Stop the Presses - Health Care and Profits a Poor Mix?

[Ghent12]

Re: Stop the Presses - Health Care and Profits a Poor Mix?

Do you have some actual data behind this, or are you merely repeating belief?

And note that using US data isn't appropriate because the US is a wealthy country - not so much due to its free market as to Europe's tendency to destroy itself regularly in the previous century.

Apples to apples data comparison of US poor vs. EU poor - who is better off?

As for North vs. South Korea - let's see.

South Korea: billions of dollars in US investment since apartheid.
North Korea: trade embargoed for decades. Diplomatically isolated. Bad government.

Yep, that's a valid comparison. Not.

Compare the best/wealthiest of the Soviet bloc to the worst/poorest of those in the American sphere of influence, then. Maybe take some weighted average of each and see what happens. The data, when it exists and is identified, does not lie. Your choice to ignore it or claim ignorance of it is irrelevant on that point.


Now if we want to go into some depth of US poor versus EU poor in terms of healthcare, then that is a discussion that can be had. Don't be surprised, however, if the data doesn't support your pre-supposed notions--one of them apparently (and laughably) being that the US has a free market or relatively free market in healthcare.


You argue against profit motive because of the effects it has in a system that is outright rigged for the benefit of the I in FIRE. That would be like me arguing against some "equality motive" because of the effects of Communism--it's an incomplete thought. Please finish your thoughts, c1ue.

[c1ue]

Re: Stop the Presses - Health Care and Profits a Poor Mix?

Compare the best/wealthiest of the Soviet bloc to the worst/poorest of those in the American sphere of influence, then. Maybe take some weighted average of each and see what happens. The data, when it exists and is identified, does not lie. Your choice to ignore it or claim ignorance of it is irrelevant on that point.

Yes, let's compare the relative wealth growth in the Soviet bloc vs. the USA.

http://www.cepr.org/meets/wkcn/1/169...erry_Klein.pdf

	1929	1950	change % vs 1929	1973	change % vs 1929	1990	change % vs 1929
USSR GDP per head	1426	2827	98.25%	4237	197.12%	6888	383.03%
USA GDP per head	6899	9561	38.59%	16689	141.90%	23221	236.59%

The USSR actually grew faster than the USA from 1929 to 1990, it is just that the US started far higher.

The problem with your view is that you somehow assume that the US was equally as wealthy as Russia at the beginning of this period - when in fact the US was already far, far wealthier. Russia then had 20 million dead in World War II - how does that affect productivity?

Now if we want to go into some depth of US poor versus EU poor in terms of healthcare, then that is a discussion that can be had. Don't be surprised, however, if the data doesn't support your pre-supposed notions--one of them apparently (and laughably) being that the US has a free market or relatively free market in healthcare.

I've looked at the data. The poor in the US are far worse off than the poor in Europe and Japan - particularly in health terms. Again your proposition fails.

You argue against profit motive because of the effects it has in a system that is outright rigged for the benefit of the I in FIRE. That would be like me arguing against some "equality motive" because of the effects of Communism--it's an incomplete thought. Please finish your thoughts, c1ue.

No, I'm against the profit motive in those areas which should be considered a public good.

Water, sewage, highways, bridges, the electrical grid, etc etc are all intended to be public goods. Health care in most other nations is also considered a public good - even above and beyond the ones which historically have been (i.e. pandemic prevention).

At least try to understand what is being said.

[Ghent12]

Re: Stop the Presses - Health Care and Profits a Poor Mix?

Yes, let's compare the relative wealth growth in the Soviet bloc vs. the USA.

http://www.cepr.org/meets/wkcn/1/169...erry_Klein.pdf

	1929	1950	change % vs 1929	1973	change % vs 1929	1990	change % vs 1929
USSR GDP per head	1426	2827	98.25%	4237	197.12%	6888	383.03%
USA GDP per head	6899	9561	38.59%	16689	141.90%	23221	236.59%

The USSR actually grew faster than the USA from 1929 to 1990, it is just that the US started far higher.

The problem with your view is that you somehow assume that the US was equally as wealthy as Russia at the beginning of this period - when in fact the US was already far, far wealthier. Russia then had 20 million dead in World War II - how does that affect productivity?

Hahahahahahaha!!!
I was being serious, and you bring out this joke? That's a good one, but please, try to use data next time. No, seriously, this is kind of an important topic and we don't have time to joke about a government-controlled economy going gangbusters according to its own data all the way until it suffered complete economic and political collapse.

On a somber, realistic note, the Russians would probably have grown at thousands of times the Americans if they hadn't enshrined corruption as their way of life and governance. It is the poorest of places that attract the most capital if they respect property rights and resist corruption.

Capital is not k and is not a single thing at all, but rather it is a term to describe innumerable things which represent resources that people utilize to create things from other things. As a Keynesian who thinks only in aggregate terms, this may be difficult for you to understand. However, please realize that reality is not reflected in your sweeping aggregations.

No, I'm against the profit motive in those areas which should be considered a public good.

Water, sewage, highways, bridges, the electrical grid, etc etc are all intended to be public goods. Health care in most other nations is also considered a public good - even above and beyond the ones which historically have been (i.e. pandemic prevention).

At least try to understand what is being said.

I understand what you are trying to say. Water is a public good according to you, but what about food? Clothing? Housing? Those should be nationalized too, right? That way we can have things like free food and long, long lines at grocery stores. Except for the apparatchiks and other administrators of these public goods, of course.

Also, notice the wonderful general level of quality of the things you identified specifically which are treated exactly as you want them to be. All of them have systemic problems which are rather large, and the transportation infrastructure you name as a public good suffers chronic disrepair and mismanagement.

The plain truth here is that no service or thing that someone can provide can actually be considered a public good. You can make an argument that parcels of land are a public good, but can you actually say with a straight face that my time and labor should be a public good? That flies in the face of the concept of property rights, the most fundamental of which are the right to my own time and what I produce from what I own.

Hell, you're against the profit motive at all! What kind of person could possible think that ridding or reducing a motive defined in practice as mutual sustainable cooperation to meet the demands of as many as is sustainable would help people?

[vt]

Re: Stop the Presses - Health Care and Profits a Poor Mix?

Be careful what you ask for. National Health Care may work with younger populations where the government is not also spending vast sums elsewhere. But when people think everything is free and tries to overuse it, then it breaks down quickly. A large portion of health care dollars is spent in the last year of life. Behaviors such as smoking, drug use, and obesity waste far too many health care dollars. You are starting to see the UK health care system refuse treatments for older individuals, Obamacare will do the same.

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion...2FbS368B7d7mAM

When you compound the current levels of public spending with an aging population, you could rapidly see a downward spiral develop.

[Thailandnotes]

Re: Stop the Presses - Health Care and Profits a Poor Mix?

Single payer is coming. Business is demanding it.. GOP governors boycotting state-based exchanges are speeding up its arrival. Individual states flirting with it are attracting jobs. Roberts probably misplayed his hand.

[c1ue]

Re: Stop the Presses - Health Care and Profits a Poor Mix?

I was being serious, and you bring out this joke? That's a good one, but please, try to use data next time. No, seriously, this is kind of an important topic and we don't have time to joke about a government-controlled economy going gangbusters according to its own data all the way until it suffered complete economic and political collapse.

This data is a joke? Show your own then.

Or is all your data purely in your own belief?

On a somber, realistic note, the Russians would probably have grown at thousands of times the Americans if they hadn't enshrined corruption as their way of life and governance. It is the poorest of places that attract the most capital if they respect property rights and resist corruption.

Right, if only they were free. Because they've grown so much faster after the Soviet Union collapsed and became free market. Oh, sorry, they didn't.

I understand what you are trying to say. Water is a public good according to you, but what about food? Clothing? Housing? Those should be nationalized too, right? That way we can have things like free food and long, long lines at grocery stores. Except for the apparatchiks and other administrators of these public goods, of course.

Nice try to switch subjects. The subject is health care, not food or housing.

As for systemic problems - maybe you can point out some of the systemic problems with water, electricity, sewage systems, and the roads.

Do we pay 2 to 3 times as much for water, electricity, sewage and so forth as all the other 1st world and most 2nd world, and even some 3rd world nations? Are all of these public good utility companies, in sum, even a tiny fraction of GDP as compared to heath care?

I think not.

Hell, you're against the profit motive at all! What kind of person could possible think that ridding or reducing a motive defined in practice as mutual sustainable cooperation to meet the demands of as many as is sustainable would help people?

Again you resort to ad hominem.

Not only are you wrong, you are clearly ignorant and hidebound into your ideology.

I'll go even further:

I don't think you've ever gone without health insurance.

I don't think you've ever seen the problems associated with non-corporate health insurance (or lack thereof).