I think the political equation you are talking about is a bit outdated. 2018-2020 is a big window of opportunity. There is coming a time when the majority are simply going to demand universal health insurance. Its not something the constituents of this generation are going to forget about and accept some BS like 20 years ago.
The Economics Thread
- Thread starter ManUtd1999
- Start date
I think the political equation you are talking about is a bit outdated. 2018-2020 is a big window of opportunity. There is coming a time when the majority are simply going to demand universal health insurance. Its not something the constituents of this generation are going to forget about and accept some BS like 20 years ago.
I hope you are right. My personal interpretation is that Trump is a pantomime villain that can spur on turnout for the short term but from what I’ve seen on social media there isn’t nearly enough focus being put on the Republican Party yet. If things don’t get rosy once the Cheeto-in-Chief is gone then expect a backlash.
Much of this is true but you also have to factor in the reality that social attitudes do over time change, which in turn allows policy to change. For instance, gays in the military, gay marriage, the legalization of cannabis etc. Each were to varying degrees frowned on by much of society, which allowed the respective prohibitions to continue. Then, after significant debate, attitudes gradually changes which in turn allowed politicians to take more liberal positions on them and today the laws have to varying degrees, flipped from what they were 15 years ago.
Healthcare may be in this category as well. It is far more important to the daily lives of most people than the other issues and we are seeing more and more people begin to question why its so expensive and complicated when other developed countries seem to have found more streamlined ways of delivering it to their publics. There will of course be a massive war between proponents and the forces who profit from the current system, and as you say, the nature of how house members get elected every two years is going to play a massive role in whether or not something like this would happen.
Its easier to start at the State level.
Health Care
College Tuition
Housing.
Health Care
College Tuition
Housing.
Yes...ideally a very small state
I hope so too. For decades now US Democrats have trapped themselves like mice in a maze of their own creation. They have allowed 'common sense conventional wisdom' to flumox them into meek inaction. For decades this has achieved the sum of feck all. Meanwhile the Republicans said feck it, let's push this as far as we can and won a lot of victories that 'common sense conventional wisdom' would have said they had no chance to win - like Trump getting elected. Universal health care is an idea whose time has come in the US.
One incremental step is installing a safety net of universal coverage for all accidents and terminal illness first. These types of unexpected tragic life events are the cause of the majority of medical bankruptcies. If you've ever known people that had this happen, its just awful how they get crunched under the weight of the for-profit system.
By starting with coverage of these heavy events with universal coverage, the process can begin slowly and logically with the worst victims of privatized health care. This foundation of accident and terminal universal coverage provides both a morally essentially and financially efficient background. The relief of a safety net for unexpected medical expenses is a great way to start implementing UHC slowly and giving relief to the people who current absolutely need it the most - those that slip through the cracks of profiteering private health care.
true. But it does help also if it is more Democratic leaning.
Speaking to legislators they were trying to pass a heavily subsidized health care bill but fell short with votes.
I'm sure they will try again in January.
But as been said, Universal health Care is fast becoming a need whatever party you belong to.
And ironically, it also correlates with the growth of healthcare administrators greatly out-pacing the growth of physicians.
My daughter tells me how she has to fight the insurance companies when she prescribes care. It really is unacceptable.
All we can do as individuals is contact your local representatives and turn up at town hall meetings.
Without pressure nothing will change.
Tbf you cant compare united states with european developed countries.
While the Scandinavians for example has the best health care, pention, gun control etc. Their population is much smaller than united states. Not to mention the military spending of usa. Culture and historical background is another massive issue. Bipartisan, hawkish corrupt politican that benefits from gun industry, etc.
Indonesia vs. Singapore is a good example. Side by side, one is much smaller with a population of 4m and the other is an archipelago with a population of 230m. It's much easier to regulate, control, and distribute wealth for 4m people compared to 230m.
While the Scandinavians for example has the best health care, pention, gun control etc. Their population is much smaller than united states. Not to mention the military spending of usa. Culture and historical background is another massive issue. Bipartisan, hawkish corrupt politican that benefits from gun industry, etc.
Indonesia vs. Singapore is a good example. Side by side, one is much smaller with a population of 4m and the other is an archipelago with a population of 230m. It's much easier to regulate, control, and distribute wealth for 4m people compared to 230m.
No argument there but it will still increase Medicare spending by a multiple of X (depends upon what we decide) that we can't afford and we are already headed towards disaster due to the baby boomers retiring. It's not just Medicare but Medicare coupled with Medicaid and social security that is the problem. Take a look at those numbers I linked you to again. Even by 2028, the spending for Medicare, Medicaid and social security is predicted to total $3.7 trillion. That is more than 100 percent of our current budget and the economy has been good.
We only have two real choices at that point - cut benefits or raise taxes. Politicians won't do either one of those until such time as the thing goes off a cliff. Do you think under those circumstances that the public is going to have the stomach for a further (quite substantial tax hike) that will be necessary in order to put Medicare for all in place?
Also, when you say everybody pays into Medicare, are you also including the 65 million people on Medicaid right now that pay more or less nothing and get their healthcare for free? What about kids etc. Do they get to stay on their parents policy until they are 25 like private insurances allow right now? What about the folks who like their healthcare and don't want to give it up. I did see that poll from Reuters with supposedly 70 percent supporting Medicare for all and had to laugh. Be careful what you read.
None of these questions were part of that poll. Neither were the looming direct consequences of the mandatory spending on social programs that the general public will soon be forced to face up. Eventually, the money will run out and then it will be like a game of musical chairs. People are going to get very angry.The additional costs due to the tariffs are likely to be passed on to the consumers.
This means that things will be become more expensive for the average US citizens.
Some US companies with factories in China will decide that it is not worth it continue operations there, and will move their factories to another developing country with lower labour cost. Some will close down. Some will move towards greater automation.
Oh and yes China will be hurt. But so will the US.
You have to pay for Medicare part B and Medicare also has deductibles and coinsurance so those savings will be very minimal, except in cases where people don't have employer based plans that are decent and where their job doesn't share the cost of healthcare properly. Bernie Sanders is straight up lying when he suggests otherwise on TV. Don't get me wrong - despite the personal cost to me (I might very well have to find a job), I would be for Medicare for All or something like that as I think it is wrong that people go bankrupt due to medical bills (around 50 percent of the bankruptcies in this country are due to that). But I am also a realist. I know what it would take to change it and I don't know if it is realistic or if it would be worth putting so many people through the misery that would ensue. The healthcare system over here is almost the perfect example of how to control people. It isn't just the deep pockets you would be fighting. It is an army of middle class stakeholders who would fight back vehemently against you. And can you blame them? You would be trying to take away their livelihood and the ability to put food on the table for them and their families.
Blah, blah, blah...
He is correct though isn't he. Public attitudes towards healthcare do seem to be changing - especially with the rise of Sanders and more progressive candidates. That's not to say medicare for all will happen right away, but at least there is a realization that the current system is completely inadequate.
Yes, it's pretty hard to have a union when your job can be shipped over sea to somewhere else. The whole concept of a union depends upon you having collective bargaining power with your employer, power that was completely eroded by globalization.
There was that same realization about 10 years ago also. The abuses of the current system have been going on for decades. Also, that Reuters poll was a joke. I would have thought the left might have learned a lesson or two about believing polls from recent experience.
Given your views on globalization, are you more in the Bernie Sanders or Steve Bannon camp in terms of trade imbalances ? Sanders is obviously an old school social-democrat whereas Bannon brands his views through the prism of economic nationalism.
Bernie sanders camp. I don't have a party affiliation, just like him.
Thanks for summing up the supporting evidence you've posted for the economic protectionism you and Trump support.
No historical precedent. You forgot that bit
Yes there is no historical precedent for the 800 million manufacturing jobs that will be gone by 2030 which is why you and Trump's ideas are just foolish hubris at its finest.
"If U.S.-made cars are competitive only behind tariff barriers, and cost far more than they should because of those tariffs, there is no point in planning to make more of them in the United States to meet rising global demand. The economies of scale that make vast manufacturing enterprises work will decline. As antimarket governments have repeatedly shown, and as was the case with the U.S. auto industry in the 1960s and early 1970s, protection stifles innovation and results in worse products for consumers in the protected domestic industry. Going down that road will, in turn, hurt overall research and development in the United States, of which investment from automakers (including foreign ones) makes up a large part, and the United States’ reputation as a place to do business. "
Listening to people like you for the last 50 years has gotten us to where we are today. The rich get richer and the middle class shrinks into nothing. It's like going to the doctor and being told that all he has is the same ineffective cure over and over again that hasn't worked for you. Your world view is not to far off that of slavery - I hope you are proud of yourself. In my opinion, you aren't much higher up the moral rung than that.
First, your own arguments are logically inconsistent. You can't dismiss historical arguments with "no historical precedent" one minute and then claim this "last 50 years" argument. If there is "no historical precedent" then you referencing the last 50 years is meaningless.
Second, that propaganda rhetoric has already been debunked. You just keep repeating lies and misinformation like Trump, over and over. Fact is that America's middle class saw its greatest period of prosperity relative to the elites due in part to free trade in the 50s-70s. It's not the variable you are looking for.
But I do hope you invite us plebs when you receive your Nobel Prize in Economics.
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/09/is-america-facing-a-labor-shortage/570649/
@Danny_ , another one for you, bud. If you think Trump or the repubs are the ones to bring about income inequality or the middle class boom, you are sadly mistaken.
@Danny_ , another one for you, bud. If you think Trump or the repubs are the ones to bring about income inequality or the middle class boom, you are sadly mistaken.
The attack and reduction of unions preceded the large-scale loss of manufacturing jobs to foreign countries. China itself opened up at a significant level in the mid-80s, by then unions were half-dead.
Nah, you love Trump dude. And putting your fingers in your ears.
You might try to ignore the fact that @oneniltothearsenal demonstrated that the only source you've provided to back up your point of view actually contradicted you, but we won't.
You know you can go to another doctor? Which is why @oneniltothearsenal has consistently provided sources from a wide spectrum of economics sources.
As for the slavery comment - you're revolting, especially as you're saying that as someone apparently working in a job that leeches off the truly important workers of the healthcare system.
I think what Trump is doing right now is good. I don't have to agree with everything Trump or the Republicans do to say that. And the above situation in the article wasn't caused by trump. It was caused by 50 years of listening to the bs of people like oneniltothearsenal.
In truth that isn't correct for any public run service when compared with a private one.
The point of privatisation is that the increase in efficiencies brought about by competition outway the profits made by the companies in charge. The problem with public sector bodies is that they don't have to innovate because firstly there is no necessity to do so to survive (they merely request more money or allow service levels to drop, safe in the knowledge that they have a captive market); secondly there's no financial incentive for senior staff to do well. Why work harder and/or take calculated gambles when you can merely collect your monthly salary?
Privatisation when it's allowed to flourish in a well regulated environment without the corruption of vested interests is an absolute win-win for everyone. Higher competition breeds innovation, investment, increases in productivity and the demise of poorly run businesses.
The American system is terrible and is always used to highlight how poor privatisation is... However that's disingenuous in my view. It would be akin to using the worst performing School, Hospital or Council as proof that public sector "businesses" shouldn't exist.
Some of the best healthcare systems in the world combine the benefits of the single payer system for essential healthcare with the benefits of the efficiency gains of privatisation.
Last edited:
fair points.
I know some European Countries do have private health insurance. But I'm certain they are highly regulated. The aim is not to maximize profit as it is here in the US. In fact I would say they are Non-Profit.
Any surplus being plowed back.
We agree. The American model is terrible. But that is what we have. Huge profits at the expense of ordinary people. CEOs paying themselves obscene money. Having meetings in Bora Bora and such. The money for this?
Right. Premiums and High deductibles people pay. The captive market.
Alternative? Die.
Its a no brainer. Single payer needs to be explained. How a raise in taxes is more than offset by savings in premiums and deductibles.
As we know Health care is more of a concern for older people.
Most of the population hardly sees a doctor. Perhaps an annual check up with Physician or dentist. Not even that sometimes.
Its the major issues like an accident or serious health problems. This is a very small fraction.
I see the current Medicare set up expanding. Those people now employed by Insurance companies transitioning to either Health care support areas or to State level support for more people coming into the system.
Its simply fundamental to have a healthy population and morally required that everyone is covered for health in a civilized society.
Simply not true. Performance incentives can be built into the pay structure of senior staff in public systems too. Why on earth couldn't they?
At least its a preview of the propaganda Trump and his fan base are going to be trotting out from now until 2020. This is the type of thing we are going to be hearing a lot to attack Beto, Bernie, etc. They are going to try to overwhelm facts and logic with simply repeating misinformation over and over and over. Trump's life motto is that old cliche 'if you tell a person a lie three times, they start to believe it."
Trump's going to be pounding the table a lot. I hope the Democrats can pound the facts just as loudly.
so trueHaha yep, that excuse always makes me laugh.
The UK< running a fully-public model, spends less than France, Germany, and Switzerland, all of which have increasingly higher healthcare spending - and increasingly higher levels of private players in healthcarep
Medicaid.
So many Republican governors fought against the repeal of the ACA because of the expansion provisions in it.
Medicaid is for people who are at or close to poverty lines in Income. It is a joint Federal/State program.
This will disappear with the introduction of Single payer. Because everyone including unemployed people will be covered.
Its irony to see Obama and Trump fighting over how good the economy was and who was responsible.
How can an economy that has more than 80% of people living from paycheck to paycheck with many not even be able to make ends meet with two sometimes three jobs be Good?
The low unemployment rate hides serious underemployment.
The economy has only been good for those at the top.
So many Republican governors fought against the repeal of the ACA because of the expansion provisions in it.
Medicaid is for people who are at or close to poverty lines in Income. It is a joint Federal/State program.
This will disappear with the introduction of Single payer. Because everyone including unemployed people will be covered.
Its irony to see Obama and Trump fighting over how good the economy was and who was responsible.
How can an economy that has more than 80% of people living from paycheck to paycheck with many not even be able to make ends meet with two sometimes three jobs be Good?
The low unemployment rate hides serious underemployment.
The economy has only been good for those at the top.
It's very difficult to emulate the kind of incentives that come from private business. How do you emulate being able to pass on to your children a multi-million pound company you've built up over 40 years? You can't in the sphere of public sector work.
No public sector body even in an incentivised form would ever offer a competitive salary that the public would stomach. The second the innovative founder and CEO of a leading group of UK hospitals was reported to be earning £25m a year (over 150 times the PM!)... The public outcry against what could be instead spent on the "underpaid, overworked nurses" would make his position untenable.
You then have to set the parameters involved in success, which is far more difficult to set with a public sector "budget" system. The history of public sector budget surpluses is that they're a signal that they're been given too much cash. Incentives wouldn't change this philosophy. The "use it or lose it" mantra at the end of the fiscal year wouldn't change and with it you'd lose the surpluses required to drive real innovation.
Finally even if you could recreate all these things in the form of some impossible healthcare incentive... It would still be open to the winds of political change. If the Tories or Labour set up such a system... The last decade of my hard work would disintegrate when the opposite party took to office and decided that my success did not deserve my deserving but expensive monthly pay cheque.
The fact that our Prime Minister is paid a laughable and derisory £150k a year (and other MP's £75k) in comparison to the importance of their jobs is testament to the inability for public sector to be able to incentivise.
We have the inept politicians we deserve because of our own twisted and contradictory morale compasses.