Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

ShumaGorath wrote:The WHO ranks us 37th in quality of care. So we spend twice what the next highest does for number 37. Sure does sound like a great system that you should protect! Free market!

Does it affect your analysis in any manner to learn that 60+% of healthcare spending comes from the government?

biccat wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:The WHO ranks us 37th in quality of care. So we spend twice what the next highest does for number 37. Sure does sound like a great system that you should protect! Free market!

Does it affect your analysis in any manner to learn that 60+% of healthcare spending comes from the government?

Nah, it's still dollars for bad results. For profit healthcare doesn't work because people can't fundamentally afford it and our hybrid system is absolute trash. I just want us to go with the only system that appears to function cross borders in multiple instances. What we have is a testcase failure of absurd proportions based on a fundamentally flawed concept (profit based health care).

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:The idea of an Oligarch in the USA, is historically, speaking, not a new thing. From it's onset, there was a power imbalance between white americans, native americans, african americans etc. Then you 'dynasties' such as John Adams/Quincy Adams The Kennedys and of course, everybody's favourite - the Bush family. And that's just off the top off my head.

Agree with the above poster. there is no need for Americans to pay more for healthcare and receive poorer service than other nations.

He said social healthcare.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ensis Ferrae wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

Again why do I care about your social well being. People arguing about healtchare is one thing. Social well being is just coockoo.

Because our standard of healthcare is low compared to many nations with socialized healthcare, yet we pay significantly more. I don't care if you're a lone wolf, why don't you want better and cheaper care?

Because it isn't "better" than what we have?? There are dozens of documentaries out there (not by michael moore) that showcase the horrible wait lists, and general poor care of patients, as well as hospital deaths due to incompetent surgeons... these things are all much higher and more dangerous to you in other countries. A true governmental health care system would end up looking alot like the military's currently does: long waits for doctor care, limited time with care providers, 'skimmed' care (by that I mean that doctors have such limited time with patients that they really cannot investigate real problems timely, so issues may be lingering for months or years before being treated because they can't be brought up at each visit), as well as terrible providers (case in point, the doctor at Fort Carson who was under investigation for his role in the death of four soldiers who died of drug complications from prescription medications that he proscribed).

Plus, most law makers of a certain persuasion aren't happy unless my tax dollars that go into a health care system will also protect criminals (and by that i mean illegal aliens).. Really, this is a whole other thread, and 'fixing' health care will not fix the economy.. not in the least bit.

You're talking socialized healthcare. Thats a completely separate discussion. He said social healthcare - aka healthcare for your social..er activities?

Phototoxin wrote:"The love of money is the root of all evil"

I hate to be a stickler, but the phrase is actually, "The love of money is the root of all kinds of evil." While the difference in wording is quite subtle, the difference in meaning is substantial. This phrasing is found in nearly all of the modern translations of Scripture, as this saying is actually a quote from 1 Timothy.

Phototoxin wrote:Money influences your laws when it shouldn't.

Money always influences laws. Whether it actually should or shouldn't, and in what circumstances it should or shouldn't, is an entirely different conversation. Just because a law has been influenced by money doesn't mean it is bad. Equally, a law has been written devoid of outside financial influence isn't inherently good either.

Phototoxin wrote:You have the choice of party A or party B which for such a big country is hillarious in it's idiocy.

I am sorry, I had forgotten that Britain, which ruled the largest empire the world has ever known, was never afflicted by the two party standard. Lets not even get into the fact that it was probably the most obvious example of oligarchy in history. Even today, Britain may have many political affiliations to choose from, they all boil down to being either Tory or Labour. They are the power brokers in Whitehall, and the system is reliant on them and their interests.

Phototoxin wrote:Capitalism is a lie. Work hard and you *can* do OK but actually those born into money do better!

So Capitalism isn't a lie? A basic premise of the Capitalist system is that you can work your way up the social ladder, which is especially obvious in a plutocracy like the United States. Coming from an immigrant family I am a strong believer in the ability of Capitalism to promote socio-economic growth in families and communities. It isn't a magic bullet that kills poverty, or one that guarantees success, but then again nothing is.

ShumaGorath wrote:It's cheaper and provides better care.

Still trotting this old horse out eh?

ShumaGorath wrote:I don't care what your politics are, just use the reality.

Yes, lets talk about America widely considered to have the best medical facilities in the world. But that doesn't mean they are cheap or available to everyone. I have many friends in the medical industry, both as doctors and nurses and many customers in the medical device and pharmaceuticals industry. Of all of these people, I only know one who is in favor of something similar to the UK's NHS, or even the Canadian system. Their reasons are diverse and of course exhibit some bias, but having a bias doesn't make them less valid.

Again why do I care about your social well being. People arguing about healtchare is one thing. Social well being is just coockoo.

Because our standard of healthcare is low compared to many nations with socialized healthcare, yet we pay significantly more. I don't care if you're a lone wolf, why don't you want better and cheaper care?

I'm just pointing out you said "social health care" and you continue to be all seriouslike.

My degree is in new media, not fixing every screwup your generation ever made (im assuming you were working financially stuff in the 80s). That's going to take a bit more then I can drop down on the fly.

Thats ashame. I was hoping you had some real ideas. It would be nice to discuss the merits of actual proposals.

Lets start at the beginning then. Do you know who you're trying to regulate? Do you know what you're actually trying to regulate against?

I can identify a problem and I'm willing to learn to fix it and to lobby for the placement of individuals who can and will. I likely know slightly less then you for financial law but I'd probably be better with the causal relationships of macro economics and the sociology of programs (broad terms!).

Again I was hoping you'd actually state who you're trying to regulate or what you're trying to regulate against, to develop a framework of discussion. Who knows, we might agree on it. But then you went and attacked. Oh well. Your chance to convince me...lost.

How about, only individuals may donate money to a party? Does that work?

No, the structural issues are already present. We need severe reformation of the financial sector into something that once again benefits society and capitalism. The stock market hasn't been about investing in longterm growth since the 80's.

So, you don't want to keep finance out of politics or whatever, you want to play some more with the financial sector. Evidently you want to play with the stock market as well. Interesting. What woul you propose?

I'm just pointing out you said "social health care" and you continue to be all seriouslike.

Socialized? Nationalized? Communist? Community? Big brother? What do you want me to call it, it doesn't actually have a name and the labels are all kind of bs anyway.

Thats ashame. I was hoping you had some real ideas. It would be nice to discuss the merits of actual proposals.

Then post one and we can discuss it. How about we go back over the dodd frank act?

Again I was hoping you'd actually state who you're trying to regulate or what you're trying to regulate against, to develop a framework of discussion. Who knows, we might agree on it. But then you went and attacked. Oh well. Your chance to convince me...lost.

You've never been interested in substantial discussion with sources and a calm perspective before! Why the change?

So, you don't want to keep finance out of politics or whatever, you want to play some more with the financial sector. Evidently you want to play with the stock market as well. Interesting. What woul you propose?

Fine, I'll assemble something tonight. I'm still at work. Give a brother a break, i'm in that 53 percent or whatever it is.

You don't want to discuss the Frank Dodd Act aka the 2010 Lawyer Employment Act. Law firms have set up entire practices just to interpret the massed regulations that are coming out of that nightmare, which will be repealed...er modified in the next two years.

Discuss what YOU would propose.

biccat wrote:
Does it affect your analysis in any manner to learn that 60+% of healthcare spending comes from the government?

Its more like 45-50% when you aren't including things like lost tax revenue due to charitable contributions, which is how Coburn came up with that number.

AustonT wrote:Sebster normally I respect your opinions even when I don't agree with them, but I meant exactly what I said. We have guns to feed ourselves when/if the system collapses. I just wanted to lead with an ominous tone because it sounds much more "mainstream" and that is that sad state of American politics.

Sure, but the system isn't collapsing. Moving to an oligarchy won't mean collapse. People will still go to work, still get paid enough to keep a roof over their heads. It's just more and more of the wealth will go to a scarce few people, and it'll be increasingly hard to become one of the very rich few unless you're very wel connected.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:Again what do you recommend? And no to social healthcare. I could give a if people's social well being is healthy.

A system in which the very rich are denied special access to the writing of new laws. Regulation that prevents the financial sector playing 'heads we win and I take half as a bonus, tails you lose'.

All aimed towards a system in which income growth is primarily derived from how valuable you are, not how well connected you are.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ensis Ferrae wrote:Because it isn't "better" than what we have?? There are dozens of documentaries out there (not by michael moore) that showcase the horrible wait lists, and general poor care of patients, as well as hospital deaths due to incompetent surgeons... these things are all much higher and more dangerous to you in other countries.

It never occurred to you those documentaries were made by people with a political angle to sell, to protect vested interests in the current healthcare system? You can make a documentary full of anecdotes and bizarre single issues given absolute priority to sell any political point. Those documentaries are as selective as Michael Moore's, and the only reason you saw them differently is because they were selling you what you wanted to hear.

At the end of the day, you go with the straight reports coming from the World Health Organisation. Those guys aren't trying to sell anything, the study isn't even focussed on the US, it's a guide for every country to help see what's working around the world. And it'll tell you that despite spending 50% more than any other country per capita, the US delivers the 37th best standard of care.

And that 50% more is a crazy pile of money. It's more than 5% of GDP. Or $700 billion dollars a year. You could have better healthcare, less infant deaths, less miscarriages, less malpractice, and another $700 billion a year just for ditching the dysfunctional system you have.

It is that simple.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

biccat wrote:Does it affect your analysis in any manner to learn that 60+% of healthcare spending comes from the government?

Does it affect your analysis at all to realise that the US spends more government dollars per capita on healthcare than any other developed nation? That all the private dollars on top are just more wasted cash thrown at a dysfunctional system?

At what point does it just become unavoidable to ditch the relexive, ideological 'government bad' mantra and just start looking at what systems work?

Frazzled wrote:You don't want to discuss the Frank Dodd Act aka the 2010 Lawyer Employment Act. Law firms have set up entire practices just to interpret the massed regulations that are coming out of that nightmare, which will be repealed...er modified in the next two years.

Discuss what YOU would propose.

I'll get back to you with that tomorrow. It's 1:00AM and I gotta work in the morning.

JEB_Stuart wrote:I am sorry, I had forgotten that Britain, which ruled the largest empire the world has ever known, was never afflicted by the two party standard. Lets not even get into the fact that it was probably the most obvious example of oligarchy in history. Even today, Britain may have many political affiliations to choose from, they all boil down to being either Tory or Labour. They are the power brokers in Whitehall, and the system is reliant on them and their interests.

It's very weird that people keep thinking that the existance of two parties is somehow the inherent problem. As if all those countries with Westminster based parliamentary systems, which inherently tend to two parties just as much as the US system, were nightmare failing democracies. Two parties can work fine. Sure there are problems with excluding certain viewpoints, but multiple parties have all manner of issues as well.

The problem in the US has nothing to do with there being two parties, and everything to do with both parties tightly bound to their corporate funders.

So Capitalism isn't a lie? A basic premise of the Capitalist system is that you can work your way up the social ladder, which is especially obvious in a plutocracy like the United States. Coming from an immigrant family I am a strong believer in the ability of Capitalism to promote socio-economic growth in families and communities. It isn't a magic bullet that kills poverty, or one that guarantees success, but then again nothing is.

I believe a capitalist system with an effective regulatory framework and range of social services provided primarily towards providing opportunities, is the best way to reach a meritocracy, and that a meritocracy is the ideal.

Does it bother you that the US was once a lot closer to a meritocracy, both in terms of the distribution of income, and the degree of social mobility, than it is now?

Yes, lets talk about America widely considered to have the best medical facilities in the world. But that doesn't mean they are cheap or available to everyone. I have many friends in the medical industry, both as doctors and nurses and many customers in the medical device and pharmaceuticals industry. Of all of these people, I only know one who is in favor of something similar to the UK's NHS, or even the Canadian system. Their reasons are diverse and of course exhibit some bias, but having a bias doesn't make them less valid.

But you just have to look at the numbers. The US system costs twice as much person as the next most expensive system, and delivers the 37th best standard of care. That's an incredibly poor result, and it's even more amazing that so many people in the US seemed to not mind. I mean, if you spent 50% more than anyone else on a car, and ended up with a Kia hatch, you'd be pretty pissed.

And no-one is saying the US doesn't have some incredibly high level medical care, because they sure do. The issue is the level of access available to everyone. (because I'm in a mood for analogies) It's like someone saying a country has only the 37th best rail network, and responding that some of the trains go as fast as any trains in the world. Well yep, they sure do, but surely the best measure is how many people can access trains, and what the average trip is like?

Tax the top 1% so that their income is capped at the 2nd% income level. That way the accumulation of extraordinary wealth becomes an act of both patriotism and leisure, something todays modern robberbarons can be proud of. Its time they started contributing something to society instead of leeching off of it.

Ensis Ferrae wrote:Because it isn't "better" than what we have?? There are dozens of documentaries out there (not by michael moore) that showcase the horrible wait lists, and general poor care of patients, as well as hospital deaths due to incompetent surgeons...

Yeah, I've seen one or five of them. The US medical industry can be a rather dangerous place for its customers/patients.

Oh wait you were referring to other places and somehow think that today's medical industry actually works for the patients. Sorry, rant on.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

sebster wrote:The problem in the US has nothing to do with there being two parties, and everything to do with both parties tightly bound to their corporate funders.

Indeed...

sebster wrote:It's very weird that people keep thinking that the existance of two parties is somehow the inherent problem.

I absolutely agree, I was merely commenting on the cynicism that was exhibited in relation to having the two party standard.

sebster wrote:As if all those countries with Westminster based parliamentary systems, which inherently tend to two parties just as much as the US system, were nightmare failing democracies. Two parties can work fine. Sure there are problems with excluding certain viewpoints, but multiple parties have all manner of issues as well.

Two party systems generally make for an easier time in forming a government, and minimizes the awkward bedfellows situations, ie the current UK government. Of course it is idiotic to assume that in any republican democracy every viewpoint will be included, and foolish to think that every viewpoint should be.

sebster wrote:The problem in the US has nothing to do with there being two parties, and everything to do with both parties tightly bound to their corporate funders

Well I don't see this changing anytime soon...

sebster wrote:I believe a capitalist system with an effective regulatory framework and range of social services provided primarily towards providing opportunities, is the best way to reach a meritocracy, and that a meritocracy is the ideal.

A balance in the system prevents one from overpowering the other. These rules are set up in the federal authorities that have the proper oversight. The problem is that their authority is exercised very infrequently. As is often the case trust busting will break up a company for a short amount of time, but eventually they will simply merge back together. This cycle has been fairly consistent in the American economy.

sebster wrote:Does it bother you that the US was once a lot closer to a meritocracy, both in terms of the distribution of income, and the degree of social mobility, than it is now?

To be honest? Not really. The reason I say that is because I see the disparity between states that are making it more competitive for people to work and live in, and see how they are flourishing, and I see states where excessive social programs, heavy handed government intervention and hamstringing business is killing their society and communities. I think that a level of competition between states is healthy, and in the next 10 years or so, we will see several states, especially in the South, rise in prominence as more jobs and people flock to those areas. That is a more true form of meritocracy in a country like the US.

sebster wrote:But you just have to look at the numbers. The US system costs twice as much person as the next most expensive system, and delivers the 37th best standard of care. That's an incredibly poor result, and it's even more amazing that so many people in the US seemed to not mind. I mean, if you spent 50% more than anyone else on a car, and ended up with a Kia hatch, you'd be pretty pissed.

I see the numbers, and I see my own experience. I have had healthcare in other countries (UK, Canada, France, Germany), and I don't really see them as being better. If anything I was more frustrated with their systems. I have health insurance here, so I find my healthcare to be affordable, and much timelier then in other industrialized countries. One thing I notice as huge is the disparity in treatment scheduling. A young friend of mine was diagnosed with brain cancer in February of this year, and his parents looked into treatment in Canada. Wait time for chemo in Canada: 4 months. Wait time in the US: 2 days. I am not saying there are no problems with the US system, I am just not a fan of government run healthcare. Keep in mind though reform does not have to mean nationalization. Litigation reform can go quite a way in bringing the cost of healthcare down.

JEB_Stuart wrote:I see the numbers, and I see my own experience.

I guess that makes you lucky.

Consider this situation: A doctor drops by during another doctor's surgery to chat with him about sports.

That is added to the patient's bill as a $300 consultation.

This is not uncommon in the US.

Melissia wrote:I guess that makes you lucky.

You comment as if our medical system would make the Civil War's idea of medicine look modern. Do you really understand just how complex our medical system is, and what is driving all of the costs? It isn't an abstract number or reason, there is a definite cost and risk behind it.

Melissia wrote:Consider this situation: A doctor drops by during another doctor's surgery to chat with him about sports.

That is added to the patient's bill as a $300 consultation.

This is not uncommon in the US.

That is a pretty heinous charge to level without any sort of proof. I actually called my old roommate, who is now an orthopedic surgeon, and he was shocked that this would even be mentioned as real. I am inclined to believe him as I don't see doctors as out to screw people. Please offer some sort of proof.

You comment as if our medical system would make the Civil War's idea of medicine look modern. Do you really understand just how complex our medical system is, and what is driving all of the costs? It isn't an abstract number or reason, there is a definite cost and risk behind it.

There are thousands of direct reasons, the majority of which don't need to exist and serve no function within the system. Doctor greed is a tiny fraction of the reason why healthcare costs are so high.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

That is a pretty heinous charge to level without any sort of proof. I actually called my old roommate, who is now an orthopedic surgeon, and he was shocked that this would even be mentioned as real. I am inclined to believe him as I don't see doctors as out to screw people. Please offer some sort of proof.

JEB_Stuart wrote:, and he was shocked that this would even be mentioned as real.

Did he stop twirling his mustache and did his monocle pop off?

Another likely factor driving up punitive damages are quota litis agreements between lawyers and clients, in which a share of the awarded punitive damage is awarded to the lawyer recovering it, giving the trial lawyer a direct economic incentive in high damages. Such a quota would usually amount to 25% to 30%. Such agreements, while lawful in the US, are considered unethical in the European Union.

Stillbirth rates in the UK are higher than in almost every other high-income country, a series of reports suggest.

The UK had about 4,100 stillbirths in 2009 and, with a rate of 3.5 per 1,000 births, was ranked 33rd in a list of 193 countries - down from 26th in 1995.

Only France and Austria ranked lower among high-income nations.

As a side note in most European nations a stillbirth is determined as a child of at least 500 grams or 24 weeks of gestation. In the US a stillbirth is technically any child of 350 grams or 20 weeks of gestation.

The availability of advanced medical technology and sophisticated training of physicians are cited as driving motivators for growth in foreigners traveling to the U.S. for medical care,[73] whereas the low costs for hospital stays and major/complex procedures at Western-accredited medical facilities abroad are cited as major motivators for American travelers.

Typically US standards of health care given is much higher than in other countries. Couple that with the higher rate of malpractice insurance doctor's constantly pay depending on their specialties, and most medical students leave with at least $150,000 in debt. Not only that but they spend however so many years in residency. A neurosurgeon typically does four years of university, three years of graduate school, four years of medical school, a one year internship, and then six years of residency before they can be paid the full amount for what they do. So that's 4+3+4+1+6= 18 years of school and training before they earn $400,000 to $1,000,000 a year.

US higher education costs $5,000 to $30,000 a year while in the UK the max was set at 3,145 pounds a year. With a conversion that means the max cost of higher education in dollars in the UK is $5,039 a year. That's just normal college/university. Medical school is a lot more expensive so just imagine that.

"About 10 percent of the cost of medical services is linked to malpractice lawsuits and more intensive diagnostic testing due to defensive medicine, according to a January 2006 report prepared by PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP for the insurers’ group America’s Health Insurance Plans. The figures were taken from a March 2003 study by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services that estimated the direct cost of medical malpractice was 2 percent of the nation’s health-care spending and said defensive medical practices accounted for 5 percent to 9 percent of the overall expense."

JEB_Stuart wrote:I absolutely agree, I was merely commenting on the cynicism that was exhibited in relation to having the two party standard.

Yeah, sure, I was agreeing with you.

Two party systems generally make for an easier time in forming a government, and minimizes the awkward bedfellows situations, ie the current UK government. Of course it is idiotic to assume that in any republican democracy every viewpoint will be included, and foolish to think that every viewpoint should be.

Yeah, definitely. It's pretty common to people to assume that whatever they believe is the popular viewpoint, and therefore whenever their decision isn't reached it's somehow a failure of democracy.

Well I don't see this changing anytime soon...

Nor do I, which is why I doubt anything meaningful is going to change anytime soon.

To be honest? Not really. The reason I say that is because I see the disparity between states that are making it more competitive for people to work and live in, and see how they are flourishing, and I see states where excessive social programs, heavy handed government intervention and hamstringing business is killing their society and communities. I think that a level of competition between states is healthy, and in the next 10 years or so, we will see several states, especially in the South, rise in prominence as more jobs and people flock to those areas. That is a more true form of meritocracy in a country like the US.

You're talking about one state or another doing well. I'm talking about the hard work and talent of individuals allowing them to improve their lot in a meaningful way. No doubt money will shift from state to state for a whole load of reasons.

But the figures produced by the CBO and reported by Krugman show that increasingly, the new wealth created by the economy is shifting to the top 1%, and most of that to the top 0.1%. This means the primary means to get access to most of the new wealth comes not from gaining new skills, nor hard work, nor talent, but from connections.

I see the numbers, and I see my own experience. I have had healthcare in other countries (UK, Canada, France, Germany), and I don't really see them as being better.

But they're much, much cheaper. Right now the US spends a tick under two trillion a year on healthcare. If you had the UK's system, you'd be spending 7.4% of GDP on healthcare, and that'd leave the country with just a tick under $900 billion extra dollars. You could take that money, halve the immediate deficit, and return the nation to longterm surplus, without losing a thing.

Or you could have the French system, which provides the best all over healthcare in the world, and save about $600 billion a year.

If anything I was more frustrated with their systems. I have health insurance here, so I find my healthcare to be affordable, and much timelier then in other industrialized countries. One thing I notice as huge is the disparity in treatment scheduling. A young friend of mine was diagnosed with brain cancer in February of this year, and his parents looked into treatment in Canada. Wait time for chemo in Canada: 4 months. Wait time in the US: 2 days. I am not saying there are no problems with the US system, I am just not a fan of government run healthcare. Keep in mind though reform does not have to mean nationalization.

Sure, but in a system that costs about twice as much as any other system, and denies full coverage to a significant portion of the population, you'd expect wait times to be significantly lower.

That's an interesting comment about keeping government out of healthcare. Were you aware that the US spends more government dollars per capita on healthcare than any other country, already? Just to cover for the waste, and over prescription of drugs, and the problems of only providing treatment when an issue becomes an emergency.

Thing is, if you set the rules of the game right, you government can step back. You could, for instance, legislate that health care providers are only to be not-for-profit companies, fully funded by member payments, where that money has to go into medical payments, or into the surplus for next year's coverage. Right then and there, with government just setting the rules for how the private sector operates, but not actually stepping in to provide healthcare itself, you're removed the profit incentive from the private insurers from denying coverage, and likely cut the rank of bankruptcy from medical care by half.

Litigation reform can go quite a way in bringing the cost of healthcare down.

CBO figures have predicted tort reform can save no more than 1% of healthcare, at best. I'm not saying don't do it (though meaningful reform has to focus on the legal cost of claims and their defence, not capping the amounts paid), I'm just saying it is a tiny part of the incredible cost of the US healthcare system.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

halonachos wrote:As a side note in most European nations a stillbirth is determined as a child of at least 500 grams or 24 weeks of gestation. In the US a stillbirth is technically any child of 350 grams or 20 weeks of gestation.

The WHO study controlled for this. Nor was it that significant a part a driver of the US' low ranking, which was mostly driven down by the portion of society with no access to healthcare, and the portion of society facing much reduced response times because of economic factors, and life expectancy.

Typically US standards of health care given is much higher than in other countries.

No, they are not. They are on par with other developed nations. The US does have specific hospitals with world leading quality of care, but so does every other country, because that is a product of exceptional doctors. Every country has it's share of exceptional doctors.

It is about the fact that you pay a fortune for a system that's about as good as anyone else's, and cost about twice as much.

A neurosurgeon typically does four years of university, three years of graduate school, four years of medical school, a one year internship, and then six years of residency before they can be paid the full amount for what they do.

Whereas over here you get your neurosurgeon license of the back of a Wheaties packet.

Medical school is a lot more expensive so just imagine that.

It is certainly true that the outrageous cost of tertiary education in the US has a flow on effect to the cost of healthcare.

I work for a university over here, it's better ranked than most universities in California, despite our cost per student coming in at around half to a third of the cost in the US. And it isn't as though we're a streamlined, efficient organisation, I'm paid a very healthy wage and you've seen how much of my workday is spend on dakka. God knows where the money is going to over there...

sebster wrote:

A neurosurgeon typically does four years of university, three years of graduate school, four years of medical school, a one year internship, and then six years of residency before they can be paid the full amount for what they do.

Whereas over here you get your neurosurgeon license of the back of a Wheaties packet.

Medical school is a lot more expensive so just imagine that.

It is certainly true that the outrageous cost of tertiary education in the US has a flow on effect to the cost of healthcare.

I work for a university over here, it's better ranked than most universities in California, despite our cost per student coming in at around half to a third of the cost in the US. And it isn't as though we're a streamlined, efficient organisation, I'm paid a very healthy wage and you've seen how much of my workday is spend on dakka. God knows where the money is going to over there...

Depends on the school, research schools tend to have lower quality teachers because most of the researchers are teachers and have tenure and lack a feth to give about education.

Also, I think that if neurosurgeons get their degrees off of the back of a Wheaties box their quality of care would be lower.

One article I saw said that the average healthcare is spread out over 57 areas, I can see one for each state which would be 50, but wonder what the other 7 are. I'm not sure but we may be counting Guam and Puerto Rico towards that overall total if so that's like the UK including India some years ago.

sebster wrote:
I work for a university over here, it's better ranked than most universities in California, despite our cost per student coming in at around half to a third of the cost in the US. And it isn't as though we're a streamlined, efficient organisation, I'm paid a very healthy wage and you've seen how much of my workday is spend on dakka. God knows where the money is going to over there...

Excess cost in American schools is largely related to things like athletics (not at all schools, but the big ones), room & board (which functions very differently outside the US, excepting schools in places like New York and Chicago), and demand for institutions of certain types in certain places (eg. directional schools in California cost far more than directional schools in Illinois).

dogma wrote:

sebster wrote:
I work for a university over here, it's better ranked than most universities in California, despite our cost per student coming in at around half to a third of the cost in the US. And it isn't as though we're a streamlined, efficient organisation, I'm paid a very healthy wage and you've seen how much of my workday is spend on dakka. God knows where the money is going to over there...

Excess cost in American schools is largely related to things like athletics (not at all schools, but the big ones), room & board (which functions very differently outside the US, excepting schools in places like New York and Chicago), and demand for institutions of certain types in certain places (eg. directional schools in California cost far more than directional schools in Illinois).

Landscaping and general groundskeeping is an immense expense as well. At least at the schools I've been too. It's amazing how much they pay into tertiary and largely irrelevant things while their standards of education flounder.

ShumaGorath wrote:

Frazzled wrote:You don't want to discuss the Frank Dodd Act aka the 2010 Lawyer Employment Act. Law firms have set up entire practices just to interpret the massed regulations that are coming out of that nightmare, which will be repealed...er modified in the next two years.

Discuss what YOU would propose.

I'll get back to you with that tomorrow. It's 1:00AM and I gotta work in the morning.

Alright, my weekends done. I'm ready to discuss stuff. I'll write up a list of things I think are ailing this nation and society and then we can hash out what to do about it. This post'll be a place holder. This post could take a while as I'm going to be busy playing videogames and watching shows.

The problem with America is people wasting their time on video games and TV shows instead of doing something that would make a difference.

Kilkrazy wrote:The problem with America is people wasting their time on video games and TV shows instead of doing something that would make a difference.

Those lazy bastards.

halonachos wrote:Depends on the school, research schools tend to have lower quality teachers because most of the researchers are teachers and have tenure and lack a feth to give about education.

It's more that people who tend to be very good at high level research tend to be very bad at teaching, and slightly worse at administration. It's one of those weird things in how people's brains work. As a result, schools tend to have to balance between producing first rate research, and first rate teaching. And then it gets even trickier when you consider that the higher the quality of research you expect out of a university, the more those academics will be involved in administration.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

dogma wrote:Excess cost in American schools is largely related to things like athletics (not at all schools, but the big ones), room & board (which functions very differently outside the US, excepting schools in places like New York and Chicago), and demand for institutions of certain types in certain places (eg. directional schools in California cost far more than directional schools in Illinois).

To an extent, sure. The expectation of living on campus will grow costs considerably.

The primary driver, though, from what I can see is simple waste. Waste of professional staff, with simply far more employed than should be needed, and waste of academic staff's time, as a very large number of academics simply don't produce as much as they could, and it's quite hard to quanitatively show this.

People complain about government waste all the time, especially on this forum. Well I've worked in government and it never seemed any worse than my experiences in the private sector. But I won't even try to justify university use of resources, and if our universities are operating on about half the cost of your's, well...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

ShumaGorath wrote:Landscaping and general groundskeeping is an immense expense as well. At least at the schools I've been too. It's amazing how much they pay into tertiary and largely irrelevant things while their standards of education flounder.

You have no idea the menagerie of animals wondering around campus here. Unless you've got elephants or something, I can't see it accounting for the difference in cost.

You have no idea the menagerie of animals wondering around campus here. Unless you've got elephants or something, I can't see it accounting for the difference in cost.

I don't think it accounts for the difference alone, but my college was 80 square miles of well manicured grass and forest. That is not cheap. I was mentioning the landscaping more to point out the prioritization of the colleges I have experienced towards looking like better schools then they are.

ShumaGorath wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

Frazzled wrote:You don't want to discuss the Frank Dodd Act aka the 2010 Lawyer Employment Act. Law firms have set up entire practices just to interpret the massed regulations that are coming out of that nightmare, which will be repealed...er modified in the next two years.

Discuss what YOU would propose.

I'll get back to you with that tomorrow. It's 1:00AM and I gotta work in the morning.

Alright, my weekends done. I'm ready to discuss stuff. I'll write up a list of things I think are ailing this nation and society and then we can hash out what to do about it. This post'll be a place holder. This post could take a while as I'm going to be busy playing videogames and watching shows.

Ok, lets list this crap up. I'll start with economic and move onto governmental.

Problems with modern American economics in the order of their importance:

1. Automation has made the modern American factory worker irrelevant while foreign labor has made him noncompetitive. We can solve one of the two with tarrifs or other self destructive isolationist trade laws, but not the other. Virtually every simple manufacturing job that exists can be automated to a high degree and many technical jobs such as auto building or parts machining can be better done with purpose built machines then they can humans. In reality many, many service jobs and quite a few jobs that could be classified as service or artistic (phone tellers, ink and dye specialists, cooks etc) are being automated out as well. This created a boom industry for machinists and engineers, but the jobs gained are far eclipsed by the jobs lost. Automation can be seen in every level of society, from the death of the post man to the simple loss of the dude that checks your electric guage since now they have them with built in routers. There are fundamentally less untrained jobs then before which has forced many people into low paying service jobs. The service industry is not something America can support a middle class on and the middle class is dying because of it. There is no easy answer to this, the birth of true and spreading automation means the death of manual labor. Can everyone be an engineer?

2: The stock market no longer serves it's intended purpose. High frequency trading by value makes up between half and three quarters of all trading on wallstreet. It's a day trader mechanism designed to make money immediately, and it's designed to work off of volatility and trends, not off of an evaluation of an investments worth in the real world. The stock market is meant as machine for generating capitol and for growing businesses and industries. When it's automated to become a vector for pure profit building it stops performing it's actual role. The stock market is currently a mechanism for enhancing wealth. It is incredibly difficult to break into and utilize as a non professional and in modern times it's increasing turbulence (generated by it's aim as a short term profit builder and not a true investment market) is reducing it's use as a safe haven for growing savings. So much corruption surrounds the stock market that I'm surprised it doesn't grow horns and a beard. That nothing is done is emblematic of how distributed the problem truly is and how powerful those who use it best are. Examples of it's truly broken nature are the current food price bubble (boy is that going to suck when it pops) or the toxic asset bubble that killed us a few years ago. I'd question whether we can do anything about this at all. People don't understand the mechanisms of the market well enough to know where to point the finger and they would need tens of thousands of fingers to point at it all.

3: Noncompetitive competition. There is no reason to pay workers in America when you can pay someone in cambodia a fourtieth as much and get the same quality of sock. That's not going to change. The mills aren't coming back. This is lumped in with #1 but its not nearly as destructive to American job growth as automation has been and it doesn't threaten to replace all jobs eventually. Making sure that they aren't fething with their currency and the increase in oil prices will ship some jobs back here eventually since it costs a lot to boat things to the other side of the planet.

4: Peak oil. You know what it is. I know what it is. It's going to destroy us and no one is going to do anything about it until it's too late to make forty years worth of infrastructure changes in 10. Scarcity will probably cause the greatest recession in history. Who knows though, maybe we'll crack fusion by then. Peak oil isn't a problem because of cars, it's a problem because everything in this country in one way or another requires oil. Including those cars. Somewhere along every supply chain that exists there is a petroleum product or process that makes it possible. We can not foresee it all and were not even going to try until it's too late and half the businesses in the country (and probably the planet) become too expensive to operate.

5: Soil erosion and water problems. Boring stuff, lets just hang bankers instead of paying attention to how much food we're going to have in 30 years.

6: Americas budget problems. This is mostly healthcare. Obamacare is a loose bandaid and nothing has been done to fundamentally alter the issues with modern healthcare. Insurance doesn't need to exist, specialists don't need to equal doctors in number, pfizer shouldn't be able to fly doctors to resorts, et cetera. We pay twice as much as the next guy for being in the 30's for quality. That's pure gak. Our system is awful and it's killing our economy and government. Our tax code is weird too, it's ludicrously complicated and it's plain to see the top 1% has had a large hand in it's crafting concerning where taxes are actually paid.

I'm sure there's more stuff. I'm tired, I'll do government tomorrow. Fraz, if you want to tear into any of this go ahead. I'll do the government stuff after, then we can hash out exactly what best to do about these issues.

I think, given what we've seen over the past 5-ish years, that it goes without saying that financial regulatory reform long overdue. I'm a generally conservative/libertarian/free market sort of person, but even I feel that more extensive and direct control is necessary.

I also happen to feel that taxes on the wealthiest Americans should be increased.

That said, I offer this unsubstantiated assertion: when we do get "financial regulatory reform" it will just be the same oligarchs further entrenching rules that benefit them, while people like Paul Krugman lie to us about how their political allies did something good. People like Paul Krugman are just trying to win the PR battle for their patron oligarchs (George Soros), even as conservatives try to win the PR battle for theirs (the Koch brothers).

So, that's whatever. Easy to say "both sides suck" but just cause it's easy, that doesn't mean it's not true. The real issue here is that the populace isn't getting educated, isn't looking at what's REALLY being done, isn't watching what their leaders are doing.

Not that it's easy. Modern banking/finance has grown so abstract and internecine that even educated people can't fully grasp the big picture.

All of this causes me to wonder if things might actually be better than they seem. Sure, the charts all show the top 1% heading off skyward, while the rest of us trundle along. But I question how relevant all that is from two different angles...

From the top, does having a billion dollars really mean anything? And do these people really even have a billion dollars? It's not like they have a million thousand dollar TVs, or something. Their billion dollars are in stock, investments, tons and tons of stuff that you can't really sell. All those billions really do (for example), is allow somebody to buy into a company and exercise control over its operation. Is it wrong that somebody who has amassed so much money should be able to exercise control over a company? Plus, banks are loaning out money they don't have, keeping the bare 10% they need to keep the FDIC happy, creating all this false capital that, to a large extent, makes up these billionaires' fortunes. So, does any of this REALLY matter? I don't think so... It doesn't really matter how rich people are, it matters much more how poor the rest of the people are...

So, from the bottom... Are people worse off now then they have been? Do they have less stuff? Harder lives? Worse healthcare? I don't really know, I don't have useful links or charts... I just get the impression that the reason we're talking about healthcare lately isn't because it's getting worse, it's because it's getting better to the point that people are saying "hey, let's just get 100% coverage, and close the loop." You see stats saying how many people are in poverty, ignoring the fact that "poverty" is in itself an arbitrarily defined term. So I'm not sure people really have it worse now than they have in the past, and, on the contrary, I think they have it far better. I mean, in 2012 we treat illegal immigrants in our hospitals, and get all huffily outraged that we have to do it. In 1912, that dude could be bleeding to death, they'd yell at him for dirtying up the street.

So, honestly, who cares about the top 1%? I'm not convinced their wealth is "real" in the first place, and even if it is, it's not relevant.

Honestly, this is why I hate Paul Krugman. He's focused on directing animosity at the wealthiest 1%. It's class warfare. It's him trying to find a message that wins votes for his political allies. It doesn't matter what the wealthiest 1% has. It matters that 100% have what they need, live as happy and rewarding lives as possible. Worrying about the wealthiest 1% is hating, it's not useful.

We need two things:

1) A set of financial regulations that provide for a stable, secure system which is as transparent and accessible.

2) A tax policy that maximizes tax revenue over the long term.

I DETEST these people who talk about the wealthy paying their "fair share." They already pay far more than their "fair share." It's not about "fairness" it's about "maximizing tax revenue." The wealthy SHOULD pay more taxes, not because it's "fair" but because it's "effective."

If you can't lead people without resorting to class warfare and hate politics, then maybe you shouldn't try to lead people...

That goes for people like Paul Krugman, who try to slice off the lower income demographics and rally against the wealthy, and people like [insert random conservative hack here] who try to slice off the upper income demographics, and rally them against the "welfare queens."


Automatically Appended Next Post:

The stock market no longer serves it's intended purpose.

Yup. It's like fancy trading cards. I'm not sure how it could be regulated, but I'd like to see a system that requires dividend payments on all publicly traded stocks. If you're not sharing profits, it's not a stock, period.

Peak oil. You know what it is. I know what it is. It's going to destroy us and no one is going to do anything about it until it's too late to make forty years worth of infrastructure changes in 10. Scarcity will probably cause the greatest recession in history.

I don't think that it's going to be as precipitous as you appear to be suggesting, but, at the same time, energy production is, in my eyes, the MOST IMPORTANT THING. All other problems become trivial when unlimited cheap energy is available. Water? Build all the desal plants you need, pump it all over the place, no problem. Global warming? Build huge carbon sequestration machines, whatever else, again, no problem.

This is really what I think about when I think about Obamacare, social programs in general, etc. It's not that I don't want people to get taken care of, I just don't care as much about the bottom 10% as I do about the bottom 50%. Cause, like you said, food costs, water supply, budget problems, peak oil... If things go bad, the top 50% will be ok. Not great, not glad, not buying new cars as often, or eating out quite as much, but they'll be ok. The bottom 50%, on the other hand, will start DYING. People are all psyched on Obamacare now, really worried about the poor folk getting healthcare, but if its their OWN healthcare starting to look iffy, they'll gut shoot a homeless guy if that will get them their coverage back.

We spent something like $10 billion on the LHC, which is a lot of money, but also chump change when it comes to the sorts of stimulus bills we're paying for, and for the cost of all the social programs we carry every single year. We spent so much going into Iraq to keep our supply of oil flowing... If we had just spent that on energy research, we could probably have let the Arabs have the oil.

It's prohibitively expensive to try to make sure everyone has everything they need, all the time, and it simply won't work.