Why are U.S. citizens ignoring the 6% gain on GDP, by not nationalizing health care?

How should society be organised, if at all?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
Greatest I am
Posts: 2964
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2010 5:09 pm

Why are U.S. citizens ignoring the 6% gain on GDP, by not nationalizing health care?

Post by Greatest I am »

Why are U.S. citizens ignoring the 6% gain on GDP, by not nationalizing health care?

Statistics show that the average U.S. citizen pays considerably more for their, --- bankruptcy creating inhumane medical system, --- than other countries who have nationalized health care. The gain in GDP is around 3%.

It follows economies of scale gains are likely to be about 3%. If a penny saved is a penny earned, I am justified in saying that there would be a 6% saving to the average U.S. citizen.

Why are Americans wasting such a huge amount of gains, when going single payer could bring such a huge gain to each American?

I ask all my Yankee friends; what the hell? Recognize that single payer, pays great dividends.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/hea ... countries/

Regards
DL
Science Fan
Posts: 843
Joined: Fri May 26, 2017 5:01 pm

Re: Why are U.S. citizens ignoring the 6% gain on GDP, by not nationalizing health care?

Post by Science Fan »

I'm not sure I understand the point you are making regarding GDP. GDP could actually go down if spending decreased on medical care, which would not be a bad thing.

As far as Americans not wanting a single-payer system? Many Americans do. Most Americans are centrists. The problem is that there are only two major parties that have a chance of winning the presidency. In order for a candidate to win a GOP nomination, they must appeal to the far-right of the GOP. For a Democrat to win the nomination, they must appeal to the far-left of the Democratic party. This gives the far-right and the far-left, far more political clout than they should have given their small numbers overall. The end result is a lot of deadlock, as politicians ignore the majority of Americans who are centrists in favor of appeasing their extremists members of their party.

Plus, most Americans, and most politicians have no understanding of even basic economics. I don't recall either Trump or Hillary mentioning adverse selection as an issue regarding health-care coverage. I'm not sure that either knows what adverse selection issues even involve. They certainly did not understand free-trade. Neither one, for example, mentioned that the reason we have a balance of trade deficit is not due to currency manipulations or productive capacity versus other countries, but is caused by the fact Americans spend more than they earn. In order to establish a balance of trade surplus, Americans would need to spend less than what they earn. Yet, that was never once mentioned during the entire election, and instead the focus was on irrelevant factors.

Until people learn some basic economics, their political leaders will continue to ignore basic economics.
User avatar
Greatest I am
Posts: 2964
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2010 5:09 pm

Re: Why are U.S. citizens ignoring the 6% gain on GDP, by not nationalizing health care?

Post by Greatest I am »

That would mean educating the public and that is the last thing on your governments agenda.

"I'm not sure I understand the point you are making regarding GDP. GDP could actually go down if spending decreased on medical care, which would not be a bad thing."

Regardless of how you wish to define the gain, money in the consumers pocket instead of a bunch of bankrupt sick people would be the final result of a single payer system.

Regards
DL
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 14706
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
Location: Right here, a little less busy.

Post by henry quirk »

Speakin' only for me: I oppose further socializing/nationalizing cuz my health and how I attend to my health is my business, not yours, and not elected folks.

Leave me be to deal with my illnesses, tell me 'no' should I go mad and demand you pay my bills.

Shackle yourself to others as you like...just leave me be to 'not'.
User avatar
Greatest I am
Posts: 2964
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2010 5:09 pm

Re:

Post by Greatest I am »

henry quirk wrote: Mon Jun 26, 2017 2:42 pm Speakin' only for me: I oppose further socializing/nationalizing cuz my health and how I attend to my health is my business, not yours, and not elected folks.

Leave me be to deal with my illnesses, tell me 'no' should I go mad and demand you pay my bills.

Shackle yourself to others as you like...just leave me be to 'not'.
So much for doing unto others.

Just don't get sick or you will land bankrupt and on the dole and you should hope that others do not think as you do and cut that out from under you.

Regards
DL
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 14706
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
Location: Right here, a little less busy.

Post by henry quirk »

Compassion is a wonderful thing, and -- by definition -- voluntary.

I can be one giving s.o.b., when I choose to be.

I've been helped many a'time by folks with no legal obligation to do so.

Most folks, I think, take a dim view of being obligated and forced, especially when a great many of them would willingly, freely, lend an assist.

At the root of it: most folks, I think, believe their resources are, in fact, 'their' resources to expend as 'they' see fit.

The thinking is: 'I'm glad to help, but I decide the extent of that help, if I can afford that help, who that help should go to.'

Combine this perfectly natural sense of (self)ownership with an observable history of tax dollars bein' spent poorly by employees who see themselves as 'leaders' (talkin' about elected folks here) and no wonder some folks are inclined to say 'no' to more regulation, more 'mandatory', more taxes, more intrusions, etc.
Science Fan
Posts: 843
Joined: Fri May 26, 2017 5:01 pm

Re: Why are U.S. citizens ignoring the 6% gain on GDP, by not nationalizing health care?

Post by Science Fan »

Self-ownership is a fictitious claim. Put it this way, if there is no government, then there is no military defending a country's borders. If there is no military, then one's country will be overtaken by another nation that does tax its people to pay for a military, and after being conquered, one will have to pay taxes to a foreign power. So, there is no way to avoid paying taxes for government. Also, free-trade does not even exist, on any significant level, without a government framework, which establishes a currency, legal property rights, a regulatory framework, etc. This means that all private wealth is earned with the assistance of a government, not merely by means of one's own efforts. This does not even take into account factors like luck.
Science Fan
Posts: 843
Joined: Fri May 26, 2017 5:01 pm

Re: Why are U.S. citizens ignoring the 6% gain on GDP, by not nationalizing health care?

Post by Science Fan »

So, Henry, what would you do if you came down with diabetes at age 6? Would you have been old enough to have bought yourself an insurance policy to cover your illness? No. It's easy for some people to claim that because they have not suffered a major health-condition as a child, or while not being able to afford insurance coverage, that health-insurance is their business. The problem is that many others are not so lucky, and this really is a matter of luck. Some people get hit by drunk-drivers as children, and their lives go to shit, through no fault of their own. By having a single-payer system, one efficiently covers every member of society and does not leave little children out in the cold.
User avatar
Greatest I am
Posts: 2964
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2010 5:09 pm

Re:

Post by Greatest I am »

henry quirk wrote: Mon Jun 26, 2017 3:53 pm Compassion is a wonderful thing, and -- by definition -- voluntary.

I can be one giving s.o.b., when I choose to be.

I've been helped many a'time by folks with no legal obligation to do so.

Most folks, I think, take a dim view of being obligated and forced, especially when a great many of them would willingly, freely, lend an assist.

At the root of it: most folks, I think, believe their resources are, in fact, 'their' resources to expend as 'they' see fit.

The thinking is: 'I'm glad to help, but I decide the extent of that help, if I can afford that help, who that help should go to.'

Combine this perfectly natural sense of (self)ownership with an observable history of tax dollars bein' spent poorly by employees who see themselves as 'leaders' (talkin' about elected folks here) and no wonder some folks are inclined to say 'no' to more regulation, more 'mandatory', more taxes, more intrusions, etc.
Like you know who in some other state might need assistance.

You made this all about you and your desires while ignoring the needs of your fellow citizens and how many more might be helped by your country taking the huge savings that could be gained and applying it to improve your pathetic and backwards system.

Regards
DL
User avatar
Greatest I am
Posts: 2964
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2010 5:09 pm

Re: Why are U.S. citizens ignoring the 6% gain on GDP, by not nationalizing health care?

Post by Greatest I am »

Science Fan wrote: Mon Jun 26, 2017 4:22 pm So, Henry, what would you do if you came down with diabetes at age 6? Would you have been old enough to have bought yourself an insurance policy to cover your illness? No. It's easy for some people to claim that because they have not suffered a major health-condition as a child, or while not being able to afford insurance coverage, that health-insurance is their business. The problem is that many others are not so lucky, and this really is a matter of luck. Some people get hit by drunk-drivers as children, and their lives go to shit, through no fault of their own. By having a single-payer system, one efficiently covers every member of society and does not leave little children out in the cold.
Nice.

Lest we forget, the inheritance we will leave our children is debt and a fouled environment that will consume many trillions as infrastructure is created to handle sea level rise etc., --- and most of us do not care.

Regards
DL
Science Fan
Posts: 843
Joined: Fri May 26, 2017 5:01 pm

Re: Why are U.S. citizens ignoring the 6% gain on GDP, by not nationalizing health care?

Post by Science Fan »

Yeah, the sea-level rise is a huge problem ready to bite us in the ass in the not-too-distant future. This is a perfect example of the hypocrisy of the libertarian right. When we buy a gallon of gasoline, we are not paying for all of the costs associated with that gallon of gas. We are not paying for the costs involved in sea-level rise, or the health-problems from having high-carbon levels, or the costs of financing terrorism, as just three examples. An economic transaction is only efficient when private costs and benefits associated with a transaction equal the social costs and benefits related to the transaction. Presently, while people on the right claim that fossil fuels are more "efficient" than alternative forms of energy, that's only because the costs associated with fossil fuels are being socialized by the larger community, and are not being paid for at the pump. If one did pay for the full costs associated with fossil fuels at the pump, then the alternative fuel sources would be far cheaper; that is, they are, right now, actually more economically efficient.

Too bad most politicians can't explain something so simple to the average voter. Too bad the libertarian right that claims to be against socialism, is using socialism to encourage the inefficient use of fossil fuels.
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 14706
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
Location: Right here, a little less busy.

Post by henry quirk »

"Self-ownership is a fictitious claim."

I don't own me? I don't own my car? I don't own my typewriter?

Interesting.

#

"if there is no government, then there is no military defending a country's borders. If there is no military, then one's country will be overtaken by another nation that does tax its people to pay for a military, and after being conquered, one will have to pay taxes to a foreign power. So, there is no way to avoid paying taxes for government. Also, free-trade does not even exist, on any significant level, without a government framework, which establishes a currency, legal property rights, a regulatory framework, etc. This means that all private wealth is earned with the assistance of a government, not merely by means of one's own efforts. This does not even take into account factors like luck."

Where did I advocate for 'no government'?

##

"So, Henry, what would you do if you came down with diabetes at age 6? Would you have been old enough to have bought yourself an insurance policy to cover your illness? No."

The burden of 'me', at six, was on my parents. I and they were fortunate I was a healthy kid.

The burden of me, at 19, was on me. I was insured by way of my own efforts and was glad for it.

The burden of me, at 54 is on me. I was insured quite nicely till the ACA. I had a nice catastrophic policy which was deemed substandard by the provisions of the ACA. After, all that was available were polices offering a whack of crap I don't need, at prices I can't afford. I could get a subsidy, but -- tell me --- how am I furthered by being moved from self-sufficiency to parasitism?

I want what I had and might have it again if clever busybodies would butt out.

##

"You made this all about you and your desires while ignoring the needs of your fellow citizens"

I take care of me and my family.

Why don't you do the same?
Science Fan
Posts: 843
Joined: Fri May 26, 2017 5:01 pm

Re: Why are U.S. citizens ignoring the 6% gain on GDP, by not nationalizing health care?

Post by Science Fan »

Henry: The concept of "self-ownership" is used to reject a government. The argument basically goes as follows: Since a person owns themselves, then they own all the fruit of their labor, and thus, it is theft to tax them. Without taxes, no government. Even if one left taxation to a purely voluntary system, there would be so many free-riders, it would be insufficient to support a government.

Self-ownership is a made-up fiction. When you argue that you can own things like a car, notice that you are speaking of objects that are external to yourself. Ownership refers to having rights in something external to yourself, so making up the term "self-ownership" makes no sense. It's a made-up ideological concept so that some people can claim taxation is the equivalent of slavery, when it is no such thing. Without government, there can be no free-market system. Unless one makes taxes mandatory, a government cannot effectively exist, and there can be no free-market system to even claim the fruits of one's labor. The reality is that many private and public factors go into the earning of income.
Science Fan
Posts: 843
Joined: Fri May 26, 2017 5:01 pm

Re: Why are U.S. citizens ignoring the 6% gain on GDP, by not nationalizing health care?

Post by Science Fan »

You don't just take care of you and your family. That's a mythical belief that has no empirical support. I pay taxes, which provide military protection for your family. You are not the only one paying for military protection, a judicial branch of government, a road system, energy infrastructure so that businesses can even be established in the first place, etc., etc. There is something like a web of national and even international connections and arrangements that are involved in you supposedly taking care of your family. You are merely denying everyone else's involvement. In fact, throughout your earlier years, you paid for none of these government structures.
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 14706
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
Location: Right here, a little less busy.

Post by henry quirk »

"The concept of "self-ownership" is used to reject a government."

Or to justify paying for the defense and maintenance government provides.

#

"The argument basically goes as follows: Since a person owns themselves, then they own all the fruit of their labor, and thus, it is theft to tax them. Without taxes, no government. Even if one left taxation to a purely voluntary system, there would be so many free-riders, it would be insufficient to support a government."

My argument basically: I own me...I(and a whack of other folks) pay folks we hire (elect) to tend to to large management and maintenance so that we all can go about our business mostly unmolested by each other.

#

"Self-ownership is a made-up fiction."

Nope it's as real as me sittin' here, typing.

#

"...making up the term "self-ownership" makes no sense."

I'm thinkin' a whole whack of folks through history, folks who were enslaved, would argue that self-ownership/self-possession is real, and that they were deprived theirs.

#

"You don't just take care of you and your family."

Sci, you know exactly what I mean, you aren't that friggin' dense.
Post Reply