Score one for the middle class

[jb_1430]

I reject this argument. The basis for the report is on shaky ground. For example, cancer can be genetically related. Other countries with lower instances of genetic cancers would have a better rank. How is this related to the system behind health care? It isn't. Same with diabetes and cardiovascular disease.

Agreed. Its the arrogance of the medical profession that leads it to conclude that difference in deaths from cancer, diabetes and cardiovascular disease rates must be due to people not spending enough money on health care.

 

[jb_1430]

Of course you do.


There's virtually no metric in which the US health care system provides better care than those of other countries, other than in care for the very rich.

Best health care in the world, baby. Best in the world.

???? What leads you to conclude that life expectancy or infant mortality are correlated with health care? Similiar charts with all countries make your arguement even more difficult. Macau and Andora have the highest life expectancy, and although I know nothing about their health care system, I suspect you wouldnt find anything in their health care system to account for that fact.
And in two metrics we provide near the best. Quality and quantity.

 

[PLC1]

Blind... Erm... ok we covered this... it didn't go down under Clinton. Sorry. You are not correct. It never happened. It was lie. Spin is saying the debt went down under Clinton when it didn't. I suppose that goes beyond spin, to outright lies... but close enough.

Further, no kidding it increased under president XXXXXX... the debt has increased under every single president since the 1930s, which includes Reagan, the Bushies and Captain Underpants Clinton. I never suggested otherwise.

Yes I agree with you there, cut spending. Cut spending as much as possible, and then more. Start with unconstitutional spending.

OK, here's something to back up what I've been saying:

Do you have anything at all to back up what you've been asserting?

My health insurance, BTW, cost over $800 per month. You'd better check and see what the $128 policy really covers. Then remember, once you have a "pre existing condition", you can't get personal insurance. It has to be group insurance.

 

[jpn of Seattle]

Hmmm, no response from Andy to my last post.

How disappointing.

 

[heyjude]

I think PLC1 is right about health insurance for $128 a month. I'd sure like to see that policy.

 

[AlicornsPrayer]

I think PLC1 is right about health insurance for $128 a month. I'd sure like to see that policy.

I know for hubby and me, our monthly payment is $136...It's low though, because of the contract his employer has with the insurance company and his company's dedication to it's employees...They pay 90% of the monthly premium, we pay the remaining 10%...

It's a fluke though from what I understand...Most employers don't do that from what I've heard from friends and family of mine that their work has different medical policies. It might have something to do though with the fact that my hubby's job falls under federal rules and regulations...He works on the river, so it's all under federal authority which helps with federal bonuses...

 

[PLC1]

I know for hubby and me, our monthly payment is $136...It's low though, because of the contract his employer has with the insurance company and his company's dedication to it's employees...They pay 90% of the monthly premium, we pay the remaining 10%...

It's a fluke though from what I understand...Most employers don't do that from what I've heard from friends and family of mine that their work has different medical policies. It might have something to do though with the fact that my hubby's job falls under federal rules and regulations...He works on the river, so it's all under federal authority which helps with federal bonuses...

That makes your premium $1,360, which is rather high, but good insurance is high. It sounds like you have a good employer. I wonder how much longer that employer is going to be able to afford that policy, as increases in cost keep outstripping inflation.

 

[Andy]

Logic 101

Of course you do.

What about this one?

There's virtually no metric in which the US health care system provides better care than those of other countries, other than in care for the very rich.

Best health care in the world, baby. Best in the world.

Ugh... I feel like I'm back in 'Basic Logic 101" class. *sigh*

We spend more on health care... yeah, because we have the most up-to-date health care system in the world... Newest latest greatest always means most expensive. You get the latest greatest computer you pay the most... right?

We have the most MRIs, the most CT Scans, we have the best doctors and so on.... When you got the best, it costs most. This should be obvious.

Then when you look at mortality rates, that does not automatically reflect on the health care system. Come on... this is the most basic levels of logic here.

It is widely known Americans do not live the most Healthy life styles. Go to Italy, or France, or UK... (I have)... they eat healthy, they work out, they are not super over weight, and there is not nearly as bad a drug problem in most.

When a crack mother has a baby and it dies... is that because we don't have socialize medicine? When a 400 lbs guy has a heart attack is that due to health spending? When we have gangs shooting each other, when you drink, smoke, shoot up, and sleep around till you get an STD... is it the dumb systems fault?

"Gee if only we had socialized care, all the crack mothers would quit shooting up, all crime would end, all the fat people would suddenly turn their boobtubes off and work out, and fast food chains across the whole country would close"

Come on man, use your brain. I haven't got time to teach a high school class here.

You want to convince me, great. But you'll need something better than lame completely irrelevant statistics.

 

[jb_1430]

OK, here's something to back up what I've been saying:

Do you have anything at all to back up what you've been asserting?

Do you understand that both the debt and GDP can increase, and the debt as a percent of gdp goes down if GDP increased more? The debt has increased every year for decades.

Historical Debt Outstanding
09/30/2001 5,807,463,412,200.06
09/30/2000 5,674,178,209,886.86
09/30/1999 5,656,270,901,615.43
09/30/1998 5,526,193,008,897.62
09/30/1997 5,413,146,011,397.34
09/30/1996 5,224,810,939,135.73
09/29/1995 4,973,982,900,709.39
09/30/1994 4,692,749,910,013.32
09/30/1993 4,411,488,883,139.38
09/30/1992 4,064,620,655,521.66
09/30/1991 3,665,303,351,697.03
09/28/1990 3,233,313,451,777.25


http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt_histo4.htm
http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt_histo5.htm

 

[PLC1]

Do you understand that both the debt and GDP can increase, and the debt as a percent of gdp goes down if GDP increased more? The debt has increased every year for decades.

Historical Debt Outstanding
09/30/2001 5,807,463,412,200.06
09/30/2000 5,674,178,209,886.86
09/30/1999 5,656,270,901,615.43
09/30/1998 5,526,193,008,897.62
09/30/1997 5,413,146,011,397.34
09/30/1996 5,224,810,939,135.73
09/29/1995 4,973,982,900,709.39
09/30/1994 4,692,749,910,013.32
09/30/1993 4,411,488,883,139.38
09/30/1992 4,064,620,655,521.66
09/30/1991 3,665,303,351,697.03
09/28/1990 3,233,313,451,777.25


http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt_histo4.htm
http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt_histo5.htm

Of course, the debt has increased every year for decades, with the possible exception of 1999. If you look at the debt in terms of constant dollars, the debt of 1945 doesn't look too bad, does it? Of course, the 1945 dollar was worth more than $10 in 2007 money, and that debt was spread over a lot smaller population. The fact that the debt as a percentage of GDP is increasing is a cause for concern.

That debt from 1945 was due to WWII, of course. After the war was over, the country managed to start paying it down, while building the interstate highway system and rebuilding our former enemies and allies. After that, we fought yet another costly war in Vietnam, we put a man on the moon, and we still didn't increase the debt greatly. What great acheivement have we accomplished in this decade of unprecedented government growth and debt?

The problem is lack of leadership, plain and simple.

 

[jb_1430]

Of course, the debt has increased every year for decades, with the possible exception of 1999.

Ah, I see. A detachment from reality issue. I dont think any rational discussion is possible here.

 

[Andy]

No joke!

Social security is a net provider of revenue. The feds "borrowed" $177 billion from SS last year, and still had a $300B shortfall.

Which is EXACTLY my point! If the feds are 'borrowing'... borrowed money.... in order to STILL BE SHORT.... That is a very very bad sign!!

 

[Andy]

lol

Ah, I see. A detachment from reality issue. I dont think any rational discussion is possible here.

Our reality is based on documented outlays and receipts of our federal government. Do tell, what's your reality based on?

 

[jb_1430]

Our reality is based on documented outlays and receipts of our federal government. Do tell, what's your reality based on?

A comprehension of the meaning of "debt as a percent of GDP", that you seem to lack, and the figures from the treasury department that directly contradict your silly assertions.

 

[PLC1]

A comprehension of the meaning of "debt as a percent of GDP", that you seem to lack, and the figures from the treasury department that directly contradict your silly assertions.

Now, there's an example of backing up an opinion with facts.