one more
The first link doesnāt surprise me in the slightest. We spend a greater percentage of GDP on healthcare than most other countries. Thatās a fact.
The issue I have when this āevidenceā is submitted is that the assumption (not necessarily by you) is that the cost is less because x country uses a single-payer system. Thatās simply not true. There are a lot of factors to consider. For example, of course, the UK system costs less, they have to wait way longer to see a specialist for treatment. Less people seen = fewer costs.
Another factor is obesity rates. The USā obesity rate is over 36.2%. The UKās is about 26.8%. Thatās a significant difference:
98 million more people in the US have to be treated for disease caused by obesity. I mean, of course, our healthcare cost moreā¦
Your second link uses a ranking earned 18 years ago. Iām not saying itās wrong (I didnāt read through it), but a lot has changed since then.
And, just so youāre clear on my position since Iām sure itās been lost in these awful threads. I would probably support universal coverage IF it covered an extremely limited number of things and it was very difficult to have additional treatments added.
I canāt remember which thread I wrote it in, but essentially my position is that we are at a point where we canāt sustain current federal spending with the programs we have. Adding another enormous program is simply not a feasible idea. We wonāt break even on costs (like Zeppy will claim) itās comically absurd to think we will.
I know you posted a bunch of .org stuff, but these are important points to consider in the discussion on how to improve the HC industry that I find very concerning.
1 Like
Pretty much what usmc said:
You have to be really really careful when parsing observational, epidemiological, and large scale studies. For instance I can think of a rather large number of possible confounding factors for that first linkās work. This doesnāt mean itās a bad study, just that a) there are a lot of variables to a complex problem and b) one only has limited time and resources with which to do a study.
Unfortunately the amount of people who donāt understand this is very, very large.
Real estate. All the wealthy own it, so thereās loopholes on top of loopholes.
Also Belize and Thailand are my two top picks. The COL is so incredibly dirt cheap that even if the US keeps taxing you as an expat you can live like a king on SS benefits alone.
1 Like
And the womenā¦
Careful, thatās not a woman.
2 Likes
Been looking in the mountains of NH and also the Azores - Belize sounds interesting ā¦ I hear bad things about Thai corruption ā¦
For the common layman (ie, non 1%er) the change to prop tax write-off did SIGNIFICANT damage to the ability to use real estate to dodge taxes.
There are exceptions, but very few irt residential real estate owning. Many in the mortgage industry think that specific change was the GOP taking a pot shot at the financial/mortgage industry, as theyāve previously had a lot of Dems in their pockets.
1 Like
Hah!!
Well, all countries have their risks. Watch the Adamās apple!
So what, IYO would constitute a number that is sufficient to take a poll? You are just mad because your ideology is most likely on the way out.
They asked .0003% of the population and barely broke 50% and you think thatās evidence the majority of people in the US want single-payer.
Clowns gotta clown I guess.
I mean ā¦ Iām convinced
1 Like
Zep, the larger the sample size, and in this case the further from 50% the results are, the more convincing it would be. So, a 50k survey would be more convincing, or an 80% result with the sample size of 1000 would also be more useful in figuring out the tendencies of the group being represented.
I also donāt think a poll of the population at large is a particularly good way to determine what health care system is ābestā. It can tell you what is preferred by the masses, and thatās it. As misinformed as the general public is, thatās not a data set Iām interested in working with in the first place.
1 Like
I tell you what, wait for it, this is probably true. Stupid ass mother fuckers like you want to suckle at the governmentās tit from cradle to grave and are will to give up every ounce of freedom we have to get it. The number of stupid fucks is just growing and this phenomena is not new. Schumpeter was talking about this a hundred years ago.
One should be cognizant of who is touting the accomplishments. These articles are most likely written and funded by those who have a financial interest in keeping the status quo.
So the majority of the evidence shows that single-payer costs far less. And often has better outcomes. For everything? No, but on balance, yes.
A study compiled by doctors.
www.pnhp.org/facts/single-payer-system-cost
In regards to the VA why are opinions among the highest level of satisfaction? Is asking the actual people who receive the care not valid?
Despite spending more on healthcare than comparable countries, the U.S. has the lowest life expectancy and performs poorly on a variety of health outcomes
Yes, a study conducted by doctors:
Funny how you listen to them and not the doctors on T-nation (like @ActivitiesGuy and @Aragorn) because you donāt like what they have to say.
But, I get it. Your bias is the correct bias.
Honesty, go fuck yourself. Youāre the worst kind of person.
It is coming, eventually. So get ready. Am I too believe that the rest of the modern countries are doing it wrong and the U.S. is doing it right?
If you have time, read or listen to āMillionaire Real Estate Investorā.
The SALT limitations only hurt people that own houses to live in. It wonāt hurt investors that hold in an llc.
Right now in the US it is possible to invest in positive cash flowing real estate your entire life and never pay taxes, legally.
Step 1: Buy property (obviously only buy good deals that cash flow and preferably with OPM).
Step 2: Do a āCost Segregation Studyā that accelerates the depreciation from 39 years to either 5, 7 or 15 years. You can do this with any property type over SFH. Itās tougher to get for buildings under 5 units, but it can work.
Step 3: Run the property correctly so it cash flows and use the accelerated depreciation to show losses on taxes.
Step 4: Buy new properties often enough that youāre always depreciating a property to offset your income from the properties that are 100% depreciated.
Step 5: Sell depreciated properties using a 1031 exchange and pay no capital gains if you use the proceeds to buy a more expensive property in the next 90/120 days.
Rinse and repeat.
If you want to liquidate a depreciated property for cash (not re-invest in RE) you can avoid the capital gains by selling your ownership share in that LLC to the next buyer. If it appraises for $1 more than you get paid for your ownership share, no capital gains.
If you manage it right you can pass on RE to heirs without estate taxes.
The best part of all this is if you buy right and donāt get caught up in hysteria: 1. Appreciation is just a bonus, 2. Youāre putting 25%-35% down and your tenants are paying off your notes.
This is just the simple version. The advanced guys use way more tricks than that.
1 Like
And since you wonāt have to pay private taxes(premiums) your costs will go down.