Social security had a surplus and was quite sustainable. Problem is a government that borrowed it.  If everyone took care of only themselves, things would fall apart very quickly. Just remember what you say now when you are on the other end.

Quote from: LordKAT on February 11, 2014, 08:40:44 AM
Social security had a surplus and was quite sustainable. Problem is a government that borrowed it. 

If govenrment didn't borrow into it our debt to GDP would be much, much, much, much higher than it already is.  That's why those so-called "surpluses" in Social Security never existed.  Having a surplus is one thing, then using that surplus to feed spending binges on other entitlement programs (Medicare/Medicaid being the two biggest culprits) doesn't do one any justice.

Quote
Just remember what you say now when you are on the other end.

I'm not calling for an end to these programs but I do think they need to be throttled back significantly.  Otherwise, many decades from now I won't have anything to think about or remember, they just won't exist along with the rest of the economy.

-AM

But how do you throttle back Medicare? If payments start to get any lower even more doctors will stop taking it. One of the ideas in the affordable care act was that if we had lots of preventitive care we could lower costs, but I doubt that could do much for people old enough for Medicare.

It shouldn't be this hard, in other advanced countries they spend less per person on healthcare. There is little doubt Medicare needs to go away and be replaced by something that is more cost effective, I have a tough time envisioning a reform that would either financially burden seniors even more (and few have saved enough as is) or that would be solvent in the long term. But who aside from maybe Bernie Sanders or Rand Paul would actually propose replacing the who thing with something different (or maybe with nothing from Paul)?

I'm sorry I'm not an American so excuse me for budding into the conversation but why is it that the rest of the OECD countries can provide universal health care to their people and not the U.S.?  I don't think it's a condemnation of all government I think the spotlight should be on the U.S. government and the money interests that basically control it.  One of the reasons "Obamacare" is so expensive is because the insurance industry was allowed to take a big cut of the money.  The really annoying thing about this whole controversy is that "Obamacare" is the form of medical insurance promoted by Republicans for years.  Obama caved just to get a deal.

IMO, the simple solution would have been to expand Medicare, and Medicaid to everyone, the infrastructure is already in place.   Unfortunately for the Health Insurance companies this would have cut them out.

I couldn't watch all this video, it sounded like pure spin to me.  So much of the "grass roots" tea party stuff is PR funded by corporations and interest groups, that are very motivated to stop any positive change and keep their profits.   

Sorry for disagreeing with the conventional wisdom.
Paige

Quote from: Paige on February 11, 2014, 09:38:44 AM
I'm sorry I'm not an American so excuse me for budding into the conversation but why is it that the rest of the OECD countries can provide universal health care to their people and not the U.S.?  I don't think it's a condemnation of all government I think the spotlight should be on the U.S. government and the money interests that basically control it.  One of the reasons "Obamacare" is so expensive is because the insurance industry was allowed to take a big cut of the money.  The really annoying thing about this whole controversy is that "Obamacare" is the form of medical insurance promoted by Republicans for years.  Obama caved just to get a deal.

IMO, the simple solution would have been to expand Medicare, and Medicaid to everyone, the infrastructure is already in place.   Unfortunately for the Health Insurance companies this would have cut them out.

I couldn't watch all this video, it sounded like pure spin to me.  So much of the "grass roots" tea party stuff is PR funded by corporations and interest groups, that are very motivated to stop any positive change and keep their profits.   

Sorry for disagreeing with the conventional wisdom.
Paige

Universal Healthcare isn't the right answer either as those vaunted NHS systems are bankrupting their respective countries as well.  Greece is on the edge of collapse and all but begging for a bailout from Germany the European Union.  This is a systemic and predictable consequence of a government spending too much of it's GDP on anything, not just healthcare.

It isn't just the insurance companies that cause healthcare in the US to be high, it's a whole mess of things including--and probably the chief contributor--the regulatory process of the Federal Government.  A good example would be the FDA regulation that basically states hospitals and clinics cannot buy medicine or medical supplies from third parties and only direct from the manufacturer.  The manufacturers know this and artificially increase the price.   Which is why OTC Tylenol is many times higher in cost at a hospital than anywhere else.   There are literally hundreds of reasons (if not thousands) why medicine is expensive business in the US.

-AM

Quote from: Hikari on February 11, 2014, 09:05:45 AM
But how do you throttle back Medicare? If payments start to get any lower even more doctors will stop taking it. One of the ideas in the affordable care act was that if we had lots of preventitive care we could lower costs, but I doubt that could do much for people old enough for Medicare.

It shouldn't be this hard, in other advanced countries they spend less per person on healthcare. There is little doubt Medicare needs to go away and be replaced by something that is more cost effective, I have a tough time envisioning a reform that would either financially burden seniors even more (and few have saved enough as is) or that would be solvent in the long term. But who aside from maybe Bernie Sanders or Rand Paul would actually propose replacing the who thing with something different (or maybe with nothing from Paul)?

There are literally thousands of market-oriented solutions to lowering costs of healthcare.  Of course they don't see main print in the pages of the main stream media liberal elite.   A very good start would be gutting the FDA and let market forces take over. 

In economics something is expensive because it is either hard to find or difficult to produce.  Medicine is inherently neither hard to find nor difficult to produce.  But the proverbial mountain of regulations surrounding medicine make it difficult to produce (expensive) which of course causes prices to increase.

Something as simple as shifting monetary policy allowing for increased interest rates on medical emergency savings accounts would be another great start.

-AM

Quote from: Androgynous_Machine on February 11, 2014, 10:45:09 AM
Universal Healthcare isn't the right answer either as those vaunted NHS systems are bankrupting their respective countries as well. 

The UK government spends 8% of GDP on healthcare ($3,200 per person) to cover 100% of it's people.
The US government spends 15% of GDP on healthcare ($3,700) per person) to cover about 28% of people.
We spend more per person, even before private insurance (which the majority are on in the US) is factored in. Some estimates are putting it at over $5k per person overall.
The UK does also have private market based healthcare so that rich people don't have to wait, because god forbid rich people have to deal with what normal people have to deal with.

So, exactly how is an NHS style system not better financially? I am not an efficiency expert, but spending more to cover less people doesn't sound very smart. If you examine European economies you will see the primary cause for problems is not in healthcare or education, but lots of protectionist financial policies without the financial flexibility that a proper central bank or even our federal reserve has.

And yes, it is true that the system of pricing and whatnot is inefficient in the US, and that the entire industry is geared to making things less affordable so they can line their own pockets, Obamacare represents yet another transfer of wealth from people to private corporations, just like byzantine rules for generic medications, and ambulance chasing lawyers do when they drive up malpractice insurance. The solution is to eliminate all profits and therefore eliminate the incentive to write regulations that work as kickbacks for corporations.

Regardless I will never see our system as just or moral so long as people die from not having the money to participate in the healthcare system.

Quote from: Hikari on February 11, 2014, 11:02:54 AM
The UK government spends 8% of GDP on healthcare ($3,200 per person) to cover 100% of it's people.
The US government spends 15% of GDP on healthcare ($3,700) per person) to cover about 28% of people.
We spend more per person, even before private insurance (which the majority are on in the US) is factored in. Some estimates are putting it at over $5k per person overall.
The UK does also have private market based healthcare so that rich people don't have to wait, because god forbid rich people have to deal with what normal people have to deal with.

So, exactly how is an NHS style system not better financially? I am not an efficiency expert, but spending more to cover less people doesn't sound very smart. If you examine European economies you will see the primary cause for problems is not in healthcare or education, but lots of protectionist financial policies without the financial flexibility that a proper central bank or even our federal reserve has.

And yes, it is true that the system of pricing and whatnot is inefficient in the US, and that the entire industry is geared to making things less affordable so they can line their own pockets, Obamacare represents yet another transfer of wealth from people to private corporations, just like byzantine rules for generic medications, and ambulance chasing lawyers do when they drive up malpractice insurance. The solution is to eliminate all profits and therefore eliminate the incentive to write regulations that work as kickbacks for corporations.

Regardless I will never see our system as just or moral so long as people die from not having the money to participate in the healthcare system.

Horse 'hockey'.

It universal healthcare was SO much better, we could simply allow free choice and universal healthcare would win out. Simple as that.

Quote from: Hikari on February 11, 2014, 09:05:45 AM
One of the ideas in the affordable care act was that if we had lots of preventitive care we could lower costs, but I doubt that could do much for people old enough for Medicare.

Just glancing at this thread, and this made me remember a point a former high school acquaintance- one who doesn't often speak up in political discussions- made on Facebook.  Wouldn't a "Wellness Act" be more appropriate?  Whether in adjunct to the preventative measures in the ACA or not, it seems a system of strengthening physical fitness and well-being would help offset and relieve future medical costs.  Eat better, exercise, treat yo'self to some fresh air.  Having a healthy body from the start is a preventative measure on its own!

Of course, this would prompt a need to define what is and isn't healthy (something we Americans already have trouble with), and ultimately, a measure of how to regulate what isn't healthy/incentivize what is.  A debate for another thread

Quote from: Nikko on February 11, 2014, 04:12:23 PM
Horse 'hockey'.

It universal healthcare was SO much better, we could simply allow free choice and universal healthcare would win out. Simple as that.

I can't think of any nations (except former communist ones)  that developed a universal healthcare system and then went back to a system that didn't cover most everyone. I think that is a pretty resounding endorsement. I don't even get what you mean by allowing "free" choice as there is no "public option" in this country we are limited to private insurers.

But, I would like to note while I am generally not in favor of private insurance because the market will always price some people out of it and I consider healthcare a moral responsibility of a nation; private systems like Japan's work out well. It is much more efficient than ours and the government involvement is mostly to ensure prices work out in favor of the people.

Also, no Republican or Democrat has been advancing any "free market" alternatives. My choice is from two plans with one company, since my employer offers healthcare I can't get subsidies on the exchange. So effectively I have no choice for affordable options but one. That is not a free market alternative at all.

I imagine what we eat and drink will be controlled by the state once our healthcare is provided and controlled by the state.

I know I know... there will be people praising that idea... give it a little bit. 

Quote from: Hikari on February 11, 2014, 06:40:28 PM
I can't think of any nations (except former communist ones)  that developed a universal healthcare system and then went back to a system that didn't cover most everyone.

Because it's the only allowed system. 

You're not interested in any truth, just ideology, so further discussions between us is pointless and won't occur.

Quote from: Nikko on February 11, 2014, 06:43:37 PM
Because it's the only allowed system. 

Actually not all universal healthcare systems prohibit private insurance options.   For some countries like France private insurance is a major component of their healthcare system.

Quote
You're not interested in any truth, just ideology, so further discussions between us is pointless and won't occur.

Really Nikko, you seem pretty stuck to your sound bite ideology.

What Americans eat and drink is already controlled by government.

Quote from: LordKAT on February 13, 2014, 09:39:19 AM
What Americans eat and drink is already controlled by government.

It is Kat, I think the idea of some governing entity proclaiming that 16oz Big Gulps are no longer legal is more in line of what the other person was referring to.

I think it is going in that direction.

Quote from: LordKAT on February 13, 2014, 09:56:43 AM
I think it is going in that direction.

They think! 

Quote from: LordKAT on February 13, 2014, 09:56:43 AM
I think it is going in that direction.

Kaiser used to send us free materials and offers for nutrition and fitness classes when I had them. As more costs get shared by the government they will have more incentive to take an interest in what the people eat. Of course Kaiser couldn't make foods illegal, they could raise rates if you didn't follow nutrition advice so the way I see it, the push for healthy eating was always there but it is shifting from the private to the public sector.

Interesting note a Chicago law firm has been offering to sue big food companies on behalf of state attorney generals for added costs due to obesity. It might become the anti smoking campaign all over again, which actually bothers me despite my far left leanings. We Know mcdonalds is unsafe, so put a tax on it if you want to deincentivize don't sue the company.