus]

^ I don't know, I'm not sure if that is confirmed fact, but JPK was one shady character, there's no doubt. ExtraStout probably knows more about it than I do.

This is from wikipedia:

"Kennedy formed alliances with several other Irish-Catholic money men, including Charles E. Mitchell, Michael J. Meehan and Bernard Smith. He helped establish the Libby-Owens-Ford stock pool, an arrangement in which Kennedy and colleagues created an artificial scarcity of Libby-Owens-Ford stock to drive up the value of their own holdings in the stock. Using inside information, and the public's lack of knowledge, a pool operator would bribe journalists to present that information in the most advantageous manner. The stocks would then change in price up or down depending on the position favored by the pool.

Kennedy got out of the market in 1928, the year before the Crash, locking in multi-million dollar profits."

He was an admitted anti-semite, and didn't think the Nazi's were doing much wrong with respect to the Jews:

"On June 13, 1938, Kennedy met with Herbert von Dirksen, the German ambassador in London, who reported to Berlin that Kennedy had told him that "it was not so much the fact that we want to get rid of the Jews that was so harmful to us, but rather the loud clamor with which we accompanied this purpose. [Kennedy] himself fully understood our Jewish policy."[10] Kennedy's main concern with such violent acts against German Jews as Kristallnacht was that they generated bad publicity in the West for the Nazi regime, a concern he communicated in a letter to Charles Lindbergh.[11]"

The Fed knew what was about to go down in 1928; I'm sure JPK had ties to them somehow.

[xrayzebra]

^^Kennedy also loved the fact that country went dry. He made
a mint on being a bootlegger.

[Nbadan]

Lots of bad things will happen if the dollar undergoes a serious devaluation. For one, it will cease to be a reserve currency worldwide. Once oil starts being traded in euros, then as the dollar slides against the euro, energy becomes unaffordable. If the dollar loses half its value, we're paying $5.50 a gallon at the pump instead of $3, without the intrinsic price of oil changing at all.

That is but one example.

In order for the Euro to play more of a 'dominant roll' in the world-wide 'oil currency' game there needs to be many more Euros printed first. It's easy to say that the Euro will displace the dollar as the reserve currency of choice in the case of a massive dollar devaluation, but if there aren't enough Euros in foreign banks to cover large transactions the world may have to go to a system of mixed currencies including the Euro, the Yen, and other foreign currencies.

That said, when it comes down to protecting its financial interests, including the value of your currency, through willingness to use military might, there is still no equal to the U.S...

[Nbadan]

If the dollar loses half its value, we're paying $5.50 a gallon at the pump instead of $3, without the intrinsic price of oil changing at all.

That's essentially correct. Even today, as the dollar continues to lose value against foreign currencies, oil-exporting countries are demanding more 'worth-less' dollars for the same oil. This is why the median price of gas is increasing in the long-term. The short-term increases are due mainly to refinery spikes.

[Nbadan]

The export and debt repayment benefits of a much cheaper dollar will be far outweighed by the negative effects.

..but your forgetting that those 'negative effects' will really only really effect the working poor and the middle-class. The rich and the very rich don't own a lot of cash, but they own a lot of stock in companies that can easily be converted to other types of currency very quickly.

[Nbadan]

Great video:

Our Economy Right Now (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-rLYph0J7vc)

[BradLohaus]

Great video:

Our Economy Right Now (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-rLYph0J7vc)

Interesting.

After watching that I found this one on youtube about the dollar. Even Al Jazeera gets it!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GbPetrK_6Lc&mode=related&search=

[Nbadan]

Here is another good series:

The Crash_The Coming Financial Collapse of America (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iqKAUfIhR88&mode=related&search=)

[2centsworth]

bump.

RG,

I've done a 180 on health care. A single "PAYOR" not "Provider" system is what we need.

[cool hand]

ditto

[cool hand]

ditto

[ChumpDumper]

Ditto to what?

[DarkReign]

Ditto to what?

Dont ask. This is the guy who starts threads with very long titles and then a three-word thought provoking post like "told ya so", which you expect to be a url link, but in fact is just a 3-word nothing phrase.

[bobbyjoe]

Universal health care tends to make the ultimate costs of unhealthy behavior a LOT more transparent.

You pay for all of this now, but you just don't see it because it is tucked away in everything you buy and all the premiums you pay.

When a person goes to the hospital emergency room and can't pay, how does that hospital recoup those costs if they aren't reimbursed by the government?

(hint: it rhymes with "swill the insurance companies smore"

Who ultimately pays for that ER trip? You do.

The big benefit from a cost standpoint is the fact that universal health care will tend to make cheaper preventive medicine more available, so that the more expensive curative stuff can be avoided.

It is cheaper to treat just about any disease earlier than it is later, or better yet head it off to begin with.

A-freaking Men. Glad to see someone understands it. Health care costs are already socialized because the bill is passed on for the ridiculously expensive ER trips which bankrupt many Americans who can't get insurance companies or Medicare to chip in. These costs are passed on by hospitals through higher preimiums.

Given that they are already socialized, the net costs of the system would gradually decline over time on a per capita basis after the initial upfront investment if the 15% of Americans and the XX% of Americans who are currently without insurance of any sort or underinsured would actually start going to doctors regularly and diagnosing problems before they progressed and are much more expensive to deal with and treat.

Another factor you never hear the "UHC is crap and will never work" crowd discuss is that healthier people are more productive people. The 2 easiest ways for an economy to sustainably grow are through technological innovation and worker productivity. People who are sick, but lack access to adequate health care miss more work days and are less productive on the job than healthy folks. It sure would nice to see an economy grow again through productivity gains as opposed to an illusory recovery based on cheap money thanks to the Fed or an artificial housing bubble thanks to corporate greed and consumer stupidity, wouldn't it?

Healthcare is not simply an expense, it's an investment in the future. It's a shame that this bailout is going to make us make some tough choices on what programs we can and can't invest in, because Healthcare needs to be addressed. The private sector in the health care industry gives America a very poor ROI relative to the UHC programs in other countries (though admittedly they accomplish a great deal of this through price controls). The system right now is too geared to gouging from drug companies, doctors, and insurance companies.

[bobbyjoe]

Nope.

Spiraling health care costs come from a single thing: Sick People - and the expensive cures (or "heroic" attempts at cures) that our healthcare system charges for them.

We have reduced people that die from heart attacks.

Great.

Heart attacks are cheap deaths, however.

Cancer is a very expensive way to die.

There are alot more cancers now (angioplasties, cholesterol lowering meds,etc) are too blame more than anything else - not that they cause it, they just ALLOW people to live long enough to get it.

Baby boomers are getting older; taking more and more meds, getting sicker...THAT is why healthcare costs are skyrocketing!!! That's why they were so cheap in the 70's! - the baby boomers (spelled bulk of the economy), were young and healthy, and their parents and grandparents were dying of relatively inexpensive things. In the meantime, the insurance companies were charging cheap premiums, the baby boomers were PAYING cheap premiums, all was good. NOW there aren't as many of us, to pay for all of them gettting VERY sick (Chemo, radiation = $$$$$$$$$), plus all of the meds these people take to just make the baseline costs month to month high...

Doesn't matter how you pay for it; private, public, a mix...it's GONNA be expensive!!!

I'm pretty sure, however, that it WON"T be CHEAPER if the govt. (the one responsible for the mess we're in that this thread is based on), is MORE involved. Just a guess.

If your theory was true, that our costs are simply higher because we help people survive through difficult diseases, we shouldn't rank 42nd in the world in Life Expectancy. Especially if you are also arguing that the main reason for our costs is the increase in the baby boomer segment. Our costs per capita should actually be lower since we rank so low in life expectancy. Instead we run 2 to 3 times per capita and % of GDP costs as other industrialized, wealthy nations.

We aren't the only country facing the baby boomer growth either. This is happening in Western Europe as well.

Drugs cost ~3 times in America what they do in the rest of the world. Having entities and entities of payers is inefficient (and not only Medicare, the private insurance co's as well). We have much higher administrative costs than other nations plans as well. We also have doctors who gouge patients with numerous and very expensive, unncessary surgeries to fatten their pockets. We have a system where doctors are not compensated on how successful their treatments are to patients, but how expensive and invasive they are. Many doctors chalk this up to "defensive medicine" due to the lack of tort reform. However, pure greed is certainly a factor as well.

It's not too much different in many ways to unscrupulous lenders who weren't straightforward with sucker homebuyers about the long term rafimications of the exotic, untraditional loans which they were selling which had the potential to go up in rate tremendously.

I also think it's comedy to blame the Federal Government for the mess of the housing crisis. That was caused by 3 things:

1) Greedy investment banks and lenders looking to make a quick book by making loans which scored very poorly on a risk: reward basis

2) Sucker consumers who were either too stupid to know what they were getting to or were so blinded by the boom in the housing market that they took illogical and irrational levels of risk

3) Mortgage brokers so hungry for commissions they had no scruples lending to people they knew couldn't afford loans. They are only compensated to consummate deals and have no recourse against them if they are helping underrwrite deals with monstrous default rates.

The amount of fraud in the mortgage industry from brokers and applicants is ridiculous. Appraisers who were so in bed with the banks they were dealing with that they were appraising houses at insanely bloated values (this industry needs serious reform/regulation...unbelievable conflicts of interest in the way they do business) which allowed bad deals to take place.

The government isn't the one who made the terrible loans. The fault lies with the private sector and consumers. The only thing the govt can truly be blamed for is for once again being reactive, instead of proactive.

I know it's popular to blame government for everything and make this a partisan issue, but when you look closely, that's just not a fair assessment. The govt shoulders a very low % of the blame IMO, unless you are referring to their decisions in how to deal with the crisis.

[bobbyjoe]

So finding and detecting cancer early really isn't cheaper than expensive desperate treatment?

What about the lost costs to the economy of lost productivity of people who would otherwise live and be productive members of our economy?

The costs both in actively spent dollars and opportunity costs of not having decent preventive health care are much greater than you seem to think.

Preventive healthcare does save a ton of money.

Cancer is absolutely cheaper to treat if detected early, not to mention the chances of survival increase significantly as well.

Look at some of the illnesses that really plague our society right now: Diabetes, Heart Problems, High Blood Pressure.

Diabetes and HBP, which can lead to extensive and expensive organ damage are really asymptomatic in most cases. If you aren't going regularly to a primary care physician, you aren't going to notice these until you are well into the progress of the disease, when it's much more expensive to treat and your productivity and economic output potential declines accordingly. You also are going to see Americans make more positive lifestyle changes if they benefit from preventive care more than they do now because primary physicians are the ones who can really help in this regard.

[BradLohaus]

It has almost happened before.

A handful of wealthy families, including the Morgans, Chases, Du Ponts, and Johnsons, attempted a coup against FDR in the early 1930's as the Depression bottomed out, in order to institute fascism in the United States. Their allies had infiltrated the military, but the general they called upon to execute the coup blew the whistle on them.

The coup has thwarted, and the matter was referred to Congress. Of course, since rich and powerful people were responsible for the treason, Congress swept it all under the rug.

This was a great thread. I learned about the 1930s attempted Fascist coup from Extra Stout.

The general they tried to use was Smedley Butler, the most decorated man in Marine history at the time of his death. He played along and then blew the whistle to Congress, but nothing was done for the reason above.

If you don't know about this plot, now is probably a good time to learn, considering that the descendants (both blood and ideology) are still screwing us over today:

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

Seriously - important stuff there. You'd think they'd teach us that in school.... right?:lol Wonder why public schools have been dumbed down... wonder who would benefit from that... wonder what monied families have been donating their fortunes to public education for a century plus.

Awwww shucks, given the average US teen's knowledge of history, I guess they just don't know what they're doing......

The idea that the US is broke was mentioned on the Glen Beck Show a week ago. Beck went up a notch in my book when he said this at the 4:40 mark:


…the Federal Reserve, which is not a government institution – they have nothing to do with the federal government, it’s a separate global banking system – when everybody was meeting this weekend with our Secretary of Treasury I thought to myself, “who the hell is in that room representing the United States of America. Everybody seems to be looking out for these banks, but who is out there looking out for the little guy?”

That's the first time I've ever seen it put point blank like that on one of the news channels.

The great Peter Schiff (or should I say Peter "The Great" Schiff:king) and some other guy who doesn't seem too bad on Beck's show last week:

UMstcGRezhw

[DarkReign]

...and what do you know, Prescott Bush (great grandfather of our wonderful President and first chairman of the Federal Reserve) was indicated in said plot to overthrow our government.

I hate this government, I hate the elite who actually run it and I hope one day I will have a chance to send my soul to hell for this country.

[RandomGuy]

Nope.

Spiraling health care costs come from a single thing: Sick People - and the expensive cures (or "heroic" attempts at cures) that our healthcare system charges for them.

We have reduced people that die from heart attacks.

Great.

Heart attacks are cheap deaths, however.

Cancer is a very expensive way to die.

There are alot more cancers now (angioplasties, cholesterol lowering meds,etc) are too blame more than anything else - not that they cause it, they just ALLOW people to live long enough to get it.

Baby boomers are getting older; taking more and more meds, getting sicker...THAT is why healthcare costs are skyrocketing!!! That's why they were so cheap in the 70's! - the baby boomers (spelled bulk of the economy), were young and healthy, and their parents and grandparents were dying of relatively inexpensive things. In the meantime, the insurance companies were charging cheap premiums, the baby boomers were PAYING cheap premiums, all was good. NOW there aren't as many of us, to pay for all of them gettting VERY sick (Chemo, radiation = $$$$$$$$$), plus all of the meds these people take to just make the baseline costs month to month high...

Doesn't matter how you pay for it; private, public, a mix...it's GONNA be expensive!!!

I'm pretty sure, however, that it WON"T be CHEAPER if the govt. (the one responsible for the mess we're in that this thread is based on), is MORE involved. Just a guess.

The US pays twice as much per capita than every other country with universal health insurance.

12 years later, we still pay more than everybody else, and universal health insurance is still a good idea.

[Spurminator]

I hate this government, I hate the elite who actually run it and I hope one day I will have a chance to send my soul to hell for this country.

Damn, that's dark. Wonder if he actually succeeded.

[SpursforSix]

Damn, that's dark. Wonder if he actually succeeded.

LOL. I think this was the dude that told me "I will crush your soul" in some thread

[Winehole23]

DarkReign had a dark side and did not suffer fools and trolls kindly. But he was a perceptive and thoughtful poster too.

He is missed.