patrick.net

Howdy,
Some good points have been made about the limitations of economic theory. People quote economic ideas like religion, but fail to realize they are sometimes predicated upon ideal assumptions. Problemis makes the point above about a level playing field.
Another *big* one is that health care is not a "normal" good. Most normal goods you will want or use less of as they become more expensive (e.g. fewer Hummers today). Some healthcare is "elective" but much is not. When people need it, they really "need it", and do not accept limits on provision (at least in this country). Whether you think any given intervention is reasonable or not, most times the patient and family want it.
People whine all day about why it's their right to not wear a motorcycle helmet, it's "their risk", then come broken up into the ER and do not refuse care. Nor do their families. The self-abusing obese smoking type II diabetic comes into the ER in heart failure. No one has the heart to tell her to go die without care. Certainly not the docs, who have to watch it. And not the squeamish public; "just help her!".
So we all have human sympathy. The problem is that people don't want to pay for things. And, in the land of fiscal fiction, no one has to... "Conservatives" don't realize we're already paying for much of this through the ER, and "liberals" don't realize that we really can't afford to (a) do even more and (b) do any of this forever. And neither group really wants to pay for it. They want their own taxes to go down.
If we were honest, we'd pony up more money and/or limit care. Care is, in fact, rationed in many countries with socialized medicine.
Yes, there are efficiencies to be had, but that's just part of it.

drfelle says

So you want cheaper insurance so you can use the extra money you were paying to health care for a more lavish lifestyle. I understand….at least your honest.

Ah sir, one of my big pet peeves.
People want to reduce their work hours, do only work that "motivates" them, pay >$100/month for cable TV, etc., yet consider paying $500/month for health care "outrageous" (that number I pull out of the air as a price I recently had to pay in for a cheap high-deductible plan).

drfelle says

That is unless you’re responsible, have insurance, and get sick or hurt. Then it benefits you all of a sudden huh?

No, the health care benefits me. There are many ways to get health care that do not involve insurance systems like we have in the US today.

drfelle says

I hate paying car insurance as well. 15 years and no accidents (knock on wood). How is the current auto insurance companies benefiting me? I think the Fed should pay my car insurance.

We have a mandate for insurance -- everyone must have it, and rates are partially governed by the government. I'm advocating for a similar system for health coverage (like the Swiss have), though I'd accept single payer as well.

The swiss system is better than the U.S. system in every way, using any metric you want. Plenty of innovation, care is cheaper, and everyone is covered. The only losers in the swiss system are the insurers.

Bap,

Good to see that you are not arguing with any of my points, nor disagreeing with the $373 number.

That means everyone else can decide for themselves how significant the difference is, and what the bigger implications are, if any.

Bap33 says

Liberalism is a mental disorder , normally brought on by drug use, with deviant sexual behavior a common side effect.

LOL! When someone talks about drug use, don't you guys think that he/she should quote someone other than Limbaugh. :)

A description of sleazy business practices in the health-care industry

http://market-ticker.denninger.net/archives/1187-Health-Reform-Who-Are-They-Trying-To-Fool.html

This author often shouts a bit loudly, but what he says on this topic is right on the mark:

Excerpt:

Look folks, you want to know why we have the health cost problems we have? I'll lay it out for you - in a way you can't refute or argue with:

1. There are no published prices. In no other line of work is it legal to do this. Nowhere. You can't sell someone a hot dog and tell them after they eat it what it just cost them. You can't hire a lawyer and have him tell you "I'll tell you what this will cost when we're done." You can't hire an electrician and have him tell you "I'll make up a bill when I'm done." In every line of work except health care, this is illegal. There are even laws for "major" consumer work (e.g. contracting, auto repair, etc) where they must give you a binding written estimate before beginning work!

2. Robinson-Patman makes it illegal to discriminate against like kind purchasers of goods in pricing decisions when the effect of doing so is to lessen competition. While it does not apply to services, it darn well should. Whether you are paying privately, you have private insurance or you're a Medicare patient if you need to have a breast reconstructed due to cancer the complexity of the procedure does not change. Yet it is a fact that the privately-billed amounts for uninsured ("rack rate") patients are often ten times or more that billed to insurers or Medicare. Try charging a cash purchaser 10x more for a TV than someone who finances that TV on your in-house credit facility and you would be shut down and thrown in jail.

Bap33 says

We? who we?

Every state in the US has mandatory liability insurance. Failure to have said insurance results in fines, loss of license, etc.

Bap33 says

must have? ya, sure. What a fuggin joke man. Just another rule that is only followed by law-following folks (kinda like the gun laws)

90% of drivers have auto insurance, and that rate is higher in states that have stricter requirements and more regulation of the insurers. Mandates work (just like they work in health care).

The biggest reason why that 10% of drivers don't have insurance is cost -- some states actually waive the insurance requirement if you can prove that it would have caused you financial hardship to be covered. In states with higher coverage rates, premiums are lower because uninsured driver coverage isn't as necessary.

With health care, we're talking about a tax-funded plan that will cover the low income folks. By ensuring that those people can visit GPs instead of emergency rooms, we reduce the total cost of care on society as a whole, which ultimately comes back onto the people.

Just because you get health insurance through your employer doesn't mean that it's cheap or free. Employers view health insurance as a part of the total cost to employ you. In the US, the average cost per employee is between 150 and 200% of salary, whereas in countries without employer funding that number is below 125% of salary.

Bap33 says

rates are governed? sure they were RIGHT AFTER THE LAW PASSED .. or did you forget that part?

WTF are you talking about? Virtually every state has strict laws about how auto insurers are allowed to asses and adjust premiums based on driving record, location, and value of vehicle.

The government can't even time "stop lights" correctly! How in the hell are they going to run our heathcare? I swear when I'm out driving around at night, I must waste 15 minutes out of a 1/2 hr trip just waiting at stop lights with not another fucking car around for miles. Don't these dipshits that run our government ever sit at one of these lights & ever realize that they are all complete morons?

moonmac says

The government can’t even time “stop lights” correctly! How in the hell are they going to run our heathcare? I swear when I’m out driving around at night, I must waste 15 minutes out of a 1/2 hr trip just waiting at stop lights with not another fucking car around for miles. Don’t these dipshits that run our government ever sit at one of these lights & ever realize that they are all complete morons?

Ok, so what are all of the other countries with socialized medicine doing right that we can't do? Or are you seriously going to claim that ALL socialized medical systems around the world don't work?

Hey Bap33,
Not free to leave a socialist state? Since when? Moreover, socialized healthcare has been working fine all over Europe. The lifespan, infant mortality rate, and overall health of people living there is much better than in the US and that is because those life loving Christian politicians here would rather have you sick and dying than be healthy. Keep up with the ridiculous talking points, your lack of understanding shines clearly through.

Not only that, didn't we just socialize the Financial and Banking Industry with our tax payer bailout?

Just How Socialist? A Survey of Major Countries
by: Chris Bowers
April 6, 2009

Levels of socialism in G-20 nations, plus selected other economies
Cuba: 81.4%*
France: 61.1%
Sweden: 58.1%*
Italy: 55.3%
Netherlands: 54.7%
Libya: 53.0%*
Germany: 48.8%
Canada: 48.2%
Spain: 47.3%
Angola: 44.8%*
United States: 44.7% (2009)
United Kingdom: 42.1% (2009)
Australia: 43.6%
Venezuela: 41.1%*
Saudi Arabia: 40.4%
Turkey: 39.1%
United States: 35.5% (2007)
South Africa: 33.9%*
Indonesia: 33.2%
Japan: 30.9%
South Korea: 29.3%
Mexico: 26.7%
China: 22.0%*
Russia: 20.9%
India: 20.4%
Argentina: 19.1%
Brazil: 17.3%
* = officially, or at least famed for being, communist or socialist

UK, Australia, Japan, and South Korea all have socialized medicine and yet are less 'socialist' than the US on this chart...not sure about the others but I'd bet many of the others do as well. I have no idea what criteria Chris Bowers used to come up with these numbers but it doesn't look at all credible to me.

edit: ok, I googled it. He just divided all gov't expenditures by total national GNP. So the huge US military budget makes us more socialist. Heck, servicing the national debt counts as socialistic by this measure. *shrug* Whatever.

nowwattsup1 says

Just How Socialist? A Survey of Major Countries

by: Chris Bowers

April 6, 2009
Levels of socialism in G-20 nations, plus selected other economies

Cuba: 81.4%*

France: 61.1%

Sweden: 58.1%*

Italy: 55.3%

Netherlands: 54.7%

Libya: 53.0%*

Germany: 48.8%

Canada: 48.2%

Spain: 47.3%

Angola: 44.8%*

United States: 44.7% (2009)

United Kingdom: 42.1% (2009)

Australia: 43.6%

Venezuela: 41.1%*

Saudi Arabia: 40.4%

Turkey: 39.1%

United States: 35.5% (2007)

South Africa: 33.9%*

Indonesia: 33.2%

Japan: 30.9%

South Korea: 29.3%

Mexico: 26.7%

China: 22.0%*

Russia: 20.9%

India: 20.4%

Argentina: 19.1%

Brazil: 17.3%

* = officially, or at least famed for being, communist or socialist

WTF is this list even supposed to be? What is a "level of socialism"? Socialism means only one thing: That the state owns the means of production. It almost looks like this might be the percentage of the GDP of the country that comes from government spending, but if it is it's flat out wrong for many countries -- it says nothing about "ownership", and therefore nothing about socialism.

During WWII, something like 90% of US GDP was spent on the military -- and the US wasn't any more "socialist" than it was before or after the war.

bdrasin says

UK, Australia, Japan, and South Korea all have socialized medicine and yet are less ’socialist’ than the US on this chart…not sure about the others but I’d bet many of the others do as well.

Alright, I'm just going to ask this one once -- what the fuck is "socialized medicine"? Of the countries you listed here, only one has government "run" health care, and the others all have public insurance options.

I'm pretty convinced that Bapp33 wants to live in a country where the government does not control anything. Maybe he should try sub-Saharan Africa.

Why the health care system is broken:
1) Lawsuits
2) limited doctors/medical school
3) insurance industry

1) Lawsuits : The primary function of judiciary is to deter harmful behaviour and to get compensation for victims. Lets take two examples
Country X : Patient sues a doctor for forgetting a scissor in the stomach after a surgery and needed emergency re opening. Judge awards 100K compensation which patient is happy to recieve.The doctor feels enough finacial punishment as he just lost a significat money and will not try to repeat the mistake. Both objectives of the judical system achieved.
Country USA : Patient sues a doctor for the same reason. Doctor has liability insurance. Objective 1 (deterence) already failed.Judge awards 1 million to victim which the insurance pays and is not a big deal for insurance company.Patients as a group share the burden of the 1 million through the doctor.If all doctors take liability insurance, all awards just get inflated and there is not much deterence for risky behaviour as insurance is spreading the risk.
FIX: ban liability insurance and limit awards to 3X the yearly salary of the doctor involved.

2) limited doctors/medical schools : The AMA lobby plays all the tricks to keep the supply of doctors low so that the salaries of doctors is very high.IF you are a civil engineer , would you not love to have a lobby which makes sure that the supply of civil engineers is very low so that you can get paid 400K/year ?
In engineering jobs we don't see this happening because the corporates get involved and manage to get cheap labour ( globalization ...etc crap). which eventually helps the customers who buy the final products. When it comes to medical field , their is nobody to fight for the customers except the citizens themselves ( who are stupid and poorly organized). AMA is one of the biggest paying lobby and has made it very defficult to setup medical schools and entry of foriegn doctors by difficult exams..lenthy educations,licensing...etc.
Who the heck are they to come between supply and demand ?
Fix : make them create different accreditations for all level of skills like A, B ,C ..etc
certificate A : high school + 4 years of medical school
certificate B : high school + 6 years of medical school
....
This will create abundant supply of doctors at different levels of expetise and skills.The patients will decide which doctor they want based on thier condition.I can go to low skilled doctor for a minor scratch on my finger and pay $20 rather than go to $200 M.D
Remove all the red tape from medical schools and produce more doctors.
If the average salary of doctor is 300K, you can smell arficial supply problem or barier of entry problem....right ?

3) Insurance Industry : The whole concept of third party payment is ridiculious.Its a free market killer.
The third party ( insurance ) shields the customer and seller and has a hazard similar to "tragedy of commons". This creates a bubble in prices.Lets assume we all suddenly start taking insurance for paying for groceries.The buyer will buy more than he wants and at very high prices because somebody else is paying.
The store will have very high prices because cutomers are price insensitive. This vicious cyle will end up in a can of milk at $100.Even if ,there is another insurance company which comes to compete and has lower premiums because it can reduce expenses by having deductibles and detering customers from wastage....equilibirium is reached but the third party shielding cannot be eliminated due to the nature of the system, so it reaches an equilibirium at inflated prices.
FIX: ban all insurace except catastrophic insurance. insurance is a flawed system and should be used only in exceptional cases in a society when risk has to be distributed because a single individual cannot handle certain shocks.Insurance should not be allowed for normal expenses ( like paying for doctors visits)

snmr1234 says

The primary function of judiciary is to deter harmful behaviour and to get compensation for victims

No, it's to interpret the laws that are made by the legislative body so that the executive body knows how to enforce them.

Determing harmful behavior is the responsibility of the legislature (who makes the laws) and the executive branch (who enforce them).

It is mostly up to juries to decide on compensation for victims.

The fear mongering that exists around malpractice lawsuits is complete bullshit. The total amount of money awarded to malpractice victims is miniscule -- less than one tenth of one percent of the annual cost of health care.

Very few countries have limits on malpractice suits. This is just a boogeyman that health care organizations want you to think is real so that they can avoid any liability when they screw up. The insurance companies LOVE the myth of the rampant lawsuits, because it ensures that medical professionals will continue to pay them obscene amounts of money.

bdrasin says

UK, Australia, Japan, and South Korea all have socialized medicine and yet are less ’socialist’ than the US on this chart…not sure about the others but I’d bet many of the others do as well.

Alright, I’m just going to ask this one once — what the fuck is “socialized medicine”? Of the countries you listed here, only one has government “run” health care, and the others all have public insurance options.
I’m pretty convinced that Bapp33 wants to live in a country where the government does not control anything. Maybe he should try sub-Saharan Africa.

Ok, I agree that socialized medicine is not a very helpful term. I guess I meant to say "These countries have systems that, if proposed here, would be widely derided as socialized medicine" (I believe they are all basically single payer systems). They all have universal coverage and significant government-provided care and, I might add, much lower health care costs than we do.

drfelle says

The key word is “awarded”. Doctors have to pay a hefty premium for their malpractice insurance, and Insurance companies have to pay a hefty premium for their legal fees to avoid the “Boggeyman”. The legal team have to pay their staff, and turn a profit; Not to mention cost of staff, supplies, utilities, etc, etc. Add all of that money up with the “awarded” malpractice victims.

You're still wrong. Try digesting this one: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16136632 (in 2001 the figure was 0.46% for the combined cost of defending, insuring, and settling malpractice claims; less than a quarter of that was awarded to victims. At best, completely banning lawsuits is going to reduce medical care costs by less than 1%. Awesome.

drfelle says

Again, where is this data coming from? Regardless, If the Governement has Socialized Health Care in these countries they’ve “probably” Socialized Law amongst other things. Once Socialism starts it snowballs, Comrade.

Laws are public information, you know. I can't find any country with a decent health care system with any meaningful limitations on malpractice lawsuits. Perhaps you can find one? Maybe? Just one?

bdrasin says

believe they are all basically single payer systems

Of the countries you listed, only the UK is single payer. Australia has a substantial public program (also called medicare), but private insurance also exists.
There actually aren't that many single payer countries. By far the most common system is a hybrid public/private insurance scheme, where employers are required to provide insurance and the government provides insurance for those who are unemployed or retired.

Kevin,

Excellent that you dug up that number (0.46% in 2001). Now what will the propagandists say, I wonder?

"Socialized Law"

That's a new one. Does it mean that that the law applies equally to everyone? If so, I'm for it.

Kevin says

Of the countries you listed, only the UK is single payer. Australia has a substantial public program (also called medicare), but private insurance also exists.
There actually aren’t that many single payer countries. By far the most common system is a hybrid public/private insurance scheme, where employers are required to provide insurance and the government provides insurance for those who are unemployed or retired.

Maybe it depends on how you look at it (and I'm no expert). According to Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_in_Japan: "Payment for personal medical services is offered through a universal health care insurance system that provides relative equality of access, with fees set by a government committee. " I thought that was the definition of a single payer system (govt agency sets fees and provides the insurance). It is my understanding that South Korea's health care system is modeled after Japan's so I assume it works in a similar way. Is it the case that some people can 'opt out' of the national system and get private insurance instead? Or is private insurance purely supplemental?
I guess medicare (in the US as well as in Australia) is a single payer system, but the difference is that in Australia it provides universal healthcare and in the US its only for part of the population.
If a country has a single payer system that covers everyone I'd say that makes the country's health care system 'basically' single payer, even if there is some supplemental/alternative private insurance options.
My Swiss coworker explained to me that in Switzerland while all health insurance is private, the insurance companies aren't allowed to set prices for medical care as those are determined by a government medical board and they aren't allowed to refuse to cover people. I don't know how many other countries work that way.

bdrasin says

Is it the case that some people can ‘opt out’ of the national system and get private insurance instead?

Not quite. In Japan (and S. Korea, so far as I'm aware), employers provide insurance and the government provides universal coverage to people who don't get it from work. This was mentioned in the wikipedia article as well :)

It kind of "looks like" single payer because employers are all required to participate in the same group plan, but it is definitely the employers paying the bills for that one, not taxes.

Additionally, there are substantial co-pays (20-30%) for individuals with sufficient income, even on the government system. That's not "single payer".

I'm not a big fan of the Japanese system. It seems a little better than what we have in the U.S., but not by much. I think taking the burden off of employers is an important goal, which is why I'm in favor of a system like Switzerland's.

Drfelle,

Uh, you have read and posted the ABSTRACT of the article, and based on the fact that the abstract does not contain the exact wording that Kevin used, you are calling him a liar. Now hold that thought for a moment.

Here is a slightly longer summary of the paper (pdf):

http://www.commonwealthfund.org/~/media/Files/Publications/In%20the%20Literature/2005/Jul/Health%20Spending%20in%20the%20United%20States%20and%20the%20Rest%20of%20the%20Industrialized%20World/846_anderson_hltspendingUS%20world_itl%20pdf.pdf

The summary says, and I quote:

"Including awards, legal fees, and underwriting costs, the total amount spent defending
U.S. malpractice claims was an estimated $6.5 billion in 2001, or 0.46 percent of total health spending."

So, in other words you called Kevin a liar and you were WRONG. What does that make you?

On a greater note: Next time the terrain does not fit your right-wing-nutjob map, you should believe more in the terrain and less in the map, lest you walk off a cliff.

PS: Just doing a little sidekick duty here. I don't mind being the sidekick for a good cause :). No need to be first banana all the time.

Oh, so now that you have been disproven, it is time to question the authors of the source.

>> his mind is already made up.

I don't think the problem is that Anderson's mind is already made up. The problem is that *your* mind is made up, and no amount of fact is going to change that.

Dude, Bap33 was not quoting any study by Brooks, *I* was. Bap never produced the source, I dug one up myself.

That aside, the claim was that conservatives give $377/year more. Even if we assumed the number is correct, the significance of this pittance is minimal. In fact, charitable giving overall is a drop in the bucket.

Now, why don't you follow through on your claim and produce some specific numeric values from a reputable right-wing sourcr about the total cost of malpractice.

You cannot dismiss facts by saying "the author is liberal". You've painted yourself into a corner, and you know it.

mickrussom says

Think: how does the USA compete with India and China where healthcare isnt even a glimmer?
If you want to work, you best think about what entitlements did to GM and how they could strangle the USA to the point of second world living.

In India you have the option of going to a government run hospital. If you are rich and would rather like to go to a private doctor it is your choice. Nobody stops rich from going to private doctors, but government run hospitals exist for the poor and those who cannot afford private hospitals.

American system is okay as long as you work for some good employer who provides health insurance. Moment you lose your job, you are screwed. This is a free country where people think they are the most free people in the world, but you need to slave your life for an employer before you can get a health insurance.

And forget about buying health insurance on your own, it is only for those with no pre-existing conditions. Recently I was out of work and was trying to buy health insurance on my own. I was willing to pay as much as 400 dollars a month, but I was denied coverage because my wife has some pre-existing conditions. ...

Welcome to the most free country in the world !!!!!!

Bap33,

as I have already said, it is very likely that the difference, if any, is more than made up for by what conservatives pay to churches for their services.

But is that a true charity that helps *other* people? I think they are only to a much lesser degree than, say, Red Cross. To give you an analogy: If conservatives want to count what they give to church, liberals should get to count their union dues as well.

I'm done discussing charities. All anyone has to do is read the facts, and either agree or disagree. Drfelle distorting my statements and bringing up red herrings does not add anything to the matter. That is just plain intellectual dishonesty.

I work in the finance dept in one of the largest hospitals in San Francisco. One item that people really seem to disregard in why health care isn't working in the US is the Unions. Lets take a look at how Unions in the auto industry and in Health Care have literally bankrupt their systems. You have inefficient workers that can't be fired, insane health and retirement benefits that no one in the private sector would even dream of, and salaries for health care workers with Associates degrees that match those of Masters degrees in the private sector. So you have overpaid, inefficient, incompetent unionized employees that you can hardly ever fire. And what do you get a sadly inefficient system. Remove the choke hold of the Unions on healthcare and bring in more competition and you will get a cheap more effective health care system. Introduce a guaranteed government payer and you have pretty much locked in a sad system self feeding system. Obama won't touch the unions in Healthcare just like he wouldn't with the auto makers. In fact they were the winners in GMs colapse despite the fact that they were the main reason for its demise.

MeanGreen says

I work in the finance dept in one of the largest hospitals in San Francisco. One item that people really seem to disregard in why health care isn’t working in the US is the Unions. Lets take a look at how Unions in the auto industry and in Health Care have literally bankrupt their systems. You have inefficient workers that can’t be fired, insane health and retirement benefits that no one in the private sector would even dream of, and salaries for health care workers with Associates degrees that match those of Masters degrees in the private sector. So you have overpaid, inefficient, incompetent unionized employees that you can hardly ever fire. And what do you get a sadly inefficient system. Remove the choke hold of the Unions on healthcare and bring in more competition and you will get a cheap more effective health care system. Introduce a guaranteed government payer and you have pretty much locked in a sad system self feeding system. Obama won’t touch the unions in Healthcare just like he wouldn’t with the auto makers. In fact they were the winners in GMs colapse despite the fact that they were the main reason for its demise.

Are health care workers in Europe, Japan, etc. less unionized than in the US?

bdrasin,

>>Are health care workers in Europe, Japan, etc. less unionized than in the US?

Very good and pertinent question, of course the answer is NO, they are not. Ont the contrary. But you knew that :-).

The single most important difference between unions in the US and Europe is that in the US unions are very narrow and exclusive, whereas in Europe they are wide and inclusive.

The latter system tends to prevent that certain more-or-less blue collar subgroups advance their cause at the expense of everyone else. Because all the different sub-unions keep each other in check, the system works well.

MeanGreen says

I work in the finance dept in one of the largest hospitals in San Francisco. One item that people really seem to disregard in why health care isn’t working in the US is the Unions. Lets take a look at how Unions in the auto industry and in Health Care have literally bankrupt their systems. You have inefficient workers that can’t be fired, insane health and retirement benefits that no one in the private sector would even dream of, and salaries for health care workers with Associates degrees that match those of Masters degrees in the private sector. So you have overpaid, inefficient, incompetent unionized employees that you can hardly ever fire. And what do you get a sadly inefficient system. Remove the choke hold of the Unions on healthcare and bring in more competition and you will get a cheap more effective health care system. Introduce a guaranteed government payer and you have pretty much locked in a sad system self feeding system. Obama won’t touch the unions in Healthcare just like he wouldn’t with the auto makers. In fact they were the winners in GMs colapse despite the fact that they were the main reason for its demise.

Canada, the UK, Australia, and even Japan have medical industry unions as well.

Bap33 says

...programs that illegally transfer wealth..

Which of these programs are illegal? Just because you disagree with something doesn't make it illegal. You could try the tired old "unconstitutional" argument, but the supreme court has ruled on the issue several times already and decided that the 16th amendment was valid.

justme says

The latter system tends to prevent that certain more-or-less blue collar subgroups advance their cause at the expense of everyone else. Because all the different sub-unions keep each other in check, the system works well.

A very valid point. The police and firefighters unions in CA are another great example of how poorly structured unions can screw things up badly.

Tenpound, I think your post is directed at MeanGreen and not Kevin?

My point is unions are the major problem in health care costs. You think someone with an AA degree should be making $100k a year running an MRI machine? Do you think you should be able to fire someone for getting in a fist fight in front of a patient (true story)? Well since the unions have such a ridiculous strangle hold you'll continue to get community college grads making $100k/year and you'll just have to forget about ever having an efficient effective workforce capable of bringing down healthcare costs when you can't fire them for such a ridiculous infraction such as a fist fight at work. I am not sure why everyone is up in arms about high health care are, but no one wants to know why. Oh yes, everyone deserves a high paying job no matter what kind of tard you are if you are in a union. While all the rest of the private sector workers have to pick up the slack and do the real work.

Tenpoundbass says

Labor prices are only a small part of the grand picture, as any time a Union gets higher wages granted, the said company absorbs the cost by increasing the price to what ever the Union is asking for three times, they always use the opportunity to further profit from the misfortune. That is business, misfortune = opportunity to charge more plus plus.

I'm a software engineer. In my line of work, labor is virtually the only cost, which is why software companies routinely rake in 25% profit margins. This is becoming more and more true of the U.S. as a whole.

I don't blame unions as a whole -- I blame poorly run unions who harm the public for the benefit of their members only. The CA fire and police are a prime example of this.

Bap33 says

So, it is my firmly held belief that in America it is absolutly against constitutional law for the gov to force one voter to add to the wealth of another voter.

What you "believe" is wrong. Taxation is absolutely constitutional, and by claiming otherwise you're just showing everyone that you're ignorant.

The constitution clearly states that the government may levy taxes and fees as long as they are proportioned equally amongst the states. There have *ALWAYS* been taxes in the US, from day one.

The Federal income tax was originally deemed unconstitutional, but in 1912 the people voted and passed an amendment to the constitution permitting it.

Again, I ask -- what is illegal? All you've said is that you don't agree with it, which is a fine stance to take, but claiming that it is illegal is absurd. Peter Schiff's dad thought it was "illegal" too, and now he's in jail for not paying when the court told him he was wrong.

zetabeos1 says

We need to encourage more business owners with local lower cost labor to compete with other global competition. There is no other solution.

That's not entirely true. If we're willing to sacrifice a little bit, there's absolutely no reason why the U.S. needs any international trade at all. I'm not a big fan of isolationism myself, but it's certainly "an alternative".

Furthermore, competing for jobs with wealthy countries isn't an issue. Transportation costs pretty much guarantee that labor is not the deciding factor, which is why japanese and german auto companies make their vehicles in the US when they're targeting US consumers.

It's only when you're dealing with countries like China or India, who have virtually no protections for their workers, that the situation changes.

So, yeah, we could lower working standards to that of China, but who wants to live in a world like that? I'd rather die than work in some sweat shop 18 hours a day.

Bap33m

>>Kevin, in the basic - very basic - understanding of the founding of America it is very clear that we were to avoid the system left in Britian.

You may have that "understanding", but nowhere in the constitution does it say so. One cannot just extrapolate law from some idea of some unwritten "understanding" that some people have. That is a big problem.

To offer a twist on and old saying that is popular in right-wing-nutjob circles, I would say: Stop Legislating from The Peanut Gallery.

MeanGreen,

I'm loathe to agree with you about anything, but what I said about narrow and abusive unions may apply also to certain positions in healthcare. I'd like to see some more carefully collected wage numbers for different job descriptions before I weigh in on one side or the other. I've certainly heard about some nurses who seem to make way too much for the job they do, but we should look carefully at the complete picture.

When it comes to police and fire personnel, I have very little doubt they are overpaid (and over-pensioned), as I have said many times.

That being said, I disagree completely with the people who lump auto-workers who make 15-30/hour in with fire and police unions.

I have posted extensively about the lies and propaganda that is circulated by the main-stream media and right-wing propaganda machine about UAW, an if you want to know the facts, use Patrick's nifty new search function.

From SJMN today:

"All told, San Jose's $100,000-plus pension club includes 256 retired officers and firefighters and 34 other city workers."

http://www.mercurynews.com/ci_12804646?source=most_viewed

Tenpoundbass says

Those fresh unaltered foods are now sold for a premium at Wholefood mega stores and the like with a 1000% mark up. Most certainly out of affordability for most poor to lower middle class Americans.

Your understanding of the American food system is grossly inaccurate. Fresh produce and quality meat (not the garbage that they're peddling at safeway) aren't any more expensive, adjusted for inflation, than they have been for the last 50 years. In most cases, they're actually cheaper thanks to better refrigeration and transportation.

It's just that every other food item has gotten cheaper.

In 1940, the average American household spent 20% of income on food. In 1980 we spent about 15%. Today we spend less than 10%.

Blame the farm bill and it's bizarre drive to give as much money as possible to corn, wheat, soy, and other grain farmers over everyone else.

The simple fact of the matter is that Americans eat more poorly today because there are cheap food alternatives that are not as healthy as real food. Sure, nobody is "forcing" anyone to eat this garbage, but back 40 or 50 years ago, you were essentially "forced" to eat semi decent food. A soda was a once in a month treat (a desert, really), and now it's more common than water. Anything with added sugar was reserved for deserts and special occasions -- now we put twinkies in the kids lunch boxes. Beef was something that you ate two or three times a week, and now you eat corn-fed genetically modified frankenburgers for every other meal. Restaurants were something for birthdays and anniversaries, and now we have breakfast at mcdonalds.

Want to eat healthy? Go ahead and continue spending 15 or 20% of your income on food. Want to die a fat, bloated, diabetes-hobbled drain on society? Eat the crap that you buy at most resturaunts.

...I think it also fair to add that, back in the good ol' day, people GREW their food. Canning was big, even in suburbia, and having a chicken or two wasn't that outrageous. It's making a comeback.

Austinhousingbubble says

…I think it also fair to add that, back in the good ol’ day, people GREW their food. Canning was big, even in suburbia, and having a chicken or two wasn’t that outrageous. It’s making a comeback.

You actually have to go back pretty far before that was 'common' in cities or suburbs (at least the 30s for the most part). It's very difficult to grow crops in a city.

I think the bigger problem are the super markets that have replaced butchers, bakeries, and produce markets.

Kevin,

Kerr jars and canning sheds were the order of the day long after the thirties. It was popular from the time of Hoover right through to the Victory Gardens of WW2 and is still very much a going concern today -- especially in the Mid West, where folks look at you with genuine pity for spending 2 bucks on a tomato. Indeed, gardening is presently enjoying a big resurgence, including community gardens. As far as inner city gardens -- you just gotta know what you're doing.

Back to you initial point - food prices have increased in this country, esp. if we go by conventional Farm Bureau inflation readings, as opposed relying on the Boskin Commission method.