Why health care economics is tough

An experimental forum for discussing off-topic subjects

Re: Why health care economics is tough

New postby Hot Air on Sat Feb 23, 2013 5:33 pm

jhu7276 wrote:How about a reference about "the U.S. subsidizing Israel's healthcare"? You continually post about this...what are the actual facts?

:think:

You may have to wait a long time for a rational answer to your question, jhu7276.

My understanding of Brooklyn's political beliefs is that any and all American aid helped fund social programs for other Nations, which American citizens have been consistently denied. The fact that Egypt has received American military aid close to Israel's is a problem for Brooklyn....because in Egypt healthcare isn't as accessible as Israel or America. Brooklyn's theory also breaks down in the light of his largely unfounded grievances against the State of Israel among other issues. :think:

No doubt the population of South Vietnam and South Korea (per American foreign aid) also had greater healthcare access and social benefits before most Americans too. :confusion-shrug:
Those that think that their moral laws, which largely cannot be enforced, will somehow be a solution to the stated problem... have History to prove their error.
User avatar
Hot Air
 
Posts: 2869
Joined: Mon Sep 21, 2009 7:40 pm
Location: NOT in Paradise

Re: Why health care economics is tough

New postby Hot Air on Sat Feb 23, 2013 6:22 pm

I remember recently seeing another series of posts by Brooklyn that used a Steven Colbert quote referencing Jesus and (our lack of) concern for the poor - per a Christian Nation advocacy point of view. I can't seem to find it now (on any thread).

My point is that American Progressive-Liberals use Jesus and the "Christian Nation" emblem for their political goals as much as the Christian Right.

I'm constantly mystified about when and where America was "anointed" as the World's Christian Nation. :confusion-shrug: Can either American progressives or conservatives help me out with my intellectual/spiritual dilemma :?:
Those that think that their moral laws, which largely cannot be enforced, will somehow be a solution to the stated problem... have History to prove their error.
User avatar
Hot Air
 
Posts: 2869
Joined: Mon Sep 21, 2009 7:40 pm
Location: NOT in Paradise

Re: Why health care economics is tough

New postby Brooklyn on Sun Feb 24, 2013 9:51 am

jhu7276 wrote:How about a reference about "the U.S. subsidizing Israel's healthcare"? You continually post about this...what are the actual facts?

:think:



According to wiki, Israel's total gross external debt is US$95 billion, or approximately 41.6% of GDP. According to CS Monitor, Israel has cost the USA over $1.6 trillion (and that was as of 2002):

http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/1209/p16s01-wmgn.html

I have previously posted similar links in the past. Perhaps you missed them. As for total dollars given to Israel, it depends on whose stats you want to believe. Some estimate it is anywhere from $114 to $143 billion both of which represent a huge part of its GDP. Without US subsidies and military support, Israel's economy would have gone bankrupt and its currency worthless. The only reason why its government still exists is because of the dollars it gets from Washington DC. People also conveniently forget that Israel is a self proclaimed religious state. We live under a system of disestablishment where the government must stay out of religious affairs. This is why the government does not subsidize religious institutions such as churches, hospitals, and schools. Yet, a state is a religious institution as well which means government aid to the religious state of Israel is unconstitutional.

This is the truth whether anyone chooses to believe it or not and is an argument that Israel's apologists on this forum cannot win.
"Republicans drove the country into a ditch and are now complaining about the cost of a tow truck" ~ Jim Cornette
User avatar
Brooklyn
 
Posts: 6347
Joined: Wed Jan 12, 2005 6:03 pm
Location: At the nearest buffet table in Minnesota

Re: Why health care economics is tough

New postby Brooklyn on Sun Feb 24, 2013 9:54 am

My understanding of Brooklyn's political beliefs is that any and all American aid helped fund social programs for other Nations



Qaddafi,

If you have a question about what I write you may direct your questions to me.

I, at least, prove the points I make. By contrast for the past 8 years you in your vindictive hate for Iran have been telling us Ahmadinejad is out to start Armageddon but you have yet to provide a shred of evidence.

Still waiting for your "proof".
"Republicans drove the country into a ditch and are now complaining about the cost of a tow truck" ~ Jim Cornette
User avatar
Brooklyn
 
Posts: 6347
Joined: Wed Jan 12, 2005 6:03 pm
Location: At the nearest buffet table in Minnesota

Re: Why health care economics is tough

New postby Brooklyn on Sun Feb 24, 2013 9:55 am

Here's why health care economics is so "tough":


Image



... because it turns out to become quite convenient for the right wingers.
"Republicans drove the country into a ditch and are now complaining about the cost of a tow truck" ~ Jim Cornette
User avatar
Brooklyn
 
Posts: 6347
Joined: Wed Jan 12, 2005 6:03 pm
Location: At the nearest buffet table in Minnesota

Re: Why health care economics is tough

New postby Brooklyn on Mon Feb 25, 2013 7:10 am

Tea Baggers hate government health care:


Image


... except when it benefits them.
"Republicans drove the country into a ditch and are now complaining about the cost of a tow truck" ~ Jim Cornette
User avatar
Brooklyn
 
Posts: 6347
Joined: Wed Jan 12, 2005 6:03 pm
Location: At the nearest buffet table in Minnesota

Re: Why health care economics is tough

New postby SClaxattack on Mon Feb 25, 2013 10:19 am

Brooklyn wrote:Tea Baggers hate government health care:


Image


... except when it benefits them.


Another ridiculously disingenuous cartoon. Let's play out this analogy:

Your parents tell you and your two siblings that they have $12,000 and would like to give it to their three children if they'll agree. Your two siblings immediately agree, but you take the position that it's your parents' money and they should keep it. Majority rules, and your parents decide to give their children the money. Do you let your siblings take $6000 each out of principal, or do you recognize the decision has been made against you and take $4000 of it?
SClaxattack
 
Posts: 1494
Joined: Wed Apr 22, 2009 1:35 pm

Re: Why health care economics is tough

New postby a fan on Mon Feb 25, 2013 10:43 am

Wait, sclaxattack.... is this analogy about Obamacare and getting that "free money" from the Fed? Or do you think that the States are holding on principle---- that they don't want money from the Fed. for doing nothing?
User avatar
a fan
 
Posts: 8208
Joined: Mon Dec 20, 2004 12:35 pm
Location: Denver, Colorado

Re: Why health care economics is tough

New postby SClaxattack on Mon Feb 25, 2013 10:50 am

A fan - my comment was specifically about the cartoon, and the cartoon's attempt to shame states that go the route of accepting the money. There may be some states that don't accept based on principal, and some that accept because the money is being offered.
SClaxattack
 
Posts: 1494
Joined: Wed Apr 22, 2009 1:35 pm

Re: Why health care economics is tough

New postby TheWalrus on Mon Feb 25, 2013 2:42 pm

I'm afraid I don't see your point, SC - you're just describing what's happening. I don't think anyone's ashamed.

Since the SCOTUS struck down the Medicaid expansion requirement, states have two choices: A) continue as they currently are, accepting somewhere around 75% of their Medicaid costs from the fed (that percentage being highly variable based on in-state economic conditions, which makes it a nightmare to administer), or B) expand and reform their program to cover additional people in a more efficient manner (medical homes, fee payment changes), while letting the Feds pay for 100% of it.

I don't see how a state legislator or administrator could go with option A. The money is there, and it is undeniably better for the state. We can debate all day about whether it's better for the fed's bottom line, but the responsibility of a governor or state legislator is to the state first. Harming your state's health care system for purely ideological reasons does not make any sense to me.

Governors like Rick Scott have started to realize this - after kicking up a fiscal fuss for a while, they realize the citizens of their states would rather have improved health care than worry about the bottom line in DC. Same reason every state has a drinking age of 21. Same reason for pretty much every entitlement we have.
"Many people consider the things government does for them to be social progress but they regard the things government does for others as socialism"
Earl Warren

"My water's clean, I don't ask questions."
User avatar
TheWalrus
 
Posts: 3063
Joined: Mon Jan 11, 2010 7:52 pm

Re: Why health care economics is tough

New postby SClaxattack on Mon Feb 25, 2013 3:27 pm

Wal - I guess I was trying to be tactful. My point was to express my distaste for some of the visuals and associated comments posted in the WC that are, in my opinion, posted solely to foment polarization and stereotyping.
Last edited by SClaxattack on Mon Feb 25, 2013 4:15 pm, edited 1 time in total.
SClaxattack
 
Posts: 1494
Joined: Wed Apr 22, 2009 1:35 pm

Re: Why health care economics is tough

New postby TheWalrus on Mon Feb 25, 2013 4:10 pm

Ah, "tact." I'm not very familiar with it :lol:
"Many people consider the things government does for them to be social progress but they regard the things government does for others as socialism"
Earl Warren

"My water's clean, I don't ask questions."
User avatar
TheWalrus
 
Posts: 3063
Joined: Mon Jan 11, 2010 7:52 pm

Re: Why health care economics is tough

New postby jhu7276 on Mon Feb 25, 2013 10:27 pm

Brooklyn wrote:
jhu7276 wrote:How about a reference about "the U.S. subsidizing Israel's healthcare"? You continually post about this...what are the actual facts?

:think:



According to wiki, Israel's total gross external debt is US$95 billion, or approximately 41.6% of GDP. According to CS Monitor, Israel has cost the USA over $1.6 trillion (and that was as of 2002):

http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/1209/p16s01-wmgn.html

I have previously posted similar links in the past. Perhaps you missed them. As for total dollars given to Israel, it depends on whose stats you want to believe. Some estimate it is anywhere from $114 to $143 billion both of which represent a huge part of its GDP. Without US subsidies and military support, Israel's economy would have gone bankrupt and its currency worthless. The only reason why its government still exists is because of the dollars it gets from Washington DC. People also conveniently forget that Israel is a self proclaimed religious state. We live under a system of disestablishment where the government must stay out of religious affairs. This is why the government does not subsidize religious institutions such as churches, hospitals, and schools. Yet, a state is a religious institution as well which means government aid to the religious state of Israel is unconstitutional.

This is the truth whether anyone chooses to believe it or not and is an argument that Israel's apologists on this forum cannot win.
What I'm interested in is how much of this goes to fund Israel's health care system...not how much total aid they receive...your reference doesn't specify...this is a thread on health care, not total economic aid packages...if the Israelis receive a similar health care "aid" percentage to other countries that we give aid to ... then your example (which always uses Israel) really is non-specific...

:confusion-shrug:
"showoff shown up at showdown"
"It's your attitude not your aptitude that determines your altitude"
(both from fortune cookies)
User avatar
jhu7276
Moderator
 
Posts: 4633
Joined: Sat Dec 04, 2004 9:05 pm
Location: just outside the City of Bro Love, USA

Re: Why health care economics is tough

New postby laxman3221 on Mon Feb 25, 2013 11:48 pm

jhu7276 wrote:
Brooklyn wrote:
jhu7276 wrote:How about a reference about "the U.S. subsidizing Israel's healthcare"? You continually post about this...what are the actual facts?

:think:



According to wiki, Israel's total gross external debt is US$95 billion, or approximately 41.6% of GDP. According to CS Monitor, Israel has cost the USA over $1.6 trillion (and that was as of 2002):

What I'm interested in is how much of this goes to fund Israel's health care system...not how much total aid they receive...your reference doesn't specify...this is a thread on health care, not total economic aid packages...if the Israelis receive a similar health care "aid" percentage to other countries that we give aid to ... then your example (which always uses Israel) really is non-specific...

:confusion-shrug:



Whoa, whoa, whoa... you expect Brookie to have facts to back up a statement he posted?

ImageImage
People around here are scared of inanimate objects.

If you were in my tax bracket, you wouldn't be shouting such socialist propaganda.
Or wearing such shoddy clothes.
User avatar
laxman3221
 
Posts: 5143
Joined: Sun Sep 03, 2006 9:20 pm
Location: I'm at 1st and 1st. Wait a minute, how can a street intersect into itself? I must be at the nexus of

Re: Why health care economics is tough

New postby Hot Air on Tue Feb 26, 2013 9:48 am

Brooklyn wrote:
jhu7276 wrote:How about a reference about "the U.S. subsidizing Israel's healthcare"? You continually post about this...what are the actual facts?

:think:



According to wiki, Israel's total gross external debt is US$95 billion, or approximately 41.6% of GDP. According to CS Monitor, Israel has cost the USA over $1.6 trillion (and that was as of 2002):

http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/1209/p16s01-wmgn.html

I'm not sure that article is the CS Monitor's official position or just an estimate from an "economist" that they decided to publish.

At least some of the Stauffer's (cited by CSMonitor) numbers are pulled from an economy sized orifice.
In 1973, for instance, Arab nations attacked Israel in an attempt to win back territories Israel had conquered in the 1967 war. President Nixon resupplied Israel with US arms, triggering the Arab oil embargo against the US...

Afraid that Arab nations might use their oil clout again, the US set up a Strategic Petroleum Reserve. That has since cost, conservatively, $134 billion, Stauffer reckons.
http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/1209/p16s01-wmgn.html

That would mean SPR oil cost the USA almost $200/barrel.
As of December 21, 2012, the inventory was 694.9 million barrels (110,480,000 m3)...The total value of the crude in the SPR is approximately $64.5 billion USD. The price paid for the oil is $20.1 billion (an average of $28.42 per barrel).... Almost $4 billion was spent on the facilities. The decision to store in caverns was made in order to reduce costs; the Department of Energy claims it is roughly 10 times cheaper to store oil below surface...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_ ... um_Reserve

Mr Stauffer's conservative reckoning is only off by a factor of 6. A number of his other estimates also look grossly exaggerated, and he throws in everything including the kitchen sink.
US Jewish charities and organizations have remitted grants or bought Israel bonds worth $50 billion to $60 billion. Though private in origin, the money is "a net drain" on the United States economy, says Stauffer.
http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/1209/p16s01-wmgn.html

Now we have the Charity Police ala Mr. Stauffer. Apparently when I or anyone contributes to charities that support relief efforts outside the USA, it is UnPatriotic. :doh:
Brooklyn wrote:People also conveniently forget that Israel is a self proclaimed religious state. We live under a system of disestablishment where the government must stay out of religious affairs. This is why the government does not subsidize religious institutions such as churches, hospitals, and schools. Yet, a state is a religious institution as well which means government aid to the religious state of Israel is unconstitutional.

Great Britain and many other European Nations also have directly funded State Religion. Was FDR's assistance to Britain during WW2 also unconstitutional :?:

IMO, the refrain is clear and has been repeated for centuries: We'd all be better off without Jews and Israel too. :roll:

Maybe someone should do a quick study on the total costs (war and societal) of bigoted tyrants which had goals to persecute minorities - including Jews?
Last edited by Hot Air on Tue Feb 26, 2013 10:16 am, edited 1 time in total.
Those that think that their moral laws, which largely cannot be enforced, will somehow be a solution to the stated problem... have History to prove their error.
User avatar
Hot Air
 
Posts: 2869
Joined: Mon Sep 21, 2009 7:40 pm
Location: NOT in Paradise

Re: Why health care economics is tough

New postby Brooklyn on Tue Feb 26, 2013 10:16 am

jhu7276 wrote:What I'm interested in is how much of this goes to fund Israel's health care system...not how much total aid they receive...your reference doesn't specify...this is a thread on health care, not total economic aid packages...if the Israelis receive a similar health care "aid" percentage to other countries that we give aid to ... then your example (which always uses Israel) really is non-specific...

:confusion-shrug:



Perhaps you and Laxxi and use some of your imagination. Ask yourselves, how long would Israel's debt ridden economy last without the money given to it by Washington, DC. Use just a little bit of logic and common sense so that you can readily ascertain that its currency and its government will not last long at all. In fact, it would have gone to hell by the late 1960s and we would have had peace in that region. Re how much is actually directed to Israel's socialist Ministry of Health is kept a big secret. Under the 1995 law all people in Israel are required to participate in the HMO's. This, of course, is a socialist mandate which nobody objects to though we pay for it.

Now consider this: "Cost of medical education: In Israel, most of the costs of medical education are borne by the government, with students paying less than $3,000 per year. In the US, students often pay 10–20 times as much." That's socialism - socialism that is paid for by you the taxpayer through the annual billion dollar plus subsidies given every year.

http://www.jhf.org/Resources/PaperPdfs/ ... EP-ENG.pdf


Here are a couple of blurbs from wiki:

"Israel has maintained a system of socialized health care since its establishment in 1948 ... Israel is emerging as a popular destination for medical tourists ... Others come to Israel, perhaps most commonly from the US, because they can receive quality health care at a fraction of the cost it would be at home, for both surgeries and in-vitro fertilization procedures ..."


I have already posted proof that USA's annual giveaway to that state constitute a substantial part of its GDP. If you want further specifics as to how much of the annual giveaways have gone into the socialized health care program you may write to these people:

http://www.health.gov.il


They will answer all of your questions.
"Republicans drove the country into a ditch and are now complaining about the cost of a tow truck" ~ Jim Cornette
User avatar
Brooklyn
 
Posts: 6347
Joined: Wed Jan 12, 2005 6:03 pm
Location: At the nearest buffet table in Minnesota

Re: Why health care economics is tough

New postby Brooklyn on Tue Feb 26, 2013 10:25 am

Qaddafi says,

Great Britain and many other European Nations also have directly funded State Religion. Was FDR's assistance to Britain during WW2 also unconstitutional :?:

IMO, the refrain is clear and has been repeated for centuries: We'd all be better off without Jews and Israel too.



Great Britain does not proclaim itself to be a religious state.

You right wingers continually say government is the problem, not the solution to domestic problems. Yet, when it comes to foreign affairs you continue to say that government is the exclusive solution, not the problem. This shows that your "principles" are baseless. As for the refrain you employ, once again, it is a sign of right wing delusionalism, desperation, and projection. That is why you lose every debate on this forum.
"Republicans drove the country into a ditch and are now complaining about the cost of a tow truck" ~ Jim Cornette
User avatar
Brooklyn
 
Posts: 6347
Joined: Wed Jan 12, 2005 6:03 pm
Location: At the nearest buffet table in Minnesota

Re: Why health care economics is tough

New postby Spartan22 on Tue Feb 26, 2013 10:29 am

Brooklyn wrote:
jhu7276 wrote:What I'm interested in is how much of this goes to fund Israel's health care system...not how much total aid they receive...your reference doesn't specify...this is a thread on health care, not total economic aid packages...if the Israelis receive a similar health care "aid" percentage to other countries that we give aid to ... then your example (which always uses Israel) really is non-specific...

:confusion-shrug:



Perhaps you and Laxxi and use some of your imagination. Ask yourselves, how long would Israel's debt ridden economy last without the money given to it by Washington, DC. Use just a little bit of logic and common sense so that you can readily ascertain that its currency and its government will not last long at all. In fact, it would have gone to hell by the late 1960s and we would have had peace in that region. Re how much is actually directed to Israel's socialist Ministry of Health is kept a big secret. Under the 1995 law all people in Israel are required to participate in the HMO's. This, of course, is a socialist mandate which nobody objects to though we pay for it.

Now consider this: "Cost of medical education: In Israel, most of the costs of medical education are borne by the government, with students paying less than $3,000 per year. In the US, students often pay 10–20 times as much." That's socialism - socialism that is paid for by you the taxpayer through the annual billion dollar plus subsidies given every year.

http://www.jhf.org/Resources/PaperPdfs/ ... EP-ENG.pdf


Here are a couple of blurbs from wiki:

"Israel has maintained a system of socialized health care since its establishment in 1948 ... Israel is emerging as a popular destination for medical tourists ... Others come to Israel, perhaps most commonly from the US, because they can receive quality health care at a fraction of the cost it would be at home, for both surgeries and in-vitro fertilization procedures ..."


I have already posted proof that USA's annual giveaway to that state constitute a substantial part of its GDP. If you want further specifics as to how much of the annual giveaways have gone into the socialized health care program you may write to these people:

http://www.health.gov.il


They will answer all of your questions.


wow! If Israel was gone (in the 60s as you said) we would have peace in the region??:?? WOW... I am not surprised at your writing this, and even have to give you credit for your self exposure, as front and center as its ever been. WOW...maybe I misinterpreted??
User avatar
Spartan22
 
Posts: 2921
Joined: Thu Dec 13, 2012 11:59 am

Re: Why health care economics is tough

New postby Brooklyn on Tue Feb 26, 2013 10:35 am

wow! If Israel {government} was gone (in the 60s as you said) we would have peace in the region??:?? WOW... I am not surprised at your writing this, and even have to give you credit for your self exposure, as front and center as its ever been. WOW...maybe I misinterpreted??



Difficult to account for right wing delusionalism so you will have to answer that question yourself. But there can be no question that Israel's government would be bankrupted by now and it would have had to reach a peace accord with Palestinians. The most likely scenario would be a one state solution and that would definitely mean peace.
"Republicans drove the country into a ditch and are now complaining about the cost of a tow truck" ~ Jim Cornette
User avatar
Brooklyn
 
Posts: 6347
Joined: Wed Jan 12, 2005 6:03 pm
Location: At the nearest buffet table in Minnesota

Re: Why health care economics is tough

New postby Spartan22 on Tue Feb 26, 2013 10:39 am

difficult to account for left wing delusional so I am going to forget that muslims are killing muslims Arabs killing arabs palestinians TURNING down their own statehood. (Arafat) and well I have answered the question myself. WOW....ever vigilant..especially concerning "smart guys" Back to healthcare econ.
User avatar
Spartan22
 
Posts: 2921
Joined: Thu Dec 13, 2012 11:59 am

Sponsor
 

PreviousNext

Return to The Water Cooler

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot], Strannywastheman, tech37 and 16 guests