Compaines laying off due to Obama?


Last Updated: 2013-09-01 00:48:40
  1. A.Nonymous

    A.Nonymous Well-Known Member

    It doesn't cost less and it's not more efficient. Nothing at all the US government does is efficient. That's the problem.

    Advertisement
    jayjay1122, dustwun77 and rabernet like this.
  2. jefboyardee

    jefboyardee Well-Known Member

    Hostess, the makers of Twinkies, Ding Dongs and Wonder Bread, is going out of business after striking workers failed to heed a Thursday deadline to return to work, the company said.
  3. jefboyardee

    jefboyardee Well-Known Member

    Time to Let the Country Crash?

    "Let it crash!" "Give them what they want and they'll see what happens!" "Surely, once the left's programs are implemented and the economy crashes, people will come to their senses."
  4. saptech

    saptech Well-Known Member

    Voting for 2012 ended with the reelection of President Barack Obama, but the hatred, disrespect and attacks on the president have been non-stop. From Twitter messages, to college campus protests to radio station call-ins, to gun purchases, and anger on the streets.

    But on the bright side of things...

    Millionaires to Washington: More Taxes, Please! | Mother Jones
  5. jefboyardee

    jefboyardee Well-Known Member

    Can Romney's loss help Republicans?

    Just ten days after the election, it already looks like rough sledding ahead for whoever sits in the Oval Office. And the fact that it is not Mitt Romney may ultimately help Republicans.
  6. saptech

    saptech Well-Known Member

  7. ElasticNinja

    ElasticNinja Well-Known Member

    I'm sorry, but the statistics disagree A.Nonymous. They simply do.
  8. A.Nonymous

    A.Nonymous Well-Known Member

    The only reason some government services are able to provide the same services for less money is because they operate at a loss. They are not at all viable long term solutions. At least not if we have any interests in cutting the size/cost of government. They are certainly not more efficient.
    dustwun77 likes this.
  9. ElasticNinja

    ElasticNinja Well-Known Member

    Operate at a loss = efficiency? You are a smart guy A.Nonymous, sheesh. If we compare government regulated and mandated (or run) health systems, they are far more efficient than the free for all model in the US.

    Read this:

    Healthcare spending around the world, country by country | News | guardian.co.uk

    Healthcare spend as a %GDP: Germany = 11.6% vs US = 17.9 %GDP.
    Private spend as a % of HC spend: Germany = 22.9% vs US = 46.9%.
    Public spend per capita PPP: Germany = $3339 vs US = $4437.

    Germany has 3 doctors for every 2 the US has.

    Don't give me a bunch of shit about US governments being inefficient etc. German healthcare is run by their states, many of whom have quite large fiscal deficits and could be run somewhat better.

    Basically, what I'm saying is, taking the government out of healthcare will only increase overall healthcare spending, cause millions to die unnecessarily, drive up costs and economic inefficiency and make the US more uncompetitive.
  10. A.Nonymous

    A.Nonymous Well-Known Member

    Again, they are not more efficient. Your argument that they can provide more services for less money is right. But they only reason they can do this is because they operate at a loss. It's not a sustainable long term model.
    dustwun77 likes this.
  11. kevincott

    kevincott Well-Known Member Contributor

    If the Government actually improves efficiency, what really happens?

    Medicine will lose the best and brightest students to other fields. The sharpest people will want to make more money wherever it lies and doctors as a whole will be B to C+ type students.

    Is this what you want, your life dependent on 'above average' students?
  12. ElasticNinja

    ElasticNinja Well-Known Member

    The healthcare system of Germany does not operate at a loss. The Japanese one does, but that doesnt make a big difference to health spending in practice.

    Look at the statistics. Address them. Please.

    Thats the way it is in my country, and we have a life expectancy far better than America's, despite smoking and drinking much more.
  13. A.Nonymous

    A.Nonymous Well-Known Member

    Every healthcare system the US government operates operates at a loss. That's all I'm saying. The US government doesn't turn a profit on anything it operates. In fact, every system the feds operate that I'm familiar with operate at a loss. Medicare/medicaid all lose money. Social Security loses money. And if you try to deal with these systems on a regular basis you quickly find that they are anything in the world but efficient.

    Set all of that aside for a second. The fact is that culturally people here do not trust the government at all. The last thing they want is government in charge of their healthcare. As I mentioned earlier, the government runs the VA healthcare system from the top to the bottom. They have full control over everything. Your dog gets better care. Just saying.
    dustwun77 likes this.
  14. ElasticNinja

    ElasticNinja Well-Known Member

    Running a loss mean not enough taxation. Not relevant to the efficiency of the service!
  15. A.Nonymous

    A.Nonymous Well-Known Member

    Not very efficient to lose money year after year, but what do I know? The fact is you are not going to drive down healthcare costs by raising taxes. Silly that anyone would think that is the solution. If you want to reform healthcare in the US you need to drive costs down, not force everyone to buy it. Drive costs down and then let people decide if they want to buy healthcare or not. If they don't, it's all on them.
  16. ElasticNinja

    ElasticNinja Well-Known Member

    My point was that if a system like Germany's existed in the US, taxes would not have to be raised. The government would not provide healthcare. etc etc
  17. A.Nonymous

    A.Nonymous Well-Known Member

    And if money grew on trees no one would ever go bankrupt. What's your point?
  18. jhtalisman

    jhtalisman Well-Known Member Contributor

    You are either going to pay for others healthcare upfront or when you have see a doctor or have surgery. I, along with many others, would rather pay upfront.

    A.nonymous, you can only speak for yourself and those you know, so please don't try to represent the entire population of the U.S.A.
  19. cjr72

    cjr72 Well-Known Member

    Government run or not as long as healthcare remains a third-party payer system in the US it will continue to be inefficient.
  20. ElasticNinja

    ElasticNinja Well-Known Member

    Depends on your definition of efficient I guess. A well regulated, mandatory 3rd party payer system would be a lot more efficient than the current system.

    Granted, an entirely government run system would be the most efficient and effective, based on statistical evidence, but in a lot of cases that is not feasible (certainly not in the US).

    You know exactly what my point is A.Nonymous. Its that the US needs a universal healthcare system to improve outcomes and to make the economy more competitive.

    EDIT: Also if money grew on trees there would be rampant inflation and probably thus more bankruptcy.
  21. A.Nonymous

    A.Nonymous Well-Known Member

    For the last time we have a perfect example of a fully funded, fully run by the US government health system. It's the VA system. Someone please make the case for me that the VA health system is great and wonderful. I'm listening. The fact that every vet I know would rather pay money for insurance out of their own pocket so they can go elsewhere tells you a lot. They are entitled to free health insurance for life but would rather pay for something in the private sector. What does that say about the efficiency and effectiveness of a fully government run system in the US? But if someone thinks the VA system is better than any private system out there, I'm listening. I think it's a shame we treat our veterans this way.

    In any case, why not address the problem of why healthcare is so damn expensive? Instead of forcing everyone to buy a product that everyone seems to agree is overpriced, why not focus on bringing the price down. You bring the price down to something that is reasonable and then you let people decide if they want to buy it or not. If they don't want to buy a reasonably priced product, it's on them.
  22. ElasticNinja

    ElasticNinja Well-Known Member

    Can you read my posts? I've explained how one gets the bloody price down over and over again to you ad nauseum, but at this stage I reckon you simply have selective illiteracy.
  23. Apoplectic1

    Apoplectic1 Well-Known Member

    Because they don't have to. They can just side step it and delegate the costs down to the employees by cutting hours and consumers by raising prices.

    That's why you can never truly tax the top 10%. You only really tax the rest indirectly.

    ...and that has absolutely nothing to do with Europeans typically having a much better diet than Americans does it?

    Unfortunately increasing taxes can have an inverse relationship with productivity. Raise taxes too much, productivity goes way down. Ever hear of the Laffer Curve?

    Productivity down = inefficiency.

    That's just it, does the government have the right to force people to buy anything? Am I the only person who that seems completely oppressive to?

    Not to mention that it is directly in violation of several commerce clauses and the tenth amendment of the US Constitution. But when was the last time that stopped any politician?

    Whether or not people are healthy (whether or not their state of unhealth is self imposed or not) should not be the governments concern.
  24. A.Nonymous

    A.Nonymous Well-Known Member

    No, your idea of bringing the price down by (ideally) having a system run entirely by the government is beyond ridiculous. I'm still waiting to hear your arguments about how the VA system (entirely run by the government) is so good.
  25. ElasticNinja

    ElasticNinja Well-Known Member

    Well, while I would like my countries healthcare system to be largely government run like the NHS (and I guess it is, but it is heavily two tier, 50/50 split of no insurance to insurance, should be more like 90/10), but as I said, I think government run healthcare is impractical for nigh on all US states.

    If you had read my posts, you would see me saying that in the US, governments should negotiate with insurers and the healthcare industry, set targets and levels of care, etc. The government would not own hospitals. It would not pay nurses or doctors. But it would insure everyone had cheap efficient insurance.

    I really have no idea about the VA. I don't think its really practical for a government run healthcare system with low use to exist across the US. Veterans should just have Universal Healthcare like everyone else, throw in free orthodontistry for their kids of something.

Share This Page