[Rhodes22-list] Wally - one last try

[Steve]

Wally
The article tell you what the problem is.  Health care
costs.  It also tell you that health care has been
rising out of control withOUT increase life span or
improving standard of health.  

The 2 conponent of this are what I just mension. 
Lawsuit & liability inssurance. 

Bush Tort reform will fix all this.  Also, as the
article mention; as compared to GDP; the deficit is
NOT out of line.  Our country is the biggest on the
plantet.  We are the big dog.  And we will always have
a lot of debt.  Everyone, people, business, corps; all
have debt.  So will government.  
Steve



--- Wally Buck <tnrhodey at hotmail.com> wrote:

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



		
__________________________________ 
Do you Yahoo!? 
The all-new My Yahoo! - What will yours do?
http://my.yahoo.com