[skinster]

Who is Robby Strong? Psychologist Says He Sent Horse Poop to Mnuchin to Protest Trump's Tax Bill

[Hindsite]

You mean like the military retirement you draw? Approved first under a democrat and reduced to 20 years under a democrat? Or are you talking about the social security you draw? Enacted under a democrat. Wait. Maybe you believe it is the Medicare program which provides the bulk of your nearly free health care enacted under another democrat.

Are those the things that didn't need fixing that they fixed?

They might need fixing for future recipients, but not for me at this time. And President Trump has said that he plans on keeping those programs in place. HalleluYah.

And have better quality of life, better healthcare, better education, and don't require the level of military expenditure because they don't have imperialist foreign policies.

You must be referring to those that rely on the USA to protect them.

Yeah, nothing Trump is going to benefit from...

Americans supporting Trump fall into 2 categories:
1) Rich people
2) Fucking idiots

You forgot to mention Hillary's so=called "basket of deplorables" that support the Trump of God.

[Crantag]

Fin,

With respect, it has been because people want and need health care we've witness people in droves protesting the proposed elimination of HC




Agreed. If you consider about 1 in 4 people get cancer alone, never mind heart issues etc, between your parents and in laws odds are some is going to lose their home. Speaking for myself, I'm glad to know that won't happen to hubby and me. I'd rather think ofor our nieces and nephews got a helping hand that some doctor who is already rich.

On an ongoing basis, paying 1/2 of what America pays means we can spend where we like or save/invest where we like. The money isn't concentrated in hmo's

Public investment in healthcare is theoretically one of the most effective ways to stimulate the economy.

Think of that person who loses their home, now they are perhaps living with relatives, and the financial burdens are to some extent shared around. This could be thought of almost as a leakage, with respect to aggregate demand (savings are typically described as a 'leakage' by mainsteam economics, which also hasn't kept up with the changing realities of savings with respect to their theories--but that's a tangent).

Sure, the relevant spending will still flow into the economy, however, insurance markets exist to allocate risk. If the person who falls sick is properly insured, the effective allocation of risk through the insurance system will channel the slack to pay for their needs. Thus, the would-be out-of-pocket expenses in the case of un(der)-insured people are made up, and it is done through efficient financial operation. Therefore, the 'opportunity cost' in the way of lost spending, in lieu of unforseen out-of-pocket expenses related to medical care, is not born by the economy.

In this sense, to the extent that newly instituted effective health insurance may relieve slack on the part of working class families and individuals, it may unleash demand, and thus may have a multiplying effect. Statistics bare this out, as I've often heard studies referencing the positive effects of healthcare spending (just out of thin air, say $1 of spending being attributable to say $5 of economic activity).

The above is my own conjecture. I've put a lot of time into studying these kinds of issues and trying to understand how our financial infrastructure works (or where/how it doesn't work). These conjectures are my response to the findings with respect to the positive effects healthcare spending may have on economic activity.

As I pointed out above, this form of spending can have a direct effect on demand-side stimulation, and is therefore essentially the obverse of the supply-side economic policies embodied in the Trump tax scam.

[Stormsmith]

Life expectancy:

Japan 1st., For both sexes, 83.7 years. Women, 86.8. Men, 80.5.
Canada 12. For both sexes, 82.2 years. Women, 84.1. Men, 80.2
U. K. 20th., For both sexes, 81.2 years. Women, 83.0. Men, 79.4

US 31st. For both sexes, 79.3 years. Women, 81.6. Men, 76.9.

Cuba 32. For both sexes, 79.1 years. Women, 81.4. Men, 76.9.


https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of ... expectancy

[Hindsite]

Life expectancy:

Japan 1st., For both sexes, 83.7 years. Women, 86.8. Men, 80.5.
Canada 12. For both sexes, 82.2 years. Women, 84.1. Men, 80.2
U. K. 20th., For both sexes, 81.2 years. Women, 83.0. Men, 79.4

US 31st. For both sexes, 79.3 years. Women, 81.6. Men, 76.9.

Cuba 32. For both sexes, 79.1 years. Women, 81.4. Men, 76.9.


https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of ... expectancy

As I see it, not much difference. Praise the Lord.

[Doug64]

Life expectancy:

Japan 1st., For both sexes, 83.7 years. Women, 86.8. Men, 80.5.
Canada 12. For both sexes, 82.2 years. Women, 84.1. Men, 80.2
U. K. 20th., For both sexes, 81.2 years. Women, 83.0. Men, 79.4

US 31st. For both sexes, 79.3 years. Women, 81.6. Men, 76.9.

Cuba 32. For both sexes, 79.1 years. Women, 81.4. Men, 76.9.


https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of ... expectancy

Life expectancy after age 65:

Japan: Men, 19.5. Women, 24.3.
England: Men, 18.8. Women, 21.2.
Wales: Men, 18.2. Women, 20.6.
United States: Men, 19.3. Women, 21.6.
Canada: Men, 18.5. Women, 21.6.

I didn’t bother looking for Cuba’s because I don’t believe any numbers that government puts out, and there’s no way it’ll allow any outside NGO to collect accurate ones.

[Crantag]

As I see it, not much difference. Praise the Lord.

Japan 1st., For both sexes, 83.7 years. Women, 86.8. Men, 80.5.
US 31st. For both sexes, 79.3 years. Women, 81.6. Men, 76.9.


83.7 years 4.4 / 83.7 = 5.257% (of life)
-79.3 years 4.4 / 79.3 = 5.555% (of life)
------------
4.4 years

86.8 years 5.2 / 86.8 = 5.991% (of life)
-81.6 years 5.2 / 81.6 = 6.373% (of life)
------------
5.2 years

80.5 years 3.6 / 80.5 = 4.472% (of life)
76.9 years 3.6 / 76.9 = 4.681% (of life)
-----------
3.6 years




You can repeat this exercise as many times as you like, for whichever countries you want.

I think most people would find these differences significant.

I do hope you don't think math is also 'fake news'.

[Drlee]

In England, currently a man that reaches 65 will on average live another 18.8 years, in Wales it’s 18.2. In the US it’s 19.3. For women in England it’s 21.2, in Wales it’s 20.6. In the US it’s 21.6.

Dude seriously. Do you realize what you just posted. Do you? I think not.

Riddle me this:

What do 65 YO+ men and women in Wales, and England have with their US counterparts?

Let me give you the answer because you can't see it yourself. Small words.

THEY ALL HAVE GOVERNMENT PAID UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE!

God send us another thinking conservative. I am getting lonely.

[Ter]

The data for Japanese longevity are most probably not correct.
Recently a scandal was discovered: thousands of people over 100 years of age are not alive, their relatives did not report their passing in order to keep receiving the benefits.
I do not think the data have been corrected since then.

[Hindsite]

Dude seriously. Do you realize what you just posted. Do you? I think not.

Riddle me this:

What do 65 YO+ men and women in Wales, and England have with their US counterparts?

Let me give you the answer because you can't see it yourself. Small words.

THEY ALL HAVE GOVERNMENT PAID UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE!

God send us another thinking conservative. I am getting lonely.

Did you forget that the U.S.A. has Medicare healthcare for all those 65 years old and older?

THAT IS GOVERNMENT PAID HEALTH CARE!

It is diet and lifestyle that is the main factor for longer life, not government paid medical care.

[Godstud]

You must be referring to those that rely on the USA to protect them.

Keep telling yourself that, champ. Protect us from who? You do know that Independence Day(the movie) wasn't real, right?

Did you forget that the U.S.A. has Medicare healthcare for all those 65 years old and older?

So, "If you're not 65, Fuck you!", says the USA. You do know that people get sick and injured before they're 65 too, don't you?

It is diet and lifestyle that is the main factor for longer life, not government paid medical care.

Keep telling yourself lies like that, Sport. Obesity doesn't cause cancer. People who eat healthy lifestyles get in car accidents and white Christian terrorist attacks in Vegas.

According to you all poor people are just lazy. Jesus also looked at them like that, didn't he?

[blackjack21]

There is a precise term for this: supply-side economics.

It is good that you recognize that is what this bill is about (giving money to 'supplyers'). Supply-side economics is based on Say's Law, which states production creates it's own demand. It's nothing but an ideological justification for giving public money to the rich, and doesn't work. If there is no corresponding stimulation to demand, how is giving money to producers going to have the supposed intended effect? In reality, the extra money is likely to flow to the financial markets. There are a number of major companies which already earn comparable amounts on financial returns on assets than they do from operations.

Gross investment is the smallest component of GDP other than the trade deficit. In the US, we have something like 70% consumption, but only 14.5% gross investment. That's just behind Uruguay and just above Burma on a percentage basis. It is way out of balance and has been for a long time. By contrast, China has 40% gross investment. So if you don't believe that level of gross investment works, why would you be going to China?

The stock market is in an epic bubble. When I look at the real estate markets around me, all I see is bubbles. Better buckle up. Myself, I'm going to China; I'll try to hold on to as many Chinese Yuan as I can in the coming years.

Talk about bubbles. China has entire cities with few residents. The real estate bubble there is epic. We have bust towns like Detroit, but we aren't building whole new towns the size of Detroit with few if any residents just to speculate on property. Some cities in the US have recovered and are in bubble territory--e.g., San Francisco, New York, Vancouver (CA), etc. However, the suburbs are still in much fairer price ranges by comparison. If there is a bust in the real estate market in the US, it will likely be in the big cities.

China Ghost Cities
WE BROKE INTO China's Italian GHOST TOWN
China's Largest Ghost City?
Why I REFUSE to buy Property in China
GHOST CITY - Inside the Chinese Housing Bubble

:lol: How does a snot-nosed troll who brags about his GPA, and lives in their mom's basement, know fucking anything about anything?

My mom is a liberal, lives in a retirement community, doesn't have a basement, and essentially depends on my sister's excessive kindness for her lifestyle. I live in a 3150 sq. ft. 4-bedroom 4-1/2 bathroom home that I own, with 30 solar panels so that I don't have to pay the local utility for outrageously priced electricity. I'm a skeptic of anthropogenic climate change theory, but I believe in federal tax credits and state cap-and-trade taxes and how to take advantage of those loopholes or avoid those penalties as it suits me.

Again, you don't need to live somewhere to learn about it.

Yes, but why would you care? I'd debate someone like Decky on the merits of socialism versus capitalism all day long, but I'm not going to put myself to becoming an expert on UK tax law to try and tell people in the UK how they should live. Heck, I have dual citizenship in the US and Ireland, but I do not vote in Ireland, because I do not live there. I'm not an expert in their tax laws either.

What would you know anyways, since there's no evidence that you're even American.

Well, clearly I write in American English. I live in the United States. I was born in the United States. My parents were US citizens. My father's patralineal ancestors pre-date the United States in the colonies. My mother's parents were naturalized citizens, father from the UK and mother from Ireland. So it is quite possible I'm not an American. However, I think the probability suggests I'm an American.

You're probably a Russian troll, as well as being a person who has no real argument so you discuss the inconsequential to draw attention away from your lack of argument.

I'm not a Russian troll, but I can speak about 200 words in Russian and string together some rudimentary sentences. My party trick is that I can do it with almost no trace of an accent, which tends to blow Russians away. However, it doesn't take long for them to figure out I don't know too many words.

CBO: Senate Tax Bill Is Even Worse For Low-Income People Than Thought

Low income people don't pay taxes. So I could really care less.

CBO: Senate Tax Bill Is Even Worse For Low-Income People Than Thought

Which has nothing to do with the tax bill other than you don't have to pay a massive tax penalty if you don't buy health insurance.

[Godstud]

My mom is a liberal, lives in a retirement community, doesn't have a basement, and essentially depends on my sister's excessive kindness for her lifestyle. I live in a 3150 sq. ft. 4-bedroom 4-1/2 bathroom home that I own, with 30 solar panels so that I don't have to pay the local utility for outrageously priced electricity. I'm a skeptic of anthropogenic climate change theory, but I believe in federal tax credits and state cap-and-trade taxes and how to take advantage of those loopholes or avoid those penalties as it suits me.

Blah blah blah. Irrelevant, isn't it? It has no bearing on what you say.

Yes, but why would you care?

I have friends who are American and I pay some American taxes because I have investments there. Why do I have to explain myself to you? Why do you fucking care so much? Do you care more than me? Does it even fucking matter?

You're on an internet forum where people who live anywhere can care about anything they want, and discuss it. If you don't like it, then maybe the problem is YOU.

@blackjack21 I was giving you an example of how stupid your attacks on me actually are. I can tell you I am a tax lawyer, and live in the USA, just like you, but when it comes down to it, it doesn't matter if you speak Russian, are American, or anything. What matters is the argument.

[blackjack21]

I have friends who are American and I pay some American taxes because I have investments there. Why do I have to explain myself to you? Why do you fucking care so much? Do you care more than me? Does it even fucking matter?

Okay, so are you upset that your investments are taxed at a higher rate because of ObamaCare? The likelihood is that business investments will do better under Trump's tax plan. It will be good for middle income red state Americans, and it won't be for blue state Americans in high tax jurisdictions like California, Oregon, Minnesota, Illinois or New York.

Trump is super awesome!

[Godstud]

I also have friends in the USA who aren't rich, and I'm not a complete asshole, so I care if they end up paying more. You'r a true capitalist, Blackjack21. Uncaring and thoughtless.

[Stormsmith]

Think of that person who loses their home, now they are perhaps living with relatives, and the financial burdens are to some extent shared around. This could be thought of almost as a leakage, with respect to aggregate demand (savings are typically described as a 'leakage' by mainsteam economics, which also hasn't kept up with the changing realities of savings with respect to their theories--but that's a tangent).

Where I live, this would only be regarded as a loss. A run down 3 bed, 1 bath house is going to run upwards of $600,000. Anyone losing a decent home won't regard the loss as anything other than devastating, and being forced to share the bills with family upon whom someone has been forced to live will not ever be regarded as savings in lieu of the loss.

Sure, the relevant spending will still flow into the economy, however, insurance markets exist to allocate risk. If the person who falls sick is properly insured, the effective allocation of risk through the insurance system will channel the slack to pay for their needs. Thus, the would-be out-of-pocket expenses in the case of un(der)-insured people are made up, and it is done through efficient financial operation. Therefore, the 'opportunity cost' in the way of lost spending, in lieu of unforseen out-of-pocket expenses related to medical care, is not born by the economy.

In this sense, to the extent that newly instituted effective health insurance may relieve slack on the part of working class families and individuals, it may unleash demand, and thus may have a multiplying effect. Statistics bare this out, as I've often heard studies referencing the positive effects of healthcare spending (just out of thin air, say $1 of spending being attributable to say $5 of economic activity).

Or, alternatively, you could go to a universal plan, skip the insurance companies and their games and pay less than half of what you're paying now, know your home and savings are safe, do what you will with the money you save and move up from 31st place.

I think most people would find these differences significant.

I agree

[Stormsmith]

Doug64

You can believe what you like, it makes zero difference to me, but I will tell you yhey have a slightly different approach to medicine and it's one every country, from 1 to 31 can learn something. You need only be open minded.

[Crantag]

Where I live, this would only be regarded as a loss. A run down 3 bed, 1 bath house is going to run upwards of $600,000. Anyone losing a decent home won't regard the loss as anything other than devastating, and being forced to share the bills with family upon whom someone has been forced to live will not ever be regarded as savings in lieu of the loss.




Or, alternatively, you could go to a universal plan, skip the insurance companies and their games and pay less than half of what you're paying now, know your home and savings are safe, do what you will with the money you save and move up from 31st place.




I agree

What I meant is economic loss from unexpected medical expenses reverberate through the economy. The loss suffered by the individual is suffered by the society.

When I said 'insurance', I meant it as a catch-all, to including public, single-payer insurance (in fact, principally this, because I was talking about the effects of public spending). I just meant that a properly functioning health insurance system has great economic effects, in the way of obviating the losses. The mere risk of personal medical catastrophe is sufficient to affect people's economic behaviors.

This is just the tip of the iceberg though. Insufficient health coverage obviously has effects on productivity also; likewise, the presence of sufficient health care both improves productivity, and can have positive effects on mobility (given the association of health insurance with one's employer, as the most obvious).

It's obviously the case I think that health care insurance is something which is best managed by the state, through a single payer system. However, that the US hasn't caught up with this forces me to talk about insurance in generic terms, although in particular I was just talking about the technical functions of insurance which functions properly in allocating risk (or distributing slack). If there is one sector which should be public, I do think health insurance is it. It's both technically something government can do well, and technically something which private interests are all but sure to corrupt.

[Drlee]

Did you forget that the U.S.A. has Medicare healthcare for all those 65 years old and older?

THAT IS GOVERNMENT PAID HEALTH CARE!

That is my whole point Einstein. Talking to you is like talking to a fence. You seem to lack the ability to understand simple concepts.

It is diet and lifestyle that is the main factor for longer life, not government paid medical care.

This is absolutely untrue. Please post your proof. Post it for the 65+ demographic.

You know Hindsite. There are several kinds of stupid people. One group is comprised of those who will not learn. Now consider. Suppose you have lived a spotless life. Never drank, never smoked, never ate bad food. And you have no health insurance. You start to cough. No reason it seems, you just cough. So you put off going to the doctor because it is expensive. Or you go and then put off having the MRI because it is even more expensive. You die of lung cancer. Why? Because lifestyle choices only go so far in preventing disease or accident. I know this is very hard for you to understand because a lot of corporate types are doing your thinking for you. (I still believe you are trolling by the way. If you weren't you would post your proof.)

[Doug64]

Doug64

You can believe what you like, it makes zero difference to me, but I will tell you yhey have a slightly different approach to medicine and it's one every country, from 1 to 31 can learn something. You need only be open minded.

There are all sorts of reasons feeding into the total life expectancy, many of them having nothing to do with the quality of health care. But for the elderly, the quality of health care looms much larger and there the US are apparently doing better than England, Wales and Canada (except for Canadian women, who are doing as well as those of the US) if only by a year or less.