goemaw.com
General Discussion => The New Joe Montgomery Birther Pit => Topic started by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on June 07, 2011, 10:40:29 PM
-
It looks like crap.
It appears to be getting worse.
-
It looks like crap.
It appears to be getting worse.
and the GOP's eyes get big when they see all that power up for grabs. The worse it gets, the better it gets for the Tea Party..am I rite?
-
It looks like crap.
It appears to be getting worse.
and the GOP's eyes get big when they see all that power up for grabs. The worse it gets, the better it gets for the Tea Party..am I rite?
No, the worse it looks for everyone.
Unlike you statists, we don't root for the decline of America, no matter who is in office.
-
It looks like crap.
It appears to be getting worse.
and the GOP's eyes get big when they see all that power up for grabs. The worse it gets, the better it gets for the Tea Party..am I rite?
I suppose it would have been a good idea for Obama to concentrate on the economy instead of social issues in his first term.
-
Bernake said today that he sees things improving the second half of the year and hiring increasing the second half of the year.
Didn't hear all the details, only heard a little of the interview.
fwiw.
-
Bernake said today that he sees things improving the second half of the year and hiring increasing the second half of the year.
Didn't hear all the details, only heard a little of the interview.
fwiw.
Nobody believes him. Market down.
-
Gun to my head i wouldn't trust that clown or anyone associated with the Fed
*cough* Herman Cain *cough*
-
Bernake said today that he sees things improving the second half of the year and hiring increasing the second half of the year.
Didn't hear all the details, only heard a little of the interview.
fwiw.
His economic "forecast" represented lowered expectations than what he previously forecasted for this year. Which is bad, unless its opposite day.
-
so an improving economy and more hiring is bad. got it.
your note is why the market is down, but it is due to pace, not direction of the economy.
however, yours fits your agenda better, so i would stick with that if i were you.
-
Unlike you statists, we don't root for the decline of America, no matter who is in office.
is that why the Republican controlled House and Congress have failed to pass one single jobs bill since they were put in place?
Explain that one please.
-
so an improving economy and more hiring is bad. got it.
your note is why the market is down, but it is due to pace, not direction of the economy.
however, yours fits your agenda better, so i would stick with that if i were you.
I suppose you're right. An umemployment rate of 9.0% would be an improvement, so yeah good economy. I don't know what I was thinking.
:flush:
Think before you speak to the almighty sugar dick on economic and financial topics, cns casey. I'm sorry you don't have time to understand what you are hearing, but I'm even more sorry that you don't care to have it explained to you.
-
Unlike you statists, we don't root for the decline of America, no matter who is in office.
is that why the Republican controlled House and Congress have failed to pass one single jobs bill since they were put in place?
Explain that one please.
1) Repubs control the house, dems control the senate. house + senate = congress
2) no job bills = rooting for the decline of America (silly things libs say/do)
All in all Bookcat, I rate your post :facepalm: :facepalm: :facepalm: :facepalm: on a scale of :facepalm: :facepalm: :facepalm: :facepalm: :facepalm:
Meanwhile the economy is :flush: :flush: :flush: :flush: :flush: on a scale of :flush: :flush: :flush: :flush: :flush:
-
so an improving economy and more hiring is bad. got it.
your note is why the market is down, but it is due to pace, not direction of the economy.
however, yours fits your agenda better, so i would stick with that if i were you.
I suppose you're right. An umemployment rate of 9.0% would be an improvement, so yeah good economy. I don't know what I was thinking.
:flush:
Think before you speak to the almighty sugar dick on economic and financial topics, cns casey. I'm sorry you don't have time to understand what you are hearing, but I'm even more sorry that you don't care to have it explained to you.
My OP stated that I only heard part of his interview.
No one is saying they are satisfied with where we are, but some understand that the path from bad to good is not an instantaneous jump.
better can still be bad, but better is better than worse.
-
so an improving economy and more hiring is bad. got it.
your note is why the market is down, but it is due to pace, not direction of the economy.
however, yours fits your agenda better, so i would stick with that if i were you.
I suppose you're right. An umemployment rate of 9.0% would be an improvement, so yeah good economy. I don't know what I was thinking.
:flush:
Think before you speak to the almighty sugar dick on economic and financial topics, cns casey. I'm sorry you don't have time to understand what you are hearing, but I'm even more sorry that you don't care to have it explained to you.
My OP stated that I only heard part of his interview.
No one is saying they are satisfied with where we are, but some understand that the path from bad to good is not an instantaneous jump.
better can still be bad, but better is better than worse.
Very insightful, Mr. President/Chairman :zzz:
-
Meanwhile the economy is :flush: :flush: :flush: :flush: :flush: on a scale of :flush: :flush: :flush: :flush: :flush:
Well, if it can't get worse, then it must be improving. :emawkid:
-
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fdailydish.typepad.com%2F.a%2F6a00d83451c45669e2014e8904f36c970d-800wi&hash=0ee491893be7f2106be494e31d142dea3dd6b327)
-
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fdailydish.typepad.com%2F.a%2F6a00d83451c45669e2014e8904f36c970d-800wi&hash=0ee491893be7f2106be494e31d142dea3dd6b327)
Then stop promoting policies that tear our GDP to crap.
-
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fdailydish.typepad.com%2F.a%2F6a00d83451c45669e2014e8904f36c970d-800wi&hash=0ee491893be7f2106be494e31d142dea3dd6b327)
Then stop promoting policies that tear our GDP to crap.
There's a helpful x-axis with years.
-
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fdailydish.typepad.com%2F.a%2F6a00d83451c45669e2014e8904f36c970d-800wi&hash=0ee491893be7f2106be494e31d142dea3dd6b327)
Then stop promoting policies that tear our GDP to crap.
QUIT BLAMING BUSH!!! :shakesfist:
-
It looks like crap.
It appears to be getting worse.
my household income has gone up an average of 31% per year over the last 7 years. the economy looks rough ridin' amazing. keep up the great work whoever factors into that!
-
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fdailydish.typepad.com%2F.a%2F6a00d83451c45669e2014e8904f36c970d-800wi&hash=0ee491893be7f2106be494e31d142dea3dd6b327)
Then stop promoting policies that tear our GDP to crap.
There's a helpful x-axis with years.
btw, ever thought about reasons why those costs are going up? Evil corporations, amirite?
-
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fdailydish.typepad.com%2F.a%2F6a00d83451c45669e2014e8904f36c970d-800wi&hash=0ee491893be7f2106be494e31d142dea3dd6b327)
Then stop promoting policies that tear our GDP to crap.
There's a helpful x-axis with years.
btw, ever thought about reasons why those costs are going up? Evil corporations, amirite?
Consumers aren't very good at negotiating prices when there is informational asymmetry? I really don't know. But I do know I'm pretty sure I'd rather pocket the difference and hang down there with the rest of the pack, "worse outcomes" be damned.
-
lol @ americans.
-
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fdailydish.typepad.com%2F.a%2F6a00d83451c45669e2014e8904f36c970d-800wi&hash=0ee491893be7f2106be494e31d142dea3dd6b327)
Then stop promoting policies that tear our GDP to crap.
There's a helpful x-axis with years.
btw, ever thought about reasons why those costs are going up? Evil corporations, amirite?
Consumers aren't very good at negotiating prices when there is informational asymmetry? I really don't know. But I do know I'm pretty sure I'd rather pocket the difference and hang down there with the rest of the pack, "worse outcomes" be damned.
We're financing those other nations to have those lower ratios. In addition to other things of theirs we're funding.
-
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fdailydish.typepad.com%2F.a%2F6a00d83451c45669e2014e8904f36c970d-800wi&hash=0ee491893be7f2106be494e31d142dea3dd6b327)
Then stop promoting policies that tear our GDP to crap.
There's a helpful x-axis with years.
btw, ever thought about reasons why those costs are going up? Evil corporations, amirite?
Consumers aren't very good at negotiating prices when there is informational asymmetry? I really don't know. But I do know I'm pretty sure I'd rather pocket the difference and hang down there with the rest of the pack, "worse outcomes" be damned.
We're financing those other nations to have those lower ratios. In addition to other things of theirs we're funding.
Because they rip off pharmaceutical companies with generics?
-
http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2011/05/why-is-healthcare-absurdly-expensive-in-usa-part-2/ (http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2011/05/why-is-healthcare-absurdly-expensive-in-usa-part-2/)
-
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fdailydish.typepad.com%2F.a%2F6a00d83451c45669e2014e8904f36c970d-800wi&hash=0ee491893be7f2106be494e31d142dea3dd6b327)
Then stop promoting policies that tear our GDP to crap.
There's a helpful x-axis with years.
btw, ever thought about reasons why those costs are going up? Evil corporations, amirite?
Consumers aren't very good at negotiating prices when there is informational asymmetry? I really don't know. But I do know I'm pretty sure I'd rather pocket the difference and hang down there with the rest of the pack, "worse outcomes" be damned.
We're financing those other nations to have those lower ratios. In addition to other things of theirs we're funding.
Because they rip off pharmaceutical companies with generics?
All the research we do, new techniques and equipment developed. We get it first. Just like high end electronics, the rich get it first to recoup the R&D costs.
Also keep in mind that we fund the defense of many of those nations so they can spend on things like health care.
-
All the research we do, new techniques and equipment developed. We get it first. Just like high end electronics, the rich get it first to recoup the R&D costs.
Yet people in other countries drink and smoke more than us, yet still live longer.
Also keep in mind that we fund the defense of many of those nations so they can spend on things like health care.
We don't fund the defense of that many nations, but I wouldn't be opposed at all to cutting our defense budget by 50-60%.
-
http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2011/05/why-is-healthcare-absurdly-expensive-in-usa-part-2/ (http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2011/05/why-is-healthcare-absurdly-expensive-in-usa-part-2/)
Your link states excessive malpractice awards are not out of control and only contribute 2% to increased health care costs. Kind of invalidates the whole thing. It changes the way ALL health care is delivered across the board and contributes much more than 2%.
-
http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2011/05/why-is-healthcare-absurdly-expensive-in-usa-part-2/ (http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2011/05/why-is-healthcare-absurdly-expensive-in-usa-part-2/)
Your link states excessive malpractice awards are not out of control and only contribute 2% to increased health care costs. Kind of invalidates the whole thing. It changes the way ALL health care is delivered across the board and contributes much more than 2%.
http://blogs.wsj.com/health/2009/10/09/medical-malpractice-how-much-money-would-an-overhaul-save/ (http://blogs.wsj.com/health/2009/10/09/medical-malpractice-how-much-money-would-an-overhaul-save/)
http://prescriptions.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/08/31/would-tort-reform-lower-health-care-costs/# (http://prescriptions.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/08/31/would-tort-reform-lower-health-care-costs/#)
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=az9qxQZNmf0o (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=az9qxQZNmf0o)
http://www.factcheck.org/article133.html (http://www.factcheck.org/article133.html)
-
Also keep in mind that we fund the defense of many of those nations so they can spend on things like health care.
fantastic the-truth-is-she-can-win explanation for why the us spends way more on health care than many of those nations.
-
http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2011/05/why-is-healthcare-absurdly-expensive-in-usa-part-2/ (http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2011/05/why-is-healthcare-absurdly-expensive-in-usa-part-2/)
Your link states excessive malpractice awards are not out of control and only contribute 2% to increased health care costs. Kind of invalidates the whole thing. It changes the way ALL health care is delivered across the board and contributes much more than 2%.
Actually you're right for once, I've seen estimates that malpractice contributes as much as 4 percent to increased costs. But I'm sure you have a solid base of research as to why another low number would invalidate the entire process.
Here's a hint, with or without malpractice awards, lots of doctors are going to practice the exact same way because they're compensated for how much they do, not how effective they are at making people better.
-
All the research we do, new techniques and equipment developed. We get it first. Just like high end electronics, the rich get it first to recoup the R&D costs.
Yet people in other countries drink and smoke more than us, yet still live longer.
Also keep in mind that we fund the defense of many of those nations so they can spend on things like health care.
We don't fund the defense of that many nations, but I wouldn't be opposed at all to cutting our defense budget by 50-60%.
We've been defending all those European countries since WWII or since 1990 for the ones in the east bloc.
-
http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2011/05/why-is-healthcare-absurdly-expensive-in-usa-part-2/ (http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2011/05/why-is-healthcare-absurdly-expensive-in-usa-part-2/)
Your link states excessive malpractice awards are not out of control and only contribute 2% to increased health care costs. Kind of invalidates the whole thing. It changes the way ALL health care is delivered across the board and contributes much more than 2%.
Actually you're right for once, I've seen estimates that malpractice contributes as much as 4 percent to increased costs. But I'm sure you have a solid base of research as to why another low number would invalidate the entire process.
Here's a hint, with or without malpractice awards, lots of doctors are going to practice the exact same way because they're compensated for how much they do, not how effective they are at making people better.
I guess we will never know as long as the ambulance chasers are in the pocket of the Dems.
-
http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2011/05/why-is-healthcare-absurdly-expensive-in-usa-part-2/ (http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2011/05/why-is-healthcare-absurdly-expensive-in-usa-part-2/)
Your link states excessive malpractice awards are not out of control and only contribute 2% to increased health care costs. Kind of invalidates the whole thing. It changes the way ALL health care is delivered across the board and contributes much more than 2%.
Actually you're right for once, I've seen estimates that malpractice contributes as much as 4 percent to increased costs. But I'm sure you have a solid base of research as to why another low number would invalidate the entire process.
Here's a hint, with or without malpractice awards, lots of doctors are going to practice the exact same way because they're compensated for how much they do, not how effective they are at making people better.
I guess we will never know as long as the ambulance chasers are in the pocket of the Dems.
You keep believing those things that "feel" right. This as almost as fun as discussing tax policy with you. Have you bothered to learn the difference between marginal and effective tax rates yet?
-
http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2011/05/why-is-healthcare-absurdly-expensive-in-usa-part-2/ (http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2011/05/why-is-healthcare-absurdly-expensive-in-usa-part-2/)
Your link states excessive malpractice awards are not out of control and only contribute 2% to increased health care costs. Kind of invalidates the whole thing. It changes the way ALL health care is delivered across the board and contributes much more than 2%.
Actually you're right for once, I've seen estimates that malpractice contributes as much as 4 percent to increased costs. But I'm sure you have a solid base of research as to why another low number would invalidate the entire process.
Here's a hint, with or without malpractice awards, lots of doctors are going to practice the exact same way because they're compensated for how much they do, not how effective they are at making people better.
I guess we will never know as long as the ambulance chasers are in the pocket of the Dems.
You keep believing those things that "feel" right. This as almost as fun as discussing tax policy with you. Have you bothered to learn the difference between marginal and effective tax rates yet?
When we were discussing my new tax code, you brought up marginal tax, not me. My new tax code did not include marginal tax rates, they were based entirely on effective tax rates without any deductions. Everyone would know at the end of the year exactly what they owed according to how much they made. :eye:
-
When we were discussing my new tax code, you brought up marginal tax, not me. My new tax code did not include marginal tax rates, they were based entirely on effective tax rates without any deductions. Everyone would know at the end of the year exactly what they owed according to how much they made. :eye:
This is why it's so funny. You still don't know the difference.
Here's a hint, your tax code would give an incentive for some workers to turn down raises. That's some mighty fine understanding of taxes there.
-
When we were discussing my new tax code, you brought up marginal tax, not me. My new tax code did not include marginal tax rates, they were based entirely on effective tax rates without any deductions. Everyone would know at the end of the year exactly what they owed according to how much they made. :eye:
This is why it's so funny. You still don't know the difference.
Here's a hint, your tax code would give an incentive for some workers to turn down raises. That's some mighty fine understanding of taxes there.
You have obviously forgotten what I proposed. The only way it would be a disincentive would be if your raise was a couple of cents per hour until you get up into the hundreds of thousands.
-
When we were discussing my new tax code, you brought up marginal tax, not me. My new tax code did not include marginal tax rates, they were based entirely on effective tax rates without any deductions. Everyone would know at the end of the year exactly what they owed according to how much they made. :eye:
This is why it's so funny. You still don't know the difference.
Here's a hint, your tax code would give an incentive for some workers to turn down raises. That's some mighty fine understanding of taxes there.
You have obviously forgotten what I proposed. The only way it would be a disincentive would be if your raise was a couple of cents per hour until you get up into the hundreds of thousands.
Sometimes I really wish retards got the things they hoped for. Thank you for questioning my point then admitting it was right. Heck of a system you've got there, JD. You've managed to simplify something and make it worse at the same time. Under the current system you're never penalized for earning more, but it's supposedly worse because it's not simple enough for you. Nothing says simple like people trying to figure out how much they're going to earn by Dec. 31 and debating to take an extra shift or working some overtime, or a myriad of other real-life situations that occur for people who aren't on salary, don't have vacation or sick-leave and could end up owing more in taxes than if they had just made a few dollars less. That's a real simple tax plan there.
Of course all that could easily be done away with if you'd simply take the time to learn a couple new words. But then we're getting into something way too complex for you.
-
This thread is about the economy you rough ridin' idiots.
It's not about how much rich ass americans spend on healthcare as a percent of GDP. The average american spends more on healthcare per capita than half the residents of those countries earn in income per capita. Unless you have an argument that spending money on healthcare is bad for the economy, shut the eff up. We get it, we're rich as crap and can spend more on healthcare than other countries because we don't live in a one bedroom apartment with our entire extended family and spend 70% of our income on rent like they do in Europe. Comparing percentage spent on GDP in a vacuum is about as useful to the conversation as vacuuming your front yard. Shut up, you don't make sense, if you're mad about it, don't go to the doctor, get sick and die.
It's also not about the tax code. I don't give a eff what you think the top marginal tax rate should be. Unless you have an argument about how the marginal tax rate on the top bracket affects the economy, shut the eff up. If you think changing the tax rate on the richest americans will make your life better you are rough ridin' dipshit that assumes the Federal Govt. can only spend what it takes-in in revenues. That is obviously not the case as this sociopathic government continues to spend trillion of dollars more than it takes in. Your life will not get better by making someone elses life worse, unless you are a demented bad person that takes pleasure in others misgivings.
All I can piece together from these asinine red herrings about healthcare and the tax code is that everyone thinks when the government spends money on something its bad for the economy. Of course you dipshit liberals don't even understand that you're accidentally making this argument, which doesn't surprise me because you can't wrap your brain around what an economy is. You only know B.O.'s mindless talking points, which have never made a goddamn lick of sense and which is will be the reason, if any, he loses the election in 2012.
Back to the economy. What did you guys think about the piss poor employment reports this past week? Pretty shitty huh? How about that piss poor consumer confidence reading a few weeks back. 60.8!!! That's is god awful. Remember when W was president and it was like 140 (obvious fishing attempt), those were the days when everyone that actually went to work made a good living.
:shakesfist:
-
This thread is about the economy you effing idiots.
It's not about how much rich ass americans spend on healthcare as a percent of GDP. The average american spends more on healthcare per capita than half the residents of those countries earn in income per capita. Unless you have an argument that spending money on healthcare is bad for the economy, shut the eff up. We get it, we're rich as crap and can spend more on healthcare than other countries because we don't live in a one bedroom apartment with our entire extended family and spend 70% of our income on rent like they do in Europe. Comparing percentage spent on GDP in a vacuum is about as useful to the conversation as vacuuming your front yard. Shut up, you don't make sense, if you're mad about it, don't go to the doctor, get sick and die.
It's also not about the tax code. I don't give a eff what you think the top marginal tax rate should be. Unless you have an argument about how the marginal tax rate on the top bracket affects the economy, shut the eff up. If you think changing the tax rate on the richest americans will make your life better you are effing dipcrap that assumes the Federal Govt. can only spend what it takes-in in revenues. That is obviously not the case as this sociopathic government continues to spend trillion of dollars more than it takes in. Your life will not get better by making someone elses life worse, unless you are a demented bad person that takes pleasure in others misgivings.
All I can piece together from these asinine red herrings about healthcare and the tax code is that everyone thinks when the government spends money on something its bad for the economy. Of course you dipcrap liberals don't even understand that you're accidentally making this argument, which doesn't surprise me because you can't wrap your brain around what an economy is. You only know B.O.'s mindless talking points, which have never made a goddamn lick of sense and which is will be the reason, if any, he loses the election in 2012.
Back to the economy. What did you guys think about the piss poor employment reports this past week? Pretty crapty huh? How about that piss poor consumer confidence reading a few weeks back. 60.8!!! That's is god awful. Remember when W was president and it was like 140 (obvious fishing attempt), those were the days when everyone that actually went to work made a good living.
:shakesfist:
You are actually arguing that stagnating wages (partially due to exploding health care costs) have nothing to do with the economy? Clearly someone has never run a small business!
-
I don't think the coming collapse will be as bad as the last in (2008) because so many people are prepared for it because they have absolutely no faith in the government. I don't think any side/party has an effing clue what to do and i seriously doubt that the solution is going to come from someone within these party's. I think whoever figures out how we are going to become non-dependent on foreign oil. Possibly someone saying we are going to fix the electric grid (create jobs?), make major push for electric cars to be used. Upgrade all of our data infrastructure in he major metropolitan areas (google high speed internet?)
I don't think budget cuts or taxing the rich/middle class/poor are going to get us out of this hole. Granted i wouldn't mind seeing some of the social programs be scaled back (some significantly). Probably time to start scaling back Social Security as well. I'm sure there are a million ideas on how to do that. But nationalizing retirement or so called retirement insurance isn't cutting it for the people that want to retire.
-
You are actually arguing that stagnating wages (partially due to exploding health care costs) have nothing to do with the economy? Clearly someone has never run a small business!
I don't know what's dumber,
1) the fact that you expect us to believe that when you stuck that graph about healthcare as a % of GDP you meant it to be an argument about how stagnate wages hurt the economy, or
2) the fact that you expect healthcare to be offered as part of compensation, talk about the "exploding cost" of it, then try exclude it from wages and complain how wages are stagnant. Have your cake and eat to I guess.
Since you never articulated your argument, probably because you had to scramble to make it up after the fact to cover your dumbass, I couldn't really argue against it.
-
You are actually arguing that stagnating wages (partially due to exploding health care costs) have nothing to do with the economy? Clearly someone has never run a small business!
I don't know what's dumber,
1) the fact that you expect us to believe that when you stuck that graph about healthcare as a % of GDP you meant it to be an argument about how stagnate wages hurt the economy, or
2) the fact that you expect healthcare to be offered as part of compensation, talk about the "exploding cost" of it, then try exclude it from wages and complain how wages are stagnant. Have your cake and eat to I guess.
Since you never articulated your argument, probably because you had to scramble to make it up after the fact to cover your dumbass, I couldn't really argue against it.
I wasn't really making an argument in the second post or the first post, but health care costs are an elephant in the room (among many) on government spending and consumer spending.
I offered one example of how our uniquely expensive health care system impacts the economy. There are myriad other ways. I don't "expect" healthcare to be offered as part of compensation. That is the system that has developed. I'm sorry if you don't have employer-based healthcare, but that is the case for many Americans. For these Americans, they have seen their health care costs (and everyone else via government obligations) go up relentlessly.
We are not "choosing" to consume more healthcare per capita than others and we aren't benefiting proportionally in terms of health outcomes. We have a wonderfully responsive health system if you have insurance. We do NOT have a system that creates price sensitive consumers for a number of reasons.
I'm not trying to "Frank out" on compensation, but consumers aren't individually making conscious choices to consume more healthcare at the rate it is going up. Collectively you could argue we are, but I think that is a separate point. So while it is part of their compensation, I don't think it reflects choices being made by consumers. I think it is simultaneously hurting those on both sides of payroll.
I would like cheaper health care. Despite a "free market" system it is nearly impossible to realize that goal as a consumer. In light of this false choice, I would prefer single-payer because it clearly controls costs for basic care. Anyone wanting additional care could pay for those extras. Administrative costs across many different countries illustrate massive declines in administrative costs and relatively equal health outcomes.
The graph below shows the cost of health care since Canada went to single-payer in '66.
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fdailydish.typepad.com%2F.a%2F6a00d83451c45669e2015432f8a62f970c-800wi&hash=e39402f5377bd8534cc790d5926cfb648eba5c31)
http://theincidentaleconomist.com/wordpress/in-defense-of-canada/ (http://theincidentaleconomist.com/wordpress/in-defense-of-canada/)
-
Tortuga,
I'm glad you have so many feelings, opinions, hunches and gut feelings on the US healthcare system.
However, since you failed to include a single fact supporting your 600 words of meandering babble about the cost of healthcare and its affect on the economy, don't you think it would have been easier and more efficient just to say, "I think a single payer system would benefit the economy"?
Granted, such a ridiculous statement in light of the pathetic economic standing of countries who've implemented that unwise and self-deprecating system would cost you all credibility on the topic of the economy, it is, after all, what you just said. Just my two cents.
Your Pal,
Sugar Dick