The Case for Bigger Government

[DKW 86 8,217]

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,...70268-1,00.html

Most profoundly ignorant article I may have ever read.

The old Time would never have published such unadulterated crap.

A big difference between the U.S. and the rest of the rich world is that for the past 30 years or so, Americans consistently rejected "government solutions" to the problems of health, poverty, education and the environment. We've kept our taxes as a share of national income lower than Europe's by focusing on the private sector. But we're getting much less for our money. Markets are great at providing consumer goods and services. We don't want the government running our restaurants, movie houses, bookstores and manufacturers. Markets are not so good, though, at some very important things. A pressing example: our mostly private health system, at $8,000 per American, is twice the cost of Europe's mostly public system, yet with worse outcomes. Opinion serviced as fact. Most Europeaners would tell you it is just the opposite. And nearly 50 million Americans lack health insurance. Grossly exagerated numbers pulled from nowhere. In America, if the hospital takes federal funds, you cannot be turned away for medical care.

[au2004ece 30]

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,...70268-1,00.html

Most profoundly ignorant article I may have ever read.

The old Time would never have published such unadulterated crap.

A big difference between the U.S. and the rest of the rich world is that for the past 30 years or so, Americans consistently rejected "government solutions" to the problems of health, poverty, education and the environment. We've kept our taxes as a share of national income lower than Europe's by focusing on the private sector. But we're getting much less for our money. Markets are great at providing consumer goods and services. We don't want the government running our restaurants, movie houses, bookstores and manufacturers. Markets are not so good, though, at some very important things. A pressing example: our mostly private health system, at $8,000 per American, is twice the cost of Europe's mostly public system, yet with worse outcomes. Opinion serviced as fact. Most Europeaners would tell you it is just the opposite. And nearly 50 million Americans lack health insurance. Grossly exagerated numbers pulled from nowhere. In America, if the hospital takes federal funds, you cannot be turned away for medical care.

As long as we have had insurance companies that cover every single visit to the doctor for just a $20 co-pay, we have not had a free-market in healthcare.

Insurance holders have no monetary incentive to seek cheaper alternatives or prevent doctors from performing/prescriping unecessary actions (everytime I go to the doctor for a sinus infection, I get 4 prescriptions because the doctor is paid to prescribe the extra allergy medications, I don't get them because I know I only need the antibiotic but it only cost me a few dollars more to get them)

More of the burden of the price differences in doctor's and procedures should be placed on the patient. Therefore, we as the patients would not stand for high prices and the doctors, etc. would lower their prices to be competitive in an actual free market.

As a whole, we as consumers of healthcare would pay less even though a doctor's visit may cost $100 now instead of $20. But, our insurance premiums would come down from $400 per person per month to $150 per person per month if the insurance company didn't have to pay for every doctor's visit.

The way health insurance is structured now is the same as if car insurance covered regular maintenance like oil-changes, tire rotations, etc. Imagine how much car insurance would cost if that were the case.

[otterinbham 0]

I think a great number of economists would say that our current dilemma is the direct result of too much government already. After all the the combination of government manipulation of currency rates and the government intervention into housing markets caused an enormous, unsustainable run-up in house prices, and gave mortgages to people who would have never qualified 20 years ago.

[au2004ece 30]

I think a great number of economists would say that our current dilemma is the direct result of too much government already. After all the the combination of government manipulation of currency rates and the government intervention into housing markets caused an enormous, unsustainable run-up in house prices, and gave mortgages to people who would have never qualified 20 years ago.

This is the great mis-lesson of our times. Since Republicans have been in power, Democrats have been able to blame de-regulation and the "absense of government" for the problems. However, the omnipresence of government incentavising has caused our problem. Only after another 10-20 years when the planned even more and bigger government intervention in the economy has its full effect will we learn this lesson.

[DKW 86 8,217]

Good point.

Still say it would only get worse with govt run healthcare. Everyone would run to the doctor for every reason.

[Tigermike 4,251]

A big difference between the U.S. and the rest of the rich world is that for the past 30 years or so, Americans consistently rejected "government solutions" to the problems of health, poverty, education and the environment. We've kept our taxes as a share of national income lower than Europe's by focusing on the private sector. But we're getting much less for our money. Markets are great at providing consumer goods and services. We don't want the government running our restaurants, movie houses, bookstores and manufacturers. Markets are not so good, though, at some very important things. A pressing example: our mostly private health system, at $8,000 per American, is twice the cost of Europe's mostly public system, yet with worse outcomes. Opinion serviced as fact. Most Europeaners would tell you it is just the opposite. And nearly 50 million Americans lack health insurance. Grossly exagerated numbers pulled from nowhere. In America, if the hospital takes federal funds, you cannot be turned away for medical care.

From what I have read the "nearly 50 million Americans lack health insurance" number includes 12 million undocumented and illegal immigrants" residing in our country. But that number may in fact be small, "twelve million may be the most popular number cited for illegal immigrants in the U.S at present, but some estimates, like one from Bear Stearns, believe the count is actually closer to a whopping 20 million. "

link

U.S. Population: 303,824,640 (July 2008 est.)

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/th...k/print/us.html

Of course we all know how much better the government manages things than the private sector don't we? But the advocates of big government won the last election so get ready.

[arnaldoabru 11]

A big difference between the U.S. and the rest of the rich world is that for the past 30 years or so, Americans consistently rejected "government solutions" to the problems of health, poverty, education and the environment. We've kept our taxes as a share of national income lower than Europe's by focusing on the private sector. But we're getting much less for our money. Markets are great at providing consumer goods and services. We don't want the government running our restaurants, movie houses, bookstores and manufacturers. Markets are not so good, though, at some very important things. A pressing example: our mostly private health system, at $8,000 per American, is twice the cost of Europe's mostly public system, yet with worse outcomes. Opinion serviced as fact. Most Europeaners would tell you it is just the opposite. And nearly 50 million Americans lack health insurance. Grossly exagerated numbers pulled from nowhere. In America, if the hospital takes federal funds, you cannot be turned away for medical care.

From what I have read the "nearly 50 million Americans lack health insurance" number includes 12 million undocumented and illegal immigrants" residing in our country. But that number may in fact be small, "twelve million may be the most popular number cited for illegal immigrants in the U.S at present, but some estimates, like one from Bear Stearns, believe the count is actually closer to a whopping 20 million. "

link

U.S. Population: 303,824,640 (July 2008 est.)

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/th...k/print/us.html

Of course we all know how much better the government manages things than the private sector don't we? But the advocates of big government won the last election so get ready.

I believe Bear Sterns had some problems with their addition and subtraction. Well, actually more of a subtraction problem.

[Tigermike 4,251]

A big difference between the U.S. and the rest of the rich world is that for the past 30 years or so, Americans consistently rejected "government solutions" to the problems of health, poverty, education and the environment. We've kept our taxes as a share of national income lower than Europe's by focusing on the private sector. But we're getting much less for our money. Markets are great at providing consumer goods and services. We don't want the government running our restaurants, movie houses, bookstores and manufacturers. Markets are not so good, though, at some very important things. A pressing example: our mostly private health system, at $8,000 per American, is twice the cost of Europe's mostly public system, yet with worse outcomes. Opinion serviced as fact. Most Europeaners would tell you it is just the opposite. And nearly 50 million Americans lack health insurance. Grossly exagerated numbers pulled from nowhere. In America, if the hospital takes federal funds, you cannot be turned away for medical care.

From what I have read the "nearly 50 million Americans lack health insurance" number includes 12 million undocumented and illegal immigrants" residing in our country. But that number may in fact be small, "twelve million may be the most popular number cited for illegal immigrants in the U.S at present, but some estimates, like one from Bear Stearns, believe the count is actually closer to a whopping 20 million. "

link

U.S. Population: 303,824,640 (July 2008 est.)

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/th...k/print/us.html

Of course we all know how much better the government manages things than the private sector don't we? But the advocates of big government won the last election so get ready.

I believe Bear Sterns had some problems with their addition and subtraction. Well, actually more of a subtraction problem.

OK great, but how far off are they on this estimate?

[Auburn85 438]

I think a great number of economists would say that our current dilemma is the direct result of too much government already. After all the the combination of government manipulation of currency rates and the government intervention into housing markets caused an enormous, unsustainable run-up in house prices, and gave mortgages to people who would have never qualified 20 years ago.

I agree and i hope more people than I think agree with this.

I worry that this mess has been used to frame an argument on how the free market failed us.

I get tired of those saying of how "this administration didn't do anything." When in fact, interest rates were played with too much. We had a stimulus package earlier this year. Now, we have the $700+ billion package for the housing mess. Bush ok'd money for the auto industry to keep them afloat. We're literally pumping money into some sectors. Yeah, nothing has been done.

We can even go back to 2002, when Bush and Republicans passed a stimulus package.

our economy is fundamentally flawed. the whole purpose of this bailout is to go into deeper debt so we can spend again. isnt's that what got us to this point in the first place?

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/09/us/polit...09obama.html?em

my favorite exerpt from the article:

Several Democrats on the Finance Committee earlier in the day questioned the proposal to give tax credits worth $500 to individuals and $1,000 to married couples. Several senators said that initiative would provide a token sum of money, which taxpayers were likely to save, not spend.