U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 12-02-2015, 12:02 PM
 
26,304 posts, read 12,855,288 times
Reputation: 12551

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by le roi View Post
$23 trillion is "investment assets" which include bonds as well as stocks.
Thats kind of my point, informedconsent trots this out to defend the corporate stock market without comprehending that the retirement plan assets are not as involved in the stock market as directly as he seems to believe.

Its a nice way of misinforming and misleading people that annoys me. It was kind of nice of him to provide me with values separated by date to make this point. I probably should take the time to really pull apart the numbers, but he's got dozens of arguments like this, and I do have other things I enjoy doing.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 12-02-2015, 12:04 PM
 
79,218 posts, read 33,616,016 times
Reputation: 15846
Quote:
Originally Posted by le roi View Post
So what kind of system were you arguing for?

And who, exactly, called you a racist?
I support single payer so yes, I do NOT want Obamacare to work.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W27LLO6Tct0
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-02-2015, 12:07 PM
 
66,524 posts, read 30,342,821 times
Reputation: 8675
Quote:
Originally Posted by greywar View Post
Excellent...so... 2012-2014 it went from....23.7 trillion to....24.7 trillion. The 23.7 is the ICI link, the second is your link, the dates are the dates indicated in them.
The point is that the $24.7 Trillion American workers and retirees have invested in retirement assets figure I posted is correct.

Quote:
meanwhile the stock market went from 13,000 to...18,000

Hmmmm....Anything look interesting to you? You know like the difference between a 4% increase, and a 27% increase?
Yes. Two things stand out...

1) Not all retirement assets are invested in stocks, so just going by the increase in the market doesn't really tell anyone anything.

2) American workers and retirees need that growth in the value of their pension plans and retirement accounts in order to be able to retire. Eliminating corporate profits is a bad idea.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-02-2015, 12:08 PM
 
22,769 posts, read 26,222,576 times
Reputation: 14558
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent View Post
Sure, but you've read the threads on this forum. Lefties foolishly think there should be no corporate profits at all.
I've never heard anyone on this forum say that. Maybe we should stick to things people actually said.

Quote:
Not sure why you're all complaining about health insurance companies' meager less than 4% profit margin.

Maybe this will open your eyes a little...

The 15 Industries That Are Raking In the Most Profit
Open my eyes to what? I don't have an issue with profits. Profits are great. But affordable healthcare with quality outcomes outweighs that when looking at the profit vs. cost issues in health insurance, hospitals, intellectual property, tort law, etc.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-02-2015, 12:09 PM
 
22,769 posts, read 26,222,576 times
Reputation: 14558
Quote:
Originally Posted by greywar View Post
Thats kind of my point, informedconsent trots this out to defend the corporate stock market without comprehending that the retirement plan assets are not as involved in the stock market as directly as he seems to believe.

Its a nice way of misinforming and misleading people that annoys me. It was kind of nice of him to provide me with values separated by date to make this point. I probably should take the time to really pull apart the numbers, but he's got dozens of arguments like this, and I do have other things I enjoy doing.
Yeah.. I hear you, but you can't expect people on this forum to always be honest and straightforward.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-02-2015, 12:11 PM
 
Location: Ohio
19,924 posts, read 14,242,533 times
Reputation: 16104
Quote:
Originally Posted by le roi View Post
Call me crazy, but I think American health outcomes should be a higher priority than health insurer profit margins and dividend rates.
Healthcare outcomes are wholly dependent upon life-style.

Quote:
Originally Posted by greywar View Post
No, but they probably have seen the actual data and research showing the efficiency of it. Medicaress overhead is trivial
Um, who collects the Medicare tax?

Not Medicare. The IRS does that. Did you include the overhead for that?

Who manages the Medicare Trust Fund?

Not Medicare. The US Treasury Department does that. Did you include the overhead for that?

I could go on and on.

Quote:
Originally Posted by greywar View Post
Other countries do this for half our costs. We're Americans, we can do better. Maybe you don't have faith in America, but I do.

This chart from the OECD refutes your claim:



Quote:
Originally Posted by le roi View Post
I would prefer a system like the British NHS
Healthcare systems such as those in Portugal, Spain, Sweden and the United Kingdom are barred by the US Constitution

See: National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius, US Supreme Court 183 L. Ed. 2d 450 (2012)


Quote:
Originally Posted by greywar View Post
The NHS provides a immense amount of medical care, with very good results.
Let's look at the CONCORD Study funded by the US CDC, the British NHS and Lancet:



Source: CONCORD Study funded by the US Centers for Disease Control and the British National Health System.

Cancer survival in five continents: a worldwide population-based study (CONCORD) : The Lancet Oncology


Who seriously believes the NHS is better?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-02-2015, 12:12 PM
 
Location: Planet Telex
4,663 posts, read 2,294,777 times
Reputation: 4386
Quote:
Originally Posted by DRob4JC View Post
Actually - that's very interesting... I may look into that for a few minutes and see what surfaces.
I think it proves that you simply cannot trust CEOs!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-02-2015, 12:17 PM
 
22,769 posts, read 26,222,576 times
Reputation: 14558
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea View Post
Healthcare systems such as those in Portugal, Spain, Sweden and the United Kingdom are barred by the US Constitution

See: National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius, US Supreme Court 183 L. Ed. 2d 450 (2012)
Be that as it may , as I recall the outcome of that case was : "The government cannot force people to buy health insurance."

It doesn't say that the government cannot tax people and pay for healthcare with those revenues.


Quote:
Who seriously believes the NHS is better?
the Commonwealth Fund , for one.

Mirror, Mirror on the Wall, 2014 Update: How the U.S. Health Care System Compares Internationally - The Commonwealth Fund

Quote:
This chart from the OECD refutes your claim:
What? that chart corroborates his claim.

You're just banking on the typical city-data reader being too dumb to know to read the blue lines (health spending) instead of the blue and red ones (health + social spending).
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-02-2015, 12:32 PM
 
26,304 posts, read 12,855,288 times
Reputation: 12551
Ah Mircea! Welcome!

Inbound with a wall of text after Informedconsent wandered off for a bit. did he IM you? LOL.

The overhead for the IRS is not going to change whether they are collecting for medicare, or for their regular purposes. So no, I dont include that, and you should not attempt to double count it either. And the management of medicare is in fact included in the efficiency data, trying to act like the US treasury department ahs some huge affect on them is utter nonsense. I also could go on and on.

Next argument....total healthcare investment in the US is less. WOW. Look at the BLUE lines labeled healthcare. You know, what we are actually talking about? The US is 16.3%. Higher then ANY other OECD country. The red lines are social services. NOT what we are talking about.

Next nonsense.
Quote:
Healthcare systems such as those in Portugal, Spain, Sweden and the United Kingdom are barred by the US Constitution
Good news! Thats leaves about a dozen OTHER systems that are not.

Next! Cancer survival rates. Breast and colorectal. from almost a DECADE ago. anything recent?

Lets look at a couple points to see what nonsense is relevant. Switzerland, and denmark have 73-76% f5 year relative survival rates compared to ours of 83.9% A HUGE difference.

So lets check something else to see if it correlates well. Female life expectancy.

The US? 81. OK, not bad.
Denmark, 80.5. Ouch. Not looking good for my argument there.
Sweden? 83.4. WOOT! Saved by Sweden.

Which one concerns me more? MY odds of surviving specific cancers, or my odds of living a longer life?

Keep in mind, these are all comparing a % of GDP-and our GDP is higher then most. if you look at actual money spent most of the data makes us look even worse.

Mircea, thanks for that big batch of nonsense to go through. As usual its all very misleading, and in this case glaringly obviously so.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-02-2015, 12:40 PM
 
Location: Great State of Texas
86,093 posts, read 72,525,560 times
Reputation: 27566
Quote:
Originally Posted by le roi View Post
Be that as it may , as I recall the outcome of that case was : "The government cannot force people to buy health insurance."

It doesn't say that the government cannot tax people and pay for healthcare with those revenues.




the Commonwealth Fund , for one.

Mirror, Mirror on the Wall, 2014 Update: How the U.S. Health Care System Compares Internationally - The Commonwealth Fund



What? that chart corroborates his claim.

You're just banking on the typical city-data reader being too dumb to know to read the blue lines (health spending) instead of the blue and red ones (health + social spending).
Vermont was going that route but an 18% new payroll tax (11% employer/7% employee) and a new state tax didn't go over well so they squashed it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top