Skip to main content

Will cutting health care cost help the economy? I do believe and desire, in theory, universal health care; however, an economic argument is being made for cutting health care cost. I take issue with that. Why? The reason being that everything that is spent represents revenue or income. Hence, cutting spending will cut revenue and income in the health care industry. The health care industry has been one of the largest and strongest growth sectors of the American economy. It provides billions, if not trillions, of dollars of income for Americans. It’s an industry that does not suffer from foreign competition and outsourcing of jobs. So radically reducing spending in the health care industry will save the government and the insured money at the expense reducing the income elsewhere, with results in no net gain. Also, when money is redistributed from the health care industry into the pockets of the average American consumer, they are likely to use that extra money to buy foreign made goods, which does not create income for Americans, unlike the money that went to the Health Care industry. Thus, it could represent a net loss.

The thing that our economy really needs is PRODUCTION and production that we can EXPORT to transfer income and wealth from other places to our place, thus increasing net income.
Vita vya panzi (ni) furaha ya kunguru. War among grasshoppers delights the crow. Msema kweli hana wajoli. The speaker of truth has few friends. ("`-''-/").___..--''"`-._ `6_ 6 ) `-. ( ).`-.__.`) (_Y_.)' ._ ) `._ `. ``-..-' _..`--'_..-_/ /--'_.' ,' (((' (((-((('' (((( Noah The African in America
Original Post

Replies sorted oldest to newest

quote:
Originally posted by Kweli4Real:
Are you conflating healthcare SPENDING with healthcare COSTS?


Yep.

Speaking of healthcare costs:

Average cost of insurance for a family of 4 in the US: $12,700
Average cost of insurance for a family of 4 in Canada: ~$5500

Percentage of US GDP spent on healthcare: 16.7% GDP (2009)
Percentage of Canadian GDP spent on healthcare: 9.7% GDP (2008)

http://www.nchc.org/facts/cost.shtml
quote:
Originally posted by Empty Purnata:
quote:
Originally posted by Kweli4Real:
Are you conflating healthcare SPENDING with healthcare COSTS?


Yep.

Speaking of healthcare costs:

Average cost of insurance for a family of 4 in the US: $12,700
Average cost of insurance for a family of 4 in Canada: ~$5500

Percentage of US GDP spent on healthcare: 16.7% GDP (2009)
Percentage of Canadian GDP spent on healthcare: 9.7% GDP (2008)

http://www.nchc.org/facts/cost.shtml



So if we reduce our cost to that of Canada does that mean that our GDP will decrease by the difference, remain the same or increase? The extra money we spend on Health Care goes into the economy in the form of revenue and income. Where do you think this money goes? Health Care is an INDUSTRY within the US economy, like Manufacturing is. It would be akin to making the argument of cutting spending in the US on US manufactured goods, via cutting the cost of US manufactured goods. The reduction in spending and revenue will be absorbed by workers in the form of layoffs and or decreased pay. The extra disposable income for consumers will likely go to purchase goods made by non us workers that were imported into our market for sale. At least with our Health Care Industry the jobs and profit created from the spending is domestic.

The real reason the government is interested in health care reform is because of its liabilities from entitlement programs, such as Medicare and Medicaid. Taxes will have to be massively raised at sometime in the future to pay our debts. The debt amounts to over 550,000 dollars for a family of four, more than 3 times the average or median mortgage.
quote:
Originally posted by Noah The African:
quote:
Originally posted by Empty Purnata:
quote:
Originally posted by Kweli4Real:
Are you conflating healthcare SPENDING with healthcare COSTS?


Yep.

Speaking of healthcare costs:

Average cost of insurance for a family of 4 in the US: $12,700
Average cost of insurance for a family of 4 in Canada: ~$5500

Percentage of US GDP spent on healthcare: 16.7% GDP (2009)
Percentage of Canadian GDP spent on healthcare: 9.7% GDP (2008)

http://www.nchc.org/facts/cost.shtml



So if we reduce our cost to that of Canada does that mean that our GDP will decrease by the difference, remain the same or increase? The extra money we spend on Health Care goes into the economy in the form of revenue and income. Where do you think this money goes? Health Care is an INDUSTRY within the US economy, like Manufacturing is. It would be akin to making the argument of cutting spending in the US on US manufactured goods, via cutting the cost of US manufactured goods.


And that's the problem. Human health is not a commodity to be bought and sold and consumed. The other problem is that it is most profitable to keep as many people possible sick for as long as possible while providing as little service as possible for the highest prices possible.

quote:
The reduction in spending and revenue will be absorbed by workers in the form of layoffs and or decreased pay.


That's ridiculous. We spent less money in 1970 than we do now and was unemployment higher back then or wages going up at a slower rate? No. According to your logic we should keep spending as much as humanly possible on everything.

quote:
The extra disposable income for consumers will likely go to purchase goods made by non us workers that were imported into our market for sale. At least with our Health Care Industry the jobs and profit created from the spending is domestic.


1) Our healthcare system creates lower disposable income because of the high prices spent on premiums out-of-paycheck in the first place.

http://www.healthpopuli.com/20...ycheck-pays-for.html

2) The extra money made by the insurance companies and Big Pharma aren't trickling down in the form of higher wages and lower prices for services and medicine.

3) Everything has an opportunity cost. Doing nothing and keeping the current system has a higher cost:

http://www.newamerica.net/publ...y/cost_doing_nothing

http://www.epi.org/publications/entry/ib218/

quote:
The real reason the government is interested in health care reform is because of its liabilities from entitlement programs, such as Medicare and Medicaid. Taxes will have to be massively raised at sometime in the future to pay our debts.


Having a population with poor health is huge liability indeed for any economy.
quote:
Originally posted by sunnubian:
The cut in healh care spending is suspposed to come from eliminating waste, fraud, and unnecessary procedures and charges. In other words, eliminating "health care" ripoffs that are a primary reason for the enormous cost of health care in the first place.


Thank you, Sunnubian. appl but when one examines the universal plans, it is not [absolute] SPENDING that is to be cut; but rather, healthcare COST. As such, more people will/are to be treated for the same expenditure.
quote:
And that's the problem. Human health is not a commodity to be bought and sold and consumed. The other problem is that it is most profitable to keep as many people possible sick for as long as possible while providing as little service as possible for the highest prices possible.


I am not making a moral argument, but rather, an economic impact argument. If such a large percentage of our GDP is tied directly to the Health Care Industry, then reducing the revenue in this domestic industry will impact GDP. Over the last decade, the housing market has been a key driver of economic activity, through rising prices. Look what happened to jobs and the economy when prices in the industry started coming down.

quote:
That's ridiculous. We spent less money in 1970 than we do now and was unemployment higher back then or wages going up at a slower rate? No. According to your logic we should keep spending as much as humanly possible on everything.


I don’t know what you think causes a reduction in GDP, if not a reduction in aggregate spending in the economy, which leads to reduced levels of employment and or income. Your factor also ignores the population difference between 1970 and today and I am not sure if you are talking in constant dollars or not. Either way, the comparison between spending in 1970 and today, without adjusting for population changes, inflation and changes in the way statistics are calculated is rendered meaningless.

quote:
1) Our healthcare system creates lower disposable income because of the high prices spent on premiums out-of-paycheck in the first place.

http://www.healthpopuli.com/20...ycheck-pays-for.html

2) The extra money made by the insurance companies and Big Pharma aren't trickling down in the form of higher wages and lower prices for services and medicine.

3) Everything has an opportunity cost. Doing nothing and keeping the current system has a higher cost:


1. No argument there.

2. The health care industry has arguably created the most job opportunities of any major industry in the nation. All that opportunity is created from the monies being spent in that industry. That is simply the FACTS.

3. It’s true that everything has an opportunity cost. It’s not true that doing something is, by default, better than doing nothing. It’s possible to make the system WORSE.
quote:
Originally posted by sunnubian:
The cut in healh care spending is suspposed to come from eliminating waste, fraud, and unnecessary procedures and charges. In other words, eliminating "health care" ripoffs that are a primary reason for the enormous cost of health care in the first place.


The truth of that has no bearing on the economic impact of reducing those cost. Hell....the government is one of the most wasteful entities in this nation and promotes some of the greatest ineffiecencies and waste...so no one should be confident that the government is going to do a better job. Again, I am PRO universal health care in principle and theory....but I question the wisdom of arguing that this will help jobs and the economy.
quote:
Originally posted by Noah The African:
I don’t know what you think causes a reduction in GDP, if not a reduction in aggregate spending in the economy, which leads to reduced levels of employment and or income.


A lot of things can. A decrease in spending, a decrease in tax revenue, a decrease in production, a decrease in consumption, etc.

Reduced spending for CERTAIN THINGS can lead to reduced employment or income. However all things aren't created equal. For instance a reduction in military spending won't cause this to happen, at least it won't cause a decrease in general income.

quote:
Your factor also ignores the population difference between 1970 and today


This isn't that much of a factor as long as the size of the economy has grown at a pace to match the rate of population change. The economy in 1970 was still proportional to the population to provide enough for everyone if it was utilized wisely.

quote:
and I am not sure if you are talking in constant dollars or not.


Actually the dollar is weaker today than it was in 1970 (and a lot of our money is in hypothetical futures markets). So actually our economy is currently overvalued.


quote:
2. The health care industry has arguably created the most job opportunities of any major industry in the nation.


Not really.

http://www.careerinfonet.org/i...w3.asp?id=&nodeid=47

The auto industry pays unionized workers far more than what medical insurance company jobs pay.


quote:
All that opportunity is created from the monies being spent in that industry. That is simply the FACTS.


Operative clause "in that industry". Not for the economy in general.

quote:
3. It’s true that everything has an opportunity cost. It’s not true that doing something is, by default, better than doing nothing. It’s possible to make the system WORSE.


True but maintaining the current system is an economic deadweight loss. Read the articles.
quote:
Originally posted by Kweli4Real:
quote:
Originally posted by sunnubian:
The cut in healh care spending is suspposed to come from eliminating waste, fraud, and unnecessary procedures and charges. In other words, eliminating "health care" ripoffs that are a primary reason for the enormous cost of health care in the first place.


Thank you, Sunnubian. appl but when one examines the universal plans, it is not [absolute] SPENDING that is to be cut; but rather, healthcare COST. As such, more people will/are to be treated for the same expenditure.


So you are saying that we can add 45 million more people to the system....at no increased cost? With the same amount of aggregate spending in the industry? That is totally absurd! The increased demand for services WILL increased the need for health care professionals and the like. You cannot increase demand like that and expect the supply to remain constant without incresing the price of the service and or reducing the frequency and quality of treatment. To keep such from happening EXTRA spending will have to be done to provide the providers needed to meet the increased demand from 45 million new participants.
quote:
A lot of things can. A decrease in spending, a decrease in tax revenue, a decrease in production, a decrease in consumption, etc.

Reduced spending for CERTAIN THINGS can lead to reduced employment or income. However all things aren't created equal. For instance a reduction in military spending won't cause this to happen, at least it won't cause a decrease in general income.


A reduction in military spending does indeed impact the economy. Two thirds of GDP is born from consumer consumption and guess where the rest comes from? When Defense contracts at certain companies are cut back, that means a loss of jobs. When military bases close in districts because of a reduction in military spending, service jobs are lost in towns that lost these bases….etc. You are just strait up wrong in this example.

quote:
This isn't that much of a factor as long as the size of the economy has grown at a pace to match the rate of population change. The economy in 1970 was still proportional to the population to provide enough for everyone if it was utilized wisely.
Actually the dollar is weaker today than it was in 1970 (and a lot of our money is in hypothetical futures markets). So actually our economy is currently overvalued

This is intellectual masturbation. The fact is that one needs to account for a host of differences between then and now and you have not accounted for them. Why the hell do you think that the government has ramped up spending with its “stimulus”, to substitute for the lack of spending by consumers, as it relates to economic performance? Don’t dig yourself into a bigger hole.
quote:
Not really.

http://www.careerinfonet.org/i...w3.asp?id=&nodeid=47

The auto industry pays unionized workers far more than what medical insurance company jobs pay.

I NEVER made a claim that this was the highest paying industry. My claim was in regards to job opportunities. In other words, job growth. Will you now argue that the auto Industry has had more job growth than the health care industry over the last decade?

quote:
True but maintaining the current system is an economic deadweight loss. Read the articles.


I have not argued that the system we have now is good. My argument has really been about the economic impact of the changes to the industry. That said, no matter how terrible our current system is, that FACT alone does not mean that the current proposal will give us something better.
quote:
Originally posted by Noah The African:
A reduction in military spending does indeed impact the economy. Two thirds of GDP is born from consumer consumption and guess where the rest comes from? When Defense contracts at certain companies are cut back, that means a loss of jobs.


The same could be said for any function. When you increase government spending and scale up the number of government jobs some private sector jobs are lost.

quote:
When military bases close in districts because of a reduction in military spending, service jobs are lost in towns that lost these bases….etc. You are just strait up wrong in this example.


http://www.epi.org/economic_sn..._snapshots_20050803/

quote:
This is intellectual masturbation. The fact is that one needs to account for a host of differences between then and now and you have not accounted for them. Why the hell do you think that the government has ramped up spending with its “stimulus”, to substitute for the lack of spending by consumers, as it relates to economic performance? Don’t dig yourself into a bigger hole.


Economic myth: If the economy doesn't constantly grow it will be horrible.

Economic truth: Not as long as wealth is constantly being transferred to workers and consumers through high wages, low prices and upward mobility.

http://www.pcdf.org/corprule/myths.htm

quote:
Our measures of growth are deeply flawed in that they are purely measures of activity in the monetized economy. Expanded use of cigarettes and alcohol increases economic output both as a direct consequence of their consumption and because of the related increase in health care needs. The need to clean up oil spills generates economic activity. Gun sales to minors generate economic activity. A divorce generates both lawyers fees and the need to buy or rent and outfit a new home-increasing real estate brokerage fees and retail sales. It is now well documented that in the United States and a number of other countries the quality of living of ordinary people has been declining as aggregate economic output increases.

The growth myth has another serious flaw. Since 1950, the world's economic output has increased 5 to 7 times. That growth has already increased the human burden on the planet's regenerative systems-its soils, air, water, fisheries, and forestry systems-beyond what the planet can sustain. Continuing to press for economic growth beyond the planet's sustainable limits does two things. It accelerates the rate of breakdown of the earth's regenerative systems-as we see so dramatically demonstrated in the case of many ocean fisheries-and it intensifies the competition between rich and poor for the resource base that remains.

The disparities in this competition have become truly obscene. In 1960 the annual compensation of the average CEO of a major US. company was 40 times that of the average worker. In 1992 it was 157 times as much. The average CEO of a large corporation now receives an annual compensation package of more than $3.5 million-their reward for growing company profits by destroying millions of jobs.

Over the past 3 years the profits of the Standard and Poors 500 largest corporations have grown an average of 20% a year. Stock prices are at record highs. For the most part, these gains went to people who have nothing better to do with their money than gamble on price movements in the giant global casino we call a stock market. During 1995, wages, salaries and benefits-compensation for doing real work-increased only 2.7%-the smallest rise on record.

The competition is made especially visible by the many development projects in Southern countries-many funded with loans from the World Bank and other multilateral development banks-that displace the poor so that the lands and waters on which they depend for their livelihoods can be converted to uses that generate higher economic returns-meaning converted to use by people who can pay more that those who are displaced. All too often what growth in GNP really measures is the rate at which the economically powerful are expropriating the resources of the economically weak in order to convert them into products that all too quickly become the garbage of the rich.



The problem with Milton Friedman's growth model (which you seem to be using) is that it doesn't really matter that the size of the pie is growing if the share of the pie going to the general population is decreasing.



quote:
I NEVER made a claim that this was the highest paying industry. My claim was in regards to job opportunities. In other words, job growth. Will you now argue that the auto Industry has had more job growth than the health care industry over the last decade?


Fastest-growing industries:

http://www.careerinfonet.org/i...w1.asp?id=&nodeid=45

quote:
I have not argued that the system we have now is good. My argument has really been about the economic impact of the changes to the industry. That said, no matter how terrible our current system is, that FACT alone does not mean that the current proposal will give us something better.


A dual option system would be better than what we have now:

http://blog.buzzflash.com/analysis/823

It's still short of what other industrialized nations have but it's better than our current very expensive and very ineffective system. Anyone who has ever had to tangle with the private bureaucracy of the insurance industry knows what's wrong with it.
quote:
Originally posted by Empty Purnata:
quote:
Originally posted by Noah The African:
A reduction in military spending does indeed impact the economy. Two thirds of GDP is born from consumer consumption and guess where the rest comes from? When Defense contracts at certain companies are cut back, that means a loss of jobs.


The same could be said for any function. When you increase government spending and scale up the number of government jobs some private sector jobs are lost.

quote:
When military bases close in districts because of a reduction in military spending, service jobs are lost in towns that lost these bases….etc. You are just strait up wrong in this example.


http://www.epi.org/economic_sn..._snapshots_20050803/

quote:
This is intellectual masturbation. The fact is that one needs to account for a host of differences between then and now and you have not accounted for them. Why the hell do you think that the government has ramped up spending with its “stimulus”, to substitute for the lack of spending by consumers, as it relates to economic performance? Don’t dig yourself into a bigger hole.


Economic myth: If the economy doesn't constantly grow it will be horrible.

Economic truth: Not as long as wealth is constantly being transferred to workers and consumers through high wages, low prices and upward mobility.

http://www.pcdf.org/corprule/myths.htm

quote:
Our measures of growth are deeply flawed in that they are purely measures of activity in the monetized economy. Expanded use of cigarettes and alcohol increases economic output both as a direct consequence of their consumption and because of the related increase in health care needs. The need to clean up oil spills generates economic activity. Gun sales to minors generate economic activity. A divorce generates both lawyers fees and the need to buy or rent and outfit a new home-increasing real estate brokerage fees and retail sales. It is now well documented that in the United States and a number of other countries the quality of living of ordinary people has been declining as aggregate economic output increases.

The growth myth has another serious flaw. Since 1950, the world's economic output has increased 5 to 7 times. That growth has already increased the human burden on the planet's regenerative systems-its soils, air, water, fisheries, and forestry systems-beyond what the planet can sustain. Continuing to press for economic growth beyond the planet's sustainable limits does two things. It accelerates the rate of breakdown of the earth's regenerative systems-as we see so dramatically demonstrated in the case of many ocean fisheries-and it intensifies the competition between rich and poor for the resource base that remains.

The disparities in this competition have become truly obscene. In 1960 the annual compensation of the average CEO of a major US. company was 40 times that of the average worker. In 1992 it was 157 times as much. The average CEO of a large corporation now receives an annual compensation package of more than $3.5 million-their reward for growing company profits by destroying millions of jobs.

Over the past 3 years the profits of the Standard and Poors 500 largest corporations have grown an average of 20% a year. Stock prices are at record highs. For the most part, these gains went to people who have nothing better to do with their money than gamble on price movements in the giant global casino we call a stock market. During 1995, wages, salaries and benefits-compensation for doing real work-increased only 2.7%-the smallest rise on record.

The competition is made especially visible by the many development projects in Southern countries-many funded with loans from the World Bank and other multilateral development banks-that displace the poor so that the lands and waters on which they depend for their livelihoods can be converted to uses that generate higher economic returns-meaning converted to use by people who can pay more that those who are displaced. All too often what growth in GNP really measures is the rate at which the economically powerful are expropriating the resources of the economically weak in order to convert them into products that all too quickly become the garbage of the rich.



The problem with Milton Friedman's growth model (which you seem to be using) is that it doesn't really matter that the size of the pie is growing if the share of the pie going to the general population is decreasing.



quote:
I NEVER made a claim that this was the highest paying industry. My claim was in regards to job opportunities. In other words, job growth. Will you now argue that the auto Industry has had more job growth than the health care industry over the last decade?


Fastest-growing industries:

http://www.careerinfonet.org/i...w1.asp?id=&nodeid=45

quote:
I have not argued that the system we have now is good. My argument has really been about the economic impact of the changes to the industry. That said, no matter how terrible our current system is, that FACT alone does not mean that the current proposal will give us something better.


A dual option system would be better than what we have now:

http://blog.buzzflash.com/analysis/823

It's still short of what other industrialized nations have but it's better than our current very expensive and very ineffective system. Anyone who has ever had to tangle with the private bureaucracy of the insurance industry knows what's wrong with it.


Talk to me after you have taken several more economic courses and learn to think outside the box of what you are told.
quote:
Originally posted by Kweli4Real:
quote:
Talk to me after you have taken several more economic courses and learn to think outside the box of what you are told.


lol Oops, you stepped in it now. lol Oh yeah, your minor in econ clearly trumps E.P.'s econ MAJOR ... it has to, because to hear you tell it, it trumps a PhD AND a Nobel Laureate.


I thought he was still working on his Major. If you are working on a Major in economics....you could very well be less educated on economic theory and models than a person who has COMPLETED a minor in economics.
quote:
Originally posted by Kweli4Real:
quote:
Talk to me after you have taken several more economic courses and learn to think outside the box of what you are told.


lol Oops, you stepped in it now. lol Oh yeah, your minor in econ clearly trumps E.P.'s econ MAJOR ... it has to, because to hear you tell it, it trumps a PhD AND a Nobel Laureate.


Lol, thanks Kweli. Wink I was just going to point out that his last response was basically a non-response with no rebuttal, just a personal insult. But what you said is better.

Noah you don't see me insulting Umbra on his understanding of depreciation and accounting which I'm sure he knows a lot more about than I do.
quote:
Originally posted by Noah The African:
quote:
Originally posted by Kweli4Real:
quote:
Talk to me after you have taken several more economic courses and learn to think outside the box of what you are told.


lol Oops, you stepped in it now. lol Oh yeah, your minor in econ clearly trumps E.P.'s econ MAJOR ... it has to, because to hear you tell it, it trumps a PhD AND a Nobel Laureate.


I thought he was still working on his Major. If you are working on a Major in economics....you could very well be less educated on economic theory and models than a person who has COMPLETED a minor in economics.


No, I graduated in May. I received a major in International Economics and a major in Political Science. The highest economics course I took was ECON 460. I'm pretty sure I know more about econ than someone with a minor in it (not to brag).

Of course at this juncture I'm still an amateur economist but I know what I said was correct. And yes, I do think outside of the box. I don't subscribe to Neoliberal economic theory even though that was the main economic theory we were taught and trained in. Unlike a lot of typical Econ students Milton Friedman and von Hayek are not my idols.
quote:
Originally posted by Empty Purnata:
quote:
Originally posted by Kweli4Real:
quote:
Talk to me after you have taken several more economic courses and learn to think outside the box of what you are told.


lol Oops, you stepped in it now. lol Oh yeah, your minor in econ clearly trumps E.P.'s econ MAJOR ... it has to, because to hear you tell it, it trumps a PhD AND a Nobel Laureate.


Lol, thanks Kweli. Wink I was just going to point out that his last response was basically a non-response with no rebuttal, just a personal insult. But what you said is better.

Noah you don't see me insulting Umbra on his understanding of depreciation and accounting which I'm sure he knows a lot more about than I do.


It was not an insult! I was simply tired of pointing things out. You are Matriculating towards a Major in Economics....but have not yet achieved that Major....correct?
quote:
Originally posted by Noah The African:
quote:
Originally posted by Empty Purnata:
quote:
Originally posted by Kweli4Real:
quote:
Talk to me after you have taken several more economic courses and learn to think outside the box of what you are told.


lol Oops, you stepped in it now. lol Oh yeah, your minor in econ clearly trumps E.P.'s econ MAJOR ... it has to, because to hear you tell it, it trumps a PhD AND a Nobel Laureate.


Lol, thanks Kweli. Wink I was just going to point out that his last response was basically a non-response with no rebuttal, just a personal insult. But what you said is better.

Noah you don't see me insulting Umbra on his understanding of depreciation and accounting which I'm sure he knows a lot more about than I do.


It was not an insult! I was simply tired of pointing things out. You are Matriculating towards a Major in Economics....but have not yet achieved that Major....correct?


I've had the diploma for about 2 months now.
quote:
Originally posted by Empty Purnata:
quote:
Originally posted by Noah The African:
quote:
Originally posted by Empty Purnata:
quote:
Originally posted by Kweli4Real:
quote:
Talk to me after you have taken several more economic courses and learn to think outside the box of what you are told.


lol Oops, you stepped in it now. lol Oh yeah, your minor in econ clearly trumps E.P.'s econ MAJOR ... it has to, because to hear you tell it, it trumps a PhD AND a Nobel Laureate.


Lol, thanks Kweli. Wink I was just going to point out that his last response was basically a non-response with no rebuttal, just a personal insult. But what you said is better.

Noah you don't see me insulting Umbra on his understanding of depreciation and accounting which I'm sure he knows a lot more about than I do.


It was not an insult! I was simply tired of pointing things out. You are Matriculating towards a Major in Economics....but have not yet achieved that Major....correct?


I've had the diploma for about 2 months now.


I stand corrected! Congratulations is due then Big Grin
Since I was incorrect in thinking that you were still in school, I have decided to revisit your last post. First let me point out the problem with your answers generally. The problem that I see what you answers is that they are not germane, and hence not contradictory, to my original thesis about the economic impact of health care changes. Your focus seems to be to find the exception to any rule that I present. What this accomplishes in regards to the debate of my original these, I am not sure. Secondly, my line of reasoning is to DEFEND my thesis, not to go off on tangents of the exceptions to the rules you identify.

quote:
The same could be said for any function. When you increase government spending and scale up the number of government jobs some private sector jobs are lost.


I don’t know what this has to do to what anything I have stated that you are supposedly using this to contradict. Is this a contradiction or an affirmation of what I said?

quote:
Without defense-related spending, private sector would still be in a jobs hole ….via link


I argued that there are jobs tied to the Defense Industry that impact upon aggregate GDP. This article in no way contradicts that fact. It does not even seem germane to me.

quote:
Economic myth: If the economy doesn't constantly grow it will be horrible.

Economic truth: Not as long as wealth is constantly being transferred to workers and consumers through high wages, low prices and upward mobility.


Were did I say that if the economy does not constantly grow things will be terrible? You are not contradicting anything that I have stated…..so what is the point in stating this? Just so you know, If REAL GDP is stagnant while population growth is declining, then it would not be a bad thing. GDP has to be looked at in relation to a number of factors, to glean the health of the economy, including the growth of population. In fact, I see recessions or a contraction in GDP as a necessary free market adjustment to restore balance and equilibrium. It’s like the body shedding itself of unhealthy excess (FAT). Recessions are actually cures for an imbalanced economy. And hence the absence of growth periodically, in many ways, is a good thing in the long run. So again, you are not contradicting me or my thesis by saying this.


quote:
The problem with Milton Friedman's growth model (which you seem to be using) is that it doesn't really matter that the size of the pie is growing if the share of the pie going to the general population is decreasing.


I am referring to something specific, which is health care related spending and the impact of a reduction of spending would have on that industry. These general economic growth models and links you are talking about cannot be used to MAKE THE ARGUMENT FOR YOU? Again, it seems that your goal is simply to present general exceptions to the rule.

quote:
Link to site showing the fastest growing occupations


Again, what is the purpose of this link and how does it refute claims that I have made? If a particular occupation has only 1000 people employed in it currently, on a national scale, an increase of 1000 jobs in the next 10 years would make it one of the fastest growing occupations. Hence, just because something is one of the fastest growing occupation does not mean that it is a leading occupation in NUMERICAL JOB GROWTH. I did not make my comments in regards to PERCENTAGE growth, but rather, NUMERICAL growth. The Health Care industry has created some of the largest Numerical growth in jobs over the last 10 years, and that is directly related to the spending that has gone into the industry.
Last edited {1}
I worked in a hospital in the 80s. A woman in the accounting department told me about how doctors tried to rip iff the government and how they often had to kick paperwork back to the doctors because not even thegovernment would be dumb enough to fall for some of thecrap they were trying to pull.

I also remember a PBS program in the 80s about the development of an expert system to do medical diagnosis. How powerful and cheap are computers now compared to then? What do you ever hear about such programs?

um
quote:
Originally posted by Noah The African:
I don’t know what this has to do to what anything I have stated that you are supposedly using this to contradict. Is this a contradiction or an affirmation of what I said?


You construed government spending as if decreasing government spending is intrinsically a horrible thing which is destined to destroy jobs. I simply pointed out that increases in government spending can potentially destroy jobs as well. Either way there is a drawback.

quote:
I argued that there are jobs tied to the Defense Industry that impact upon aggregate GDP. This article in no way contradicts that fact. It does not even seem germane to me.


The article is showing that even without the Defense industry the job market would still be in trouble. So funding the defense industry is not really a solution to the problems in the job market.

quote:
Were did I say that if the economy does not constantly grow things will be terrible? You are not contradicting anything that I have stated…


You said:

quote:
Originally posted by Noah The African:
This is intellectual masturbation. The fact is that one needs to account for a host of differences between then and now and you have not accounted for them. Why the hell do you think that the government has ramped up spending with its “stimulus”, to substitute for the lack of spending by consumers, as it relates to economic performance? Don’t dig yourself into a bigger hole.


This was in response to my comment:

quote:
Originally posted by Empty Purnata:
This isn't that much of a factor as long as the size of the economy has grown at a pace to match the rate of population change. The economy in 1970 was still proportional to the population to provide enough for everyone if it was utilized wisely.
Actually the dollar is weaker today than it was in 1970 (and a lot of our money is in hypothetical futures markets). So actually our economy is currently overvalued


quote:
Just so you know, If REAL GDP is stagnant while population growth is declining, then it would not be a bad thing.


Not necessarily. Not as long as:

1) The value of the dollar is increasing;
2) Prices are staying down;
3) More jobs are being created;
4) Wages are not dropping;
5) Unemployment is kept to a minimal frictional unemployment level;
6) Industrial production continues to increase

quote:
GDP has to be looked at in relation to a number of factors, to glean the health of the economy, including the growth of population. In fact, I see recessions or a contraction in GDP as a necessary free market adjustment to restore balance and equilibrium. It’s like the body shedding itself of unhealthy excess (FAT). Recessions are actually cures for an imbalanced economy. And hence the absence of growth periodically, in many ways, is a good thing in the long run. So again, you are not contradicting me or my thesis by saying this.


Did you read the article?

quote:
Our measures of growth are deeply flawed in that they are purely measures of activity in the monetized economy. Expanded use of cigarettes and alcohol increases economic output both as a direct consequence of their consumption and because of the related increase in health care needs. The need to clean up oil spills generates economic activity. Gun sales to minors generate economic activity. A divorce generates both lawyers fees and the need to buy or rent and outfit a new home-increasing real estate brokerage fees and retail sales. It is now well documented that in the United States and a number of other countries the quality of living of ordinary people has been declining as aggregate economic output increases.

The growth myth has another serious flaw. Since 1950, the world's economic output has increased 5 to 7 times. That growth has already increased the human burden on the planet's regenerative systems-its soils, air, water, fisheries, and forestry systems-beyond what the planet can sustain. Continuing to press for economic growth beyond the planet's sustainable limits does two things. It accelerates the rate of breakdown of the earth's regenerative systems-as we see so dramatically demonstrated in the case of many ocean fisheries-and it intensifies the competition between rich and poor for the resource base that remains.

The disparities in this competition have become truly obscene. In 1960 the annual compensation of the average CEO of a major US. company was 40 times that of the average worker. In 1992 it was 157 times as much. The average CEO of a large corporation now receives an annual compensation package of more than $3.5 million-their reward for growing company profits by destroying millions of jobs.

Over the past 3 years the profits of the Standard and Poors 500 largest corporations have grown an average of 20% a year. Stock prices are at record highs. For the most part, these gains went to people who have nothing better to do with their money than gamble on price movements in the giant global casino we call a stock market. During 1995, wages, salaries and benefits-compensation for doing real work-increased only 2.7%-the smallest rise on record.

The competition is made especially visible by the many development projects in Southern countries-many funded with loans from the World Bank and other multilateral development banks-that displace the poor so that the lands and waters on which they depend for their livelihoods can be converted to uses that generate higher economic returns-meaning converted to use by people who can pay more that those who are displaced. All too often what growth in GNP really measures is the rate at which the economically powerful are expropriating the resources of the economically weak in order to convert them into products that all too quickly become the garbage of the rich.


quote:
I am referring to something specific, which is health care related spending and the impact of a reduction of spending would have on that industry. These general economic growth models and links you are talking about cannot be used to MAKE THE ARGUMENT FOR YOU? Again, it seems that your goal is simply to present general exceptions to the rule.


The problem with your argument about the health care industry is

1) The health care industry does not pay high wages to the average employee in the first place
2) The health care industry is not giving most citizens proper coverage
3) The US is spending twice as much on health care than most industrialized nations for relatively crappy service

This is why the US is in 37th place in healthcare quality and accessibility.

quote:
Again, what is the purpose of this link and how does it refute claims that I have made?


quote:
Originally posted by Noah The African:
My claim was in regards to job opportunities. In other words, job growth. Will you now argue that the auto Industry has had more job growth than the health care industry over the last decade?


You claimed the healthcare industry has higher job growth than the auto industry and claimed it's the fastest growing industry. It is not.

Are you forgetting your own arguments?

quote:
Originally posted by Noah The African:
2. The health care industry has arguably created the most job opportunities of any major industry in the nation.



quote:
If a particular occupation has only 1000 people employed in it currently, on a national scale, an increase of 1000 jobs in the next 10 years would make it one of the fastest growing occupations. Hence, just because something is one of the fastest growing occupation does not mean that it is a leading occupation in NUMERICAL JOB GROWTH.


The health care industry is not listed as either the fastest growing industry or the industry with leading numerical job growth.

Give it up. You were flat-out WRONG and your mental gymnastics to try to dodge around this fact are pathetic.
quote:
Originally posted by Empty Purnata:
quote:
Originally posted by Noah The African:
I don’t know what this has to do to what anything I have stated that you are supposedly using this to contradict. Is this a contradiction or an affirmation of what I said?


You construed government spending as if decreasing government spending is intrinsically a horrible thing which is destined to destroy jobs. I simply pointed out that increases in government spending can potentially destroy jobs as well. Either way there is a drawback.

Noah says:

No...I mad a PARTICULAR claim about a PARTICULAR scenario. If I was making a GENERAL argument across all sectors, then, maybe, you could have a case that I was arguing the argument that you claim. I was not, which is why the question made no sense to me.


quote:
I argued that there are jobs tied to the Defense Industry that impact upon aggregate GDP. This article in no way contradicts that fact. It does not even seem germane to me.


The article is showing that even without the Defense industry the job market would still be in trouble. So funding the defense industry is not really a solution to the problems in the job market.

Noah says:

That in no way disproves or contradicts my assertion that GDP is influenced by government spending. I NEVER sais funding the defense industry would be a solution to the job market! Where are you coming up with this stuff? You are rebuking a straw man that you created.



quote:
Were did I say that if the economy does not constantly grow things will be terrible? You are not contradicting anything that I have stated…


You said:

quote:
Originally posted by Noah The African:
This is intellectual masturbation. The fact is that one needs to account for a host of differences between then and now and you have not accounted for them. Why the hell do you think that the government has ramped up spending with its “stimulus”, to substitute for the lack of spending by consumers, as it relates to economic performance? Don’t dig yourself into a bigger hole.


This was in response to my comment:

quote:
Originally posted by Empty Purnata:
This isn't that much of a factor as long as the size of the economy has grown at a pace to match the rate of population change. The economy in 1970 was still proportional to the population to provide enough for everyone if it was utilized wisely.
Actually the dollar is weaker today than it was in 1970 (and a lot of our money is in hypothetical futures markets). So actually our economy is currently overvalued


quote:
Just so you know, If REAL GDP is stagnant while population growth is declining, then it would not be a bad thing.


Not necessarily. Not as long as:

1) The value of the dollar is increasing;
2) Prices are staying down;
3) More jobs are being created;
4) Wages are not dropping;
5) Unemployment is kept to a minimal frictional unemployment level;
6) Industrial production continues to increase

Noah says:

This is another answer that makes no sense to me. If population is declining and GDP is stagnant (remaining the same) then GDP per capita is increasing (althoug it might not be evenly distributed). Thus, you said not necissarily, which I take your points to represents cases of contradictions to my claim. However, the term "REAL" in economic means "Adjusted from inflation". So you points about the value of the dollar and prices makes no sense. Rising prices are already calculated, via the "GDP deflator" from Nominal (Unadjusted for inflation) GDP growth. Furthermore, remember that an increase in the value of the dollar becomes detrimental to our ability to export goods. So none of your first few points make any sense and your other points just seem thrown in their without much thought or understanding as well.




quote:
GDP has to be looked at in relation to a number of factors, to glean the health of the economy, including the growth of population. In fact, I see recessions or a contraction in GDP as a necessary free market adjustment to restore balance and equilibrium. It’s like the body shedding itself of unhealthy excess (FAT). Recessions are actually cures for an imbalanced economy. And hence the absence of growth periodically, in many ways, is a good thing in the long run. So again, you are not contradicting me or my thesis by saying this.


Did you read the article?

quote:
Our measures of growth are deeply flawed in that they are purely measures of activity in the monetized economy. Expanded use of cigarettes and alcohol increases economic output both as a direct consequence of their consumption and because of the related increase in health care needs. The need to clean up oil spills generates economic activity. Gun sales to minors generate economic activity. A divorce generates both lawyers fees and the need to buy or rent and outfit a new home-increasing real estate brokerage fees and retail sales. It is now well documented that in the United States and a number of other countries the quality of living of ordinary people has been declining as aggregate economic output increases.

The growth myth has another serious flaw. Since 1950, the world's economic output has increased 5 to 7 times. That growth has already increased the human burden on the planet's regenerative systems-its soils, air, water, fisheries, and forestry systems-beyond what the planet can sustain. Continuing to press for economic growth beyond the planet's sustainable limits does two things. It accelerates the rate of breakdown of the earth's regenerative systems-as we see so dramatically demonstrated in the case of many ocean fisheries-and it intensifies the competition between rich and poor for the resource base that remains.

The disparities in this competition have become truly obscene. In 1960 the annual compensation of the average CEO of a major US. company was 40 times that of the average worker. In 1992 it was 157 times as much. The average CEO of a large corporation now receives an annual compensation package of more than $3.5 million-their reward for growing company profits by destroying millions of jobs.

Over the past 3 years the profits of the Standard and Poors 500 largest corporations have grown an average of 20% a year. Stock prices are at record highs. For the most part, these gains went to people who have nothing better to do with their money than gamble on price movements in the giant global casino we call a stock market. During 1995, wages, salaries and benefits-compensation for doing real work-increased only 2.7%-the smallest rise on record.

The competition is made especially visible by the many development projects in Southern countries-many funded with loans from the World Bank and other multilateral development banks-that displace the poor so that the lands and waters on which they depend for their livelihoods can be converted to uses that generate higher economic returns-meaning converted to use by people who can pay more that those who are displaced. All too often what growth in GNP really measures is the rate at which the economically powerful are expropriating the resources of the economically weak in order to convert them into products that all too quickly become the garbage of the rich.


quote:
I am referring to something specific, which is health care related spending and the impact of a reduction of spending would have on that industry. These general economic growth models and links you are talking about cannot be used to MAKE THE ARGUMENT FOR YOU? Again, it seems that your goal is simply to present general exceptions to the rule.


The problem with your argument about the health care industry is

1) The health care industry does not pay high wages to the average employee in the first place
2) The health care industry is not giving most citizens proper coverage
3) The US is spending twice as much on health care than most industrialized nations for relatively crappy service

This is why the US is in 37th place in healthcare quality and accessibility.

Noah says:

It does not matter that they don't pay high wages as the industry has created thousands of new jobs. A moderately paying job is better than no job and hence cutting spending in Health Care will threaten the rate of employment growth in what has been one of the strongest growth sectors of our economy.

The quality of the service is not the issue here. Its an issue, but its not an issue related to my thesis in regards to the impact of radically reducing spending in the Health Care sector.



quote:
Again, what is the purpose of this link and how does it refute claims that I have made?


quote:
Originally posted by Noah The African:
My claim was in regards to job opportunities. In other words, job growth. Will you now argue that the auto Industry has had more job growth than the health care industry over the last decade?


You claimed the healthcare industry has higher job growth than the auto industry and claimed it's the fastest growing industry. It is not.

Are you forgetting your own arguments?

Noah says:

no....I took a scan back and did not see my use of "FASTEST GROWING" If you can present the evidence of where qualified the growth with "Fastest" then I will submit to your argument. If not....its just another one of your nonsensical economic responses.



quote:
Originally posted by Noah The African:
2. The health care industry has arguably created the most job opportunities of any major industry in the nation.



quote:
If a particular occupation has only 1000 people employed in it currently, on a national scale, an increase of 1000 jobs in the next 10 years would make it one of the fastest growing occupations. Hence, just because something is one of the fastest growing occupation does not mean that it is a leading occupation in NUMERICAL JOB GROWTH.


The health care industry is not listed as either the fastest growing industry or the industry with leading numerical job growth.

Give it up. You were flat-out WRONG and your mental gymnastics to try to dodge around this fact are pathetic.


Noah says:

Of course its not! There is no occupation called "Health care industry". However, there are occupations within the health care industry that are among the largest numerical growth producers. One has to have the intellectual ability and or the will, to deduce such from the occupations listed in the BLS.

quote:
Originally posted by Noah The African:
Noah says:

That in no way disproves or contradicts my assertion that GDP is influenced by government spending. I NEVER sais funding the defense industry would be a solution to the job market! Where are you coming up with this stuff? You are rebuking a straw man that you created.


You said that if we cut funding for the defense industry that it will have a negative effect:

quote:
Originally posted by Noah The African:
When Defense contracts at certain companies are cut back, that means a loss of jobs.


My point was that cutting defense spending would have a neutral impact on the job market in the long-run.

quote:
Noah says:

This is another answer that makes no sense to me. If population is declining and GDP is stagnant (remaining the same) then GDP per capita is increasing (althoug it might not be evenly distributed). Thus, you said not necissarily,


You didn't say anything about GDP per capita. I did.

quote:
Originally posted by Noah The African:
GDP has to be looked at in relation to a number of factors, to glean the health of the economy, including the growth of population. In fact, I see recessions or a contraction in GDP as a necessary free market adjustment to restore balance and equilibrium. It’s like the body shedding itself of unhealthy excess (FAT). Recessions are actually cures for an imbalanced economy. And hence the absence of growth periodically, in many ways, is a good thing in the long run. So again, you are not contradicting me or my thesis by saying this.


quote:
Originally posted by Empty Purnata:
4) Wages are not dropping;


quote:
However, the term "REAL" in economic means "Adjusted from inflation". So you points about the value of the dollar and prices makes no sense.


Since "real" means adjusted FOR (not "from") inflation by point about inflation makes perfect sense. That's part of REAL GDP.

quote:
Furthermore, remember that an increase in the value of the dollar becomes detrimental to our ability to export goods. So none of your first few points make any sense and your other points just seem thrown in their without much thought or understanding as well.


You are assuming that an increase in exports would balance out deficits that might occur. Not necessarily so. Most hungry countries in the world are net exporters:

http://globalpolicy.org/compon...ticle/217/46138.html

Most of the world's most powerful countries are net importers.


quote:
Noah says:

It does not matter that they don't pay high wages as the industry has created thousands of new jobs.


1) It does no good to create new jobs if the jobs don't pay much to begin with. How significant would it be to have thousands of new $5.50/hour ditch-digging jobs?

2) There many industries which have created far more jobs than the health care industry over the past decade or so. The healthcare industry is not at the top.

Again:

http://jobsearch.about.com/od/...jobs/a/topjobs_3.htm

quote:
The 10 Occupations with the Largest Job Growth: 2004 - 2014

* Retail salespersons
* Registered nurses
* Postsecondary teachers
* Customer service representatives
* Janitors and cleaners
* Waiters and waitresses
* Combined food preparation and serving workers
* Home health aides
* Nursing aides, orderlies, and attendants
* General and operations managers


http://www.cnbc.com/id/31680035

Nothing about the healthcare industry.

quote:
A moderately paying job is better than no job and hence cutting spending in Health Care will threaten the rate of employment growth in what has been one of the strongest growth sectors of our economy.


Noah, there are job losses in ANY action you take, public or private. Privatizing health care jobs takes jobs out of the public sector. Nationalizing health care takes jobs out of the private sector. So your comment is a pretty worthless "Captain Obvious" type of "observation".

However your comments about the impact of job loss in the health industry is very overblown:

http://firedoglake.com/2009/07...corporate-behemoths/

quote:
The quality of the service is not the issue here. Its an issue, but its not an issue related to my thesis in regards to the impact of radically reducing spending in the Health Care sector.


Quality of service for the general population counts more than crappy service just to give a few tens of thousands of people employment. Should we expand McDonald's as well since expanding it would give more people employment?

quote:
Noah says:

no....I took a scan back and did not see my use of "FASTEST GROWING" If you can present the evidence of where qualified the growth with "Fastest" then I will submit to your argument. If not....its just another one of your nonsensical economic responses.


You said:

quote:
Originally posted by Noah The African:
2. The health care industry has arguably created the most job opportunities of any major industry in the nation.


To which I responded:

quote:
The health care industry is not listed as either the fastest growing industry or the industry with leading numerical job growth.


So your point was completely moot.


quote:
Noah says:

Of course its not! There is no occupation called "Health care industry".


Pathetic:

http://www.bls.gov/oco/cg/cgs035.htm

It's a general grouping of jobs, not a particular job.

quote:
However, there are occupations within the health care industry that are among the largest numerical growth producers.


Such as?
You are as big a fraud as Obama is.

Health care will generate 3 million new wage and salary jobs between 2006 and 2016, more than any other industry. Seven of the twenty fastest growing occupations are health care related. Job opportunities should be good in all employment settings.

Employment change. Wage and salary employment in the health care industry is projected to increase 22 percent through 2016, compared with 11 percent for all industries combined (table 3). Employment growth is expected to account for about 3 million new wage and salary jobs—20 percent of all wage and salary jobs added to the economy over the 2006-16 period. Projected rates of employment growth for the various segments of the industry range from 13 percent in hospitals, the largest and slowest growing industry segment, to 55 percent in the much smaller home health care services.



http://www.bls.gov/oco/cg/cgs035.htm#outlook


This is directly from the BLS site. You may have graduated a few months ago....but I doubt seriously that it was in economics. You probably was a business major who took a couple of econ courses.
quote:
Originally posted by Noah The African:
You are as big a fraud as Obama is.


And you are as clueless as the Republicans. In fact you sound a lot like one.

quote:
Health care will generate 3 million new wage and salary jobs between 2006 and 2016, more than any other industry. Seven of the twenty fastest growing occupations are health care related. Job opportunities should be good in all employment settings.

Employment change. Wage and salary employment in the health care industry is projected to increase 22 percent through 2016, compared with 11 percent for all industries combined (table 3). Employment growth is expected to account for about 3 million new wage and salary jobs—20 percent of all wage and salary jobs added to the economy over the 2006-16 period. Projected rates of employment growth for the various segments of the industry range from 13 percent in hospitals, the largest and slowest growing industry segment, to 55 percent in the much smaller home health care services.



http://www.bls.gov/oco/cg/cgs035.htm#outlook


This is directly from the BLS site. You may have graduated a few months ago....but I doubt seriously that it was in economics. You probably was a business major who took a couple of econ courses.


You're arguing against a point I never made. I did not say that funding the private industry will not create new jobs.

quote:
Originally posted by Empty Purnata:
1) It does no good to create new jobs if the jobs don't pay much to begin with. How significant would it be to have thousands of new $5.50/hour ditch-digging jobs?



Service sector jobs are the fastest growing jobs in America but they are usually low-paying.


You're talking about mere JOB GROWTH. I'm talking about GOOD-PAYING JOG GROWTH. I'm also saying it doesn't matter if health industry jobs grow if the general health of the US suffers and we continue to pay twice as much as other industrialized nations for health care. Again:

http://www.reuters.com/article...dUSTRE54H47N20090518

quote:
U.S. workers paying more for healthcare: report

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Healthcare costs for Americans who get medical coverage through an employer hit a record $16,771 per family this year, and they are having to pay more themselves, a report released on Monday showed.

Employers trying to save money in the current recession have forced workers to take on a greater portion of their healthcare costs, according to Milliman Inc., the consulting firm that prepared the report.

That trend could accelerate the longer the recession lasts, the report stated.

An estimated 170 million Americans get their health insurance through an employer. Healthcare costs, both payroll deductions and out-of-pocket medical expenses, now eat up 14 percent of the average household income of about $50,000 for these people, the study found.

Costs grew by an average of $1,162 per family this year from an average of $15,609 last year, the report said.

While employers' contribution to workers' monthly premiums increased by 5.4 percent over the past year, employees' contributions went up 14.7 percent, the third straight year of double-digit increases, the report said.

Employers still pay the lion's share of healthcare costs, with an average contribution of $9,947 per worker. Employees paid an average of $4,004 in payroll deductions and an additional $2,820 in out-of-pocket expenses, the report found.

The report showed that costs are rising but not quite as rapidly as they had in prior years. Cost-control measures including efforts to reduce unnecessary medical procedures have shown some results, as the rate of growth declined this year for a third straight year, to 7.4 percent.

But the recession could lead to further cost growth as hospitals, doctors and other providers may be forced to increase their rates to stay afloat, the report said.

President Barack Obama has set a goal of signing into law by the end of this year legislation that would overhaul the U.S. healthcare system, seeking to cut costs and ensure that millions of people now without health insurance get coverage.

The new report is the latest to illustrate the high cost of healthcare in the United States, whose system is the world's most expensive. Healthcare costs burden many U.S. businesses and families and eat away at federal and state budgets.

(Reporting by Andy Sullivan; Editing by Will Dunham)


Paying higher costs for healthcare reduces disposable income which reduces demand which reduces production.

http://www.cfr.org/publication/13325/

quote:
Elsewhere in the world, healthcare systems are much less reliant on private sector support--and much less expensive. For example, the U.S. system costs 83 percent more per capita than the Canadian system, where public funds collected through taxes pay for up to 70 percent of healthcare coverage.




There is absolutely no reason why we should pay 17% of our GDP on health care while other industrialized nations spend half of that.

http://www.nchc.org/facts/cost.shtml

quote:
In 2008, total national health expenditures were expected to rise 6.9 percent -- two times the rate of inflation.1 Total spending was $2.4 TRILLION in 2007, or $7900 per person1. Total health care spending represented 17 percent of the gross domestic product (GDP).

------------------------------------

# Health care spending accounted for 10.9 percent of the GDP in Switzerland, 10.7 percent in Germany, 9.7 percent in Canada and 9.5 percent in France, according to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.


And where does having a big number of health industry jobs get the US in terms of overall health care quality?

http://www.photius.com/rankings/healthranks.html

quote:
#37 United States of America



Have you gotten this through your thick skull yet? Or is the ability of the health care industry to make a profit more important than cost, efficiency and people's health to you?
Congrats on your graduation Empty Purnata. I agree with you on the points that pay is not keeping up with the rate of inflation and that many of the jobs being created are low-end wage jobs. The boom of jobs created during the last Bush administration seemed to be mostly jobs earning less than $50,000. I know of people who work in nursing homes and make between federal minimum wage and the 'living wage' of $10 an hour in New York. That's ashame!
Also the only reason in my view that the health care system is growing is because the 'baby boom' generation is now in their 60's and as each year goes on will be getting older and requiring more healthcare services. This could be a major reason that Big Health Care is fighting to keep their foothold in keeping it for profit. It just irks me that pharmaseuticals companies get grants from the federal government to develop drugs and treatments yet some of those same medications are made unaffordable to the general public. The same people who funded large portions of the research funding. This was a big deal back in the 1980's and 1990's. I personally would love to see big business healthcare put completely out of business and have a single payer system managed by a board of health care professionals, doctors, citizen advocates and a governmental agency. Keeping for profits out of the healthcare system. At least for 5-10 years.
Just my thoughts. And thanks for the many links...
quote:
Originally posted by Yemaya:
Congrats on your graduation Empty Purnata. I agree with you on the points that pay is not keeping up with the rate of inflation and that many of the jobs being created are low-end wage jobs. The boom of jobs created during the last Bush administration seemed to be mostly jobs earning less than $50,000. I know of people who work in nursing homes and make between federal minimum wage and the 'living wage' of $10 an hour in New York. That's ashame!
Also the only reason in my view that the health care system is growing is because the 'baby boom' generation is now in their 60's and as each year goes on will be getting older and requiring more healthcare services. This could be a major reason that Big Health Care is fighting to keep their foothold in keeping it for profit. It just irks me that pharmaseuticals companies get grants from the federal government to develop drugs and treatments yet some of those same medications are made unaffordable to the general public. The same people who funded large portions of the research funding. This was a big deal back in the 1980's and 1990's. I personally would love to see big business healthcare put completely out of business and have a single payer system managed by a board of health care professionals, doctors, citizen advocates and a governmental agency. Keeping for profits out of the healthcare system. At least for 5-10 years.
Just my thoughts. And thanks for the many links...


Low wage jobs relative to what pay scale? I would think that you realize that the reason China and India’s economy is booming is due to its LOW WAGE WORKFORCE. The US has lost the economics of “comparative advantage” in many industries due to LABOR COST. The fastest growing economies of the world are NOT the ones with High Wages and hence High labor cost, but rather, nations with LOW wages and hence LOW labor cost. Hence, what is happening is that a global market equilibrium adjustment is manifesting as a result of the global supply and demand curves for labor under the free flow of capital uninhibited by borders. Of course, we could cut off trade and pay every workers high wages to produce all the good and services that we consume, but that will be offset by the higher prices passed on to the consumer so that the employer can maintain profit margins under such high labor cost. Either way, the net resultant will be a decline in our standard of living from either lowering paying jobs or much higher rates of inflation. They are two paths to the same ending of a lowered standard of living.
Thanks Yemaya! Wink The general trend over the past 35 years or so has been for wages to decline:

http://www.newint.org/issue281/death.htm

http://www.campusprogress.org/...wages-in-bad-decline

quote:
Also the only reason in my view that the health care system is growing is because the 'baby boom' generation is now in their 60's and as each year goes on will be getting older and requiring more healthcare services. This could be a major reason that Big Health Care is fighting to keep their foothold in keeping it for profit. It just irks me that pharmaseuticals companies get grants from the federal government to develop drugs and treatments yet some of those same medications are made unaffordable to the general public. The same people who funded large portions of the research funding. This was a big deal back in the 1980's and 1990's. I personally would love to see big business healthcare put completely out of business and have a single payer system managed by a board of health care professionals, doctors, citizen advocates and a governmental agency.


Amen. On top of the fact that when the Baby Boomers retire/die out there is going to be a big drop in the health care industry anyway unless Generation X and Y are so unhealthy that their bodies will start failing them in the next 15 years.



quote:
Originally posted by Noah The African:
Low wage jobs relative to what pay scale?


Relative to the average pay of say unionized jobs in the auto industry which pay upwards of $25/hour. Relative to the average pay of jobs over the past 7 decades.

http://www.bls.gov/oco/cg/cgs035.htm

quote:
Job opportunities should be good in all employment settings because of high job turnover, particularly from the large number of expected retirements and tougher immigration rules that are slowing the numbers of foreign health care workers entering the United States.

Occupations with the most replacement openings are usually large, with high turnover stemming from low pay and status, poor benefits, low training requirements, and a high proportion of young and part-time workers. Nursing aides, orderlies and attendants, and home health aides are among the occupations adding the most new jobs between 2006 and 2016, about 647,000 combined. By contrast, occupations with relatively few replacement openings—such as physicians and surgeons—are characterized by high pay and status, lengthy training requirements, and a high proportion of full-time workers.


quote:
Total, private industry

Weekly Earnings - $568
Hourly Earnings - $16.76
Weekly Hours - 33.9


$17/hour is not much for a grown adult, especially for adults with 2 children.

quote:
I would think that you realize that the reason China and India’s economy is booming is due to its LOW WAGE WORKFORCE.


In sheer size but not in transfer of wealth.

http://www.theepochtimes.com/news/4-7-20/22548.html

http://www.accessmylibrary.com...ry_0286-21273997_ITM

quote:
The US has lost the economics of “comparative advantage” in many industries due to LABOR COST.


Not really. It is cheaper for US manufacturers to produce overseas where they can pay workers a fraction of what they pay workers here. However the US still maintains control over these factories and capital. The countries don't take over them.

The thing about capitalism these days is that it is no longer bound by country, now capital can move around the world and the empires can still dominate the market even if their capital is no longer located insider their borders.

That's "globalization".

quote:
The fastest growing economies of the world are NOT the ones with High Wages and hence High labor cost, but rather, nations with LOW wages and hence LOW labor cost.


Growth in size of economy due to exporting doesn't equal a rise in power of the economy over the world market. Being a big warehouse for industrialized nations doesn't make you an economic superpower.

quote:
Of course, we could cut off trade and pay every workers high wages to produce all the good and services that we consume, but that will be offset by the higher prices passed on to the consumer so that the employer can maintain profit margins under such high labor cost.


That's not always entirely true. Sometimes foreign goods are cheaper sometimes our own goods are cheaper. Sometimes cheap goods produced in other countries costs us in terms of losing good-paying jobs here and thus lowering aggregate income.

Add Reply

Post
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×