Find Reviews by Make:
TTAC commentator Corky Boyd offers a timely analysis:
“The administration has loaned or agreed to loan a total of $65 billion to GM and Chrysler in exchange for 60 percent ownership of GM and an 8 percent stake in Chrysler.”
If the two produce 3.5 million vehicles for the year (and that’s on the high side), that’s over $17,000 per vehicle of subsidy. And that doesn’t include the $15 billion loan to GM the government forgave in the bankruptcy and the infusion Chrysler will need before the end of the year.
Last year brought the use of a new term in finance, “Cash Burn.” I guess it’s a take off on the aviation term of fuel burn. It’s a very casual term for billions of taxpayer dollars that have to be used to make up the “burn.”
52 Comments on “Bailout Watch 576: Feel the Burn...”
Read all comments
What a coincidence! $17,000 is how much the Toyota Tacoma pickup I can’t afford costs.
Government motors could buy it for me with my money….
John
It’s this kind of math that wants me to take out a full page ad in every major newspaper in America with the bold headline: WAKE UP, AMERICA.
$17,000 per damned car. $4,500 per clunker. $8,000 per first time homeowner.
It cannot be sustained, and when the swamp finally does, you’re going to be looking at a mountain of muddy corpses a mile high.
I’ve wondered about this from the get go. The government could have avoided the whole bucks for trucks thing by simply issuing a big tax credit for people who bought new cars. I’m talking big, like 50% of the sale price up to $15,000 or something like that. Seeing as the whole debacle began in the waning days of the Bush administration before the inauguration, there would have been time for lots of people to get new rides before April 15th. A good kick in the economy back in the February/March time frame might have made a really big difference, and the CFC mess would not have coincided with the shift to a new model year.
And it would have cost less than $17,000 per car as indicated above.
findude: I didn’t even consider, whoever buys now buys an (almost) old model year.
The USSR won the cold war. no one can convince me they didn’t win and forced us to use their economic system. the people that work hard pay taxes so that all the other people can get government subsidies (which is a pay off to shut up and vote appropriately)
So we give money to people who:
– can’t afford a house, but we push them into one
– can’t afford a car, but we push them into a new one
– extend unemployment to pay people to do nothing (as opposed to taxing them less if they do work)
– give money to GM et a to pay the UAW and mangers to do nothing
– give money to banks who pay themselves millions of bonuses
It really would suck to have to get up every morning, work hard and pay taxes for all that.
Best show on TV over the past few years, but the season is way too short.
Concerning the cash burn for cars, new buyers houses and “stimulus package,” hreardon is right, it will be worse than if they had let the companies die and allow those that have a sustainable business plan to flourish. There will be more people in economic trauma because there are too many people with real short memories.
The term “cash burn” has been around for quite some time. Just a nit.
You aren’t considering the tax portion of that 17k. State sales tax, local tax (if any) and property tax increases that would generate tax income. Also fees for registration, etc.
Of course figuring that out would require us to know how many of those cars are going to people who would not otherwise be buying a new car.
Just say’n.
How can you know that the loans won’t be repaid, as they were by some of the Banks that received money from TARP? If any part of the loans are repaid, then what happens to your math?
And all accomplished is further decimation of America’s auto industry. Sans bailout, Michigan voters would no longer face well funded opposition from a bunch of entrenched welfare recipients, and would quickly vote a less toxic and parasitic government into office. And then they would, once again, be a thriving manufacturing state.
Michael Weston: “An auto maker needs to know how to how long you can bluff customers into your showrooms with promises of quality that you cannot deliver. But when they burn you, you need to have a backup plan. The best backup plan is a bailout from the government. So long as you have a union, they always pay and they never expect their money back.”
I would like to have his black Charger.
“How can you know that the loans won’t be repaid, as they were by some of the Banks that received money from TARP? If any part of the loans are repaid, then what happens to your math?”
How are they going to reach profit and be able of repaying? Like, charging 34 grand for a 17 000 dollar car? If they repay those loans, the money must first have been accumulated, that means a profit above 65 billion dollars. That money is a write off, there’s no other way to see it.
Sad that I have to bet against the US dollar in order to financial secure my family.
Sad…
Burn Notice rules!
Long live Sam Axe!!!!!!
@jpcavanaugh
I’ve alerted the UK police force to file charges against you for attempted murder as I nearly killed myself laughing reading your comment!
I’m not into the whole Howard Stern fantasy of two women, but being sandwiched between Gabrielle Anwar and Heather Graham might be fun. Just sayin’.
Unless you think they are going to give them 65 billion every year, there isn’t any reason to compare the size of the loans and the annual production levels.
exactly
minor quibble: I’ve heard cash burn in the biotech industry for well over a decade. This is used to figure out how quickly a company will go out of business if profits don’t increase or burn rate doesn’t decrease. Normal when you’re tlaking about companies trying to come up with great cures or treatments but that aren’t making money yet, or making very little. Never thought I’d hear it in connection with the D-3.
Look, all those billions are basiaclly an attempt to prevent the unemployment rate from jumping an additional 1-3% or more at a time when it is already at a record high. Yes, a lot (but not all) are highly paid union jobs, but even ignoring the fact that they are major component of the Democratic base, this would still be needed to prevent the economy from collapsing further. Remember, the initial auto bailouts were enacted under the Bush administration.
Once the economy recovers, GM and Chrysler will be forced to sink or swim on their own (they will almost certainly sink, especially Chrysler). But, for national economic reasons, it’s not a good idea to let them fail now, or six months ago.
As much as nobody likes it, the auto bailouts, along with the banking and AIG bailouts, probably prevented a second Great Depression.
Geotpf is correct. The economy in the USA started tanking big time way back in 2006 when the sub-prime mess started. Basically, about SIX TRILLION dollars have been removed from the investment pool in the USA, mostly by very wealthy investors, people who benefited greatly from the Bush adminstration. The government has two choices: it can spend like hell or hold the line. If it spends like crazy, it can lure that investment back into the economy because if said investors don’t, their cash will depreciate. The Great Depression was ended by massive government spending, which in turn spurred private investment money back into the economy. It doesn’t much matter if you build bombs, tanks or cars, what has to be done now to prevent a total melt down is spend like mad. Then when the economy is rolling again, tax the money that you printed back to prevent high inflation. This is exactly what was done during WWII, by the way.
The prescient point here is many of my American neighbours do not seem to realise what a predicament they are in now, and especially don’t realise how close to total disaster they were last fall.
What also has to be done is to make sure it doesn’t happen again. The causes of the Great Recession were practically identical to the Great Depression. The regulations that we enacted to prevent just what happened last year were steadily removed starting with Regan in 1981. Many individuals became fantastically rich and the average taxpayer got the bill. And who says history doesn’t repeat itself.
@Canucknucklehead
Good plan.. For a creditor nation. After WWII ended most countries owed their very existence to the USA and the USA called the shots.
Best credit you can have is saving someone’s life. The USA did that for millions of folks during WWII.
Now the USA is a debtor nation. China and the EU call the shots this time around. Nobody owes the USA… We owe everyone..
The USA needs the same thing GM needs.. A massive enema of humble pie and about 30 years of servitude to work off our debts to the world.
@Geotpf,@Canucklehead: Well said. Fiscal is about the only thing you could do in this environment.
Thanks so much, CRA Communists and De-Regulating Malignant Capitalist Scum!!!
Well, lw, America needs to take a long hard look at what led to this mess. How did America go from being the largest creditor nation to the largest debtor in the Regan era? This entire mess started with Regan. Sure, he made people feel good but the man spent like mad and cut taxes just as madly (among many other disasters he started, like the “war on drugs”). I have never understood my neighbours to the south; the are mad about cutting taxes and don’t for a second think of the consequences of doing it.
The whole sub-prime mess was in effect a way of raising tax revenue through new home construction. Mortgage interest tax deductibility was a way of raising consumption taxes. One way or another, any economy is going to have to pay for the services its citizens receive. What has happened in America is in effect being presented a bill for thirty years of deferred taxes for services rendered.
How are they going to reach profit and be able of repaying? Like, charging 34 grand for a 17 000 dollar car?
Immediate liquidation of these two companies would cascade to extremely significant job loses at the worse possible time.
They’re not necessarily companies worth saving, but that’s not the importance point here. Again, think about who made the most money by not winding down these dinosaurs years years ago, and take out vengeance against those who spilled the burden of costs onto the rest of us. It would help in this endeavor to figure who was lying about UAW line workers making $75/hr, and their motive in doing so.
Labor costs for the domestics did, in fact, average over $70 an hour. (That is different from saying that UAW workers make that much an hour.) And the UAW was one of the chief beneficiaries of these companies surviving past their expiration date. (Obviously, it wasn’t the only party.)
If GM and Chrysler had died, then the UAW basically died with them. The union would have represented workers at one manufacturer – Ford – making it very hard, if not impossible, for the union to resist any serious concessions requested by the company. That puts the final nail in the coffin of any organizing attempts at the transplants – if the transplants set the pay and benefits level for the domestic industry, then why would workers pay union dues to get the same level of pay and benefits that they are already receiving?
The argument that we couldn’t afford to let GM and Chrysler fail was valid late last year. We didn’t know what the effect of a GM and Chrysler failure would have on the supplier base, and thus, on Ford, Toyota, Honda, Nissan, Hyundai, BMW and Mercedes.
The key test comes in the coming months. The economy looks to be improving. The federal government needs to take another hard look at pumping pumping additional money into GM and Chrysler. (And it needs to let Fiat put its own money into Chrysler, and, if possible, pair GM off with a stronger company.)
If it continues to shovel money into these companies after the worst with the economy has occurred, then this does have more to do with paying off political supporters than saving the economy.
@Cannucknucklehead:
Regarding “America needs to take a long hard look at what led to this mess. How did America go from being the largest creditor nation to the largest debtor”
Why does it matter? I guess if we pay off our debts and buy back our country in 20-30 years and then some smart person says “Whew.. We dug out of that hole.. Time to make sure we never dig it again” it would matter.
At this point who cares why? We are in a hole and we should stop digging.
Too all those who want to spend our way out of this recession…
Nothing is stopping you.
Go max out all of your credit cards, buy an extra vacation home and refuse to pay the marked price for anything.
How many weeks has it been since you bought a car? 3? 4? What’s stopping you?! Go this weekend and buy everything they will sell you. Pay double for the undercoating!
Going to Wal-Mart and your bill is $110? Round it up! Give the girl $200 and walk out!
Once you’ve maxed yourself out, go steal credit cards from family members that have been frugal. Max them out! When you run out of credit, take extra hours at work. Get your kids summer jobs so they can get credit cards.
Wife not working, but she needs to take care of the kids during the day? Have her take a night shift in the local warehouse then she can get credit cards under her SSN and you open up a whole new credit stream!
Don’t rely on the government to spend enough! Rely on yourself!!
Comparing the budget of a national government to that of a personal household is pretty stupid. Comparing the extremely low interest rate at which the U.S. government can borrow (it can borrow more cheaply than any entity on Earth) to credit card debt is doubly stupid. Thinking that an individual household can, in any way, majorly effect the economy as deeply as the U.S. government can takes the cake.
@BDB
Let’s see.. personal consumption is ~70% of GDP in this country…
How much is US government spending?
Get some facts before you call someone’s position stupid.
If you believe that spending is the solution, then do it. If you just want it to be the solution (likely because you don’t like the other options) but aren’t committed to it personally, then sit quietly while those that have a position and are committed to it take action.
My position is that too much spending/debt got us into this mess and that less spending/paying down debt will get us out.
I run my life that way and I expect my government to operate the same way. So I’ve earned a voice.
personal consumption is ~70% of GDP in this country…
Yes, but my, individual, personal consumption is jack s**t. Plus I can’t borrow money nearly as cheaply as the government.
My position is that too much spending/debt got us into this mess and that less spending/paying down debt will get us out.
You and Herbert Hoover. Times of prosperity are when you pay down debt, not during a recession. This is true no matter if you are a government or a large corporation. Imagine if Toyota, because they are facing losses, decided to put all its new product development on hold right now, and froze spending on everything besides paying down debt. It would be corporate suicide.
So what I’m saying is that the proper analogy for the budget of a national government isn’t a personal household, it’s the modern corporation. Anyone in big businesses knows you often have to spend money to make money.
Well, this is the conundrum that American faces: it can either do a Herbert Hoover and cut spending and plunge into a depression, it can spend like crazy and keep a depression from happening. It is not a difficult choice in my opinion.
As for debt, again, this is something Americans have to have a long, hard look at. In the 2000 election campaign, both parties were actually talking about paying off the national debt by 2012. Now America is dealing with debt levels that is has not seen since the end of WWII. The reasons are simple: Bush spent like crazy on things that were neither assets nor productive while at the same time cut taxes on the ultra-rich with as much gusto as he spent. The then tried to balance the equation by making it easy to borrow and hopefully generate enough consumption taxes to balance the equation. Fact is, it was a complete and utter failure. Even worse were laws that allowed banks to sell off loans, something unheard of in other developed countries.
So there is a huge mess, no doubt about it. America really needs to look at a few things:
1. How many people are involved in non-productive work? This includes police, prisons, the military and how does this affect the standard of living?
2. Access to education. Is there a link to America’s present situation and access to education?
3. Tax policy. Does America want to have things but not want to pay for them?
4. Health care. Twenty nine OECD countries have a national health insurance system, one does not.
5. VAT. Twenty none OECD countries have a VAT and one does not.
I could go on but I am not sure that America is really ready to make the intellectual leap that is necessary to fix itself. It is pretty obvious that the supply siders were a bunch of crooks and that doesn’t work. Even Bush Sr called it “Voodoo Economics.” Didn’t stop him from supporting it, though!
@BDB
Regarding “Times of prosperity are when you pay down debt, not during a recession. This is true no matter if you are a government or a large corporation.”
Finally, we agree!
So when was the last time we were prosperous and paid down debt in this country?
The 70s? Nope…
The 80s? Nope…
The 90s? Nope…
2000 – 2009? Nope…
So we’ve had 40 years of being poor and spending more and more money to get rich….
How many more trillion must be spent before your right?
The 90s? Nope…
Um, actually, that’s a big fat YES, at least starting in the mid-90s. And we did in the late 40s 50s, 60s, and most of the 70s as well.
http://blogs.usask.ca/the_bolt/images/usa_debt_versus_gdp.gif
@BDB
Total debt that this country is in. The US government is just a small part of our debt.
You’ve got federal debt, state debt, local debt, businesses, households.. Lots of debt!
Try this link/site for some perspective.
http://mwhodges.home.att.net/nat-debt/debt-nat-a.htm#bigpicture
Well, if you want to shift the goal posts to personal debt, we can talk about how we’ve been following economic policies that have caused our real wages to be stagnant for middle-class families since the mid-70s (with a brief reprieve from 1995-2001). So people make up for it by borrowing insane amounts to support a rising standard of living even though their wages have been stagnant. That’s quite a different issue from government debt.
@BDB
We agree again. Economic policies for the last 40 years have rewarding spending, not saving. They have rewarding debt to make ends meet, not production.
One example I like is the minimum wage. 30 years ago you could eat in a cafeteria. Real dishes, real silverware and a kid to bus tables. Another kid to wash dishes. Both making a buck or two an hour. Not a living wage, but hey they are living with their parents and just want enough to buy a used car.
Now at $7+ an hour, I get plastic everything, bus my own table and fill my own cup with drink. The business can’t even afford a kid to run the dishwasher. So the customer does the work.
So now those 2 kids are unemployed and mommy/daddy are maxing the credit cards to get the kid a 4 year degree in a field that isn’t even hiring…
Doesn’t seem like progress to me…
Canucknucklehead,
1. Way too many. First, how to measure productive? Value of output minus value of inputs. If positive, an activity is productive. If negative, it’s non productive, as it literally destroys value. How to measure value? By competitive bidding. Any other way, results in nothing but subjective “I feel this is valuable and you’re wrong” endless nonproductive ( :) ) arguments.
So, productive work is work whose output fetches higher bids in open auction than the sum of its inputs. Which, is simply another way of saying, work that’s profitable in an undistorted market open to all. Now, since non productive work is, by the above, definitionally self limiting (If its outputs sells for less than the sum of its inputs, sooner or later there will be no more resources available to pay for more inputs, and the activity will cease.), a surefire way of ensuring work is predominantly of the productive kind, is to avoid meddling with open markets. Let everyone have equal access to vote with their wallets, and non productive work will soon cease to be a major part of the total.
2. Access to education is, like access to anything else, improved by removing barriers that prevent one from obtaining it. Assuming access to education to mean access to the best possible education, the question becomes, how to ensure this? And how does one rank different educations for ‘betterness’? By seeing how much one is willing to give up for each one of them, of course. While I may be willing to give up one of my car’s turbos for Einstein’s physics education, I sure would not be willing to make that trade for the opportunity to learn how to dance around like an imaginary Hottentot celebrating Kwanzaa for the amusement of some slumming minority fancier. Hence, I can say, that for me at least, the former education is more valuable than the latter one, and access to education is improved by me being able to make that choice. So, the important part, is choice. The more choices and the less coercion, the more different educations I can choose from. Hence, the better access to education I have.
3. America has no wants. It’s a landmass. Americans as individuals, however, have wants. And, with the possible exception of Buddha like characters in a coma, they all want things they don’t particularly want to, or are able to, pay for. Like bigger V8’s. Or Carbon Sequestration plants.
4. One OECD country originates and popularizes more new forms of treatment than pretty much the rest of them combined. Care to guess which one? Then, for extra credit, think about what caused health care today to be better than it was yesterday. Political sloganeering, or invention and popularization of new treatments?
5. Mid 1700’s: All countries pay tax to a divine monarch of some kind, who has extensive claims on their lives and output. Except one.
think about what caused health care today to be better than it was yesterday. Political sloganeering, or invention and popularization of new treatments?
Perhaps, but are these “advances” leading to a healthier population? Besides, many of these “advances” are not available to millions since they have no insurance, cannot obtain insurance or have insurance that will not pay for said “advances.”
@Canucknucklehead
First, think about how you would go about measuring “healthier”. Life expectancies are one way, often favored by lovers of simplistic statistics. Statins, invented and popularized to “cure” high cholesterol related mortality in guess what OECD country, has definitely had a positive impact in this regard. So has many other treatments advances, like MRI scans.
A more comprehensive way to measure “healthier”, would be to look at what scenarios people would be able to trade to and from. Given the ability to chose between the treatments available in 1940 vs. the ones available today, what would most people choose? Even in socialized medicine countries?
All experience with technological advances suggest that over time, they come down in price, and go up in availability. In unregulated, or even lightly regulated, fields, that is. Look at ABS brakes and cell phones. At one point, millions of people faced grave health risks stemming from their inability to call for an ambulance outside their house, due to them not being able to afford a cell phone. While those pesky “rich people” did not have such a problem.
Regardless of insurance costs, I assume you would agree that your ability to afford insurance, and in fact ability to afford anything, declines as you is forced to subsidize more and more bureaucrats and politicians collecting high public sector wages and pensions yakking about how “they” will provide you with insurance and other things. And that this ability, as well, declines if it’s price is forced to include salaries to another layer of bureaucrats and lawyers to make sure their insurance plans complies with the childish regulations issued by the first layer.
All these clowns are pure friction, at best. And, as the first group is often open to capture by the second, or by other strong, concentrated interests (That’d be, not the sick poor guy), they’ll in reality end up being substantially worse than friction. Who do you expect to have his best interest looked after in a socialized system; some poor sick guy without a voice who might benefit from his hospital buying another MRI scanner, or a powerful public sector union who’d rather the money be spent on pensions for people who do “important work”. I have some experience with a well-regarded-by-‘progressives’ health care system in a Northern European country, and I’ll guarantee you, it’s not the patient. Which is kind of why you’ll never run out of stories about the lucky few of these, who happen to both have enough savings, and enough knowledge, to drag themselves over to our shores and get treatment they’d never get at home. Regardless of how much Michael Moore proclaims to love their “system”.
Well, the 29 OECD countries that provide health insurance to their citizens are wrong. And the one that does not is right. QED. America is always right.
Now, since non productive work is, by the above, definitionally self limiting (If its outputs sells for less than the sum of its inputs, sooner or later there will be no more resources available to pay for more inputs, and the activity will cease.), a surefire way of ensuring work is predominantly of the productive kind, is to avoid meddling with open markets.
It this like the idealize theory of communism? The best way to make money is to get rid of the competition, or create legal protection for theft. Nice guys who follow the rules do not win in your neat and tidy cut throat crony system. Did you really expect it to when the first incentive is to promote greed and other human vices?
—
The rubes always like to think high level politicians cater to their constituents. If only we had it so good. With the advent of powerful modern PR, who do you think is providing the money and incentives to create the framework?
—
Regardless of insurance costs, I assume you would agree that your ability to afford insurance, and in fact ability to afford anything, declines as you is forced to subsidize more and more bureaucrats and politicians collecting high public sector wages and pensions yakking about how “they” will provide you with insurance and other things
High public sector wages? Really? Is that why they all love to jump to corporations after a career to create the rotating door effect?
Are you aware of how health insurance works on the “open market” when you buy your own? Generally what happens is that you are overcharged due to your inability to collective bargain, then if you actually get sick enough to REALLY need it, you are denied on technicalities (after they were happy to take premiums up to then) and nothing you can do about it due to disparate levels of legal representation.
—
Who do you expect to have his best interest looked after in a socialized system; some poor sick guy without a voice who might benefit from his hospital buying another MRI scanner, or a powerful public sector union who’d rather the money be spent on pensions for people who do “important work”.
Yeah, indeed, whose interests are being looked after? For example, in britain, money is administered by a local committee of doctors who decide what is the best way to meter care to maximize a community’s health. In the US, care is divided by legal contracts, and ultimately a bean counter who takes into account the cost of treatment versus the potential loses from a lawsuit if you dump you to the curb.
What I find common to people making your type of statements about “socialism” are that they describe some rich person who is livid the public (those damn doctors) is not paying for his MRI, and has to use his own money to buy supplemental care (or more likely get it as a job perk like how it’s done for pretty much everyone today). Oh the humanity. So are you trying to mislead us on purpose or only because you don’t know better?
Canucknucklehead:
If America was always right, or even right with respect to health care, we would not be having this debate. America’s health care system is screwed up. Every single one of the thousands of pages of laws and regulations devoted to it. But the way to make it less screwed up, is not to go even further in the direction that screwed it up in the first place, in a desperate attempt to catch up with countries even more screwed up than we are.
From a federal government point of view, America used to have good health care legislation. Back when Jefferson was president. They called it the tenth amendment. It worked then. Why not now? Many individual states are larger than most countries with supposedly well ran public health care systems in Europe.
So why can’t, say, California run PelosiCare. Texas Bush Care. New England Romneycare. And perhaps some Rocky Mountain States Ron Paul Care? And then people under each system can, over time, see which system seems the most successful. Instead of us, and a bunch of yahoos dumber, more corrupt and more personally ambitious than us, sitting around and arguing about it in the abstract. At least then the federal politicos could make some plausible claim they were at least trying to stay within their constitutionally enumerated bounds.
Seeing how the individual Euro countries seem to have overwhelmingly come down on the Pelosi/Romney care side, I can’t see why the left, especially, are so opposed to getting the feds out of the game, and letting “the best system win.” Heck, if Right to Work legislation had been set at a Federal instead of state level, we would no longer have had any viable auto industry in this country. As it is, at least the Southern states seem to have gotten it (comparatively) right, and, barring (again, federal level) corruption and theft, the Northern one’s would likely have learned from them by now.
agenthex,
I don’t know exactly what you are talking about most of the time, but in a world with no state coercion beyond simple property rights protection, to “make money” and “win”, you have to provide something of higher value to a counterparty than the money you are expecting them to hand you. “Greed”, “Human Vices” “Cut throat cronies”, “communism” and other evil sounding words notwithstanding.
High level politicians cater to themselves. As does low level politicians. Stock brokers, record store owners, Goldman Sachs employees, public school teachers, college students and You and I. Even English doctors in local committees, despite what they might claim when attempting to get their hands on other people’s money. Because of this facet of human (or any specie resulting from Darwinian evolution against a resource constrained backdrop) nature, optimal outcomes will be reached when none of the above groups of people, nor any other, be given carte blanche to appropriate the end result of work done by people other than themselves.
When the debate is about people who “can not” afford insurance, public sector wages and benefits are comparatively generous. Do public sector workers have no access to health insurance where you come from?
If people are systematically overcharged for health insurance, or any insurance, in a competitive market, the provider makes outsized profits compared to what he would by employing his capital elsewhere. That means there is room to make slightly lower outsized profits by charging people slightly less. Recursively. Do you suppose other capitalists would somehow just pass up this opportunity, and rather make less? While I agree our current system is not exactly the most barrier free and deregulated, using that as an argument to screw it up even further, seems a bit odd, to say the least.
I suppose one could argue a local committee of car dealers would make better decisions about what cars people should buy to maximize “the community’s” driving experience, as well. I’m sure the car dealers would love it. As for the rest of us TTAC readers, I’m somewhat less sure.
I don’t quite understand what seems to be your closing attempt at a slur, but I pay for my MRI’s. With money saved up by not being taxed to pay for Obamacare. No waiting in lines. And only $50/month in catastrophic health insurance. As well, healthy me had access to several of the machines a good bit before they were even in service for the sickest of patients in socialized medicine countries. Where people died as a result. Many undoubtedly leaving enough money to their heirs to easily have been able to afford a scan even back then, had there been a health care system in place allowing hospitals first mover profits by bringing in the latest and greatest in diagnostic tools.
I don’t know exactly what you are talking about most of the time, but in a world with no state coercion beyond simple property rights protection, to “make money” and “win”, you have to provide something of higher value to a counterparty than the money you are expecting them to hand you.
Of course you don’t, the “free market” is founded on narrow-minded ignorance of how human society works.
Why compete when you can merge or conspire to fix prices? Hey, did you know you can save a lot of money by dumping waste on everybody else? Why educate consumers when lying is more profitable?
This (especially that last bit) seems quite evidence when you consider most people are well content with their simpleton view of “market” economics.
—
Because of this facet of human (or any specie resulting from Darwinian evolution against a resource constrained backdrop) nature, optimal outcomes will be reached when none of the above groups of people, nor any other, be given carte blanche to appropriate the end result of work done by people other than themselves.
Just look at how much our education system has failed against the hillbilly science propagated by the forces of “market” PR.
Did you know that humans are naturally cooperative, often giving up maximal personal advantage in order to better serve community interests? So much so that individuals unable to do this are considered considered psychopaths? How do you think stable societies ever form, especially when there are weaker members who can’t pull their own weight?
Do you know of ANY natural culture ever formed where greed and selfishness is considered anywhere near a virtue? How does your corporate marketing department explain this? You think they took the course on darwinian evolution or just make some shit up to feed the plebs?
—
Recursively. Do you suppose other capitalists would somehow just pass up this opportunity, and rather make less?
Why would anyone charge less when the system allows currently allows everyone to make more off human misery? Do you really think members of an oligopolistic system are out to minimize their profits?
BTW, how much are you willing to pay when you’re in pain on a hospital bed? You think someone’s going to come along to give you the best deal or milk it for all it’s worth? Given your general aptitude toward society, I think we know what is the right approach.
—
When the debate is about people who “can not” afford insurance, public sector wages and benefits are comparatively generous. Do public sector workers have no access to health insurance where you come from?
That wasn’t the original assertion, was it?
—
With money saved up by not being taxed to pay for Obamacare. No waiting in lines. And only $50/month in catastrophic health insurance. As well, healthy me had access to several of the machines a good bit before they were even in service for the sickest of patients in socialized medicine countries. Where people died as a result.
Save the embellishments for the morons dumb enough to believe it. What insurer is idiotic enough to sell MRI’s to anyone for $50/month? The first time you need it, they’ll be looking for some excuse to deny you unless you’re lawyered up enough that it’s not worth their effort.
Tell me, when a real medical committee decides how to best spend resources, are they going for the MRI for someone who can afford it themselves or simple prenatal care for many more average folks? Or do you think what “conservatives” consider dead weight (ie. poor people) in society is not worth it? If you’re going for the selfish greed angle, at least own up to it.
BTW, “Obamacare” is only public insurance, in most forms only for those without it. It sucks specifically because it’s not what the wingers like to pretend is (real socialized healthcare). Final question: do the wingers realize they’re propagating these untruths? I’m thinking it’s willful ignorance, but YMMV.
agenthex: High public sector wages? Really? Is that why they all love to jump to corporations after a career to create the rotating door effect?
You need to look at exactly who is jumping from the public sector to the private sector. It tends to be the high-level public-sector employees who transfer to a corporate or consulting group job that pays a very hefty salary (well into the six figures). Many of those people are political appointees, so their jobs end when their sponsor leaves office anyway.
The mid-level and lower public-sector employees aren’t moving to the private sector, because the benefits (in particular, pensions) are much better for public-sector employees than private-sector employees at that level.
Corporations have moved to eliminate pensions for employees; virtually no state and local governments have not done this as of yet. (The federal government did switch to a 401(k) type plan back in the 1980s.)
agenthex: For example, in britain, money is administered by a local committee of doctors who decide what is the best way to meter care to maximize a community’s health. In the US, care is divided by legal contracts, and ultimately a bean counter who takes into account the cost of treatment versus the potential loses from a lawsuit if you dump you to the curb.
In Great Britain, virtually everyone who can afford private insurance purchases it. This is true for virtually every European country.
The national health insurance programs are good at providing basic care, but health decisions are driven as much by cost concerns as any private plan in the U.S.
The idea that, in Europe, doctors are freed from cost concerns when making a decision as to what treatment or drug to prescribe, is a myth.
The European plans are equally cost-driven, as they are virtually all running big deficits (in France, for example, the public system deficit is up to $14 billion, and growing), while private companies in the U.S. run a much higher risk of a lawsuit for denying care. (It is much riskier to sue for medical malpractice in Great Britain than it is in the U.S., for example, because of “loser pays” rules instituted by the former.)
I understand that our health care system has problems. But the people who advocate national insurance tend to have NO idea how the nationalized plans really work in Europe, and the limited impact that the adoption of such plans would have on U.S. health statistics.
It’s like saying that if everyone in the U.S. drove a Porsche, Mercedes, Audi or BMW, the U.S. could abolish speed limits on large portions of the national interstate system, too, and magically have fatality rates comparable to those of Germany. Wouldn’t work that way…
The mid-level and lower public-sector employees aren’t moving to the private sector,
Did I say they were? Look at the context of the original question. The only people payed higher wages are the ones with connections which are valuable to corps.
—
In Great Britain, virtually everyone who can afford private insurance purchases it. This is true for virtually every European country.
Or it’s provided as a job perk, as it’s supposed to be, so what’s the problem?
—
The idea that, in Europe, doctors are freed from cost concerns when making a decision as to what treatment or drug to prescribe, is a myth.
It’s not a “myth” because no makes the assertion in the first place. The point is that a limited budget is better allocated for health by doctors than insurance agents and often obscure legal obligations.
—
while private companies in the U.S. run a much higher risk of a lawsuit for denying care.
That’s because a large corp employer has significant bargaining power and legal resources. If you’re all by your lonesome, good luck.
Given a choose between paying for a 10k operation, and denying using legal strategies for 5k, which do you think a strategy properly predicated on profit will choose?
This is a large systematic problem, which is why the politically cheap solutions will not work in changing it.
—
But the people who advocate national insurance tend to have NO idea how the nationalized plans really work in Europe, and the limited impact that the adoption of such plans would have on U.S. health statistics.
So you’re the “expert” here? Tell us how “obamacare” is anything but an additional insurance plan (tho I guess at a decent rate given the bargaining power of the feds).
The single-payer euro’s pay about half for similar results. The universal insurance euro’s pay somewhere in-between us and the first group almost without fail. I think that’s a pretty good deal considering the sizable cost of heathcare, but apparently some are so afraid of saving some money (perhaps taking profit and waste out of their pocket?) that they have to resort to scare tactics.
If we’re going to exchange accusations of killing people, who do you think is easier to put on the short end of the stick? Some poor folks or the wealthy.
agenthex: Did I say they were? Look at the context of the original question. The only people payed higher wages are the ones with connections which are valuable to corps.
This is what you originally posted:
High public sector wages? Really? Is that why they all love to jump to corporations after a career to create the rotating door effect?
You said nothing about people who have “connections” to corporations, and neither did the poster that you originally responded to. Nor did you limit your post to higher-level employees.
You cannot consider the people who take high-level corporate jobs after a high-level government job to be “typical” corporate employees.
The bottom line is that benefit and retirement packages for mid- and low-level employees in government employment are more generous than those for comparable employees of private corporations.
If you meant only those higher-level corporate employees, then fine, you are correct, but they are hardly typical of corporate employees, and the poster who originally brought up the point was not limiting his reference to them.
agenthex: Or it’s provided as a job perk, as it’s supposed to be, so what’s the problem?
If the nationalized system is so great, then why do large numbers of people feel the need to purchase private insurance?
After all, your post suggested that committees of doctors in England are the ones making critical health care decisions under the national system. The implication being that they are thus freed from the obsession with controlling cost and increasing insurance company profits that supposedly plagues America’s system.
If this is the case, then one wonders why anyone would feel the need to pay extra for private insurance, given that they are already heavily taxed to pay for the national plan.
Rational people WOULD rather have a doctor as opposed to an actuary administering treatment dollars. On that point, you are entirely correct.
The key is how the plan is executed, and what parameters doctors are using when making those decisions. Not to mention the treatment tools those doctors using the national system have at their disposal. Given that virtually everyone in Europe who can afford to purchase private insurance does so, it’s pretty obvious that they don’t want to rely entirely on their respective nationalized system, even if a committee of doctors is handling treatment dollars.
agenthex: It’s not a “myth” because no makes the assertion in the first place.
Yes, you did: For example, in britain, money is administered by a local committee of doctors who decide what is the best way to meter care to maximize a community’s health.
agenthex: That’s because a large corp employer has significant bargaining power and legal resources. If you’re all by your lonesome, good luck.
It’s because of the U.S. court system and the rules governing medical malpractice case, and the fact that it is harder, if not impossible, to sue a government, as compared to suing a private company.
I see nothing in the proposed plans being advanced by the President regarding medical malpractice reform, which is critical to controlling costs.
Remember, the President’s proposal is also being pitched as a cost-control measure, not just as a way to extend health insurance to the uninsured.
agenthex: So you’re the “expert” here?
No, and I never said I was. But no other posters are, either.
agenthex: Tell us how “obamacare” is anything but an additional insurance plan (tho I guess at a decent rate given the bargaining power of the feds).
The idea that any federal government-backed health insurance plan will be “just another insurance plan” is a little naive, at best.
agenthex: The single-payer euro’s pay about half for similar results.
The picture is considerably more complicated when one looks at specific diseases or conditions, particularly those that require advanced treatments or drugs.
Here are some facts:
*Americans have better survival rates than Europeans for common cancers. Breast cancer mortality is 52 percent higher in Germany than in the United States and 88 percent higher in the United Kingdom. Prostate cancer mortality is 604 percent higher in the United Kingdom and 457 percent higher in Norway. The mortality rate for colorectal cancer among British men and women is about 40 percent higher.
*Americans have lower cancer mortality rates than Canadians. Breast cancer mortality in Canada is 9 percent higher than in the United States, prostate cancer is 184 percent higher, and colon cancer among men is about 10 percent higher.
*Americans have better access to treatment for chronic diseases than patients in other developed countries. Some 56 percent of Americans who could benefit from statin drugs, which reduce cholesterol and protect against heart disease, are taking them. By comparison, of those patients who could benefit from these drugs, only 36 percent of the Dutch, 29 percent of the Swiss, 26 percent of Germans, 23 percent of Britons, and 17 percent of Italians receive them.
*Americans have better access to preventive cancer screening than Canadians. Of the proportion of the appropriate-age population groups who have received recommended tests for breast, cervical, prostate, and colon cancer:
-Nine out of ten middle-aged American women (89 percent) have had a mammogram, compared to fewer than three-fourths of Canadians (72 percent).
-Nearly all American women (96 percent) have had a Pap smear, compared to fewer than 90 percent of Canadians.
-More than half of American men (54 percent) have had a prostatespecific antigen (PSA) test, compared to fewer than one in six Canadians (16 percent).
-Nearly one-third of Americans (30 percent) have had a colonoscopy, compared with fewer than one in twenty Canadians (5 percent).
*Lower-income Americans are in better health than comparable Canadians. Twice as many American seniors with below-median incomes self-report “excellent” health (11.7 percent) compared to Canadian seniors (5.8 percent). Conversely, white, young Canadian adults with below-median incomes are 20 percent more likely than lower-income Americans to describe their health as “fair or poor.”
*Americans spend less time waiting for care than patients in Canada and the United Kingdom. Canadian and British patients wait about twice as long—sometimes more than a year—to see a specialist, have elective surgery such as hip replacements, or get radiation treatment for cancer. All told, 827,429 people are waiting for some type of procedure in Canada. In Britain, nearly 1.8 million people are waiting for a hospital admission or outpatient treatment.
*Americans have better access to important new technologies such as medical imaging than do patients in Canada or Britain. An overwhelming majority of leading American physicians identify computerized tomography (CT) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) as the most important medical innovations for improving patient care during the previous decade—even as economists and policy makers unfamiliar with actual medical practice decry these techniques as wasteful. The United States has thirty-four CT scanners per million Americans, compared to twelve in Canada and eight in Britain. The United States has almost twenty-seven MRI machines per million people compared to about six per million in Canada and Britain.
*Americans are responsible for the vast majority of all health care innovations. The top five U.S. hospitals conduct more clinical trials than all the hospitals in any other developed country. Since the mid-1970s, the Nobel Prize in medicine or physiology has gone to U.S. residents more often than recipients from all other countries combined. In only five of the past 34 years did a scientist living in the United States not win or share in the prize. Most important recent medical innovations were developed in the United States.
agenthex: If we’re going to exchange accusations of killing people, who do you think is easier to put on the short end of the stick? Some poor folks or the wealthy.
I’ve said nothing about killing anyone, and neither has anyone else.
You said nothing about people who have “connections” to corporations, and neither did the poster that you originally responded to. Nor did you limit your post to higher-level employees.
Look at what I was replying to. Again, context. It’s curious the original commentor’s already dropped it, but you continue on with his attempt to change the context when he found out he was wrong.
—
If the nationalized system is so great, then why do large numbers of people feel the need to purchase private insurance?
Because the nationalized system covers basic care, which scales well to reduce cost when done in a homogeneous manner.
Additional coverage, like the MRI’s some people seem to fixate, are a perk and get purchased separately by people who think it’s worth it like all perks.
—
The implication being that they are thus freed from the obsession with controlling cost and increasing insurance company profits that supposedly plagues America’s system.
Did you see the part about more effective cost control?
—
Yes, you did: For example, in britain, money is administered by a local committee of doctors who decide what is the best way to meter care to maximize a community’s health.
They get a fixed budget, they decide the best way to use that money. Think about what that means.
—
If this is the case, then one wonders why anyone would feel the need to pay extra for private insurance, given that they are already heavily taxed to pay for the national plan.
They spend less overall on health care (all inclusive), so obviously that “heavy tax” is a matter of different accounting.
—
I see nothing in the proposed plans being advanced by the President regarding medical malpractice reform, which is critical to controlling costs.
That’s part of why it sucks. It’s not so much serious reform as an extension to the existing cluster.
—
Remember, the President’s proposal is also being pitched as a cost-control measure, not just as a way to extend health insurance to the uninsured.
The “cost-control” is in the fact that the feds will have serious bargaining power compared to what individuals or small business have now. That’s one of the reasons insurance companies don’t want to lose that easy profit.
—
The picture is considerably more complicated when one looks at specific diseases or conditions, particularly those that require advanced treatments or drugs.
Oh goody, the insurance company talking points list for wingers. This means we must live longer and healthier especially since we’re not all cramped up in tight spaces, right? No? Why, I think those people aren’t being entirely honest.
I especially love the MRI talking point, which must seem such a magical medical device to the rubes.
—
I’ve said nothing about killing anyone, and neither has anyone else.
Didn’t you hear? Socialize medicine kills people, especially old people. They’re going to be rounded up and the government gets to decide who lives and dies, especially since we all know how private insurance agents do a superior job in such things.
agenthex: Look at what I was replying to. Again, context. It’s curious the original commentor’s already dropped it, but you continue on with his attempt to change the context when he found out he was wrong.
I did, and he wasn’t wrong. Benefits and retirement packages for mid-level and lower public-sector employees are more generous than those for comparable private-sector employees. This has been proven repeatedly.
If you want to focus exclusively on executives and top management (for both private- and public-sector employees), even though that wasn’t what the original poster meant, that is fine, but that doesn’t make what I’ve said incorrect.
agenthex: Because the nationalized system covers basic care, which scales well to reduce cost when done in a homogeneous manner.
A nationalized system is certainly not being pitched that (i.e., as a basic care package) way over here.
And won’t the poor people you are concerned about need more than basic care, too? Don’t they contract or develop diseases that require more specialized, unique care? What if they can’t afford the extra insurance coverage to get this care?
agenthex: Additional coverage, like the MRI’s some people seem to fixate, are a perk and get purchased separately by people who think it’s worth it like all perks.
You’ve obviously never had a major health problem, or had any relatives who have had them.
I’m happy for you, but if you think that MRIs are a just a “perk,” and this is the attitude of those who advocate a nationalized system, then you may want rethink just why there is opposition to a nationalized plan.
This aspect of the resistance certainly isn’t coming from insurance companies – they would love to not have to pay for all of those MRIs.
agenthex: Did you see the part about more effective cost control?
Do you realize that they do this by skimping on procedures and not using the latest technologies and treatments? And that their plans run big deficits? Did you read the part where the French system’s deficit is at $14 billion, and climbing?
agenthex: They get a fixed budget, they decide the best way to use that money. Think about what that means.
It means that their decisions are, ultimately, as driven by costs as the private systems over here are.
agenthex: The “cost-control” is in the fact that the feds will have serious bargaining power compared to what individuals or small business have now. That’s one of the reasons insurance companies don’t want to lose that easy profit.
Which will be inadequate to really control costs over the long haul.
agenthex: Oh goody, the insurance company talking points list for wingers. This means we must live longer and healthier especially since we’re not all cramped up in tight spaces, right? No? Why, I think those people aren’t being entirely honest.
If you can’t refute facts, just say so.
agenthex: I especially love the MRI talking point, which must seem such a magical medical device to the rubes.
Again, you obviously have never had a major medical condition.
I’m glad for you, but I would suggest that you refrain from the name-calling of those who disagree with you on the value of this procedure.
The only person you are diminishing is yourself.
agenthex: Didn’t you hear? Socialize medicine kills people, especially old people. They’re going to be rounded up and the government gets to decide who lives and dies, especially since we all know how private insurance agents do a superior job in such things.
As opposed to the fantasy that we will provide a gold-plated health care plan for everyone – while spending less than what we do today?
I did, and he wasn’t wrong.
Look at the original post. He was talking about highly-payed officials:
” forced to subsidize more and more bureaucrats and politicians collecting high public sector wages”
Who the hell in government is getting high wages except those with some influence?
—
And won’t the poor people you are concerned about need more than basic care, too? Don’t they contract or develop diseases that require more specialized, unique care? What if they can’t afford the extra insurance coverage to get this care?
I’m pretty sure the “poor” will prefer the system where they get proper consistent care for most stuff short of highly expensive cancer treatment, vs. nothing or some strange patchwork at best.
—
I’m happy for you, but if you think that MRIs are a just a “perk,” and this is the attitude of those who advocate a nationalized system, then you may want rethink just why there is opposition to a nationalized plan.
While I’m a big fan of using awesome physics/technology in everyday life, I’m also aware of the somewhat poor value mri contrast imaging has in many cases.
Again, it’s often done to avoid lawsuits, and it’s approved in cases the insurance company doesn’t feel it’s worth fighting the employer given their legal stature. Does this seem like an efficient way to allocate resources to anyone?
—
And that their plans run big deficits? Did you read the part where the French system’s deficit is at $14 billion, and climbing?
What does that have to do with total money spent? We spend much more for similar overall results. That money is conserved. It doesn’t magically go away because an employer spends it on your health package (or “free” emergency care) instead of paying a tax.
—
It means that their decisions are, ultimately, as driven by costs as the private systems over here are.
Not shit sherlock, and in the real world we care about effectiveness and value for what we spend.
—
If you can’t refute facts, just say so.
So why are the resultant metrics the same? Let’s see you try to figure out how they’re gaming their audience. Does it not bother you to carry the baggage for these low-life’s?
—
As opposed to the fantasy that we will provide a gold-plated health care plan for everyone – while spending less than what we do today?
No, we can get similar results for about half the cost as demonstrate in many places. Obviously that bothers some folks so much they can’t even bring themselves to admit it’s the topic of discussion even after it’s repeated to them numerous times.
“No, we can get similar results for about half the cost as demonstrate in many places. Obviously that bothers some folks so much they can’t even bring themselves to admit it’s the topic of discussion even after it’s repeated to them numerous times.”
What is demonstrated in many places, is:
Given that the cost of drug, machinery and procedure development are already being borne by Americans, one can achieve population wide statistically equal, or in some areas perhaps even better, results than America does by piggybacking on their research, and rationing access to it in a less willy nilly fashion.
In all the countries being held up as “cheaper and better”, drug prices are a lot lower than here. Unsustainably low for the costs incurred in their development, were it not for American patients paying substantially more (and popping pills like it was candy). Same goes for non drug technology. Top echelon US care providers bear the early development costs, because their patients have a choice of where to go, and demand the latest and greatest when it comes to their health, costs be damned. Then, once the technology is less exotic and cheaper, care providers more concerned with system wide cost / benefit, get in on the act. Take the US out of that equation, and costs everywhere else will either have to climb; or infinitely more likely, innovation will slow, as there will be less need for care providers to compete on (perceived) quality of care by nabbing up the latest and greatest gizmos.
Not that I doubt we can get equal or even better results for half the price of what we are currently paying, but we won’t do so by attempting to move closer to the Soviet model, however incrementally.
So is the assumption that the drug price differential or research is a real large portion of health costs? I want to pin it down so it won’t squirm into some other excuse next time.
I love the attempts to weasel out of the clearly demonstrated inefficiencies in allocation through distraction. Too bad you’re not talking to the usual crowd of other simpletons who can’t tell the difference. Witness:
but we won’t do so by attempting to move closer to the Soviet model, however incrementally
Wait, shouldn’t it be Al Qeada and the terrorists to jive with modern scare conventions?
agenthex: Look at the original post. He was talking about highly-payed officials:
” forced to subsidize more and more bureaucrats and politicians collecting high public sector wages”
I did read it, and your point only works if you believe that all bureaucrats are highly paid, or are somehow synonomous with high-level government employees.
This is not the case. There are plenty of low- and mid-level bureaucrats in local, state and federal government.
agenthex: Who the hell in government is getting high wages except those with some influence?
The discussion was about BENEFITS and PENSIONS. Those are better in the public sector for low- and mid-level employees than for their counterparts in the private sector. Again, this has been proven repeatedly.
agenthex: I’m pretty sure the “poor” will prefer the system where they get proper consistent care for most stuff short of highly expensive cancer treatment, vs. nothing or some strange patchwork at best.
The poor, like everyone else, will expect the latest and greatest treatments, especially for serious diseases and conditions. They and their advocates will decry it as unfair if they can’t get them under the public plan.
agenthex: What does that have to do with total money spent? We spend much more for similar overall results. That money is conserved.
Running a deficit “conserves” money? Did you used to work for GM with that ability to make words have new meanings?
I would assume that “deficit” has the same meaning in France that it has it does over here.
agenthex: It doesn’t magically go away because an employer spends it on your health package (or “free” emergency care) instead of paying a tax.
You’re comparing apples to oranges. It’s entirely different if the employer spends dollars for health care – that are immediately paid – as compared to a government running up a big deficit for its health plan.
That’s like saying that I’m really in the same situation as my neighbor who is in the hole for $16,000 plus financing costs for a brand-new Kia, while I was able to buy a brand-new Accord outright for $26,000 with savings – because we are both ultimately purchasing transportation.
agenthex: Not shit sherlock, and in the real world we care about effectiveness and value for what we spend.
Your original point was that local committees of doctors, as opposed to insurance companies, were making those decisions, which should result in superior care, because the doctors’ decisions won’t be driven the almighty dollar.
Well, as it turns out, decisions in both countries are being driven by cost concerns.
agenthex: So why are the resultant metrics the same? Let’s see you try to figure out how they’re gaming their audience. Does it not bother you to carry the baggage for these low-life’s?
So, the figures provided by your side are accurate, but the other side is providing figures to game the system?
(Never mind that several of us have debunked the figures and metrics showing the supposed inferiority of the U.S. health system.)
If you want to believe that, you go right ahead. In the meantime, I’ll accept the figures as accurate.
What bothers me are inaccuracies and half-truths being spouted by both sides in this debate, and quite, frankly, your side is spouting more than its fair share.
I did read it, and your point only works if you believe that all bureaucrats are highly paid, or are somehow synonomous with high-level government employees.
The original commenter was talking about highly paid officials. Trying to twist that is not going to work.
—
The discussion was about BENEFITS and PENSIONS. Those are better in the public sector for low- and mid-level employees than for their counterparts in the private sector. Again, this has been proven repeatedly.
His point was that they’re highly paid (not really true), AND have great benefits. My point was that they’re not highly paid at all, especially the high rank ones he was talking about. You can start from there.
—
The poor, like everyone else, will expect the latest and greatest treatments, especially for serious diseases and conditions.
That’s just rich, and by rich I mean so ridiculous everyone points at it and laughs. So evidence from the world over means nothing, and winger talking points rule the day. Joy.
—
Running a deficit “conserves” money? Did you used to work for GM with that ability to make words have new meanings?
As a measure of the effectiveness of a system, people look at total expenses vs. results. How the accounting is done specifically is not the most relevant issue as that is generally more flexible in nature. In other words, people are paying for that healthcare somehow, and the primary objective is to get the best care for that money overall.
You don’t seem to understand this concept at all which is why you went to go on about “financing”. If the french gov is in deficit for healthcare specifically, then they didn’t tax/account properly for it. However even if they did, the overall cost to the employer/individual is still about half that of the US.
An example in your case is that french gov is financing about $2k on that Kia, and the US is also getting the Kia for $26 straight up.
—
Your original point was that local committees of doctors, as opposed to insurance companies, were making those decisions, which should result in superior care, because the doctors’ decisions won’t be driven the almighty dollar.
Show everyone where I said that. I’ve been very clear from the very beginning that because of their supperior allocation of care, they get the same results for about half price, apparently something you still can’t wrap around your head.
—
So, the figures provided by your side are accurate, but the other side is providing figures to game the system?
Absolutely. The US provides better “expensive” care due to the intricacies of the insurance/legal framework, and other countries provide better “basic” care. This is why overall life expectancies are similar (actually often better elsewhere, but we’ll be generous and call it a draw). Of course wingers will never admit that places where we have an advantage like geriatrics are pretty much “government” care.
—
What bothers me are inaccuracies and half-truths being spouted by both sides in this debate, and quite, frankly, your side is spouting more than its fair share.
Again, the standard winger “both sides” assertion. It didn’t work on evolution and it’s not going to work now.