The end is in sight

[Bob Larter]

JosephKK wrote:

On Fri, 01 May 2009 16:17:27 +1000, Bob Larter <bobbylarter@gmail.com
wrote:

bill.sloman@ieee.org wrote:
On Apr 29, 12:48 am, Tim Wescott <t...@seemywebsite.com> wrote:
Eeyore wrote:

Tim Wescott wrote:
Jim Thompson wrote:
The end is in sight...
Arlen Specter has defected to the Democrat Party (an hour ago).
Pelosi promises gun control :-(
Link?
Republicans and Democrats both have totally lost sight of their roots,
not to mention any clue of what reality is. So it's no surprise that
there should be some party switching going on.
They should merge into "The Party of Dippy Ineffective Extremists", and
allow some room for folks who want to see the country governed based on
some form of common sense, rather than knee-jerk litmus tests for
adherence to foolish Utopian* ideals.
You could almost say the same for the UK scenario.
Graham
Can I also blame you guys for inventing the system that we inherited?
Not really. The British electoral system was extensively reformed
around the middle of the 19th century, long after the U.S. had devised
a constitution that was probably more heavily influenced by the
example of the United Provinces of the Netherlands.
I was under the impression that the Founding Fathers pinched lots of it
from post-revolutionary France.

Quite the other way around. Toss world history 1700's at any search
engine and fine things like this:

http://www.abell.org/nal/PDFs/History/World%20History%20-%201700s.pdf

The American revolution started in 1776 and the French revolution
started in 1789, over ten years later.

Oh, I see. My knowledge of American & French history is a bit hazy.

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

 

[Bob Larter]

James Arthur wrote:

Eeyore wrote:

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



I specified self-supporting. Russia's surplus comes from nationalizing
their oilfields.

Oh, please.

Whose people had the better standard-of-living, back when we were less
socialist, and communism reigned supreme?

How's that revolution-thing working out for Cuba? It's been what,
50 years? Are they a paragon of health, wealth, science, and
productivity?

I'm interested in examples where public ownership of the means
of production supports its own weight, outperforming alternatives.

According to right wingers, a country can be socialist without "public
ownership of the means of production".
And you haven't mentioned Sweden, Germany, France, or the Netherlands.

Bonus points given for examples where the rulers deign to use the
same healthcare / retirement systems they create for their subjects.

You think that any POTUS uses an HMO, or collects Social Security in
their old age?

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

 

[Bob Larter]

Eeyore wrote:

James Arthur wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
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.
The US gov. pays half of all the bills (through many channels, not
just Medicare); the rest is private.

I didn't quite get that. Bob is correct AIUI that 16% of US GDP goes into
'healthcare'. So how much of that is private spending and how much is Medicare ?

IIRC, if health insurance is considered 'private' (which is is here, for
eg), then it's about half, with the other half being all the
government-funded services.

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

 

[Bob Larter]

Richard the Dreaded Libertarian wrote:

On Sat, 02 May 2009 18:16:45 +1000, Bob Larter wrote:
Richard the Dreaded Libertarian 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.
You're *already* paying more for your crappy health system than we do in
countries with free, universal healthcare. Don't take my word it - look
it up yourself.

That's because of government interference with the Free Market principles
that would have kept prices sane.

Except that I'm talking about countries where the government (ie; the
taxpayer) funds 100% (or close to it) of health care cost, & does it for
half the total price that you pay in the USA. And I seriously doubt that
our politicians & public servants are any better than yours.

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

 

[Bob Larter]

Richard the Dreaded Libertarian wrote:

On Sat, 02 May 2009 18:38:33 +1000, Bob Larter wrote:
Richard the Dreaded Libertarian 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.
Rubbish. Market bubbles are a perfect example of positive feedback
occurring in the Free Market, & when they collapse, everyone suffers to
some degree.

In a command-and-control economy EVERYONE suffers to a GREATER degree.

That's a bumper sticker, not an argument.

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

 

[Bob Larter]

Richard the Dreaded Libertarian wrote:

On Sun, 03 May 2009 03:44:40 +0100, Eeyore wrote:
bill.sloman@ieee.org wrote:

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.
Hah - when Nu-Labour came to power in the UK, Gordon Brown, then Chancellor of
the Exchequer promised to end 'boom-bust' ! Oops, the 'free market' slipped
through his fingers and did it anyway.

Imagine walking up to a working PID controller, and want to change its
output by sticking a signal in there somewhere among a bunch of different
nodes - if you don't pick _exactly_ the right node, it goes wild!

If it was working, you wouldn't be getting boom/bust cycles. Working PID
controllers don't oscillate.

That's what happens in a command-and-control economy.

That's true of the USSR, but I don't anyone here is advocating that sort
of government as an ideal.


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

 

[Eeyore]

James Arthur wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
James Arthur 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.
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?

IIRC, we nearly totally cleared the national debt in the last decade or so. The
USA is hardly one to lecture on such matters.

Exactly. That's why we can't afford to spend an extra $2 terabucks /per
annum/.

USA national debt ( CIA figures ) 60.8% of GDP

UK 43.6%

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


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

You don't have socialism and what put you there were Republican policies.

Factually incorrect.

Roughly 2/3rds our spending is social spending.

That's NOT socialism.

Graham

 

[Eeyore]

James Arthur wrote:

By your figures our government spends as much on healthcare as yours
as a percentage of GDP, so that makes us as socialist as you, or more.
Bang-up job they're doing with it too, right?

You obviously didn't read the figures right or are obfuscating. US total spending on
healthcare is at least 16% of GDP as opposed to 8% in the UK.

Graham

 

[Eeyore]

James Arthur wrote:

Why do these countries have any debt at all? Can't they pay
for their programs?

Why do people have mortgages ? Can't they afford a house ?

Graham

 

[Eeyore]

Don Klipstein wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
James Arthur wrote:
Eeyore wrote:
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.

The US gov. pays half of all the bills (through many channels, not
just Medicare); the rest is private.

I didn't quite get that. Bob is correct AIUI that 16% of US GDP goes into
'healthcare'. So how much of that is private spending and how much is
Medicare ?

James Arthur's claim sounds correct to me, that half is private and half
is "Medicare"
(I would translate to total government spending for healthcare, except
for employer contrinutions to health insurance premiums of government
employees working in agencies unrelated to healthcare, such as police
officers, court employees and public school teachers).

Each half has been said so far to be about 8% - that sounds correct to
me. And 8% of GDP is what government spends in nations with "socialized
medicine".

So Americans and their employers are paying 8% of GDP for healthcare to
have gubmint spending on healthcare limited from the 8% typical of that in
nations with socialized medicine to the 8% that USA's gubmint spends
without counting employer contributions to health insurange premiums of
public school teachers, police officers, court employees, and other
government employees working in agencies not related to healthcare.

And for that 8% paid by the government we in the UK get a complete health care
system not just 'Medicare', with no need for private insurance. That's damn good
value.

Graham

 

[Eeyore]

Don Klipstein wrote:

James Arthur wrote:
Eeyore wrote:
James Arthur wrote:
Eeyore wrote:
James Arthur wrote:

20/18,000 or 0.11% = 1,100 ppm of Canadians seeking US care.
LOL !
Why is that funny? That's what the study reported.

The idea that 0.11% is a substantial proprortion is hilarious !

Graham

0.11% could easily be a huge percentage of the really sick people.
It could mean that half their cancer patients come here.

I don't get why you can't understand that.

If only .22% of Canadians are cancer patients, then USA has a lot to
learn from Canada.

You're not kidding !

Graham

 

[Eeyore]

James Arthur wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
James Arthur wrote:
Eeyore wrote:
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

I specified self-supporting. Russia's surplus comes from nationalizing
their oilfields.

I thought they were privately owned now.
e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gazprom

OAO Gazprom (English: Public Joint Stock Company Gazprom, Otkrytoye aktsionernoye
obshchestvo "Gazprom")[1] is the largest extractor of natural gas in the world and the
largest Russian company.

Gazprom is publicly traded at stock exchanges as RTS:GAZP, MICEX:GAZP, LSE: OGZD and
OTC:OGZPY. It is the largest oil and gas company in the world.

The Russian government did pretty much an Obama there (or Obama's
doing a few Putins, if you prefer):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gazprom#Russian_Government_control

Whose people had the better standard-of-living, back when we were less
socialist, and communism reigned supreme?

How's that revolution-thing working out for Cuba? It's been what,
50 years? Are they a paragon of health, wealth, science, and
productivity?

Since you ceased any connection with them, that made it rather difficult.

Is the US the sole fountain of prosperity in the world? Is contact with
the US a /sine qua non/ for the success of socialism? Can't socialism
stand up on its own?

Are you familiar with this thing called 'trade' ? What would Cuba's natural largest trading
partner be ?

Graham

 

[Eeyore]

flipper wrote:

Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:
James Arthur wrote:
Eeyore wrote:
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

I specified self-supporting. Russia's surplus comes from nationalizing
their oilfields.

I thought they were privately owned now.
e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gazprom

OAO Gazprom (English: Public Joint Stock Company Gazprom, Otkrytoye aktsionernoye
obshchestvo "Gazprom")[1] is the largest extractor of natural gas in the world and the
largest Russian company.

Gazprom is publicly traded at stock exchanges as RTS:GAZP, MICEX:GAZP, LSE: OGZD and
OTC:OGZPY. It is the largest oil and gas company in the world.


Whose people had the better standard-of-living, back when we were less
socialist, and communism reigned supreme?

How's that revolution-thing working out for Cuba? It's been what,
50 years? Are they a paragon of health, wealth, science, and
productivity?

Since you ceased any connection with them, that made it rather difficult.

So, no nation can succeed without the U.S.

Without trade actually.

Graham

 

[Spehro Pefhany]

On Mon, 04 May 2009 21:21:08 -0700, the renowned
"JosephKK"<quiettechblue@yahoo.com> wrote:

On Thu, 30 Apr 2009 02:19:41 GMT, James Arthur
bogusabdsqy@verizon.net> wrote:

Eeyore wrote:

Bob Larter wrote:

Jim Thompson wrote:
"Joel Koltner" <zapwireDASHgroups@yahoo.com> wrote:
"Jim Thompson" <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@My-Web-Site.com> wrote

The end is in sight...
Arlen Specter has defected to the Democrat Party (an hour ago).
I don't think the democrats are necessarily all that much more attractive than
they've been in say, the past decade... it's more than the republicans have
kinda imploded and Specter is running for cover.

Yep. But now that they have total power the Democrats are into rape
and plunder.
It'll be interesting to see if all the wingnut paranoia about Obama ends
up being justified.

It will indeed. He's been left a heck of a mess to sort out.

Graham


Some, but not much different from what Bush inherited from Clinton.

Really? Lets see the first balanced federal budgets in over 50
years. Dot.com starting to go dot.bomb. And something else, oh yeah,
banking deregulation that was so necessary to the financial meltdown.
I will give this a maybe.

Iraq's trajectory is already laid out, and the banking thing
would fix itself, if he'd only let it.

Doubtful, besides Bush gave out the first bailout to the very scum
that helped engineer the problem in the first place.

Obama wants to go a-conquering in Afghanistan--I'm not sure why.

No, it was Bush the lesser that went a'conquerin'; though why Obama
would like to continue is a bit of a mystery.

IMHO, because he's been told that things are rapidly going to
h-e-double-hockeysticks on a handcart, and will likely take
nuclear-armed Pakistan (population 175,000,000- more than 5x
Afghanistan) with them unless a lot more resources than applied in the
past are poured into the area. But it may just precipitate more
grief-- rather too little, and far, far too late.



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

 

[flipper]

On Wed, 06 May 2009 01:48:37 +0100, Eeyore
<rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:

flipper wrote:

Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:
James Arthur wrote:
Eeyore wrote:
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

I specified self-supporting. Russia's surplus comes from nationalizing
their oilfields.

I thought they were privately owned now.
e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gazprom

OAO Gazprom (English: Public Joint Stock Company Gazprom, Otkrytoye aktsionernoye
obshchestvo "Gazprom")[1] is the largest extractor of natural gas in the world and the
largest Russian company.

Gazprom is publicly traded at stock exchanges as RTS:GAZP, MICEX:GAZP, LSE: OGZD and
OTC:OGZPY. It is the largest oil and gas company in the world.


Whose people had the better standard-of-living, back when we were less
socialist, and communism reigned supreme?

How's that revolution-thing working out for Cuba? It's been what,
50 years? Are they a paragon of health, wealth, science, and
productivity?

Since you ceased any connection with them, that made it rather difficult.

So, no nation can succeed without the U.S.

Without trade actually.

So, the US is the only one a country can trade with.

Graham

 

[flipper]

On Wed, 06 May 2009 09:41:15 +1000, Bob Larter <bobbylarter@gmail.com>
wrote:

James Arthur wrote:
Eeyore wrote:

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



I specified self-supporting. Russia's surplus comes from nationalizing
their oilfields.

Oh, please.

Whose people had the better standard-of-living, back when we were less
socialist, and communism reigned supreme?

How's that revolution-thing working out for Cuba? It's been what,
50 years? Are they a paragon of health, wealth, science, and
productivity?

I'm interested in examples where public ownership of the means
of production supports its own weight, outperforming alternatives.

According to right wingers, a country can be socialist without "public
ownership of the means of production".

That's true.

"Socialism" covers a range of theories with actual "ownership" of the
means of production being the most extreme case.

And you haven't mentioned Sweden, Germany, France, or the Netherlands.

Bonus points given for examples where the rulers deign to use the
same healthcare / retirement systems they create for their subjects.

You think that any POTUS uses an HMO, or collects Social Security in
their old age?

 

[Spehro Pefhany]

On Tue, 05 May 2009 23:19:14 -0500, the renowned flipper
<flipper@fish.net> wrote:

On Wed, 06 May 2009 01:48:37 +0100, Eeyore
rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:



flipper wrote:

Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:
James Arthur wrote:
Eeyore wrote:
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

I specified self-supporting. Russia's surplus comes from nationalizing
their oilfields.

I thought they were privately owned now.
e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gazprom

OAO Gazprom (English: Public Joint Stock Company Gazprom, Otkrytoye aktsionernoye
obshchestvo "Gazprom")[1] is the largest extractor of natural gas in the world and the
largest Russian company.

Gazprom is publicly traded at stock exchanges as RTS:GAZP, MICEX:GAZP, LSE: OGZD and
OTC:OGZPY. It is the largest oil and gas company in the world.


Whose people had the better standard-of-living, back when we were less
socialist, and communism reigned supreme?

How's that revolution-thing working out for Cuba? It's been what,
50 years? Are they a paragon of health, wealth, science, and
productivity?

Since you ceased any connection with them, that made it rather difficult.

So, no nation can succeed without the U.S.

Without trade actually.

So, the US is the only one a country can trade with.

Helms-Burton?


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]

Bob Larter wrote:

James Arthur wrote:
Eeyore wrote:

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



I specified self-supporting. Russia's surplus comes from nationalizing
their oilfields.

Oh, please.

Kindly document your point then--what's Russia's GDP, major export,
etc.; what accounts for their surplus? Socialism?

I've been backing everything up, but I can't possibly debunk stuff
as quickly as you can make it up.

Whose people had the better standard-of-living, back when we were less
socialist, and communism reigned supreme?

How's that revolution-thing working out for Cuba? It's been what,
50 years? Are they a paragon of health, wealth, science, and
productivity?

I'm interested in examples where public ownership of the means
of production supports its own weight, outperforming alternatives.

According to right wingers, a country can be socialist without "public
ownership of the means of production".

Socialism isn't well-defined, is it?

The US, presently, is acquiring public ownership of banks, factories,
medical services, mortgages, and is growing rapidly.

And you haven't mentioned Sweden, Germany, France, or the Netherlands.

Those were offered as "proof", without backup or explanation. Kindly
show that they're sustainable, and a net gain to the country.

Bonus points given for examples where the rulers deign to use the
same healthcare / retirement systems they create for their subjects.

You think that any POTUS uses an HMO, or collects Social Security in
their old age?

Obviously not. That's the point, isn't it?
If it's better, why isn't it voluntary?

Cheers,
James Arthur

 

[James Arthur]

TheM wrote:

Subsidizing some things can be beneficial to society and IS necessary.
The only question is how much is just right and that varries from country
to country.

If the Swedes are happy with it and obviously keep confirming this at elections
than who are we to call them loosers? They seem to be supporting themselves.

M

No one has criticized Sweden--that's not an issue.

What's at issue is whether their socialism aids or hurts them,
and whether it's sustainable.

You've promoted Sweden as an example of socialism that carries
its own weight. Please elaborate.

 

[James Arthur]

Bob Larter wrote:

James Arthur wrote:
Bob Larter wrote:
[...]
Universal health care demonstrably works well in many countries, &
is, per capita, cheaper than the patchwork system used in the USA,
while producing better outcomes on average. This is a well-documented
fact, not an opinion.


That's an opinion, not a fact.

You want the facts? - No problem:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/18/business/18leonhardt.html
---
In Greece, the government and individuals combine to spend about $2,300
per capita on health care each year, and the average life expectancy is
79 years. Canada, where the hospitals are probably cleaner, spends about
$3,300, and people live to about 80. Here in the United States, we spend
more than $6,000, yet life expectancy is just below 78.
---
(The whole article is worth reading, BTW.)

I already addressed the life expectancy issue--that's a bogus
issue, and a bogus proxy for medical care quality.

To prove that point you'd have to show
- that genetically, medically equivalent groups with the same
health habits live longer,
- and that it's due to better medical care.

That mostly just isn't true. Most 1rst-world deaths are from
lifestyle-related causes, clogged arteries and cancer being #1
and #2. Statins help, but a country with more fat, sedentary
people eating junkfood will flat-out have more illnesses and
deaths, period.

That doesn't mean their healthcare is worse.

http://www.rgemonitor.com/piie-monitor/256439/europe_and_the_us_whose_health_care_is_more_socialist

Look at the second graph, OECD data on healthcare expenditures, also:
---
Empirically, the share of total healthcare expenses that Americans pay
out-of-pocket is lower than in the vast majority of European and other
OECD countries for which recent comparable data are available. Americans
are therefore generally more likely to ask someone else to pay for their
health care than people in other OECD countries. In reality America’s
healthcare system is already more “socialized” than in most European and
other developed countries.

"Already more socialized," and that's the part that sucks. So, we
should expand _that_?

Certainly, it is the case that Americans pay a higher absolute dollar
amount in out-of-pocket expenses than almost anywhere else in the OECD
(only Switzerland is higher). Yet that is solely because health care in
America is so much more expensive than anywhere else and demonstratively
not due to Americans being relatively more exposed to the “true costs of
healthcare” than people elsewhere, let alone in countries practicing
so-called “socialized medicine.”

That echoes my point, that government has broken the feedback loops.

---

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_health_care
---
The United States is the only wealthy, industrialized nation that does
not have a universal health care system.[1][2] The government directly
covers 27.8% of the population[16] through health care programs for the
elderly, disabled, military service families and veterans, children, and
some of the poor, through Medicare, Medicaid, SCHIP, and
TRICARE.[17][18] Federal law ensures public access to emergency services
regardless of ability to pay.[19] However, this unfunded mandate has
contributed to a health care safety net that some analyses say is
increasingly strained.[20] Certain types of medical spending and
particularly health insurance benefit from significant tax subsidies; in
particular, employer-sponsored health insurance is a non-taxable
benefit. In all, government spending accounted for 45.1% of total health
spending in the U.S. in 2005.[21] Current estimates put U.S. health care
spending at more than 15% of GDP, a greater portion than in any other
United Nations member state except for the Marshall Islands.[22]
---

http://www.businessweek.com/globalbiz/content/jun2007/gb20070613_921562.htm

---
In the May 16 issue of The Journal of the American Medical Association,
Dr. Ezekiel J. Emanuel, chairman of the department of clinical bioethics
at the National Institutes of Health, wrote "The U.S. health-care system
is considered a dysfunctional mess."
[...]
But in some respects, France comes pretty close to the ideal. Not only
are its 62 million citizens healthier than the U.S. population, but per
capita spending on health care is also roughly half as much.
[...]
The key to France's success is that its system, like the U.S.'s, values
patient choice and physician control over medical decision-making. But
France does it for far less, with per capita health-care spending in
2004 at just $3,500, compared with $6,100 in the U.S., according to the
World Health Organization. All told, France spends 10.7% of gross
domestic product on health care, vs. 16.5% in the U.S.
---

You've got to remember that these people are rabidly partisan,
pushing their position. Most of them can't add, and more than
half lie about the numbers.

This group includes, for example, 30-odd million illegal aliens
in their estimates of "Americans" without insurance.

Their blanket-statement collective(ist) logic is on a par with
"France spends less on hurricane preparedness, yet has significantly
lower losses," therefore the US should copy France.

If you're going to assert longer lifespan == better medical care,
then you've got to prove it. Association != causation.

American cancer patients live longer than French.

More Americans have heart disease, which is the #1 killer. That's
a lifestyle disease. Does socialized medicine keep French people
thin?

Like I said; the US pays more & gets less. Socialised health care works.

We already have it--8% of our GDP, to cover, what was it, 24% of
the population?

So, with all its warts, that would make the socialized part
more than twice as expensive as the private part.

Cheers,
James Arthur