rayjay

Saying that we should have more government programs and not do them the traditional way that America does them is not a recipe for success

.
Actually in private industry learning and adopting best practices is the recipe for success.
Its government programs that are more difficult to alter in the US because as you say:

rayjay

We are stuck with our political process, for the most part

yes. And it is the structure and process of governance that makes improvement s difficult. Doesn't mean one can make incremental changes over time...

rayjay

In fact, Obama ceded all sorts of power to the insurance companies, and I and other Americans will pay the price (literally) for years and years

He did what was politically possible. It was an improvement. And if he had done nothing then Americans would have been stuck with status quo of rapidly increasing cost that fewer and fewer could afford.
There is strong evidence that medical inflation has slowed.
Without an overwhelming change in the way Americans consider this problem, what Sanders is calling a revolution, incremental change is the best you can hope for... (Frances Fukuyama has concluded as much.)
But simply ignoring the successes of other nations in the field, and refusing to apply lessons learned because its foreign and socialist simply plays in the hands of the companies protecting their enormous profits gained from a rigged system. This would not happen in an industry with free ad fair competition.
Whats funny is that many Americans think their health delivery and insurance system is a product of competitive markets. They aren't. And therefore shouldn't be supported by anyone who believes in the efficiency and effectiveness of free competition in a regulated and open market.

Remarkably, you answered none of my questions. Oh, you wrote a lot, but you answered none of them.

Well played.

High corporate taxes a problem ? I wonder what the evidence for that is. I'll present counter evidence.
http://www.americansfortaxfairness.org/ ... tax-rates/

A recap of whether government policies encouraging loans to poorer applicants was a significant factor in the Financial Crisis. When the financial industry caused the Financial Crisis of course they tried to point blame at the federal government but it was simple greed.

https://www.americanprogress.org/issues ... eddie-mac/

Could you imagine if the government did not intervene in the health care market? What care would people over 65 receive? And private industry prior to the ACA was doing just a great job in terms of cost, results , and coverage prior to the ACA...

You can have socialized medicine and have a capitalist economy btw DF

And here is an article on whether government aid to students increases tuition. The evidence for it is not that clear-cut. http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk ... expensive/

freeman3 wrote:High corporate taxes a problem ? I wonder what the evidence for that is. I'll present counter evidence.
http://www.americansfortaxfairness.org/ ... tax-rates/

That's not counter-evidence. It shows the percentage of the overall tax burden. What it shows is American corporations are paying a lower percentage of the overall burden. The tax rate IS a part of that, however. How so? Because it's so high that companies keep the money overseas instead of paying US taxes.

So, actually, it demonstrates that rates need to be lowered. You're arguing they should go up. That will simply worsen the problem. The more you tax something, the more people try to avoid it.

A recap of whether government policies encouraging loans to poorer applicants was a significant factor in the Financial Crisis. When the financial industry caused the Financial Crisis of course they tried to point blame at the federal government but it was simple greed.

https://www.americanprogress.org/issues ... eddie-mac/

So far, you've cited two left-wing groups and their studies.

Figures often beguile me, particularly when I have the arranging of them myself; in which case the remark attributed to Disraeli would often apply with justice and force: "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies and statistics."
- Mark Twain's Own Autobiography: The Chapters from the North American Review

Any group can pick some stats to put a shine on their argument.

Whether or not encouraging those who could not afford loans to take them was a factor in the meltdown is something to argue over. What cannot be argued is that was happening--and is happening again.

freeman3 wrote:Could you imagine if the government did not intervene in the health care market? What care would people over 65 receive? And private industry prior to the ACA was doing just a great job in terms of cost, results , and coverage prior to the ACA...

Few would argue the government SHOULD NOT intervene. That is not the question I raised. I asked whether Medicare is solvent and will continue to be solvent IF we do as rickyp suggests: gradually add more and more people to the program. That demands actual study and not a dismissive question about something I never proposed.

You can have socialized medicine and have a capitalist economy btw DF

Yes, you can.

You can also count on longer lines, more fraud, and fewer doctors.

And here is an article on whether government aid to students increases tuition. The evidence for it is not that clear-cut. http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk ... expensive/

This thing is linked to so many studies that, I dare say, no one would read them all and come to the same conclusion.

Here's a better question: why have college costs risen at a rate far outstripping just about anything else you can name? In fact, if you could invest money in "college tuition" and get the increase as an investment, it would be a GREAT investment. Why is that?

What I said:

BTW, I do think it is useful to look at what other countries do, ...I would adopt Sweden's lower corporate tax rate as the U.S. highest rate in the industrial world is killing us.

What Freeman said:

High corporate taxes a problem ? I wonder what the evidence for that is. I'll present counter evidence.

You see, you left out a very important word.

Sweden corporate income tax rate: 22%
US Corporate income tax rate 39%
California Tax Rate 8.9%
Combined CA/US tax rate 45%

And there are many countries with lower tax rates than Sweden, such as Ireland, Singapore, etc.

Where would you choose to make your money if you are an international corporation? By having high tax rates we have low tax receipts.

Doctor Fate wrote:

danivon wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:The "data" is rigged.

Please demonstrate using evidence, not soundbites.

I politely decline for the following reasons:

1. It would probably take professional-level analysis to tease out the data.

So despite that, and without even pointing at someone else who may already have done the analysis for you, you make a declaration of "fact".

Why should anyone take your case seriously?

2. I don't believe anyone has shown the data is not rigged--or that it shows the system is rigged. It is a logical jump from "less upward mobility" to "the system is rigged."

Well, it's hard to prove a negative, and as you have made the assertion it is "rigged" data, I was hoping you had more than that. Your logical riposte is the equivalent of Russell's Teapot.

Also, you are suggesting a logical leap that was not made. I was only saying that a lack of social mobility "suggests" that you don't have a true meritocracy. Whether that is systemic or not would indeed take another set of analysis. Your laziness to even properly challenge the data tells me that going any further is to much for you. Fair enough.

Furthermore, comparisons between different countries and different cultures is not altogether helpful. Denmark keeps coming up. Well, Denmark is nothing like the US socially, militarily, and barely resembles us culturally. There is no "Danish can-do" spirit or "rugged individualism" running through Denmark.

Not sure that you are the expert here. Denmark does have a pretty individualist culture (less than that of the US, but high). Maybe not "rugged" in your view, but these are the descendents of Vikings. http://geert-hofstede.com/denmark.html

3. So what if I could demonstrate it? In other words, if I had the time and expertise, so what?

Well, you will never know, because you have prejudged the outcome and responses of "all" of us.

You all would still be arguing for more socialism because you view it as the "best solution" to most societal ills. I don't agree with you.

Well, no, I would first of all see what the "unrigged" data says and see where it leads.

If you grow up in a housing project, you're more likely to stay in a housing project.

Whether this is true or not, and I see no evidence either way from you, what is interesting is what factors lead to that. If all you can see is "housing project", fair enough, but that is just correlation not causation without more analysis.

I found this story interesting. Four generations of one family in public housing. They are described as an anomaly, but I suspect that has to do with the income requirements needed to remain. [/quote]If the plural of 'anecdote' is not 'data' then the singular is even less meaningful as a response for a call for wider and deeper analysis.

Because Heritage are noted for their total lack of ideological bias?

Less biased than government workers who need more government to sustain their jobs. What sort of government-funded study is going to show that government is not the answer?[/quote]So are the only possible funding sources the government or Heritage? No other sources whatsoever?

Try to stop being ridiculous.

So basically you are pre-emptively dismissing even any independent study before even bothering to read it, because you don't like that it might have an outcome you disagree with.

Because they're not "independent."

Based on your false dichotomy of "government" or "Heritage", yes. But I submit that you are making a massive assumption and prejudging without even bothering to check.

Fine. I'd even look at a Heritage study as long as I can look at the methodology.

This is an interesting look at "welfare" from the time of our nation's founding.

I shall take some time and read through it. Thanks. Your lack of willingness to reciprocate is noted.

In any case, if you want to argue about social mobility, go right ahead. Present all the data you want. All I know is that one can have rich parents and wind up poor (my cousins) or poor parents and land straight into the middle class or higher. I understand the liberal mantra and I reject it.

Are some people poor through no fault of their own? Yes. Are some people poor because of bad choices and decisions? Yes. Are some people poor because they refuse to work? Yes.

What a wider and deeper analysis would do is to help quantify those. You appear tonight to deny the first category needs support because it might end up going to the other categories.

No study I've seen factors in drugs, alcohol, and an unwillingness to work or educate oneself. Some people, albeit a relatively small group, just don't care enough to do anything about their lot in life. Whose fault is that?

Again, this is why we look at data more rigorously and don't base our views on small numbers of extreme cases.

And given your above dismissal of non-Heritage studies, would you even have noticed one that did account for such factors?

danivon wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:

danivon wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:The "data" is rigged.

Please demonstrate using evidence, not soundbites.

I politely decline for the following reasons:

1. It would probably take professional-level analysis to tease out the data.

So despite that, and without even pointing at someone else who may already have done the analysis for you, you make a declaration of "fact".

Why should anyone take your case seriously?

I'll tell you what: YOU read them, all of them, and I'll take your critique seriously. Until then, you're just a smokestack.

Well, it's hard to prove a negative, and as you have made the assertion it is "rigged" data, I was hoping you had more than that. Your logical riposte is the equivalent of Russell's Teapot.

There are numerous factors not taken into account--as I pointed out.

Also, you are suggesting a logical leap that was not made. I was only saying that a lack of social mobility "suggests" that you don't have a true meritocracy. Whether that is systemic or not would indeed take another set of analysis. Your laziness to even properly challenge the data tells me that going any further is to much for you. Fair enough.

Not sure that you are the expert here. Denmark does have a pretty individualist culture (less than that of the US, but high). Maybe not "rugged" in your view, but these are the descendents of Vikings. http://geert-hofstede.com/denmark.html

Yeah, impressive. Denmark is so much like the US. It lasted how many days in WW2? It's gotten stronger since then?

The comparison is apples vs. microbes.

3. So what if I could demonstrate it? In other words, if I had the time and expertise, so what?

Well, you will never know, because you have prejudged the outcome and responses of "all" of us.

Yes.

You all would still be arguing for more socialism because you view it as the "best solution" to most societal ills. I don't agree with you.

Well, no, I would first of all see what the "unrigged" data says and see where it leads.

Sorry, but that's a career.

Try to stop being ridiculous.

Hey, you first!

You have NEVER volunteered to write a thoroughly researched book for Redscape, yet you want me to do it.

No.

fate

You can also count on longer lines,

This is a claim you made earlier Fate. So I assume you think this is fact.

Thought experiment. Where do these ,longer lines come from?
why aren't there longer lines today?
There would be no difference in the number of doctors if medicare for all became the law of the land tomorrow. There would be no difference in the number of people.
But there would be a huge increase in the number of people who are seeking health care?
I think you are right. There would be an increase. Because an awful lot of people aren't seeking care today because they can't afford to... (either they have no insurance or their co-pay is so high etc.)
Since you constantly argue for the status quo or that the current system is superior to all those socialist systems ...why is this a good thing?
Why is it better that certain portion of the population suffer untreated illness in order to keep the lines short for the better off?

And Fate I did answer your questions. They were complex, and I suppose you were expecting a simple response. The problem is that you don't want to understand the complexities...You want to keep it simple so as not to challenge your closely held belief system.

Doctor Fate wrote:Hey, you first!

You have NEVER volunteered to write a thoroughly researched book for Redscape, yet you want me to do it.

No.

No, just one time backing up your assertions would be nice. I posed a few questions on wider data and analysis, and you were the one who made a load of statements about all studies (apart from any funded by the raving loonies at Heritage) being based on "rigged data".

Basically, if you have nothing constructive to add, I feel that it is best to ignore you from here on out.

So, all all I have left is, "whatever, kidda"

Yes, RJ but the rate that really matters is what US companies actually pay in taxes. A study by the GAO a few years ago found that profitable US corporations with assets of ten million paid only a total of 16.9% of their world-wide income in taxes (only 12.6% in US federal taxes). Wow . What a big discouragement-- you get zapped at 12.6%. Another way of looking at it--that I think filters out manipulation of data to support one's political viewpoint--is to look at corporate taxes as a share of GDP. In a ranking of 27 nations 16 of them collect corporate taxes at a higher percentage of GDP than we do.

http://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/taxation/t ... 510-table5

No need to transfer another trillion to the leisure class...

freeman3 wrote:Yes, RJ but the rate that really matters is what US companies actually pay in taxes. A study by the GAO a few years ago found that profitable US corporations with assets of ten million paid only a total of 16.9% of their world-wide income in taxes (only 12.6% in US federal taxes). Wow . What a big discouragement-- you get zapped at 12.6%. Another way of looking at it--that I think filters out manipulation of data to support one's political viewpoint--is to look at corporate taxes as a share of GDP. In a ranking of 27 nations 16 of them collect corporate taxes at a higher percentage of GDP than we do.

http://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/taxation/t ... 510-table5

No need to transfer another trillion to the leisure class...

So is this about a difference between not the headline rate, but the wiggle room and loopholes that result in the actual rate?

rickyp wrote:fate

You can also count on longer lines,

This is a claim you made earlier Fate. So I assume you think this is fact.

Thought experiment. Where do these ,longer lines come from?
why aren't there longer lines today?
There would be no difference in the number of doctors if medicare for all became the law of the land tomorrow. There would be no difference in the number of people.
But there would be a huge increase in the number of people who are seeking health care?
I think you are right. There would be an increase. Because an awful lot of people aren't seeking care today because they can't afford to... (either they have no insurance or their co-pay is so high etc.)
Since you constantly argue for the status quo or that the current system is superior to all those socialist systems ...why is this a good thing?
Why is it better that certain portion of the population suffer untreated illness in order to keep the lines short for the better off?

And Fate I did answer your questions. They were complex, and I suppose you were expecting a simple response. The problem is that you don't want to understand the complexities...You want to keep it simple so as not to challenge your closely held belief system.

No, you didn't answer my questions. They demanded a "yes" or a "no" or a similar answer. Of course you could then expand. You just didn't answer them.

As but one example of your NON-answers: I asked how lowering the age for Medicare would impact its fiscal soundness. You didn't answer at all. Here is the totality of your response, PLEASE show me where the answer is.

If every company and individual stopped paying insurance premiums to private insurers those premiums would or could would go to a national health insurance plan. Please remember that the US spends over 17% of GDP on heath care. No other country is over 12%. This despite not all Americans are covered, despite the ACA since GOP states opt out.
It doesn't take a great deal of imagination or math skills to understand that there is sufficient money in the current US health care pot to provide Medicare with enough funds

That is not an answer.

As for YOUR question, where would longer lines come from? Supply and demand. Look at Canada. Look at the VA. Long waits. Care denied.

danivon wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:Hey, you first!

You have NEVER volunteered to write a thoroughly researched book for Redscape, yet you want me to do it.

No.

No, just one time backing up your assertions would be nice.

So, if I can show ONE TIME I backed up my assertions that will what? Prove you're lying?

Doctor Fate wrote:

danivon wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:Hey, you first!

You have NEVER volunteered to write a thoroughly researched book for Redscape, yet you want me to do it.

No.

No, just one time backing up your assertions would be nice.

So, if I can show ONE TIME I backed up my assertions that will what? Prove you're lying?

No, it would be nice.

But, hey. Whatever. Kidda.

danivon wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:

danivon wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:Hey, you first!

You have NEVER volunteered to write a thoroughly researched book for Redscape, yet you want me to do it.

No.

No, just one time backing up your assertions would be nice.

So, if I can show ONE TIME I backed up my assertions that will what? Prove you're lying?

No, it would be nice.

But, hey. Whatever. Kidda.

I have backed up my assertions on many occasions. If there were a means to scan Redscape for it, I'd guess I've done more of this than you. Of course, that would mean that you are either a semi-professional pest or less than forthright.