How Trillion-Dollar Deficits Were Created
Today’s must read article is a front page NYT story by David Leonhardt. It looks at the process by which boom time surpluses were turned into boom time deficits, and then even greater crash deficits.
The two economic takeaways from the piece fits into some of the nonsense I have been criticizing here: 1) President Obama budgets are “responsible for only a sliver of the deficits” (despite what GOP critics say); and 2) Team Obama has no realistic plan to deal with the deficit (despite what DEM supporters say). This is simply the reality of the past 10 years.
Note that I am not a blind defender of this administration, and was named one of the 14 most strident critics of the Obama economic policies.
My favorite part of the article was the ginormous graphic that accompanied it.
Chart courtesy of NYT
>
Attention partisans: Try to be aware of your own selective perception here. Very dumb comments of a partisan nature on both sides will be deleted.
>
Previously:
The 14 Most Strident Critics of Obama (April 30th, 2009)
http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2009/04/the-14-most-strident-critics-of-obama/
Source:
For U.S., a Sea of Perilous Red Ink, Years in the Making
DAVID LEONHARDT
NYT, June 9, 2009
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/10/business/economy/10leonhardt.html
June 10th, 2009 at 7:34 am
I’d like to see what the healthcare package add to it…
What about Cap & Trade?
And debt ’service’ going forward?…The 10y is up near 4% on the yield…Perhaps if we get another leg down in the economy and a pullback in equities, that yield will come down a little over the next 6 months, but it’s hard to believe that it won’t balloon back if someone doesn’t start cutting spending…
June 10th, 2009 at 7:35 am
…and you might as well start factoring in yet ANOTHER $50 billion or so for GM within about 18 months…
June 10th, 2009 at 7:41 am
In support of enacting the Bush tax cuts (along with Cheney’s subsequent declaration that “deficits don’t matter”), Clinton’s budget surpluses were projected to continue for the next 20 years — an absurd idea when given any level of honest scrutiny. Anyone who stated, supported or believed that projection had no business participating in the political process. Self-delusion is irresponsible, and never ends well.
June 10th, 2009 at 7:44 am
To quote Milton Friedman, a tax cut not offset by spending cuts is a tax increase on your children…
June 10th, 2009 at 7:55 am
cvienne:
Socially responsible programs and policies can be beneficial beyond their costs, if designed correctly and enacted to benefit the target (society) rather than specific industries. Universal healthcare has been shown to be workable in other societies, so it’s not like there are no successful models we could emulate (the hard work of experimentation has been done for us). We’d be much smarter to protect our health, education, environmental and energy interests, and to focus on the real culprits — crony capitalism and state-sponsored industry — than to rail against the basic policies and social expenses that will give us security in the long term.
June 10th, 2009 at 8:11 am
@Marcus Aurelius
I love it how the “universal healthcare-ists” can’t wait to get out their pens and spreadsheets and talk about the theoretical & economic benefits of such programs…
I lived in Italy for 12 years under a universal healthcare system…
Trust me, it’s not ANYTHING NEAR (in practice) what people in this country are imagining…
And to think, Italy is not a country loaded up with obese monsters who stuff their face with cheetos and soft drinks all day long…
I’ve got a healthcare package for you if you want to do a “social engineering” project, require every American to spend two hours a day on the treadmill (or equivalent MET burn) to qualify for benefits!
June 10th, 2009 at 8:29 am
Obama has stated he’d like to institure Paygo…..ok, fine.
Pass a balanced budget amendment to the constitution, and then you have a straw man you can pummel when hard decisions have to be made.
Apparently that is ok for states, cities, counties, families, but not for uncle Sugar…tax on our children indeed…
June 10th, 2009 at 8:30 am
@Marcus Aurelius
I’m going to say another thing about UNIVERSAL this and that, and government ownership of things..
Anyone of you who spent a decade of their lives or more living in Europe or any country with a social agenda should be able to support me on this…LB? want to chime in?
I’ll use GM as an example…
The next phenomenon you can expect to come down the pipe are labor strikes…It won’t happen right away, but it’s coming…
When it becomes obvious that GM still can’t make anything that people want to buy, or that the taxpayer will have to pump more into the company yet again, the unions will effectively use strikes to keep their standards…
It happens all the time in Europe…You practically have to plan your travel schedules around which group (railroad operators, air traffic controllers, tollbooth workers, this, that) has decided to organize a strike that day or weekend…
It’s like a game…Sometimes, if the government has some spare cash lying around, it can make some concessions…If not, the workers basically say ’stuff it’…we’ll just give ourselves a few days off if you’re not going to pay us or further enrich us for the tremendous service we provide for humanity…
It’s a joke…
Trust me, when doctors & hospitals are working under this same system as well, the quality will deteriorate…
So Americans, if you want to keep your HEALTH, you’d better put down the doughnuts and get on the treadmill…FAST
June 10th, 2009 at 8:59 am
@Marcus Aurelius
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=asMZ0QW.5PSM
London Underground Workers Strike, Shutting Subway…
Gee – Right on cue with my last remarks…You can’t make this stuff up!
June 10th, 2009 at 9:00 am
Interesting how so called fiscal Conservatives come out from under the rocks to lambast any spending (EXCEPT DEFENSE) as irresponsible but ignore the negative, deficit inflating aspects of tax cuts. Politicians can talk themselves into anything especially when it comes to a potential surplus.
The single biggest blunder over the last 8 years was clearly the Iraq war. Couple that with easy money, tax cuts and whala…. here we are.
June 10th, 2009 at 9:00 am
1) A 1.2 trillion dollar deficit is actually far better than I expected.
2) Are they factoring bailing out the states so they don’t have to cut services?
3) If you go to a faith healer for your cancer and things go horribly wrong, going to a rival faith healer to reverse the situation won’t help things.
June 10th, 2009 at 9:00 am
cvienne and marcus-
although I am more of a libertarian- I do think the end result should be universal health care- especially basic care such as check ups and routine doctor visits- I think it will be cost effective in the long run- you cannot have a country where you can make billions pushing some paper at GS and not provide basic care to the average schmo- also- the insurance companies need to go- I hate them worse than any government agency- always happy to get their premiums but looking at ways to increase their bottom line and screw you out of coverage- also-
I saw something the other day that said 60% of personal BK’s were the result of medical bills- that is unacceptable-
maybe by raising the beginning age for SS to 67 and by doing a means test on the $ received would free up some cash
June 10th, 2009 at 9:09 am
Moss-
“The single biggest blunder over the last 8 years was clearly the Iraq war.”
could not agree more- the US is not about foreign wars- let’s pull that recent idea off the table- colossal waste of $ and lives- I believe war should be reserved for those times when we are attacked-
let’s close down our bases around the world already- let’s push on to other things
June 10th, 2009 at 9:09 am
“What a Government spends the public pay for. There is no such thing as an uncovered deficit.”
John Maynard Keynes.
We’re all Keynesians now.
June 10th, 2009 at 9:10 am
@Marcus Aurelius:
I would completely agree with cvienne. Sometimes I feel it is a wonderful thing to be in medicine, it is a wonderful job. But even though I am too young to retire, that will be my future under universal health care. It is already a bureaucratic nightmare to practice medicine under present-day government rules. When politicans tell the populace, everything will be ok…it is like telling passengers on the plane “We are going to make your flight even easier” without talking with the pilots about the weather and how they plan to fly the plane…
June 10th, 2009 at 9:10 am
@call me ahab
Maybe if fat-assed lazy Americans would spit that gob of cheetos out of their mouth, put down the soft drinks, and get on a treadmill, we could ALL save a little money that way…Huh? Whada ya think?
June 10th, 2009 at 9:16 am
@ahab,
The SS beginning age should be linked to life expectancy. For every increase in life expectancy the start age should go up. Adjust it every two years or so.
No doubt the insurance companies need to go. They control everything. People do need to pay a price for unhealthy life styles or healthy life styles need to be rewarded.
June 10th, 2009 at 9:20 am
@cvienne:
Here’s an elegant solution to the fat-asses that the environmentalists ought love: Tax fat. No, not the fat in the foods that are eaten, but the fat residing around the gut and hips of junk food nation. Give everyone a universal health card such that health care is free, but to receive it, make them all submit to a simple height and weight examination to determine how much fat they have that should be taxed. As everyone knows, the metabolic processes of humans emit carbon dioxide as a by-product. Less fatty/smaller humans would mean less carbon dioxide. Global warming is solved!
Call it an “ad valorem” tax on flesh. Re-evaluate once a year.
June 10th, 2009 at 9:24 am
If you do a search on treasury.gov, you will find that we never did have a true surplus. Remember, the fiscal year ends on 9/30, so use that as your baseline. Let’s look at the numbers:
From FY1993 to FY2001, the National Debt went from
$4.4T, $4.7T, $5T, $5.2T, $5.4T, $5.5T, $5.65T, $5.67T, $5.8T
As you see, the National Debt went up every single year.
The deficit in FY2000 was $18B, the closet to zero of these years. The next closest was FY98 at $113B.
So where do charts above come from that show “surpluses” or balanced budgets? Well, if you look at the treasury.gov website, you will notice that while public debt decreased in many of these years, intergovernmental holdings all offset those decreases plus some. Net result is that we ran a deficit.
What are intergovernmental holdings you may ask? Well, when the government borrows amongst itself. One primarily driver of this intergovernmental increase is directly related to Social Security. During the dotcom boom, “revenues” flew into the Social Security trust fund. Due to law, surpluses to social security must be used to buy government securities. Hence, the “savings account” of social security went to the “checking account” of the US government. And when one nets those together you see that those surpluses, in each of the years specified, did not exceed expenditures.
So, before we get all giddy, we should note that we have been running a deficit for quite some time now. Deficits are caused by spending more than you take in. Citizens need to choose one of three options. (1) Continue asking for everything under the sun including higher taxes. (2) Refuse everything under the sun including higher taxes (3) Continue asking for everything under the sun including lower taxes and feel happy about the deficits which will eventually lead to foreign government’s snapping up many domestic assets in an attempt to park the shortfalls.
Tough choices need to be made or tougher consequences will surely follow.
JJ
June 10th, 2009 at 9:25 am
People love to b*tch about “Insurance Co.s”, “Auto Co.s”, “Banks”
love to forget that they are, already, 3 of the most heavily Government Regulated sectors going..
~~
past that, the whole “it’s 43’s fault, no, it’s 44’s fault!~”–type of barrel-wash– is just that..
June 10th, 2009 at 9:25 am
Social engineering, right here in America…all in the name of national budget deficit? It sounds like a fairytale to me.
Math is never this complicated, you add revenues and subtract what you don’t need until the budget is balance! What is hard to change is our political landmines. Our politicians lacks moral courage to stand up for what is right. Per JFK, “And so, my fellow Americans: ask not what your country can do for you – ask what you can do for your country. “
June 10th, 2009 at 9:26 am
Flat fat tax.. Body Mass Index.
Make everything linked to that. Car Insurance, Plane tickets, Hotel rooms.
June 10th, 2009 at 9:26 am
cvienne speaks the truth!
As for the “who’s responsible” nonsense….
We, as citizens are responsible. Most people, whether they lean left or right, think this runaway spending is despicable. Yet, what do we do? Point fingers saying, “Bush did it” or “Obama’s going to do more of it.”
If you’re one of the Abysmal Pigs in our US Congress—then you love polarizing divisiveness. It’s nothing but a distraction….And you know that you can continue to be a feckless hack who legislates like a pull-string doll. While you’re jerking our chains, one of your aide’s is jerking your pull-string, and we’re left with the tedious refrain of some button-pushing bullshit on ‘roids in baseball or the all-important, omni-present debate about Gay Marriage.
If you’re a Media Moron–then, you too, love the schism. Instead of being a journalist, you get to be an entertainer! You get to prod and provoke. Instead of important investigations, you get to get away with: “Oprah or Michelle–Who’s more Powerful?”
Yeah, Bush did most of it. Sure, the Left hated every bit of it. And Obama’s doing more of it, and now the Right hates every bit of it….
But most know that deep down the protestations have more to do with hating all things that “the other side” does…and that the mindless, knee-jerk arm waving makes us feel like we have some control and have contributed something. We are, after all, “Cultural Warriors”.
It doesn’t matter if one is on the Left or the Right:
Social Security is essentially bankrupt.
We have a demographic crisis on our hands as the baby boomers retire.
Our deficits are unsustainable.
Our economy is water logged in debt.
Our country will always be vulnerable as long as we are energy dependent.
Many…if not most…states are on the verge of insolvency.
Nothing is getting done.
To say Bush did it…or Obama’s doing it…is a complete abdication of all responsibility.
If these guys “did it”…it’s because we did nothing.
June 10th, 2009 at 9:29 am
cvienne Says: When it becomes obvious that GM still can’t make anything that people want to buy,
I hate to break it to you, but the biggest seller of vehicles by far is GM. its not the Toyota, Honda or Nissan. and it certainly not BMW or Mercedes.
and the top two vehicles sold for several months running? they were a Ford and a Chevy.
and of the top 20 vehicles sold, about 10 of them were domestics. and thats been true for many years now.
and for all of the hype (and its just that) about the consumer wanting small gas efficient cars, its doesn’t appear to be so. about the only one in the top 20 was the Civic, and it wasn’t at the top car sold (that would have been a Camry).
the car makers problems (and its all of them)
consumers stopped buying all together (the entire market tanked 40+%). and consumers bought different things than before (but not so much different).
and the car companies can’t change that fast. its real easy (comparatively) for a finance company to change what it sells compared to the car companies. when you make some thing and it has to last for at least 5 years, and it has to meet standards, it takes a few (last time i heard they were trying to get it below 5 years) from design to production. and some times they take short cuts to get there under that time frame (reusing platforms, engines etc from existing cars. ands that been going on a long time)
June 10th, 2009 at 9:29 am
While the accounting in the article looks to be largely on point, it misses the bigger question. How we got here is historically interesting, but where we go from here is of critical importance. What we need is clear leadership on how we are going to deal with our fiscal irresponsibility. Just piling on more is not a plan. Or rather it is a plan, just not one that makes sense in light of our current situation.
This lack of a clear, understandable, coherent plan for dealing with our situation is what I find aggravates most people with whom I discuss the situation. There is a lot of blame to go around. What are we going to do about it? If the current answers you are getting from your Congressmen make you uncomfortable, then you should be very skeptical of all claims of green shoots and other such nonsense.
June 10th, 2009 at 9:33 am
@Moss
“People do need to pay a price for unhealthy life styles or healthy life styles need to be rewarded.”
Of course this is what I have been preaching…
The PROBLEM in our country isn’t “healthcare” it’s friggin’ HEALTH for crying out loud…
If people, starting from a young age, would adopt healthier lifestyles, this problem would cure itself within a generation…Then, the healthcare “system” would be reserved for those specific or acute cases where otherwise healthy people are struck down by illness…
This is why I absolutely HATE the word “universal”…A UNIVERSAL plan basically suggests that all of us are susceptible to health problems by roughly the same margin…
I argue that that is not true and if you improve overall health, you’d find that medical needs are specific and widely varied…
But we live in a culture that:
- Promotes candy & sugary treats on cartoon TV shows from a very young age
- Parents who don’t have time, so prefer just to give treats to their kids to shut them up
- Snively TALK SHOW hosts (like Donahue back in 80’s & now Oprah) who oversympathize the “poor” fatties (who they KNOW are their viewership)
- Celebrities who are forever on the GET FAT GET SLIM rollercoaster
People don’t you see? Doesn’t anyone realize that Americans are the “joke” of people around the world when they see a bus load of hippo waddle off the tourist bus and head straight for the ice cream stand before going to see the old ruins…
Hell, half the Americans don’t even realize this because they themselves decide to opt for a CRUISE which is stuffed with a bunch of other large zoo animals…Of course they chose the “cruise” in the first place because it has 6 all you can eat buffet meals a day and you don’t have to walk anywhere…
Those CLIENTS are the only “universality” in universal health care…
June 10th, 2009 at 9:36 am
Deficits appear to be bottoming according to the chart. Alas, more green shoots!
I hope they are heavly invasive and displace the red shoots.
http://www.invasive.org/index.cfm
June 10th, 2009 at 9:39 am
@rjohnson
I’d argue that we’re not getting off topic…
Many points here deal with the issues BEHIND big spending plans:
- Such as billions going to GM
- or billions (trillions?) proposed to go to healthcare
One can argue all they want about things spent 20-30 years ago (and how wasteful they were, or what benefits they may have accrued)…
It is already clear that nobody seems to have learned a thing as it appears that whenever a NEW idea is proposed, there always seems to be $$ ready willing and able to spend (or borrow) for it…and efforts in justification for doing so…
June 10th, 2009 at 9:39 am
cvienne
June 10th, 2009 at 9:44 am
Curmudgeon:
I have 15 partners, none of which are obese. I run, myself, 10-12 miles every week. Two of my partners have run marathons. (Not for me). My resting heart rate is, and has been all my adult life, 52-53. If I gain weight, I take it off.
There would be an enormous, truly enormous, savings if the country wasn’t obese and didn’t smoke.
June 10th, 2009 at 9:44 am
@Marcus + Ahab
Great comments, and I agree wholeheartedly. On the numbers, we have the world’s worst health care system. We pay the most and get the least, having one of the civilized world’s highest infant mortality rates. I don’t know how anyone can justify the idea that people should have to choose between paying their mortgage and…um….not dying from a medical condition that they cannot afford to treat.
Anyway, it’s undeniable that health care is a tremendous comparative disadvantage for American companies trying to compete in the global market.
@Barry
Excellent graphic. I’m going to save it for my lecture on Reagan’s Thirty Years’ War against American prosperity.
June 10th, 2009 at 9:45 am
cvienne not sure that all health care problems are related to life habits. some are going to happen irrespective of how you live. some are from your relatives, and you have no chance of over coming them. ever.
some will happen (accidents will still happen).
but i can see a good thing if we could get people to live better, but i doubt any body is going to vote for raising taxes on sugar related products, or other fat generator products, or higher (much much higher rates) on tobacco and alcohol.
and give credits for doing things like gym memberships and athletic equipment.
and the BMI only works if you happen to fit the ‘normal’ body type. care to guess if you do or not?
June 10th, 2009 at 9:47 am
@cvienne.
Very true what u say.
The thing is, the whole model is about treatment. Drugs for this aliment or that.
It needs to be flipped so that it is about prevention.
That is NOT in the best interests of any of the incumbent players. Insurance, drugs, devise makers, you name it. The dumbing down and pandering only adds to the inertia.
June 10th, 2009 at 9:48 am
cvienne-
all into healthy lifestyles- do believe that many people bring on their own problems- however- do believe that basic care should be covered for those who are ill- we can’t all be super studs like myself
hoffer-
man- i hear you Re insurance- but I still hate ‘em- the whole idea of insurance just bugs me in general
June 10th, 2009 at 9:49 am
@Bruce:
You’re a doctor, right? How do you explain the fact that the US, which is the only advanced country that does not offer its citizens health care as a basic right, also has the civilized world’s highest rate of infant mortality?
Are all those newborns brought into the world with a Big Mac and a Marlboro in their hands?
Infant mortality is the standard on which health care systems are judged, because newborns haven’t had a chance to eat too much, drink too much, or smoke too much. And our system is the world’s worst.
http://www.indexmundi.com/map/?v=29&l=en
June 10th, 2009 at 9:52 am
[...] Get Busy in Mill Valley [SF Gate]· The Best Modern Steel Houses in California? [Eichler Network]· How Trillion-Dollar Deficits were Created [The Big Picture]· Bay Area names top stimulus priorities [SF Business Times] · Bay Area Economic [...]
June 10th, 2009 at 9:53 am
Sorry to be OT but:
Taleb is giving a nice interview on CNBC right now. Pointing out many of the issues a lot of us have been discussing here regarding debt/credit deflation.
Also, the few times lately that Huffington has been on CNBC, I thought she has done a great job.
On this thread, isn’t it amazing that as bad as this recession has been it’s still, according to the graph, not as big a cost as the Bush policies, at least not yet.
the Bush policies seem the ultimate indicator of a debt culture at what could end up being the very peak levels of credit creation for many many years to come. Most of this country was spending money they didn’t have, and so was the president.
June 10th, 2009 at 9:56 am
Franklin411:
Much of the risk to the newborn concerns the health of the mother, age of the mother, birth weight, prematurity…that sort of thing. Some segments of our society have children too early, don’t take care of themselves during pregnancy, and so forth. If the mother is very young, obese, diabetic, smokes, hypertensive, etc. these things put the baby at risk.
Do a little research…your comments are always too superficial…
June 10th, 2009 at 9:57 am
Mark! Great to see you back.
An important distinction between private insurance and universal is the role of preventive medicine. Under a universal/single payer model, primary care doctors receive incentive payments for lower average weight/blood pressure/smoking rates among existing patients.
Also, improved efficiencies such as reducing business office staffing in hospitals and practices — and eliminating middle-man profit taking by insurance companies — will save trillions net to the GDP.
June 10th, 2009 at 10:02 am
@BnT:
Even in the Tennessee heat? I cut back to about 5-7 mi. during these days. I’ve run one marathon, about a half-dozen half-marathons (all in Birmingham, all in February–nice).
Obesity is killing us, never mind the smoking. And it is one of the major drivers of health care expense. From Type II diabetes, to kidney, heart and digestive diseases, to bad joints, etc., obesity and the lack of exercise that comes with it, is a prescription for out of control health care spending. Of course, practicing medicine, you see that reality every day. But that’s why a universal health system could actually save money if we taxed fat to pay for it–at punitive rates. Imagine the savings to an individual that loses the weight: Fewer $4.00 Quarter Pounders AND a lower tax bill.
June 10th, 2009 at 10:02 am
a more interesting point made here http://www.slate.com/id/2220137/?from=rss
today 77 percent of employers over health insurance, but only 62 percent can afford it (or take, maybe covered on spouses insurance. but considering how employers are making that an expensive option as they raise the cost of covering dependents much higher than the employer)
how long before they stop offering it altogether? after all, in a globalized world, they are competing with other countries where the companies don’t have that expense.
June 10th, 2009 at 10:03 am
BR – here’s some actual data on total Federal revenues, including income tax revenues, from a very useful website (http://www.usgovernmentrevenue.com):
Year FED-R INCTAX
2000 2025.46 1211.75 — Bush II takes over, last Clinton budget, Dot.com bust
2001 1991.43 1145.41 — 9/11, recession, Bush tax cuts I (phased in slowly over 5 years)
2002 1853.40 1006.39 — recession, bust aftermath
2003 1782.53 925.48 — Bush tax cuts II (changed to ‘effective immediately’)
2004 1880.28 998.33 — recovery
2005 2153.86 1205.50 — recovery
2006 2407.25 1397.83 — recovery
2007 2568.24 1533.71 — recovery ends, onset of credit bust
2008 2524.33 1450.10 — credit bust, recession
This is even more compelling in chart form, but I can’t figure out how to attach a picture to a comment.
Here are some takeaways…
* As advertised by some, total government revenues and income tax revenues both increased post tax-cut, esp. post the 2003 cut that phased in immediately;
* By the end of 2005, both total and inc. tax revenues were accruing faster than 2000 — even with the lower rates;
* 2006-7-8 saw gov’t revenues (including inc. tax revenues) higher than the last Clinton budget.
Partisans on both sides will undoubtedly cherry-pick data to support their own cause. However, that data once again supports the idea that lower tax rates lead to (or at least do not prevent) higher revenues. If you work at the ‘bottom’ of the economy creating new businesses and jobs, that only stands to reason. Lower taxes means capital is more available, you get to keep more of what you earn, etc. Continually higher taxes (at all levels) ultimately lead to throwing one’s hands up and asking, “what’s the point”?
We have a spending problem in the country, not a revenue problem. Those who rely on ’static’ assessment of the Federal budget miss the true picture. Higher taxes reduce activity. Lower taxes increase activity. Even though the net impact of those realities is hard to predict with precision, the reality remains.
We can’t afford military imperialism, whether one thinks it’s a good idea or not. Same for unlimited entitlement. If we can’t keep the budget in balance during a period of increasing revenues (regardless of tax rates), then we have an obvious spending problem.
June 10th, 2009 at 10:04 am
I guess I just don’t think health insurance is an employer issue- why is that the case? Larger pools of people banding together for insurance would be cheaper- no? For instance- Virginia- where I live- what if all Virginians banded together to make one ultra large insurance pool- should be cheaper right? Then- as in car insurance- you have to verify you are covered under a policy or pay into an uninsured fund-
what think we?
June 10th, 2009 at 10:04 am
@411: there is a racial demographic to your statistics. White Americans have roughly the same infant mortality as Western Europeans. Blacks and Hispanics, particularly new immigrants, are what skews the numbers.
June 10th, 2009 at 10:05 am
@willid3, ahab, moss, franklin
If you read into what I’m saying, I am in favor of some sort of basic system (which exists to cover the inevitability of things that happen outside of the things that are brought about by poor lifestyle habits)…
But let me be clear:
1. I don’t consider ANYTHING in this world a “right” (except freedom).
2. Everything else, besides freedom, is a priviledge (and should be expected to toil for, not granted)
3. I believe that BEFORE we move into the realm of trying to establish the priviledge of providing a system for something like universal healthcare, then at least some synthetic “barrier of entry” point should be established with respect to individuals needing to take responsibility for personal decisions.
For example (Re: #3 above). A person who fails a drug test is not permitted to work certain jobs. So people should be required to pass certain “health screens” of basic physical fitness in the same way…
If that notion sounds ABSURD to anyone, understand that it sounds EQUALLY ABSURD to me that thousands of fit and healthy Americans who make good choices should have to dig into their pocket and pay for chain smoking, cheeto eating, sofa sitting, slobs who do nothing all day but sit & watch TV while collecting their benefits package while the GM assembly line is shut down over the summer…
June 10th, 2009 at 10:07 am
@Barry
http://dying.about.com/od/causes/tp/infantdeath.htm
@TC
Sorry, but that’s simply not true. The infant mortality rate for white Americans is 5.7, still much higher than the rest of the world.
http://www.kff.org/minorityhealth/upload/7633-02.pdf
June 10th, 2009 at 10:11 am
Curmudgeon:
I would much rather run in the heat than in the cold. Besides, East Tennessee doesn’t know what heat is…up this high the climate is wonderful.
June 10th, 2009 at 10:12 am
@BR
Note:
I’m happy this thread “How Trillion-Dollar Deficits Were Created” has morphed into a discussion on universal healthcare…two points:
1. It’s NOT off topic (because it refers to the NEXT trillion in deficits)
2. Since there are so many viewpoints flying around here, and since the issue is on “the Hill” at the moment and will be debated all summer, perhaps it could continue to be a TBP topic…Let’s get to the bottom of this!
June 10th, 2009 at 10:17 am
cvienne,
nice points, especially, in regard to Diet, which, Surprise!, Surprise!~, like our current Health Insurance schema can be traced back to the Tax Code.
LSS: Ag Subsidies/Income Tax avoidance for Corpos/”High-Income” earners..
~~
Transor ~!~
June 10th, 2009 at 10:17 am
cvienne, i like the idea of a basic health care policy that every one has to have, and if you want more coverage. and for those who can’t pass that basic health standard,they can buy additional coverage from the friendly insurance company.
if they want special services (much like today, if you pay for express medical service (its not cheap by the way) you can get it).
oddly enough, there is a country that already does this. care to guess who?
June 10th, 2009 at 10:19 am
Here at Schadenfreude we admit to the occasional error in portfoilio management, but this seems to represent a new low in misallocation of capital:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090610/ap_on_re_mi_ea/ml_israel_million_dollar_mattress
June 10th, 2009 at 10:21 am
Why can’t those in Congress be as intelligent as many of the posters at TBP (myself excluded)? If only they yielded corruption for common sense, this nation would be better off.
Universal Healthcare would be abused just as many other social programs are.. welfare, worker’s compensation.. I agree, and quality of care and facilities would lessen. It’s not the answer, nor was essentially nationalizing the banking and auto industries. It all seems part of the USA’s metamorphosis toward the USSA, with a lazy, spoiled, uneducated populace at its foundation. All in all, I’m fascinated with the arguments here.
June 10th, 2009 at 10:21 am
Franklin:
READ
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infant_mortality
Moron…
June 10th, 2009 at 10:22 am
On health insurance the macro view says it all…
We spend about twice as much per person on health care as other developed nations, and our measures of health are generally much worse than our peers, infant mortality being just one of them.
We are the only nation on earth where health care is tied to employment. This is due to a historical “accident” during WWII. There was a wage freeze in effect so employers thought to add benefits to attract workers, and health insurance was one of them.
A good illustration of the unintended consequences of government regulation, but how long will we have to live with this nightmare?
June 10th, 2009 at 10:23 am
f411 says – “we have the world’s worst health care system. ”
Give me a break.
June 10th, 2009 at 10:25 am
Franklin:
Why do you always make such loud, superficial, ignorant declarations?
Crusty old farts like me don’t get it…
Did your parents have any normal children?
June 10th, 2009 at 10:29 am
@karen
The most ironic thing my love is to consider that no matter what we do, in the end we’re sure to end up in the same place…
Consider:
Plan 1 – We all start living healthier, and make that as a STANDARD before tossing money down a universal healthcare blackhole …
Plan 2 – We set no pre-standards or pre-conditions and toss the money down the black hole…As result, 20-30 years from now we’re all broke, and have not even the money to pay for BASIC healthcare…Then, the only way to live is to be extra attentive to our personal health and we live accordingly or DIE…
Same outcome either way…
June 10th, 2009 at 10:31 am
well hopimwrong it depends on how you want to judge it. if you want to judge it based on some thing like it how performs and how much it costs. we do. we don’t lead in how much we pay for it. we don’t lead on the results either
June 10th, 2009 at 10:32 am
Karen Says-
“It all seems part of the USA’s metamorphosis toward the USSA, with a lazy, spoiled, uneducated populace at its foundation.”
don’t sugar coat it- tell us how you really feel
June 10th, 2009 at 10:34 am
@cvienne:
“Maybe if fat-assed lazy Americans would spit that gob of cheetos out of their mouth, put down the soft drinks, and get on a treadmill, we could ALL save a little money that way…Huh? Whada ya think?”
I think it’s a red herring you are presenting here with verve. If everyone lived as healthy as it gets it still wouldn’t solve the problem that there isn’t an _universal_ access to a high quality health care system in United States. Unless you think, everyone who lives healthy doesn’t need such an access anymore. Well, then I hope you have put your money where your mouth is and you don’t have any health insurance. Your treadmill should be sufficient.
and before:
“Anyone of you who spent a decade of their lives or more living in Europe or any country with a social agenda should be able to support me on this”
I had lived in Europe in such a country for more than three decades. I am not with you. And I do not wish to be referred to as anonymous supporter of your point of view.
rc
June 10th, 2009 at 10:36 am
While the United States reports every case of infant mortality, it has been suggested that some other developed countries do not. A 2006 article in U.S. News & World Report claims that “First, it’s shaky ground to compare U.S. infant mortality with reports from other countries. The United States counts all births as live if they show any sign of life, regardless of prematurity or size. This includes what many other countries report as stillbirths. In Austria and Germany, fetal weight must be at least 500 grams (1 pound) to count as a live birth; in other parts of Europe, such as Switzerland, the fetus must be at least 30 centimeters (12 inches) long. In Belgium and France, births at less than 26 weeks of pregnancy are registered as lifeless.[4] And some countries don’t reliably register babies who die within the first 24 hours of birth. Thus, the United States is sure to report higher infant mortality rates. For this very reason, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, which collects the European numbers, warns of head-to-head comparisons by country.”[5] However, all of the countries named adopted the WHO definition in the late 1980s or early 1990s.[6]
Franklin, you apparently never let a little thing like facts get in the way of a good opinion….
June 10th, 2009 at 10:38 am
@cvienne (and others): But do we penalize those (like myself, who has Crohn’s diseases) for having bad genetics or some condition through no fault of their own? I work out every day, eat fairly healthily, don’t smoke, maybe have 1-2 drinks/week. Is it right that I likely can’t get coverage without bankrupting myself and my family outside of a company plan? That basically makes either myself or my wife slaves to some company who will cover our health insurance bene’s. How is that a good idea? Many are chained to jobs/companies they hate or don’t like very much for this very reason when they could be doing other far more productive things with their lives that will benefit them, their families, community and country.
June 10th, 2009 at 10:40 am
@Franklin411
To tie up my own perspective on HC…
Although I’ve been against most of Obama’s spending proposals so far, if he could use his popularity and influence to incentivize Americans to achieve better HEALTH standards in their own lives (and attempt to create a benchmark for that in terms of qualifying for healthcare), then I’d be 100% behind him…
From a “perception” standpoint, he’s tall and lean, plays basketball, and seems to be pretty fit (and he and his wife obviously make an attractive couple)…Only problem might be his “smoking” history (but if he can successfully kick that – he’d have another positive going for him)…
I sure wish he’d realize the power of using those types of images before tackling healthcare ratehr than pushing a pencil around and trying to intellectualize the debate…
June 10th, 2009 at 10:49 am
Another government policy with unintended consequences…
Farm subsidies that help create the cheap junk food so many eat. (See Michael Pollan et al.)
Yes, we are incredibly obese nation, but this is not the root cause of our health care problems. (Europeans smoke more, for example).
June 10th, 2009 at 10:49 am
@Manny
If you read more closely what I’m saying, I’M NOT AGAINST A HEALTHCARE PACKAGE…Wes always hates it when I use CAPS, but there, I have to use them to underscore my point…
I’m simply saying that before blindly rushing into the establishment of a healthcare system, let’s try and cut down the inevitable costs that things like “obesity” in our culture will surely add to the pricetag…
Why can’t ONCE, just ONE the politicians in this country sit down and understand what is REALLY costing us and make an effort to mitigate that before they start writing checks?
I mean, 8 years ago it was like “Let’s go to war” (don’t worry we’ll pay for it)…
now it’s “Let’s have universal healthcare” (don’t worry we’ll pay for it)…
June 10th, 2009 at 10:51 am
mannwich Says-
“Many are chained to jobs/companies they hate or don’t like very much for this very reason when they could be doing other far more productive things with their lives that will benefit them, their families, community and country.”
great point- I agree whole heartedly- that is where I see the biggest benefit- freeing people up to do what they have a passion for- makes for a happy and more productive populace- health care should not be thought of as something provided by your employer-
ridiculous if you think about it
June 10th, 2009 at 10:51 am
@Mannwich:
“But do we penalize those (like myself, who has Crohn’s diseases) for having bad genetics or some condition through no fault of their own?”
In this case you are unfit material and don’t serve any purpose.
“I work out every day, eat fairly healthily, don’t smoke, maybe have 1-2 drinks/week. Is it right that I likely can’t get coverage without bankrupting myself and my family outside of a company plan? That basically makes either myself or my wife slaves to some company who will cover our health insurance bene’s. How is that a good idea?”
It’s not about your benefit. It’s about the companies benefit. We all are just little wheels in a big machine. In this way you are getting reminded of this better.
“Many are chained to jobs/companies they hate or don’t like very much for this very reason when they could be doing other far more productive things with their lives that will benefit them, their families, community and country.”
You have got your priorities wrong. First comes the company and your country. You and your family exist and work for those, not for your own benefit and creativity. You must be a commie thinking otherwise.
All the best to you.
rc
June 10th, 2009 at 10:53 am
@cvienne: I agree with you 1,000% on that. In fact, my brothers-in-law and I have been trying to develop a business that focuses on that very thing – establishing/maintaining healthy habits, particularly a regular fitness routine through the help of motivation/competition through/with groups.
I too am worried that O and Congress will come up with a “solution” that in the end doesn’t work well or at all. That’s the problem in this country. There’s no longer any WILL to get big things done RIGHT. Powerful special interests always get in the way.
June 10th, 2009 at 10:54 am
I am with rootless (above) on this issue – it’s not a question of whether health care is national or universal or not, let’s face it, there are systems like this in Scandinavia that work just fine. Instead, it is a question of how the health care is actually delivered and how much corruption is involved. Unfortunately the BRA (Banana Republic of America) is one of the world leaders in corruption, as well as health care. The HMOs are cesspools of corruption.
June 10th, 2009 at 10:59 am
@leftback: Fraud & Corruption ARE the U.S. economy, or least a big part of it. Sorry, but that’s how I see it.
The Gravy Train Economy rolls onward.
June 10th, 2009 at 11:04 am
rootless, you are being ruthless! twisting words i dare say, lol… as for myself, my money is where my mouth is on health insurance; that is not to say i don’t advocate some sort of national catastrophic, genetic disease, or child healthcare plan.. in california, btw, the emergency room doesn’t turn away an uninsured (health or auto), illegal alien that is bleeding to death..
June 10th, 2009 at 11:05 am
@Manny
Thay have it ASS BACKWARDS…
That want to CAP & TRADE energy…
They “need” to CAP & TRADE health!
June 10th, 2009 at 11:09 am
@cvienne: Health research shows that people DO respond to the right incentives to get more fit, however, I’m sure that would be gamed by some enterprising individuals like everything else is these days.
Another item that’s related – food subsidies. We’re subsidizing the WRONG (unhealthy) kinds of foods to make unhealthiest foods the cheapest. If we’re going to subsidize anything, it should be healthy fruits and vegetables to make those foods cheaper.
June 10th, 2009 at 11:10 am
@LB
The “population” of Sweden, Norway, Denmark, & Finland is about the same as the population of the Southern California Metropolitan Area…
Further, most of the population of those countries are VERY ACTIVE (sports loving) people who who also have lived mostly within their means all their lives…
Sure their healthcare system is a success…wonder why?
June 10th, 2009 at 11:11 am
The question is straightforward: would a single-payer universal coverage plan cost less and yield better measurable population health results from the macro perspective?
It is disingenuous/deeply flawed (I’ll be nice to maintain civil debate) to say national metrics should back out non-whites because they adversely skew the data. Hate to break it to ya, but do I really need to remind folks how the demographics are a’ changin’ in the US? Moreover, obviously race correlates with socioeconomics, so let’s have a nice clean fight here, shall we?
June 10th, 2009 at 11:12 am
@cvienne: I would imagine that’s where a homogeneous population helps. Similar culture and interests. Easier to get everyone on the same page and have the WILL to get things done for the collective, the country.
In the U.S., it’s every man, woman, child, and special interest group for themselves.
June 10th, 2009 at 11:15 am
@Manny,
You don’t even need to subsizide healthy food…Most of what is healthy you can grow on your back porch, or in your yard if you’re fortunate to have one…
I’m sure karen doesn’t waste oil and gas driving her SUV to Harris Teeter to buy arugula…
I’m sure someone smart as she just whips out a pair of scissors and cuts it from her (or her neighbor’s yard)…
I have more rosemary, oregano, lavendar, basil, marjoram, sage, thyme than I can count right outside my door…The entire neighboorhood just comes and goes as they please and takes as much as they want!
I’m proud of that!
June 10th, 2009 at 11:18 am
@cvienne: But let’s be practical here – most people aren’t going to grow their own food whether you want them to or not. We can’t idealize every situation and hope everyone lives like you or I do. It’s not going to happen.
June 10th, 2009 at 11:19 am
Trillion dollar deficits come from the power we give politicians to spend other people’s money. The basic struggle is for constituents to urge/bribe their elected officials to grab as much as possible for them while contributing as little as possible. This naturally leads to borrowing and spending.
Also, comparing contributions to deficits is a little disingenuous. Remember that deficits are the yearly rate at which we add to the national debt. I’m certainly not a fan of Republicans on this issue, but even if Obama has contributed relatively little to the ongoing deficits, it still means that he is accelerating our debt over time. Put another way, under Obama, the 2nd derivative of debt with respect to time is positive. Even if he manages to merely reduce the deficit, we will still be adding to our debt, although this would at least be a step in the right direction.
Also, if anyone missed it above, I recommend Juke Jones’s comment. Remember, it’s the debt that matters.
June 10th, 2009 at 11:21 am
@cvienne:
“I’m simply saying that before blindly rushing into the establishment of a healthcare system, let’s try and cut down the inevitable costs that things like “obesity” in our culture will surely add to the pricetag…”
It’s still a red herring, since the unhealthy lifestyle of many Americans and universal access to a healthcare system are two different problems. Even if it were possible to make the first fully go away the second one would still persist. But I suspect your whole ranting is really more about the pricetag and yourself. You don’t like the idea so much that your tax money is used for the healthcare of others. That is ok, but then you shouldn’t use so often “we” and “us” and talk less about “the nation” (as I said before I myself don’t care about the welfare of “the nation”).
rc
June 10th, 2009 at 11:31 am
Rootless:
cvienne has a point though, and you are wrong to dismiss it out of hand.
Obesity is the dog that bites the physician in health care. Diabetes…often equals obesity. Especially adult onset type II. Knee replacements…obese patients much more often than normal weighted folks…secondary to the valgus stress put on the knee…problems healing post-op?…chances are good that the surgery was on an obese patient…hypertension, shorter life spans, etc…obesity may well be our number one killer..
I would love to see the actuarial data on how different the costs are between one who is 30% overweight and one who is ideal body weight..I don’t mean the difference in medical problem incidence, I mean costs….
June 10th, 2009 at 11:31 am
I’m completely befuddled by the people who are screaming that healthcare reform will increase the deficit. Right now, the biggest political challenge to passing healthcare reform is that we ARE paying for it! There’s a mix of proposed revenues and cuts to existing spending. The President and every single committee working on this has said it will be “budget neutral.” That means it doesn’t increase the deficit or debt.
In fact, if you added up all the proposals on “how to pay for this,” that have come out of the Presidential budget and the 5 committees of jurisdiction, you’d notice that they add up to MORE than the anticipated cost of reform under any scenario. This is fundamentally different than the approach Bush took when he did the Medicare drug benefit, where he found NOTHING to pay for it, and he didn’t even take on the interests to try and get the cost down. He just whipped out the credit card. Right now in Congress, everyone is fighting about which of the suggested options will be in the final package to offset the costs, because the fact is we have proposed more money to pay for this than we actually need.
This is accounting 101. Things that are paid for don’t increase the deficit. You’re all supposed to be financial types–do you really not understand this concept? If so, I understand why the markets failed.
If you think healthcare reform is bad so we shouldn’t do it, that’s a valid opinion. But I’m sorry, you can’t argue that it’s bad because it will increase the deficit. Because that’s lying.
And while it’s fair to ding Obama for not fixing the deficit problem, it’s ridiculous to suggest it’s his fault. It’s not. The handful of things he’s deficit spent on are ridiculously defensible. Deficit spending in the face of a deflationary recession is EXACTLY what a government is supposed to do when fiscal policy is tapped out. All the economists who say “the great depression would never happen again because we’d never let it” say that because they believe a government would deficit spend to prevent a recession.
And beating Obama up over auto bailouts is fine from an ideological perspective, but from a pure short-term-finances-of-the-US-government standpoint, the feds would have spent more money NOT bailing these guys out because the cost of taking care of the municipal failures, unemployed, and uninsured that came as a result of Chrysler’s failure. Not to mention, those costs are all downside, while the Chrysler/GM venture has a small chance of paying off and a large chance of having those losses mitigated somewhat.
The bad deficits we have are, I’m sorry, the Bush deficits. It was reckless to cut taxes for the highest earners again and again. It was reckless to finance a major health expansion without paying for it. It was reckless to commit our nation to a war we didn’t need to fight. It was reckless to ignore the financial sector and to allow the housing bubble to be stoked. It was reckless to cut back investment in infrastructure. It was reckless to allow massive growth of military spending.
It’s fair to ding Obama for not fixing the Reagan/Bush/Bush deficits. But it’s simply not honest to suggest his spending priorities are part of the problem.
June 10th, 2009 at 11:34 am
Obesity is also related to employment. A few years ago physicians at rehabilitation hospitals began to notice that average male hand-grip strength in the US had dramatically declined over time. The data was routinely collected over the years as part of patient tests to evaluate therapy results. When someone thought to compile the data into a longitudinal study it revealed a decline in average hand strength over time. The researchers attributed that to increasingly sedentary occupations and decline in manual labor.
June 10th, 2009 at 11:35 am
@Bruce: Why can’t we tackle that issue AS WELL though? It’s not either/or. That’s merely a distraction, a red herring to divert us from really FIXING all of these separate (but related) problems, as rootless points out.
Look, I’m not advocating for “socialized medicine” or anything resembling it. I’m advocating something that’s sensible and a system that works (how novel!). Are we no longer creative enough as a nation to figure this out? It’s obvious the current system no longer works, so let’s fix it already. The problem isn’t that we’re not smart or creative enough. It’s that special interests who like the system the way it is always get in the way at the public’s expense. It’s like almost every other seemingly intractable problem in this country. You name it and special interests are always there to keep things the way they are, or some variation of it. Is that the U.S. you want to live in?
June 10th, 2009 at 11:52 am
@karen:
“rootless, you are being ruthless! twisting words i dare say, lol…”
I rather would say I distilled the essence.
“… in california, btw, the emergency room doesn’t turn away an uninsured (health or auto), illegal alien that is bleeding to death..”
However, although I don’t know about California, have you ever been to an emergency room in NYC, particularly in low income neighborhoods? Emergency room access for everyone is not the same as access to high quality healthcare for everyone. I even doubt that relying on an emergency room system, which comes into play, e.g. when an illness has progressed a lot already, comes cheaper at the end than a system in which everyone has access to regular prophylaxis and maintenance. But I don’t know any model calculations about this right now. Maybe it comes cheaper, since the part of the population who needs to rely solely on emergency rooms is in part useless for capital accumulation, so when they die sooner on average, it’s only good, or if they have been useful and they are used up and die off they can easily be replaced using new cheap labor that has immigrated to US.
rc
June 10th, 2009 at 11:54 am
@rootless: I think you should change your handle to “ruthless cosmopolitan”.
June 10th, 2009 at 11:54 am
Manny:
I agree with this. Something will change. Physicians who still practice won’t like it (most baby boomers who can will retire) and people used to private care won’t like it. But health care is too expensive for most, and needs to be more affordable. I am right with you on that.
I heard something on NPR this weekend and the talking head said he thought the reason nothing had changed thus far was that the people who HAD good insurance realized they’d get lesser care (and they will to some extent) and it was the haves of health insurance not wishing to sacrifice for the good of the community…he probably had a point..
June 10th, 2009 at 11:54 am
@rand55: Easy with the spam.
June 10th, 2009 at 11:55 am
Just look at the ‘research’ done on High-fructose corn syrup (HFCS). Many independent studies say this is a big factor in obesity since it is used as a sweeter in many many products. The soda dudes say their studies show that it is not much of a factor when compared with other alternatives.
Now HFCS is incredibly cheap and widely used as a sweetener. Ingrained if u will in the production process.
Does anyone really doubt that this crap is bad for you and should not be used?
June 10th, 2009 at 11:57 am
@Bruce in Tn
I’m thankful that you are providing input from the “medical” side that OBESITY is really the thing behind many of the health issues that plague our society and “run-up” costs (vis-a-vis Type II diabetes, knee replacements, etc.)…
I also failed to mention the fact that we are a “pill based” society…In other words, when you detect the slightest problem or pain, find a PILL for it…
By profession, I have been a fitness instructor all my life…That’s how I squrreled away my money after 25 years of being in that profession…I still teach group exercise (now more as a hobby), and I invest my savings as a living…
In any case…in my business it is easy to see all along the difference between healthy people and unhealthy people…It’s not just in their bodyfat…I see many who are radiantly healthy but don’t even mind keeping on an extra 10 pounds or so because they like to ENJOY life and ENJOY eating…That’s WONDERFUL, because to me, it is yet another sign of good health (that they are MENTALLY healthy as well – and not some person who is going to cause themselves to have a nervous breakdown because they are a fitness “addict”)…
Anyway, Bruce…You know and I know what the SOURCE is for largest problem that faces us…In my profession, I NEED TO HEAR doctors like you to continue to provide a scientific medical foundation for the benefits of exercise…
June 10th, 2009 at 11:59 am
@Bruce: Agreed. I do think that people need to take more ownership of their health (as much as they have control over) and that any solution should include some incentives to achieve that, as well as significant co-pays to disincentivize people from overusing the system.
Our neighbor is a nurse practitioner who says that their flow of patients is WAY down because some of their regulars who come in all the time for everything under the sun because it was free or as close to free as possible, no longer come in because they’ve lost coverage and it’s too now too expensive. We know that anything is free or priced too low is overused, so pricing and out of pocket paid by patients needs to structured correctly for it to work.
I have to believe that if we have whole armies of smart people structuring all of these financial products that could make themselves rich in the process (but almost bring us all down), that we can entice some of these same people to come up with a health care system that actually works for most people in this country. Or maybe they won’t make enough money off of it, so they don’t really care?
June 10th, 2009 at 12:08 pm
CVienne says:
“If that notion sounds ABSURD to anyone, understand that it sounds EQUALLY ABSURD to me that thousands of fit and healthy Americans who make good choices should have to dig into their pocket and pay for. . . .
I would argue that thousands of people like myself in their mid 30’s shouldn’t have to pay for the health care of people who are old and infirm, or born with a genetic condition. I would also argue that people without children shouldn’t have to pay taxes to educate the children of others.
Sounds silly I know, and I’m not arguing that most Americans should live a healthier life, but where do you draw the line on what’s good for society as a whole? What I haven’t seen mentioned in any posts so far is that we’re already paying for this. A large part of the run up in health costs is due to the fact that when people without insurance get very ill they end up in the emergency room. They have no insurance to pay for their urgent care so that cost gets passed down to us.
June 10th, 2009 at 12:12 pm
@Thor: Which means we’re already subsidizing uber-rich companies like Wal Mart or others who don’t provide adequate (or any) health insurance coverage to their employees. It’s just hidden and hard to quantify, so we act like it’s not there.
June 10th, 2009 at 12:19 pm
cvienne, i know a number of female fitness instructors through my involvement in Pilates.. but last night, i took a spin class from my first MALE instructor. I won’t go into his, ah, physique; I will tell you his voice was magical.. and I had been so dreading this class, so scared I took a back row (and brought my 22 year old with me so I wouldn’t die alone. : ) He got us out there and back, so that I was actually exhilarated upon recovery.
June 10th, 2009 at 12:20 pm
@Bruce N Tennessee:
I don’t say obesity and unhealthy lifestyle isn’t a problem for many Americans. I say, instead, ranting about the lifestyle of many Americans and that they should get on a treadmill is a red herring when used as an argument to dismiss the idea of universal healthcare.
Additionally, I also don’t like that the lifestyle and obesity problem is being presented here as a problem solely due to individual attitude. As if there weren’t any correlation between the relative abundance of this problem and income, social status in society as well as education. People who are poor eat less quality food on average. Healthy food is much more expensive. More than 20% of the population in NYC have an income less than the poverty line. You won’t find them in a whole foods store. They also won’t buy a treadmill or join a gym.
I also think what question is considered to be important and what answers are give will depend on from what perspective is this being discussed. Is it being discussed from the perspective of the individual’s benefit or from the perspective of the benefit for capital accumulation in society? The answers can differ a lot. From the latter perspective I can offer some really dystopian views, to which I already have given some hints in my previous comments.
rc
June 10th, 2009 at 12:23 pm
@Moss
Moss had the best idea yet…FLAT FAT TAX…
I’m all for healthcare as long as the cost of it is handled on a “weighted” basis (pun intended)…
Let’s do a CAP & TRADE for “fat” instead of energy…
A benchmark is established…
- If you’re OVER the benchmark, you have to pay more, or, have to acquire credits
- You can “purchase” credits from those under the benchmark (who are issued credits)
- At the beginning, if you’re OVER the limit, you’re given a 2 (or so) year grace period to bring yourself to within the standards…
I’m painting this with EXTREMELY broad strokes here, but you get the idea…
June 10th, 2009 at 12:24 pm
There was a study published in, I think, Lancet early this year about a comparison study of runners and non-runners in England…studied for 20 or more years…
Take home message….?
Runners got all the arthritis and joint maladies that non-runnners got….hypertension, etc.
BUTTTTT…they averaged 15 years later in life getting the same problems…!!!!!!
June 10th, 2009 at 12:25 pm
Rootless – well said!
I have an interesting perspective on this issue in that I work for a fitness/wellness company (P90X) and my partner is an inpatient pharmacist for a large hospital. To say that the run up in health care costs is due solely to “fat lazy Americans” is indeed a red herring. Yes, being overweight does cause many many health issues but so does being born with a genetic condition, getting hit by a car, or the fact that our society is living longer. There are many many factors involved here.
June 10th, 2009 at 12:29 pm
well Thor I guess you don’t like insurance, since basically its a way to spread the cost of some thing (in this case health care). the only difference between it and government is that their a profit motive involved, and one is public and one is private.
well if we want Americans to live healthier, then tax those products that contribute to a less healthier live style.
June 10th, 2009 at 12:30 pm
@willid3: Excuse me, but the insurance industry is a corrupt cesspool that only ADDS to the cost of health care. They are part of the problem. Of course, they like things the way they are because they’re getting rich at our expense (just like the banks on Wall Street).
June 10th, 2009 at 12:31 pm
Thor:
Most of medicare costs are for the last two months of life….under the new proposals life saving measures may not be initiated if you are too old, have the wrong type of illness, etc. You know this, too. It is something we will accept under the new rules..
June 10th, 2009 at 12:35 pm
Bruce, I wasn’t aware of that study but i basically stopped hard running about 6 years ago for that reason, i.e, wear and tear, fear of further injury, etc. my motto? moderation in all things except love and money : )
June 10th, 2009 at 12:37 pm
wildid3 – No real opinion on insurance. My concern is that the cost of that health insurance has been going through the roof since I entered the workforce in the early 90’s. The company I started my career with up in SF no longer offers health insurance to their employees because they were too small a company and the cost became too high. That rise in cost is due at least in part to the huge numbers of uninsured who end up in the emergency room with chronic and severe illness.
I’m with you on taxing products that contribute to bad health. I’m paying for that with the tax on my smokes, why shouldn’t two ton Bob have to pay tax on those 6 big macs? Governments would make a hell of a lot more money taxing fast food and soft drinks than they would from smokers.
June 10th, 2009 at 12:37 pm
Mannwich, i wasn’t saying they weren’t part of rising cost, its just insurance is a private way to spread out the cost of it across a group as opposed to each individual covering their own. so many against a public health care plan seem to ignore we already have a private version that does every thing they accuse a public version of doing. and it costs a lot more since they don’t have any consistent administration of claims, by that i mean each insurance company ends up treating every claim in its own way, making providers and claimants go through different hoops, based on each ‘plan’. and restricting patient access to care by restricting what they will pay for. and making providers act more like a factory worker, having to see x number of patients, and make sure to not use to much medicine or other supplies.
and they still cost more to administer their services than the public plan.
June 10th, 2009 at 12:41 pm
thor i was interpreting what you said to mean that you were against sharing the cost of things (like education of kids) to mean that you were against risk sharing. which insurance and government are both about
June 10th, 2009 at 12:42 pm
@karen (12:19)
There is a huge ‘misconception’ that the general public has with regards to the fitness industry (and fitness instructors in particular)…Although I admit it has gotten better over the years…
Many are afraid of fitness because they think it’s just something full of fanatics (especially when it comes to “group fitness”)…Most instructors nowadays (regardless of the discipline, whether it’s yoga/pilates, indoor cycling, total conditioning, cardio kickbox, or latin or hip hop dance), are pretty average people beneath the surface…
We don’t preach HEALTH as much as we preach a “healthy lifestyle”…I’ve been through periods of my life where I had to do photoshoots for magazines (I have been on the cover of Men’s Health)…You need to be below 6% bodyfat to even “think” of being in a shot like that…The training and eating I needed to do to get in that kind of physical condition is UNNATURAL…It can’t even be done on a continual basis without risking OTHER health problems…
I hurt all the time…My bones, joints, and everything ache all the time…In fact, the only time I DON’T hurt is when I stop exercising (or stop doing yard work) for weeks at a time…But I don’t complain about it…Why? Because my mind is busier on other important things… It’s not a PROBLEM that I feel the United States healthcare system needs to address…I consider it NORMAL…
I’m rambling here, but the point that I’m trying to make is that one of the great TAKEAWAYS I’ve had from a lifelong involvement in fitness (on a professional level – I’ve written 3 books), is that people still aren’t even close to being able to quantify what it’s all about, how to create a proper balance with it, and more IMPORTANTLY…how much “savings” could be realized in terms of an economy if everyone were to jump on board…
I will say that MANY do it already (and reap personal & private benefits)…but there is yet to be a universality of understanding of the concept…
June 10th, 2009 at 12:46 pm
@BR
As you can see…this DEFICIT thread has morphed into a discussion on healthcare (which IS appropriate however because I’ve dubbed it our NEXT deficit)…
Anyway, this seems to be a rich topic of debate as ‘the HILL’ debates the package over the summer…
June 10th, 2009 at 12:48 pm
Karen:
Nearly every patient with osteoarthritis (wear and tear arthritis, arthritis of aging) does better with exercise than without…we all will get it as we age…
But there is only one fountain of youth: Exercise.
June 10th, 2009 at 12:48 pm
wild – no, I apologize. I should have been more clear, was just saying that I COULD make that argument. I definitely believe that there are certain things (education, health care) that we should all pay for because it benefits society.
People seem to get all up in arms about paying for health care for others but have no problem paying taxes for education. I think a healthy, educated society is something we should strive for.
June 10th, 2009 at 12:53 pm
mannwich
Well said. Those who draw a bad hand genetically, in various ways, shouldn’t be left out to hang. We should judge people by the content of their character and not by those things they don’t have control over. There is a real arrogance among some people who don’t have any such problems and ascribe it all to their own actions. Those people are very hard to take sometimes.
That said I agree that we need to heavily encourage healthy habits and life practices. But some will be afflicted no matter what and we shouldn’t just kick them to the curb. Be it cancer, Crohn’s, back problems, etc., many are just screwed no matter what they do unless they are blessed with family wealth or other fortunate circumstances.
I also strongly agree with the notion of separating health insurance from employers. This has many negative consequences that hamper our global competitiveness.
June 10th, 2009 at 12:56 pm
maybe the deficit and the bust are boomers fault
http://blog.newsweek.com/blogs/wealthofnations/archive/2009/06/09/baby-boomers-it-s-all-your-fault.aspx
might be a case of the biggest generation is starting to sunset. after being in their biggest spending days. and taking every one else with them
June 10th, 2009 at 12:57 pm
Jeff,
see: http://www.orthomolecular.com/?ctr=article&act=show&id=33
+
http://www.orthomolecularhealth.com/~orth9777/crohns-disease.htm
~~
and, to the Post:
you’d be surprised by what works–basic nutrition–as well, our avoidance of that simple Fact is what makes our, current,”Health Care” Industrial Complex a multi-Trillion U$D/year walking Nightmare..
June 10th, 2009 at 12:58 pm
@cvienne:
What do you think about universal access to high quality fitness and personal trainers then? Right now, it’s not affordable for a big part of the population. And there is certainly a big intersection between the part of the population who can’t afford any access to high quality healthcare and the one who can’t afford any access to high quality fitness. Oh, I forgot. there isn’t any right other than “freedom”.
rc
June 10th, 2009 at 1:00 pm
For what it’s worth, as bullshit artists have unfavorably compared US infant mortality Western Europe, in the US, ex-black infant mortality rates which are twice that of whites and Hispanics, the US infant mortality rate, at about 5.7 per live birth roughly equals the European Union, also at 5.7 per live birth.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_infant_mortality_rate_(2005)
This is from the CIA country fact-book, as shown on the Wikipedia article.
What infant mortality says about a country, and what are its causes, is not at all clear. Cuba is only slightly higher than the US (6.3), yet obviously has a much lower per capita income. Does that mean we should therefore really strive to be a banana republic, and a corrupt, nominally-communist one at that?
June 10th, 2009 at 1:01 pm
Bruce, one last comment, exercise is not only essential for physical health, but mental health as well.
June 10th, 2009 at 1:03 pm
Curmudgeon:
Read my post of 10:36…
Don’t let Franklin bother you…he is as the Texans say “Big Hat, No Cattle”
But he has an opinion..
June 10th, 2009 at 1:03 pm
Karen: Absolutely right.
June 10th, 2009 at 1:14 pm
Curmudgeon – Are you are implying that the ethnic makeup of Western Europe is all white with little or no immigrant population? Have you been to Europe lately? France has a huge immigrant population as does Germany. I don’t know if their Algerian and Turkish population is comparable in size to our African American population but their infant mortality rates do include these populations.
June 10th, 2009 at 1:34 pm
This is a great discussion with some thoughtful comments, hasn’t turned into nasty name calling like so many others. I am an actuary and specialize in risk management. There is no question that health care is already somewhat socialized in the fact that everyone pays when those with no coverage show up at the ER. When the grocery store hands out free antibiotics they recoup that money by charging more for other things, they don’t eat that bill. When an uninsured shows up at the ER they are usually a lot sicker then they would be if they had earlier care. So since you’re going to pay anyway, you may as well mitigate your damages. In the current system, this cost is not well managed. I am in my mid 30’s and have been running competively for years. I probably put in 40 miles per week and feel great, no pain at all. I’m also a single mother of two little boys and I work full time so I don’t have amy sympathy for the “I don’t have time” argument. I just consider it a priority up there with feeding my boys and going to work. Having said all that I still pay the same premium at my job as the people that walk around with dognuts, soda, and an extra 50 pounds. I see the doctor once a year for a checkup and occasionally for illness but I don’t cost them much. I don’t take any prescriptions either. I do think people should be rewarded for good lifestyle choices; at some companies people receive a discount on their premiums if they show up for wellness screenings and their numbers look good. However, everybody needs to be covered as long as there are fair copays to keep people from abusing it. Copays could be based on how much you use the plan, perhaps with a cap for people that have chronic disease that they really can’t do much about. This would maximize efficiency. It is expensive but I don’t think people realize how much they’re already paying and society would be much better off with lealthier people. Now after all of that, PUT DOWN THE JUNK FOOD PEOPLE! Thanks for letting me get that out.
June 10th, 2009 at 1:38 pm
@rootless_cosmopolitan
Please don’t even start to engage me on a discussion of “high priced” fitness trainers or access to facilities (or barriers to entry thereof)…
I’ll put this to you plainly and then try to let it go…
Anyone with a pair of legs has access to any to any fitness they desire (many enteprising “one legged” or “no legged” folks have found ways to overcome even that notion)…
Do you want me to start talking about metabolics?
Do I need to get into ATP production via pathways?
Do you want to talk about mitochondria? krebs cycle? sliding filaments? actin? myosin?
Want to talk about lactic acid? pyruvic acid conversions?
How about simpler things? simple calories? glycemic ratios?
If you want to talk about these things we’d better go offline…
But the bottom line for the purposes of this forum is for anyone to understand the following:
Fitness is VERY SIMPLE and basically costs NOTHING…all you need is the air you breathe and the last time I checked that was free…
It makes me laugh all the people who use the EXCUSE (oh, I have to go invest money in a trainer or a gym, or a bowflex, to get healthy)…It’s a perfect excuse to DO NOTHING…
It’s like someone who thinks they need to go on a $2,000 shopping spree at Home Depot (and hire a staff of advisors) to screw in a light bulb!
June 10th, 2009 at 1:39 pm
Thor…I am implying that even at an aggregate infant mortality rate of 6.26 for the US, which includes everyone, including the anomaly of nearly 13 deaths per live birth for the 13% or so of the US that is black, it compares favorably with the European Union, which also includes their minority populations, the rich states (Germany, France) along with the poorer ones (Italy, Greece).
And BnT regarding exercise: It truly is the only fountain of youth. These bodies we have are highly evolved to pick up things, throw things, walk and run long distances, sprint short distances, etc. Even if all the work you do is mental, the mind must have a body in which to do its thinking. Best that you take care of it.
June 10th, 2009 at 1:42 pm
horngold, excellent post! thanks for the additional comments and summation. you certainly seem to have your priorities straight, too.
June 10th, 2009 at 1:54 pm
See my post at 11:11. Backing out the black population is a non-starter. Please.
Would it surprise anyone to learn that 19.1% of US gov’t expenditures are on healthcare? (2006) In Western Europe only Switzerland spends more at 19.6%. And that only accounts for ~45% of total national healthcare costs in the US, whereas in Switzerland that’s 60% of total national healthcare expenditures. That’s nuts, particularly when you consider relative GDP sizes — and the fact that the US doesn’t even achieve anything like universal access.
So let’s talk cost management and efficiency. And let’s use actual data — see http://www.who.int/whosis/en/
Searchable WHO database across a host of public health statistical categories.
horngold’s post at 1:34 is a gem. But as good as her points are it only scratches the surface of cost inefficiencies in the current US system. Consider, for example, the needlessly cumbersome hospital/health practice billing given multiple insurance providers and plans with different coverages under each.
June 10th, 2009 at 2:01 pm
[...] How we came to trillion dollar deficits. (Big Picture) [...]
June 10th, 2009 at 2:02 pm
I agree with Karen about horngold’s post. Very well said.
I am, however, a little turned off by all the finger pointing going on this thread – basically – “you’re fat and unhealthy and it’s all your fault” Yes, we all have a choice in what we eat and how we exercise but to put 100% of the blame for the obesity problem in this country squarely on the shoulders of people who are overweight ignore a lot of other issues that contribute to the problem. Things like both spouses working, longer and longer commutes for people, lack of open space, the general feeling in society that it is not safe to send your children outside to play, TV, video games etc. Let’s also not forget the explosion of fatty, salty, sugary foods and fast food restaurants. Cvienne – as a fitness instructor you, of all people, should know that we are genetically predisposed to want to eat this kind of food.
Yes, the ultimate responsibility is with the individual, but there are a myriad of other factors involved here aside from “You’re a fat lazy slob”
June 10th, 2009 at 2:06 pm
Thor:
That is one way of looking at it…however, in the 20’s and 30’s when people were poorer and much more active at work or at home…the obesity rates were much, much less. Children and adults. Worldwide, not just the USA
Fact is….Too many calories in, not enough calories burned…equals obesity.
June 10th, 2009 at 2:09 pm
@Transor Z:
I only backed out the black population to aid in proving the point wrong that the US infant mortality rate is worse than the rest of the world. The idea is an oft-cited statistic that is mostly meaningless, and is anyways not correct.
The bigger point is that infant mortality rates are not a good metric for determining much of anything about a country. There are anomalies in how the counting is done, as BnT pointed out; there are anomalies in population subset variations; and there is no clear correlation between per capita wealth or health care spending and infant mortality rates.
June 10th, 2009 at 2:13 pm
Fact is….Too many calories in, not enough calories burned…equals obesity.
It’s all you need to know. The body is a more or less closed energy/mass system, where energy/mass in must equal energy/mass out, or it will gain energy/mass, which is otherwise known as fat.
June 10th, 2009 at 2:13 pm
http://www.nature.com/oby/journal/v16/n1/full/oby200752a.html
“Approximately two-thirds of the US adult population is overweight and one-third is obese.1 In 2002, obesity and obesity-related complications accounted for 9.1% of US health care expenditures (or more than $92 billion), and those numbers are rising.2
Cutting dietary fat is the most efficient way to stop the obesity epidemic. With 9 kcal/g, fat is the most energy-dense nutrient. Eating less fat, particularly less saturated and trans fat, easily reduces energy intake.”
June 10th, 2009 at 2:14 pm
“Fitness is VERY SIMPLE and basically costs NOTHING…all you need is the air you breathe and the last time I checked that was free…”
The air is free. What would I do w/o my daily carbon monoxide dosage while running on the concrete pavement of the sidewalks in NYC? It’s all very healthy.
It’s also a good analogue to argue against access to high quality healthcare for everyone. After all, everyone can treat him/herself, if he/she gets sick. No doctor needed. Just collect some herbs next to the highway and brew some home remedy from it. It basically costs nothing.
There is also some catch in saying that only the ones who “toil” deserve access to high quality fitness or personal trainers. The ones who “toil”, often don’t have the time and energy to exercise. And toiling itself isn’t really contributing to a healthy life. Just to point out some contradictions in your arguments.
BTW: The word “freedom” is just an empty shell stripped from any meaning, when it comes w/o any context. Freedom from what? Freedom of what? Freedom to do things has prerequisites.
rc
June 10th, 2009 at 2:18 pm
Tranzor: You took the words right out of my mouth. My partner harps on the billing issue all the time. There is no set cost for each medication or procedure, each person is billed at a completely different rate depending on whether they are insured, with who, etc.
June 10th, 2009 at 2:33 pm
@TC: Come on . . . let’s back the financials out of S&P to show the “true” or “normalized” P/E ratio. Same thing.
For the purposes of not bogging things down, I’m happy to concede that, on balance, US citizens with access to health care get health services that are as good as — if not slightly better than — services available to the people of Western Europe and Japan.
Fine. Let’s talk cost management and efficiency. In the US, it sucks. It sucks far worse than in Western Europe or Canada. And those countries are providing healthcare to everyone — and not backing out the blacks or other immigrant populations to juice their numbers.
June 10th, 2009 at 2:34 pm
@Transor: Kind of like “inflation ex-energy & food”.
June 10th, 2009 at 2:35 pm
@Thor
I’m OK what I think you’re trying to say…
“you, of all people, should know that we are genetically predisposed to want to eat this kind of food.”
but let me point out two things:
1. We’re not “genetically predisposed” to do anything of the sort…Homo Sapiens have been around A LOT longer than FRUIT LOOPS & ONION RINGS…It’s more media & culture that have brought these things into vision and focus as they were never even on the map before the past century…
2. Furthermore…I’m actually an advocate of EAT ANYTHING YOU WANT!…That’s right…I tell that to all my clients…Make yourself happy…But if you’re going to indulge in whatever suits your fancy, understand what the COST is…
Look, it’s very simple…
1 gram of carbs is 4 calories (whether it’s sugar from a doughnut, or whole grain durum wheat)
1 gram of protein is 4 calories (whether it’s fish, eggs, meat, chicken, or legumes)
1 gram of fat is 9 calories (whether it’s from LDL french fry fat, or HDL Omega-3)
That’s it…it’s no more complex than that…The only BAD food is food that is “poisonous”…
In understanding food values (as described above), understand though that there are two important factors:
1. The “quality” of the carbs you eat (higher grade “complex” qualities are digested in your intestines not your stomach, which means that they are not ramrodded into your bloodstream causing an insulin spike which over time puts you at risk of developing Type II diabetes)
2. Omega 3 fat choices are better in lowering cholesterol levels
That’s just scratching the surface…But my point is, it’s OK to even eat what many consider to be BAD foods and still stay healthy…I resent when people reduce the FITNESS argument to food…
The key is EXERCISE…read horngolds comments above…she makes no excuses…she FINDS THE TIME…
Ultimately, a “healthy lifestyle” is what we need to be searching for…It provides “mental health” as well as “physical health” (which I believe are concepts that are interconnected anyway)…
I swear people, my whole life has been about this subject (and I have watched family members DIE because they ignored it)…The REALEST and MOST COSTLY thing to us (and out economy), is because we are so distarcted with the symptoms of this problem, very few people understand the core…
June 10th, 2009 at 2:44 pm
@rootless (2:14)
“The air is free. What would I do w/o my daily carbon monoxide dosage while running on the concrete pavement of the sidewalks in NYC? It’s all very healthy.”
—
Nobody is FORCING you to live in NYC my friend…
I lived in Los Angeles for 13 years…then I lived in Italy for 12 years…
Wanna know something?
My activity level (over 25 years time) didn’t change that much…yet my cardiovascular fitness levels improved greatly after having spent time in Italy…
Why?
I probably ate “a little” better (not not to a great degree as my habits didn’t change all that radically)…
You know what it was? OXYGEN…
I lived at about 2,000 feet altitude…The cardiovascular stress made my body work harder to adapt to the same fitness activities I did before…
So while I can’t help you with your problem of living in New York City, I can underline the AIR YOU BREATHE argument (and say that ANY fitness endeavor challenges organic adaptation by your body and thus makes it healthier and more immune to sickness & disease – WHICH COSTS FRIGGIN’ LESS DAMMIT!)
June 10th, 2009 at 2:48 pm
Something that was said here is bothering me:
“1. I don’t consider ANYTHING in this world a “right” (except freedom).
2. Everything else, besides freedom, is a priviledge (and should be expected to toil for, not granted)”
This goes even back to the time before the French Revolution, doesn’t it? Are the Human Rights, as a civil standard at least (the reality is always different), obsolete in capitalist society, nowadays? What about the right to live? Is this a privilege for which one has to “toil” first before one earns it?
rc
June 10th, 2009 at 2:49 pm
@cvienne: I agree with many of your points but what you and many other libertarian types fail to understand is other people aren’t YOU. Everyone’s different. Not making excuses, as I do believe it’s far easier to exercise than people admit (you can do it right in your house with minimal equipment, hello push-ups, sit-ups, etc.), but other people aren’t YOU. They don’t live your life and you don’t live theirs. Sounds trite but it’s true. It’s just not so simple to say, “well, if I can do this or that, than so can others”. Everyone’s situation is different.
June 10th, 2009 at 2:51 pm
@Transor Z, let me say this one more time…even if you wish to use infant mortality as a metric for evaluating a health care system, and even if you don’t mind that some countries calculate theirs in a different manner than does the US, and including ALL the US population, you get:
US: 6.26 infant mortality rate
EU: 5.7 infant mortality rate
i.e., roughly 0.5 infants per 1,000 live births difference. Find a better argument for why the Europeans beat us so handily, which is my point, actually. The metric sucks as an evaluation tool.
And I don’t dispute that the US healthcare system, which isn’t really a system at all, but is rather just a chaotic maelstrom of inefficiencies, good at not much of anything but squeezing money out of the pockets of its customers, sucks. I’m saying infant mortality rates don’t tell the tale.
June 10th, 2009 at 2:52 pm
@Manny at 2:34: LOL
June 10th, 2009 at 2:55 pm
@Transor: I forgot to add…inflation ex-housing. Important one.
June 10th, 2009 at 2:57 pm
@Transor Z and Mannwich: y’all are sooooo clever:)
June 10th, 2009 at 2:57 pm
@TC:
And I don’t dispute that the US healthcare system, which isn’t really a system at all, but is rather just a chaotic maelstrom of inefficiencies, good at not much of anything but squeezing money out of the pockets of its customers, sucks. I’m saying infant mortality rates don’t tell the tale.
I’m cool with that.
June 10th, 2009 at 2:58 pm
CV: Hate to point it out to you but living at 2,000 feet altitude does not enhance either your cardiovascular health or your ability to use oxygen. You’d need to go a lot higher than that to notice any health affects. Oxygen levels and atmospheric pressure does not change enough at 2K feet. And by that logic, people living in Denver should on average have better cardiovascular health than those living in Phoenix (and they do not).
June 10th, 2009 at 2:59 pm
@Curmudgeon: Just messing with you.
I think most, if not all of us, can agree the current system is really a “health care system ex-system”, in short a debacle. Pretty amazing how the original topic got of course so quickly but I guess it’s a big issue on a lot of minds (including mine).
June 10th, 2009 at 3:00 pm
Bruce N Tennessee , you are completely right that fat and lazy people have more medical problems.
It is a good thing they die earlier to offset their extra expense.
June 10th, 2009 at 3:04 pm
Spencer:
I recognize a good snark when I read it. I don’t know exactly how we got off on these health tangents, but we did. Fact is my own brother is obese, and I can’t help him with it. (He designs servers and hardware for Sun Microsystems…)..
In the modern age, since people don’t burn calories at home or work, and food is available, particularly high fat food, the unfortunate answer (for some) is self-motivation…
June 10th, 2009 at 3:13 pm
@Manny (2:49)
OK Manny that’s fair enough…
But if people “just can’t hack it” (find the time or will to exercise)…sorry…but then why can’t I say “sorry, I just don’t have the money to pay for your healthcare”…
June 10th, 2009 at 3:16 pm
@cvienne:
“Nobody is FORCING you to live in NYC my friend…”
True. And nor is anyone FORCING the more than 20% of the NYC population living below the poverty line to be poor (i.e. having more health problems, being more obese on average, and having less access to high quality health care) or to live in NYC. Why don’t they just move to Italy to live in the mountains over there? After all, this world offers all the possibilities to everyone. There aren’t any structural constraints in this society. These are all EXCUSES. Everyone in this world could be rich and healthy, if he/she only wants to.
rc
June 10th, 2009 at 3:16 pm
I really appreciated the chart and subject of this post as much as the discussion that ensued! LOL.
June 10th, 2009 at 3:22 pm
Me too Karen – I’ve been snooping on all of you for months
this was a good post.
June 10th, 2009 at 3:22 pm
@Thor
gee Thor…Thank you for telling me about my own personal metabolic profile which I have tested on the most advanced scientific equipment that exists on the planet…
I don’t know jack shit…
I’ll come to you for advice from now on…
June 10th, 2009 at 3:31 pm
Well ladies & gents…
I’ll have to leave this thread now…(try not to cry Thor)…
I have to go teach back to back classes (1st cardio, then barbell strength)…
Thor will handle any physiological, metabolic, or biomechanic related questions from here on out…
Ciao!
ci vediamo dopo…un bacione!
June 10th, 2009 at 3:36 pm
@Karen:
Yes — kind of amazing that there was a spontaneous mutiny to hijack this thread to health care (but at least there was a decent connection to deficits). Clearly it’s “in the air” and on everyone’s mind.
June 10th, 2009 at 3:40 pm
Mannwich said about libertarians:
“I agree with many of your points but what you and many other libertarian types fail to understand is other people aren’t YOU. Everyone’s different.”
Which is a somewhat curious assumption in a libertarian’s thinking, since they emphasize “freedom” so much. So, the freedom really condenses to the freedom to be like them. For instance, if someone wants to be an artist, it’s solely his/her problem, if he/she can’t afford health insurance. Nobody is forced to be creative in arts. Why don’t they do something else instead? However, I value a society in which there are also artists and not just a few ones who are successful enough to not need to worry about the money.
rc
June 10th, 2009 at 3:44 pm
Cvienne: Sorry buddy, you’re just wrong. You were also wrong about our genetic predisposition to obesity. If you weren’t so busy bragging about your Men’s Fitness cover, what phenomenal shape you used to be in, the house you paid cash for, or all the money you made as a person trainer over the last 25 years, you might have the time to do some research on any number of subjects you’re so clearly wrong in. Who cares if you worked in fitness for 25 years, you are not an authority on human biology.
You’re an intelligent angry white guy living in the mountains “off the grid”. You clearly have a problem with people who don’t share your own world view. Your peer group is The Uni-bomber.
June 10th, 2009 at 3:48 pm
OT:
Imagine, without knowing the original blog entry, trying to discern it from this discussion. Better, take Cvienne’s first and last posts and tell me how the hell he got from one point to the next, and guess what the blog entry was.
That, for instance, is the task of evolutionary biologists…to look at the end result and try to fathom the steps along the way. It occurs to me that there is a lot more that we don’t know than that which we do. The mystery contained in this thread is compelling evidence.
June 10th, 2009 at 3:51 pm
@thor, I think that is over the top. Cvienne is not an “angry white guy”, he might be occasionally cranky, but to compare him to the unabomber just ain’t right.
June 10th, 2009 at 4:00 pm
@TC: Yeah, either evolutionary biologists or forensic psychologists.
June 10th, 2009 at 4:09 pm
Whammer – yeah, sorry, that was a little over the top. The guy spends way too much time bragging about himself and lashing out at people who disagree with him and it’s more than a little annoying.
June 10th, 2009 at 4:12 pm
And now I feel bad for being mean – sorry everyone, I’ll try to be a more productive contributor to the discussions from now on.
June 10th, 2009 at 4:25 pm
Thor:
Now if you could just help us with Franklin….
June 10th, 2009 at 4:33 pm
Bruce – Well, you really have to appreciate him for the flip side to the debate he brings. I like this blog in particular because there are a lot of people with varying opinions who post and for the most part you all treat each other with respect (my last couple posts excluded)
If you want to see what a one sided debate looks like take a gander over at zerhohedge. At least here divergent opinions aren’t deleted from the thread.
June 10th, 2009 at 4:34 pm
Cvienne does make some valid points. I don’t think he’s an angry white guy, but he does seem awfully full of himself. Apparently, he has a lot to prove and is really insecure. I bet he’s either single or has a shallow, plastic woman just like him. He may not actually be like that, but that’s how he portrays himself.
June 10th, 2009 at 4:41 pm
I don’t agree with cvienne on a lot of things, but I enjoy some of his comebacks to franklin411 and some of his asset reflation theses (such as on the oil trade) have enough possible validity that they are worth considering.
That said, is cvienne even in the US?
June 10th, 2009 at 4:43 pm
@horngold:
My very non-shallow and non-plastic woman lets me take a nap sometimes. When I’m sick. With a doctor’s note. Original signature only.
June 10th, 2009 at 4:52 pm
Transor Z: I’m happy you have such a good one. Stay on her good side.
June 10th, 2009 at 5:00 pm
I think much of the budget can be attributed to three liabilities ( current and future). Here’s what I think should be done:
Social Security: We should add a few years to the recipients and tie the benefits to life span forever. People are living too long. Adding 5 years to people who are 30 now (I’m 31) would hurt no one.
Medicare: Also Simple, add 5 years to recipients.
Defense: Simple, end Iraq in 90 days and mandate budget and time restrictions on new projects.
Ugh:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_budget_of_the_United_States
June 10th, 2009 at 6:23 pm
boy- this thread ended up being a hot topic
spencer @ 3:00-
that’s some funny shit dude
cvienne-
dude- you sure got a few folks riled up
June 10th, 2009 at 7:07 pm
http://cryptogon.com/?p=9085
it All starts with our Foods. with that, we should remember “Not pHoods.”
June 10th, 2009 at 8:49 pm
pumping iron
increases testosterone levels
after work out => aggresive
June 10th, 2009 at 10:03 pm
This very pretty picture is basically trying to make the point that Obama is not as big a spender as some critics say.
But that is not true. The TARP [BR: a George W Bush program] and the Stabilization Efforts program account for only half of the increase in the federal budget. The other half is explained by sharp spending increases in (1) Social Security, (2) Medicare, (3) Medicaid and (4) Other Social Programs (+8%, +10%, +29% and +64% respectively!). In fact, if we take away the TARP we see that the federal spending still increases by 25%!! This is unprecedented, by any measure, even when compared to other recessions. To see the evolution of spending growth please click on:
http://mitsloanblog.typepad.com/alejandro/2009/03/answer-to-three-myths-about-the-presidents-budget.html
June 10th, 2009 at 10:56 pm
I look forward to seeing the NYT graphic you posted in the next edition of Edward Tufte’s The Visual Display of Quantitative Information as a recent example of “chartjunk”. Is the horizonatal depiction of time from an alternative universe?
June 11th, 2009 at 4:32 am
I can understand why people (especially well off libertarian types) confuse luck with will/self determination/their own personal awesomeness. It is very tempting to tell yourself I am better off or in better shape than most folks because of my efforts. But just because it is tempting to do doesn’t make it true.
It takes luck not to have a mother who was overly stressed or used substances during pregnancy. It takes luck to be born without complications in the delivery (heck even when the umbilical cord is cut might affect autism rates if you have the wrong genes). It takes luck not to have the wrong genes. It takes luck not to have a learning disability or have a low IQ (and half the population have IQ’s below 100). It takes luck not be born with a physical disability. It takes luck to have parents who have the time to read and talk with you. It takes luck to be able to delay gratification. It takes luck to have parents who were raised well enough by their parents to know how to parent you successfully. It takes luck to not have parents with addictions or mental health issues. It takes luck to grow up in area where hard work and education are valued by the adults around you. It takes luck to be able to go to a school where you can safely learn. It takes luck not have family and friends who are into crime and drugs. It take luck not to have an mental illness (especially common ones like anxiety or depression). Heck it takes luck to be born in a country not at war, or with a rule of law, or educational or economic opportunities.
On and on it goes. No doubt everyone reading this blog was unlucky in some ways. And yes our efforts can overcome some of that bad luck. But very few of us posting here were unlucky in a lot of ways or unlucky in very big ways. The very rich have been very successful at taking giant amounts of income (7 cents off every dollar in 1970 went to the top 1%, 27 cents went to the top 1% in 2006). And part of that success was convincing useful idiots that success is an individual effort that governments got in the way of. But success starts with luck. It takes effort to make the most that luck, absolutely. But for a large portion of the population who were not as lucky to start with government efforts like health care are a huge part of giving them a chance to be successful.
June 15th, 2009 at 12:07 pm
One simple point — Obama has the option to change Bush policies. Mostly he hasn’t. People voted for change, and got Bush-plus instead.
http://alephblog.com/2009/03/13/they-voted-for-change-they-got-bush-plus/
It’s kind of like if you inherit a portfolio to manage, you get a free pass for the first month — after that, it is your responsibility.