Broke....except:

dandelion

Superior Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Sep 25, 2009
Posts
13,297
Media
21
Likes
2,705
Points
358
Location
UK
Verification
View
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
two years on kidney dialysis at $10,000/week paid for by Medicare.
Is this a mistake? That is a ludicrous figure, I just had a quick google which found a figure of £35,00 for hospital based haemodialysis for 1 year in 2007, faling to £20,000 for home based peritoneal dialysis in the NHS
 
Last edited:

Jason

Superior Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Aug 26, 2004
Posts
15,616
Media
50
Likes
4,782
Points
433
Location
London (Greater London, England)
Verification
View
Sexuality
90% Gay, 10% Straight
Gender
Male
just skimmed the long post above starting "we are not broke", we being the USA.

The USA has a debt which is unsustainable with present tax and spend policies. Politicians in both camps are telling fibs to the American people - the truth is inconvenient. Broadly the are two sorts of possibilities:
1) The USA increases tax, particularly spending taxes including tax on gas, to levels which almost everyone in the USA finds inconceivable, to levels that will hurt a lot. At the same time the USA makes massive cuts, far bigger than most in the Tea Party dream of. The crucial concept is that it has to be BOTH higher taxes and spending cuts. And yes it will kill growth. This is the economists' solution. Of course it is politically impossible.
2) The USA tickles at tax and spending changes to play to the sensibilities of voters. This will force quantitative easing leading to inflation and devaluation of the US$. It will work and may be something that the politicians can fudge so that people don't notice it all that much. However a side effect is that the dollar and the economy will be far more vulnerable to international events, and the USA will be forced into more co-operation with other nations.

I assume that the politicians will not be able to make 1 work, so 2 will be the future.
 

Redwyvre

Cherished Member
Joined
Jan 22, 2011
Posts
608
Media
0
Likes
320
Points
128
Location
Minneapolis (Minnesota, United States)
Sexuality
99% Gay, 1% Straight
Gender
Male
Is this a mistake? That is a ludicrous figure, I just had a quick google which found a figure of £35,00 for hospital based haemodialysis for 1 year in 2007, faling to £20,000 for home based peritoneal dialysis in the NHS[/QUOTE
Sorry, my numbers for his treatment were not correct. He went to a clinic 3 times per week for the last 17 months of his life each visit cost between $1,200 to $1,800. He died last fall.
 
D

deleted213967

Guest
I assume that the politicians will not be able to make 1 work, so 2 will be the future.

This (in part) explains why the EUR looks as solid as it does, in spite of the public and private financial woes some of the weaker, profligate Eurozone economies find themselves into.
 

Jason

Superior Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Aug 26, 2004
Posts
15,616
Media
50
Likes
4,782
Points
433
Location
London (Greater London, England)
Verification
View
Sexuality
90% Gay, 10% Straight
Gender
Male
This (in part) explains why the EUR looks as solid as it does, in spite of the public and private financial woes some of the weaker, profligate Eurozone economies find themselves into.

Agreed the euro looks ok in part because the dollar also has its problems. But the euro cannot follow option 2 as its construction prohibits QE. The dollar will survive; the euro must fail. Hence the present crazy revaluation of the Swiss Franc.
 

dandelion

Superior Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Sep 25, 2009
Posts
13,297
Media
21
Likes
2,705
Points
358
Location
UK
Verification
View
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
Ah but you are missing the point that the dollar cannot fall either. People with money have to place it in some currency. Governments do not control the value of their currency, external investors do. There is no good place for the money to go.

Theres four possibilities
1) everythings fine and plenty of time to adjust things later if they do not sort themselves out naturally. (US government position?)
2) We need to borrow and boost spending to boost the economy, which will naturally increase tax revenue and then everything will be fine
3) We need to balance the books by cutting spending/increasing taxes because it just isnt possible to borrow to tide us over.
4) Everything is so bad that whatever we do it is impossible to solve the debt crisis and default is inevitable. In that case we might as well keep on spending till the credit runs out. (US government fall back position?)

Menwhile, someone ought to planning structural reforms of the financial system so that either a similar crisis can be prevented in the future, or some sort of managed recovery can be made from the coming crash. This hasnt happened at all. Head in the sand denial of a problem with the financial industry, or powerless to do anything?
 
Last edited:

Jason

Superior Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Aug 26, 2004
Posts
15,616
Media
50
Likes
4,782
Points
433
Location
London (Greater London, England)
Verification
View
Sexuality
90% Gay, 10% Straight
Gender
Male
5) Sovereign and bank debt is transferred into individuals' debt. This is what is happening in the UK, and is the way of dealing with a vast nation debt. If a country defaults, as Greece surely must, then the debt is passed ultimately both to individuals of that country and other countries (usually via a sovereign debt stage). US politicians don't seem yet to have made the decision, but post- election they will go for this option.

The people of nations without much sovereign debt, say Switzerland and Norway, will get very very very rich.
 

dandelion

Superior Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Sep 25, 2009
Posts
13,297
Media
21
Likes
2,705
Points
358
Location
UK
Verification
View
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
In the case of the US the question would be, which election? So you are predicting US default in the near future. I dont see why switzerland or norway will get rich, more likely they will be suffering from grossly overvalued currencies. Better off if they had a nice comfy fixed currency shared throughout europe?
 

B_crackoff

Experimental Member
Joined
Jan 17, 2010
Posts
1,726
Media
0
Likes
3
Points
73
Im not aware there is much evidence the Uk health system Is inefficient at all, certainly compared to the US. Over the last 30 years all sort of schemes has been tried to improve its efficiency and none has shown any result except to increase the proportion of spending on management.

We now have nurses who do nothing to clean up their wards, unlike 30 years ago, & also we now have nurses refusing to talk to patients, instead wearing big signs saying "don't talk to me" instead.

Now all the hapless victim of their CDiff, MRSA, & every other iatrogenic demise or ailment (I call it legal butchery), will only be able to talk to someone unqualified. Hooray - what a caring fucking system!

Nurses wear 'do not disturb' signs during drug rounds - Telegraph :biggrin1:

The fact that they've spent so much on both management, administration & consultancy underlines their inefficiency & waste.

You'll have to trust me here, but the £5K a day it costs to get a single Big 4 bigwig consultant, let alone their poor minions in, in order to advise, or anyone else, is money better spent thrown into the furnace to keep the patients warm!

I've said before - it would be more efficient to move longterm care lock, stock & barrel to the 3rd world - & I'm telling you now that in a decade or so, this option will be freely discussed!

The only way to make it more efficient is to cut management & funding - shockingly this is the kind of kick the system needs. When funding is scarcer, it's generally better employed.

Sorry, my numbers for his treatment were not correct. He went to a clinic 3 times per week for the last 17 months of his life each visit cost between $1,200 to $1,800. He died last fall.

The Medicare costs are a clear RIP OFF in the USA. The US Govt gives enough for a decent healthcare system in the States, but so much gets swallowed up by doctor's costs, profits, & legal fees - it's an absolute disgrace.

There was this golden age after ww2 when rationing persisted and then the period after when people were forced by availability to have healthy diets. They dont like it though. So which side of this debate do you come down, tax bad foods to discourage consuming them, or deliberately dont so that people die sooner thereby avoiding the care costs crisis?

It's called freedom of choice!

I'd say if you're gonna tax sins, tax them all! If you're not going to tax them all, don't tax any! A light that burns twice as brightly may only live half as long - but oh what a life!

We have a ridiculous state of affairs where people who haven't worked anything like as long or hard enough are relying on people that won't get the same benefits to support them, & now they're discussing euthanasia, when more fags, booze & fatty food might have offed a few more befoer, & with happier memories. I don't support suicide at all - JUST LIVE HARD AND WELL - Fuck supporting some puritanical ancient kill joys!

BTW What they don't say about rationing though, is that everyone had reallly bad skin!


Basically, this is bollocks. Since we throw away most of what we spend money on, the reality is we need far less than we consume now. Having a shorter working life or shorter working week is a question of more efficient lifestyle. No one ever discusses this. Instead we have the insanity of perpetual 'growth', which means perpetually increasing waste.

People living longer without being economically active is a FACTPublic sector workers expect to work 39 years, then get 27 years retirement - my ass! They have to work longer - it isn't sustainable, & those on pensions now should feel the cuts now too that they are burdening their children & children's children with.

Retirement was only meant to be when you couldn't physically do any work at all! So either a shorter retirement, or a smaller pension is the answer - at which point I KNOW you'll see more people working longer! It's not like they can't downscale their hours.

It's repellent that the postwar generation are the absolute worse for believing in entitlement THEY HAVEN@T EARNED. What an absolute shower - no wonder it's endemic to our culture.

I agree with your other points!




So better get behind the lobby demanding the right to assisted suicide.

Why? Smoke, drink, eat well, climb mountains, & parachute jump while you can! It's called having fun while you can, yeah, baby yeah.
 
Last edited:

Jason

Superior Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Aug 26, 2004
Posts
15,616
Media
50
Likes
4,782
Points
433
Location
London (Greater London, England)
Verification
View
Sexuality
90% Gay, 10% Straight
Gender
Male
Dandelion I'm saying that the USA will NOT default - though I still think the US position is dire. Ditto the UK. By contrast with the well-constructed US$ and £ the EuroZone has an abysmal construct in the euro. Either politicians are proactive in dismantling the euro or every nation in the EuroZone faces default.

Switzerland has temporary problems with a currency that is revaluing very quickly. Long term it makes imports very cheap. Exports are primarily financial products and luxury items, which will not be overly hit by the high CHF. The Swiss will do very well.
 

Phil Ayesho

Superior Member
Joined
Feb 26, 2008
Posts
6,189
Media
0
Likes
2,790
Points
333
Location
San Diego
Sexuality
69% Straight, 31% Gay
Gender
Male
just skimmed the long post above starting "we are not broke", we being the USA.

The USA has a debt which is unsustainable with present tax and spend policies. Politicians in both camps are telling fibs to the American people - the truth is inconvenient. Broadly the are two sorts of possibilities:
1) The USA increases tax, particularly spending taxes including tax on gas, to levels which almost everyone in the USA finds inconceivable, to levels that will hurt a lot. At the same time the USA makes massive cuts, far bigger than most in the Tea Party dream of. The crucial concept is that it has to be BOTH higher taxes and spending cuts. And yes it will kill growth. This is the economists' solution. Of course it is politically impossible.
2) The USA tickles at tax and spending changes to play to the sensibilities of voters. This will force quantitative easing leading to inflation and devaluation of the US$. It will work and may be something that the politicians can fudge so that people don't notice it all that much. However a side effect is that the dollar and the economy will be far more vulnerable to international events, and the USA will be forced into more co-operation with other nations.

I assume that the politicians will not be able to make 1 work, so 2 will be the future.

incorrect.
Do some math.
If Bush had NOT passed his TWO tax reductions for the Rich... There would be NO DEBT CRISIS today... even WITH the two wars.

That would have kept tax rates on the top 2% of earners at the same record LOW they enjoyed during Clinton's presidency. And it would Not have raised taxes on the middle class and poor.

If Bush had not decided to enter into the two concurrent and useless wars, as well as left tax rates where they were in the 90's, then the US deficit would have been HALF paid off by the end of his presidency.
( even with the dotcom bubble collapse )

If he had engaged in some actual infrastructure spending during the mild recession we had in 2001, which would have built the economy back up on the basis of real work, as opposed to trying to fake a recovery thru deregulated mortgage debt,... Then the US deficit would have been nearly entirely paid off by 2008.

All he had to do was continue Clintons economic and tax policies.

Instead, the GOP cut taxes on job creators... and 8 years of analysis proves unequivocally that it did not create ANY jobs... and that, in fact, real wages fell year on year for all but the top 2% who benefited from GOP tax cuts and GOP war deficit spending ( corporate welfare on borrowed money)

So much for the vaunted GOP 'fiscal responsibility'.

The sad truth is that a relatively minor tax increase on the rich would solve the long term debt issue, if it were in conjunction with massive government spending on infrastructure. Even if that spending is borrowed funds.
Interest rates have never been lower, and everyone want to lend us money at a deal.

If you need a new car... you would be foolish not to buy it when interest rates are at a record low... because it means the car costs you less.

When tax rates on corporations and the wealthy were higher, things were generally better.

Even Ronald Reagan, whose first two years were marked by the highest interest rates in history, and a devastated economy, managed to pull the nation out of recession... BY RAISING TAXES on the rich and corporations.
It worked so well the first time, he did it twice.

This is a crisis caused by fiscal stupidity.

By 25 years of folks in power who imagine the imbecility of Ayn Rand qualifies as an actual economic model.

It doesn't. Even Alan Greenspan, a Rand acolyte of the first water, had to admit, on camera, that his entire world view was wrong. You can not trust the wealthy to self police, or self correct.

Government is necessary, and the US government, in particular, is pretty damn good.
The notion that government is bad is the core kernel of idiocy that was sold to the american people by the GOP.

The truth is... Government needs more money to provide the services and infrastructure that ENABLE free enterprise to compete on a global level.

For the rich and corporations to be sitting on record size piles of cash is proof that they do not NEED more tax breaks. They already enjoy record profits... and they aren't spending it, because the GOP policies have destroyed the income of the middle class.
We cant afford to buy...

Stop giving money to the CEOs of Haliburton and Goldman Sachs...
Start paying it out to blue collar workers to rebuild this nations basic services.
Stop all GOP attacks on Labor unions and other aspects that force corporations to pay workers a living wage.


Mit romney says corporations are people... and that may be true... legally.

But are these corporate people CITIZENS?
Can they be drafted? Serve on Juries?

And why the heck should these corporate people get special treatment on their taxes?

They sure as hell do not care about the US... there is money to be made in China, so they are firing US workers to focus on making money there.


Its great to go to China and be able to find a familiar cup of starbucks coffee...

If you are one of the few who can afford to fly to China, and can afford a cup of Starbucks coffee.
 
D

deleted15807

Guest
The notion that government is bad is the core kernel of idiocy that was sold to the american people by the GOP.

It's the keystone pillar that has been the top-down message since Goldwater. You need to convince the people that taxes are bad because government is bad. Once that idea is firmly in place you can begin dismantling the government, well at least the branches of government we don't like (Medicaid, Medicare, Social Security, etc) but keep defense and justice since we need law and order to protect the wealth(y).
 

dandelion

Superior Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Sep 25, 2009
Posts
13,297
Media
21
Likes
2,705
Points
358
Location
UK
Verification
View
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
If Bush had NOT passed his TWO tax reductions for the Rich... There would be NO DEBT CRISIS today... even WITH the two wars.
I like the analysis but as ever the devil is in the detail.

You did not mention the small matter of the world banking crash. Even in your scenario, this would have struck out of the blue and been just as destructive. We would be in a similar situation to now, except the US somewhat less indebted. The problem is that the whole world is grossly in debt, not just the US government. At present the US government is at threat of downrating because it cannot get its political act together. This does not seem to have affected its ability to raise money in the slightest, so in that respect matters are unaffected. The world crash was not solved but a sticking plaster was placed over the problems. One factor led to the crash, mortgage loans, but there are several others queuing up to initiate round two.

The second problem is the difficulty of comparing might have beens. economic conditions in the US have changed since past times when tax, borrow and spend worked. So maybe this time it is not just the cuts in taxes which are to blame for deteriorating conditions. The US has lost its traditional technological edge, cannot compete with cheap labour in a spreading range of industries and suffers from the developed world disease of major home grown companies moving abroad.

The cure advocated for this last problem, cutting taxes until you are the cheapest place in the world to base a business is flatly incompatible with the need to tax to raise revenue. Sure, I do not agree with this solution either as it is a short cut to disaster, but nor have I seen anyone implementing any alternative fix.

So the question is not whether the US could have balanced its budget in good times, but whether it can do so now in bad.