[jlisenbe]

What are you carping when the answer is obvious, a single payer system, administered not for profit.

Yes. We'll just double taxes and go in that direction.

[talaniman]

We could always look at the other counties that have low taxes and a universal health care system to see how they do it.

[paraclete]

We could always look at the other counties that have low taxes and a universal health care system to see how they do it.

Yes you could, but then you don't like taking advice from us "socialists"

[jlisenbe]

We could always look at the other counties that have low taxes and a universal health care system to see how they do it.

Which one? I haven't seen one, but one way or the other, if the feds are going to start picking up over 3 trillion dollars in health care costs, they are going to have to come up with over 3 trillion in new revenues. Do you know of any way around that??? And even if, by some miracle, they are able to lower costs (something which they are historically TERRIBLE at doing) to maybe 2.5 trillion, they still have to raise that much more revenue. That's about 8,000 dollars for every man, woman, and child in America. Good luck with doing that and still have low taxes.

[talaniman]

It is a simple thing to Google a list and study the data of each country you find.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...al_health_care

[jlisenbe]

It is a simple thing to Google a list and study the data of each country you find.

No, it's a simple thing for YOU to do. You are the one saying there are countries with universal health care and low taxes. It's up to you to back up your statement. Considering many of the countries you found, you'll have to forgive me for having no excitement whatsoever for doing what they are doing. Botswana??? Really?

• 
  
  • 1.1Algeria
  • 1.2Botswana
  • 1.3Burkina Faso
  • 1.4Egypt
  • 1.5Ghana
  • 1.6Mauritius
  • 1.7Morocco
  • 1.8Rwanda
  • 1.9Seychelles
  • 1.10South Africa
  • 1.11Tunisia
  
  
• 2Asia
  
  • 2.1Bhutan
  • 2.2Georgia
  • 2.3Hong Kong
  • 2.4India
  • 2.5Israel
  • 2.6Macau
  • 2.7Maldives
  • 2.8People's Republic of China
  • 2.9Singapore
  • 2.10Sri Lanka

[talaniman]

With the list of countries you found, you'll have to forgive me for having no excitement whatsoever for doing what they are doing.

Why not?

[jlisenbe]

So you're really going to tell me you'd rather get treated for cancer or heart disease in Botswana, Egypt, Rwanda, Georgia, or Morocco than in the United States? Good luck with that.

I would still like to know how we went from 27 bil in 1960 to over 3 tril now. That is greater than a 100 fold increase in health care spending. How did that happen? We didn't have universal health care in 1960, so that would not seem to be the answer to me. What was true in 1960 that is not true now?

[talaniman]

So you're really going to tell me you'd rather get treated for cancer or heart disease in Botswana, Egypt, Rwanda, Georgia, or Morocco than in the United States? Good luck with that.

I have suggested no such thing, nor am I a citizen in another country. My point is other countries have made the health of it's citizens a priority, and put in place a structure whereby they can best accomplish that goal. Giving consideration to population size, and economic and social conditions they manage to deal with those issues. They are not perfect by any means, that's not what I'm saying, but they are trying with what they have.

ARE WE?

I would still like to know how we went from 27 bil in 1960 to over 3 tril now. That is greater than a 100 fold increase in health care spending. How did that happen? We didn't have universal health care in 1960, so that would not seem to be the answer to me. What was true in 1960 that is not true now?

The world and the country have changed a lot, and we have grown considerably since the 60's and more people are scuffling for a piece of that pie that has not grown as fast. We simply out grew the 60's.

[jlisenbe]

My point is other countries have made the health of it's citizens a priority, and put in place a structure whereby they can best accomplish that goal.

I'm not sure how you could know that. I'd rather get health care in America than the vast majority of the world's countries since most of them are poor countries.

The world and the country have changed a lot, and we have grown considerably since the 60's and more people are scuffling for a piece of that pie that has not grown as fast. We simply out grew the 60's.

Actually, average income in America has either grown or remained stable for every income group over the past fifty years.

https://www.advisorperspectives.com/...2521f2f4c6.png

Tal, you need to give me a tutorial on how in the world you so successfully get images to display. Aggravating.

[talaniman]

Your link was a great one JL, but it illustrates how Americans making $100,000 or less have not grown hardly at all since the 60's. Given the growth of the nation, that's not stable, but disturbing and may be part of the problem.


I used copy and paste.

[jlisenbe]

Crud! How did you get that to display so well?

The people in the bottom 40% saw only slight growth. The 40 to 80% group saw substantial growth. The top 20% increased enormously which makes a lot of people nervous and is, I think, something we need to think about. But the point is that we are wealthier now than we have ever been, and yet health care has gone up incredibly. Maybe if our politicians could stop slinging mud for a few weeks, they might could try and figure this out.

[talaniman]

Right click on image chose copy on drop box that appears, right click on where you want image and choose paste on drop box that appears. I use M/EDGE.

Would love specific link to article that graph came from. Context is important to correlating the data.

[tomder55]

This site has become much easier . On The illustration above I right click the mouse and a drop down menu appears . At the bottom of it click on 'copy'. Then when you are ready to add the illustration ;again right click the mouse and hit 'paste' . It works for me anyway.

[jlisenbe]

Well that is nice to know. When I first started on this site, I didn't think you could copy/paste. That is a lot easier.

Would love specific link to article that graph came from. Context is important to correlating the data.

https://www.advisorperspectives.com/...ar-perspective

[tomder55]

I already made my case about the effect of government intervention in the market . I deal with the regulatory end of the market all the time. I'm not saying regulation is not needed . But I can tell you definitively that as a result of increased government intervention ,supply (ie my competitors ) has been reduced .We in turn have had to make major investments on the compliance side and yes the consumer pays for it .

As for the comparison from the 1960s ;I think simple supply and demand issues is the answer. In most markets if prices rise the demand falls . But in this case demand increased even as prices rise . btw This fiction that the rest of the world pays less is just that ;a fiction. Spending 20% of GDP on health care will be the norm by 2050.

Demand has increased as medical solutions have made it to the market and 3rd party payer options were added . Each person's medical care is individual and personalized care . There is no 'change the tire 'solution .What works for you may or may not work for me . So the market is not even predictable . Now when 3rd party payers pay the costs ,then consumers don't worry about costs and that in turn increases demand.

But you don't see such price rises in cases where patients shell out the bulk of the cost ,and there is real competition like in say elective lasik procedures ,prices are stabilized and occasionally drop …. and most important ,innovation does not add to the price . The patient shops around and has their eye on the cost of the service . That supply side model can work throughout the system.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K4I44BcK39Y

[talaniman]

The rich get more richer, and the poor get poorer. And supply side economics doesn't trickle down per the link. I don't think it was supposed to actually, but a hype to sell it. But its the oldest most favored economic model and has been used for centuries.

Note in particular the growing spread between the top quintile (and especially the top 5%) and the other four quintiles. The growth spread began in the mid-1980s during the Reagan administration, the era of Supply Side Economics (aka "Reaganomics" and Trickle-Down Economics). As this chart illustrates, tax and other policy changes to benefit the wealthier households didn't have the heavily promoted trickle-down effect.

[talaniman]

Then we must also account for the nature of man, and despite the marketing of the wealthy in very positive ways, there are plenty who game the system.

https://legaldictionary.net/price-gouging/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nixon_shock

https://ourfuture.org/20140622/what-...y-manipulation

And we cannot leave these guys out. Yes it's legal

https://www.investopedia.com/ask/ans...d-speculation/

I guess in a nutshell I don't believe in complete market solutions, or the myth of "free trade" hence my belief in government strong enough to protect its citizens. Translate that to smart and savvy. LEGALIZED stealing. In a consumer driven economy, the consumer is the sucker of choice for the numbers manipulators, or supply siders, who pass their screw ups onto those consumers as well.

You wonder why prices for health care go up, NEVER down no matter what? You should ask that about everything with a price.

[jlisenbe]

the poor get poorer. And supply side economics doesn't trickle down per the link.

The poor did not get poorer. They stayed about where they were. The middle class improved considerably. Not as much as the top income earners to be sure, but still significant, so I'm not sure you can argue against trickle down theory off that graph. It has been an amazing period of prosperity.

The primary problem of poor people is the disintegration of the family. Single moms raising kids by themselves is a sure recipe for poverty. The data is very clear on that. Consider that the current out of wedlock birth rate for black Americans is over seventy percent. Imagine where that population group would be if it was ten percent. The difference would be profound.

I read the article on speculation and hedging. What is wrong with any of that? It's just sound business practices and trying to make profits off the market. Instead of griping about it, why not try it yourself? I don't because I don't like the risk, but there is nothing illegal or even unethical about it. What's your complaint?

[tomder55]

You wonder why prices for health care go up, NEVER down no matter what? You should ask that about everything with a price.

you mean like gasoline ? That is the subject of another supply side success. I'm sorry ;I have nothing else to say about comments couched in Marxist dialectic. The tract record of their economic system is indisputable failed misery .