Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
More competition would help to a small degree, but there is no way that would be enough. In fact there's evidence that competing across state lines wouldn't do anything at all. Our healthcare system is a business like any other. Where is the incentive for them to lower the cost of premiums, prescriptions, and deductibles dramatically when they are making 10s of billions in profit every year from it? These prices have not stopped increasing for decades.And how, in anyway, would that lower the cost of medical services like prescriptions?Ok so you hate ObamaCare. Whatever. You hate anything Obama comes up with so you come across like disingenuous douche bags anyway.
How do we fix our healthcare woes? What, exactly, should be done to curb the increasing cost to the consumer of healthcare costs while wages have remained flat? Keep in mind that healthcare costs have been increasing long before ObamaCare. With that in mind, why was our healthcare system ever feasible?
Just agree that legislation is what's needed to cap expenses such as prescriptions. In the end more socialization is what's needed to fix our system. Despite what the Neanderthals on Fox News will tell you, Canada's healthcare system works. 91% of Canadians favor their system over the US's system. Western Europe also has great, affordable healthcare systems.
Change of Subject: Never mind the anecdotes: Do Canadians like their health-care system?
WHO | World Health Organization Assesses the World's Health Systems
"The U.S. health system spends a higher portion of its gross domestic product than any other country but ranks 37 out of 191 countries according to its performance, the report finds. The United Kingdom, which spends just six percent of GDP on health services, ranks 18 th . Several small countries – San Marino, Andorra, Malta and Singapore are rated close behind second- placed Italy."
Yes medical care here is sophisticated, but that hardly means jack shit if most Americans can't benefit from it.
We have been answering this question since before Obamacare. Get rid of the regulations that favor the industry and open up health insurance to the forces of the free market. Problem solved.
competition, dingworthy. When companies compete, prices go down. When insurance companies compete across state lines, prices will go down.
The other thing that would help drug prices would be to reduce the length of patents, get generics in the market sooner.
the exemptions and deductions were put in the tax code by congress to incentivize certain behaviors and investments.
Most of the tax code was written by liberal democrats who have controlled congress for most of the last 80 years.
I support the Fair Tax. We should be taxing consumption, not production. Another conservative bedrock principle.But I agree with you, everyone should pay the same tax rate regardless of how much money they make. That would be "fair". Why don't you support any of the flat tax plans?
More competition would help to a small degree, but there is no way that would be enough. In fact there's evidence that competing across state lines wouldn't do anything at all. Our healthcare system is a business like any other. Where is the incentive for them to lower the cost of premiums, prescriptions, and deductibles dramatically when they are making 10s of billions in profit every year from it? These prices have not stopped increasing for decades.And how, in anyway, would that lower the cost of medical services like prescriptions?Ok so you hate ObamaCare. Whatever. You hate anything Obama comes up with so you come across like disingenuous douche bags anyway.
How do we fix our healthcare woes? What, exactly, should be done to curb the increasing cost to the consumer of healthcare costs while wages have remained flat? Keep in mind that healthcare costs have been increasing long before ObamaCare. With that in mind, why was our healthcare system ever feasible?
Just agree that legislation is what's needed to cap expenses such as prescriptions. In the end more socialization is what's needed to fix our system. Despite what the Neanderthals on Fox News will tell you, Canada's healthcare system works. 91% of Canadians favor their system over the US's system. Western Europe also has great, affordable healthcare systems.
Change of Subject: Never mind the anecdotes: Do Canadians like their health-care system?
WHO | World Health Organization Assesses the World's Health Systems
"The U.S. health system spends a higher portion of its gross domestic product than any other country but ranks 37 out of 191 countries according to its performance, the report finds. The United Kingdom, which spends just six percent of GDP on health services, ranks 18 th . Several small countries – San Marino, Andorra, Malta and Singapore are rated close behind second- placed Italy."
Yes medical care here is sophisticated, but that hardly means jack shit if most Americans can't benefit from it.
We have been answering this question since before Obamacare. Get rid of the regulations that favor the industry and open up health insurance to the forces of the free market. Problem solved.
competition, dingworthy. When companies compete, prices go down. When insurance companies compete across state lines, prices will go down.
The other thing that would help drug prices would be to reduce the length of patents, get generics in the market sooner.
Aw, the rich capitalists are making money. Do you know what profit rate health insurance companies make? Google it, its not what you think.
Now, the drug companies, that's a completely different story. Big pharma is raping us and using some of the profits to bribe congresspersons to leave them alone.
competition would bring drug prices down, why do they need a 16 year patent on a new drug? Why are they selling you Cialis for $42/pill? answer: because they can.
"The best estimates of the average insurance company net profit margin are between 3 and 8%, with a likely median average around 4 to 5%.' Just googled it like you said. So that's 4 to 5 percent extra cost for consumers on top of what big farma makes, and what it costs more to run those companies in a competitve enviremont. The solution is a governement run health insurance.More competition would help to a small degree, but there is no way that would be enough. In fact there's evidence that competing across state lines wouldn't do anything at all. Our healthcare system is a business like any other. Where is the incentive for them to lower the cost of premiums, prescriptions, and deductibles dramatically when they are making 10s of billions in profit every year from it? These prices have not stopped increasing for decades.And how, in anyway, would that lower the cost of medical services like prescriptions?Ok so you hate ObamaCare. Whatever. You hate anything Obama comes up with so you come across like disingenuous douche bags anyway.
How do we fix our healthcare woes? What, exactly, should be done to curb the increasing cost to the consumer of healthcare costs while wages have remained flat? Keep in mind that healthcare costs have been increasing long before ObamaCare. With that in mind, why was our healthcare system ever feasible?
Just agree that legislation is what's needed to cap expenses such as prescriptions. In the end more socialization is what's needed to fix our system. Despite what the Neanderthals on Fox News will tell you, Canada's healthcare system works. 91% of Canadians favor their system over the US's system. Western Europe also has great, affordable healthcare systems.
Change of Subject: Never mind the anecdotes: Do Canadians like their health-care system?
WHO | World Health Organization Assesses the World's Health Systems
"The U.S. health system spends a higher portion of its gross domestic product than any other country but ranks 37 out of 191 countries according to its performance, the report finds. The United Kingdom, which spends just six percent of GDP on health services, ranks 18 th . Several small countries – San Marino, Andorra, Malta and Singapore are rated close behind second- placed Italy."
Yes medical care here is sophisticated, but that hardly means jack shit if most Americans can't benefit from it.
We have been answering this question since before Obamacare. Get rid of the regulations that favor the industry and open up health insurance to the forces of the free market. Problem solved.
competition, dingworthy. When companies compete, prices go down. When insurance companies compete across state lines, prices will go down.
The other thing that would help drug prices would be to reduce the length of patents, get generics in the market sooner.
Aw, the rich capitalists are making money. Do you know what profit rate health insurance companies make? Google it, its not what you think.
Now, the drug companies, that's a completely different story. Big pharma is raping us and using some of the profits to bribe congresspersons to leave them alone.
competition would bring drug prices down, why do they need a 16 year patent on a new drug? Why are they selling you Cialis for $42/pill? answer: because they can.
Yeah because they can. That is the problem with our healthcare system. Patents aside, the same drug being sold in the US is being sold in Canada and Western Europe for a fraction of the cost.More competition would help to a small degree, but there is no way that would be enough. In fact there's evidence that competing across state lines wouldn't do anything at all. Our healthcare system is a business like any other. Where is the incentive for them to lower the cost of premiums, prescriptions, and deductibles dramatically when they are making 10s of billions in profit every year from it? These prices have not stopped increasing for decades.And how, in anyway, would that lower the cost of medical services like prescriptions?Ok so you hate ObamaCare. Whatever. You hate anything Obama comes up with so you come across like disingenuous douche bags anyway.
How do we fix our healthcare woes? What, exactly, should be done to curb the increasing cost to the consumer of healthcare costs while wages have remained flat? Keep in mind that healthcare costs have been increasing long before ObamaCare. With that in mind, why was our healthcare system ever feasible?
Just agree that legislation is what's needed to cap expenses such as prescriptions. In the end more socialization is what's needed to fix our system. Despite what the Neanderthals on Fox News will tell you, Canada's healthcare system works. 91% of Canadians favor their system over the US's system. Western Europe also has great, affordable healthcare systems.
Change of Subject: Never mind the anecdotes: Do Canadians like their health-care system?
WHO | World Health Organization Assesses the World's Health Systems
"The U.S. health system spends a higher portion of its gross domestic product than any other country but ranks 37 out of 191 countries according to its performance, the report finds. The United Kingdom, which spends just six percent of GDP on health services, ranks 18 th . Several small countries – San Marino, Andorra, Malta and Singapore are rated close behind second- placed Italy."
Yes medical care here is sophisticated, but that hardly means jack shit if most Americans can't benefit from it.
We have been answering this question since before Obamacare. Get rid of the regulations that favor the industry and open up health insurance to the forces of the free market. Problem solved.
competition, dingworthy. When companies compete, prices go down. When insurance companies compete across state lines, prices will go down.
The other thing that would help drug prices would be to reduce the length of patents, get generics in the market sooner.
Aw, the rich capitalists are making money. Do you know what profit rate health insurance companies make? Google it, its not what you think.
Now, the drug companies, that's a completely different story. Big pharma is raping us and using some of the profits to bribe congresspersons to leave them alone.
competition would bring drug prices down, why do they need a 16 year patent on a new drug? Why are they selling you Cialis for $42/pill? answer: because they can.
part of the problem is the fear of litigation if someone takes a pill wrong, or the wrong pill or too much or, anything.Yeah because they can. That is the problem with our healthcare system. Patents aside, the same drug being sold in the US is being sold in Canada and Western Europe for a fraction of the cost.More competition would help to a small degree, but there is no way that would be enough. In fact there's evidence that competing across state lines wouldn't do anything at all. Our healthcare system is a business like any other. Where is the incentive for them to lower the cost of premiums, prescriptions, and deductibles dramatically when they are making 10s of billions in profit every year from it? These prices have not stopped increasing for decades.And how, in anyway, would that lower the cost of medical services like prescriptions?We have been answering this question since before Obamacare. Get rid of the regulations that favor the industry and open up health insurance to the forces of the free market. Problem solved.
competition, dingworthy. When companies compete, prices go down. When insurance companies compete across state lines, prices will go down.
The other thing that would help drug prices would be to reduce the length of patents, get generics in the market sooner.
Aw, the rich capitalists are making money. Do you know what profit rate health insurance companies make? Google it, its not what you think.
Now, the drug companies, that's a completely different story. Big pharma is raping us and using some of the profits to bribe congresspersons to leave them alone.
competition would bring drug prices down, why do they need a 16 year patent on a new drug? Why are they selling you Cialis for $42/pill? answer: because they can.
But of course you are forgetting the burden of proof against powerful corporate lawyers.part of the problem is the fear of litigation if someone takes a pill wrong, or the wrong pill or too much or, anything.Yeah because they can. That is the problem with our healthcare system. Patents aside, the same drug being sold in the US is being sold in Canada and Western Europe for a fraction of the cost.More competition would help to a small degree, but there is no way that would be enough. In fact there's evidence that competing across state lines wouldn't do anything at all. Our healthcare system is a business like any other. Where is the incentive for them to lower the cost of premiums, prescriptions, and deductibles dramatically when they are making 10s of billions in profit every year from it? These prices have not stopped increasing for decades.And how, in anyway, would that lower the cost of medical services like prescriptions?
competition, dingworthy. When companies compete, prices go down. When insurance companies compete across state lines, prices will go down.
The other thing that would help drug prices would be to reduce the length of patents, get generics in the market sooner.
Aw, the rich capitalists are making money. Do you know what profit rate health insurance companies make? Google it, its not what you think.
Now, the drug companies, that's a completely different story. Big pharma is raping us and using some of the profits to bribe congresspersons to leave them alone.
competition would bring drug prices down, why do they need a 16 year patent on a new drug? Why are they selling you Cialis for $42/pill? answer: because they can.
America has become a nation of idiots with lawyers.
Look at any product sold. a stove comes with a warning that the burners get hot, why? because if some retard puts his hand on the hot burner, and gets burned, if there was no warning the manufacturer gets sued for negligence.
Same with food processors, the bitch is chewing up a damn carrot, what would common sense tell you its going to do to your finger when you stick it in the rotating blades? another warning sign so they don't get sued.
Generally speaking, I tend to think Europeans are just a bit smarter, and if they do engage in some stupidity, their courts are going to laugh them right back out the door.
I don't deny that competition would help. My point is that wouldn't nearly be enough. It is a for profit system. That means poor people are going to get the shaft. Deductibles, premiums, and prescription costs have only increased the last couple of decades while wages remained flat. At this rate, many in the middle class won't be able to afford basic treatment for cancer. Poor people sure as hell cant. The best we can hope for is prices to stabilize but even that wouldn't be enough to fix the problem.Competition would not be nearly enough to bring costs down. We are talking about 10s of billions of profit per year. Why would they give that up? They might lower their prices with more competition, but they would never dramatically reduce their prices which is what's needed. Hell if anything the completion would just keep prices from increasing further which again would mean shit for making healthcare affordable for poor people.And how, in anyway, would that lower the cost of medical services like prescriptions?We have been answering this question since before Obamacare. Get rid of the regulations that favor the industry and open up health insurance to the forces of the free market. Problem solved.
You didn't specifically mention prescriptions. Competition will lower Heath insurance costs, as far a prescriptions go, I'm not sure if the GOP plan on that. I'm sure there is one.
Absolutely untrue. Competition would do it, but I don't expect you to agree, because that would end your rant against the GOP. You asked the question, I have you the answer. You don't like the answer? Hey, I can't force you to learn anything.
'I'm from Belgium my wife's American, so I speak from first hand experience and in the US there are alot of costs that we simply don't have. No need for advertising for instance, there simply wouldn't be any point. Alot of jobs you guys need to keep those umpteen insurance companies administratively running, pharmecy tech's spring to mind immediatly. No wait for meds because they don't have to call the insurance company to ask if they cover said meds. No let's sue the doctor mentality. In short we don't have most of those things wich have nothing to do with the core business of providing healthcare and drive up cost unneccessarily. Resulting in a more efficient, cheaper system.'This is a repost predfan. So you can socialize it. We do it. It's basicly political will. I'm willing to compare both cost and quality with you.I don't deny that competition would help. My point is that wouldn't nearly be enough. It is a for profit system. That means poor people are going to get the shaft. Deductibles, premiums, and prescription costs have only increased the last couple of decades while wages remained flat. At this rate, many in the middle class won't be able to afford basic treatment for cancer. Poor people sure as hell cant. The best we can hope for is prices to stabilize but even that wouldn't be enough to fix the problem.Competition would not be nearly enough to bring costs down. We are talking about 10s of billions of profit per year. Why would they give that up? They might lower their prices with more competition, but they would never dramatically reduce their prices which is what's needed. Hell if anything the completion would just keep prices from increasing further which again would mean shit for making healthcare affordable for poor people.And how, in anyway, would that lower the cost of medical services like prescriptions?
You didn't specifically mention prescriptions. Competition will lower Heath insurance costs, as far a prescriptions go, I'm not sure if the GOP plan on that. I'm sure there is one.
Absolutely untrue. Competition would do it, but I don't expect you to agree, because that would end your rant against the GOP. You asked the question, I have you the answer. You don't like the answer? Hey, I can't force you to learn anything.
Can't save everyone and socializing it will give everyone poor healthcare. It's time for us to stop making poverty a viable option for people.
'I'm from Belgium my wife's American, so I speak from first hand experience and in the US there are alot of costs that we simply don't have. No need for advertising for instance, there simply wouldn't be any point. Alot of jobs you guys need to keep those umpteen insurance companies administratively running, pharmecy tech's spring to mind immediatly. No wait for meds because they don't have to call the insurance company to ask if they cover said meds. No let's sue the doctor mentality. In short we don't have most of those things wich have nothing to do with the core business of providing healthcare and drive up cost unneccessarily. Resulting in a more efficient, cheaper system.'This is a repost predfan. So you can socialize it. We do it. It's basicly political will. I'm willing to compare both cost and quality with you.I don't deny that competition would help. My point is that wouldn't nearly be enough. It is a for profit system. That means poor people are going to get the shaft. Deductibles, premiums, and prescription costs have only increased the last couple of decades while wages remained flat. At this rate, many in the middle class won't be able to afford basic treatment for cancer. Poor people sure as hell cant. The best we can hope for is prices to stabilize but even that wouldn't be enough to fix the problem.Competition would not be nearly enough to bring costs down. We are talking about 10s of billions of profit per year. Why would they give that up? They might lower their prices with more competition, but they would never dramatically reduce their prices which is what's needed. Hell if anything the completion would just keep prices from increasing further which again would mean shit for making healthcare affordable for poor people.You didn't specifically mention prescriptions. Competition will lower Heath insurance costs, as far a prescriptions go, I'm not sure if the GOP plan on that. I'm sure there is one.
Absolutely untrue. Competition would do it, but I don't expect you to agree, because that would end your rant against the GOP. You asked the question, I have you the answer. You don't like the answer? Hey, I can't force you to learn anything.
Can't save everyone and socializing it will give everyone poor healthcare. It's time for us to stop making poverty a viable option for people.
ACA regulation cut insurers' non medical spending from 30% to 20%. Just the beginning. It also made Big Health and hospitals report all their prices. Next, reform.And how would you go about doing that? There are 35 health insurance companies in the US that provide either directly or through subsidiaries, 99% of all private health insurance. In the 1980's and 90's the number of companies in the US were increasing but by the 2000, mergers and acquisitions began reducing the competition. In 2009, the industry seem to freeze mergers and acquisitions waiting to see the effects of Obamacare. However, the parts of law designed to increase competition has failed to do so. Now with the law fully implemented, the industry is pursuing mergers and acquisitions once again with a vengeance.Ok so you hate ObamaCare. Whatever. You hate anything Obama comes up with so you come across like disingenuous douche bags anyway.
How do we fix our healthcare woes? What, exactly, should be done to curb the increasing cost to the consumer of healthcare costs while wages have remained flat? Keep in mind that healthcare costs have been increasing long before ObamaCare. With that in mind, why was our healthcare system ever feasible?
Just agree that legislation is what's needed to cap expenses such as prescriptions. In the end more socialization is what's needed to fix our system. Despite what the Neanderthals on Fox News will tell you, Canada's healthcare system works. 91% of Canadians favor their system over the US's system. Western Europe also has great, affordable healthcare systems.
Change of Subject: Never mind the anecdotes: Do Canadians like their health-care system?
WHO | World Health Organization Assesses the World's Health Systems
"The U.S. health system spends a higher portion of its gross domestic product than any other country but ranks 37 out of 191 countries according to its performance, the report finds. The United Kingdom, which spends just six percent of GDP on health services, ranks 18 th . Several small countries – San Marino, Andorra, Malta and Singapore are rated close behind second- placed Italy."
Yes medical care here is sophisticated, but that hardly means jack shit if most Americans can't benefit from it.
We have been answering this question since before Obamacare. Get rid of the regulations that favor the industry and open up health insurance to the forces of the free market. Problem solved.
The federal government is prohibited by law from taking any action and therefore it is up to the state insurance commissions. The problem is state insurance commission are political and most of them are heavily influenced by companies doing business in their state and are not likely to take any action.
60 to 30 % of our costs...'I'm from Belgium my wife's American, so I speak from first hand experience and in the US there are alot of costs that we simply don't have. No need for advertising for instance, there simply wouldn't be any point. Alot of jobs you guys need to keep those umpteen insurance companies administratively running, pharmecy tech's spring to mind immediatly. No wait for meds because they don't have to call the insurance company to ask if they cover said meds. No let's sue the doctor mentality. In short we don't have most of those things wich have nothing to do with the core business of providing healthcare and drive up cost unneccessarily. Resulting in a more efficient, cheaper system.'This is a repost predfan. So you can socialize it. We do it. It's basicly political will. I'm willing to compare both cost and quality with you.I don't deny that competition would help. My point is that wouldn't nearly be enough. It is a for profit system. That means poor people are going to get the shaft. Deductibles, premiums, and prescription costs have only increased the last couple of decades while wages remained flat. At this rate, many in the middle class won't be able to afford basic treatment for cancer. Poor people sure as hell cant. The best we can hope for is prices to stabilize but even that wouldn't be enough to fix the problem.Competition would not be nearly enough to bring costs down. We are talking about 10s of billions of profit per year. Why would they give that up? They might lower their prices with more competition, but they would never dramatically reduce their prices which is what's needed. Hell if anything the completion would just keep prices from increasing further which again would mean shit for making healthcare affordable for poor people.
Absolutely untrue. Competition would do it, but I don't expect you to agree, because that would end your rant against the GOP. You asked the question, I have you the answer. You don't like the answer? Hey, I can't force you to learn anything.
Can't save everyone and socializing it will give everyone poor healthcare. It's time for us to stop making poverty a viable option for people.
No, you have those costs, your taxes pay for them.
I think your best option is to move back where things are done better'I'm from Belgium my wife's American, so I speak from first hand experience and in the US there are alot of costs that we simply don't have. No need for advertising for instance, there simply wouldn't be any point. Alot of jobs you guys need to keep those umpteen insurance companies administratively running, pharmecy tech's spring to mind immediatly. No wait for meds because they don't have to call the insurance company to ask if they cover said meds. No let's sue the doctor mentality. In short we don't have most of those things wich have nothing to do with the core business of providing healthcare and drive up cost unneccessarily. Resulting in a more efficient, cheaper system.'This is a repost predfan. So you can socialize it. We do it. It's basicly political will. I'm willing to compare both cost and quality with you.I don't deny that competition would help. My point is that wouldn't nearly be enough. It is a for profit system. That means poor people are going to get the shaft. Deductibles, premiums, and prescription costs have only increased the last couple of decades while wages remained flat. At this rate, many in the middle class won't be able to afford basic treatment for cancer. Poor people sure as hell cant. The best we can hope for is prices to stabilize but even that wouldn't be enough to fix the problem.Competition would not be nearly enough to bring costs down. We are talking about 10s of billions of profit per year. Why would they give that up? They might lower their prices with more competition, but they would never dramatically reduce their prices which is what's needed. Hell if anything the completion would just keep prices from increasing further which again would mean shit for making healthcare affordable for poor people.You didn't specifically mention prescriptions. Competition will lower Heath insurance costs, as far a prescriptions go, I'm not sure if the GOP plan on that. I'm sure there is one.
Absolutely untrue. Competition would do it, but I don't expect you to agree, because that would end your rant against the GOP. You asked the question, I have you the answer. You don't like the answer? Hey, I can't force you to learn anything.
Can't save everyone and socializing it will give everyone poor healthcare. It's time for us to stop making poverty a viable option for people.
My advice is to learn something SOME DAY, ugly American hater dupe of the greedy idiot billionaire GOP..I think your best option is to move back where things are done better'I'm from Belgium my wife's American, so I speak from first hand experience and in the US there are alot of costs that we simply don't have. No need for advertising for instance, there simply wouldn't be any point. Alot of jobs you guys need to keep those umpteen insurance companies administratively running, pharmecy tech's spring to mind immediatly. No wait for meds because they don't have to call the insurance company to ask if they cover said meds. No let's sue the doctor mentality. In short we don't have most of those things wich have nothing to do with the core business of providing healthcare and drive up cost unneccessarily. Resulting in a more efficient, cheaper system.'This is a repost predfan. So you can socialize it. We do it. It's basicly political will. I'm willing to compare both cost and quality with you.I don't deny that competition would help. My point is that wouldn't nearly be enough. It is a for profit system. That means poor people are going to get the shaft. Deductibles, premiums, and prescription costs have only increased the last couple of decades while wages remained flat. At this rate, many in the middle class won't be able to afford basic treatment for cancer. Poor people sure as hell cant. The best we can hope for is prices to stabilize but even that wouldn't be enough to fix the problem.Competition would not be nearly enough to bring costs down. We are talking about 10s of billions of profit per year. Why would they give that up? They might lower their prices with more competition, but they would never dramatically reduce their prices which is what's needed. Hell if anything the completion would just keep prices from increasing further which again would mean shit for making healthcare affordable for poor people.
Absolutely untrue. Competition would do it, but I don't expect you to agree, because that would end your rant against the GOP. You asked the question, I have you the answer. You don't like the answer? Hey, I can't force you to learn anything.
Can't save everyone and socializing it will give everyone poor healthcare. It's time for us to stop making poverty a viable option for people.
The Demise of the American Middle Class In Numbers.
Over the past 30 years the American dream has gradually disappeared. The process was slow, so most people didn’t notice. They just worked a few more hours, borrowed a little more and cut back on non-essentials. But looking at the numbers and comparing them over long time periods, it is obvious that things have changed drastically. Here are the details:
1. WORKERS PRODUCE MORE BUT THE GAINS GO TO BUSINESS.
Over the past 63 years worker productivity has grown by 2.0% per year.
But after 1980, workers received a smaller share every year. Labor’s share of income (1992 = 100%):
1950 = 101%
1960 = 105%
1970 = 105%
1980 = 105% – Reagan
1990 = 100%
2000 = 96%
2007 = 92%
A 13% drop since 1980
2. THE TOP 10% GET A LARGER SHARE.
Share of National Income going to Top 10%:
1950 = 35%
1960 = 34%
1970 = 34%
1980 = 34% – Reagan
1990 = 40%
2000 = 47%
2007 = 50%
An increase of 16% since Reagan.
3. WORKERS COMPENSATED FOR THE LOSS OF INCOME BY SPENDING THEIR SAVINGS.
The savings Rose up to Reagan and fell during and after.
1950 = 6.0%
1960 = 7.0%
1970 = 8.5%
1980 = 10.0% – Reagan
1982 = 11.2% – Peak
1990 = 7.0%
2000 = 2.0%
2006 = -1.1% (Negative = withdrawing from savings)
A 12.3% drop after Reagan.
4. WORKERS ALSO BORROWED TO MAKE UP FOR THE LOSS.
Household Debt as percentage of GDP:
1965 = 46%
1970 = 45%
1980 = 50% – Reagan
1990 = 61%
2000 = 69%
2007 = 95%
A 45% increase after 1980.
5. SO THE GAP BETWEEN THE RICHEST AND THE POOREST HAS GROWN.
Gap Between the Share of Capital Income earned by the top 1%
and the bottom 80%:
1980 = 10%
2003 = 56%
A 5.6 times increase.
6. AND THE AMERICAN DREAM IS GONE.
The Probably of Moving Up from the Bottom 40% to the Top 40%:
1945 = 12%
1958 = 6%
1990 = 3%
2000 = 2%
A 10% Decrease.
Links:
1 = ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/special.requests/pf/totalf1.txt
1 = https://www.clevelandfed.org/Research/PolicyDis/No7Nov04.pdf
1 = Clipboard01.jpg (image)
2 – Congratulations to Emmanuel Saez
3 = http://www.demos.org/inequality/images/charts/uspersonalsaving_thumb.gif
3 = U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA)
4 = Federated Prudent Bear Fund (A): Overview
4 = FRB: Z.1 Release--Financial Accounts of the United States--December 10, 2015
5/6 = 15 Mind-Blowing Facts About Wealth And Inequality In America
Overview = http://www.ourfuture.org/blog-entry/2010062415/reagan-revolution-home-roost-charts
I have a problem with the study. In a 2014 study led by the Cleveland Clinic and published in JAMA Internal Medicine, fives years after the Jackson Healthcare study researchers asked a few dozen physicians in three hospital medicine services to estimate the defensiveness of their own orders. Fully 28% of 4,200-plus orders were reported by physicians as being at least partially defensive, but only 2.9% were seen as completely defensive in nature. The Cleveland Clinic study cited a national cost estimate of $46 billion related to defensive medicine, not $850 billion dollars. Also when doctors were asked would tort reform result in a significant decrease in healthcare cost, 80% said no.Your post seems to be a general rant about healthcare.They get lots of info from the hospitals and Big Pharm with ACA. Next they can use it for regulation.THEY know, they know. Nobody else does.What do you mean by arcane middle ages billing processes?
YOU SAID a mouthful.. "use it for regulation"!
Did you ever think that there may be too much regulation???
-- The International Classification of Diseases version 10 (ICD-10) contains 141,060 code sets used to report medical diagnoses and inpatient procedures.
That’s a 712 percent increase over the 19,817 code sets in the currently used ICD-9 version.
--- As we have noted before, physicians are already spending 22 percent of their time interacting with insurers on formularies, claims, billing, credentialing,
pre-authorizations, and quality measure data. The workload can only increase with the new codes.
Healthcare Is Turning Into An Industry Focused On Compliance, Regulation Rather Than Patient Care
How the U.S. Health-Care System Wastes $750 Billion Annually
How the U.S. Health-Care System Wastes $750 Billion Annually
More than 18 months in the making, the report identified six major areas of waste:
unnecessary services ($210 billion annually);
inefficient delivery of care ($130 billion);
excess administrative costs ($190 billion);
inflated prices ($105 billion);
prevention failures ($55 billion), and
fraud ($75 billion).
Adjusting for some overlap among the categories, the panel settled on an estimate of $750 billion.
FYI, ICD codes have nothing to do with government regulations. ICD (International Classification of Disease) listing assigns a code to essentially every know disease and all medically recognized treatments. Without ICD codes, computerized claim processing and billing would be virtually impossible. The ICD as we know it has been around for over a 150 years.
Most of what we call waste in the healthcare industry is unavoidable in American healthcare because there is no way of determine the full cost of diagnosis and treatment or whether it will be successful until after the services have been rendered. Furthermore, it's the people that are selling the service who actually determine the need for service. Pre-authorization is usually just a formality that delays the rendering of the service. The problem is fee for service which encourages waste and over-utilization.
So you have NO problem with what doctors have told us are over $850 billion a year in duplicate testing, referrals, all out of fear of lawsuits? You think they made that up?
http://www.jacksonhealthcare.com/media/8968/defensivemedicine_ebook_final.pdf
90% of physicians surveyed say they order $850 billion a year in wasted duplicate tests, referrals all out of FEAR of being SUED!
--- Emergency medicine, primary care, and OB/GYN physicians are most likely to practice defensive medicine.
--- 79 to 83% of surgeons and OB/GYNs have been named in lawsuits.
"Physicians contracted by the federal government practice significantly less defensive medicine as they are protected against lawsuits by the
1946 Federal Tort Claims Act. "
-- BUT........Only 48% practice defensive medicine compared to 92% of non-government physicians.
Consider that fact that of the physicians interviewed 52% DID NOT practice defensive medicine!
Who were they? Doctors contracted by federal government!
WHY did these doctors NOT practice "defensive medicine"??? 1946 Tort reform!
There hasn't been significant competition in the healthcare industry since we banned the sale of snake oil to cure disease. The industry is highly regulated by federal, state, and local government as well as associations such the AMA, ANA, American Hospital Association, and a number of other professional groups. Startup costs and licensing requirements in most segments of healthcare are very high which dampens competition. 82% of the our hospitals and nearly half our nursing homes are either non-profit or operated by a governmental body. Almost half of our doctors do not own their practice.I'm always amazed really, how so many Americans believe that the free market is a cure for everything. In my opinion there are certain area's where 'for profit' shouldn't be applicable. Health and education being the best examples. Private companies have no business profiting from persons misfortune. Every penny a company takes in profit is a penny that excludes ppl from receiving care.And how would you go about doing that? There are 35 health insurance companies in the US that provide either directly or through subsidiaries, 99% of all private health insurance. In the 1980's and 90's the number of companies in the US were increasing but by the 2000, mergers and acquisitions began reducing the competition. In 2009, the industry seem to freeze mergers and acquisitions waiting to see the effects of Obamacare. However, the parts of law designed to increase competition has failed to do so. Now with the law fully implemented, the industry is pursuing mergers and acquisitions once again with a vengeance.Ok so you hate ObamaCare. Whatever. You hate anything Obama comes up with so you come across like disingenuous douche bags anyway.
How do we fix our healthcare woes? What, exactly, should be done to curb the increasing cost to the consumer of healthcare costs while wages have remained flat? Keep in mind that healthcare costs have been increasing long before ObamaCare. With that in mind, why was our healthcare system ever feasible?
Just agree that legislation is what's needed to cap expenses such as prescriptions. In the end more socialization is what's needed to fix our system. Despite what the Neanderthals on Fox News will tell you, Canada's healthcare system works. 91% of Canadians favor their system over the US's system. Western Europe also has great, affordable healthcare systems.
Change of Subject: Never mind the anecdotes: Do Canadians like their health-care system?
WHO | World Health Organization Assesses the World's Health Systems
"The U.S. health system spends a higher portion of its gross domestic product than any other country but ranks 37 out of 191 countries according to its performance, the report finds. The United Kingdom, which spends just six percent of GDP on health services, ranks 18 th . Several small countries – San Marino, Andorra, Malta and Singapore are rated close behind second- placed Italy."
Yes medical care here is sophisticated, but that hardly means jack shit if most Americans can't benefit from it.
We have been answering this question since before Obamacare. Get rid of the regulations that favor the industry and open up health insurance to the forces of the free market. Problem solved.
The federal government is prohibited by law from taking any action and therefore it is up to the state insurance commissions. The problem is state insurance commission are political and most of them are heavily influenced by companies doing business in their state and are not likely to take any action.
