[Rhodes22-list] Wally - one last try

[Wally Buck]

The article says medical spending is out of control. I agree. It also says 
we should not worry becuase we can fix it. I disagree with this. I don't 
believe we can fix the problem easily. This is my concern.

Sorry I don't believe everything I read on the internet.

>From: Steve <rhodes2282 at yahoo.com>
>Reply-To: The Rhodes 22 mail list <rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org>
>To: The Rhodes 22 mail list <rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org>
>Subject: RE: [Rhodes22-list] Wally - one last try
>Date: Wed, 1 Dec 2004 13:34:40 -0800 (PST)
>
>Wally
>The article tell you what the problem is.  Health care
>costs.  It also tell you that health care has been
>rising out of control withOUT increase life span or
>improving standard of health.
>
>The 2 conponent of this are what I just mension.
>Lawsuit & liability inssurance.
>
>Bush Tort reform will fix all this.  Also, as the
>article mention; as compared to GDP; the deficit is
>NOT out of line.  Our country is the biggest on the
>plantet.  We are the big dog.  And we will always have
>a lot of debt.  Everyone, people, business, corps; all
>have debt.  So will government.
>Steve
>
>
>
>--- Wally Buck <tnrhodey at hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >
> > The authors are placing blame for the debt on out of
> > control health care
> > costs. They say "if" we manage to contain these
> > costs we should be fine. So
> > what happens if we don't control medical costs????
> > And why would one assume
> > that we will of a sudden get a handle on escalting
> > medical costs? It seems
> > to me a sane person would be concerned about this.
> >
> > This article seems to support what I have been
> > saying all along. Excessive
> > debt is bad and if we don't do something to reduce
> > excessive debt bad things
> > will eventually happen to the economy. I never
> > really thought this line of
> > thinking was liberal or conservative, just sound
> > economics. My beef with
> > Bush is the war, not so much the economy but I still
> > don't like the way he
> > is spending.
> >
> > Based on the article it seems to me if we don't do
> > something to change
> > things we will be in deep trouble. This is what some
> > of us have beent trying
> > to get you to understand. I say chop welfare, reduce
> > military spending,
> > implement a national sales tax or flat tax. Reduce
> > or eliminate corporate
> > taxes. Does this sound like a liberal?
> >
> > Wally
> >
> >
> > >From: Steve <rhodes2282 at yahoo.com>
> > >Reply-To: The Rhodes 22 mail list
> > <rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org>
> > >To: The Rhodes 22 mail list
> > <rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org>
> > >Subject: [Rhodes22-list] Robert & Wally Ignorant
> > >Date: Wed, 1 Dec 2004 09:07:18 -0800 (PST)
> > >
> > >Robert & Wally
> > >Try & digest this.  Since my simple Economic 101
> > >lesson was to hard for you 2 to understand; here is
> > >even a better understanding of why the deficit is
> > not
> > >a problem.  If you can set aside your mineless
> > liberal
> > >attitudes; the below is a simple understand of the
> > >deficit and a GREAT Country like the USA can manage
> > >not only this but several trillion more.
> > >
> > >The Forty-Four Trillion Dollar Deficit Scare
> > >
> > >by Dean Baker and David Rosnick[1]
> > >
> > >             Earlier this summer, a new study
> > >projecting the size of the budget deficit made
> > >headlines in the London Financial Times and many
> > other
> > >major newspapers and news magazines (e.g. “Bush
> > >Shelved Report on $44,200bn Deficit Fears”
> > Financial
> > >Times, 5-29-03; A1; All Things Considered, National
> > >Public Radio, 5-29-03; “The $44 Trillion Hole?”
> > >CNN/Money 5-29-03). The study, Fiscal and
> > Generational
> > >Imbalances:  New Budget Measures for New Budget
> > >Priorities by Jagadeesh Gokhale and Kent Smetters,
> > >projected that the value of future budget deficits
> > >would be $44 trillion, more than four times current
> > >GDP.[2] This projection was taken as a warning of
> > the
> > >government’s extraordinary profligacy, and the need
> > to
> > >radically reduce future spending commitments. In
> > >particular, most news stories reported that the
> > study
> > >implied a need to reduce Social Security and
> > Medicare
> > >spending to more manageable levels.
> > >
> > >             A somewhat closer examination suggests
> > >that there is less basis for concern than the $44
> > >trillion figure implied. Furthermore, the major
> > >underlying cause of this deficit is not
> > demographics –
> > >the growing population of elderly – as most
> > reporting
> > >indicated, but rather a private health care system
> > >whose costs are exploding out of control. The
> > >assumption in this study – that private sector
> > health
> > >care costs continue to explode for the next eighty
> > >years – would have a devastating impact on the
> > economy
> > >even if we eliminated all publicly supported health
> > >care programs. If health care costs are brought
> > under
> > >control, then the projected deficit would be
> > >manageable, and not qualitatively different than
> > what
> > >comparable projections would have indicated in
> > prior
> > >years.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >Putting $44 Trillion in Context
> > >
> > >             While the prospects of $44 trillion
> > >deficits was attention grabbing, it is unlikely
> > that
> > >many people who heard this projection had a clear
> > idea
> > >of what it meant. The $44 trillion figure was the
> > >study’s projection of the present discounted value
> > of
> > >all future deficits. In other words, the study
> > >estimated annual deficits through eternity, under
> > the
> > >assumption that current tax and spending rules
> > >remained in place. It then summed up these deficits
> > by
> > >discounting the value of future deficits at a 3.6
> > >percent real (inflation adjusted) annual rate.
> > >
> > >             This figure would only be meaningful
> > to
> > >people who are accustomed to thinking of present
> > >discounted values of future income. Since almost no
> > >one is accustomed to making such calculations
> > (which
> > >require somewhat arbitrary assumptions about the
> > >interest rate used, as well as the growth rate), as
> > a
> > >practical matter, this $44 trillion would be
> > virtually
> > >meaningless to anyone who heard it. Apart from
> > being
> > >obviously large, very few readers would be able to
> > >place this number in a meaningful context.
> > >
> > >             It actually is quite easy to express
> > this
> > >deficit projection in a more meaningful way. If the
> > >deficit is expressed as a share of future GDP, then
> > it
> > >is immediately possible to place it in context. The
> > >study by Gokhale and Smetters actually provides
> > this
> > >information. The study projects the present
> > discounted
> > >value of future GDP as $682 trillion (p.37). This
> > >means that its projected deficit is equal to 6.5
> > >percent of future GDP, implying that a tax increase
> > of
> > >6.5 percent of GDP would be needed to close the
> > gap.
> > >This is far from a trivial sum, but it is not
> > >necessarily an impossible burden either.
> > >
> > >             The tax rate in the United States has
> > >increased by comparable amounts in prior periods.
> > For
> > >example, the federal tax burden as a share of GDP
> > grew
> > >by 4.6 percentage points of GDP between 1950 and
> > 1952,
> > >rising from 14.4 percent to 19.0 percent.[3] This
> > >increase was due to the costs of the Korean War.
> > While
> > >the tax burden did decline somewhat in subsequent
> > >years, it remained close to its 1952 level, as
> > defense
> > >spending soared due to the Cold War.
> > >
> > >             It is also worth noting that most
> > other
> > >industrialized nations face far higher tax burdens
> > >than the United States. According to OECD data, the
> > >2000 tax share of GDP in the United States,
> > Belgium,
> > >and Norway were 29.6, 45.6, and 40.3% respectively.
> > >These higher tax burdens have not prevented the
> > >economies of these nations from continuing to grow
> > and
> > >prosper.  Belgium, France and Norway enjoyed higher
> > >productivity levels than the United States
> > throughout
> > >the 1990s, despite their higher tax rates.[4]  Many
> > >countries with far higher tax burdens than the
> > United
> > >States, such as Denmark, Sweden, and the
> > Netherlands,
> > >enjoy lower unemployment rates.
> > >
> > >             Of course, the prospect of a tax
> > increase
> > >equal to 6.5 percent of GDP should be taken
> > seriously.
> > >But it is important to recognize that it is
> > possible
> > >for the United States to bear this cost, if the
> > >purpose of the public spending is considered
> > necessary
> > >and desirable. The country has been willing to
> > incur
> > >comparable costs in prior periods for national
> > defense
> > >purposes – without undermining economic growth. In
> > >principle it could incur these costs to serve other
> > >ends as well.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >The Health Care Cost Explosion
> > >
> > >             The other important factor, missing
> > from
> > >most coverage of this study, is the extent to which
> > >this projected debt burden is driven by the
> > assumption
> > >that growth of health care costs would continue to
> > >outstrip the overall rate of growth of the economy.
> > >The study assumed that, in addition to the impact
> > of
> > >demographic factors, annual health care costs would
> > >rise by 1 percentage point more than the nominal
> > rate
> > >of GDP growth.
> > >
> > >             This assumption about rising health
> > care
> > >costs is enormously important to the study’s
> > deficit
> > >projection. If the United States managed to contain
> > >health care costs, so that apart from demographic
> > >factors they grew at the same rate as nominal GDP,
> > >then the projected deficit would be equal to just
> > 1.5
> > >percent of future GDP, or $10 trillion. While even
> > >this figure is not a trivial sum, there would be
> > >little basis for the nation to be too consumed with
> > >such a deficit projection. This methodology would
> > have
> > >produced comparable deficit projections for most of
> > >the last four decades.
> > >
> > >             The fact that most of the projected
> > >deficit is due to projected increases in health
> > costs
> > >is extremely important. It means that the key
> > problem
> > >driving this deficit projection is not an out of
> > >control budget situation, but rather out of control
> > >health care costs. The rise in health care costs
> > will
> > >affect both the public and private sector. If the
> > >projected rise in health care costs proves
> > accurate,
> > >it will have a devastating impact on the economy
> > even
> > >if public sector health care programs are
> > eliminated
> > >altogether. The rate of increase in health care
> > costs
> > >assumed in these projections implies that health
> > care
> > >expenditures will consume 30 percent of GDP by
> > 2080.
> > >This compares to 14 percent of GDP in 2001.
> > >
> > >             The projections for rising health care
> > >costs can be expressed in comparable terms to the
> > >projections for the budget deficit. We can define a
> > >prospective “health care deficit” as the extent to
> > >which health care spending is projected to exceed
> > the
> > >rate of growth of nominal GDP, adjusted for the
> > aging
> > >of the population. Using the assumptions in the
> > study,
> > >this health care deficit is equal to $69 trillion,
> > or
> > >9.3 percent of GDP. This prospective health care
> > >deficit is a far greater threat to future living
> > >standards than the budget deficit.
> > >
> > >             Among the industrialized nations, only
> > the
> > >United States faces this sort of dramatic increase
> > in
> > >health care costs. Measured as a share of GDP, the
> > >United States already spends twice as much as the
> > >average for other OECD nations. In other OECD
> > nations
> > >the share of GDP devoted to health care spending,
> > >adjusted for demographic change, has largely
> > >stabilized in the last two decades. Remarkably, the
> > >United States has little to show for these vast
> > >expenditures on health care. Its health care
> > outcomes,
> > >such as life expectancy and infant mortality rates,
> > >are near the bottom among industrialized nations.
> > In
> > >short, there is a compelling case for a fundamental
> > >reform of the U.S. health care system.
> > >
> > >             This is the most fundamental, albeit
> > >hidden, point of the $44 trillion deficit scare
> > study.
> > >The United States health care system is broken, and
> > >desperately needs to be fixed. If nothing is done
> > to
> > >fix the system, then rising health care costs will
> > >have a devastating impact on the economy. Part of
> > this
> > >impact will be felt in the public sector, which
> > pays
> > >for approximately half of all health care in the
> > >United States, but the impact on the private sector
> > >will be equally harmful. Rather than presenting a
> > >compelling case for the need to get the deficit
> > under
> > >control, the study by Gokhale and Smetters
> > >demonstrated the importance of fixing the U.S.
> > health
> > >care system. If costs continue to rise out of
> > control,
> > >it will have a devastating impact on the economic
> > >well-being of future generations.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >--- Steve <rhodes2282 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Robert
> > > > Kerry tried this with the swift boat Veterans
> > and it
> > > > didn't work with the American people and your
> > lame
> > > > attempt to try it with me is useless too!!!!!!!!
> > > >
> > > > It you know anything about the economy and/or
> > > > economic; post your facts.  I have posted mine
> > and
> > > > they are verifiable and factural.
> > > >
> > > > You & Wally are just blowing wind!!!!!!!!  This
> > is
> > > > just Typical Liberalism.  When you don't know
> > the
> > > > answer, attack.  You can attack all you & Wally
> > want
> > > > but you are doing nothing but showing your
> > Ignorant.
> > > >
> > > > You have no facts to support your claims on the
> > > > economy.
> > > > Steve
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --- Robert Skinner <robert at squirrelhaven.com>
> > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Steve wrote:
> > > > > > Robert
> > > > > > If you have an brains at all, you would go
> > > > > research
> > > > > > this stuff so you might actually educated
> > > > > yourself.
> > > > >
> > > > > On the subject of brains, Mortimer, ipsat
> > > > loquitor.
> > > > >
> > > > > When it comes to education, you show me yours,
> > and
> > > >
> > > > > I'll post mine.  Showdown!  Still waiting...
> > > > >
> > > > > > You sound like Kerry; just a lot of
> > > > > bullshit!!!!!!!!
> > > > >
> > > > > See above.  See below.  Eschew obfuscation.
> > Stick
> > > > > to the point.
> > > > >
> > > > > > The facts I am saying are easily justified.
> > > > LOOK
> > > > > IT
> > > > > > UP!!!!!!!!!!!!
> > > > >
> > > > > Give me one specific, current, and undisputed
> > > > > reference
> > > > > in the field of economics that supports your
> > > > > statements.
> > > > > Further, facts, if they be that, do not
> > require
> > > > > justification.  They require revelation.
> > > > >
> > > > > *  That's specific as in title, author, and
> > > > > publisher.
> > > > >
> > > > > *  That's current, as in the last 5 years.
> > > > >
> > > > > *  That's undisputed, as in accepted by all
> > > > economic
> > > > >
> > > > > theorists.
> > > > >
> > > > > Frankly, I don't think even one such a book
> > > > exists.
> > > > >
> > > > > Therefore, unless or until you produce it,
> > your
> > > > "Go
> > > > > look it up!" admonitions are meaningless.
> > > > >
> > > > > However, I look forward to enlightenment if
> > you
> > > > can
> > > > > provide the citation, and show how it supports
> > > > your
> > > > > assertions.
> > > > >
> > > > > Failing that, a clear summary of your economic
> > > > > theory
> > > > > or theories with clear citations would provide
> > at
> > > > > least some basis for rational debate.
> > > > >
> > > > > Your Nemesis (male, in this case),
> > > > > Robert Skinner
> > > > >
> > > >
> >
> >http://www.britannica.com/eb/article?tocId=9055233&query=nemesis&ct=
> > > > >
> > > > > P.S.  I must thank you for this continuing
> > > > badminton
> > > > > match of messages, Mortimer.  I hope you are
> > > > > enjoying
> > > > > it as much as I am.  Edgar Burgen never had it
> > so
> > > > > good.
> > > > >
> > > > > RWS
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > ---------------------------------------------------
> > > > >
> > > > > > Steve
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- Robert Skinner
> > <robert at squirrelhaven.com>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Steve wrote:
> > > > > > > > Have you ever even heard of
> > > > > > > > supply & demand.
> > > > > > >
> > > > >
> > --------------------------------------------------
> > > > > > > Of course, Steve.  The question is whether
> > you
> > > > > have
> > > > > > > any education that justifies your
> > > > "ex-cathedra"
> > > > > > > statements.  You make a statement, and
> > when
> > > > > someone
> > > > > > > disagrees with you, you tell them to go to
> > > > some
> > > > > > > unspecified document which you claim as
> > > > > supporting
> > > > > > > your position.  Nowhere in your rants have
> > I
> > > > > seen
> > > > > > > any list of references that anyone can
> > examine
> > > > > to
> > > > > > > see if you have any real basis for your
> > > > points.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Having seen not one shred of credential or
> > > > > reference
> > > > > > > to support your position, I have to
> > strongly
> > > > > doubt
> > > > > > > your claim to any expertise in matters
> > > > economic.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Some might say: "Put up or shut up."
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I am content to invite you to reply in a
> > clear
> > > > > and
> > > > > > > well-reasoned way, if possible.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > /Robert Skinner
> > > > >
> > __________________________________________________
> > > > > Use Rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org, Help?
> > > > > www.rhodes22.org/list
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > __________________________________
> > > > Do you Yahoo!?
> > > > Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Get it on your mobile
> > > > phone.
> > > > http://mobile.yahoo.com/maildemo
> > > >
> > __________________________________________________
> > > > Use Rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org, Help?
> > > > www.rhodes22.org/list
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >__________________________________
> > >Do you Yahoo!?
> > >Yahoo! Mail - You care about security. So do we.
> > >http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
> > >__________________________________________________
> > >Use Rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org, Help?
> > www.rhodes22.org/list
> >
> >
> > __________________________________________________
> > Use Rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org, Help?
> > www.rhodes22.org/list
> >
>
>
>
>
>__________________________________
>Do you Yahoo!?
>The all-new My Yahoo! - What will yours do?
>http://my.yahoo.com
>__________________________________________________
>Use Rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org, Help? www.rhodes22.org/list