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

[noco]

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.

The government recoups some $11 billion from the 1.5% and 2% of salaries......Medicare cost in the vicinity of $22 billion.......$11 billion short fall.......I believe it is time the Government lifted the take from salaries by .5% to 2% and 2.5% to each category due to the increase cost of medical care.

 

[luutzu]

The government recoups some $11 billion from the 1.5% and 2% of salaries......Medicare cost in the vicinity of $22 billion.......$11 billion short fall.......I believe it is time the Government lifted the take from salaries by .5% to 2% and 2.5% to each category due to the increase cost of medical care.

Yea I wouldn't mind a surcharge or an increase in the levy. Though if the shortfall can be taken care from our income tax pool, there's no reason why our income tax shouldn't also be going towards part of the healthcare budget too.

So for gov't to say that medicare is going broke is playing too loose with reality.

But either way, having this sort of gov't insurance where we all contribute, even with an increase surcharge, is well worth it.

If we opt for the US kind of system, we would all still be paying anyway. Just a heck of a lot more. So the average earner will pay a higher insurance premium directly to the insurers - who won't be playing nice; the poor wouldn't be able to afford insurance so will be up the creek if they ever get sick; and insurers will profit handsomely.

 

[luutzu]

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.

Yea it's pretty amazing the kind of bs insurers can get away with and politicians just letting them. Can't put up too much of a fight when it could be one of the boards you could be on if you play nice with other people's money.

There's bureaucracy and administrative costs in private insurers too. They're not as efficient as they're made out to be. They're just a bit more nasty in how they fire people and a bit slack in the quality of service they provide - hence, "efficiency" as measured by the costs of providing services.

So they can cut back on staff numbers, it costs them less money, but the waiting line and calling time gets longer - the costs get past onto the consumers. Not real efficiency really. Just passing the buck.

True, if our healthcare system really wants to, it could just bring everything in-house... or at least most things... and the cost savings would be incredible. But like you said, societies this and expertise that and somehow some dude pulling teeth could charge hundreds a half hour.

I don't know the details of our health system so can't go into it. But have heard that in the UK, their public health system has slowly been privatised without the public being aware of it.

That most functions at hospitals and such have been contracted out to private operators - the big guys, not the mum and pop operator. And that's one of the major reasons why medical expenses have skyrocketed. Almost to the point where self-serving politicians can make a case of "can't afford it" and flog the whole thing off to big multinationals.

 

[howardbandy]

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.

Between the insurance premiums my wife and I pay, and the residual charges we must pay ourselves that insurance does not pay (called "co-payments" in the US), our medical cost is well in excess of $10,000 per year. Drugs are partially covered. Hearing, eye, and dental care are not covered by insurance for most Americans -- they are 100% paid for out of our pocket. (My wife has an appointment to have a tooth crowned next week. The estimated cost is $1600 -- not included in the $10,000.)

One of the reasons the US is having this problem is that health insurance was made a benefit of employment following WWII to aid in employment recruiting. Public agencies cut back and dropped coverage until essentially all health care was through employment related policies. When people changed jobs, lost jobs, retired, or were students, the health care attached to employment model broke down and there was, and now is, no good alternative.

Hospitals are required to treat patients who visit "emergency rooms" for treatment without requiring insurance or advance payment. Emergency room care is far more expensive than equivalent care in a physician office, clinic, or pre-arranged hospital. Emergency room treatments that are not paid by the patient are allocated to other patients -- those who pay out-of-pocket or with insurance. One of the consequences of removing the Affordable Care Act is to cause patients to reduce preventative care, become more seriously ill before seeking treatment, and increase use emergency rooms. Together, these factors cause the overall quality of health to drop and the total cost of health care to rise.

A statement often made by Americans is that we are all only one serious illness or accident away from bankruptcy. All but the very wealthiest Americans die with no remaining assets, but with unpaid health care bills.

 

[noco]

Yea I wouldn't mind a surcharge or an increase in the levy. Though if the shortfall can be taken care from our income tax pool, there's no reason why our income tax shouldn't also be going towards part of the healthcare budget too.

So for gov't to say that medicare is going broke is playing too loose with reality.

But either way, having this sort of gov't insurance where we all contribute, even with an increase surcharge, is well worth it.

If we opt for the US kind of system, we would all still be paying anyway. Just a heck of a lot more. So the average earner will pay a higher insurance premium directly to the insurers - who won't be playing nice; the poor wouldn't be able to afford insurance so will be up the creek if they ever get sick; and insurers will profit handsomely.

Thee problem that is occurring ATM is many are finding it hard to maintain their private health insurance because of ever increasing costs of premiums and are leaving in droves which in turn will put more pressure on our Public Hospital system.

 

[OmegaTrader]

Between the insurance premiums my wife and I pay, and the residual charges we must pay ourselves that insurance does not pay (called "co-payments" in the US), our medical cost is well in excess of $10,000 per year. Drugs are partially covered. Hearing, eye, and dental care are not covered by insurance for most Americans -- they are 100% paid for out of our pocket. (My wife has an appointment to have a tooth crowned next week. The estimated cost is $1600 -- not included in the $10,000.)

One of the reasons the US is having this problem is that health insurance was made a benefit of employment following WWII to aid in employment recruiting. Public agencies cut back and dropped coverage until essentially all health care was through employment related policies. When people changed jobs, lost jobs, retired, or were students, the health care attached to employment model broke down and there was, and now is, no good alternative.

Hospitals are required to treat patients who visit "emergency rooms" for treatment without requiring insurance or advance payment. Emergency room care is far more expensive than equivalent care in a physician office, clinic, or pre-arranged hospital. Emergency room treatments that are not paid by the patient are allocated to other patients -- those who pay out-of-pocket or with insurance. One of the consequences of removing the Affordable Care Act is to cause patients to reduce preventative care, become more seriously ill before seeking treatment, and increase use emergency rooms. Together, these factors cause the overall quality of health to drop and the total cost of health care to rise.

A statement often made by Americans is that we are all only one serious illness or accident away from bankruptcy. All but the very wealthiest Americans die with no remaining assets, but with unpaid health care bills.

Yea it's pretty amazing the kind of bs insurers can get away with and politicians just letting them. Can't put up too much of a fight when it could be one of the boards you could be on if you play nice with other people's money.

There's bureaucracy and administrative costs in private insurers too. They're not as efficient as they're made out to be. They're just a bit more nasty in how they fire people and a bit slack in the quality of service they provide - hence, "efficiency" as measured by the costs of providing services.

So they can cut back on staff numbers, it costs them less money, but the waiting line and calling time gets longer - the costs get past onto the consumers. Not real efficiency really. Just passing the buck.

True, if our healthcare system really wants to, it could just bring everything in-house... or at least most things... and the cost savings would be incredible. But like you said, societies this and expertise that and somehow some dude pulling teeth could charge hundreds a half hour.

I don't know the details of our health system so can't go into it. But have heard that in the UK, their public health system has slowly been privatised without the public being aware of it.

That most functions at hospitals and such have been contracted out to private operators - the big guys, not the mum and pop operator. And that's one of the major reasons why medical expenses have skyrocketed. Almost to the point where self-serving politicians can make a case of "can't afford it" and flog the whole thing off to big multinationals.

Follow the money all the way to the bank.

Medical professionals bank.

That is the main problem. The rest is burden shifting.

The end

I rest my case and am going home now to bed.

 

[luutzu]

Between the insurance premiums my wife and I pay, and the residual charges we must pay ourselves that insurance does not pay (called "co-payments" in the US), our medical cost is well in excess of $10,000 per year. Drugs are partially covered. Hearing, eye, and dental care are not covered by insurance for most Americans -- they are 100% paid for out of our pocket. (My wife has an appointment to have a tooth crowned next week. The estimated cost is $1600 -- not included in the $10,000.)

One of the reasons the US is having this problem is that health insurance was made a benefit of employment following WWII to aid in employment recruiting. Public agencies cut back and dropped coverage until essentially all health care was through employment related policies. When people changed jobs, lost jobs, retired, or were students, the health care attached to employment model broke down and there was, and now is, no good alternative.

Hospitals are required to treat patients who visit "emergency rooms" for treatment without requiring insurance or advance payment. Emergency room care is far more expensive than equivalent care in a physician office, clinic, or pre-arranged hospital. Emergency room treatments that are not paid by the patient are allocated to other patients -- those who pay out-of-pocket or with insurance. One of the consequences of removing the Affordable Care Act is to cause patients to reduce preventative care, become more seriously ill before seeking treatment, and increase use emergency rooms. Together, these factors cause the overall quality of health to drop and the total cost of health care to rise.

A statement often made by Americans is that we are all only one serious illness or accident away from bankruptcy. All but the very wealthiest Americans die with no remaining assets, but with unpaid health care bills.

That's just incredible.

It's still hard to believe now as it was when I first heard about the US healthcare system from Michael Moore's Sicko. I could never imagine how in a rich country like the US, an couple in their sixties have to sell their home, move into their kid's basement because one of them got a serious illness.

Hard to believe how American politicians managed to pull this kind of neglect off for so long. Paul Ryan and Trump are still playing it. What with calling TrumpCare an "act of mercy", giving freedom and choice.

Imagine having to pay some 1/3 of your income on health insurance. Then get muck around with by insurers when you or your loved one is sick.

Do you think the political climate in America is starting to move towards a single-payer system like all the developed economies have been enjoying all these decades?

From the recent town hall meetings where politicians are given a hiding, most Americans seems to be tired of the usual "free market" capitalism is great, socialism is evil stuff.

With half the population being $1000 away from disaster, platitudes about freedom and democracy doesn't seem to work anymore.

If nothing change in this area... the gutting of the EPA, the deregulation of farm and mining runoffs into waterways; the frackings and pipelines; the free for all for insurers and big pharma... It's not going to end well for millions more American.

But the protests and activism at those town hall meetings look promising.

Maybe Trump is the best thing for American democracy since Hitler.

 

[luutzu]

Thee problem that is occurring ATM is many are finding it hard to maintain their private health insurance because of ever increasing costs of premiums and are leaving in droves which in turn will put more pressure on our Public Hospital system.

Yea, premium goes up because the gov't only free-market mean of controlling private insurers from price gouging was floated off to "mom and pop" investor.

They got real efficient in a hurry, firing people, increasing premium and pass the savings onto their investors.

There are lots of ways to save money. Cutting services and kicking people off of it shouldn't be one of them.

But that's what is done... why? Because poor and sick citizens are easy target. Try cutting a few bucks off GP or Specialist fees. They'll cry poor, stop donating to political fund raisers then threaten to pass the costs onto patient they care so much about because who could live with earning a couple hundreds an hour right?

 

[luutzu]

Follow the money all the way to the bank.

Medical professionals bank.

That is the main problem. The rest is burden shifting.

The end

I rest my case and am going home now to bed.

Vested interests with big bank account are the problem. But I don't think they're the main problem though.

Main problem lies with the spineless and self-serving politicians who either make laws that also serve themselves; or make laws they hate to serve those who will make or break their dream of a mention in the history book.

That and being a democracy, the failure of our politicians does come down and rest on our shoulders.

We plebs have been too quiet, too complacent and just dream of some great leader who will come to our rescue.

It's also hard to blame ourselves too since that's what we've been indoctrinated to believe since birth.

But there are opportunities there... if we don't take it and get noisy. Others will play and loot us like idiots while we fight among ourselves over crumbs and religion and value.

 

[SirRumpole]

From the recent town hall meetings where politicians are given a hiding, most Americans seems to be tired of the usual "free market" capitalism is great, socialism is evil stuff.

Yet they voted for Trump, the most capitalistic politician in the race.

WTF ? (Couldn't find a WTF icon)

 

[howardbandy]

The US -- and to some extent the other developed nations that were on the winning side of WWII -- got strong economic recovery and growth following the war. Along with that came attachment of health care to employment which is a large part of that problem. But the point of this post is growth, rather than health care.

In the period from 1946 to 2000, the US grew much faster than the rest of the world, with US population at 5% of the world using 25% of the world's resources. Post 2000, the previously undeveloped and underdeveloped nations have been expanding much faster than the US. In the process, there is increased competition for resources and the prices are being bid up. Without regard to the politics of other countries, the ratio of resource use to population is in the process of going from 5:1 toward 1:1. I do not have an estimate of how far that process will go, but at the limit of 1:1 the US will have an 80% decrease in standard of living (use of resources) and / or a 400% increase in cost of living.

Daniel Kahneman, "Thinking, Fast and Slow," points out how easily we fool ourselves and how difficult it is for people to extrapolate change that is faster than linear. Standard of living, cost of living, resource use, and energy use are all strongly correlated. The US standard of living is decreasing, perhaps in absolute terms, but certainly relative to the rest of the world. As a country, we cannot understand it and we cannot tolerate that it might be true.

Middle class Americans are being squeezed by the economics on the one hand, and by automation on the other. Middle class incomes are going away as jobs are being replaced by automation. Immigration into the country, legal or illegal, is not a big cause. But it is the cause that is being blamed. An analogy is poor kids stealing lunch money from rich kids, or gangs robbing houses of rich people and looting stores. The rich people react by retreating into gated communities and stocking up on guns. Trump seems to be playing this on a national scale -- building walls along borders and buying aircraft carriers.

He, Trump, has no personal credibility remaining. Even if he is discredited and resigns, there remains a large portion of US lawmakers who are happy to go along with isolation and defense. Which comes at the expense of health care, education, environment, infrastructure, ...

Today, Trump gets the blame. His rude and uncivilized personal behavior, inflammatory rhetoric, and outright lying give us all a large target for our objections. But the problem the US has is much larger than Trump. Unfortunately, as long as he and his are in power, the real problems will not even be addressed, much less solved.

End of rant. Thanks for listening.
Best, Howard

 

[Knobby22]

Yes Howard, increasing defence spending while reducing services to the populace, it is not a way to have a happy country. Even a wing of the Republicans wish have resevations about this thinking.

 

[Tisme]

The US -- and to some extent the other developed nations that were on the winning side of WWII -- got strong economic recovery and growth following the war. Along with that came attachment of health care to employment which is a large part of that problem. But the point of this post is growth, rather than health care.

In the period from 1946 to 2000, the US grew much faster than the rest of the world, with US population at 5% of the world using 25% of the world's resources. Post 2000, the previously undeveloped and underdeveloped nations have been expanding much faster than the US. In the process, there is increased competition for resources and the prices are being bid up. Without regard to the politics of other countries, the ratio of resource use to population is in the process of going from 5:1 toward 1:1. I do not have an estimate of how far that process will go, but at the limit of 1:1 the US will have an 80% decrease in standard of living (use of resources) and / or a 400% increase in cost of living.

Daniel Kahneman, "Thinking, Fast and Slow," points out how easily we fool ourselves and how difficult it is for people to extrapolate change that is faster than linear. Standard of living, cost of living, resource use, and energy use are all strongly correlated. The US standard of living is decreasing, perhaps in absolute terms, but certainly relative to the rest of the world. As a country, we cannot understand it and we cannot tolerate that it might be true.

Middle class Americans are being squeezed by the economics on the one hand, and by automation on the other. Middle class incomes are going away as jobs are being replaced by automation. Immigration into the country, legal or illegal, is not a big cause. But it is the cause that is being blamed. An analogy is poor kids stealing lunch money from rich kids, or gangs robbing houses of rich people and looting stores. The rich people react by retreating into gated communities and stocking up on guns. Trump seems to be playing this on a national scale -- building walls along borders and buying aircraft carriers.

He, Trump, has no personal credibility remaining. Even if he is discredited and resigns, there remains a large portion of US lawmakers who are happy to go along with isolation and defense. Which comes at the expense of health care, education, environment, infrastructure, ...

Today, Trump gets the blame. His rude and uncivilized personal behavior, inflammatory rhetoric, and outright lying give us all a large target for our objections. But the problem the US has is much larger than Trump. Unfortunately, as long as he and his are in power, the real problems will not even be addressed, much less solved.

End of rant. Thanks for listening.
Best, Howard

"While policymakers and the media closely track Gross Domestic Product (GDP) and judge America’s progress by it, the American Human Development Index tracks median personal earnings, a better gauge of ordinary Americans’ standard of living. The graph below chronicles two stories of American economic history over the past 35 years. One is the story of extraordinary economic growth as told by GDP; the other is a story of economic stagnation as told by earnings, which have barely budged since 1974 (both in constant dollars)."

http://ssrc-static.s3.amazonaws.com/moa/AHDP-INCOME-FACT-SHEET-11.08.10.pdf

 

[SirRumpole]

Middle class Americans are being squeezed by the economics on the one hand, and by automation on the other. Middle class incomes are going away as jobs are being replaced by automation.

Not just the US. This is happening around the world. Companies are getting richer, the bulk of people are getting poorer, something has to snap.

 

[Trembling Hand]

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...n-lobbies-for-rule-change-that-benefits-icahn

“This looks more like what you’d see in a banana republic,” says Tyson Slocum of Public Citizen, a liberal watchdog group. “You’ve got a strongman who surrounds himself with billionaires or wealthy advisers who conduct the business of government to benefit their business.”

 

[luutzu]

Not just the US. This is happening around the world. Companies are getting richer, the bulk of people are getting poorer, something has to snap.

The people's back will snap first; then a few of their necks. Then once enough of them got snapped the masses will snap back, grazing everything to the ground as power and wealth changes hand.

But that's why we militarised our police and jack up our surveillance. All to protect us against (Muslim) terrorists of course.

 

[luutzu]

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...n-lobbies-for-rule-change-that-benefits-icahn

That's a bit unfair on Banana Republics because in those (South American) states, a foreign superpower uses its military might to enforce that kind of system on the Banana Republic to advance the interests of multinationals.

Here, they're doing it to themselves.

 

[noco]

It beats the $hit out of me why, on this forum, we are paying so much attention to American politics when we should be more concerned about what is going on Australia.

I have never ever known so much relentless pain in the a$$ comments shown in the USA and is it happening on a daily basis here in Australia and the US...Plenty of lies and propaganda.

Or maybe it is just a continuous socialist left wing bagging of Trump to discredit the man when ever they can.

You never hear this brainless group criticizing Obama or Hillary Clinton.......How one sided and biased can you get?

The Democrats in the US and the Green/Labor socialist coalition in Australia are certainly poor losers.

 

[OmegaTrader]

It beats the $hit out of me why, on this forum, we are paying so much attention to American politics when we should be more concerned about what is going on Australia.

I have never ever known so much relentless pain in the a$$ comments shown in the USA and is it happening on a daily basis here in Australia and the US...Plenty of lies and propaganda.

Or maybe it is just a continuous socialist left wing bagging of Trump to discredit the man when ever they can.

You never hear this brainless group criticizing Obama or Hillary Clinton.......How one sided and biased can you get?

The Democrats in the US and the Green/Labor socialist coalition in Australia are certainly poor losers.

1) Trump got in because he was better than hillary. Trump offered an alternative to mainstream establishment.Trumps alternative was seen as better than the establishment in clinoton.People like the underdog anti-establishment as the establishment is bureaucratic,inefficient and corrupt. That is why Obama beat Clinton in the democratic nomination, he was underdog African american non white establishment.

2) Inequity has been with society since civilisation

3) Hopefully technology increases efficiency which rises the tide for all boats and leads to economic growth. Inequity will not be solved but life is better than in the past mainly due to technology not equity. Unfortunately automation is part o that equation, which will eventually lead to erosion of the concept of work. Who/what controls the technology will be the key factor.

4) Us politics is interesting and flows through to the rest of the world and financial markets whether that is sentiment or actual economic outcomes .Trump was treated unfairly by the media like Hanson that is part of the reason for their popularity as the underdog. If the media gave them limited attention, then that would limit the fuel to the fire. Obama bailed out banks and was weak, he could have sacrificed his career to do the right thing but was to weak at the important time to reform the financial sector and bust some heads.Instead he chose to look after his self interest. Alot of people should have gone to jail and had their money confiscated, laws changed regulators punished for failure as well. Hilary is also corrupt with many scandals and financial backers bankrolling her, that is why people voted trump.

 

[IFocus]

The US -- and to some extent the other developed nations that were on the winning side of WWII -- got strong economic recovery and growth following the war. Along with that came attachment of health care to employment which is a large part of that problem. But the point of this post is growth, rather than health care.

In the period from 1946 to 2000, the US grew much faster than the rest of the world, with US population at 5% of the world using 25% of the world's resources. Post 2000, the previously undeveloped and underdeveloped nations have been expanding much faster than the US. In the process, there is increased competition for resources and the prices are being bid up. Without regard to the politics of other countries, the ratio of resource use to population is in the process of going from 5:1 toward 1:1. I do not have an estimate of how far that process will go, but at the limit of 1:1 the US will have an 80% decrease in standard of living (use of resources) and / or a 400% increase in cost of living.

Daniel Kahneman, "Thinking, Fast and Slow," points out how easily we fool ourselves and how difficult it is for people to extrapolate change that is faster than linear. Standard of living, cost of living, resource use, and energy use are all strongly correlated. The US standard of living is decreasing, perhaps in absolute terms, but certainly relative to the rest of the world. As a country, we cannot understand it and we cannot tolerate that it might be true.

Middle class Americans are being squeezed by the economics on the one hand, and by automation on the other. Middle class incomes are going away as jobs are being replaced by automation. Immigration into the country, legal or illegal, is not a big cause. But it is the cause that is being blamed. An analogy is poor kids stealing lunch money from rich kids, or gangs robbing houses of rich people and looting stores. The rich people react by retreating into gated communities and stocking up on guns. Trump seems to be playing this on a national scale -- building walls along borders and buying aircraft carriers.

He, Trump, has no personal credibility remaining. Even if he is discredited and resigns, there remains a large portion of US lawmakers who are happy to go along with isolation and defense. Which comes at the expense of health care, education, environment, infrastructure, ...

Today, Trump gets the blame. His rude and uncivilized personal behavior, inflammatory rhetoric, and outright lying give us all a large target for our objections. But the problem the US has is much larger than Trump. Unfortunately, as long as he and his are in power, the real problems will not even be addressed, much less solved.

End of rant. Thanks for listening.
Best, Howard

Thanks Howard for your rant / post when I visited the US in the mid 80's I was shocked at the disparity in wealth and in your face people living on the streets.

I couldn't see how a wealthy country like the US could be so?

I now read commentators talking about the disappearance of jobs but isn't it just a clear case of of wealth distribution?