Speaking of healthcare...here's an interesting chart from the same textbook...don't have a scanner working so here is the country, life expectancy, infant mortality rate, and health expenditures as a % of GDP:
Japan 81 3.9% 7.4%
Korea 74 7.9% 6.0%
Canada 79 5.1% 9.3%
UK 78 5.6% 6.9%
France 79 4.5% 9.6%
Germany 77 4.8% 10.6%
Mexico 72 26.2% 4.7%
USA 77 6.8% 14.0%
Anyone see a problem here?
I have posted at length before on how public health care is cheaper and more effective, and I have previously posted similar numbers to help prove it.
A study published last summer in the U.S. showed that administration (as against dollars spent on actual care) eats up a inordinate amount of the health spending the the U.S. and that these administration costs are largely the private-sector administration costs of the insurance companies (And what does Bush do in his latest medicare 'reforms'?: compound this by directing yet more dollars tow ard insurance companies. I see yet more Mercedes, country homes, and long tax-deductible liquid lunches in the future for insurance company executives).
I am a liberal, not a socialist, but some things the public sector does better. Health care appears to be one of them. Public health care is far from perfect - and does need its own reforms - but I'll take it any day over the U.S. system.
I went to a Christmas party last year, and the house was absolutely huge and beautiful. It was my colleague's home, and I know that she didn't make enough to afford a million-dollar home, so I asked what her husband did for a living - health administrator. It just seems somehow immoral to me to profit like that from health care. I don't feel that way about selling computers or cars or anything else. People can decide if they want a new dual G5 and a huge SUV. Making a profit from their decision is the way it should be: the consumer wants a product, and they're willing to pay someone to provide it for them. But people can't decide if they need health care.
You can say what you want about historical trends and the like, but when you figure in the costs of social security, state taxes, sales tax, health insurance premiums (even though not from the government), and all the rest... we don't get what we pay for by a long shot. And I think that's what BR is saying basically, whether his text book is using the correct terminology or not.
Are you really thinking about all you're currently getting?
I know there's a lot of room to argue about quality and efficiency here, but still, consider these things:
An extensive transportation system, including roads, bridges, tunnels, ports, etc.
Public water and sewage systems.
Public education and some financial assistance for private education.
Police protection and a prison system.
Military protection.
Regulatory protections that increase the safety and quality of the consumer products, the workplace, food and drugs, etc., and at least slow the decline of the quality of the environment.
Imperfect, but still present, financial safety nets like Social Security, Medicare, unemployment benefits, welfare, and food stamps.
A crude (and costly and inefficient) form of universal health care, in that most people will get at least basic treatment if they show up at a hospital emergency room.
Scientific research and exploration.
Public parks.
Not something that you might be willing to say you "get much for", but necessary nonetheless: servicing the interest on the national debt (a very large federal budget item, actually).
Etc.
I'm not saying that we can't, or shouldn't, get a better bang for our tax buck, but we do get a lot for the money. While we should fight waste as much as we can, there will always be some degree of inefficiency and some waste.
Also, you have to be careful how you define "waste". Is anything the government spends money on that you don't personally like "waste"? If you're one of the *cough* luddites *cough*, er, people who cry "Why are we wasting money going to Mars when we still have problems here on Earth?", does that truly mean the whole NASA budget is a waste? Any government budget is going to have to contain a compromise mix of funding for things that some, but not all, people want.
I pay enough in taxes (when you add up all federal and local taxes) that I should be able to have two full time, minimum wage government employees who work just for me, or at least one with benefits. Do I feel like I get that much back? Hard to say. I don't think I'd want to personally do my share of the work on building and maintaining the roads I use -- I'm pretty happy to be indirectly paying someone else to take care of things like that for me.
Overall, I don't feel all that terribly burdened by taxes. I'd be even happier if the wealthy, who garner a distorted and disproportionately large share of the benefits of our society, were paying a larger, more progressively fair portion of their incomes than they currently do.
Are you really thinking about all you're currently getting?
I know there's a lot of room to argue about quality and efficiency here, but still, consider these things:[list][*]An extensive transportation system, including roads, bridges, tunnels, ports, etc.
Have you driven in Los Angeles?
Quote:
[*]Public water and sewage systems.
I won't drink tap water.
Quote:
[*]Public education and some financial assistance for private education.
California schools blow ass. Compare our system to Japan or many plaecs in Europe and our K-12 blows ass.
Quote:
[*]Police protection and a prison system.
Yeah. We have to pay to keep all those drug users in prison. My hard earned tax dollars at work.
Quote:
[*]Military protection.
Is more than half a trillion a year really justified though?
Quote:
[*]Regulatory protections that increase the safety and quality of the consumer products, the workplace, food and drugs, etc., and at least slow the decline of the quality of the environment.
Oh, you mean the FDA that won't let people make informed choices regarding their own care? You mean the FDA that won't allow desperate patients on death's door try drugs that haven't been approved because they might hurt the patient?
Quote:
[*]Imperfect, but still present, financial safety nets like Social Security, Medicare, unemployment benefits, welfare, and food stamps.
I'm 21. I'll never see a dime of Social Security. If you are 40 you are unlikely to as well. It doesn't work when you have such a small base of workers supporting a huge amount of retirees who are now living longer and longer than anyone previously anticipated.
Quote:
[*]A crude (and costly and inefficient) form of universal health care, in that most people will get at least basic treatment if they show up at a hospital emergency room.
Yeah, and we have to pay emergency room rates for it. That's fvcking intelligent.
Quote:
[*]Scientific research and exploration.
Space needs to be privatized.
Quote:
[*]Public parks.
Yeah, I like those.
Quote:
[*]Not something that you might be willing to say you "get much for", but necessary nonetheless: servicing the interest on the national debt (a very large federal budget item, actually).
And people wonder why dumbasses only pay the minimum on their credit card balances. The gov't teaches them well! Monkey see monkey do!
You're right. But BR's figure is pretty close when ALL taxes, fees and licensures are added. The total can go over 50 when considering every single tax we pay.
And with a total over 50 that puts us clearly under the category of socialist level taxes and do we have free college enrollment or universal healthcare or any of the benefits that go hand in hand with such outrageous taxes? No. No we don't.
and if it is used semi-wisely then that is a good thing.
by the way: false-premise warfare is not a good thing
It's very simple. The money goes to support the welfare class. People who haven't contributed a cent in income tax payments, but who receive all the benefits. People with money who also happen to contribute the most to the system, use private services - paid, out of their own pocket. Welcome to the wonderful world of socialism.
those are the lamest two arguements I have heard on these subjects
the "wellfare class"?!?
do you mean 'The Poor'?
The fastest growing class?
ever been on teh bottom?
ever been out of mommy's house?
by the way, ever been to a country like Sweden or Belgium or even France or Germany? Places that you would definitely call 'socialist'?
They have their benefits . . . . and squashing that vaguest of vagues 'responsibility' is not one of them . . .
..BR
Privatized space research?\
Hey nothing is stopping private research into what and how and why the universe came about . . . .
but do you know what? the answers wouldn't bring anyone a profit
I guess that explains the lack of a private Hubble, or Mars explorer . . .
Yes I have driven in LA . . . at least I can drive in LA . . . plus I can drive from LA all the way to teh East Coast and do some pretty great touring in between . . . in less than three days
why? because we have a fantastic Highway system . . . in fact the best highway system in the world . . . one of the single best determining factors as to why we have a great post-war economy and a strong country
Leave that to privatization and you would get absurd stop and go tolls and crappy roads!
and really, who cares if YOU don't drink tap water!?
does that mean that every American is supposed to spend outrageous money on plastic bottles filled with water . . . so that the aquifers and local sources can go to pot without anybody noticing . . .
Many CA schools are excellent, my alma mater for example, San Mateo high,:an excellent Public school
The UC system is the best in the world for inexpensive University as well.
They could be better though . . . and we sure as hell won't "test" our way into great schools . . . that's pablum for the rule-licker's minds . .
Blame the impending failure of SS on you know who . . .
How's this for an idea. Capping benefits to a percentage of income tax paid in the last 10 years. You haven't paid income taxes in the last 10 years, to don't get to use the highways. And should you decide to own a car, your yearly license fees will be calculated on the amount of owed back payment that you never paid. Maybe some of this kind of thinking will encourage some of these brave souls to leave mommy's house and get a job. You think?
How's this for an idea. Capping benefits to a percentage of income tax paid in the last 10 years. You haven't paid income taxes in the last 10 years, to don't get to use the highways. And should you decide to own a car, your yearly license fees will be calculated on the amount of owed back payment that you never paid. Maybe some of this kind of thinking will encourage some of these brave souls to leave mommy's house and get a job. You think?
This shows me how much your idea of poverty is completely divorced from reality
Yeah. Keep encouraging these poor souls to remain uneducated and flipping burgers. What a wonderful and fulfilling future for us all.
That is realistic . . .
finboy, why do you bother . . . besides many would probably be glad to even flip burgers . . . it is obviouse you have never had to really work for a living, and if you do it is what was handed to you by simply following the line developed for you and expected of you by your upbringing
finboy, why do you bother . . . besides many would probably be glad to even flip burgers . . . it is obviouse you have never had to really work for a living, and if you do it is what was handed to you by simply following the line developed for you and expected of you by your upbringing
Hmm,..
I really wish you drop it with the personal attacks. If you don't, I might have to spank you.
Comments
Originally posted by BR
Speaking of healthcare...here's an interesting chart from the same textbook...don't have a scanner working so here is the country, life expectancy, infant mortality rate, and health expenditures as a % of GDP:
Japan 81 3.9% 7.4%
Korea 74 7.9% 6.0%
Canada 79 5.1% 9.3%
UK 78 5.6% 6.9%
France 79 4.5% 9.6%
Germany 77 4.8% 10.6%
Mexico 72 26.2% 4.7%
USA 77 6.8% 14.0%
Anyone see a problem here?
I have posted at length before on how public health care is cheaper and more effective, and I have previously posted similar numbers to help prove it.
A study published last summer in the U.S. showed that administration (as against dollars spent on actual care) eats up a inordinate amount of the health spending the the U.S. and that these administration costs are largely the private-sector administration costs of the insurance companies (And what does Bush do in his latest medicare 'reforms'?: compound this by directing yet more dollars tow ard insurance companies. I see yet more Mercedes, country homes, and long tax-deductible liquid lunches in the future for insurance company executives).
I am a liberal, not a socialist, but some things the public sector does better. Health care appears to be one of them. Public health care is far from perfect - and does need its own reforms - but I'll take it any day over the U.S. system.
Originally posted by Chinney
. . .
I see yet more Mercedes, country homes, and long tax-deductible liquid lunches in the future for insurance company executives).
My uncle was big in the insurance industry, he even set up an appartment in Washington so that he could become political (aka: a lobbyist)
He recently sold his house in Hillsbourough Ca, for over 4.5 MILLION dollars$$$
Originally posted by Moogs
You can say what you want about historical trends and the like, but when you figure in the costs of social security, state taxes, sales tax, health insurance premiums (even though not from the government), and all the rest... we don't get what we pay for by a long shot. And I think that's what BR is saying basically, whether his text book is using the correct terminology or not.
Are you really thinking about all you're currently getting?
I know there's a lot of room to argue about quality and efficiency here, but still, consider these things:
- An extensive transportation system, including roads, bridges, tunnels, ports, etc.
- Public water and sewage systems.
- Public education and some financial assistance for private education.
- Police protection and a prison system.
- Military protection.
- Regulatory protections that increase the safety and quality of the consumer products, the workplace, food and drugs, etc., and at least slow the decline of the quality of the environment.
- Imperfect, but still present, financial safety nets like Social Security, Medicare, unemployment benefits, welfare, and food stamps.
- A crude (and costly and inefficient) form of universal health care, in that most people will get at least basic treatment if they show up at a hospital emergency room.
- Scientific research and exploration.
- Public parks.
- Not something that you might be willing to say you "get much for", but necessary nonetheless: servicing the interest on the national debt (a very large federal budget item, actually).
- Etc.
I'm not saying that we can't, or shouldn't, get a better bang for our tax buck, but we do get a lot for the money. While we should fight waste as much as we can, there will always be some degree of inefficiency and some waste.Also, you have to be careful how you define "waste". Is anything the government spends money on that you don't personally like "waste"? If you're one of the *cough* luddites *cough*, er, people who cry "Why are we wasting money going to Mars when we still have problems here on Earth?", does that truly mean the whole NASA budget is a waste? Any government budget is going to have to contain a compromise mix of funding for things that some, but not all, people want.
I pay enough in taxes (when you add up all federal and local taxes) that I should be able to have two full time, minimum wage government employees who work just for me, or at least one with benefits. Do I feel like I get that much back? Hard to say. I don't think I'd want to personally do my share of the work on building and maintaining the roads I use -- I'm pretty happy to be indirectly paying someone else to take care of things like that for me.
Overall, I don't feel all that terribly burdened by taxes. I'd be even happier if the wealthy, who garner a distorted and disproportionately large share of the benefits of our society, were paying a larger, more progressively fair portion of their incomes than they currently do.
Originally posted by shetline
Are you really thinking about all you're currently getting?
I know there's a lot of room to argue about quality and efficiency here, but still, consider these things:[list][*]An extensive transportation system, including roads, bridges, tunnels, ports, etc.
Have you driven in Los Angeles?
[*]Public water and sewage systems.
I won't drink tap water.
[*]Public education and some financial assistance for private education.
California schools blow ass. Compare our system to Japan or many plaecs in Europe and our K-12 blows ass.
[*]Police protection and a prison system.
Yeah. We have to pay to keep all those drug users in prison. My hard earned tax dollars at work.
[*]Military protection.
Is more than half a trillion a year really justified though?
[*]Regulatory protections that increase the safety and quality of the consumer products, the workplace, food and drugs, etc., and at least slow the decline of the quality of the environment.
Oh, you mean the FDA that won't let people make informed choices regarding their own care? You mean the FDA that won't allow desperate patients on death's door try drugs that haven't been approved because they might hurt the patient?
[*]Imperfect, but still present, financial safety nets like Social Security, Medicare, unemployment benefits, welfare, and food stamps.
I'm 21. I'll never see a dime of Social Security. If you are 40 you are unlikely to as well. It doesn't work when you have such a small base of workers supporting a huge amount of retirees who are now living longer and longer than anyone previously anticipated.
[*]A crude (and costly and inefficient) form of universal health care, in that most people will get at least basic treatment if they show up at a hospital emergency room.
Yeah, and we have to pay emergency room rates for it. That's fvcking intelligent.
[*]Scientific research and exploration.
Space needs to be privatized.
[*]Public parks.
Yeah, I like those.
[*]Not something that you might be willing to say you "get much for", but necessary nonetheless: servicing the interest on the national debt (a very large federal budget item, actually).
And people wonder why dumbasses only pay the minimum on their credit card balances. The gov't teaches them well! Monkey see monkey do!
Originally posted by SDW2001
You're right. But BR's figure is pretty close when ALL taxes, fees and licensures are added. The total can go over 50 when considering every single tax we pay.
And with a total over 50 that puts us clearly under the category of socialist level taxes and do we have free college enrollment or universal healthcare or any of the benefits that go hand in hand with such outrageous taxes? No. No we don't.
Originally posted by pfflam
Take my taxes!!
take your taxes and we're even
and if it is used semi-wisely then that is a good thing.
by the way: false-premise warfare is not a good thing
It's very simple. The money goes to support the welfare class. People who haven't contributed a cent in income tax payments, but who receive all the benefits. People with money who also happen to contribute the most to the system, use private services - paid, out of their own pocket. Welcome to the wonderful world of socialism.
the "wellfare class"?!?
do you mean 'The Poor'?
The fastest growing class?
ever been on teh bottom?
ever been out of mommy's house?
by the way, ever been to a country like Sweden or Belgium or even France or Germany? Places that you would definitely call 'socialist'?
They have their benefits . . . . and squashing that vaguest of vagues 'responsibility' is not one of them . . .
..BR
Privatized space research?
Hey nothing is stopping private research into what and how and why the universe came about . . . .
but do you know what? the answers wouldn't bring anyone a profit
I guess that explains the lack of a private Hubble, or Mars explorer . . .
Yes I have driven in LA . . . at least I can drive in LA . . . plus I can drive from LA all the way to teh East Coast and do some pretty great touring in between . . . in less than three days
why? because we have a fantastic Highway system . . . in fact the best highway system in the world . . . one of the single best determining factors as to why we have a great post-war economy and a strong country
Leave that to privatization and you would get absurd stop and go tolls and crappy roads!
and really, who cares if YOU don't drink tap water!?
does that mean that every American is supposed to spend outrageous money on plastic bottles filled with water . . . so that the aquifers and local sources can go to pot without anybody noticing . . .
Many CA schools are excellent, my alma mater for example, San Mateo high,:an excellent Public school
The UC system is the best in the world for inexpensive University as well.
They could be better though . . . and we sure as hell won't "test" our way into great schools . . . that's pablum for the rule-licker's minds . .
Blame the impending failure of SS on you know who . . .
Originally posted by Blue Shift
How's this for an idea. Capping benefits to a percentage of income tax paid in the last 10 years. You haven't paid income taxes in the last 10 years, to don't get to use the highways. And should you decide to own a car, your yearly license fees will be calculated on the amount of owed back payment that you never paid. Maybe some of this kind of thinking will encourage some of these brave souls to leave mommy's house and get a job. You think?
This shows me how much your idea of poverty is completely divorced from reality
Originally posted by pfflam
This shows me how much your idea of poverty is completely divorced from reality
Yeah. Keep encouraging these poor souls to remain uneducated and flipping burgers. What a wonderful and fulfilling future for us all.
Originally posted by Blue Shift
Yeah. Keep encouraging these poor souls to remain uneducated and flipping burgers. What a wonderful and fulfilling future for us all.
That is realistic . . .
finboy, why do you bother . . . besides many would probably be glad to even flip burgers . . . it is obviouse you have never had to really work for a living, and if you do it is what was handed to you by simply following the line developed for you and expected of you by your upbringing
Originally posted by pfflam
That is realistic . . .
finboy, why do you bother . . . besides many would probably be glad to even flip burgers . . . it is obviouse you have never had to really work for a living, and if you do it is what was handed to you by simply following the line developed for you and expected of you by your upbringing
Hmm,..
I really wish you drop it with the personal attacks. If you don't, I might have to spank you.
Originally posted by Blue Shift
Hmm,..
I really wish you drop it with the personal attacks. If you don't, I might have to spank you.
Where did I insult you . . . was it the finboy call?
I guessed you were finboy in alias
Originally posted by BR
I won't drink tap water.
I seriously hope you never have to try to put out a house fire with bottled water. Public works isn't only about drinking water, you know.
It is, in the end, a bloody miracle that water comes out of the at all.
Cheers
Scott
Originally posted by pfflam
Where did I insult you . . . was it the finboy call?
I guessed you were finboy in alias
Well, you got that wrong as well.
I never had to work for a living? I find that insulting. And I think most honest people would as well.