Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: geode00 who wrote (192315)	7/20/2006 3:52:27 PM
From: Constant Reader	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Schools are not parents....If parents aren't going to take 100% responsibility for their children then they shouldn't be having them. Yep. You got that right! Unfortunately for us, every poll ever taken by politicians in both parties proves this stance ranks as one of the surest vote-losers you can name (and among the largest in terms of percentage). Statements like "The schools are a mess," "Something must be done," or "There's too much babysitting and not enough educating going on" receive massive public support. The moment someone says "Responsibility begins in the home" or "Parents must take responsibility for their children's education (or deportment)," the results are the mirror reverse of the others. ----- Re: Medical care: Gee, this is on top of some 100,000 - 200,000 people being killed or injured from medical malpractice. Those numbers seem high, but even so, is there any reason to believe that those numbers would change under any other system? What is different in almost all countries that have a nationalized medical care system is that lawsuits for malpractice are either banned or so severely limited as to make them not worth filing. In the unlikely event that we nationalized medical care in the United States, what do you think the odds are that all of those lawyers in Congress would ever turn on their brethren and cut off such a lucrative source of income? Close to zero, I think. In traditional Medicare, just 2 percent of the money goes to overhead. Private sector plans, by contrast, spend an average of 15 percent on overhead. That sounds about right - I've seen similar numbers. Contrary to popular belief, medicare is technologically very up-to-date and rather efficient in paying claims. Of course, you do know that they contract out almost all of that work to private companies, and have done so for at least two decades, don't you? (Now that I think of it, I can't help wondering if the 2% represents only the direct federal cost of administration and the payments to private contractors are lumped into another category ;-) Americans have fewer doctors per capita than most Western countries. True, but we have 30% more doctors per capita than Canada, for example. (2.8/1,000 vs. 2.1/1,000) We are less satisfied with our health care than our counterparts in other countries. Perhaps we have higher expectations. but most of the wealthier Western countries have more CT scanners than the United States does, and Switzerland, Japan, Austria, and Finland all have more MRI machines per capita. Do you have a source for that? "Most" is rather ambiguous, as it could include a whole bunch of tiny nations like Luxembourg. I notice that none of the large nations of Europe are mentioned. I knew Canada would not be. I was once told that there were more MRI's in Sacramento, California than in all of Canada. Doctors here perform more high-end medical procedures, such as coronary angioplasties, than in other countries I can't help wondering how many heart attacks were prevented by all those "high-end" angioplasties, how many open-heart surgeries were avoided and how many deaths deferred. I know from personal experience that no one recommended my first angioplasty as a lark. a country that switched to Japanese cars the moment they were more reliable Hyperbole Alert! ;-) That's simply not true, otherwise Ford, GM, and Chrsler would all have gone under about 30 years ago. We eliminate the SS cap on income (currently, I think, it's at $90K) and the problem goes away Probably, but highly unlikely to ever happen as that group is far and away the most likely to vote and is also the most likely to fund campaigns. Not too likely to pass Congress until it is too late is my guess.

To: geode00 who wrote (192315)	7/20/2006 6:55:33 PM
From: Brumar89	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

I do not want my tax money going to a private school that preaches rapture, for example .. and presumably any other Christian teaching. I understand your feeling, and I don't think your tax dollars should pay for religious instruction you disagree with. But I know that 95%+ of what goes on in religious schools is normal scholastic activity. There is no reason your tax dollars couldn't pay for that. ----------------- I see your link to an article quoting 2% overhead for Medicare and 15% for "private sector plans". Googling I see this claim is made over and over, but with different numbers. Sometimes Medicare's overhead is quoted as being under 2%, under 4%, 2%, <5%, 3%, 5%, 3.2%, etc. And then this is contrasted with the allegedly wasteful private sector where overhead is 13%, or 30%, or 12-30%, 24%, etc. I don't believe any of this until I see I know what is behind the numbers, whichever set of numbers you choose. What makes up "overhead"? No, I'm not asking your opinion. I know you don't know. a health-care system that leaves its citizenry pulling out their teeth with pliers..." I don't believe Americans are pulling their teeth with pliers. And I question the rest of his facts as well. A lot of people on the left have a position that they want socialized medicine (fully socialized that is, about half of our system is already socialized) and they will say whatever will push their position. Gee, this is on top of some 100,000 - 200,000 people being killed or injured from medical malpractice. Ah, socialization of medical care will eliminate malpractice. That's great! Not only will will it be super-efficient, doctors and nurses will stop making mistakes. ------------------------------------- -------------But what about when that ratio is 3:1? Or 2.5:1? We eliminate the SS cap on income (currently, I think, it's at $90K) and the problem goes away until the baby boomers keel over and the baby busters have the mini baby boomers pay for them. Nope, that won't be enough. They keep raising the ceiling and very few people make more than the ceiling. Scott Burns and Laurence Kotlikoff have written a book on the subject: amazon.com FYI, it is highly critical of BOTH Republican and Democrat politicians handling of the issue.