Where is/can Donald Trump take US (sic)?

[luutzu]

Well, your assertion that Keynesian economic theory works is no better, because the pure theory has never been faithfully applied.

In addition, let's define "works".

I can't find a cite quickly (horses to save, you understand), but iirc, Keynes himself conceded his theory cannot work long term.

Yes, we should define what is meant by "works".

Are the aims of gov't policies to lift the masses up and out of poverty; or are they meant to enrich the ruling elite, suppress democratic rights and leave the running of the states to "responsible men" of destiny.


Keynes theory was meant to be a stimulus to reduce the impact of economic recession. As stimulus goes, it's meant to be short lived and not as an on-going policy.

So when an economy is in a recession, the gov't ought to borrow or print money, fund projects to put most people to work. Their work build infrastructure, bring services to the community; also put money into their pockets.

Those money in turn create demand; demand create incentives to increase production and supply; that in turn increase employment... through all these, taxes are collected to repay those debts and reduce those money supplies.

Win/Win.

BUT....

Why all the trouble when you can just give money to the rich and corporations, they make money, they invest those money overseas, hire accountants and tax minimise the heck out of profit they can't stash offshore.

Then as the population earn less and less, they become more desperate; desperate workers don't ask for raises and safety gears and nice work environment; scared and desperate workers don't have time to question state policies.

 

[wayneL]

Such is how dem socialists work Grasshopper.

 

[luutzu]

Such is how dem socialists work Grasshopper.

Be less cryptic Sifu. I said a lot of nonsense up there.

Socialism, Capitalism... the term's been hijacked.

In a society there's only two class of people: The ruler and the ruled. The master and the slave.

Those who own everything is the Master. Everyone else work and owned by them.

Those with useful "education" get to serve at higher levels and be more generously rewarded; Those with less education get to become politicians.

 

[Trembling Hand]

Ha!

Pretty much same BS here too.

 

[noco]

Ha!

Pretty much same BS here too.

Just more socialist left wing Trump bashing....The left wing socialists control the media just as they do here in Aus.

Do you know what his health care policy is after he revamps Obama Care?

 

[luutzu]

Just more socialist left wing Trump bashing....The left wing socialists control the media just as they do here in Aus.

Do you know what his health care policy is after he revamps Obama Care?

It's not healthcare, it's "wealthCare". You know, caring for the rich.

What's wrong with right-wingers noco? A multi-billionaire racist prick like Trump, proposing a "healthcare" bill that will kick 14M Americans off of health insurance, removing any subsidy to the poorest who cannot now afford any kind of insurance; jack up the insurance costs of people aged 65+ on $25,000 wage from the current $1,700 a year in insurance to some $16,000.

All this while giving $600 BILLION in tax cuts over 10 years to the richest of Americans [top 0.1%]...

all in one single bill....


and you still think Trump is a man of the common people?

wtf?

 

[noco]

It's not healthcare, it's "wealthCare". You know, caring for the rich.

What's wrong with right-wingers noco? A multi-billionaire racist prick like Trump, proposing a "healthcare" bill that will kick 14M Americans off of health insurance, removing any subsidy to the poorest who cannot now afford any kind of insurance; jack up the insurance costs of people aged 65+ on $25,000 wage from the current $1,700 a year in insurance to some $16,000.

All this while giving $600 BILLION in tax cuts over 10 years to the richest of Americans [top 0.1%]...

all in one single bill....


and you still think Trump is a man of the common people?

wtf?

Under Obama Care people would be paying another 25% more.

Guess you will have to wait and see Trump's new policy....In the meantime Obama Care will remain for at least another 2 years.

http://www.themainewire.com/2017/01/trump-gop-lawmakers-planning-obamacare-repeal/

 

[luutzu]

Under Obama Care people would be paying another 25% more.

Guess you will have to wait and see Trump's new policy....In the meantime Obama Care will remain for at least another 2 years.

http://www.themainewire.com/2017/01/trump-gop-lawmakers-planning-obamacare-repeal/

If the WealthCare bill goes through, it'll immediately repeal ObamaCare. Throwing some 14M out of insurance by next year and an estimated 20M+ by 2020 [from memory].

ObamaCare is a piece of sellout too. It does allow Insurers to price gouge like that 25% increase.

But it does do some minor good to the poor. Like not giving the 0.1% richest American a bloody $60B a year tax cut; not cutting back Medicaid that's helping the very poor and elderly.

Trump's bs bill remove those minor niceties and pump up the worst aspect of it.

If you're an elderly American noco, getting some $25K a year in income and instead of paying a max of $1.7K in insurance you'll soon be paying $16K... that's reasonable?


This is why you don't elect racist a holes who beat up on the weak [and non-White] people. Once you [White] people are OK with that, those racist baffoon will turn that fist on "their own" too.

Yes, people like Trump and Hanson... who have no time to look into the nuances of a terrorist or an innocent Muslim will, once they beat up all Muslims, come to look at the finer details of whether a poor person is poor due to circumstances beyond their control rather than being poor because they're just lazy drunkards with too many kids and serve them right to be poor.

 

[howardbandy]

Greetings --

I am a US citizen living in the US. The US is already far, far behind the world's leading countries in caring for the health of its citizens. My wife and I are reasonably affluent and have reasonably good health care. But many Americans do not, and removing the Affordable Care Act will make that worse.

A person I know is a young single mother of a young child. The child was recently diagnosed with a serious illness. The treatment is lengthy, difficult, expensive, and emotionally exhausting. The outcome for the child is uncertain. Their insurance is inadequate -- any insurance would be inadequate. Their assets are non-existent. Their lives are essentially over. Through no fault of their own.

I cannot understand how so many civilized countries -- Great Britain, Canada, Sweden, ... -- have demonstrated that high quality health care can be provided to everyone at reasonable cost, but the US seems unable to.

This isn't about left or right. It is about being civilized or uncivilized; compassionate or cruel; caring or greedy.

Best,
Howard

 

[SirRumpole]

You forgot Australia Howard.

That child's treatment would be essentially free (drug costs excepted but the price is subsidised).

It's paid for by a surcharge on income tax, but there is private health insurance here as well.

I'm glad I'm not sick in the US.

 

[OmegaTrader]

Greetings --

I am a US citizen living in the US. The US is already far, far behind the world's leading countries in caring for the health of its citizens. My wife and I are reasonably affluent and have reasonably good health care. But many Americans do not, and removing the Affordable Care Act will make that worse.

A person I know is a young single mother of a young child. The child was recently diagnosed with a serious illness. The treatment is lengthy, difficult, expensive, and emotionally exhausting. The outcome for the child is uncertain. Their insurance is inadequate -- any insurance would be inadequate. Their assets are non-existent. Their lives are essentially over. Through no fault of their own.

I cannot understand how so many civilized countries -- Great Britain, Canada, Sweden, ... -- have demonstrated that high quality health care can be provided to everyone at reasonable cost, but the US seems unable to.

This isn't about left or right. It is about being civilized or uncivilized; compassionate or cruel; caring or greedy.

Best,
Howard

The reason why people can't afford healthcare is because of the extreme cost.

The reason.......

Doctors and the medical profession are laughing all the way to the bank. Anti competition and cartel behaviour.

To be a doctor you need a high score at school graduation mark, then have to take another test, then you have to have an interview, just to get into medicine. Other wise you have to go through the back door and study at uni to rack up a massive student debt. Once you have used up your main government subsidy for uni, hex/help the cost doubles if you study further. Everyone at school who went for medicine I know could not get in, had to go through the back door.

Want an operation. $000's or you die or live in misery.

Shifting to a government or insurance model does not solve the issue. It simply shifts the costs.

The problem is still the medical profession gouging people.

In Australia the cost is born by the government and is one the major future problems facing the country with an ageing population. This is the problem around the world.

quick google medical salaries etc

https://www.businessinsider.com.au/heres-how-much-money-australian-doctors-actually-earn-2014-5

I support the insurance scheme in principle because it forces people into paying a constant stream like savings, the premium can be invested over time to lesson the cost.

In the current gov model alot of people are paying nothing mainly by retiring strategically or obtaining child based welfare strategically

In an insurance model at least people would pay something and if they are on welfare then that would be come out of the welfare payment.


Here in australia a person can put all of their money into a house. UNLIMITED VALUE HOUSE or give away their money five years before pension age to their children with no gift tax. Also the house will have not capital gains tax if it is their main residence. You could have a 2 million or 5 million or 10 million dollar house and still get a pension and free medical.

Then they receive practically free healthcare and a pension. Welfare is about 35% of the total budget. One you add in medical it is just over 50% of the total expenditure or given spending is about 36% of GDP -18% of GDP.

There is a medicare levy of I think 2% and a additional surplus for income earners above a certain level. An income earner can avoid this surplus by taking private health insurance. But alot of people still use the gov system because it is a lot cheaper even with health insurance, just have insurance to avoid the surplus tax.


There will always be adverse selection and people extracting a surplus whether intentionally or by bad luck. But at least in an insurance scheme the surplus is used for people to claim rather than going into gov bureaucracy to be spent in other areas. Premiums need also to be kept under control but if medical cost go down, this could largely negate the problem or exorbitant premiums.

Rather than selling your house to pay for the doctors ferrari in Australia, you get it for a cheaper cost but that cost is simply shifted to the government who will get it from taxation or overspending the budget and borrowing.

But the insurance scheme will not work if medical costs are brought down by increasing competition.

That is why I like the insurance scheme better.



my two cents.

 

[luutzu]

You forgot Australia Howard.

That child's treatment would be essentially free (drug costs excepted but the price is subsidised).

It's paid for by a surcharge on income tax, but there is private health insurance here as well.

I'm glad I'm not sick in the US.

From what our family went through, that child's treatment would be completely free in Australia - medicine included.

As long as the child is treated in a hospital, Medicare will pay for it.

Medicare is a great insurance policy. It focus on the care of citizens rather than profiting from them.

So when I was young, single... my income goes towards medicare and I hardly use the system. When I earn quite a bit, the entire medicare levy and surchage paid was something like $5K. I wasn't too happy about it then but man, you really appreciate how great we're having it when we (all) eventually get sick and need urgent medical care.

 

[luutzu]

The reason why people can't afford healthcare is because of the extreme cost.

The reason.......

Doctors and the medical profession are laughing all the way to the bank. Anti competition and cartel behaviour.

To be a doctor you need a high score at school graduation mark, then have to take another test, then you have to have an interview, just to get into medicine. Other wise you have to go through the back door and study at uni to rack up a massive student debt. Once you have used up your main government subsidy for uni, hex/help the cost doubles if you study further. Everyone at school who went for medicine I know could not get in, had to go through the back door.

Want an operation. $000's or you die or live in misery.

Shifting to a government or insurance model does not solve the issue. It simply shifts the costs.

The problem is still the medical profession gouging people.

In Australia the cost is born by the government and is one the major future problems facing the country with an ageing population. This is the problem around the world.

quick google medical salaries etc

https://www.businessinsider.com.au/heres-how-much-money-australian-doctors-actually-earn-2014-5

I support the insurance scheme in principle because it forces people into paying a constant stream like savings, the premium can be invested over time to lesson the cost.

In the current gov model alot of people are paying nothing mainly by retiring strategically or obtaining child based welfare strategically

In an insurance model at least people would pay something and if they are on welfare then that would be come out of the welfare payment.


Here in australia a person can put all of their money into a house. UNLIMITED VALUE HOUSE or give away their money five years before pension age to their children with no gift tax. Also the house will have not capital gains tax if it is their main residence. You could have a 2 million or 5 million or 10 million dollar house and still get a pension and free medical.

Then they receive practically free healthcare and a pension. Welfare is about 35% of the total budget. One you add in medical it is just over 50% of the total expenditure or given spending is about 36% of GDP -18% of GDP.

There is a medicare levy of I think 2% and a additional surplus for income earners above a certain level. An income earner can avoid this surplus by taking private health insurance. But alot of people still use the gov system because it is a lot cheaper even with health insurance, just have insurance to avoid the surplus tax.


There will always be adverse selection and people extracting a surplus whether intentionally or by bad luck. But at least in an insurance scheme the surplus is used for people to claim rather than going into gov bureaucracy to be spent in other areas. Premiums need also to be kept under control but if medical cost go down, this could largely negate the problem or exorbitant premiums.

Rather than selling your house to pay for the doctors ferrari in Australia, you get it for a cheaper cost but that cost is simply shifted to the government who will get it from taxation or overspending the budget and borrowing.

But the insurance scheme will not work if medical costs are brought down by increasing competition.

That is why I like the insurance scheme better.



my two cents.

Medicare is an insurance scheme. It's just a public one.

The other insurance scheme is private. And as private entrepreneur does best, premiums will always increase and fine prints will get finer and finer until that gold-plated insurance you think have you covered didn't.

There are lots of examples in the US where people who pay some $20K in premium a year thought they're covered, then get a big surprise when their insurer refused to pay for most or all of the costs becasue of this or other reasons.

Then if they still have enough life and money left, would need to get a lawyer and start suing.

Try suing a multi-billion dollar insurer. It's not cheap... your average lawyer won't touch it. The above average lawyer will cost a pretty penny.


So our medicare is great. It's a public health insurance where those who can pay and those who are too poor or too sick still get covered.

Health is a right, not a privilege.

Don't get fooled into those "freedom" and "choice" bs American politicians does very well when they're screwing the public over.

I mean, all American politicians get a public-funded medicare programme. It's all working well and doing great for them... for the average American though, it's free market baby. Tough love will make you stronger.
-------------

Doctors and surgeon do earn a fair bit, but in all honesty... beside maybe the specialists, they don't gouge that much over here. I've seen people doing much less important work gouging the gov't a heck of a lot more. Just ask IBM.

 

[luutzu]

20M on the verge of famine.

Let's cut UN funding and see how that goes.

 

[OmegaTrader]

Medicare is an insurance scheme. It's just a public one.

The other insurance scheme is private. And as private entrepreneur does best, premiums will always increase and fine prints will get finer and finer until that gold-plated insurance you think have you covered didn't.

There are lots of examples in the US where people who pay some $20K in premium a year thought they're covered, then get a big surprise when their insurer refused to pay for most or all of the costs becasue of this or other reasons.

Then if they still have enough life and money left, would need to get a lawyer and start suing.

Try suing a multi-billion dollar insurer. It's not cheap... your average lawyer won't touch it. The above average lawyer will cost a pretty penny.


So our medicare is great. It's a public health insurance where those who can pay and those who are too poor or too sick still get covered.

Health is a right, not a privilege.

Don't get fooled into those "freedom" and "choice" bs American politicians does very well when they're screwing the public over.

I mean, all American politicians get a public-funded medicare programme. It's all working well and doing great for them... for the average American though, it's free market baby. Tough love will make you stronger.
-------------

Doctors and surgeon do earn a fair bit, but in all honesty... beside maybe the specialists, they don't gouge that much over here. I've seen people doing much less important work gouging the gov't a heck of a lot more. Just ask IBM.

1)The lack of coverage is a failure of regulation and business self interest winning over government, just like the queensland floods. The gov was too weak on insurers adn taxed people to pay for the disaster levy wtf?

2) It is great but unsustainable with longer living ages 50% of budget on welfare and taxes, eventually the system will break at this level of spending

3) If prices fall it will be less of an issue and in an economy with fair wages people could actually afford to pay the medical bills

4) medical profession is definitely gouging big time as is the legal proffession, definetly not a free market with lack of competition and cartel behaviour, solve this and solve the burden. I help that technology and advances solves the issue by lowering costs by reducing labour.

two wrongs don't make a right, gouging is gouging.

 

[Junior]

1)The lack of coverage is a failure of regulation and business self interest winning over government, just like the queensland floods. The gov was too weak on insurers adn taxed people to pay for the disaster levy wtf?

2) It is great but unsustainable with longer living ages 50% of budget on welfare and taxes, eventually the system will break at this level of spending

3) If prices fall it will be less of an issue and in an economy with fair wages people could actually afford to pay the medical bills

4) medical profession is definitely gouging big time as is the legal proffession, definetly not a free market with lack of competition and cartel behaviour, solve this and solve the burden. I help that technology and advances solves the issue by lowering costs by reducing labour.

two wrongs don't make a right, gouging is gouging.

A couple of points here:

1) Qld floods, is this related to healthcare? Or are you talking home and contents insurance here?


4) I don't think it's anywhere near as bad as what you are saying....if you want to be a GP or surgeon you spend a huge amount of time and money to get qualfied, then you work in a role with high stress and long long hours.

The equipment and technology used in a hospital is highly specialised and costly.

The reason you spend so long waiting to be attended to, is because of the massive demand doctors face, they take very short breaks during a shift and work long hours. They deserve to be paid handsomely.

In Australia we have a great system, of course it can always be improved, but I daresay, that in the US, they should use Australia as a case study when it comes to offering universal free healthcare.

 

[luutzu]

1)The lack of coverage is a failure of regulation and business self interest winning over government, just like the queensland floods. The gov was too weak on insurers adn taxed people to pay for the disaster levy wtf?

2) It is great but unsustainable with longer living ages 50% of budget on welfare and taxes, eventually the system will break at this level of spending

3) If prices fall it will be less of an issue and in an economy with fair wages people could actually afford to pay the medical bills

4) medical profession is definitely gouging big time as is the legal proffession, definetly not a free market with lack of competition and cartel behaviour, solve this and solve the burden. I help that technology and advances solves the issue by lowering costs by reducing labour.

two wrongs don't make a right, gouging is gouging.

There are price gouging for sure. But from the little that I know, it's mainly from private practises rather than from public hospital staff and medical personnel.

A few years ago, a friend's wife earns about $75K a year as head of an intensive care nursing unit at, I think, the Royal North Shore Hospital. They're in the life-saving business, working as a nurse in ICU is no easy job and still being paid only that much is very reasonable.

Specialists on the other hand... costs a min of $350 to see one for a minor consultation.

A private hospital dentist operated on my kid's teeth because the previous dentist screwed up and her teeth was infected from the filling... The first bastard didn't repay us the money for dodgy work; the second one charges something like $100 to pull one tooth out [there were two], then he charges an extra $75 to stitch each hole the tooth left.

All in all, a 1 hour operation to remove two teeth and glue cap a couple other [just in case] costs us $1,650.

If we're to go private with our healthcare system, we'd all be screwed like the average American who's paying twice the costs. And that's if we're lucky enough to afford it.


Medicare is not broke; it's an insurance operation. If the costs of the entire system is too high, just raise the levy or surcharge. That way, we will still all pay less for proper care. Private insurance is not the answer.

That and instead of giving corporations tax cuts and other generosity to the already rich, put it towards healthcare for all.

Healthy people are more productive. It also mean their family member do not have to take time off work to take care of them... also mean the sick won't be forced to work, handling meal while they're sick; passing on contagious diseases... It's also a right too.

Why should we pay all our taxes but expect nothing in return.

 

[OmegaTrader]

A couple of points here:

1) Qld floods, is this related to healthcare? Or are you talking home and contents insurance here?


4) I don't think it's anywhere near as bad as what you are saying....if you want to be a GP or surgeon you spend a huge amount of time and money to get qualfied, then you work in a role with high stress and long long hours.

The equipment and technology used in a hospital is highly specialised and costly.

The reason you spend so long waiting to be attended to, is because of the massive demand doctors face, they take very short breaks during a shift and work long hours. They deserve to be paid handsomely.

In Australia we have a great system, of course it can always be improved, but I daresay, that in the US, they should use Australia as a case study when it comes to offering universal free healthcare.

There are price gouging for sure. But from the little that I know, it's mainly from private practises rather than from public hospital staff and medical personnel.

A few years ago, a friend's wife earns about $75K a year as head of an intensive care nursing unit at, I think, the Royal North Shore Hospital. They're in the life-saving business, working as a nurse in ICU is no easy job and still being paid only that much is very reasonable.

Specialists on the other hand... costs a min of $350 to see one for a minor consultation.

A private hospital dentist operated on my kid's teeth because the previous dentist screwed up and her teeth was infected from the filling... The first bastard didn't repay us the money for dodgy work; the second one charges something like $100 to pull one tooth out [there were two], then he charges an extra $75 to stitch each hole the tooth left.

All in all, a 1 hour operation to remove two teeth and glue cap a couple other [just in case] costs us $1,650.

If we're to go private with our healthcare system, we'd all be screwed like the average American who's paying twice the costs. And that's if we're lucky enough to afford it.


Medicare is not broke; it's an insurance operation. If the costs of the entire system is too high, just raise the levy or surcharge. That way, we will still all pay less for proper care. Private insurance is not the answer.

That and instead of giving corporations tax cuts and other generosity to the already rich, put it towards healthcare for all.

Healthy people are more productive. It also mean their family member do not have to take time off work to take care of them... also mean the sick won't be forced to work, handling meal while they're sick; passing on contagious diseases... It's also a right too.

Why should we pay all our taxes but expect nothing in return.

1) In QLD flood insurers got out of paying by saying that a flood was not a flood if the water came from a river not from rain. Alot of people were not covered even when advice from financial institutions said they were. Therefore the government had to levy people to pay for some of these problems as well as being unprepared and realeasing the dams. It is a broader policy of insurance companies not covering people in events for self interest and government failing to regulate this issue. Also commowealth bank has been implicated in recent insurance issues . It is the same around the world

2)It is only a matter of time before the system is overrun at the current rate

3)medical profession is gouging alot of people and myself have had good experience with public sector medical. Overall quality is excellent++ but price is not especially for private.

4) Alot of people are extracting a surplus by strategically getting welfare. If less money is spent on medical/welfare the idea is it can be channelled in others areas, although in practice the bureaucracy will prob eat it up anyway, that is why the less they get the less they spend after the minimum needed it just gets wasted.

 

[luutzu]

1) In QLD flood insurers got out of paying by saying that a flood was not a flood if the water came from a river not from rain. Alot of people were not covered even when advice from financial institutions said they were. Therefore the government had to levy people to pay for some of these problems as well as being unprepared and realeasing the dams. It is a broader policy of insurance companies not covering people in events for self interest and government failing to regulate this issue. Also commowealth bank has been implicated in recent insurance issues . It is the same around the world

2)It is only a matter of time before the system is overrun at the current rate

3)medical profession is gouging alot of people and myself have had good experience with public sector medical. Overall quality is excellent++ but price is not especially for private.

4) Alot of people are extracting a surplus by strategically getting welfare. If less money is spent on medical/welfare the idea is it can be channelled in others areas, although in practice the bureaucracy will prob eat it up anyway, that is why the less they get the less they spend after the minimum needed it just gets wasted.

I guess it's a good example of public/socialised insurance being better and more effective than privatised insurance.

An insurer's business model is to insure those who never need to ever make a claim. Or not need it unless some freak event happen. A smarter insurer make sure there are legal wiggle room to get out of any such freak event.

That's how they make money. It's not like most know how to make money from investing those float right?

There are certain place and certain market where private enterprise better serve the public. Flood, natural disasters, public health ain't those.

So if Medicare is going broke, raise the levy and surcharge. We all end up paying, but still pay less than if we were to all go private.

 

[OmegaTrader]

I guess it's a good example of public/socialised insurance being better and more effective than privatised insurance.

An insurer's business model is to insure those who never need to ever make a claim. Or not need it unless some freak event happen. A smarter insurer make sure there are legal wiggle room to get out of any such freak event.

That's how they make money. It's not like most know how to make money from investing those float right?

There are certain place and certain market where private enterprise better serve the public. Flood, natural disasters, public health ain't those.

So if Medicare is going broke, raise the levy and surcharge. We all end up paying, but still pay less than if we were to all go private.

1) agree the gov is supposed to be for regulation in insurance, that is their job to stop silly buggers wiggling by companies. Failure is both the cops and the crooks fault.

2) Paul keating in interview has discussed the suggestion of an insurance type system run by the government, which takes out the profit motive but of course introduces bureaucracy. It would be much fairer then increases the levy to pay for people who strategically get welfare and thereby healthcare. It creates surpluses for people willing to be strategic. Also the medicare levy is insufficient and given the run up off costs eventually taxation will be overwhelmed unless costs decrease by either innovation/technology or regulation/measures/market conditions to improve competition. The market is failing leading to an exorbitant burden.

3) Again costs are the main issue burden is the secondary issue.