The end is in sight

Eeyore · May 2, 2009

James Arthur wrote:

For example: the USA has much better cancer survival rates

Cite ?

http://info.cancerresearchuk.org/cancerstats/geographic/world/mortality/
Shows mortality from cancer as 19% in 'socialist medicine' Europe and 23% in
North America.

I believe we have longer lifetimes here too. Yes, certain parts of Europe do.
CIA data.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/de/Life_Expectancy_2008_Estimates_CIA_World_Factbook.png

and better drugs than Europe.

You can get exactly the same drugs in Europe but usually marketed under
different names. Tell me about these 'better drugs' you have please ?

Your statements seem to be based on personal bias, rather than facts. I thought
you were more intelligent than that.

Graham

Jim Thompson · May 2, 2009

On Fri, 1 May 2009 19:29:20 -0700, "Bob Eld" <nsmontassoc@yahoo.com>
wrote:

[snip]

... only one Canadian in a
thousand comes down here for medical care. Most would not want to pay more
to get less and they certainly would not come here for our "generous" drug
policies.

The people coming to the US for health care are not Canadians but rather
Mexicans and they go into hospital emergency rooms for primary care. They do
this because US law mandates the Hospitals must accommodate anybody that
walks in and pick up the tab if they can't pay.

This is a half assed stab at socialized medicine but it only applies to the
indigent and poor plus it burdens hospitals with services that should be
offered in inexpensive clinics. Like so many things, its part of the problem
not part of the solution.

James Arthur · May 2, 2009

Bob Larter wrote:

The real losers have been the financial institutions who were dumb
enough to buy high-risk securitised mortgages from the original lenders,

Our government was the biggest buyer. Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae,
the government-sponsored enterprises, hold or guarantee $5T of
those securities.

& the ones who were dumb enough to guarantee those securities.

The GSEs bought and insured those securities at the direction of
the federal government, of Congress.

Lots of investors the world over were "dumb" enough to buy those
securities from F&F because they assumed, correctly, that those
Government-Sponsored Enterprises--and the securities they offered
for sale--were implicitly backed by the full faith and credit of
the United States.

Them's the facts.

Cheers,
James Arthur

krw · May 2, 2009

On Sat, 02 May 2009 07:08:23 GMT, Jon Kirwan
<jonk@infinitefactors.org> wrote:

On Sat, 02 May 2009 01:42:11 +0100, Eeyore
rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:

Richard the Dreaded Libertarian wrote:

Martin Brown wrote:
Richard the Dreaded Libertarian wrote:
Eeyore wrote:
Richard the Dreaded Libertarian wrote:
James Arthur wrote:
Might that help catch criminals and prevent crime?
The only thing the state can do is respond to crime scenes and clean
up the mess, and hope they'll catch the perp sometime.
CCTV in UK town centres has already shown that to be false. At last the
police here can and do now act proactively.

So, when you're being mugged, do you ask the mugger to wait a sec while
you call the cops? Or turn over your cash, while you're waiting for
somebody to observe the crime remotely and dispatch your "protector"?

It happens so rarely that I wouldn't know. Unless you are sure you can
win the advice is generally to give the attacker what they ask for.
Insurance can replace material goods - life is more important.

Yeah! Then when he's walking away, shoot him in the back! >;-

Martin lives in a civilised country where carrying firearms is almost unknown
and certainly not by any ordinary citizen.

Well, there is that. I forget how many guns are in the US, at times.

My neighbor, 2nd door over, has fully automatic weapons as well as a
regular arsenal of who knows what. When I first moved in, after
listening to 12-15 rounds per second at times, for weeks on end, I
called up the police department and let them know where I lived. "Uh,
my wife feels a little uncomfortable with my neighbor using fully
automatic weapons in his back yard, day and night," I then said. They
responded, "Well, if you actually hear the bullets whizzing overhead
or see any impacts on your property, let us know."

Cool! I'll trade them for the incessant bark of the neighbor's
weenie-dogs (4) and the air horn on the Hummer.

>I guess I will.

Jim Yanik · May 2, 2009

Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@My-Web-Site.com> wrote in
news:5bsov4daeq9b6jtfr88294a586i1avbmsn@4ax.com:

On Fri, 1 May 2009 19:29:20 -0700, "Bob Eld" <nsmontassoc@yahoo.com
wrote:

[snip]

... only one Canadian in a
thousand comes down here for medical care. Most would not want to pay
more to get less and they certainly would not come here for our
"generous" drug policies.

the Canucks coming to the US for health care are ones who can afford to pay
for procedures not available(in a timely manner) to them in Canada.
The ones who don't want to -or can't- WAIT several months for treatments
that people get immediately in the US.
It's not a matter of "pay more get less".

The people coming to the US for health care are not Canadians but
rather Mexicans and they go into hospital emergency rooms for primary
care. They do this because US law mandates the Hospitals must
accommodate anybody that walks in and pick up the tab if they can't
pay.

This is a half assed stab at socialized medicine

No,it's meant to be a last-choice safety net.

but it only applies
to the indigent and poor plus it burdens hospitals with services that
should be offered in inexpensive clinics.

They ARE offered in inexpensive clinics.
Heck,even WalMart and CVS Pharmacies are now offering basic health
services.

Problem is,the Mexicans are here illegally.
They don't come for health care,they come to get jobs.They take entry-level
jobs w/o health benefits,and count on free care at emergency rooms.

They send their money back to Mexico.

Like so many things, its
part of the problem not part of the solution.

And there, gentlemen, you have an example of socialism brain-washing
at it's finest. Mexicans from Canada? Bwahahahahahaha!

...Jim Thompson

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

Jim Thompson · May 2, 2009

On Sat, 02 May 2009 13:46:48 -0400, Spehro Pefhany
<speffSNIP@interlogDOTyou.knowwhat> wrote:

On 2 May 2009 17:00:40 GMT, the renowned Jim Yanik <jyanik@abuse.gov
wrote:

Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@My-Web-Site.com> wrote in
news:5bsov4daeq9b6jtfr88294a586i1avbmsn@4ax.com:

On Fri, 1 May 2009 19:29:20 -0700, "Bob Eld" <nsmontassoc@yahoo.com
wrote:

[snip]

... only one Canadian in a
thousand comes down here for medical care. Most would not want to pay
more to get less and they certainly would not come here for our
"generous" drug policies.

the Canucks coming to the US for health care are ones who can afford to pay
for procedures not available(in a timely manner) to them in Canada.
The ones who don't want to -or can't- WAIT several months for treatments
that people get immediately in the US.
It's not a matter of "pay more get less".

The people coming to the US for health care are not Canadians but
rather Mexicans and they go into hospital emergency rooms for primary
care. They do this because US law mandates the Hospitals must
accommodate anybody that walks in and pick up the tab if they can't
pay.

This is a half assed stab at socialized medicine

No,it's meant to be a last-choice safety net.

but it only applies
to the indigent and poor plus it burdens hospitals with services that
should be offered in inexpensive clinics.

They ARE offered in inexpensive clinics.
Heck,even WalMart and CVS Pharmacies are now offering basic health
services.

Problem is,the Mexicans are here illegally.
They don't come for health care,they come to get jobs.They take entry-level
jobs w/o health benefits,and count on free care at emergency rooms.

Does that actually amount to much in the big picture-- just curious, I
would have thought that illegals were generally in their most healthy
years, although perhaps by not getting preventative care and using the
most expensive (emerg room) care, the numbers might be skewed.

They send their money back to Mexico.

Best regards,
Spehro Pefhany

James Arthur · May 2, 2009

Bob Larter wrote:

Richard the Dreaded Libertarian wrote:
On Fri, 01 May 2009 08:16:01 -0700, Bob Eld wrote:
"Bob Larter" <bobbylarter@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:gte5ru$o3$1@blackhelicopter.databasix.com...
bill.sloman@ieee.org wrote:
On Apr 29, 12:43 am, James Arthur <bogusabd...@verizon.net> wrote:
[...]
"Progressive" Great Society programs drove the financial bubble,
which frankly pales compared to the Social Security and Medicare
fiascoes.
The US social security and medicare systems are fiascos - not because
the ideas are impracticable, since they work fine in other countries -
because American politicians don't understand the social contract
underlying the ideas, and won't implement them in a way that benefits
society as a whole.
Well said. That's exactly the problem. In the real world, it actually
costs more to make sure that the 'undeserving' are excluded than it
does
to just pay out & accept that there's going to be some wastage. Per
capita, the USA spends more money on health care than countries with
free universal health care that excludes nobody. I suspect that the
same
is also true of the Social Security system.
The US spends 14% of GDP on health care while most countries with
universal
care spend about 10% of GNP. The US system is inefficient and very
wasteful
plus insurance companies rake profit right off of the top without
actually
doing any of the health care.

The whole problem was initiated by the Income Tax <Spit!>.

I guess it's time for a little history lesson:

Instead of offering incentive payments to their employees, which would
essentially end up being confiscated by Da Gubmint, they offered medical
insurance (which wasn't taxed). IOW, employee-provided medical insurance
was self-defense against the income tax.

Over the years, it evolved into an "entitlement".

There was no control on the price of care - you'd just turn the bill
over to the insurance company, who'd rubber-stamp it and pay the bill,
without
it affecting you at all.

So the medical industry came up with more and more expensive crap, a
billion tests for the sniffles and so on, and the insurance company
would pick up the tab and raise the cost to your employer.

This lack of Free Market medical care caused prices to skyrocket, since
nobody knew or cared how much it was actually cost them. "Oh, the
insurance will cover it!"

If, when Latisha took little Mobutu to the ER for a skinned knee or so,
If they billed her the three grand or so, she might be motivated to
invest
in a first-aid kit and learn how to use it.

As usual, the problem is socialism.

You seem to have missed the point that "socialised medicine" is actually
cheaper than what you have in the USA.

Actually, it's the most expensive part of what we already have in
the USA, we're just thinking of doubling it.

Cheers,
James Arthur

Spehro Pefhany · May 2, 2009

On 2 May 2009 17:00:40 GMT, the renowned Jim Yanik <jyanik@abuse.gov>
wrote:

Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@My-Web-Site.com> wrote in
news:5bsov4daeq9b6jtfr88294a586i1avbmsn@4ax.com:

On Fri, 1 May 2009 19:29:20 -0700, "Bob Eld" <nsmontassoc@yahoo.com
wrote:

[snip]

... only one Canadian in a
thousand comes down here for medical care. Most would not want to pay
more to get less and they certainly would not come here for our
"generous" drug policies.

the Canucks coming to the US for health care are ones who can afford to pay
for procedures not available(in a timely manner) to them in Canada.
The ones who don't want to -or can't- WAIT several months for treatments
that people get immediately in the US.
It's not a matter of "pay more get less".

The people coming to the US for health care are not Canadians but
rather Mexicans and they go into hospital emergency rooms for primary
care. They do this because US law mandates the Hospitals must
accommodate anybody that walks in and pick up the tab if they can't
pay.

This is a half assed stab at socialized medicine

No,it's meant to be a last-choice safety net.

but it only applies
to the indigent and poor plus it burdens hospitals with services that
should be offered in inexpensive clinics.

They ARE offered in inexpensive clinics.
Heck,even WalMart and CVS Pharmacies are now offering basic health
services.

Problem is,the Mexicans are here illegally.
They don't come for health care,they come to get jobs.They take entry-level
jobs w/o health benefits,and count on free care at emergency rooms.

Does that actually amount to much in the big picture-- just curious, I
would have thought that illegals were generally in their most healthy
years, although perhaps by not getting preventative care and using the
most expensive (emerg room) care, the numbers might be skewed.

They send their money back to Mexico.

Best regards,
Spehro Pefhany
--
"it's the network..." "The Journey is the reward"
speff@interlog.com Info for manufacturers: http://www.trexon.com
Embedded software/hardware/analog Info for designers: http://www.speff.com

James Arthur · May 2, 2009

Bob Larter wrote:

Joel Koltner wrote:
"Richard the Dreaded Libertarian" <freedom_guy@example.net> wrote in
message
[...]
If, when Latisha took little Mobutu to the ER for a skinned knee or so,
If they billed her the three grand or so, she might be motivated to
invest
in a first-aid kit and learn how to use it.

In a more sensible world, the triage nurse at the ER would tell
Latisha, "look, there doesn't appear to be any problem here -- you
might go home, clean it up and cover it with gauze, and it'll be fine;
we'd do the same thing but it's just going to cost you more money."
In the real world, this doesn't happen due to liability concerns -- if
it turns out the nurse is wrong, and Mobutu's knee gets infected and
he eventually loses his leg, guess who's going to have to pay millions
of dollars? There's a non-negligible component of U.S. health care
that can be directly attributed to "defensive medicine" like this.

I'm told that US doctors routinely shotgun-test patients with expensive
diagnostics for exactly this reason.

That's a fact. It's also true that no one--including and especially
the doctors--has any idea how much any drug, test, or procedure costs,
and they'll as gladly Rx one as the other. Zero cost optimization.

Nor do they need to optimize; no one's spending their own money, so
no one cares.

I was glibly Rx'd $7,000 worth of tests for a trivial problem. When
I questioned "how much would that cost?" of his idea, the doc didn't
know whether it was hundreds or thousands. When I suggested a $70
alternative he said "Sure, that'd work."

And, actually, I didn't need either test--there was nothing wrong,
and the thing to be checked was already ruled out by other data.
The doc was just CYA shotgunning from the hip because that's what
they do. Most people, understandably, would've just gone along.

Most of my medical stories are of this ilk. No American knows or
cares how much any medical thing costs--there's no feedback.
"Insurance" and Medicare break the feedback loop. _That_ precludes
meaningful competition or cost control. No one cares--it's not
their money.

I bet we could save 15% of total costs if ERs could insist on a mere
$20 up front. That would cull a lot of the inappropriate, trivial,
wasteful visits that clog those facilities.

My dad cared. He was a great doctor delivering the best of care,
yet extremely careful with other people's money, especially his
patients'. His partner made 3x as much money, but Dad got 10x
the love.

Cheers,
James Arthur

May 2, 2009

On May 1, 8:41 pm, Richard the Dreaded Libertarian
<freedom_...@example.net> wrote:

bill.slo...@ieee.org wrote:
On Apr 29, 12:43 am, James Arthur <bogusabd...@verizon.net> wrote:
[...]
"Progressive" Great Society programs drove the financial bubble,
which frankly pales compared to the Social Security and Medicare
fiascoes.

The US social security and medicare systems are fiascos...

That's odd. I thought you _loved_ socialism.

If you'd bothered to read the rest of what I had to say, you'd have
realised that I don't see the US social security and medicare systems
as socialist - more as poor imitations of what a socialist system
would look like, deliberately botched in the hope of discrediting the
concept.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

May 2, 2009

On May 1, 9:00 pm, Richard the Dreaded Libertarian
<freedom_...@example.net> wrote:

On Fri, 01 May 2009 16:47:27 +1000, Bob Larter wrote:
free universal health care that excludes nobody.

But it does confiscate the wages of the productive.

Since the "productive" in the US are paying more per head for their
non-universal medical care than their opposite numbers in France,
Germany, Sweden, the UK and the Netherlands, and getting a product
that is no better, this is a pretty silly argument.

You can have free health care RIGHT NOW! Just eat right, get enough
sleep, deal with stress, don't crash your car, smoke and drink in
moderation, and get up off your lazy fat ass and get some exercise.

You've forgotten the bit about chosing you parents carefully.

I just turned SIXTY (hard to believe, huh? Oh, well, another decade,
another diopter ;-) ) and I haven't had a health problem since that time I
came down with acute pancreatitis. but being a vet, I got treated at the
Long Beach VA Medical Center. (they installed a shunt from my pancreas to
my stomach so I could just poop out the excess enzymes.)

The only time I've EVER had the flue has been after they forced me to
get a flu shot.

I don't do stupid things that could injure me, for example, both times
that I crashed my car, I was wearing a seat belt, which I don't usually
need - I'm not driving at Indy, after all. (I think maybe a premonition
told me to buckle up.) Interestingly, both times I had insurance, so if
correlation implies causation, then having insurance caused my
"accidents". (there's really no such thing as an accident - it's merely
negligence.)

I ride my bike to the store and back practically every day, usually to
pick up a pack of smokes. >:-> Incidentally, smoking does NOT cause cancer
- it's caused by denied self-hatred.

An interesting theory, but no one that has been substantiated by any
clinical research.

Last time I had a checkup, my lungs were as clear as any 30-year-old's.

I recently declined a stress test/cardiopulmonary function test, because:
A: Isn't life already enough of a treadmill?
B: I knew in advance what they'd say - I no longer have the heart or lungs
of a teenager, so they'd find "impaired" lung function, and they'd tell me
to quit smoking and drinking, which I have no intention of doing.

Have I missed anything?

Your cerebral function is obviously impaired.

The stress test - cardiopulmonary function testing on a treadmill -
would have shown up early signs of coronary heart disease (which
you've probably got, like pretty much every other elderly male in the
western world). You want them to find that early - according to my
youngest brother, the doctor, in some 30% of cases the first symptom
of coronary heart disease is sudden death, and we haven't yet got a
course of treatment that will reverse that.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

James Arthur · May 2, 2009

Spehro Pefhany wrote:

On Sat, 02 May 2009 18:01:53 +1000, the renowned Bob Larter
bobbylarter@gmail.com> wrote:

Jim Thompson wrote:
On Fri, 1 May 2009 13:34:37 -0700, "Bob Eld" <nsmontassoc@yahoo.com
wrote:

[snip]
Socialism is not an evil it does some things very well and works for health
care for most of the developed world. The US pays more and gets less.

[snip]

Poor ignorant basturd. Why do Canadians hasten to the US when in dire
need of medical care?
Got any numbers to support that argument?

The numbers are almost zero:
http://cthealth.server101.com/myth_canadians%27_use_of_healthcare_in_the_u_s_.htm

Surprisingly low, in fact, considering there are usually about 20% of
people who are outliers. But you can always find anecdotes to support
anything you like.

I don't know a single Canadian who went to the US *for* medical care
(as opposed to falling ill or being the victim of accident or violence
on a visit). I do personally know one American family (originally from
SoCal) who drove up from CT (a 9-10 hour drive) a couple of weeks ago
partly to take advantage of their not-yet-expired Ontario health
cards, as unfortunately their business has gone to sh*t. And good
teaching hospitals get international patients all the time, whether
funded by insurance, self-funded, or by charity (eg. the Herbie Fund).

It's hardly worth arguing though, there is far too much well-funded
reactionary propaganda floating around, and it will only get even
thicker and yet more tedious if there is any serious possibility of a
change.

Best regards,
Spehro Pefhany

I'm firmly opposed, but for pragmatic reasons, not dogmatic.

I'd be 1000% more interested if any of our social programs
showed any sign of being anything other than complete
disasters. Alas, they all turn into political tools.

American social programs don't work like Canadians, sitting
politely at a lovely table, but like a filled trough, with
everyone trying to get his fill before it's gone.

Cheers,
James Arthur

May 2, 2009

On May 1, 8:19 pm, Richard the Dreaded Libertarian
<freedom_...@example.net> wrote:

On Fri, 01 May 2009 17:01:32 +1000, Bob Larter wrote:
Richard the Dreaded Libertarian wrote:

Why are you so addicted to regulation? What makes you think that some
Washington bureaucrat can manage _your_ money better than you can?

Without negative feedback in the form of regulation, the amplifier of
capitalism tends to oscillate destructively.

Oh, feh! You refuse to acknowledte that this destructive oscillation is
CAUSED by government overregulation - it interferes with the natural
"invisible hand" of the Free Market, which naturally has negative feedback.

The free market clearly doesn't offer the right kind of negative
feedback. The history of bubble markets goes back to the Dutch tulip
mania of 1636-37, where governemnt over-regulation seems to have been
entirely absent

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

and the English South Sea Bubble of 1720 blew up in an equally
untrammeled free market

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

"In this passage, taken from his 1776 book "An Inquiry into the Nature
and Causes of the Wealth of Nations" Adam Smith set out the mechanism by
which he felt economic society operated. Each individual strives to
become wealthy "intending only his own gain" but to this end he must
exchange what he owns or produces with others who sufficiently value what
he has to offer; in this way, by division of labour and a free market,
public interest is advanced..."
---http://plus.maths.org/issue14/features/smith/

Sure, with the Free Market, some people will go broke - that's the nature
of Freedom - you make your choices and if you're wrong, you take your
knocks and try something else.

I guess this concept is incomprehensible to socialists, who want cradle-to-
grave nannying.

I could see that the dot.com bubble was a bubble before it burst, but
I didn't find it easy to convince my wife that her friends were going
to lose their shirts when it did burst.

Nobody wants cradle-to-grave nannying, but there does seem to be an
argument for damping down the consequences of the obvious defects in
the way our minds are constructed, including boom and bust cycles in
the economy.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

Eeyore · May 4, 2009

Bob Larter wrote:

James Arthur wrote:

You don't understand our government. These are the geniuses
who built the global financial crisis. They _already_ spend ~8%
of our GDP on healthcare;

16%, according to all the figures I've seen.

I presumed he meant just the Medicare element of it, in which case no-one's
pushing for value for money.

Graham

Eeyore · May 4, 2009

bill.sloman@ieee.org wrote:

It's a scheme that works well across a lot of Europe - and it was
invented by a right-wing politician that even Jim Yarnik could love,
by the name of Bismark. Of course, the business is a natural monopoly,
and has to be carefully regulated, and the Repulicans might still be
able to mount a fillibuster to block the necessary legislation.

The recent changing of party allegiance by 'forget name' to the Democrats would seem to
preclude that.

Graham

Eeyore · May 4, 2009

bill.sloman@ieee.org wrote:

James Arthur <bogusabd...@verizon.net> wrote:

Show me a country not fitting that description, one where socialism
pays for itself--as opposed to being subsidized by, say, a North Sea
oil bonanza--and you'll have my attention.

China's the only one that pops to mind...

You need a new mind, or at least a second hadn midn taht actually
works. Sweden, Germany, France, the Netherlands ...

What's truly hilarious that one of the lowest national debts is held by Russia ! The
USA's is over TEN times more.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_public_debt

Graham

TheM · May 4, 2009

"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:49FEE854.2A0D87D4@hotmail.com...

bill.sloman@ieee.org wrote:

James Arthur <bogusabd...@verizon.net> wrote:

Show me a country not fitting that description, one where socialism
pays for itself--as opposed to being subsidized by, say, a North Sea
oil bonanza--and you'll have my attention.

China's the only one that pops to mind...

You need a new mind, or at least a second hadn midn taht actually
works. Sweden, Germany, France, the Netherlands ...

What's truly hilarious that one of the lowest national debts is held by Russia ! The
USA's is over TEN times more.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_public_debt

Graham

Especially note how Sweden, a good example of country with scandinavian
"extremely" socialistic model, is considerably below USA.

But that list is old and will look a lot different for 2008/2009/2010.
At least in comparison US won't look so bad anymore

M

May 4, 2009

On May 4, 9:54 am, James Arthur <bogusabd...@verizon.net> wrote:

Bob Larter wrote:
James Arthur wrote:
Eeyore wrote:

bill.slo...@ieee.org wrote:

On May 3, 7:51 am, James Arthur <bogusabd...@verizon.net> wrote:
Eeyore wrote:
Expenditures in the United States on health care surpassed $2
trillion in
2006 ... In 2006, U.S. health care spending was about $7,026 per
resident and
accounted for 16% of the nations Gross Domestic Product (GDP)
http://www.kaiseredu.org/topics_im.asp?imID=1&parentID=61&id=358
NHS Spending 2005-06: Ł87.2bn
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/1935730.stm
That's ~ $ 2034 per resident.
That's a projection, from 2002. Any idea what the actual UK outlay
was?
UK helath spending has sat around 5% of GDP for quite some time now
and its seems unlikely that this has changed recently.

Indeed, see my reply which showed that actual spending fell BELOW the
estimate !

In comparison, US spending is IIRC some 15-16% of GDP typically.

Graham

Your first link, from 2002, says

"The effect of these increases will mean that the
proportion of national income spent on the NHS
will rise from 7.7% now to 8.7% in 2005-06 and
9.4% in 2007-08."

Since spending is certain and income is not, it'd
be interesting to see what the actual figures are today.

I followed some of the links from that article to several
others portraying the UK system rather negatively; I'm
not swayed by that--it looks like the same treatment the
media gives our situation.

Our system could certainly be more efficient, it's just
that the government has removed all such incentive. It's
been open-looped, and the cash they pump in just drives
it further toward the rails.

Then the logical thing to do would be to close the loop, as it is in
other countries that have universal health care, run by the government.

You don't understand our government. These are the geniuses
who built the global financial crisis.

You don't understand your own government, or the source of your
financial crisis.
Try reading Charles R. Morris's "The Two Trillion Dollar Meltdown"
ISBN 978-1-58648-691-4.
He sees the root cause as the invention of collateralised mortgage
obligations, collateralised loan obligations and collateralised debt
obligations and their successors the residential mortgage-backed
secuirities and commercial mortagage-backed securities, backed up by a
reluctance on the part of your governments (since Regan) to regulate
the markets in these new instruments and Allan Greenspan's reluctance
to burst the bubbles they created.

They _already_ spend ~8% of our GDP on healthcare; what they propose is to spend even
more.

Good for them. They aren't the most efficient possilbe health care
provider, but they are not as wasteful as your amazingly extravagant
private helath care system.

Socialized medicine isn't a panacea--just putting money into
a common pot doesn't guarantee a thing will work.

Too true. But most advanced industrial countires have managed to put
together systems that
provide better care than yours does (for the population as a whole)
for about half the price.

It's your system of rules, payments, and customs that does that.

And there are whole swathe of examples spread across Europe who
demonstrate how you could do it ofr half the price that you pay at the
moment.

Our government hasn't done very well with the common pots of
money we've given it previously--it's wasted, squandered, and
looted _every_single_one_. They're all gone.

So you might think about tidying up your constitution at the same
time. The way you electoral system works at the moment makes your
politicians pay a lot of attention to the interests of the fat cats
who have money to contribute to politicians election campaign funds.

Hey, Fannie Mae could sell health insurance. No, wait, that's
AIG's turf--Fannie and Freddie would securitize it and re-sell
it to investors.

It's a scheme that works well across a lot of Europe - and it was
invented by a right-wing politician that even Jim Yarnik could love,
by the name of Bismark. Of course, the business is a natural monopoly,
and has to be carefully regulated, and the Repulicans might still be
able to mount a fillibuster to block the necessary legislation.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

May 4, 2009

On May 4, 4:41 am, James Arthur <bogusabd...@verizon.net> wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
The US idea of 'socialism' is just plain daft. We'd call it Marxism
probably and wouldn't want it either. It's just an example of abuse of a
word through ignorance.

Despite our European 'socialism' and 2 World Wars that destroyed a lot of
Europe, today we are barely any less well off than USAans who have the extra
benefit of a huge continent and its resources from which to pick their
riches. Seems we've done rather well over here actually in comparison.

Graham

Are you or are you not a debtor nation, living beyond your means,
and relying on other countries to fund lifestyles you cannot
sustain or afford?

We are such a nation, and it's socialism that's put us here.

Rubbish. It started under Regan, who wasn't exactly a socialist, and
since socialism - as understood by those who can differentiate it from
(say) communisim - has never been tried in the USA, it seems difficult
to blame it for your present troubles. Extravagnt spending on defence
seesm a more likely candidate. I recall you claim that you spend more
on social services than or defence, which you defend with some of the
most fatuous creative accounting since Margaret Thatcher claimed to be
spending more on the British National Health Service than her Labour
predecessors (It turned out that if she had pulled down a hospital,
the money that was paid for the site was listed a government
contribution to the National Health Service). Your own masterstroke
was to attribute your entire national debt to the social services and
consequently treat the interest on the national debt as expenditure on
social services, which did less than justice to Dubbya's expensive
fiasco in Irak.

Show me a country not fitting that description, one where socialism
pays for itself--as opposed to being subsidized by, say, a North Sea
oil bonanza--and you'll have my attention.

China's the only one that pops to mind...

You need a new mind, or at least a second hadn midn taht actually
works. Sweden, Germany, France, the Netherlands ...

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

Bob Larter · May 4, 2009

Eeyore wrote:

bill.sloman@ieee.org wrote:

It's a scheme that works well across a lot of Europe - and it was
invented by a right-wing politician that even Jim Yarnik could love,
by the name of Bismark. Of course, the business is a natural monopoly,
and has to be carefully regulated, and the Repulicans might still be
able to mount a fillibuster to block the necessary legislation.

The recent changing of party allegiance by 'forget name' to the Democrats would seem to
preclude that.

Arlan Specter.

--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------

The end is in sight

Eeyore

Guest

Jim Thompson

Guest

James Arthur

Guest

krw

Guest

Jim Yanik

Guest

Jim Thompson

Guest

James Arthur

Guest

Spehro Pefhany

Guest

James Arthur

Guest

Guest

Guest

James Arthur

Guest

Guest

Eeyore

Guest

Eeyore

Guest

Eeyore

Guest

TheM

Guest

Guest

Guest

Bob Larter

Guest

Welcome to EDABoard.com

Sponsor

Online statistics

Forum statistics

The end is in sight

Eeyore

Guest

Jim Thompson

Guest

James Arthur

Guest

krw

Guest

Jim Yanik

Guest

Jim Thompson

Guest

James Arthur

Guest

Spehro Pefhany

Guest

James Arthur

Guest

Guest

Guest

James Arthur

Guest

Guest

Eeyore

Guest

Eeyore

Guest

Eeyore

Guest

TheM

Guest

Guest

Guest

Bob Larter

Guest

Log in

Welcome to EDABoard.com

Sponsor