patrick.net

Let's run a few numbers. Canada pays about 9.5% GDP for their single payer system (as opposed to our 17% figure). Our GDP is about 20% higher per person than Canada's. That means we could pay for a significantly better single payer system than Canada has, at least in theory, just with just half the differential between their per person GDP and ours (about $5,000 per capita vs. our current $7,000+). For the sake of argument, let's say that by paying this much - about a third more per capita than Canada - we would be able to cut wait times down from Canadian levels (3-6 weeks for cancer surgery, etc) down to something more reasonable, say 2 weeks. That would mean we'd have a system covering everyone, likely with perfectly reasonable wait times, for less than we pay now. And for everyone who would want "faster" or "better" care, they could buy supplemental insurance for their "concierge" medical centers and platinum enemas (or whatever it is the wealthy want to spend their healthcare bucks on). But it is simply pathetic that we make about $10,000 per capita more than Canada and $11,000 more than Britain, and many people can't even envision spending half that amount to provide decent healthcare for all our citizens.

elliemae says

Nosf41 say:
“As expected, you did not provide an explanation on what could be Obama’s motivation for hiding his past. ”
Here’s an explanation:
We don’t owe you an explanation, we don’t work for you, and you have too much time on your hands.

Of course you do not owe me anything. Are you participating on this forum just to preach to the choir?
You were quick to judge and ridicule people whose opinion was different from yours. When challenged, you should be able to voice your opinion and not surrender so easily.

Is that intended to be a rhetorical question or could you not find the info? Anyhow, the U.S. spends 1750 per capita on military expenditures currently. Russia spends $420. Canada around $310. And let's assume we have an illegal population of 20 million (the high end of anyone's estimations). With a legal population of 330 million, that hardly changes the numbers in a meaningful way in relation to Canada or the UK (or anywhere else). If we included those 20 million in the same GDP calculations, we would still have a per capita GDP of around 45,000. Now subtract the differential in military spending between the U.S. and Canada, and we would have around 43,700 per capita GDP or about 15% higher than Canada's. Any other questions?

Kevin says

When I grow up, I want to be a batshit crazy conspiracy theorist too.

Few years ago Patrick was ridiculed for his position on housing bubble. Peter Schiff was called crazy by many "expert" economists for his predictions of coming housing crash.
Think for yourself before you join the screaming mob.
Also be careful what you wish for - words are very powerful, your wish could come true.

"and turn the clock back to 1999" .....how dumb.

">the wealthier members of society do have a duty to take care of the poor members. This is a moral argument which does not work in a secular setting. " what nonsense. Yes it's a moral argument, but it does not matter if it's secular or not. It still holds VERY true. Excuses, excuses, excuses...

Sure, there's a compelling moral argument to be made for covering everyone. But what I really don't get is how people could look at stats that show we pay twice as much per person as almost anyone else. Most of those other countries even live longer than us, despite whatever long waits and other problems they might have. It's so blatantly obvious we are being ripped off, you'd think everyone who wasn't DOING the ripping off would be pissed at being screwed over so blatantly instead of shrieking at anyone who dares to tackle the problem. If anyone really think the status quo is OK and they AREN'T making a lot of money in healthcare, they are either stupid or they don't know the numbers. Unfortunately, we have many of both these types mouthing off and calling names instead of coming up with better proposals of their own.

Obama wants to cram a plan he knows is subpar down our throats because he also know that nothing will get done next year, in a re-election year for Congress, or in the next two years, when he is up for re-election himself. He saw how the Clintons blew their chance at reform, and he doesn't want to do the same. He also knows that healthcare lobbyists are spending 1.5 million a day to try every tactic they can to muddle the debate and shape reform in such a way that does NOT lower costs. So on one hand, they say they support his plan. On the other, they sponsor 5 competing versions. And on the other, they issue talking points that Republicans and "moderate" Democrats have repeated verbatim, despite the fact that many of them have been simply made up and bear no basis in reality. And lastly, Obama also knows that he and his party took and will take much money from healthcare interests. As all politicians are, he is in bed with the very same devil he is attempting to tame.

chrisborden says

It is obvious that our society doesn’t like people such as myself who choose financial freedom over debt slavery

Correct, since if you choose debt and spending over savings: Banks make interest Merchants make sales Govs collect sales taxes and higher asset based taxes Also, a population without savings is more dependent on Gov, giving the politicians more power Still, one does not have to follow the debt crowd. You can choose to live within your means and save, as many others have. Didn't someone post that half the houses in the country do not have a mortgage? Anyway, the savings rate nationally is inreasing despite the efforts of gov/banks. Enough of an increase for some to say it will curtail spending and keep prices low.

Tenpoundbass, you, and so many others, worry too much. Ask yourself this: if you were President, what would you do? Let the Insurnance companies decide? We've done that for the last 40+ years, and it's not working. As for the Middle Class, that is a dying species. Bush II did pretty much next to nothing about this subject. Now that we have a President willing to at least try and make a positive difference, all you seem to do is complain, like so many others, about the evil of government. Grow up.

kthomas says

Tenpoundbass, you, and so many others, worry too much. Ask yourself this: if you were President, what would you do? Let the Insurnance companies decide? We’ve done that for the last 40+ years, and it’s not working. As for the Middle Class, that is a dying species. Bush II did pretty much next to nothing about this subject. Now that we have a President willing to at least try and make a positive difference, all you seem to do is complain, like so many others, about the evil of government. Grow up.

The situation with healthcare spending is so out of control right now, almost any plan that could cut costs would be better than doing nothing. We have the largest military in the world, with bases all over the globe and an ever-developing arsenal of high tech weapons that everyone else can only dream of possessing. In fact we spend more money on our military than the next twenty countries on the list COMBINED. That's a function of just how wealthy we still are. And yet we pay around FIVE times more on healthcare than we do on our military and twice as much per capita as England, Germany, France, and Canda to insure only 5 out of 6 Americans. Any way you look at it, we are getting ripped off in every way possible. You would think this would drive true fiscal conservatives nuts.

Anyway, the savings rate nationally is inreasing despite the efforts of gov/banks. Enough of an increase for some to say it will curtail spending and keep prices low.

I've been wondering about this. What does the typical increase in savings rates look like on paper for the average individual? 100 bucks a month chucked into a savings account? 50 bucks in a cookie jar? I also wonder if the increase in savings rates isn't largely form one of two things - one being, people who have stopped payment on their mortgages and are socking those monthly payments away while awaiting forclosure - in which case, this will ultimately be a taxpayer subsidized savings, and therefore moot. The second reason may be the folks who are having their credit card balances halved, or are simply refusing to make any payments, and are instead, socking that money away. I'm skeptical. I went to Home Cheapo today to buy a can of Rustoleum, and saw tons of people in the adjacent strip mall center shopping shopping shopping, including two gigantic Hummers sharking for a space.

This is a pretty good debate. I hope we do create socialized medicine in the USA. As soon as we do I am going to maximize my investment and impregnate lots and lots of women. Then my children will finally be protected. Thank You.

I hope we do create socialized medicine in the USA.

We already have it.

Austinhousingbubble says

I hope we do create socialized medicine in the USA.

We already have it.

And we have a heavily socialized tax code too, so if you do have lots of babies, you can possibly be in the top ten percent of earners and still pay no taxes. It all depends on how many resentful teenagers you are willing to contend with down the line I guess. First the Democrats want to socialize Medicare. What next, Social Security? It's a slippery slope my friend. Soon the government could be in full control of ALL government agencies.

BOBK wrote : It was also inexpensive because third party payers didn’t exist as they do now. You didn’t bother even addressing that in your statement completely agree ! third party (esp monopolies) are market killers.

There's the principle and the practicality. In principle it matters quite a bit. The constitution is clear on the eligibility requirement for the position. The practicality is that even if it were found out that he is not a US citizen by birth 1) by the time all the litigation is said and done, he may very well be at or near the end of his first (if not his second) term. Second, what recourse would we have? Would Biden become president? Would Obama serve out the remainder of his term anyway? Would there be a special election to replace him? Would they consider changing the constitution? Who knows? If they weren't smart enough to check at the beginning, there isn't much that can be done now.

Perhaps its part of a bigger conspiracy to establish a precedent, thereby letting the Governator run in 2016. ;)

The bottom line is Obama promised, hope, change and transparency. Like a fool, I fell for it. You reap what you sow. So far, he's shown us to be a politician, just like all the rest.

Yes. The Rock is cooking DOW 6000. Hmmm...biflation stew with a dash of skyrocketing credit card rates. Food, energy up. Everything else, down, down, down.

The DOW will climb. Houses will stay inflated and the world is still round. Giddy up.

Realblue says

The DOW will climb. Houses will stay inflated and the world is still round. Giddy up.

I needed a good laugh today. Thank you!

What is it in birther psychology that makes them want to believe that Obama is not legitimately president?

I think that's the real question.

So, you're saying you believe in imaginary conspiracies as a kind of revenge against imaginary enemies, like "libs"?

You really don't see you're being played, do you?

When you're bankrupt from "free market" medical care costs you have no free choice about, and when the country is bankrupt from bank bailouts you ignore to spend your time protesting imaginary paperwork conspiracies, even then, you won't get it.

Obama may be going along with the bank bailouts, but Paulson was Bush's treasury secretary. You think most of those bankers are Democrats?

Well drats. As of the press releases from the obama administration Sunday and Today I guess there will be no public option for healthcare in america. My plans to populate the planet are foiled. I know my kids would get free food, free housing, free K-12 education. They'd also get fre medical until age 18. But some moderate democrats decided that my kids have to suffer after age 18 with no free healthcare. Including preventative stuff ....... I am not going to have kids now. Thank you republicans and moderate democrats!

How old is Barack Obama? Let's see: http://www.myspace.com/barackobama
52??? I am totally confused!

I hope that link is still up by the time you click on it.
I have saved a snapshot of the top of the page just in case.

chrisborden says

The lie of debt=wealth is necessary to keep you enslaved in your passive comfort zone.

I hate to point out the obvious, but do you realize that you just railed against the debt culture of the US for a paragraph and complained that it was the only way to get ahead, then stated that you refused to participate, and finally claim that "debt=wealth" is a lie? One of these things has to be true: 1. Your strategy will prove to be a brilliant one and you will be much better off than others in the long run (so your complaints about the debt culture are pointless) 2. The debters are the smart ones for taking advantage of cheap and easy credit, and in the long term they will be far ahead and you'll be far behind (in which case your strategy is a bad one and you should change it) So pick one. If you believe that the debters get all the advantages, why not join them?

interpretame says

THIS current president is the most openly CORRUPT leader America has ever witnessed. EVER.

You clearly know nothing about U.S. history. I can think of at least 5 off the top of my head who no president in the last century holds a candle to.

interpretame says

Since the enemy of my enemy is my friend, I support birthers, the klan and ANYONE ELSE who wants this asshole out of office or in jail or deported to Kenya.

I'm going to ignore the obvious stupidity of this part of your post and just ask you this:

What do you get if you remove Obama from office?

Meditate on that idea for a few days. Let it stew around in whatever is left of a brain between your ears. Once you realize what a completely moronic stance you're taking, perhaps you could have a rational discussion instead of this pointless one.

So pick one. If you believe that the debters get all the advantages, why not join them?

In the short term, debters might enjoy some benefits - like eating a meal and paying for it in tiny bits over a period of several months. Not to answer for Chris, but I'm guessing he might be the guy wringing his hands while he sits on his earnings, saving up toward X, because he sees his brother or neighbor spreading himself as thin as possible across as many minimum monthly payments as possible. And in the event of a bankruptcy or default, Chris and co. are on the hook. As for joining them...the parable of the cricket and the ants comes to mind.

Went to an open house recently. The realtor said that it is on the market for a couple of weeks. BUt I had a redfind print out that showed this home have been 'relisted' 10 times. The look on her face was priceless! :-) I am waiting for the IPHONE app from REDFIN....

For those who do not wish to pay for the health care of the unwanted (illegal aliens, smokers, fat people, 7-11 clerks, etc), I believe we are in fact already paying for all of the above. To criticize these health care reform bills because it means we will pay for the unwanted is silly. We already do. And dearly. With all the advances in genetic research, do you really want a health care system that charges premiums for your lifestyle? It's a fine line between check yes/no as a smoker, and revealing that you carry a gene marker that increases your chances of Parkinson's Disease. Is that what we really want? Reminds me a bit of 'Gattica'.

interpretame says

1) Name ‘em! And THEN provide an argument as to how THEY they took this country to THE VERY BRINK of self-destruction ..as your beloved Hussein is doing

Adams (the younger), Tyler, Pierce, Fillmore, and Grant, for starters.

I love the "most corrupt" meme. Every single president has gotten this label from the party out of power during my life. When I was a child, it was Reagan and Bush who were the most corrupt. Then it was clinton, then bush, and now Obama. Funny how that works, isn't it?

The truth is that it's a giant load of bullshit. You know absolutely nothing.
interpretame says

Getting rid of Obama would momentarily decapitate Goldman Sach’s attempted putsch.

Oh yeah, because I'm sure that Joe Biden would follow a radically different policy than Obama. Do you know anything about how the US government actually works?

interpretame says

You assholes TALK and TALK and TALK ..as if the U.S. government GAVE A FLYING FUCK about what YOU people think about health care, the bailouts, the economy or ANYTHING for that matter. They’ll always DO WHAT THEY WANT until you fuckheads START THREATENING VIOLENCE. OR at least start talking IMPEACHMENT.

Of course, since Americans are a BALL-LESS society whose sole use for their beloved ‘right to bear arms’ is so that you can shoot each other at the malls & in the schools, you needn’t fear; you’re genetically INCAPABLE of violence. UNLESS it comes to violently raping 14 year old Iraqi girls.

Meditate on THAT for a few days. Fill a washtub with it, then sit in it AND LET THE IDEA SLOWLY SOAK ITS WAY UP YOUR ASS and into your brain.

You don't strike me as a mentally stable person. You should get help. OTS and his ilk are assholes, but at least they're sane assholes.

On the Sidelines says

Food, energy, housing, health care. All basic necessities of life. Why does the free market only work for the first three?

Food, energy, and housing are "free market"? What country do you live in? Food is the most heavily subsidized industry in the country, energy is the largest government owned sector, and housing is run by the likes of Fannie Mae and the FHA.

Your argument makes no sense. The typical stance of centrists of all stripes is that regulation is to be used when the market is not meeting the needs of the people. At present, few people are asking for more involvement in food and energy because they seem to be operating reasonably well to meet the needs of the people. A lot of people are asking for more involvement in housing and health care because both seem to be failing to meet the needs of the people. It really is that simple.

Oh bullshit. There are plenty comments on the NYT that are critical of the administration from both the left and the right. If you got banned, I can just about guarantee because you were doing the same sort of inane trolling that you're doing here. Remember, the NYT has a substantially different definition of 'acceptable' than patrick.net does. And blocking an IP address (even "an entire IP address", as you meaninglessly dribbled) isn't some black magic, either. Other than trying to get attention, why are you claiming that this is some how a "cumbersome process"? Oh look, the big bad NYT is out to get little old you! CONSPIRACY! I grabbed the first article that I could find that seemed like it might elicit any controversial comments. There's plenty of dissent here -- what might have thrown you off is that it's actually civil: http://community.nytimes.com/comments/www.nytimes.com/2009/08/18/opinion/18herbert.html TPB: Huh? I listen to NPR pretty much 24/7 and I've never once heard anyone get hung up on who was being reasonable, and there are certainly a lot of people criticizing Obama on there (admittedly, mostly from the left, but it's NPR -- what do you expect? I don't think Republicans actually know how to tune their radios to FM frequencies). Now, I know this might come as a shock to some of you, but all media outlets are biased in some way. If you don't like the bias of the NY times, try Fox news. Want something less mainstream? Try any of the literally millions of websites out there that cater to whatever niche political viewpoint you hold. After that, get over yourself. Nobody gives a shit what you have to say, and nobody is going to prevent you from saying it as long as you aren't being an obnoxious asshole.

If a person CHOOSES a lifestyle/activity that is a know cause of major health risks, then the carrier should have every right to demand higher premiums Good idea; we can finally get folks who keep guns around the house to pay their "fair share" (as this statistically increases the chance of personal injury to a loved one)... oh, that was a cheap shot Bapster, but I couldn't resist :-)

There is a REO house by me I pass every day, and it's been there vacant for about 10 months. It had been for sale as an REO at around $750,000, but they took down the sign about 2 months ago and de-listed it back into the shadow inventory. Here is the sales history: 09/09/2008: $1,100,000 10/03/2006: $1,350,000 07/18/2005: $1,200,000 Apparently the last buyer abandoned it like 2-3 months after purchasing it, because it was empty by like 11/08. Bear in mind, this is a home that looks like a Lancaster tract house spliced with a 1930's one bedroom bungalow. Its landscaping is basically weeds, and it is located next to a pair of apartment buildings that look like excellent places to buy weed and maybe meth (which as far as I know isn't considered a major "selling point"). Oh, and according to Zillow in 2000, it was worth around $280,000. So the bank couldn't sell it for 45% off its peak price DESPITE mowing the weeds and hanging used bed sheets in the windows. Then they got desperate and planted two $5 lavender-type plants in the dirt "bed" in front of the house. Shockingly, still no buyers. What DO buyers want these days? Finally they had to pull it from the market and pretend it was still worth $1,350,000 (thank you Financial Accounting Standards Board! No more mark-to-market!) But if anyone is in the market for a $750,000 "bargain", and you happen to be hooked on weed or meth, this might just be the place for you!

$325k for a '40's house with a dinette area with naugahyde seating? Yuck!

same goes for having too many kids. i don't want to pay for somebody else's kids. kids are non-prodcutive for a long time. i don't want to pay for the schooling of a kid or roads on which they drive. everybody who "chooses" to have more than 2 kids should pay more taxes. also, govt should also tax people who "choose" to drive gas consuming SUV's because the society has to bear the effects of climate change and pollution. I don't want to pay for cleaning up the mess that these polluting vehicles cause. everybody should be accountable for thier actions. personal responsibility should be made more popular.

On the Sidelines says

And you think this is a good thing?

I think that there are flaws in our food, energy, housing, and medical policies, but I don't believe that keeping government completely out of it is the answer, either. I don't support our current farm policy, but I do think that there are cases where subsidies to farmers make sense (for instance, to prevent problems like the dust bowl).

On the Sidelines says

But this debate isn’t even about regulation; it’s about theft on a grand scale in order to give the product away for “free”.

So why aren't you protesting insurance? "Insurance" for something that is guaranteed to happen makes no sense. Our current medical system is robbing people blind. It is inefficient, incompetent, and extremely expensive. Direct payer may actually be a viable alternative, but the status quo is not.

A single payer system would most likely result in you paying less in taxes than you do today. We currently pay more in taxes for medical care to cover 70% of the population than most other countries pay to support 100% of the population. Get your argument straight, at least.

The people who would lose under a single payer system are private insurance companies. You can argue about the relative merits of a government run vs. private enterprise run system all day, but stop peddling the lie that you're going to be paying more in taxes if we have single payer vs. the mostly single payer system that we currently have.

On the Sidelines says

here is no “single payer system” for food, energy, or housing. The overwhelming majority of Americans pay for what they consume — the way it should be.

That's because, barring the recent housing debacle, those markets have been pretty good at meeting the needs of the people. If the health sector was meeting the needs of the people, nobody would be talking about these issues. You seem to have this bizarre notion that every sector of the economy has the same forces affecting it, which is simply not true.

80 years ago, the food sector was NOT meeting the needs of the people, so it got a lot of new regulations, government takeover of farms, and various sticks and carrots thrown out to fix it. Today there are still problems with the food supply, but we don't have 45 million people starving to death either.

interpretame says

1) We SURVIVED Adams, Tyler, Pierce, Fillmore, and Grant. Your messiah on the other hand has only been in office 200 days to date and he’s already equaled or surpassed ALL the damage wrought by the sum total of all the aforementioned. What you heard as a child you understood thru a child’s mind. And -twenty years later- you STILL DO.

Do you lace your weed with PCP? Seriously. You're comparing Obama's policies to those of men who stood by idly while we plunged into Civil war. Men who openly took bribes and murdered people to stay in office. Men who staged covert operations to wipe out entire populations. Which of Obama's policies has approached that level of corruption? Spending an extra 30% on medical care? Bailing out some banks and insurance companies? You're either trolling, or a complete idiot.

8 years from now, after Obama has completed his second term, I guarantee you that the United States will not be a whole lot different from today. We might have a national health plan, but that's about it.

interpretame says

Has it ever occured to you that each succesive president WAS in fact becoming progressively MORE & MORE corrupt with each passing administration? That each was pushing the limits of presidential power further & further beyond what was originally envisioned by our Founders?

Two points here:

1. No, they're not progressivly becoming more and more corrupt. I will say with 100% certainty that Warren G. Harding was more corrupt with than Richard Nixon, and both were more corrupt than any of Carter, Reagan, either Bush, Clinton, or Obama. You're just clueless.

2. Our founders also didn't want anyone but land owning white males to have a say in government, accepted slavery, and believed that we should not have any standing military. Times change. The founders were just men, not some divine beings who were infallible. Most of the constitution was a clusterfuck of compromises to get the rag tag union to stay together. Nothing more, nothing less. It framed a government that was fairly unique at a time of empires and monarchies, but that is a time that is long passed. The world of today is largely social democracies with very similar government frameworks and constitutions. It isn't the 1700s anymore, and nobody is trying to oppress you.

interpretame says

If Biden doesn’t get the message regarding what the American people want then WE TOPPLE HIS ASS TOO and then move on to the NEXT candidate.

Then you get Nancy Pelosi.

Your statement contradicts itself. "what the American people want" and "Ron Paul" aren't even in the same league. Just because people don't like taxes or government involvement in their personal lives doesn't mean that they want to give up public schools and medicare. Most americans (and the world at large...) are centrists, and our government reflects that. You're woefully out of touch with what America is if you honestly believe that somebody in the mold of Obama or McCain isn't exactly what the country wants. Perhaps you should go live in another country, because that has been the reality here for a very long time and it will continue to be forever.

Not that I've got anything against RP, mind you -- but it's absurd to think that what americans want is what Paul promotes. Only a clueless moron who knows nothing about America would make such a claim. Not even Dr. Paul believes that he represents mainstream American thought.

interpretame says

The U.S. government “works” by keeping its citizens in fear. People shouldn’t fear their government, governments should fear their people.

Yeah, because Americans are so afraid of the government! Why, I make sure that I police my every word because the FBI might come and arrest me at any moment. I dare not gather in large groups or read unapproved literature. Have you ever even been inside the US? The only people afraid of the government are crazy people. Plenty of people dislike the way that the government works, or disapprove of specific administrations and policies, but nobody is afraid, except possibly you. Maybe you should grow a pair.

Misstrial says

$325k for a ’40’s house with a dinette area with naugahyde seating? Yuck!

All those dead little naugas and all you can do is talk price?

interpretame says

Kevin says

Oh bullshit. … …inane trolling .. as you meaninglessly dribbled…… Oh look, the big bad NYT is out to get little old you! CONSPIRACY! ……get over yourself. ….Nobody gives a shit what you have to say, …nobody is going to prevent you from saying it as long as you aren’t being an obnoxious asshole.

Thank you Kevin for that great lesson in ‘civility’. I see what you mean about “obnoxious assholes”.

I just sneezed my coffee laughing so hard! Thanks, I needed that!

I prefer mine deep fried, stuffed inside twinkies. Funnel cake for desert. Too many naugas were killed in the quest for pleather sofas. I'm sitting on one now, as we speak. A mixture of leather, naugahyde, and plastic. Pleather. But it was free, and looks lovely with duct tape holding it together.