[DaveB]

From the text of Der Spiegel interview by Matthias Streitz with George A. Akerlof:

It's at http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0729-06.htm

SPIEGEL ONLINE: …why's the President still popular?

Akerlof: For some reason the American people does not yet recognize the dire consequences of our government budgets. It's my hope that voters are going to see how irresponsible this policy is and are going to respond in 2004 and we're going to see a reversal.

SPIEGEL ONLINE: What if that doesn't happen?

Akerlof: Future generations and even people in ten years are going to face massive public deficits and huge government debt. Then we have a choice. We can be like a very poor country with problems of threatening bankruptcy. Or we're going to have to cut back seriously on Medicare and Social Security. So the money that is going overwhelmingly to the wealthy is going to be paid by cutting services for the elderly. And people depend on those. It's only among the richest 40 percent that you begin to get households who have sizeable fractions of their own retirement income.

Kinda makes the AWB seem trivial, don't it.

db

[Henry Bowman]

Kinda makes the AWB seem trivial, don't it.
No.

[DRC]

Akerlof is obviously not in full understanding of what causes budget deficits and debt.

Fiscal irresponsibility typically lies where spending is concerned, not budgets. Budgets are a spread sheet for projected money allocation within the confines of available funds (that's how it's suppose to work anyway)

Debt comes from borrowing when money falls short in supporting all the governement projects and trying to pay the intrest on the national debt itself.

Deficits come from overspending by irresponsible legislators that want their piece of the public money pie for their projects and state constituencies.

The best solution is what's being done right now. Cut taxes which cuts off the money line to the government forcing them to tighten the proverbial "belt" exposing so much pork barrel spending to the voting public. Medicare and SoSo Security are almost a rediculous argument anymore since anyone trying to live on what SoSo pays or on what Medicare reimburses will tell you "What goes in does not come out."

The working base is shrinking while the recipients of these so called "entitlements" is getting bigger. All these things are drains on the tax dollars that we send to the government. The governenment will fight for SoSo Security because it is the largest sluff fund they have at their disposal and those that fight the hardest for SoSo Security are the ones using the fund for things other than what it was intended for.

Maybe Akerlof can learn something from this site :)

DRC

[MoNsTeR]

Umm, DRC, did you miss the words "Nobel Laureate"? Though it wasn't specified, that Nobel prize was in Economics. Akerlof knows more about the consequences of government debt than you or I likely ever will. Well maybe not me, I plan on winning the Nobel prize in Economics myself 30-odd years down the road :D

At any rate, the point is that it would be foolish to disregard this criticism, as it is spot-on.

[rrader]

Monster:

Umm, DRC, did you miss the words "Nobel Laureate"? Though it wasn't specified, that Nobel prize was in Economics

Yes, and Yassir Arafat won the Nobel Peace Prize. :scrutiny: Nuff said.

[Norm357]

Yes, and Yassir Arafat won the Nobel Peace Prize. Nuff said.


LMAO I wish I would have said that.


Norm

[MoNsTeR]

Very amusing :D

...also very irrelevant.

[Monkeyleg]

MonSTeR, take a look at the list of Nobel prize winners for the last couple of decades. Ringling Brothers doesn't have as many clowns.

[Marko Kloos]

I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess that the good professor didn't get his Nobel in Economics.

[Snake Eyes]

I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess that the good professor didn't get his Nobel in Economics.

Long, skinny limb for such a big guy.

From the very first sentance of the article linked in the first post:
American Nobel Prize laureate for Economics George A. Akerlof lashed out at....

Hope that limb wasn't too far up the tree!!

:D :D :D

[Mark Tyson]

Actually, the article does say that he got his nobel laureate in economics. But I think that when he says "worst government in 200 years of history" he is committing a serious hyperbole. This kind of wild accusation is indicative of some kind of agenda.

[Marko Kloos]

There goes my respect for the Nobel committee. Any second-year economics student can tell you the fallacies of the Ponzi scheme called Social Security. When science is tainted by dogma, it ceases to be science and becomes a religion.

[Standing Wolf]

So, uh... the sky really and truly is falling this time, right? No doubt about it?

[MoNsTeR]

Marko Kloos, you'll note that Akerlof did not defend Social Security (nor did he attack it).

Akerlof teaches at Berkeley, so it comes as no surprise that he holds a number of wrong-headed ideas. And yes, "worst government ever" is quite the overstatement.


But I'm going to abandon this thread, as folks seem more interested in giving knee-jerk defenses of the Bush administration than discussing the merits of Akerlof's criticism.

[El Tejon]

Speaking as one of the horses pulling the wagon, I have a suggestion for the good professor: tell the sofa sitters to get out of the wagon and help me pull. This mother is getting heavy!:D

Seriously cut back???:confused: How about abolishing!:fire:

[Jeff White]

Seriously cut back...only on those programs the government is supposed to provide, defense, infrastructure etc. Cut or eliminate the Great Society? Hardly...too many people would have to get a job and work for a living, or cut their standard of living back to what the income they can earn will support. Never happen.

The Social Security ponzi scheme is about to crash on the government and they refuse to do anything because it's too politically sensitive. :banghead:

If I got the letter the Social Security Administration sent me last year and estimated how much I'd have for retirement if I had invested what they have taken from me in the 31 years I've been employed I'd probably be be too livid to type. In 5 or 6 years the baby boomers are going to begin retiring. Imagine the turmoil when people who have paid in for 40-50 years are told their benefits won't be what the SSA has been telling them, because the money isn't there to pay them.

The only solution is to cut taxes, cut spending to the point that the government at all levels only provides those services they were originally intended to and educate the public on what money is and where it comes from. Do I see that happening? NO! :cuss:

Akerlof is right that there is going to be a big problem. And hopefully he's right, there will be a big turn around in 2004 and we elect a Congress that understands what services the governemnt is supposed to provide and begins to reshape the country.

Jeff

[Monkeyleg]

Monster, I'm not a knee-jerk defender of GW by any means. On the other hand, any "study" that comes out of Berkeley is extremely suspect. In fact, I would suspect the intentions of any person, dog, fish, reptile or plant that came from Berkeley. Guess that's why they have the checkpoints at the CA border. ;)

[LawDog]

I have two questions:

1) Where was this guy when we were screaming about future Social Security and Medicare problems during the Clinton Administration?

2) Is this the same Akerlof who insists that you have to understand the sociological and psychological impact of unemployment before you can truly understand economics?

LawDog

[Don Gwinn]

Marko Kloos, you'll note that Akerlof did not defend Social Security (nor did he attack it).
Yes, he did:
Or we're going to have to cut back seriously on Medicare and Social Security. So the money that is going overwhelmingly to the wealthy is going to be paid by cutting services for the elderly. And people depend on those. It's only among the richest 40 percent that you begin to get households who have sizeable fractions of their own retirement income.

He says people depend on it, as if that justifies it. My parents are nowhere near the richest 40 percent of Americans, but they're most of the way to retirement on their own money. My grandparents retired on grandpa's pension and their investments (rental properties.) Grandpa was never rich and still isn't; he worked at Pillsbury as a mechanic and sometime pipe fitter for 30 years and grandma didn't work outside the home.
My wife and I are a LONG way from rich. In fact, we're closer to what the government calls "poverty" than we are to what they label "middle class." But we're going to retire on our own money, because like a lot of people our age we consider Social Security a bonus. It would be nice if we could get the money we pay in back out, but simple math tells us that isn't going to happen. We could whine about it, but it would be a little like whining about a train coming at us. We're doing our best to jump off the tracks instead.

Some people say "they" won't "let" SS fail. I have my doubts.

[Travis McGee]

If super-efficient Germans (East, West or combined) can't make socialism function, then it can't be made to function on earth.

[Sir Galahad]

Der Spiegel= German for "National Enquirer". Who cares what this clown said?! DaveB, I care more about clipping my toenails than what this "expert" says. I still recall back in the early 1980s, the "experts" a la Helen Caldicott and Physicians for Social Responsibility were saying that Reagan would get us into a full-scale nuclear war with the Soviets. Didn't happen. Then there was the scare about the placing of Pershing 2s in Germany triggering a nuclear war with the Soviets. Then there was the scare about Y2K. All these "experts" make money and achieve their dubious fame by scare-mongering. People who enjoy hand-wringing and leg-wetting as a hobby eat this garbage up and run around saying, "See! See? See! See? Huh, huh, see, see?!" No, I DON'T see. I do see a Chicken Little, though...

And I notice now that Soviet-U.S. nuclear armageddon is no longer anything but a fading memory of Conelrad test patterns on the TV, Physicians for Social Responsibility now turns its scare mongering to gun control. "We ust ban guns! Think of the children!" Yeah, we heard the same crap when they wanted us to bend over for the Soviets. Now here's this Crapperloaf character pulling this "think of the children" BS with predictions of economic disaster. You want to think of the children, well try this on for size. Bring back spanking, bring back chores, and instill a freakin' work ethic in these "future generations" of lazy malcontents who think the country owes them a friggin' living. A Nobel Prize doesn't impress me. It's just a cheap bauble bestowed by self-important, hand-wringing imbeciles upon other self-important, hand-wringing imbeciles. Then they pat each other on the back and moan incessantly about the plight of the world and how much better the world would be if only the world listened to them. What a joke! Who cares about economic disaster, bring on a freakin' Ice Age and freeze these bliss ninnies out!

[Duncan Idaho]

Who cares about economic disaster, bring on a freakin' Ice Age and freeze these bliss ninnies out! Hallelujah!Testify my brother!!! :D :D :D

What is that Thomas Sowell quote? Ah, yes! "Asking liberals where wages and prices come from is like asking
six-year-olds where babies come from." -- Dr. Thomas Sowell


http://store5.yimg.com/I/victorystore00_1727_5908417 :p :neener: :p

[DRC]

I did see that his nobel prize was in economics which is why I refuted what he said "economically". One must understand that when one has a prefix or suffix attached to ones name it gives one the appearance of knowledge and intellect. Not to say that these folks are not intelligent but remember also that they are people just like you and I. We make mistakes and misjudgements and so do they. Their tenure does not automatically remove them from the realm of mistakes I'm afraid. As Ravi Zacharias said "never confuse sophistication with intellect."

I could be wrong in my assessment of the whole subject...but I'm not. But to be fair if we, as a nation, continue to operate the way we have Akerlof could be correct about the outcome. The problem is thinking, such as Akerlofs, sees a problem but instead of coming up with a solution they attach their ideologies to status quo and want to "shore up" what we already have (typically liberal thinking. If it doesn't work throw more money at it or blame someone else for it's failure.) The system we have is now and has been bancrupt for some time. SoSo Security is filled with IOU's and is typically funded out of whatever public fund can be dipped into.

Suffice it to say that the secret to money is to not spend it (doesn't take a nobel prize winner to figure that out.).

The government was designed to do very little other than maintain military, national security and highways and a few other peripherals but it has taken on it's own persona. A democratic form of government can only last until the public realizes it can vote itself largesse at which point it must be changed or you're headed for a dictatorship or totalitarian government (which we almost have now) Bush needs to be more drastic as to what needs to be done IMO not more centrist and appeasing.

And finally I believe Monkeyleg said it best with

"MonSTeR, take a look at the list of Nobel prize winners for the last couple of decades. Ringling Brothers doesn't have as many clowns."

Look at the winners and then really try to find what they were awarded the prize for as being their claim to fame. You'll find some very intresting things on that journey and you will find that Nobel prizes are just as liberally biased as so many things in this day and time.

Take care and happy reading.

DRC

[Jeff White]

We can't spend ourselves out of debt..no matter how hard we try. The retirement of the baby boomers...who will rightfully demand the return on their taxes they've paid for their entire working life (over 15% now) is something that they had better be planning for.
Jeff

Washington Times
July 30, 2003
Pg. 4

GAO Chief Warns Of Dangerous Deficit

'We're not going to grow our way out of this problem'

By Marie Horrigan, United Press International

The head of Congress' investigative arm, in a highly unusual move, will issue a stern warning to the American public that the U.S. economy is facing "a large and growing structural deficit" that requires dramatic action and tough choices to curb.

"My son ... was a Marine Corps company commander in Iraq, and I actually have less concern about him being in Iraq in that capacity than I do about what the future may hold for him and his new daughter because of this fiscal imbalance, because at least in Iraq he had some control over his own destiny," General Accounting Office head David M. Walker told United Press International.

Speaking at a luncheon Monday with UPI reporters and editors, Mr. Walker discussed his views on the federal deficit, GAO cooperation with the September 11 commission and its role in investigating Vice President Dick Cheney's involvement in U.S. energy policy.



White House budget estimates released earlier this month project a $455 billion deficit for 2003, to grow to $475 billion for 2004. Mr. Walker is expected to release his fiscal warning before Congress in September.

Mr. Walker, appointed comptroller general of GAO by President Clinton in 1998, said the deficit is the result of "not one thing; it's a combination of factors that have gotten us to that situation," including the economic downturn, the global war on terror, President Bush's recent tax cut and government spending.

Mr. Bush, speaking last week in Dearborn, Mich., said he believed that "with hard work and determination, this economy is going to be strong," But Mr. Walker said, "Tough choices are going to be required."

Economic growth can help ease the deficit, Mr. Walker said, "but we're not going to grow our way out of this problem."

Mr. Walker told UPI he was trying hard to avoid partisan charges and instead to "make the talk about facts."

Discussing the GAO's role in working with other congressional committees, Mr. Walker said his organization was cooperating with the national commission examining the attacks of September 11, providing them information it gathered both before and after the attacks.

Regarding the GAO's investigation into Mr. Cheney's role as head of the National Energy Policy Development Group, Mr. Walker said that, despite abandoning its attempt to get more information about private-sector participants through the courts, the GAO will still publish a report on the information it had been able to gather.

Opponents have said Mr. Cheney stacked the policy group with energy-industry insiders.

According to Mr. Walker, the GAO "tried very hard to reach a reasonable accommodation with the vice president's office on this, and they were not interested," forcing the GAO to bring a suit in federal court. A judge dismissed the case without ruling.

Mr. Walker decided not to appeal in part, he said, because the investigation was broadly perceived as partisan.

[DaveB]

I'm sure that the Bushmen here will find some creative way to slander David M. Walker like they did Akerlof. Facts, and the opinions of learned men, don't matter anymore.

The funny thing is that the extreme-right policies that are reflexively defended here will hurt W's fanclub (at least those with net worth of less than $5M) just as much as they will hurt the condemned (Liberals, Greens, Moderates, etc), and they don't see.

Anything so long as the President isn't Clinton, and an ugly woman isn't AG.

db

[BigG]

I believe former president Jimma Carta got the Nobel Peace Prize also. That ought to tell you what it's worth. In my book, less than zero. :rolleyes:

[DRC]

"Facts, and the opinions of learned men, don't matter anymore."

Whom are you referring to? You don't know me any better than I know you or anyone else but I can say that although I don't have a Pulitzer prize I'm also not an idiot where economics are concerned. I've heard the same theories espoused by a few other "learned people" only to listen to economists and statisticians refute it based on the same tends and stats used by Akerlof and others, so why would yours or Akerlofs sources be better or more factual than mine? By virtue of them being yours? I'm afraid I'm not buying it.

"Mr. Walker, appointed comptroller general of GAO by President Clinton in 1998, said the deficit is the result of "not one thing; it's a combination of factors that have gotten us to that situation," including the economic downturn, the global war on terror, President Bush's recent tax cut and government spending."

While Mr. Walker is correct in his assessment that it's a combination of factors that have gotten us to this situation what he fails to mention is that the combination of factors started back when so many of these social programs were passed through congress. This failing was inevitable from the get go because a democracy will eventually vote itself largesse which is what these programs were actually designed for. A public couffer so to speak to keep people (Democrats primarily) in power and for the most part it's worked quite well to do just that.

SoSo Security was never designed to be a retirement plan it was designed to suppliment folks if pitfalls befell them such as the Great Depression. A supplimental to keep them afloat during hardship. Sadly it became a tidy little bank account for politicians in office wanting more projects for their states to help keep them in office and it grew into the behemouth it is today. I could write for days on all the dirty little secrets of some of these social programs but I'll refrain.

The best measure right now is to cut off the supply line of money to the government for anything other than the necessities as it was designed. Leave the money in peoples pocket and let them do as they will with it. If all things go bad for some I have enough faith in people as a whole to know that no one will be left hungry or cold in this country through personal deeds and true compasion not government mandated programs destined to fail from the start.

My thoughts, not yours.

DRC

[Iain]

I like the sentiment behind your post DRC but sincerely disagree with the following

The best measure right now is to cut off the supply line of money to the government for anything other than the necessities as it was designed. Leave the money in peoples pocket and let them do as they will with it. If all things go bad for some I have enough faith in people as a whole to know that no one will be left hungry or cold in this country through personal deeds and true compasion not government mandated programs destined to fail from the start.

What about healthcare provisions for those unlucky enough to develop or contract serious illness?

Much as some people might not like it, the NHS deals with this. People like me cannot afford healthcare insurance because of pre-existing health conditions. The NHS and to a lesser extent welfare provision like Medicare help with this.

Dave B - in an age where the Dixie Chick's opinion is sought and considered valid by some, then the opinions of learned men do not count. Of course they count for less when the people who hear it don't want to hear it, as I would posit is happening here.

[MountainPeak]

Have you guys/gals forgot the dire predictions of U.S. economical collapse in the 80's? Our country grew its way out of it. Remember the stories of grandchildren having to pay for our excesses? Remember how our economy grew and the deficits disappeared? Yup, because of current problems, including the 9/11 attacks, we are again running deficits. SO WHAT! Our country is going to grow our way out of this one too. I have no doubt my granddaughter won't be hurt a bit by current budget problems. Have faith! WE ARE BIGGER THAN OUR CURRENT PROBLEMS. Become part of the solution!

[Sir Galahad]

Well, in my very educated opinion.....




BRING ON THE ICE AGE!!!!!!!!!!:evil:

"Oh, woe is us! We can't get organic field green salads and sprouted wheat bread! We'll STARVE!!!!"

Yes, you will...heh, heh, heh. :evil:

[HBK]

Just about any opinion coming out of Berkely has almost as much value as the contents of my cat's litter box.:rolleyes:

[BigG]

HBK, actually even less because the cat litter itself has economic value. The excrement amounts to a considered liberal opinion; with that much I wholeheartedly agree. :p

[Khornet]

there are plenty of economists who disagree with this guy. Thomas Sowell for one.

We (my kind) defend Bush. You attack him. How does that make one more partisan than the other?

It's really getting tedious. Seems the only way to be open-minded anymore is to agree with the left.

[DaveB]

Seems the only way to be open-minded anymore is to agree with the left.

Are you being ironic?

db

[Deepdiver]

Akerlof is a socialist....so what kind of comments would you expect from him.


One of the options he did NOT mention in his suggestions for remedial actions was for.

...governments (both state and local) to quit pissing away hard earned tax revenues on useless government infrastructure, and enforcement of unenforceable laws that attempt to legislate morality or the liberal, socialist's agenda.

Whew! I feel much better now!:D

[Duncan Idaho]

DaveB,

I never once thought I would see a post from you that made any sense.Anything so long as the President isn't Clinton, and an ugly woman isn't AG. And there you go proving me wrong! Goodonya sir! :neener:

[DRC]

While I can undestand your concerns I can assure you that I'm well aware of the cost of insurance with pre-existing conditions; however, if you are in need of medical attention and have no insurance you can go down to the Emergency room and they will not refuse you services. So that's a thin arguement based on necessary care.

Honestly speaking if the government would get out of the business of regulating medical practices, insurance would have to come down because medical costs would come down making it at least plausible for one to afford ones own medical bills without the aid of insurance. Most of the outrageous costs for medical service are due to inflated rates so that medical facilities and doctors can get reimbursement to pay their usual and customary fees. If they didn't do this they would get undercut even more than they are now by the insurance companies. It isn't the doctors or the hospitals causing your health care problems it's government regulation and health insurance companies with unregulated reimbursement policies.

Then one comes to the questions of how your health came to be as it is? Is it an affliction that you've always had or of no fault of your own or was it self induced in some manner? Example: If I smoke four packs of cigarettes a day for 20 years and develope lung cancer that's my fault. If I was born with a heart valve defect or I was in an accident that caused some ongoing problems and wasn't my fault then some compensation would be in order. The birth defect would be a matter of time and should be planned for by the parents and ones self when one is old enough not the government and the accident (if not your fault) should be the responsibility of the responsible party through amicable means or law suit, but again no government intervention.

I have a friend that is uninsurable and has more health problems than you can imagine, but it's by his own doing. When he needs health care though he gets it through the hospital emergency room. He's still kicking (so to speak) but it's the hospital doing it for him not the government. I could discuss this point ad infinitum but instead will say that I stand by what I said because it's true not because I'm heartless. Once the government gets its hands on something it won't take long for it to "go south" after that and we all pay in all ways. Government needs to learn to do with less not us and we're the only ones that can make it happen for ourselves.

Take care and I hope whatever ails you will stay at bay and allow you to live a full life, condition permitting.

DRC

DaveB,

"Seems the only way to be open-minded anymore is to agree with the left.

Are you being ironic?"

Now that's funny :D The funniest jokes are those that include a little truth.

Take care and Akerlof is still wrong :)

DRC

[BigG]

If I was born with a heart valve defect or I was in an accident that caused some ongoing problems and wasn't my fault then some {taxpayer funded} compensation would be in order. (I added the thing in brackets and bolding to DRC's post).

OK. Now how do you figure that? Nobody deserves a free ride. Nobody. Or else everybody does. Anything else is a bunch of elite hogwash meant to divide, conquer and create a dependency relationship.

[braindead0]

Right on BigG.. nobody is entitled to anything unless they earn it. You are entitled to the money you make and nothing more.

People would be able to afford health care if the money wasn't filtered up to the the Feds, then passed back to the state minus 20% (along with some blackmail mandates of course)... at which point it goes through a state Medicaid system that bleeds out another 20-30%.. and wow.. there's not enough to pay for your bills.

Imagine that.

[DRC]

BigG,

Don't ever interject anything into what I've said again. Had you read the rest of the paragraph (and were capable of comprehension) you would have seen the scenarios in which I describe WHERE that compensation would come from AND that I said after each NOT FROM THE GOVERNMENT. The three things I stated (and very directly to a thinking man I might add) were "planned for by the individual", "amicably agreed upon by the responsible party" or "law suit against the responsible party"

Good lord! I've seen stupidity before but never like this. Please don't try to speak for me or anyone else lest you make us look as foolish as you by mere unsolicited association. If you feel inclined to edit a quote don't think as a moron first; think like and intelligent human being and perhaps you won't have to worry so much in your future postings.

Even worse is that not only did you change (emphasis on YOU) the meaning of my post by blatant omission but then you followed it up with a Socialist arguement. Jeesh! I'm absolutely amazed!

DRC

PS. Braindead, for agreeing with BigG, your screan name is very fitting.

[BigG]

Temper, temper. DRC, whatever you put up there is fair game for response by others. I will continue to comment on your posts as I deem necessary.

[Gordon Fink]

As a society and moreover as a species, we must have the moral courage to let some of our number fail.

~G. Fink

[DRC]

Let me see how this works then.

Quote from BigG:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Temper, temper. Don't make me hit you with my purse. DRC, whatever you put up there is fair game for response by others and I really like games especially naked Twister with the boys. I will continue to comment on your posts as I deem necessary from a more feminine perspective since I'm so in touch with the woman inside me."

BigG from the Pink Elephant Bar
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yup, I see what you mean. I'm interjecting what I'm pretty sure you would have said had you not been in denial at the time, but I'm sure you were thinking. Fair enough?

DRC

[Khornet]

too hot around here for me!

I'm gonna take my closed conservative mind and go fishing. Jes' me, my old Granger bamboo, and Mr. Trout. I'll feel better when I get back!

[Iain]

Thanks for the answer, sorry for the controversy.

Ok lets call this hypothetical case person A (person A is not me - ish). Person A was born with a permanent, instant from conception, systemic and ultimately life-shortening disease. This disease screws your lungs, your pancreas and your general digestive system, it causes infertility. It causes malnutrition, near permanent lung infection, this results in severe lung damage and ultimately decline and death follow. Persons with this disease used to rarely make it past their teens, with improved treatments survival rates now put the average person born as of now making it into their forties or fifties.

Some people don't have this disease as bad as others (it is genetic and thus variable), the discovery of the gene was made after person A was born. Person A had a one in four chance of getting this disease at conception, as did person A's siblings. Person A's symptoms were not recognised by doctors and diagnosed as asthma. Person A's parents had two more children, both with this one in four chance, the odds went against them too.

So this is invalid: The birth defect would be a matter of time and should be planned for by the parents and ones self when one is old enough

So this family has three children with this disease. It is pretty much average middle of the road income wise, father is a professional engineer. There is no way this family could support those three sons.

This disease gets worse if not regulated, checks are made as often as every few days, but most often every few weeks on the state of the lungs and often the state of the digestive system too. This disease needs on-going care. So this is invalid too if you are in need of medical attention and have no insurance you can go down to the Emergency room and they will not refuse you services. So that's a thin arguement based on necessary care.

I owe the NHS my life (I am person A, the disease is cystic fibrosis, the most common genetic disease amongst caucasians) My decline appeared to start when I was 15, I contracted six pneumonia infections in the space of twelve months. When I was in between infections my weight was around 120lbs. My consultant discovered another problem with my immune system and treatment now rectifies it. Now I am healthy by the standards of my disease, I weigh in at 165lbs (and with malnutrition stunting my height to 5'7'', that is not bad at all)

This is a personal argument I am aware, but I am not the only person who could make it. You add profit to healthcare you get surgeons doing that which is profitable, companies making drugs that are the most profitable (they already spend 2/3 of the world's medical research money on diseases that affect the richest 1/3) There is no cure for my disease, drug companies are working on it, in the meantime they charge the healthcare system near $30,000 (roughly) a year for a treatment that to me means life or death. I can't afford that, no charitable hospital can afford that.

With the NHS you are very likely to put in what you get out. How many of you have spent a night in intensive care? That night cost around $2-3,000, make that a week, add in a triple heart bypass and the NHS has benefited you.

[Gordon Fink]

St Johns, a public, not-for-profit insurance corporation would help people in your circumstances, or concomitant market forces would compel a private, for-profit firm to do likewise with even greater efficiency. In fact, such a scheme would make health insurance affordable for everyone. Of course, this idea is too socialistic for Republicans but not socialistic enough for Democrats.

~G. Fink

[Coronach]

Ahem.

Personal attacks will not be tolerated on THR. If one disagrees with a poster's position or his rhetorical devices, it is nearly always acceptable to attack the argument, but it is seldom acceptable to attack the poster.

Everyone copy that?

Just makin' sure.

Coronach

[DRC]

I was merely driving the point home to BigG. It's one thing to misunderstand something but it is completely different from changing it to what someone wants it to be. I posted "who" would be responsible and my entire post was based on NOT making "the tax payers or the government" responsible for others. But again I apologize, it just really pissed me off.

St. John,

Cystic Fibrosis is a terrible thing for anyone to have to endure and I will preface this response with I wish you the best and pray that they find a cure for you and all those suffering from this affliction. I'm quite familiar with the disease as they thought I had it as a child. I did end up having acute asthma though and I don't even wish that on anyone, so for yours and everyone elses sake I hope everything works out and cures are found. What I'm about to say will sound a little cold but it's the truth.

I'm assuming that you live in Canada due to "NHS." I will still stand by my assertions and I will explain why on both of the accounts that you sighted as invalid.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The birth defect would be a matter of time and should be planned for by the parents and ones self when one is old enough
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Because the NHS was available there was no reason for anyone to plan for the future based on this including you. It was all being done for you, your siblings and your parents by the government. Had there been no NHS I can assure you that your parents would have done everything possible to make sure you had the propper care then and in the future and they would have been successful at doing so. People do this now. So my statement is valid.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
if you are in need of medical attention and have no insurance you can go down to the Emergency room and they will not refuse you services. So that's a thin arguement based on necessary care.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Since you have NHS it seems strange that you would even refute this since you've never had to worry about it. There are some hospitals that might turn a patient away if they don't have insurance but there's always another down the way that won't. Now as to the standard of care one would receive you're partially correct on that point. Typically hospitals will do the minimum necessary to stabilize a patient, but they won't let you die.

The sad part is that without government regulation of the medical industry and pharmaceutical industry they would probably be closer to or already have a cure for Cystic Fibrosis. Without government controled health care hospitals would probably be making enough money to give better care to those with imediate long term needs as well and if insurrance companies would quit undercutting reimbursement the same would hold true.

Lets look at insurance since it was brought up. Let's say the average person pays $150.00 a month for good health insurance but only sees the doctor for routine yearly exams for a total cost of let's say $300.00 a year. Now lets say that you have a co-pay of $25.00 to the doctor. Your total yearly cost is $1800.00 to insurance plus the $25.00 co-pay so $1825.00 is your out of pocket expense. Now for the $300.00 visit to the doctor the insurance company's reimbursement is approximately 64% so that's .64 X $300 which equals $192.00. So when you finish figuring this you find that you paid $1825.00, the doctor and clinic or hospital made $192.00 (and write the rest off) and the insurance company made $1608.00. Now one would begin to think that the insurance companies have to have that extra money because of the larger claims they have to pay and that's true, but then you have to think "Well, they won't even insure you." Insurance companies try to insure those people that will not be a drain on their funds and can cancel your policy even in the middle of long term treatment.

Now with that said think about this. NHS reimbursement is even less than what insurance pays and it is more restrictive as to what procedures can and connot be done for a patient.

"I owe the NHS my life"

No. You owe the doctors and medical staff your life. The NHS has already been paid in full and thensome by people you don't even know.

Take care,

DRC