Posted on 07/11/2005 7:27:02 AM PDT by jpsb
Quote: The congress controls spending in theory at least.
Bush's veto pen must be out of ink.
OK -- so what happens (hypothetically) when health insurance as a concept doesn't even exist anymore?
Realism you are right about the unisured causing the health insurance prices to go up. As the insurance cost keep going up in double digit increases each year the young /healthy people drop off. It is a catch 22 situation that keeps getting worse each year. In insurance the situation is called "Adverse selection". I have a group I called on several weeks ago. When I wrote the group 10 years ago they had 21 out of 24 employees covered with 14 of those families. Now they have 16 employees covered with 4 families. The only people left on the insurance are the old/sick and people with assets they are afraid to lose.
I see it all the time. You have a car dealership for instance and the single employee rate is $275 per month. The dealership pays 70% of that. You have the young lot boys or detail guys making $6.00 per hour and they say forget it-they cannot afford the 30% taken out of their pay.
Quote; OK -- so what happens (hypothetically) when health insurance as a concept doesn't even exist anymore?
I don't think the country is ready for national health care. I do think states will implement programs that will mirror universal coverage. Some of the plans I have seen are set up like workers comp programs. The employer will pay an amount and so will the employees. Last I read 31 states are working on thse types of programs.
I imagine the difference in cost between this type of policy and your typical group plan could be huge (but you'd know this better than anyone!).
it is a lot more than just Walmart.
Some people just hate economic freedom
would you like a trade surplus, say like Japan with its 0% GDP growth. OR like Germany with its 12% unemployment.
The last time the US had a current account surplus was 1991, when unemployment was 8%, GDP growth was 1% and Al Gore was calling it the worst economy in 50 years. the uS has had consistently a trade deficit since about 1971 and did so for the first 100 or so years of its existance.
I'll explain this becasue no one here really understands it. The US has a trade deficit for two reasons:
1. Our GDP growth is much fast than our developed partners GDP growth
2. The US Invests more than it Saves, so it must import capital.
Notice none of the reason were free trade or unfair trade practices.
If you dont like the trade deficit, I suggest stop buying not only foreign goods but US Made ones as well (US goods consumed here are goods that cannot be exported, so yes when you consume US goods, you are increasing the trade deficit). You should buy US and Foreign Govt BONDS. This will drive the trade deficit towards balance faster than any silly mercantilist trade policies.
""'Japanese and Korean cars that we drive around in today."
Speak for yourself, I drive a Ford mustang and Chevy pickup""
and do you know hte US content of those vehicles?
our standard of living has risen greatly since the 1970s becasue of technology.
and as for those manufacturing jobs, well we've been losing them since 1978, that was the peak year. And guess what the entire world is losing manufacturing jobs, not just the US but Canada, UK, Germany, France, Japan and yes even China.
Manufacturing productive growth is something like 5-7% per year, but demand for manufactured goods rise at only 3-4% per year, so naturally jobs must disappear.
Manufacturing is what farming was in the early 20th century. Farming output has risen even has employment has fallen someething like 90%. Same thing will happen in manufacturing and is happening. It cannot be reversed without a steep reduction in the worlds living standards.
There were Luddites back in the early 1900s, William Jennings Bryan was one, who insisted, much like some here, that if jobs were lost in farming, America would be lost forever.
Actually, for what it is worth, Japan's economy has been growing recently. From Forbes, June 12th, about the recent revision to the GDP growth numbers for Japan from January-March:
Overall GDP growth in January-March was revised down to a real, annualized rate of 4.9 pct, from the 5.3 pct increase in the preliminary estimate released May 17.Even the revised data shows the world's second-largest economy grew about twice the rate initially expected, and at its fastest pace in a year, due to expanding domestic demand and corporate capital spending.
At that time we where taking payments from the Saudis for the Gulf War. Had nothing to do with trade.
youre righht about that, but our merchandise trade defict fell by 1/3 in 1991-92 versus 1988-89, so yes, the recession did have a big part in moving the US treade deficit towards balance.
Nobody here is arguing that jobs lost through productivity and technology are the problem. Actually they are a great thing. But, rather the wholesale transfer of entire industries (think furniture) overseas, particularly to China.
Manufacturing had been (and still is in isolated pockets) the ticket to the middle class in America. Currently however we have a government that sets disincentives to produce in this country and sets incentives to produce overseas -that is the problem.
The problems can be further distilled down to our disastrous relationship with the Chinese and the fact that the Bush admin seems to be willing to do nothing more than send a cabinet official over every few months to complain into the wind.
You mean SPENDS, not invests. If we're investing, it sure isn't in manufacturing or R&D like we used to...or should be. And the selling of Treasuries to finance our government's domestic spending, or the housing bubble, is not U.S. investment.
no I mean invests. That is the reason we had a trade deficit for the first 150 years of our existence. as for RD check, we're investing more in RD than at anytime in the past 30 years.
Roads, private investment, airports, infrastructure etc. There is not enough doesmtic savings to fund these projects. So we have to borrow from abroad.
Also we are investing a tremendous amount in manufacturing, that is one main reason so many manufacturing jobs are being lost is because productivity is rising faster than demand.
an example is boeings 787. Boeing cannot raise enough RD developemt funds here, so they must look for foerign investors
""Manufacturing had been (and still is in isolated pockets) the ticket to the middle class in America.""
that is no longer the case and hasnt been since about 1978. an education is.
Don't you know what that Boeing example really means? It is not a sign of the greater economic strength of the U.S. BUT PRECISELY THE OPPOSITE.
Boeing, contrary to the lying spiel of Airbus Industries, funded the 747 project way back in the the late 60's early 70's....ENTIRELY out of its own pocket. Now it has to go begging with its tin cup out in its hand...begging!
Begging other countries to CO-PRODUCE the plane. To help nail down sales. Japan will make the wings. China the rear stabilizer. And a couple other sundry other countries/companies such as Italy will make the midsection. Boeing is asking each of these manufacturing partners to do their own engineering....to their spec of course...but offloading that portion of the development cost on to the 'vendors'.
actually I do get it pretty well.
I would also have great confidence in stating that I know just a tad more about international economics than you do.
you missed my point completely. I didnt say Boeing having to fund the 787 with foreign money was a source of strength, show me where I did. My point was there is not enough domestic capital available to find it, hence our savings is smaller than our investment. the 787 was my example, you are validating it. Thank you.
PS I also know a tad more about aircraft manufacturing than you do as well
Oh yeah. Roooooiighhht. An intellect as scintillating as your modesty.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.