Graph of the Day

Dungheap said:
Gonzo, surely you have a reason to believe that, despite all evidence to the contrary, healthcare spending will not continue to increase at or near the current rate of growth. Right? I mean, you have something to hang your hat on for that notion don't you?

Look at the historical data. Healthcare spending has tripled as a percentage of GDP over the past 30-40 years and the percentage of GDP has been increasing at a faster rate more recently than in the past.
Click to expand...

I'm not disputing anything about Healthcare. What I am talking about is the graph itself. It is a ridiculous graph.
 
I agree with the chart Dung posted if nothing changes.
Obviously something is GOING to change.
I'm the lone wolf on (Doctors don't need to average $250,000 in income) that will have to come down. PERIOD
 
Dungheap said:
But WRL, unless the government mandates that health insurance companies have to provide insurance to all comers your idea is a non-starter.
Click to expand...

That's the tough part to work out, what kind of regulation to place to private insurers to ensure that this federal money isn't being abused.
 
Ok now for some seriousness. If we had a flat tax of say oh 15-17% I bet most people could afford to buy their own insurance. The only place I think the government should have some say is in what insurance covers. People don't buy insurance to take care of colds. Granted it does, but people buy insurance for kidney transplants and open heart surgery and cancer treatment. Insurance companies do EVERYTHING they can NOT to cover those things because they are expensive. But like I said people don't buy insurance for hang nails.
 
And I believe most would be accepted, and with a focus on preventive care required, we have a workaround to turn the costs of covering chronic diseases as well. Those not should be already covered by existing federal programs, moving people off these rolls not terminally ill would free up money to shuffle around here, as well. Just idea's...
 
Dungheap said:
Gonzo, surely you have a reason to believe that, despite all evidence to the contrary, healthcare spending will not continue to increase at or near the current rate of growth. Right? I mean, you have something to hang your hat on for that notion don't you?

Look at the historical data. Healthcare spending has tripled as a percentage of GDP over the past 30-40 years and the percentage of GDP has been increasing at a faster rate more recently than in the past.
Click to expand...

yeah, I bet that has nothing to do with HMOs being forced down our throats by politicians.

Probably little to do with the increase in obesity in this country.

I think the point people are trying to make is this graph is pointless if we do not focus on the problem..... RISING costs. If you do nothing to combat the rising costs, you lose. No matter if you privatize everything, have the government run everything or some mix of the two.

To date, NONE of the proposals for universal healthcare do much of anything to address the issue of costs.
 
Socrtease said:
Ok now for some seriousness. If we had a flat tax of say oh 15-17% I bet most people could afford to buy their own insurance. The only place I think the government should have some say is in what insurance covers. People don't buy insurance to take care of colds. Granted it does, but people buy insurance for kidney transplants and open heart surgery and cancer treatment. Insurance companies do EVERYTHING they can NOT to cover those things because they are expensive. But like I said people don't buy insurance for hang nails.
Click to expand...

A flat tax of that little wouldn't cover what we'd lose in the income tax loss, you'd need around 30% I believe, and without we'd be further in the red, not to mention the havoc that would cause on the economy. A large portion, some 60% of our economy is consumer driven, and a consumption tax would stifle the largest factor pushing our economy. I'm real hesitant about this idea.
 
Superfreak said:
yeah, I bet that has nothing to do with HMOs being forced down our throats by politicians.

Probably little to do with the increase in obesity in this country.

I think the point people are trying to make is this graph is pointless if we do not focus on the problem..... RISING costs. If you do nothing to combat the rising costs, you lose. No matter if you privatize everything, have the government run everything or some mix of the two.

To date, NONE of the proposals for universal healthcare do much of anything to address the issue of costs.
Click to expand...

A main factor in the rise of cost is due to the epidemics in chronic disease. We have to have Preventive care to really begin to address the issue... But there are other factors.
 
WRL said:
And I believe most would be accepted, and with a focus on preventive care required, we have a workaround to turn the costs of covering chronic diseases as well. Those not should be already covered by existing federal programs, moving people off these rolls not terminally ill would free up money to shuffle around here, as well. Just idea's...
Click to expand...


Your belief is completely at odds with current insurance industry practice. They simply do not accept people that have pre-existing conditions or that have a likelihood of actually needing health care. If they do provide insurance, it is usually prohibitively expensive.
 
flat tax of 15% would be a tax increase for many middle class with mortgages if it didn't allow for deductions.
 
WRL said:
A flat tax of that little wouldn't cover what we'd lose in the income tax loss, you'd need around 30% I believe, and without we'd be further in the red, not to mention the havoc that would cause on the economy. A large portion, some 60% of our economy is consumer driven, and a consumption tax would stifle the largest factor pushing our economy. I'm real hesitant about this idea.
Click to expand...

wrong. You would not need a flat tax at 30%. Very few people today pay an effective tax rate of 30%.
 
Chapdog said:
flat tax of 15% would be a tax increase for many middle class with mortgages if it didn't allow for deductions.
Click to expand...

A flat tax on its own will never pass. It has to have a standard deduction that will eliminate income taxes for the low income families.

A flat tax of 20% with a standard deduction of 25-30k per adult.

For income over $1mm ($2mm for couples) add an additional 10% dedicated to paying down the debt.
 
Dungheap said:
Your belief is completely at odds with current insurance industry practice. They simply do not accept people that have pre-existing conditions or that have a likelihood of actually needing health care. If they do provide insurance, it is usually prohibitively expensive.
Click to expand...

Yes but there are already many programs in place for terminally ill people, and I'm willing to bet the insurance companies will be willing to negotiate with this much money on the line.

The system is broken and needs a complete overhaul...
 
It's a consumption tax, and would hinder the largest driving factor of our economy. This really isn't the time to be screwing with the economy. We need to get our books in line before we go tinkering with complete overhauls of the governments ability to pay, or what it can pay, on it's debts.
 
Just make 100% of health insurance premiums deductable would be a start on the personal level. that would give most of us at least a 15% cut in health insurance costs.

But you guys will be paying for my health care soon :D
 
uscitizen said:
Just make 100% of health insurance premiums deductable would be a start on the personal level. that would give most of us at least a 15% cut in health insurance costs.

But you guys will be paying for my health care soon :D
Click to expand...

Let me know when that happens so that I can go to jail rather than support you.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top