The 50 most developed countries in the world and Universal Healthcare.

[AzogtheDefiler]

Yet, people in the UK on average live longer than people in the United States!

Yes because they have better eating habits overall in Europe. Nothing to do with healthcare. Mutually exclusive. Have you ever traveled?

About that myth that people in the UK are healthier: they're getting tubbier too.

The term "obese" describes a person who's very overweight, with a lot of body fat.

It's a common problem in the UK that's estimated to affect around one in every four adults.

In 2016 according to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development nearly 27 per cent of adults in the United Kingdom were obese, the highest proportion in Western Europe and a 92 per cent increase since 1996.

It's claimed that by 2030, half of the UK could be obese if the trends continue.

In September 2018, a UN study reported the UK was the third-fattest nation in Europe - behind just Turkey and Malta with an obesity rate of 27.8 per cent.

And in December the UK was crowned the 26th fattest country in the world.

What is the obesity crisis, how does alcohol affect your weight and how can childhood obesity be prevented?

People in the UK on average live longer than people in the United States. They spend less on healthcare and everyone is provided healthcare.

They only live about 6 months longer, and since the influx of Muzzie savages, their life expectancy is going down.

When comparing average life expectancy, just few years or even 6 months is a significant amount. Better healthcare, at lower cost, provided to everyone. Win, win, and win!

Not for the doctors. You pay them less you have fewer doctors and people receive worse healthcare. Doctors don’t work for free. Loss, loss, loss.

 

[bripat9643]

I’m not sure I agree with you completely there. Drug prices seem to be driven by demand and when a company owns a patent they control the supply. A couple of linear equations later and they have a sweet spot to charge as much as they can without effecting demand. So while I agree whole heartedly that Medicare/Medicaid has altered the market a bit, I don’t think it is accurate to categorize it as a controlled market.

Drug prices are largely driven by the $500 million and ten years it takes to get over the bureaucratic FDA hurdles in place, in order to bring a new medication or device to market...This insures that only the biggest of BigPharm companies can operate...What does that have to do with a free market?

You’re correct that the FDA has created a burden on pharmaceutical companies and part of our higher drug costs are attributable to that factor. However, pharmaceutical companies also pass much of the cost of development and research onto American consumers because most other modern countries set price ceilings on what companies can charge, we do not. So while we certainly have government inflicted hurdles, the government does not directly affect market prices.

Drug companies pass all of the costs of developing drugs onto the consumer. If they didn't, then they would go bankrupt. Most of those costs are imposed by the FDA.

 

[EL Rich]

Yet, people in the UK on average live longer than people in the United States!

Yes because they have better eating habits overall in Europe. Nothing to do with healthcare. Mutually exclusive. Have you ever traveled?

About that myth that people in the UK are healthier: they're getting tubbier too.

The term "obese" describes a person who's very overweight, with a lot of body fat.

It's a common problem in the UK that's estimated to affect around one in every four adults.

In 2016 according to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development nearly 27 per cent of adults in the United Kingdom were obese, the highest proportion in Western Europe and a 92 per cent increase since 1996.

It's claimed that by 2030, half of the UK could be obese if the trends continue.

In September 2018, a UN study reported the UK was the third-fattest nation in Europe - behind just Turkey and Malta with an obesity rate of 27.8 per cent.

And in December the UK was crowned the 26th fattest country in the world.

What is the obesity crisis, how does alcohol affect your weight and how can childhood obesity be prevented?

People in the UK on average live longer than people in the United States. They spend less on healthcare and everyone is provided healthcare.

Your posts make me think of an equivalent I heard lately regarding the difference between a million and a billion (or millionaires and billionaires). 1 million seconds is about 11 days, 1 billion seconds is about 30 years. So yes, I agree that taxing the ultra-wealthy more is probably what is best for our society, that said raising taxes on anyone else traditionally stifles economic growth in virtually all sectors other than public employees. I don’t feel as confident as you seem to, that vast government spending and large government agencies to deliver health care will automatically improve the care being delivered to those who need it most, though. In all fairness, attempts at communism (socialism’s extreme cousin) have all resulted in direct and indirect carnage for populations. Not to say you’re advocating communism, but in order for the federal government to take over health care in this country we would have to allow our government to completely control that sector of the economy, no?

The target of increased taxes is always the Kulaks (successful middle class) because there just aren't enough Uber Rich to pay for everything:

Feed Your Family on $10 Billion a Day
Seems like these days I hear a lot of whiney whiners whining about "out of control government spending" and "insane deficits" and such, trying to make hay out of a bunch of pointy-head boring finance hooey. Sure, $3.7 trillion of spending sounds like a big number. "Oh, boo-hoo, how are we going to get $3.7 trillion dollars? We're broke, boo-hoo-hoo," whine the whiners. What these skinflint crybabies fail to realize is that $3.7 trillion is for an entire year - which translates into only a measly $10 billion per day!

Mister, I call that a bargain. Especially since it pays for all of us - you and me, the whole American family. Like all families, we Americas have to pay for things - health, food, safety, uncle Dave America with his drinking problem. And when little Billy America wants that new quad runner they promised, do Mom and Dad America deny him? No, they get a second job at Circle K, because they know little Billy might have one of his episodes and burn down the house.

So let's all sit down together as an American family with a calendar and make a yearly budget. First, let's lock in the $3.7 trillion of critical family spending priorities; now let's get to work on collecting the pay-as-we-go $10 billion daily cash flow we need.

12:01 AM, January 1
Let's start the year out right by going after some evil corporations and their obscene profits. And who is more evil than those twin spawns of Lucifer himself, Exxon Mobil and Walmart? Together these two largest American industrial behemoths raked in, between them, $34 billion in 2010 global profits. Let's teach 'em both a lesson and confiscate it for the public good. This will get us through...

9:52 AM January 4
Okay, maybe I underestimated our take. But we shouldn't let Exxon and Walmart distract us from all those other corporate profiteers out there worth shaking down. In fact, why don't we grab every cent of 2010 profit made by the other 498 members of the Fortune 500? That will net us another, let's see, $357 billion! Enough to get us to...

2:00 AM February 9
So we're running out of corporate cash, but look - it's Super Bowl time! As we all know, the game has become a crass disgusting festival of commercialism. So let's take all the TV ad money spent on stupid Super Bowl ads, and apply that to government needs. That would be $250 million, enough to fund us for, let's see... 36 minutes. The half time show, at least. But why stop there? Let's take every cent of ad money spent on all 45 Super Bowls, a cool $5 billion, which would cover us until...

2:00 PM February 9
Speaking of sports, why should the players be immune to our pressing public needs? Lord knows professional athletes make obscene salaries for playing a dumb game. So let's take the combined salaries of all players in the NFL, Major League Baseball, the NBA, and the NHL. Hey, they've got endorsement deals, they'll hardly miss it. Throw in the total winnings of everybody on the PGA tour and NASCAR, and we get $9.4 billion, enough to get us through until...

1:00 PM February 10
Okay, it's time to stop messing around. Athletes aren't the only ones greedily raking it in. What about America's rich - those fancy pants fat cats living the high life in the above-$250,000 income bracket? According to IRS statistics, these 1.93% of US households are hogging 25% of US income. And why do they need it? For crying out loud, they probably stole it anyway. I say let's take 100% of every penny they make above $250,000. They can use the rest to pay their state and local taxes. Now we're talking big bucks, brother. How much? Let's see...

A: Number of US households: 116,000,000
B: Average US household income: $68,000 (median = $52,000)
C: Total US household income (A * B): $7.89 trillion
D: Percent of households above $250k income: 1.93%
E: Number of households above $250k income (A*D): 2,238,800
F: Percent of national income earned by households making $250k or more = 25%
G: Total income of households making $250k or more (C*F): $1.97 trillion
H: Total income of households in excess of $250k (G - E*$250,000) = $1.412 trillion

Feed Your Family on $10 Billion a Day

I’m not completely sure what the point is here, but the numbers you’re quoting are a little off. Just under 50% of the total personal wealth in our nation is owned by a little more than the wealthiest 1%. I’m not advocating fleeing the rich, simply suggesting that our national wealth would be better used if so few didn’t own so much. Taking away 40% of the richest folks yearly income would still allow them to be unimaginably wealthy compared to those working for a yearly salary. It would also allow us to begin to apply some sense of fiscal responsibility to our spending without completely gutting essential services the government provides. Now for me the real debate starts with what is an essential government service.
So what I’m trying to advocate for is fiscal responsibility and not putting it to the rich and getting the rest of us sized for overalls.

 

[bripat9643]

U2Edge you must have conveniently missed my post from yesterday. Hopefully it doesn’t destroy your narrative.

“Why does the United States, the wealthiest country in the world and the 3rd wealthiest per captia country, still not provide Universal Healthcare for its citizens?"
A few other questions you may have an interest in.....
Do other nations steal from their best citizens to pay for tens of millions of illegal third-world wetbacks and their litters of anchor babies?
What are the average income tax rates in those nations you speak of?
Why do so many folks from those nations you speak of travel to the U.S. for healthcare?
How large is their bottom feeding class that contributes nothing and takes the most?

Yes, other nations properly tax their rich unlike the United States which is a GOOD THING!
The United States needs more latin American immigrants to achieve consistent 3% real GDP growth per year. There is a labor shortage in this country. 7.3 million jobs unfilled. We need more people from Central America to be crossing the border. Immigrants commit less crime than citizens, work harder and are more productive than citizens, tend to be more religious, have more children and are more devoted to family, and serve in the U.S. military in higher percentages than upper income American citizens.

The average income tax rates in Europe are about 50% to 150% more than in the United States. The tax rates are progressive weighted towards the rich. Its how taxes should be done here in the United States.

Most Europeans don't travel to the United States for healthcare.

Okay cool...thanks for the transparency...it seemed like you were disguising your motive a little bit....I just wanted to expose you as yet another beggar...just another beggar who firmly believes he’s entitled to others shit because he breathes oxygen in a wealthy nation. Cool, carry on with your discreet begging.

The rich in the United States were born into the country. They were born into the market that made the rich. Its the U.S. market that decides what their paid and the value of their house and estates, not them. If they had been born in Somalia their fate would be much the same as people born in Somalia today. Because the rich benefit the most from being born into the U.S. market, they must pay a much higher percentage of their gains in taxes to help protect that market and continue to build it. Again, without the U.S. market, the rich would not have what they have today.

When the rich are not paying large percentages in taxes, they are essentially stealing from the country they were born into and profit from.

Oh boy, you are comical...your level of begging and the basis for it is downright facinating.
Soooo, the rich folks of this nation were predestined to be rich simply because they were born on this soil? Well then....Why aren’t all who were born here rich? Why are you begging for my shit...you weren’t born here?

Lefties have a million ways of justifying their greed for what others have earned.

 

[bripat9643]

Yes because they have better eating habits overall in Europe. Nothing to do with healthcare. Mutually exclusive. Have you ever traveled?

About that myth that people in the UK are healthier: they're getting tubbier too.

The term "obese" describes a person who's very overweight, with a lot of body fat.

It's a common problem in the UK that's estimated to affect around one in every four adults.

In 2016 according to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development nearly 27 per cent of adults in the United Kingdom were obese, the highest proportion in Western Europe and a 92 per cent increase since 1996.

It's claimed that by 2030, half of the UK could be obese if the trends continue.

In September 2018, a UN study reported the UK was the third-fattest nation in Europe - behind just Turkey and Malta with an obesity rate of 27.8 per cent.

And in December the UK was crowned the 26th fattest country in the world.

What is the obesity crisis, how does alcohol affect your weight and how can childhood obesity be prevented?

People in the UK on average live longer than people in the United States. They spend less on healthcare and everyone is provided healthcare.

Your posts make me think of an equivalent I heard lately regarding the difference between a million and a billion (or millionaires and billionaires). 1 million seconds is about 11 days, 1 billion seconds is about 30 years. So yes, I agree that taxing the ultra-wealthy more is probably what is best for our society, that said raising taxes on anyone else traditionally stifles economic growth in virtually all sectors other than public employees. I don’t feel as confident as you seem to, that vast government spending and large government agencies to deliver health care will automatically improve the care being delivered to those who need it most, though. In all fairness, attempts at communism (socialism’s extreme cousin) have all resulted in direct and indirect carnage for populations. Not to say you’re advocating communism, but in order for the federal government to take over health care in this country we would have to allow our government to completely control that sector of the economy, no?

The target of increased taxes is always the Kulaks (successful middle class) because there just aren't enough Uber Rich to pay for everything:

Feed Your Family on $10 Billion a Day
Seems like these days I hear a lot of whiney whiners whining about "out of control government spending" and "insane deficits" and such, trying to make hay out of a bunch of pointy-head boring finance hooey. Sure, $3.7 trillion of spending sounds like a big number. "Oh, boo-hoo, how are we going to get $3.7 trillion dollars? We're broke, boo-hoo-hoo," whine the whiners. What these skinflint crybabies fail to realize is that $3.7 trillion is for an entire year - which translates into only a measly $10 billion per day!

Mister, I call that a bargain. Especially since it pays for all of us - you and me, the whole American family. Like all families, we Americas have to pay for things - health, food, safety, uncle Dave America with his drinking problem. And when little Billy America wants that new quad runner they promised, do Mom and Dad America deny him? No, they get a second job at Circle K, because they know little Billy might have one of his episodes and burn down the house.

So let's all sit down together as an American family with a calendar and make a yearly budget. First, let's lock in the $3.7 trillion of critical family spending priorities; now let's get to work on collecting the pay-as-we-go $10 billion daily cash flow we need.

12:01 AM, January 1
Let's start the year out right by going after some evil corporations and their obscene profits. And who is more evil than those twin spawns of Lucifer himself, Exxon Mobil and Walmart? Together these two largest American industrial behemoths raked in, between them, $34 billion in 2010 global profits. Let's teach 'em both a lesson and confiscate it for the public good. This will get us through...

9:52 AM January 4
Okay, maybe I underestimated our take. But we shouldn't let Exxon and Walmart distract us from all those other corporate profiteers out there worth shaking down. In fact, why don't we grab every cent of 2010 profit made by the other 498 members of the Fortune 500? That will net us another, let's see, $357 billion! Enough to get us to...

2:00 AM February 9
So we're running out of corporate cash, but look - it's Super Bowl time! As we all know, the game has become a crass disgusting festival of commercialism. So let's take all the TV ad money spent on stupid Super Bowl ads, and apply that to government needs. That would be $250 million, enough to fund us for, let's see... 36 minutes. The half time show, at least. But why stop there? Let's take every cent of ad money spent on all 45 Super Bowls, a cool $5 billion, which would cover us until...

2:00 PM February 9
Speaking of sports, why should the players be immune to our pressing public needs? Lord knows professional athletes make obscene salaries for playing a dumb game. So let's take the combined salaries of all players in the NFL, Major League Baseball, the NBA, and the NHL. Hey, they've got endorsement deals, they'll hardly miss it. Throw in the total winnings of everybody on the PGA tour and NASCAR, and we get $9.4 billion, enough to get us through until...

1:00 PM February 10
Okay, it's time to stop messing around. Athletes aren't the only ones greedily raking it in. What about America's rich - those fancy pants fat cats living the high life in the above-$250,000 income bracket? According to IRS statistics, these 1.93% of US households are hogging 25% of US income. And why do they need it? For crying out loud, they probably stole it anyway. I say let's take 100% of every penny they make above $250,000. They can use the rest to pay their state and local taxes. Now we're talking big bucks, brother. How much? Let's see...

A: Number of US households: 116,000,000
B: Average US household income: $68,000 (median = $52,000)
C: Total US household income (A * B): $7.89 trillion
D: Percent of households above $250k income: 1.93%
E: Number of households above $250k income (A*D): 2,238,800
F: Percent of national income earned by households making $250k or more = 25%
G: Total income of households making $250k or more (C*F): $1.97 trillion
H: Total income of households in excess of $250k (G - E*$250,000) = $1.412 trillion

Feed Your Family on $10 Billion a Day

I’m not completely sure what the point is here, but the numbers you’re quoting are a little off. Just under 50% of the total personal wealth in our nation is owned by a little more than the wealthiest 1%. I’m not advocating fleeing the rich, simply suggesting that our national wealth would be better used if so few didn’t own so much. Taking away 40% of the richest folks yearly income would still allow them to be unimaginably wealthy compared to those working for a yearly salary. It would also allow us to begin to apply some sense of fiscal responsibility to our spending without completely gutting essential services the government provides. Now for me the real debate starts with what is an essential government service.
So what I’m trying to advocate for is fiscal responsibility and not putting it to the rich and getting the rest of us sized for overalls.

It isn't "our national wealth," dumbass. What rich people have they earned or inherited. You aren't entitled to any of it. It's not communal property.

 

[boedicca]

Yes because they have better eating habits overall in Europe. Nothing to do with healthcare. Mutually exclusive. Have you ever traveled?

About that myth that people in the UK are healthier: they're getting tubbier too.

The term "obese" describes a person who's very overweight, with a lot of body fat.

It's a common problem in the UK that's estimated to affect around one in every four adults.

In 2016 according to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development nearly 27 per cent of adults in the United Kingdom were obese, the highest proportion in Western Europe and a 92 per cent increase since 1996.

It's claimed that by 2030, half of the UK could be obese if the trends continue.

In September 2018, a UN study reported the UK was the third-fattest nation in Europe - behind just Turkey and Malta with an obesity rate of 27.8 per cent.

And in December the UK was crowned the 26th fattest country in the world.

What is the obesity crisis, how does alcohol affect your weight and how can childhood obesity be prevented?

People in the UK on average live longer than people in the United States. They spend less on healthcare and everyone is provided healthcare.

Your posts make me think of an equivalent I heard lately regarding the difference between a million and a billion (or millionaires and billionaires). 1 million seconds is about 11 days, 1 billion seconds is about 30 years. So yes, I agree that taxing the ultra-wealthy more is probably what is best for our society, that said raising taxes on anyone else traditionally stifles economic growth in virtually all sectors other than public employees. I don’t feel as confident as you seem to, that vast government spending and large government agencies to deliver health care will automatically improve the care being delivered to those who need it most, though. In all fairness, attempts at communism (socialism’s extreme cousin) have all resulted in direct and indirect carnage for populations. Not to say you’re advocating communism, but in order for the federal government to take over health care in this country we would have to allow our government to completely control that sector of the economy, no?

The target of increased taxes is always the Kulaks (successful middle class) because there just aren't enough Uber Rich to pay for everything:

Feed Your Family on $10 Billion a Day
Seems like these days I hear a lot of whiney whiners whining about "out of control government spending" and "insane deficits" and such, trying to make hay out of a bunch of pointy-head boring finance hooey. Sure, $3.7 trillion of spending sounds like a big number. "Oh, boo-hoo, how are we going to get $3.7 trillion dollars? We're broke, boo-hoo-hoo," whine the whiners. What these skinflint crybabies fail to realize is that $3.7 trillion is for an entire year - which translates into only a measly $10 billion per day!

Mister, I call that a bargain. Especially since it pays for all of us - you and me, the whole American family. Like all families, we Americas have to pay for things - health, food, safety, uncle Dave America with his drinking problem. And when little Billy America wants that new quad runner they promised, do Mom and Dad America deny him? No, they get a second job at Circle K, because they know little Billy might have one of his episodes and burn down the house.

So let's all sit down together as an American family with a calendar and make a yearly budget. First, let's lock in the $3.7 trillion of critical family spending priorities; now let's get to work on collecting the pay-as-we-go $10 billion daily cash flow we need.

12:01 AM, January 1
Let's start the year out right by going after some evil corporations and their obscene profits. And who is more evil than those twin spawns of Lucifer himself, Exxon Mobil and Walmart? Together these two largest American industrial behemoths raked in, between them, $34 billion in 2010 global profits. Let's teach 'em both a lesson and confiscate it for the public good. This will get us through...

9:52 AM January 4
Okay, maybe I underestimated our take. But we shouldn't let Exxon and Walmart distract us from all those other corporate profiteers out there worth shaking down. In fact, why don't we grab every cent of 2010 profit made by the other 498 members of the Fortune 500? That will net us another, let's see, $357 billion! Enough to get us to...

2:00 AM February 9
So we're running out of corporate cash, but look - it's Super Bowl time! As we all know, the game has become a crass disgusting festival of commercialism. So let's take all the TV ad money spent on stupid Super Bowl ads, and apply that to government needs. That would be $250 million, enough to fund us for, let's see... 36 minutes. The half time show, at least. But why stop there? Let's take every cent of ad money spent on all 45 Super Bowls, a cool $5 billion, which would cover us until...

2:00 PM February 9
Speaking of sports, why should the players be immune to our pressing public needs? Lord knows professional athletes make obscene salaries for playing a dumb game. So let's take the combined salaries of all players in the NFL, Major League Baseball, the NBA, and the NHL. Hey, they've got endorsement deals, they'll hardly miss it. Throw in the total winnings of everybody on the PGA tour and NASCAR, and we get $9.4 billion, enough to get us through until...

1:00 PM February 10
Okay, it's time to stop messing around. Athletes aren't the only ones greedily raking it in. What about America's rich - those fancy pants fat cats living the high life in the above-$250,000 income bracket? According to IRS statistics, these 1.93% of US households are hogging 25% of US income. And why do they need it? For crying out loud, they probably stole it anyway. I say let's take 100% of every penny they make above $250,000. They can use the rest to pay their state and local taxes. Now we're talking big bucks, brother. How much? Let's see...

A: Number of US households: 116,000,000
B: Average US household income: $68,000 (median = $52,000)
C: Total US household income (A * B): $7.89 trillion
D: Percent of households above $250k income: 1.93%
E: Number of households above $250k income (A*D): 2,238,800
F: Percent of national income earned by households making $250k or more = 25%
G: Total income of households making $250k or more (C*F): $1.97 trillion
H: Total income of households in excess of $250k (G - E*$250,000) = $1.412 trillion

Feed Your Family on $10 Billion a Day

I’m not completely sure what the point is here, but the numbers you’re quoting are a little off. Just under 50% of the total personal wealth in our nation is owned by a little more than the wealthiest 1%. I’m not advocating fleeing the rich, simply suggesting that our national wealth would be better used if so few didn’t own so much. Taking away 40% of the richest folks yearly income would still allow them to be unimaginably wealthy compared to those working for a yearly salary. It would also allow us to begin to apply some sense of fiscal responsibility to our spending without completely gutting essential services the government provides. Now for me the real debate starts with what is an essential government service.
So what I’m trying to advocate for is fiscal responsibility and not putting it to the rich and getting the rest of us sized for overalls.

It's clear that you are thoroughly unacquainted with Economics and Human Nature.

The Very Rich are mobile. They will move their wealth to lower tax areas (exactly what has happened to NY with its unexpected $2B+ shortfall in tax receipts).

Higher taxes on the rich are just Prog-Socialist virtue signaling to soften up the uneducated/gullible portion of the population for Socialist Slavery. You're a dupe if you don't understand this.

 

[EL Rich]

I’m not sure I agree with you completely there. Drug prices seem to be driven by demand and when a company owns a patent they control the supply. A couple of linear equations later and they have a sweet spot to charge as much as they can without effecting demand. So while I agree whole heartedly that Medicare/Medicaid has altered the market a bit, I don’t think it is accurate to categorize it as a controlled market.

Drug prices are largely driven by the $500 million and ten years it takes to get over the bureaucratic FDA hurdles in place, in order to bring a new medication or device to market...This insures that only the biggest of BigPharm companies can operate...What does that have to do with a free market?

You’re correct that the FDA has created a burden on pharmaceutical companies and part of our higher drug costs are attributable to that factor. However, pharmaceutical companies also pass much of the cost of development and research onto American consumers because most other modern countries set price ceilings on what companies can charge, we do not. So while we certainly have government inflicted hurdles, the government does not directly affect market prices.

Drug companies pass all of the costs of developing drugs onto the consumer. If they didn't, then they would go bankrupt. Most of those costs are imposed by the FDA.

Your assessment is a little off here. The FDA puts regulations on testing drugs that have already been developed before they can be sold in the US. Perhaps a large cost but not the same amount spent on developing new drugs. I am not arguing that R&D is not costly, I’m simply suggesting that the US consumers takes on a disproportionate burden of this cost because most other nations cap the amount of the cost that companies can pass on to consumers. So laying this all at the feet of the FDA seems to be letting both drug companies, other nations governments, and our own government off the hook for their roles in this equation.

 

[EL Rich]

About that myth that people in the UK are healthier: they're getting tubbier too.

The term "obese" describes a person who's very overweight, with a lot of body fat.

It's a common problem in the UK that's estimated to affect around one in every four adults.

In 2016 according to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development nearly 27 per cent of adults in the United Kingdom were obese, the highest proportion in Western Europe and a 92 per cent increase since 1996.

It's claimed that by 2030, half of the UK could be obese if the trends continue.

In September 2018, a UN study reported the UK was the third-fattest nation in Europe - behind just Turkey and Malta with an obesity rate of 27.8 per cent.

And in December the UK was crowned the 26th fattest country in the world.

What is the obesity crisis, how does alcohol affect your weight and how can childhood obesity be prevented?

People in the UK on average live longer than people in the United States. They spend less on healthcare and everyone is provided healthcare.

Your posts make me think of an equivalent I heard lately regarding the difference between a million and a billion (or millionaires and billionaires). 1 million seconds is about 11 days, 1 billion seconds is about 30 years. So yes, I agree that taxing the ultra-wealthy more is probably what is best for our society, that said raising taxes on anyone else traditionally stifles economic growth in virtually all sectors other than public employees. I don’t feel as confident as you seem to, that vast government spending and large government agencies to deliver health care will automatically improve the care being delivered to those who need it most, though. In all fairness, attempts at communism (socialism’s extreme cousin) have all resulted in direct and indirect carnage for populations. Not to say you’re advocating communism, but in order for the federal government to take over health care in this country we would have to allow our government to completely control that sector of the economy, no?

The target of increased taxes is always the Kulaks (successful middle class) because there just aren't enough Uber Rich to pay for everything:

Feed Your Family on $10 Billion a Day
Seems like these days I hear a lot of whiney whiners whining about "out of control government spending" and "insane deficits" and such, trying to make hay out of a bunch of pointy-head boring finance hooey. Sure, $3.7 trillion of spending sounds like a big number. "Oh, boo-hoo, how are we going to get $3.7 trillion dollars? We're broke, boo-hoo-hoo," whine the whiners. What these skinflint crybabies fail to realize is that $3.7 trillion is for an entire year - which translates into only a measly $10 billion per day!

Mister, I call that a bargain. Especially since it pays for all of us - you and me, the whole American family. Like all families, we Americas have to pay for things - health, food, safety, uncle Dave America with his drinking problem. And when little Billy America wants that new quad runner they promised, do Mom and Dad America deny him? No, they get a second job at Circle K, because they know little Billy might have one of his episodes and burn down the house.

So let's all sit down together as an American family with a calendar and make a yearly budget. First, let's lock in the $3.7 trillion of critical family spending priorities; now let's get to work on collecting the pay-as-we-go $10 billion daily cash flow we need.

12:01 AM, January 1
Let's start the year out right by going after some evil corporations and their obscene profits. And who is more evil than those twin spawns of Lucifer himself, Exxon Mobil and Walmart? Together these two largest American industrial behemoths raked in, between them, $34 billion in 2010 global profits. Let's teach 'em both a lesson and confiscate it for the public good. This will get us through...

9:52 AM January 4
Okay, maybe I underestimated our take. But we shouldn't let Exxon and Walmart distract us from all those other corporate profiteers out there worth shaking down. In fact, why don't we grab every cent of 2010 profit made by the other 498 members of the Fortune 500? That will net us another, let's see, $357 billion! Enough to get us to...

2:00 AM February 9
So we're running out of corporate cash, but look - it's Super Bowl time! As we all know, the game has become a crass disgusting festival of commercialism. So let's take all the TV ad money spent on stupid Super Bowl ads, and apply that to government needs. That would be $250 million, enough to fund us for, let's see... 36 minutes. The half time show, at least. But why stop there? Let's take every cent of ad money spent on all 45 Super Bowls, a cool $5 billion, which would cover us until...

2:00 PM February 9
Speaking of sports, why should the players be immune to our pressing public needs? Lord knows professional athletes make obscene salaries for playing a dumb game. So let's take the combined salaries of all players in the NFL, Major League Baseball, the NBA, and the NHL. Hey, they've got endorsement deals, they'll hardly miss it. Throw in the total winnings of everybody on the PGA tour and NASCAR, and we get $9.4 billion, enough to get us through until...

1:00 PM February 10
Okay, it's time to stop messing around. Athletes aren't the only ones greedily raking it in. What about America's rich - those fancy pants fat cats living the high life in the above-$250,000 income bracket? According to IRS statistics, these 1.93% of US households are hogging 25% of US income. And why do they need it? For crying out loud, they probably stole it anyway. I say let's take 100% of every penny they make above $250,000. They can use the rest to pay their state and local taxes. Now we're talking big bucks, brother. How much? Let's see...

A: Number of US households: 116,000,000
B: Average US household income: $68,000 (median = $52,000)
C: Total US household income (A * B): $7.89 trillion
D: Percent of households above $250k income: 1.93%
E: Number of households above $250k income (A*D): 2,238,800
F: Percent of national income earned by households making $250k or more = 25%
G: Total income of households making $250k or more (C*F): $1.97 trillion
H: Total income of households in excess of $250k (G - E*$250,000) = $1.412 trillion

Feed Your Family on $10 Billion a Day

I’m not completely sure what the point is here, but the numbers you’re quoting are a little off. Just under 50% of the total personal wealth in our nation is owned by a little more than the wealthiest 1%. I’m not advocating fleeing the rich, simply suggesting that our national wealth would be better used if so few didn’t own so much. Taking away 40% of the richest folks yearly income would still allow them to be unimaginably wealthy compared to those working for a yearly salary. It would also allow us to begin to apply some sense of fiscal responsibility to our spending without completely gutting essential services the government provides. Now for me the real debate starts with what is an essential government service.
So what I’m trying to advocate for is fiscal responsibility and not putting it to the rich and getting the rest of us sized for overalls.

It isn't "our national wealth," dumbass. What rich people have they earned or inherited. You aren't entitled to any of it. It's not communal property.

Then how do you propose governments function if not through taxes?

 

[bripat9643]

I’m not sure I agree with you completely there. Drug prices seem to be driven by demand and when a company owns a patent they control the supply. A couple of linear equations later and they have a sweet spot to charge as much as they can without effecting demand. So while I agree whole heartedly that Medicare/Medicaid has altered the market a bit, I don’t think it is accurate to categorize it as a controlled market.

Drug prices are largely driven by the $500 million and ten years it takes to get over the bureaucratic FDA hurdles in place, in order to bring a new medication or device to market...This insures that only the biggest of BigPharm companies can operate...What does that have to do with a free market?

You’re correct that the FDA has created a burden on pharmaceutical companies and part of our higher drug costs are attributable to that factor. However, pharmaceutical companies also pass much of the cost of development and research onto American consumers because most other modern countries set price ceilings on what companies can charge, we do not. So while we certainly have government inflicted hurdles, the government does not directly affect market prices.

Drug companies pass all of the costs of developing drugs onto the consumer. If they didn't, then they would go bankrupt. Most of those costs are imposed by the FDA.

Your assessment is a little off here. The FDA puts regulations on testing drugs that have already been developed before they can be sold in the US. Perhaps a large cost but not the same amount spent on developing new drugs. I am not arguing that R&D is not costly, I’m simply suggesting that the US consumers takes on a disproportionate burden of this cost because most other nations cap the amount of the cost that companies can pass on to consumers. So laying this all at the feet of the FDA seems to be letting both drug companies, other nations governments, and our own government off the hook for their roles in this equation.

Most of the cost of new drugs comes from the FDA required testing. What are drugs were "already developed" before the FDA put regulations on them? All drugs are subject to FDA regulations. Many drugs go through testing that turn out to be duds. These are all figured into the cost of drugs that actually make it to market.

 

[bripat9643]

People in the UK on average live longer than people in the United States. They spend less on healthcare and everyone is provided healthcare.

Your posts make me think of an equivalent I heard lately regarding the difference between a million and a billion (or millionaires and billionaires). 1 million seconds is about 11 days, 1 billion seconds is about 30 years. So yes, I agree that taxing the ultra-wealthy more is probably what is best for our society, that said raising taxes on anyone else traditionally stifles economic growth in virtually all sectors other than public employees. I don’t feel as confident as you seem to, that vast government spending and large government agencies to deliver health care will automatically improve the care being delivered to those who need it most, though. In all fairness, attempts at communism (socialism’s extreme cousin) have all resulted in direct and indirect carnage for populations. Not to say you’re advocating communism, but in order for the federal government to take over health care in this country we would have to allow our government to completely control that sector of the economy, no?

The target of increased taxes is always the Kulaks (successful middle class) because there just aren't enough Uber Rich to pay for everything:

Feed Your Family on $10 Billion a Day
Seems like these days I hear a lot of whiney whiners whining about "out of control government spending" and "insane deficits" and such, trying to make hay out of a bunch of pointy-head boring finance hooey. Sure, $3.7 trillion of spending sounds like a big number. "Oh, boo-hoo, how are we going to get $3.7 trillion dollars? We're broke, boo-hoo-hoo," whine the whiners. What these skinflint crybabies fail to realize is that $3.7 trillion is for an entire year - which translates into only a measly $10 billion per day!

Mister, I call that a bargain. Especially since it pays for all of us - you and me, the whole American family. Like all families, we Americas have to pay for things - health, food, safety, uncle Dave America with his drinking problem. And when little Billy America wants that new quad runner they promised, do Mom and Dad America deny him? No, they get a second job at Circle K, because they know little Billy might have one of his episodes and burn down the house.

So let's all sit down together as an American family with a calendar and make a yearly budget. First, let's lock in the $3.7 trillion of critical family spending priorities; now let's get to work on collecting the pay-as-we-go $10 billion daily cash flow we need.

12:01 AM, January 1
Let's start the year out right by going after some evil corporations and their obscene profits. And who is more evil than those twin spawns of Lucifer himself, Exxon Mobil and Walmart? Together these two largest American industrial behemoths raked in, between them, $34 billion in 2010 global profits. Let's teach 'em both a lesson and confiscate it for the public good. This will get us through...

9:52 AM January 4
Okay, maybe I underestimated our take. But we shouldn't let Exxon and Walmart distract us from all those other corporate profiteers out there worth shaking down. In fact, why don't we grab every cent of 2010 profit made by the other 498 members of the Fortune 500? That will net us another, let's see, $357 billion! Enough to get us to...

2:00 AM February 9
So we're running out of corporate cash, but look - it's Super Bowl time! As we all know, the game has become a crass disgusting festival of commercialism. So let's take all the TV ad money spent on stupid Super Bowl ads, and apply that to government needs. That would be $250 million, enough to fund us for, let's see... 36 minutes. The half time show, at least. But why stop there? Let's take every cent of ad money spent on all 45 Super Bowls, a cool $5 billion, which would cover us until...

2:00 PM February 9
Speaking of sports, why should the players be immune to our pressing public needs? Lord knows professional athletes make obscene salaries for playing a dumb game. So let's take the combined salaries of all players in the NFL, Major League Baseball, the NBA, and the NHL. Hey, they've got endorsement deals, they'll hardly miss it. Throw in the total winnings of everybody on the PGA tour and NASCAR, and we get $9.4 billion, enough to get us through until...

1:00 PM February 10
Okay, it's time to stop messing around. Athletes aren't the only ones greedily raking it in. What about America's rich - those fancy pants fat cats living the high life in the above-$250,000 income bracket? According to IRS statistics, these 1.93% of US households are hogging 25% of US income. And why do they need it? For crying out loud, they probably stole it anyway. I say let's take 100% of every penny they make above $250,000. They can use the rest to pay their state and local taxes. Now we're talking big bucks, brother. How much? Let's see...

A: Number of US households: 116,000,000
B: Average US household income: $68,000 (median = $52,000)
C: Total US household income (A * B): $7.89 trillion
D: Percent of households above $250k income: 1.93%
E: Number of households above $250k income (A*D): 2,238,800
F: Percent of national income earned by households making $250k or more = 25%
G: Total income of households making $250k or more (C*F): $1.97 trillion
H: Total income of households in excess of $250k (G - E*$250,000) = $1.412 trillion

Feed Your Family on $10 Billion a Day

I’m not completely sure what the point is here, but the numbers you’re quoting are a little off. Just under 50% of the total personal wealth in our nation is owned by a little more than the wealthiest 1%. I’m not advocating fleeing the rich, simply suggesting that our national wealth would be better used if so few didn’t own so much. Taking away 40% of the richest folks yearly income would still allow them to be unimaginably wealthy compared to those working for a yearly salary. It would also allow us to begin to apply some sense of fiscal responsibility to our spending without completely gutting essential services the government provides. Now for me the real debate starts with what is an essential government service.
So what I’m trying to advocate for is fiscal responsibility and not putting it to the rich and getting the rest of us sized for overalls.

It isn't "our national wealth," dumbass. What rich people have they earned or inherited. You aren't entitled to any of it. It's not communal property.

Then how do you propose governments function if not through taxes?

I didn't say that. I said taxes should reflect the cost of services used. The rich don't use 90% of government services. In fact they probably use less than most people because they send their kids to private schools and hire private security.

 

[EL Rich]

I’m not sure I agree with you completely there. Drug prices seem to be driven by demand and when a company owns a patent they control the supply. A couple of linear equations later and they have a sweet spot to charge as much as they can without effecting demand. So while I agree whole heartedly that Medicare/Medicaid has altered the market a bit, I don’t think it is accurate to categorize it as a controlled market.

Drug prices are largely driven by the $500 million and ten years it takes to get over the bureaucratic FDA hurdles in place, in order to bring a new medication or device to market...This insures that only the biggest of BigPharm companies can operate...What does that have to do with a free market?

You’re correct that the FDA has created a burden on pharmaceutical companies and part of our higher drug costs are attributable to that factor. However, pharmaceutical companies also pass much of the cost of development and research onto American consumers because most other modern countries set price ceilings on what companies can charge, we do not. So while we certainly have government inflicted hurdles, the government does not directly affect market prices.

Drug companies pass all of the costs of developing drugs onto the consumer. If they didn't, then they would go bankrupt. Most of those costs are imposed by the FDA.

Your assessment is a little off here. The FDA puts regulations on testing drugs that have already been developed before they can be sold in the US. Perhaps a large cost but not the same amount spent on developing new drugs. I am not arguing that R&D is not costly, I’m simply suggesting that the US consumers takes on a disproportionate burden of this cost because most other nations cap the amount of the cost that companies can pass on to consumers. So laying this all at the feet of the FDA seems to be letting both drug companies, other nations governments, and our own government off the hook for their roles in this equation.

Most of the cost of new drugs comes from the FDA required testing. What are drugs were "already developed" before the FDA put regulations on them? All drugs are subject to FDA regulations. Many drugs go through testing that turn out to be duds. These are all figured into the cost of drugs that actually make it to market.

 

[EL Rich]

I’m not sure I agree with you completely there. Drug prices seem to be driven by demand and when a company owns a patent they control the supply. A couple of linear equations later and they have a sweet spot to charge as much as they can without effecting demand. So while I agree whole heartedly that Medicare/Medicaid has altered the market a bit, I don’t think it is accurate to categorize it as a controlled market.

Drug prices are largely driven by the $500 million and ten years it takes to get over the bureaucratic FDA hurdles in place, in order to bring a new medication or device to market...This insures that only the biggest of BigPharm companies can operate...What does that have to do with a free market?

You’re correct that the FDA has created a burden on pharmaceutical companies and part of our higher drug costs are attributable to that factor. However, pharmaceutical companies also pass much of the cost of development and research onto American consumers because most other modern countries set price ceilings on what companies can charge, we do not. So while we certainly have government inflicted hurdles, the government does not directly affect market prices.

Drug companies pass all of the costs of developing drugs onto the consumer. If they didn't, then they would go bankrupt. Most of those costs are imposed by the FDA.

Your assessment is a little off here. The FDA puts regulations on testing drugs that have already been developed before they can be sold in the US. Perhaps a large cost but not the same amount spent on developing new drugs. I am not arguing that R&D is not costly, I’m simply suggesting that the US consumers takes on a disproportionate burden of this cost because most other nations cap the amount of the cost that companies can pass on to consumers. So laying this all at the feet of the FDA seems to be letting both drug companies, other nations governments, and our own government off the hook for their roles in this equation.

Most of the cost of new drugs comes from the FDA required testing. What are drugs were "already developed" before the FDA put regulations on them? All drugs are subject to FDA regulations. Many drugs go through testing that turn out to be duds. These are all figured into the cost of drugs that actually make it to market.

Fair enough, maybe I’m wrong. Where are you getting that your figures?

 

[EL Rich]

Your posts make me think of an equivalent I heard lately regarding the difference between a million and a billion (or millionaires and billionaires). 1 million seconds is about 11 days, 1 billion seconds is about 30 years. So yes, I agree that taxing the ultra-wealthy more is probably what is best for our society, that said raising taxes on anyone else traditionally stifles economic growth in virtually all sectors other than public employees. I don’t feel as confident as you seem to, that vast government spending and large government agencies to deliver health care will automatically improve the care being delivered to those who need it most, though. In all fairness, attempts at communism (socialism’s extreme cousin) have all resulted in direct and indirect carnage for populations. Not to say you’re advocating communism, but in order for the federal government to take over health care in this country we would have to allow our government to completely control that sector of the economy, no?

The target of increased taxes is always the Kulaks (successful middle class) because there just aren't enough Uber Rich to pay for everything:

Feed Your Family on $10 Billion a Day
Seems like these days I hear a lot of whiney whiners whining about "out of control government spending" and "insane deficits" and such, trying to make hay out of a bunch of pointy-head boring finance hooey. Sure, $3.7 trillion of spending sounds like a big number. "Oh, boo-hoo, how are we going to get $3.7 trillion dollars? We're broke, boo-hoo-hoo," whine the whiners. What these skinflint crybabies fail to realize is that $3.7 trillion is for an entire year - which translates into only a measly $10 billion per day!

Mister, I call that a bargain. Especially since it pays for all of us - you and me, the whole American family. Like all families, we Americas have to pay for things - health, food, safety, uncle Dave America with his drinking problem. And when little Billy America wants that new quad runner they promised, do Mom and Dad America deny him? No, they get a second job at Circle K, because they know little Billy might have one of his episodes and burn down the house.

So let's all sit down together as an American family with a calendar and make a yearly budget. First, let's lock in the $3.7 trillion of critical family spending priorities; now let's get to work on collecting the pay-as-we-go $10 billion daily cash flow we need.

12:01 AM, January 1
Let's start the year out right by going after some evil corporations and their obscene profits. And who is more evil than those twin spawns of Lucifer himself, Exxon Mobil and Walmart? Together these two largest American industrial behemoths raked in, between them, $34 billion in 2010 global profits. Let's teach 'em both a lesson and confiscate it for the public good. This will get us through...

9:52 AM January 4
Okay, maybe I underestimated our take. But we shouldn't let Exxon and Walmart distract us from all those other corporate profiteers out there worth shaking down. In fact, why don't we grab every cent of 2010 profit made by the other 498 members of the Fortune 500? That will net us another, let's see, $357 billion! Enough to get us to...

2:00 AM February 9
So we're running out of corporate cash, but look - it's Super Bowl time! As we all know, the game has become a crass disgusting festival of commercialism. So let's take all the TV ad money spent on stupid Super Bowl ads, and apply that to government needs. That would be $250 million, enough to fund us for, let's see... 36 minutes. The half time show, at least. But why stop there? Let's take every cent of ad money spent on all 45 Super Bowls, a cool $5 billion, which would cover us until...

2:00 PM February 9
Speaking of sports, why should the players be immune to our pressing public needs? Lord knows professional athletes make obscene salaries for playing a dumb game. So let's take the combined salaries of all players in the NFL, Major League Baseball, the NBA, and the NHL. Hey, they've got endorsement deals, they'll hardly miss it. Throw in the total winnings of everybody on the PGA tour and NASCAR, and we get $9.4 billion, enough to get us through until...

1:00 PM February 10
Okay, it's time to stop messing around. Athletes aren't the only ones greedily raking it in. What about America's rich - those fancy pants fat cats living the high life in the above-$250,000 income bracket? According to IRS statistics, these 1.93% of US households are hogging 25% of US income. And why do they need it? For crying out loud, they probably stole it anyway. I say let's take 100% of every penny they make above $250,000. They can use the rest to pay their state and local taxes. Now we're talking big bucks, brother. How much? Let's see...

A: Number of US households: 116,000,000
B: Average US household income: $68,000 (median = $52,000)
C: Total US household income (A * B): $7.89 trillion
D: Percent of households above $250k income: 1.93%
E: Number of households above $250k income (A*D): 2,238,800
F: Percent of national income earned by households making $250k or more = 25%
G: Total income of households making $250k or more (C*F): $1.97 trillion
H: Total income of households in excess of $250k (G - E*$250,000) = $1.412 trillion

Feed Your Family on $10 Billion a Day

I’m not completely sure what the point is here, but the numbers you’re quoting are a little off. Just under 50% of the total personal wealth in our nation is owned by a little more than the wealthiest 1%. I’m not advocating fleeing the rich, simply suggesting that our national wealth would be better used if so few didn’t own so much. Taking away 40% of the richest folks yearly income would still allow them to be unimaginably wealthy compared to those working for a yearly salary. It would also allow us to begin to apply some sense of fiscal responsibility to our spending without completely gutting essential services the government provides. Now for me the real debate starts with what is an essential government service.
So what I’m trying to advocate for is fiscal responsibility and not putting it to the rich and getting the rest of us sized for overalls.

It isn't "our national wealth," dumbass. What rich people have they earned or inherited. You aren't entitled to any of it. It's not communal property.

Then how do you propose governments function if not through taxes?

I didn't say that. I said taxes should reflect the cost of services used. The rich don't use 90% of government services. In fact they probably use less than most people because they send their kids to private schools and hire private security.

All fair points, we simply disagree about what individuals owe (or don’t owe) their societies. In extension, does this mean all government aid to the public should be paid for by those who need the aid? Seems like an easy way to do away with those programs.

 

[bripat9643]

The target of increased taxes is always the Kulaks (successful middle class) because there just aren't enough Uber Rich to pay for everything:

Feed Your Family on $10 Billion a Day
Seems like these days I hear a lot of whiney whiners whining about "out of control government spending" and "insane deficits" and such, trying to make hay out of a bunch of pointy-head boring finance hooey. Sure, $3.7 trillion of spending sounds like a big number. "Oh, boo-hoo, how are we going to get $3.7 trillion dollars? We're broke, boo-hoo-hoo," whine the whiners. What these skinflint crybabies fail to realize is that $3.7 trillion is for an entire year - which translates into only a measly $10 billion per day!

Mister, I call that a bargain. Especially since it pays for all of us - you and me, the whole American family. Like all families, we Americas have to pay for things - health, food, safety, uncle Dave America with his drinking problem. And when little Billy America wants that new quad runner they promised, do Mom and Dad America deny him? No, they get a second job at Circle K, because they know little Billy might have one of his episodes and burn down the house.

So let's all sit down together as an American family with a calendar and make a yearly budget. First, let's lock in the $3.7 trillion of critical family spending priorities; now let's get to work on collecting the pay-as-we-go $10 billion daily cash flow we need.

12:01 AM, January 1
Let's start the year out right by going after some evil corporations and their obscene profits. And who is more evil than those twin spawns of Lucifer himself, Exxon Mobil and Walmart? Together these two largest American industrial behemoths raked in, between them, $34 billion in 2010 global profits. Let's teach 'em both a lesson and confiscate it for the public good. This will get us through...

9:52 AM January 4
Okay, maybe I underestimated our take. But we shouldn't let Exxon and Walmart distract us from all those other corporate profiteers out there worth shaking down. In fact, why don't we grab every cent of 2010 profit made by the other 498 members of the Fortune 500? That will net us another, let's see, $357 billion! Enough to get us to...

2:00 AM February 9
So we're running out of corporate cash, but look - it's Super Bowl time! As we all know, the game has become a crass disgusting festival of commercialism. So let's take all the TV ad money spent on stupid Super Bowl ads, and apply that to government needs. That would be $250 million, enough to fund us for, let's see... 36 minutes. The half time show, at least. But why stop there? Let's take every cent of ad money spent on all 45 Super Bowls, a cool $5 billion, which would cover us until...

2:00 PM February 9
Speaking of sports, why should the players be immune to our pressing public needs? Lord knows professional athletes make obscene salaries for playing a dumb game. So let's take the combined salaries of all players in the NFL, Major League Baseball, the NBA, and the NHL. Hey, they've got endorsement deals, they'll hardly miss it. Throw in the total winnings of everybody on the PGA tour and NASCAR, and we get $9.4 billion, enough to get us through until...

1:00 PM February 10
Okay, it's time to stop messing around. Athletes aren't the only ones greedily raking it in. What about America's rich - those fancy pants fat cats living the high life in the above-$250,000 income bracket? According to IRS statistics, these 1.93% of US households are hogging 25% of US income. And why do they need it? For crying out loud, they probably stole it anyway. I say let's take 100% of every penny they make above $250,000. They can use the rest to pay their state and local taxes. Now we're talking big bucks, brother. How much? Let's see...

A: Number of US households: 116,000,000
B: Average US household income: $68,000 (median = $52,000)
C: Total US household income (A * B): $7.89 trillion
D: Percent of households above $250k income: 1.93%
E: Number of households above $250k income (A*D): 2,238,800
F: Percent of national income earned by households making $250k or more = 25%
G: Total income of households making $250k or more (C*F): $1.97 trillion
H: Total income of households in excess of $250k (G - E*$250,000) = $1.412 trillion

Feed Your Family on $10 Billion a Day

I’m not completely sure what the point is here, but the numbers you’re quoting are a little off. Just under 50% of the total personal wealth in our nation is owned by a little more than the wealthiest 1%. I’m not advocating fleeing the rich, simply suggesting that our national wealth would be better used if so few didn’t own so much. Taking away 40% of the richest folks yearly income would still allow them to be unimaginably wealthy compared to those working for a yearly salary. It would also allow us to begin to apply some sense of fiscal responsibility to our spending without completely gutting essential services the government provides. Now for me the real debate starts with what is an essential government service.
So what I’m trying to advocate for is fiscal responsibility and not putting it to the rich and getting the rest of us sized for overalls.

It isn't "our national wealth," dumbass. What rich people have they earned or inherited. You aren't entitled to any of it. It's not communal property.

Then how do you propose governments function if not through taxes?

I didn't say that. I said taxes should reflect the cost of services used. The rich don't use 90% of government services. In fact they probably use less than most people because they send their kids to private schools and hire private security.

All fair points, we simply disagree about what individuals owe (or don’t owe) their societies. In extension, does this mean all government aid to the public should be paid for by those who need the aid? Seems like an easy way to do away with those programs.

The rich don't owe a thing to society. Furthermore, taxes go to the government, not to society. You believe that rich people should pay a higher percentage of their income in taxes simply because they are rich. There is no rational basis for that. If I make a fortune by developing a new piece of software, how is the government entitled to a stake in it? The government's contribution to enterprise is the cost of the services that I used. That is not proportional to how much I earned. If I used X amount of sewage and water, you have failed to explain why I should pay any more than X amount in taxes.

Yes, we should do away with income redistribution in any form. It's nothing more than organized plunder.

 

[Oddball]

I’m not sure I agree with you completely there. Drug prices seem to be driven by demand and when a company owns a patent they control the supply. A couple of linear equations later and they have a sweet spot to charge as much as they can without effecting demand. So while I agree whole heartedly that Medicare/Medicaid has altered the market a bit, I don’t think it is accurate to categorize it as a controlled market.

Drug prices are largely driven by the $500 million and ten years it takes to get over the bureaucratic FDA hurdles in place, in order to bring a new medication or device to market...This insures that only the biggest of BigPharm companies can operate...What does that have to do with a free market?

You’re correct that the FDA has created a burden on pharmaceutical companies and part of our higher drug costs are attributable to that factor. However, pharmaceutical companies also pass much of the cost of development and research onto American consumers because most other modern countries set price ceilings on what companies can charge, we do not. So while we certainly have government inflicted hurdles, the government does not directly affect market prices.

So the developers of the medications and devices are just supposed to eat the costs?...How long do you think you'd stay in business doing that?

 

[EL Rich]

I’m not sure I agree with you completely there. Drug prices seem to be driven by demand and when a company owns a patent they control the supply. A couple of linear equations later and they have a sweet spot to charge as much as they can without effecting demand. So while I agree whole heartedly that Medicare/Medicaid has altered the market a bit, I don’t think it is accurate to categorize it as a controlled market.

Drug prices are largely driven by the $500 million and ten years it takes to get over the bureaucratic FDA hurdles in place, in order to bring a new medication or device to market...This insures that only the biggest of BigPharm companies can operate...What does that have to do with a free market?

You’re correct that the FDA has created a burden on pharmaceutical companies and part of our higher drug costs are attributable to that factor. However, pharmaceutical companies also pass much of the cost of development and research onto American consumers because most other modern countries set price ceilings on what companies can charge, we do not. So while we certainly have government inflicted hurdles, the government does not directly affect market prices.

So the developers of the medications and devices are just supposed to eat the costs?...How long do you think you'd stay in business doing that?

Pretty sure that is not what I said and certain that it not what I was trying to say.

 

[Oddball]

Pretty sure that is not what I said and certain that it not what I was trying to say.

Well, you're a total dim bulb if you think all those costs aren't going to be passed along to the end consumer....There are all the duds that don't get approved...You don't think that's for free, do you?

In any event, the "free market" that you decry for driving up the costs of medical services is anything but free.

 

[EL Rich]

I’m not completely sure what the point is here, but the numbers you’re quoting are a little off. Just under 50% of the total personal wealth in our nation is owned by a little more than the wealthiest 1%. I’m not advocating fleeing the rich, simply suggesting that our national wealth would be better used if so few didn’t own so much. Taking away 40% of the richest folks yearly income would still allow them to be unimaginably wealthy compared to those working for a yearly salary. It would also allow us to begin to apply some sense of fiscal responsibility to our spending without completely gutting essential services the government provides. Now for me the real debate starts with what is an essential government service.
So what I’m trying to advocate for is fiscal responsibility and not putting it to the rich and getting the rest of us sized for overalls.

It isn't "our national wealth," dumbass. What rich people have they earned or inherited. You aren't entitled to any of it. It's not communal property.

Then how do you propose governments function if not through taxes?

I didn't say that. I said taxes should reflect the cost of services used. The rich don't use 90% of government services. In fact they probably use less than most people because they send their kids to private schools and hire private security.

All fair points, we simply disagree about what individuals owe (or don’t owe) their societies. In extension, does this mean all government aid to the public should be paid for by those who need the aid? Seems like an easy way to do away with those programs.

The rich don't owe a thing to society. Furthermore, taxes go to the government, not to society. You believe that rich people should pay a higher percentage of their income in taxes simply because they are rich. There is no rational basis for that. If I make a fortune by developing a new piece of software, how is the government entitled to a stake in it? The government's contribution to enterprise is the cost of the services that I used. That is not proportional to how much I earned. If I used X amount of sewage and water, you have failed to explain why I should pay any more than X amount in taxes.

Yes, we should do away with income redistribution in any form. It's nothing more than organized plunder.

First, I am in no way saying your points here are invalid, because they are not. I do not agree that the individual owes nothing to the society that they have flourished in. Although, pay for what you use does seem fair. Does that mean when we fight wars to protect American prosperity those who proper the most should pay the most of the bill? Does that mean that companies that benefit from lower government regulations on employee compensation should pay some of those savings for the care those employees can no longer afford. Or are you simply saying Capitalism has winners and losers, so make sure you win?

 

[EL Rich]

Pretty sure that is not what I said and certain that it not what I was trying to say.

Well, you're a total dim bulb if you think all those costs aren't going to be passed along to the end consumer....There are all the duds that don't get approved...You don't think that's for free, do you?

In any event, the "free market" that you decry for driving up the costs of medical services is anything but free.

You are not representing my points accurately. I am by no means advocating companies exist for altruistic service to the individual. Nor am I saying companies should not attempt to make profit and set their prices in accordance to that goal. What I am saying is that their costs are not exclusively the result of FDA regulations, and that the drug prices in our country in comparison to the rest of the developed world are higher due to policies by our government and foreign governments.

 

[bripat9643]

It isn't "our national wealth," dumbass. What rich people have they earned or inherited. You aren't entitled to any of it. It's not communal property.

Then how do you propose governments function if not through taxes?

I didn't say that. I said taxes should reflect the cost of services used. The rich don't use 90% of government services. In fact they probably use less than most people because they send their kids to private schools and hire private security.

All fair points, we simply disagree about what individuals owe (or don’t owe) their societies. In extension, does this mean all government aid to the public should be paid for by those who need the aid? Seems like an easy way to do away with those programs.

The rich don't owe a thing to society. Furthermore, taxes go to the government, not to society. You believe that rich people should pay a higher percentage of their income in taxes simply because they are rich. There is no rational basis for that. If I make a fortune by developing a new piece of software, how is the government entitled to a stake in it? The government's contribution to enterprise is the cost of the services that I used. That is not proportional to how much I earned. If I used X amount of sewage and water, you have failed to explain why I should pay any more than X amount in taxes.

Yes, we should do away with income redistribution in any form. It's nothing more than organized plunder.

First, I am in no way saying your points here are invalid, because they are not. I do not agree that the individual owes nothing to the society that they have flourished in. Although, pay for what you use does seem fair. Does that mean when we fight wars to protect American prosperity those who proper the most should pay the most of the bill? Does that mean that companies that benefit from lower government regulations on employee compensation should pay some of those savings for the care those employees can no longer afford. Or are you simply saying Capitalism has winners and losers, so make sure you win?

No, it doesn't mean that. If you are rich do you believe you should pay more for security than someone who is less well off? I don't see why. Your belief that government is entitled to a percentage of their income simply because they have "flourished" is totally lacking any rational support. Simply existing doesn't entitle you to any part of what someone else earned, but you're claiming you are.

I have no idea what it means for a company to "benefit from lower government regulations on employee compensation." Why should there be any regulations on employee compensation? That's strictly a matter between you and your employer. Government has no business butting in.

Everyone wins under capitalism. It's not a zero sum game.