US Government is WAY too big (Poll Added)

[bedub1]

current is 5.25 trillion
40% of 5.25 trillion is 2.1 trillion
5.25 trillion plus 2.1 trillion is 7.35 trillion.
7.35 trillion is what percent of the 14.2 trillion GDP?
Answer is 52%.
So would you like to see US federal government spending to increase from 37% of GDP to 52% of GDP to cover "Universal healthcare"?

[thegreekdog]

Right now "Healthcare"(medicare & Medicaid) take up about 20% of the expenditures, and appears to cover about 100 million Americans. The current population is about 300 million. So to cover everybody else the "healthcare" would then be 60% of the payouts.

man i just love specious reasoning

Actually, bedub, I heard that the healthcare bill cuts $50 billion in Medicare spending. So you'd have to adjust your specious numbers a bit for that.

[bedub1]

Right now "Healthcare"(medicare & Medicaid) take up about 20% of the expenditures, and appears to cover about 100 million Americans. The current population is about 300 million. So to cover everybody else the "healthcare" would then be 60% of the payouts.

man i just love specious reasoning

Actually, bedub, I heard that the healthcare bill cuts $50 billion in Medicare spending. So you'd have to adjust your specious numbers a bit for that.

So instead of 7.35 trillion it would be 7.3 trillion. I don't that that's TOO relevant to the numbers we are dealing with....

And obviously these numbers are actual facts, you don't get those until you actually start spending the money...but if you base your expectations for the future upon the past spending, it should get us pretty close to the actual costs.

[Titanic]

Now, do you need a math lesson also?

Maybe you need an economics lesson. 2010 is a horrible year to look at a budget to prove the effects of social spending. It was written in the middle of the largest recession in 70 years and as anyone with a basic economic understanding knows during recessions tax receipts go down and social spending goes up, thus making the proportion allocated to social spending higher during those years then in the norm (which is why I used the 2008 budget).

I was comparing dollars, not proportions. You're making the claim that if the economy was better, we'd be spending less on Social Security and more on defense spending?

Dollars and proportions will be exactly the same. If you are spending more dollars on one thing then another then the proportion for that thing is going to be larger....

If the economy is bad we will spend more on social programmes, if it is good we spend less on social programmes. Defence will stay pretty constant unless there are planned cuts or increases by the politicians. The social programmes costs are fairly automatic in the budget, the defence can be artificially decided.

I love how you can say that social programs (of which social security is one) increase when the economy is bad, and in the same breath, say that costs of social programs are automatic and predictable.

I ask my question again. You are making the claim that if the economy was better, we would pay out less Social Security? How is that possible, if the costs are automatic? Does that mean less people turn 65 when the economy is good? Less families lose a wage earner due to death?

Wow... You are aware there are other thing in social programmes apart from social security, you know, like benefits. These all increase in a recession as more people are out of work. How do you now understand that? I never said less social security or more social security, I said social programmes, learn to fcking read.

[72o]

We were comparing social security to defense spending. It was you who pointed out that social security was actually smaller than defense spending in 2008 if you include the overseas contingency numbers.

You said it was bad to use 2010 numbers because social security would be up in 2010 since the economy was bad. That was your reasoning for using 2008 numbers.

I'm pointing out that your reasoning sucks, the only reason you like 2008 numbers better is because they support your hypothesis.

[Titanic]

We were comparing social security to defense spending. It was you who pointed out that social security was actually smaller than defense spending in 2008 if you include the overseas contingency numbers.

You said it was bad to use 2010 numbers because social security would be up in 2010 since the economy was bad. That was your reasoning for using 2008 numbers.

I'm pointing out that your reasoning sucks, the only reason you like 2008 numbers better is because they support your hypothesis.

2010 is a horrible year to look at a budget to prove the effects of social spending.

Social SPENDING, not social SECURITY. ffs, you really are unbelievable.

[Baron Von PWN]

current is 5.25 trillion
40% of 5.25 trillion is 2.1 trillion
5.25 trillion plus 2.1 trillion is 7.35 trillion.
7.35 trillion is what percent of the 14.2 trillion GDP?
Answer is 52%.
So would you like to see US federal government spending to increase from 37% of GDP to 52% of GDP to cover "Universal healthcare"?

Care to explain how nearly every Rich nation affords universal health care with better results than the current US system for lower costs?

[comic boy]

current is 5.25 trillion
40% of 5.25 trillion is 2.1 trillion
5.25 trillion plus 2.1 trillion is 7.35 trillion.
7.35 trillion is what percent of the 14.2 trillion GDP?
Answer is 52%.
So would you like to see US federal government spending to increase from 37% of GDP to 52% of GDP to cover "Universal healthcare"?

Care to explain how nearly every Rich nation affords universal health care with better results than the current US system for lower costs?

'' But we aint like other countries, weez belive in freedom "

[Snorri1234]

current is 5.25 trillion
40% of 5.25 trillion is 2.1 trillion
5.25 trillion plus 2.1 trillion is 7.35 trillion.
7.35 trillion is what percent of the 14.2 trillion GDP?
Answer is 52%.
So would you like to see US federal government spending to increase from 37% of GDP to 52% of GDP to cover "Universal healthcare"?

Care to explain how nearly every Rich nation affords universal health care with better results than the current US system for lower costs?

Magic.


Seriously, that's their explanation. The US government has some magic flaw that means it always fucks it up according to them. They unironically point towards Social Security and other programs with the firm belief that PRIVATE companies would never make such mistakes ever.

The best thing about it is that they act like it's different for Europe because Europe doesn't have problems with their social programs. Ah, ignorance.

[thegreekdog]

Seriously, that's their explanation. The US government has some magic flaw that means it always fucks it up according to them. They unironically point towards Social Security and other programs with the firm belief that PRIVATE companies would never make such mistakes ever.

Private companies would make such mistakes. Then they'd either scrap the program or change it, learn from their mistakes, and move on. The government doesn't do any of those things.

The best thing about it is that they act like it's different for Europe because Europe doesn't have problems with their social programs. Ah, ignorance.

Actually, we think things are different in Europe because you guys (and by you guys, I mean Europeans and Americans who want us to be like Europeans) keep telling us how much better it is over there. Maybe it's ignorance, but we're getting bad information if it's untrue.

[Phatscotty]

current is 5.25 trillion
40% of 5.25 trillion is 2.1 trillion
5.25 trillion plus 2.1 trillion is 7.35 trillion.
7.35 trillion is what percent of the 14.2 trillion GDP?
Answer is 52%.
So would you like to see US federal government spending to increase from 37% of GDP to 52% of GDP to cover "Universal healthcare"?

Care to explain how nearly every Rich nation affords universal health care with better results than the current US system for lower costs?

sure. they cut quality and availability. any more brain busters? The biggest problem with US healthcare, plain and simple....

IT'S TOO AVAILABLE!

[Snorri1234]

Seriously, that's their explanation. The US government has some magic flaw that means it always fucks it up according to them. They unironically point towards Social Security and other programs with the firm belief that PRIVATE companies would never make such mistakes ever.

Private companies would make such mistakes. Then they'd either scrap the program or change it, learn from their mistakes, and move on. The government doesn't do any of those things.

Bollocks. Not only does the government do that, but companies aren't that superawesome. They frequently waste loads of money on things. Perhaps the government is inefficient in things, but so are a lot of companies.

But it's irrelevant. Can you explain to me why the US government would f*ck things up while European governments don't?

The best thing about it is that they act like it's different for Europe because Europe doesn't have problems with their social programs. Ah, ignorance.

Actually, we think things are different in Europe because you guys (and by you guys, I mean Europeans and Americans who want us to be like Europeans) keep telling us how much better it is over there. Maybe it's ignorance, but we're getting bad information if it's untrue.

It is better over here.That doesn't mean we don't have problems, we just don't blow them out of proportion.

[Titanic]

current is 5.25 trillion
40% of 5.25 trillion is 2.1 trillion
5.25 trillion plus 2.1 trillion is 7.35 trillion.
7.35 trillion is what percent of the 14.2 trillion GDP?
Answer is 52%.
So would you like to see US federal government spending to increase from 37% of GDP to 52% of GDP to cover "Universal healthcare"?

Care to explain how nearly every Rich nation affords universal health care with better results than the current US system for lower costs?

sure. they cut quality and availability. any more brain busters? The biggest problem with US healthcare, plain and simple....

IT'S TOO AVAILABLE!

Then how come we live longer, have lower infant mortality rates, are more satisfied with our service and come out higher in the overall healthcare rankings?

[Phatscotty]

current is 5.25 trillion
40% of 5.25 trillion is 2.1 trillion
5.25 trillion plus 2.1 trillion is 7.35 trillion.
7.35 trillion is what percent of the 14.2 trillion GDP?
Answer is 52%.
So would you like to see US federal government spending to increase from 37% of GDP to 52% of GDP to cover "Universal healthcare"?

Care to explain how nearly every Rich nation affords universal health care with better results than the current US system for lower costs?

sure. they cut quality and availability. any more brain busters? The biggest problem with US healthcare, plain and simple....

IT'S TOO AVAILABLE!

Then how come we live longer, have lower infant mortality rates, are more satisfied with our service and come out higher in the overall healthcare rankings?

because we have and have had the best health care system in the world

[hecter]

Then how come we live longer, have lower infant mortality rates, are more satisfied with our service and come out higher in the overall healthcare rankings?

because we have and have had the best health care system in the world

Wait, what? You're health care system is the best, because it's worse?

[thegreekdog]

But it's irrelevant. Can you explain to me why the US government would f*ck things up while European governments don't?

It is better over here.That doesn't mean we don't have problems, we just don't blow them out of proportion.

What?

[Baron Von PWN]

current is 5.25 trillion
40% of 5.25 trillion is 2.1 trillion
5.25 trillion plus 2.1 trillion is 7.35 trillion.
7.35 trillion is what percent of the 14.2 trillion GDP?
Answer is 52%.
So would you like to see US federal government spending to increase from 37% of GDP to 52% of GDP to cover "Universal healthcare"?

Care to explain how nearly every Rich nation affords universal health care with better results than the current US system for lower costs?

sure. they cut quality and availability. any more brain busters? The biggest problem with US healthcare, plain and simple....

IT'S TOO AVAILABLE!

Hmm so lower quality and lower availability results in better health, gothca.

[Titanic]

Then how come we live longer, have lower infant mortality rates, are more satisfied with our service and come out higher in the overall healthcare rankings?

because we have and have had the best health care system in the world

Wait, what? You're health care system is the best, because it's worse?

Thats logic you just can't argue with.

[Snorri1234]

But it's irrelevant. Can you explain to me why the US government would f*ck things up while European governments don't?

It is better over here.That doesn't mean we don't have problems, we just don't blow them out of proportion.

What?

Our government wastes about as much money as yours does. (in percentages that is.) They bought unbelievably expensive fighter-jets (JSF), give 50,000 euro trips for Antillean criminal youths to get back in touch with their roots, spend 2 billion laying a subway in amsterdam and then realize it actually needs another 2 billion and so on.

Point is, they waste money and still our health-care system outpeforms yours on a lot of things. Yes, not optimally and there are things that could do better but there is effort to chance that.


So why would your government make a worse system?

[thegreekdog]

But it's irrelevant. Can you explain to me why the US government would f*ck things up while European governments don't?

It is better over here.That doesn't mean we don't have problems, we just don't blow them out of proportion.

What?

Our government wastes about as much money as yours does. (in percentages that is.) They bought unbelievably expensive fighter-jets (JSF), give 50,000 euro trips for Antillean criminal youths to get back in touch with their roots, spend 2 billion laying a subway in amsterdam and then realize it actually needs another 2 billion and so on.

Point is, they waste money and still our health-care system outpeforms yours on a lot of things. Yes, not optimally and there are things that could do better but there is effort to chance that.


So why would your government make a worse system?

The only difference I can see between your healthcare system and our healthcare system is that you spend less money (per person) on your healthcare... and I'm sure there are people that will argue that point.

My question is not whether government healthcare will outperform healthcare now. My question is whether there are ways to fix healthcare without government healthcare. I don't think our default should be... "well, we don't like what we have now... let's let the government do it." Because, once the government starts doing it, it's not going private again. My concern with our government goes beyond military spending... it goes to things like, for example, giving $X billion to a senator from Louisiana and the black hole that is social security. It goes beyond party politics.

[Snorri1234]

The only difference I can see between your healthcare system and our healthcare system is that you spend less money (per person) on your healthcare... and I'm sure there are people that will argue that point.

They could argue that point but that would be incredibly dumb.

Also, we live longer, have lower infant mortality and all that. Also, everyone has health care.

My question is not whether government healthcare will outperform healthcare now. My question is whether there are ways to fix healthcare without government healthcare. I don't think our default should be... "well, we don't like what we have now... let's let the government do it." Because, once the government starts doing it, it's not going private again. My concern with our government goes beyond military spending... it goes to things like, for example, giving $X billion to a senator from Louisiana and the black hole that is social security. It goes beyond party politics.

Yeah yeah but that's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about how the argument that the government sucks isn't any good. Maybe there is a "third way", but I am primarly concerned with dispelling wrong assumptions about the second way.

[thegreekdog]

I think "the government is dumb" is a good enough argument for finding a third way.

[pimpdave]

I think "the government is dumb" is a good enough argument for finding a third way.

In that case, I expect you to never complain about the "corporations are evil" argument.

What would this magical third way be, anyway? Would it involve unicorns?

[thegreekdog]

I think "the government is dumb" is a good enough argument for finding a third way.

In that case, I expect you to never complain about the "corporations are evil" argument.

Yeah... that's not going to happen. C'mon, I'm Mr. Corporation.

[john9blue]

Although a government-run system possibly might lead to longer life spans, you can't really draw that connection between countries because there are other factors... e.g. I recall that Americans work longer hours on average than Europeans, which brings higher chances of illness/injury/etc.