[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
LOL - the burdens of healthcare costs . . .
let me let you all in on a big secret . . . the government is not paying for healthcare . . . YOU ARE . . . its called taxes . . . all you’ve managed to do is to allow the governemt to take your money and decide how to spend it for you and you call it freedom from the burdens - LMAO - ya’ll’re stupid . . .[/quote]
This is exactly the way I see it. Not only with healthcare, but most govt programs that are supposedly “for the people”. On top of this there are BILLIONS of dollars lost every year to fraud.
[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
LOL - the burdens of healthcare costs . . .
let me let you all in on a big secret . . . the government is not paying for healthcare . . . YOU ARE . . . its called taxes . . . all you’ve managed to do is to allow the governemt to take your money and decide how to spend it for you and you call it freedom from the burdens - LMAO - ya’ll’re stupid . . .[/quote]
I hate to break it to you, but every hospital bill that you’ve ever paid covers the cost of dealing with uninsured patients. We will always have to pay for the needy when it comes to healthcare as it is a basic necessity.
The fundamental flaw of a completely private insurance system is that the people who can’t afford the high costs and absurd standards of the insurance companies still need at least basic Health care. The problem is they get health care at our expense every time they have an accident or major health problem. This method of E.R. care is exponentially more costly than regular doctors visits, which is why anyone who buys from a private insurance company in the u.s. will pay more than double than the rest of the developed world.
Any way you slice the issue, people require healthcare. A public method of insurance would be the optimal way to reduce the burden on the american people and help you keep more cash in your pocket after hospital bills. This theory is not hypothetical but is being carried out in many countries with better systems than ours.
[quote]AdamDrew wrote:
The video is mislabeled? I thought I understood english pretty well. I’ll quote her for those that are obviously biased.
“Now let me say about UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE, we talk about it as a safety net, this is one of the BIGGEST STIMULUSES to our economy. Economonists will tell you that this money is spent quickly, it injects demand into the economy and is JOB CREATIVE. It CREATES JOBS faster than almost any other initiative you can name, because again it is money needed for families to survive and it is spent. So it has double benefit. It helps those that have lost their jobs but it is also a JOB CREATOR.” I think the video name is dead on. Option 1: lower taxes enabling small businesses to invest money where they see fit on construction, additional human or material resources, stocks, etc. Small businesse employ over half the population by the way. Option 2: take money from the producers, PAY a govt entity to take in and redistribute the funds to those they see fit. How much does it cost to run the unemployment program? It’s run by our federal govt, so waste and punctuality are probably not big concerns. How much of this money is given to people that do not need it? There are people that need unemployment. However, I bet an investigation into every wellfare recipient would result in the findings that 25-33% of them do not need it and are just lazy. To me, unemployment creates stagnation. They give you enough to get by which amazingly is the same amount to quash your ambitions of finding another job. I don’t understand how one of the most famous sayings that makes perfect sense to everyone on the planet, “give a man a fish”, can be banished from the mind when people think they are “helping” some by stealing from others. Pertaining to the artists’ healthcare video, her comments could be aimed directly at a very small percantage of the population. I think her message comes of as “Don’t worry about financial obligations and do what you want.” This falls in with the “someone else will pay for it” mentality that I so adamantly hate. Lastly, Schlenkatank…you are bat diarrhea crazy.[/quote]
Maybe so. At least I know there’s a return bar on my keyboard…
[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
LOL - the burdens of healthcare costs . . .
let me let you all in on a big secret . . . the government is not paying for healthcare . . . YOU ARE . . . its called taxes . . . all you’ve managed to do is to allow the governemt to take your money and decide how to spend it for you and you call it freedom from the burdens - LMAO - ya’ll’re stupid . . .[/quote]
I hate to break it to you, but every hospital bill that you’ve ever paid covers the cost of dealing with uninsured patients. We will always have to pay for the needy when it comes to healthcare as it is a basic necessity.
The fundamental flaw of a completely private insurance system is that the people who can’t afford the high costs and absurd standards of the insurance companies still need at least basic Health care. The problem is they get health care at our expense every time they have an accident or major health problem. This method of E.R. care is exponentially more costly than regular doctors visits, which is why anyone who buys from a private insurance company in the u.s. will pay more than double than the rest of the developed world.
Any way you slice the issue, people require healthcare. A public method of insurance would be the optimal way to reduce the burden on the american people and help you keep more cash in your pocket after hospital bills. This theory is not hypothetical but is being carried out in many countries with better systems than ours.[/quote]
This brings up a really strong point. The single positive response from govt healthcare that might come to fruition is shorter lines at the ER.
“The fundamental flaw of a completely private insurance system is that the people who can’t afford the high costs and absurd standards of the insurance companies still need at least basic Health care. The problem is they get health care at our expense every time they have an accident or major health problem.” I’m eye to eye with you here too. Insurance lobbyists push our reps to require employers to cover certain areas in their healthcare plans. It’s another example of “you have to have this by law”, which expanded into healthcare as we know it today. Why can’t healthcare be more like car insurance where you pick and choose exactly what you want to cover and the price is adjusted accordingly? The individual decides how much risk he is willing to take with a baseline in place to protect others. Oh, wait. That sounds like freedom of choice to me. We can’t have that now can we?
“A public method of insurance would be the optimal way to reduce the burden on the american people and help you keep more cash in your pocket after hospital bills. This theory is not hypothetical but is being carried out in many countries with better systems than ours.” Proof? Links please. I am not “always drawn to the extremes” as you initially stated, but find myself more or less in the middle, so I would appreciate your supporting documentation. I have requested info from acquantances and other Tnationers previously to help me understand their thought process on govt. healthcare, but none have followed through.
^ LOOK! I found the return key. My IQ just went through the roof and my comments are more valuable due to proper punctuation.
[quote]Schlenkatank wrote:
I hate to break it to you, but every hospital bill that you’ve ever paid covers the cost of dealing with uninsured patients. We will always have to pay for the needy when it comes to healthcare as it is a basic necessity.
The fundamental flaw of a completely private insurance system is that the people who can’t afford the high costs and absurd standards of the insurance companies still need at least basic Health care. The problem is they get health care at our expense every time they have an accident or major health problem. This method of E.R. care is exponentially more costly than regular doctors visits, which is why anyone who buys from a private insurance company in the u.s. will pay more than double than the rest of the developed world.
Any way you slice the issue, people require healthcare. A public method of insurance would be the optimal way to reduce the burden on the american people and help you keep more cash in your pocket after hospital bills. This theory is not hypothetical but is being carried out in many countries with better systems than ours.[/quote]
ooh ohh ohh - watch out!!! BRICKWALL!!
ummm . . . YOU DON’T REDUCE A BURDEN BY MAKING THE GOVERNMENT THE COLLECTOR OF THE MONEY AND PAYOR OF THE BILL - the burden has not been reduced - it is merely co-opted by Uncle Sam - we still pay for it - you’re a moron . . .
This method of E.R. care is exponentially more costly than regular doctors visits, which is why anyone who buys from a private insurance company in the u.s. will pay more than double than the rest of the developed world.
This theory is not hypothetical but is being carried out in many countries with better systems than ours.[/quote]
[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
LOL - the burdens of healthcare costs . . .
let me let you all in on a big secret . . . the government is not paying for healthcare . . . YOU ARE . . . its called taxes . . . all you’ve managed to do is to allow the governemt to take your money and decide how to spend it for you and you call it freedom from the burdens - LMAO - ya’ll’re stupid . . .[/quote]
I hate to break it to you, but every hospital bill that you’ve ever paid covers the cost of dealing with uninsured patients. We will always have to pay for the needy when it comes to healthcare as it is a basic necessity.
The fundamental flaw of a completely private insurance system is that the people who can’t afford the high costs and absurd standards of the insurance companies still need at least basic Health care. The problem is they get health care at our expense every time they have an accident or major health problem. This method of E.R. care is exponentially more costly than regular doctors visits, which is why anyone who buys from a private insurance company in the u.s. will pay more than double than the rest of the developed world.
Any way you slice the issue, people require healthcare. A public method of insurance would be the optimal way to reduce the burden on the american people and help you keep more cash in your pocket after hospital bills. This theory is not hypothetical but is being carried out in many countries with better systems than ours.[/quote]
This brings up a really strong point. The single positive response from govt healthcare that might come to fruition is shorter lines at the ER.
“The fundamental flaw of a completely private insurance system is that the people who can’t afford the high costs and absurd standards of the insurance companies still need at least basic Health care. The problem is they get health care at our expense every time they have an accident or major health problem.” I’m eye to eye with you here too. Insurance lobbyists push our reps to require employers to cover certain areas in their healthcare plans. It’s another example of “you have to have this by law”, which expanded into healthcare as we know it today. Why can’t healthcare be more like car insurance where you pick and choose exactly what you want to cover and the price is adjusted accordingly? The individual decides how much risk he is willing to take with a baseline in place to protect others. Oh, wait. That sounds like freedom of choice to me. We can’t have that now can we?
“A public method of insurance would be the optimal way to reduce the burden on the american people and help you keep more cash in your pocket after hospital bills. This theory is not hypothetical but is being carried out in many countries with better systems than ours.” Proof? Links please. I am not “always drawn to the extremes” as you initially stated, but find myself more or less in the middle, so I would appreciate your supporting documentation. I have requested info from acquantances and other Tnationers previously to help me understand their thought process on govt. healthcare, but none have followed through.
^ LOOK! I found the return key. My IQ just went through the roof and my comments are more valuable due to proper punctuation.
[/quote]
What a shock to find someone who thinks a little differently than me who’s not a douche.
Well, there is a lot of info on the net regarding this topic which is fairly reliable. I had an old textbook which would be perfect for this but i sold it for cash.
This link is a little outdated but shows the basic costs of healthcare per person, share of GDP, etc., in developed nations. The figures for the u.s. in this link are considerably higher now. http://www.kff.org/insurance/snapshot/chcm010307oth.cfm
As for the benefit of our health care, the World Health Organization takes a decent stab at the tricky job of ranking health care systems around the globe. In their last ranking, we were 37. Is it perfectly accurate? No, but it is at least a realtive rating. This wiki link is their ranking.
Most of the nations above us on that list have a mix of public/private or are all public I believe. France has an efficient system, germany does as well. However, one thing all successful systems have are low costs. We do not.
[quote]Schlenkatank wrote:
I hate to break it to you, but every hospital bill that you’ve ever paid covers the cost of dealing with uninsured patients. We will always have to pay for the needy when it comes to healthcare as it is a basic necessity.
The fundamental flaw of a completely private insurance system is that the people who can’t afford the high costs and absurd standards of the insurance companies still need at least basic Health care. The problem is they get health care at our expense every time they have an accident or major health problem. This method of E.R. care is exponentially more costly than regular doctors visits, which is why anyone who buys from a private insurance company in the u.s. will pay more than double than the rest of the developed world.
Any way you slice the issue, people require healthcare. A public method of insurance would be the optimal way to reduce the burden on the american people and help you keep more cash in your pocket after hospital bills. This theory is not hypothetical but is being carried out in many countries with better systems than ours.[/quote]
ooh ohh ohh - watch out!!! BRICKWALL!!
ummm . . . YOU DON’T REDUCE A BURDEN BY MAKING THE GOVERNMENT THE COLLECTOR OF THE MONEY AND PAYOR OF THE BILL - the burden has not been reduced - it is merely co-opted by Uncle Sam - we still pay for it - you’re a moron . . .[/quote]
I have some advice for you. If you don’t understand what some one has said then you are not in a position to do anything but ask. Think about it.
I understand that you don’t reduce costs by simply shifting the method of payment. If that is all a public program would do then the system would be less effective then it is now. But we can reduce the cost of YOUR health care expenses by insuring people who often show up at hospitals needing a triple bypass. Everytime this happens the hospital covers the bill, which actually ends up on your bill. The concept which I am trying to explain to you is that we will always have to pay for the needy when it comes to health insurance, indeed we are right now. At least having a public method should increase efficiency by eliminating E.R. care and increasing normal doctors visits with the poor.
[quote]Schlenkatank wrote:
I hate to break it to you, but every hospital bill that you’ve ever paid covers the cost of dealing with uninsured patients. We will always have to pay for the needy when it comes to healthcare as it is a basic necessity.
The fundamental flaw of a completely private insurance system is that the people who can’t afford the high costs and absurd standards of the insurance companies still need at least basic Health care. The problem is they get health care at our expense every time they have an accident or major health problem. This method of E.R. care is exponentially more costly than regular doctors visits, which is why anyone who buys from a private insurance company in the u.s. will pay more than double than the rest of the developed world.
Any way you slice the issue, people require healthcare. A public method of insurance would be the optimal way to reduce the burden on the american people and help you keep more cash in your pocket after hospital bills. This theory is not hypothetical but is being carried out in many countries with better systems than ours.[/quote]
ooh ohh ohh - watch out!!! BRICKWALL!!
ummm . . . YOU DON’T REDUCE A BURDEN BY MAKING THE GOVERNMENT THE COLLECTOR OF THE MONEY AND PAYOR OF THE BILL - the burden has not been reduced - it is merely co-opted by Uncle Sam - we still pay for it - you’re a moron . . .[/quote]
I have some advice for you. If you don’t understand what some one has said then you are not in a position to do anything but ask. Think about it.
I understand that you don’t reduce costs by simply shifting the method of payment. If that is all a public program would do then the system would be less effective then it is now. But we can reduce the cost of YOUR health care expenses by insuring people who often show up at hospitals needing a triple bypass. Everytime this happens the hospital covers the bill, which actually ends up on your bill. The concept which I am trying to explain to you is that we will always have to pay for the needy when it comes to health insurance, indeed we are right now. At least having a public method should increase efficiency by eliminating E.R. care and increasing normal doctors visits with the poor.
[/quote]
you’re the one lacking understanding . . . but that’s just it - you’re claiming saving the cost of the uninsured’s impact on my insurances by making me pay more taxes to cover the cost of their medical care - it’s circular reasoning - the savings in terms of insurance premium is matched by increase in taxes collected to cover the cost of their new public provided insurance. YOU HAVE NOT CHANGED ANYTHING OF CONSEQUENCE . . .
[quote]Schlenkatank wrote:
I hate to break it to you, but every hospital bill that you’ve ever paid covers the cost of dealing with uninsured patients. We will always have to pay for the needy when it comes to healthcare as it is a basic necessity.
The fundamental flaw of a completely private insurance system is that the people who can’t afford the high costs and absurd standards of the insurance companies still need at least basic Health care. The problem is they get health care at our expense every time they have an accident or major health problem. This method of E.R. care is exponentially more costly than regular doctors visits, which is why anyone who buys from a private insurance company in the u.s. will pay more than double than the rest of the developed world.
Any way you slice the issue, people require healthcare. A public method of insurance would be the optimal way to reduce the burden on the american people and help you keep more cash in your pocket after hospital bills. This theory is not hypothetical but is being carried out in many countries with better systems than ours.[/quote]
ooh ohh ohh - watch out!!! BRICKWALL!!
ummm . . . YOU DON’T REDUCE A BURDEN BY MAKING THE GOVERNMENT THE COLLECTOR OF THE MONEY AND PAYOR OF THE BILL - the burden has not been reduced - it is merely co-opted by Uncle Sam - we still pay for it - you’re a moron . . .[/quote]
I have some advice for you. If you don’t understand what some one has said then you are not in a position to do anything but ask. Think about it.
I understand that you don’t reduce costs by simply shifting the method of payment. If that is all a public program would do then the system would be less effective then it is now. But we can reduce the cost of YOUR health care expenses by insuring people who often show up at hospitals needing a triple bypass. Everytime this happens the hospital covers the bill, which actually ends up on your bill. The concept which I am trying to explain to you is that we will always have to pay for the needy when it comes to health insurance, indeed we are right now. At least having a public method should increase efficiency by eliminating E.R. care and increasing normal doctors visits with the poor.
[/quote]
you’re the one lacking understanding . . . but that’s just it - you’re claiming saving the cost of the uninsured’s impact on my insurances by making me pay more taxes to cover the cost of their medical care - it’s circular reasoning - the savings in terms of insurance premium is matched by increase in taxes collected to cover the cost of their new public provided insurance. YOU HAVE NOT CHANGED ANYTHING OF CONSEQUENCE . . .[/quote]
I’ve taken a class on this very issue. I understand it just fine. Your completely missing the important fact that E.R. visits from uninsured patients are tremendously more expensive than regular doctors visits that will catch a catastrophe before it happens. Those same patients also make you wait longer for the E.R. You will pay less by helping support a public option plan then by indirectly paying for them every time they NEED a visit. Why do you think our system is so expensive?
[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
you’re the one lacking understanding . . . but that’s just it - you’re claiming saving the cost of the uninsured’s impact on my insurances by making me pay more taxes to cover the cost of their medical care - it’s circular reasoning - the savings in terms of insurance premium is matched by increase in taxes collected to cover the cost of their new public provided insurance. YOU HAVE NOT CHANGED ANYTHING OF CONSEQUENCE . . .[/quote]
I’ve taken a class on this very issue. I understand it just fine. Your completely missing the important fact that E.R. visits from uninsured patients are tremendously more expensive than regular doctors visits that will catch a catastrophe before it happens. Those same patients also make you wait longer for the E.R. You will pay less by helping support a public option plan then by indirectly paying for them every time they NEED a visit. Why do you think our system is so expensive?
[/quote]
Oh, well, excuse me -I did not know you had taken a class on the subject. Well that changes everything . . . .
your proof point assumes PREVENTIVE versus TREATMENT costs - there is no way you could prove that actually exists without running two identical universes at the same time (one with/one without public health care) where all of the decisions and variables were identically followed. Charity is as viable an option as publicly financed health insurance to mitigate the “costs” you are referring to. HOWEVER, the rising costs of medical care are caused by the INSURANCE/GOVERNMENT nexus and not merely the poor in need of medical care - we have always had the poor in our midst and we have managed their costs as part of our national health care. The precipitous rise in cost is directly caused, as I said, by the interaction of insurance and government action. You simply swallowed the info provided in your class without applying critical thought . . .
[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
you’re the one lacking understanding . . . but that’s just it - you’re claiming saving the cost of the uninsured’s impact on my insurances by making me pay more taxes to cover the cost of their medical care - it’s circular reasoning - the savings in terms of insurance premium is matched by increase in taxes collected to cover the cost of their new public provided insurance. YOU HAVE NOT CHANGED ANYTHING OF CONSEQUENCE . . .[/quote]
I’ve taken a class on this very issue. I understand it just fine. Your completely missing the important fact that E.R. visits from uninsured patients are tremendously more expensive than regular doctors visits that will catch a catastrophe before it happens. Those same patients also make you wait longer for the E.R. You will pay less by helping support a public option plan then by indirectly paying for them every time they NEED a visit. Why do you think our system is so expensive?
[/quote]
Oh, well, excuse me -I did not know you had taken a class on the subject. Well that changes everything . . . .
your proof point assumes PREVENTIVE versus TREATMENT costs - there is no way you could prove that actually exists without running two identical universes at the same time (one with/one without public health care) where all of the decisions and variables were identically followed. Charity is as viable an option as publicly financed health insurance to mitigate the “costs” you are referring to. HOWEVER, the rising costs of medical care are caused by the INSURANCE/GOVERNMENT nexus and not merely the poor in need of medical care - we have always had the poor in our midst and we have managed their costs as part of our national health care. The precipitous rise in cost is directly caused, as I said, by the interaction of insurance and government action. You simply swallowed the info provided in your class without applying critical thought . . .[/quote]
Ok, IS and Push, how about a randomized controlled trial of how insurance affects aggregate costs:
So, no surprise here: insurance causes aggregagte costs to rise, and the increased outpatient usage does not reduce inpatient (and ER?) expense, thus arguing against Shlenkatank’s contention that availability lead to less ER (and hospital) use.
But maybe this article, and a half dozen like it, were not included in Schlenkatank’s course.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
No. Rich people do not put their money under a mattress. Rich people invest their money. They loan to start up business, they invest in the market and even the money that is put in a bank doesn’t sit there. Banks use that money to loan to customers to start a business, or buy a house, or expand a business, ect.
You know nothing about the way the economy works. Do you really thing buying groceries is more productive for the economy than investing?[/quote]
That’s actually not what I said at all.
If you give a person that’s struggling to get by $100 they are going to spend that entire $100 right away in almost all cases. If you give someone that’s wealthy $100 they very well could spend all $100, through buying or investing, but they might only spend $95 even $98 of it. When this number is in the billions it makes a big difference whether 100% or 95% of it gets spent. Investment is a big part of the economy too, I never said it wasn’t. Poor people actually invest also believe it or not. I do find it kind of funny though that you misunderstood my point and then immediately had a tantrum and resorted to insulting me.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
No. Rich people do not put their money under a mattress. Rich people invest their money. They loan to start up business, they invest in the market and even the money that is put in a bank doesn’t sit there. Banks use that money to loan to customers to start a business, or buy a house, or expand a business, ect.
You know nothing about the way the economy works. Do you really thing buying groceries is more productive for the economy than investing?[/quote]
That’s actually not what I said at all.
If you give a person that’s struggling to get by $100 they are going to spend that entire $100 right away in almost all cases. If you give someone that’s wealthy $100 they very well could spend all $100, through buying or investing, but they might only spend $95 even $98 of it. When this number is in the billions it makes a big difference whether 100% or 95% of it gets spent. Investment is a big part of the economy too, I never said it wasn’t. Poor people actually invest also believe it or not. I do find it kind of funny though that you misunderstood my point and then immediately had a tantrum and resorted to insulting me.[/quote]
Saving on the part of rich people increases the supply of loanable funds, dropping interest rates. This has a positive effect on investment and aggregate demand more generally.
[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
LOL - the burdens of healthcare costs . . .
let me let you all in on a big secret . . . the government is not paying for healthcare . . . YOU ARE . . . its called taxes . . . all you’ve managed to do is to allow the governemt to take your money and decide how to spend it for you and you call it freedom from the burdens - LMAO - ya’ll’re stupid . . .[/quote]
I hate to break it to you, but every hospital bill that you’ve ever paid covers the cost of dealing with uninsured patients. We will always have to pay for the needy when it comes to healthcare as it is a basic necessity.
The fundamental flaw of a completely private insurance system is that the people who can’t afford the high costs and absurd standards of the insurance companies still need at least basic Health care. The problem is they get health care at our expense every time they have an accident or major health problem. This method of E.R. care is exponentially more costly than regular doctors visits, which is why anyone who buys from a private insurance company in the u.s. will pay more than double than the rest of the developed world.
Any way you slice the issue, people require healthcare. A public method of insurance would be the optimal way to reduce the burden on the american people and help you keep more cash in your pocket after hospital bills. This theory is not hypothetical but is being carried out in many countries with better systems than ours.[/quote]
This brings up a really strong point. The single positive response from govt healthcare that might come to fruition is shorter lines at the ER.
“The fundamental flaw of a completely private insurance system is that the people who can’t afford the high costs and absurd standards of the insurance companies still need at least basic Health care. The problem is they get health care at our expense every time they have an accident or major health problem.” I’m eye to eye with you here too. Insurance lobbyists push our reps to require employers to cover certain areas in their healthcare plans. It’s another example of “you have to have this by law”, which expanded into healthcare as we know it today. Why can’t healthcare be more like car insurance where you pick and choose exactly what you want to cover and the price is adjusted accordingly? The individual decides how much risk he is willing to take with a baseline in place to protect others. Oh, wait. That sounds like freedom of choice to me. We can’t have that now can we?
“A public method of insurance would be the optimal way to reduce the burden on the american people and help you keep more cash in your pocket after hospital bills. This theory is not hypothetical but is being carried out in many countries with better systems than ours.” Proof? Links please. I am not “always drawn to the extremes” as you initially stated, but find myself more or less in the middle, so I would appreciate your supporting documentation. I have requested info from acquantances and other Tnationers previously to help me understand their thought process on govt. healthcare, but none have followed through.
^ LOOK! I found the return key. My IQ just went through the roof and my comments are more valuable due to proper punctuation.
[/quote]
What a shock to find someone who thinks a little differently than me who’s not a douche.
Well, there is a lot of info on the net regarding this topic which is fairly reliable. I had an old textbook which would be perfect for this but i sold it for cash.
This link is a little outdated but shows the basic costs of healthcare per person, share of GDP, etc., in developed nations. The figures for the u.s. in this link are considerably higher now. http://www.kff.org/insurance/snapshot/chcm010307oth.cfm
As for the benefit of our health care, the World Health Organization takes a decent stab at the tricky job of ranking health care systems around the globe. In their last ranking, we were 37. Is it perfectly accurate? No, but it is at least a realtive rating. This wiki link is their ranking.
Most of the nations above us on that list have a mix of public/private or are all public I believe. France has an efficient system, germany does as well. However, one thing all successful systems have are low costs. We do not.
Is there anything else you would like cited?
[/quote]
Well, those numbers are far from your claims. But are there studies that compensate the numbers for things like, diet, activity levels, obesity? A fat sedentary American is going to spend more on health care than a thinner active European, that doesn’t make our system more expensive or less efficient.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
No. Rich people do not put their money under a mattress. Rich people invest their money. They loan to start up business, they invest in the market and even the money that is put in a bank doesn’t sit there. Banks use that money to loan to customers to start a business, or buy a house, or expand a business, ect.
You know nothing about the way the economy works. Do you really thing buying groceries is more productive for the economy than investing?[/quote]
That’s actually not what I said at all.
If you give a person that’s struggling to get by $100 they are going to spend that entire $100 right away in almost all cases. If you give someone that’s wealthy $100 they very well could spend all $100, through buying or investing, but they might only spend $95 even $98 of it. When this number is in the billions it makes a big difference whether 100% or 95% of it gets spent. Investment is a big part of the economy too, I never said it wasn’t. Poor people actually invest also believe it or not. I do find it kind of funny though that you misunderstood my point and then immediately had a tantrum and resorted to insulting me.[/quote]
Saving on the part of rich people increases the supply of loanable funds, dropping interest rates. This has a positive effect on investment and aggregate demand more generally. [/quote]