quote:

Originally posted by George Smiley Did you just make that up?! Anyway, even if that is true, it makes no difference, cos the old people wont be able to afford medical insurance so either way they are fucked

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/04/opinion/04brooks.html

quote:

January 4, 2005 OP-ED COLUMNIST A Tale of 2 Systems By DAVID BROOKS Over the past 50 years, we've been having a big debate over two rival economic systems. Conservatives have tended to favor the American model, with smaller government and lower taxes, but less social support. Liberals have supported programs that lead to the European model, with bigger government, more generous support and less inequality. I wonder if that debate is about to change. In the next few decades both models are going to confront a big test: aging populations. The U.S. model is going to be challenged by this problem, but the European model is flat-out unsustainable. Populations in the U.S. and Europe are both aging, but Europe is aging faster. According to the O.E.C.D., the dependency ratio - defined as the number of people over 65 as a percentage of the number of people 20 to 64 years old - will rise to 37 percent from 22 percent in the United States by 2050. But it will go up to 52 percent from 26 percent in the European Union. In addition, European public pensions are more generous and retirees are more reliant on them. To sustain these programs, European government spending will have to rise. According to the European Commission, demographic trends will push public spending up by five to eight percentage points of G.D.P. in the E.U.'s 15 richest members. In Germany, public spending on pensions will rise from an already huge level, 10.3 percent of G.D.P., to 15.4 percent by 2040. And that's after recent benefit cuts. To pay for all of this, taxes will rise and public debt will increase. A Standard & Poor's survey predicts that France and Germany could see their public debt grow to more than 200 percent of G.D.P. by 2050. Europe may find itself locked into a vicious circle: an aging population means more public spending, which means higher taxes, which means lower growth, which means higher unemployment, which means more public spending, which means more taxes and even lower growth. The former Dutch prime minister, Wim Kok, recently released a scathing report that found that "the pure impact of aging populations will be to reduce the potential growth rate of the E.U. from the present rate, of 2 percent to 2.25 percent, to around 1.25 percent by 2040." Already, high European taxes make the European model look obsolete. European and U.S. workers are about equally productive per hour worked. But Americans work 50 percent more than Germans, French and Italians. In the 1970's, Western Europeans actually worked more than Americans. But as taxes rose and incentives to work diminished, Europeans cut back their hours or dropped out of the labor force. Some economists, like the Nobel laureate Edward Prescott, believe higher tax rates explain the drop in work. Others believe cultural preferences also played a big role. Either way, high taxes have made Europe less productive just as it needs high output to support its retirees. Partly as a result, European economies have underperformed for a generation now. As Olaf Gersemann has pointed out, the U.S. economy has enjoyed an annual real growth rate of 2.9 percent over the past 25 years. That's 55 percent more than western Germany, 48 percent more than France and 39 percent more than the E.U. as a whole. Back in the 1970's, European standards of living were catching up to U.S. standards. Now American G.D.P. per capita is about 30 percent higher than Europe's and the gap, if anything, is getting wider. Which brings us to the current moment. In Europe, everybody is aware of the problem, but the remedies are so bad that most countries avoid them. Meanwhile, we in the United States are embarking on our own debate over the future of Social Security. Many liberals are claiming that we don't need to fundamentally revamp our system because there is no crisis. To the extent that's true, it is because we have not been taking their advice for the past 50 years. We have stuck with a low-tax, high-growth economic model. This gives us the resources and the flexibility to deal with the problems caused by an aging population without having to face, at least for now, the horrific choices that confront our friends across the Atlantic. The question is: Will we leave our children a system as flexible, dynamic and productive as the one that was, fortunately, left to us? Or, by doing nothing, will we succumb to the same ineluctable pressures that now afflict Europe, and find that we are immobilized at the exact moment China and India are passing us by?

Something even better from Mr. Greenspan, which I won't post here due to its length. I highly recommend reading it though.

http://www.federalreserve.gov/board...227/default.htm

NYGBlue, if you have a link to that Economist article, I'd be interested in reading it.

Last edited by NeoPhono on Feb-03-2005 at 15:52

quote:

Originally posted by NeoPhono http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/04/opinion/04brooks.html Something even better from Mr. Greenspan, which I won't post here due to its length. I highly recommend reading it though. http://www.federalreserve.gov/board...227/default.htm NYGBlue, if you have a link to that Economist article, I'd be interested in reading it.

I bought it in print, it was one of those surveys from last summer. Not sure if its possible to find online since I am not registered with their website.

___________________
You have one life to live... SO DANCE!

www.protonradio.com <--- A Higher Experience.

I really haven't peeled back the details of our current Healthcare and Medicare issue much, but the surface details seem pretty scary. In terms of Healthcare, for example, we have +45 million folks without health insurance of any kind, and 11 million children with none as well. Both numbers are growing, BTW. Any talk about us having the best healhcare system in the world should cease immediately just by examining those numbers alone. Something, anything must be done about that.

Now in terms of tort reform being the answer to the rising costs of health premiums, that is pure and utter bullshit. I outlined that Bush distortion here:

http://www.tranceaddict.com/forums/...ght=malpractice

The evidence clearly shows a rise in premiums are NOT related to malpractice lawsuits. Rather, they are directly related to insurance companies investing in the stock and bond markets. Here's a little history about what California did with their insurance rates in the past, and the results:

http://www.consumerwatchdog.org/hea...w/nw003146.php3

Now the retort I've heard from insurance companies and tort reformers on this point is that the majority of premium investments go into very conservative government bonds and real-estate loans (like 80% of total investments or something like that). The problem with this argument, however, is that we've seen what's happened to the interest rates over the last 5 years - they've dropped dramatically, consequently giving a much lower interest yield on these conservative investments. And with the rest of their investments in stock, the stagnant economy hasn't helped much either. This commentary explains a bit as to why the premium rates have skyrocketed:

quote:

There are two sources of revenues for an insurance company - insurance premiums and investments. We hear about premiums all the time, but we never hear about investments. But if the revenues generated by investments fall, then the insurance company must raise premiums to make up the difference. Again, this is an accepted fact about insurance companies, and you won't find any real disagreement on this point. So we know that falling investment income can cause premiums to rise. Yet we hear nothing in the debate about this subject. How important are investment revenues? Think about how insurance works. In year one, the doctor pays the premium. In some states he can be sued years later for malpractice committed in year one. In New York, its generally two and a half years after the last treatment for the condition in question. It can also takes years for the lawsuit to get to trial. What this means is that the insurance company may collect the premium in year one but not pay any money out for claims incurred in year one for anywhere from three to ten years. During all this time the insurance company is investing the money. Insurance companies therefore must make certain assumptions about the revenue generated by investments in order to predict the amount of money that will be available in the future to pay claims. If those assumptions prove to be inaccurate, the only quick fix is to raise insurance premiums. Another fact that is often obscured is the fact that insurance companies compete for business. Like all other business, insurance is cyclical, meaning it has good times and bad times. In fact, the insurance industry is notoriously cyclical, and during good times insurance companies engage in fierce price competition to sell policies. It is not unusual for an insurance company to sell insurance for less than the amount of claims they expect to pay. They do this to generate cash flow and one way they justify this is to make exaggerated assumptions about the investment income they will earn on the premiums. Invariably when the cycle snaps the companies are in a bind and must raise premiums. Although this has occurred countless times, I have never seen an insurance company attribute its increase in premiums to its own irresponsible business practices. I can assure you that you will never see this. Who is going to buy insurance from a company that essentially engaged in speculation? Somebody has to be blamed, and the greedy trial lawyers are an easy target. http://www.oneillaw.com/tr/

Yeah, I know, this is coming from a lawyer. Nevertheless his point has merit.

Here's some more info. on the bogus claim of malpractice driving up insurance costs:

http://www.insurance-reform.org/pr/AIRhealthcosts.pdf

http://www.insurance-reform.org/pr/...sses2004rel.pdf

Sorry, but Bush is either lying out his ass, or is completely misinformed on this issue. Trouble is, the gullible public tends to swallow up whatever is spoonfed to them.

Finally, in regards to Medicare, there is a SERIOUS funding problem here, and Bush's Medicare bill does absolutely nothing to address it. Kevin Drum from the Washington Monthly makes a nice comparison between the Social Security "crisis", and the real Medicare "crisis":

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/ar...4_12/005321.php

2010 and 2019 are a wee bit closer than 2018 (or 2020 from CBO) and 2042 (CBO - 2052) ain't it?

___________________
Whence September dusk grows crisper still,
with leaves all crimson conquered,
I yearn to shout,
and dance about,
and stick pickles in my honker...

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 I really haven't peeled back the details of our current Healthcare and Medicare issue much, but the surface details seem pretty scary. In terms of Healthcare, for example, we have +45 million folks without health insurance of any kind, and 11 million children with none as well. Both numbers are growing, BTW. Any talk about us having the best healhcare system in the world should cease immediately just by examining those numbers alone. Something, anything must be done about that.

One question worth asking is why don't all of these people have insurance? Surely there are plenty of them that are in that position by choice. Yes, I realize COBRA coverage is expensive--hence I almost chose to forego it when I was between jobs--but some things are just part of the cost of living and looking out for yourself. Do we constantly need to pick up the tab for people who make the choice to go without and then become a burden to society when their choice backfires? I'm not talking about the whole 45 million--but a substantial portion of these people are clearly digging their own graves--so to speak.

quote:

Now in terms of tort reform being the answer to the rising costs of health premiums, that is pure and utter bullshit. I outlined that Bush distortion here:

I don't think anyone is advocating tort reform as a cure-all solution. However it is something that would certainly alleviate one of the current drags on the system, no matter how significant or insignificant you think it is. Frivolous lawsuits and runaway juries are one of many inefficiencies that exist in our system that we would all benefit from if we address them instead of continue to let them run on rampantly. There are numerous issues which need to be addressed. Tort reform is merely one of them.


You've been suspiciously absent lately? I thought you may have exhausted your fingers! Welcome back!

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka One question worth asking is why don't all of these people have insurance? Surely there are plenty of them that are in that position by choice. Yes, I realize COBRA coverage is expensive--hence I almost chose to forego it when I was between jobs--but some things are just part of the cost of living and looking out for yourself. Do we constantly need to pick up the tab for people who make the choice to go without and then become a burden to society when their choice backfires? I'm not talking about the whole 45 million--but a substantial portion of these people are clearly digging their own graves--so to speak.

Do you have anything that equates to proof other than making a completely unsubstantiated claim. I would LOVE to read any real info. on the matter.

___________________
You have one life to live... SO DANCE!

www.protonradio.com <--- A Higher Experience.

quote:

Originally posted by NYGblue Do you have anything that equates to proof other than making a completely unsubstantiated claim. I would LOVE to read any real info. on the matter.

So you think that 45+ million people simply can't afford health insurance? You do realize that that's about 15% of the entire U.S. population, don't you? It would be nothing short of foolish to assume that every single one of those people are without health insurance simply because they can't afford it. That would be a statistic that would quickly make the "wealthiest" nation in the world look more like a near 3rd world country.

All I said was that surely not all of those 45+ million people are uninsured by circumstance, rather many of them are in that position by choice. Frankly, I don't even know how you can dispute it. I can tell you that I know many of my own friends who are without health insurance by choice. Because they're too damn cheap to spend a few extra bucks because they'd rather take the chance on the belief that they're in good health and don't need to be spending extra money on something that they perceive they do not need--just so they can have the luxury of downloading a few more songs from iTunes or so they can have the latest greatest cell phone. It's foolish, obviously, but far be it from me to be responsible for the stupids of the world. I'll bet you $1000 that even you know people that actively choose not to get health insurance. That is all the proof you need, my friend.

Additionally, I'm sure NeoPhono can provide you with plenty of data that substantiates what I've just said.

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka One question worth asking is why don't all of these people have insurance? Surely there are plenty of them that are in that position by choice. Yes, I realize COBRA coverage is expensive--hence I almost chose to forego it when I was between jobs--but some things are just part of the cost of living and looking out for yourself. Do we constantly need to pick up the tab for people who make the choice to go without and then become a burden to society when their choice backfires? I'm not talking about the whole 45 million--but a substantial portion of these people are clearly digging their own graves--so to speak.

I understand your point, and I really don't have a good rebuttal. Problem is, it seems folks don't really know exactly where to start to address this issue. That 45/11 million number is not a partisan figure, and has major implications no matter what side of politics you adhere to. I haven't really investigated this too much, but I'm very open to some solutions from either side here. This number of uninsured affects everyone as well as businesses.

quote:

I don't think anyone is advocating tort reform as a cure-all solution. However it is something that would certainly alleviate one of the current drags on the system, no matter how significant or insignificant you think it is. Frivolous lawsuits and runaway juries are one of many inefficiencies that exist in our system that we would all benefit from if we address them instead of continue to let them run on rampantly. There are numerous issues which need to be addressed. Tort reform is merely one of them.

I do agree that reform should occur, and I really did like Kerry/Edwards' plan of forming a lawsuit panel that would effectively filter these types of frivolous and malpractice cases, but in terms of total healthcare costs, we're only addressing at best maybe 1%:

http://www.insurance-reform.org/pr/AIRhealthcosts.pdf

I guess it's a matter of priorities - shouldn't we be addressing the other 99% instead? As I tried to demonstrate earlier, malpractice lawsuits were NOT the reason insurance has skyrocketed - that has entirely to do with their investments.

quote:

You've been suspiciously absent lately? I thought you may have exhausted your fingers! Welcome back!

Hehe, work's pickin' up a bit more lately. All that slacker time is slowing dissipating.....

___________________
Whence September dusk grows crisper still,
with leaves all crimson conquered,
I yearn to shout,
and dance about,
and stick pickles in my honker...

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka So you think that 45+ million people simply can't afford health insurance? You do realize that that's about 15% of the entire U.S. population, don't you? It would be nothing short of foolish to assume that every single one of those people are without health insurance simply because they can't afford it. That would be a statistic that would quickly make the "wealthiest" nation in the world look more like a near 3rd world country. All I said was that surely not all of those 45+ million people are uninsured by circumstance, rather many of them are in that position by choice. Frankly, I don't even know how you can dispute it. I can tell you that I know many of my own friends who are without health insurance by choice. Because they're too damn cheap to spend a few extra bucks because they'd rather take the chance on the belief that they're in good health and don't need to be spending extra money on something that they perceive they do not need. I'll bet you $1000 that even you know people that actively choose not to get health insurance. That is all the proof you need, my friend.

I don't know how you can makes these assumptions based on nothing than trying to equate things that may or may not exist. Frankly I tend not to make farflung assumptions like that because I tend to get proven wrong when I do. I am going to assume that given their costs of living and such, it MIGHT just be possible that affording health insurance ISN'T possible. For those that theoretically CAN afford it and don't buy it then that is one thing, but honestly how many do you really think fall under that category? Hard to say, but I somehow find it hard to believe that they simply chose not to even though it was possible to obtain it. People might make for shitty voters but when it comes to their own livelihood they seem to know how to do things right most of the time.

Just to make my point clear, I don't know what the percentage is of Americans that don't have insurance but could afford it. And since neither do you I would suggest avoiding those sort of sweeping statements that negate the realities of many peoples lives. Its an opinion based on absolutely nothing but speculation bordering on wild speculation.

___________________
You have one life to live... SO DANCE!

www.protonradio.com <--- A Higher Experience.

This is purely anectodal, but in Shakka's defense I do know a few guys who don't have health insurance - 2 of them are housing construction private contractors no less! They're both making good $ right now (~$40K) since the housing industry's doing well lately, but both refuse insurance because they simply don't want to pay for it. I can't tell you why, other than they just like taking chances I guess.

The other guy I know simply can't afford it right now, or so he says. He did have a steady job, but got released and is now a private consultant as well. The money's not flowing well for him, at least not yet. I'd tend to think this was more or less the reason for the uninsured - the high cost of payments relative to their paychecks. Just my opinion, though.

Stats and figures on this issue would definitely help.

___________________
Whence September dusk grows crisper still,
with leaves all crimson conquered,
I yearn to shout,
and dance about,
and stick pickles in my honker...

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 This is purely anectodal, but in Shakka's defense I do know a few guys who don't have health insurance - 2 of them are housing construction private contractors no less! They're both making good $ right now (~$40K) since the housing industry's doing well lately, but both refuse insurance because they simply don't want to pay for it. I can't tell you why, other than they just like taking chances I guess. The other guy I know simply can't afford it right now, or so he says. He did have a steady job, but got released and is now a private consultant as well. The money's not flowing well for him, at least not yet. I'd tend to think this was more or less the reason for the uninsured - the high cost of payments relative to their paychecks. Just my opinion, though. Stats and figures on this issue would definitely help.

The point though, wasn't that there aren't people out there that can afford it and simply won't buy it but whether or not its a substantial portion of the population. When you are living from paycheck to paycheck, I think its a lot to assume that people can incur the extra expense of medical insurance. That often won't cover a lot of the ailments that afflict people anyways. But regardless, health insurance aint cheap.

___________________
You have one life to live... SO DANCE!

www.protonradio.com <--- A Higher Experience.

quote:

Originally posted by NYGblue The point though, wasn't that there aren't people out there that can afford it and simply won't buy it but whether or not its a substantial portion of the population. When you are living from paycheck to paycheck, I think its a lot to assume that people can incur the extra expense of medical insurance. That often won't cover a lot of the ailments that afflict people anyways. But regardless, health insurance aint cheap.

My point was simply that the 45 million figure is a bit skewed if you take some relevant factors in. I don't think it was a stretch, and I'm not saying that there still aren't millions of people out there that have a perfectly legitimate and circumstantial reason why they are not insured. Proof is in the fact that you didn't take my bet. It may be a broad assumption, but it is also a true one.

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka My point was simply that the 45 million figure is a bit skewed if you take some relevant factors in. I don't think it was a stretch, and I'm not saying that there still aren't millions of people out there that have a perfectly legitimate and circumstantial reason why they are not insured. Proof is in the fact that you didn't take my bet. It may be a broad assumption, but it is also a true one.

LOL I ignored your bet as being a bit rhetorical, but since you bring it up, NO I don't know anyone like that actually. But then again I don't really know people that don't get medical insurance either through their job or from their parents in the case of my peers.

___________________
You have one life to live... SO DANCE!

www.protonradio.com <--- A Higher Experience.