Compaines laying off due to Obama?

[A.Nonymous]

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

 

[jefboyardee]

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.

 

[jefboyardee]

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."

 

[saptech]

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

 

[jefboyardee]

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.

 

[saptech]

Demography Not The Only Reason Romney Lost - ABC News

If winning an election depends on appealing to and then turning out a base of old, white people you are going to lose every presidential election from here on out.

 

[ElasticNinja]

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

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

 

[A.Nonymous]

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.

 

[ElasticNinja]

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.

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.

 

[A.Nonymous]

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.

 

[kevincott]

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.

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?

 

[ElasticNinja]

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.

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.

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?

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.

 

[A.Nonymous]

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.

 

[ElasticNinja]

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.

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

 

[A.Nonymous]

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

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.

 

[ElasticNinja]

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.

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

 

[A.Nonymous]

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

 

[cjr72]

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

 

[ElasticNinja]

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

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).

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

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.

 

[A.Nonymous]

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.

 

[ElasticNinja]

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.

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.

 

[Apoplectic1]

Why won't companies just take the hit on the bottom line like they're supposed to? It makes no sense.

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 we have a life expectancy far better than America's, despite smoking and drinking much more.

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

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

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.

A well regulated, mandatory 3rd party payer system would be a lot more efficient than the current system.

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.

 

[A.Nonymous]

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.

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.

 

[ElasticNinja]

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.

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.

 

[ElasticNinja]

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

Well our mildly better diet helps up the life expectancy, but as I said, drinking and smoking are way higher here

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.

I have heard of it, but thats not really relevant. You could provide healthcare for all without increasing the deficit (although less spending would result in less tax revenues and thus a higher deficit, and 6-8 of the US economy would disappear)

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?

Well its healthcare.. health is a right. Its not my fault I am predisposed to cancer or Alzheimers or high cholesterol, or that kids are born with illnesses.

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

Why should it not? The government is there for the betterment and protection of the people. If this was not the case we would all be impoverished and likely dead.



Anywaaaaay, heres an interesting article with some fun facts and figures. Interesting to see some of the problems European countries have (Although they obviously pale in comparison when compared to the US):

Six out of every seven doctors agree: Our health-care system doesn’t work